The Memory of the Temple and the Making of the Rabbis 9780812207460

Citation preview

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:07 PM

Page i

e Memory of the Temple and the Making of the Rabbis

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:07 PM

Page ii

DIVINATIONS: REREADING LATE ANCIENT RELIGION Series Editors: Daniel Boyarin, Virginia Burrus, Derek Krueger A complete list of books in the series is available from the publisher.

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:07 PM

Page iii

e Memory of the Temple and the Making of the Rabbis

Naftali S. Cohn

PENN uNIVERSITy Of pENNSyLVANIA pRESS phILADELphIA

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:07 PM

Page iv

Copyright © 2013 university of pennsylvania press All rights reserved. Except for brief quotations used for purposes of review or scholarly citation, none of this book may be reproduced in any form by any means without written permission from the publisher. published by university of pennsylvania press philadelphia, pennsylvania 19104-4112 www.upenn.edu/pennpress printed in the united States of America on acid-free paper 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-publication Data Cohn, Naftali S. e memory of the Temple and the making of the rabbis / Naftali S. Cohn. — 1st ed. p. cm. — (Divinations: rereading late ancient religion) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-8122-4457-1 (hardcover : alk. paper) 1. Temple of Jerusalem (Jerusalem)—In rabbinical literature. 2. Mishnah—Criticism, interpretation, etc. 3. Rabbis—Office. 4. Judaism—history—Talmudic period, 10–425. I. Title. II. Series: Divinations BM509.T46C64 2013 296.4'91—dc23 2012014283

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

For Zehava

1:07 PM

Page v

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:07 PM

Page vi

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:07 PM

Page vii

Contents

Notes on usage

ix

Introduction: e Narration of Temple Ritual as Rabbinic Memory in the Late Second or Early ird Century 1 Chapter 1. Rabbis as Jurists of Judaean Ritual Law and Competing Claims for Authority 17 Chapter 2. e Temple, the Great Court, and the Rabbinic Invention of the past 39 Chapter 3. Narrative form and Rabbinic Authority Chapter 4. Constructing Sacred Space

57

73

Chapter 5. e Mishnah in the Context of a Wider Judaean, Christian, and Roman Temple Discourse 91 Conclusion: e Memory of the Temple and the Making of the Rabbis 119 Appendix A: e Mishnah’s Temple Ritual Narratives and Court-Centered Ritual Narratives 123 Appendix B: Mishnaic Narratives in Which a Rabbi or Rabbis Issue an Opinion with Respect to a Case 127

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

viii

Notes

Page viii

C o n t e n ts

131

Bibliography Index

1:07 PM

191

225

Acknowledgments

239

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:07 PM

Page ix

Notes on Usage

On Translation and Transliteration At times throughout the book, I refer to words or passages that are hebrew or Greek. Whenever knowledge of the original hebrew adds to an understanding of my point, I quote it in hebrew and also translate it. At other times, I may provide only translation or transliteration, depending on what is most appropriate for the context. If I would like the hebrew term itself accessible to all readers, I transliterate it, sometimes in addition to providing the original hebrew. for the most part, I provide the Greek only in translation or transliteration—though occasionally, when it is most pertinent, I provide the original as well. Greek transliteration follows e SBL Handbook of Style. hebrew transliteration attempts to follow the scholarly practice of rendering consonants uniquely and conveying additional information about vocalization. At the same time, I wish to present the transliterations such that they can be read following the convention of modern hebrew pronunciation (which, it must be noted, is merely a convention). To these ends, I have built upon both e SBL Handbook “academic” style and “general-purpose” style to create my own transliteration system, which is detailed below. please note that this is not a full scholarly system. In order to read the transliterated hebrew words according to conventional pronunciation, simply ignore the diacritical marks (excluding the underdot beneath the h, which indicates the guttural h. et). e only exception to these pronunciation rules is the letter ‫( ו‬waw), which is rendered with a w, though conventionally pronounced as a v. As a further general exception to the transliteration rules detailed below, certain common words in hebrew and

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:07 PM

x

Page x

No t e s o n Usage

Aramaic (including many personal and place names) have at times been rendered according to general usage (or largely according to general usage). Transliterations of vowels in mishnaic passages are based on a combination of the vocalization in MS parma, MS Kaufmann, and the Albeck edition of the Mishnah (vocalized by yalon; most frequently, I follow MS Kaufmann). In translating passages of the Mishnah and Tosefta, I follow the standard scholarly practice of rendering fairly literally, and I use square brackets to indicate glosses (and, at times, to indicate corrections or glosses in the manuscript).

On the Manuscripts used Against the scholarly consensus, I have decided to make MS parma (de Rossi 138) the base text for quoting and translating. Scholars have shown convincingly that the alternative, MS Kaufmann, preserves forms not preserved anywhere else (see Bar-Asher, “e Different Traditions,” and the earlier work he cites). ey have shown that this scribe seems to have copied words or forms that would not quite have made sense. At the same time, the scribe of MS parma seems to have been aware of the different forms and consciously chose those most standard. feintuch, “On the parma Manuscript,” shows that this scribe will fill the end of a line with a shortening of the archaic form of a word, but when commencing the next line with the complete word, he will use the more standard form. Despite these arguments, I have chosen to make MS parma primary for two reasons. first, the minor differences in linguistic form have no impact on my argument. Indeed, the two manuscripts are nearly identical in every single narrative considered. at MS Kaufmann may be somehow closer to the original linguistic form of the Mishnah (an argument that can be called into question) is irrelevant here. Second, Krupp (“On the Relationship”) and others have marshaled significant evidence that MS parma of the Mishnah was part of the same manuscript as MS Vatican 31 of the Sifra, which is an eleventh-century manuscript. Arguments for the greater antiquity of MS Kaufmann (for instance, in Rosenthal, “Mishna Aboda Zara”) are not convincing. us there is evidence that MS parma is the oldest extant Mishnah manuscript. Because MS Kaufmann is also a very important manuscript, I have always consulted it as well, and recorded any noteworthy variations—none of which, however, has any bearing on the arguments I make. for the most part, variations

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:07 PM

Page xi

Notes on usage

xi

between MS Kaufmann and MS parma are minor. On these manuscripts, see also Krupp, “Manuscripts of the Mishnah,” 253; and Strack and Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash, 141. ese manuscripts have been accessed online at http://jnul.huji.ac.il/dl/talmud/mishna/selectmi.asp as well as http://kaufmann.mtak.hu/en/ms50/ms50-coll1.htm.

hebrew Transliteration Guide ‫א‬ ‫בּ‬ ‫ב‬ ‫ג‬ ‫ד‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ו‬ ‫ז‬ ‫ח‬ ‫ט‬ ‫י‬ ‫ִי‬ ‫ֵי‬ ‫כּ‬ ‫כ‬ ‫ל‬ ‫מ‬ ‫נ‬ ‫ס‬ ‫ע‬ ‫פּ‬ ‫פ‬ ‫צ‬ ‫ק‬ ‫ר‬ ‫שׁ‬ ‫שׂ‬

’ (except at end of word or silent, when not indicated) b v g d h w z h.

t. y i ēi k kh l m n s ‘ p f ts k. r sh ś

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

xii

‫ת‬ ַ ֲ ָ ֻ

‫וּ‬ ֹ

ֳ

ָ

ְ

ִ

ֵ

ֱ

ֶ

‫וֹ‬

8/17/12

1:07 PM

Page xii

No t e s o n Usage

t a ă ā u u o o˘ ō ō e e˘ ē i e˘ (sometimes omitted)

Dāgēsh h. āzāk—doubling . of consonant (with exceptions) Tractate and order names are based on e SBL Handbook of Style, with consonants modified to fit these transliterations.

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:07 PM

Page 1

Introduction

e Narration of Temple Ritual as Rabbinic Memory in the Late Second or Early ird Century

When Roman military forces conquered Jerusalem and destroyed the Temple in the year 70, life changed for Judaeans living in the province of Judaea.1 Aside from the direct consequences of war—the extensive casualties, the imperial appropriation of property, and the greater Roman political domination—Judaeans, or Israelites in rabbinic sources, must have also felt the absence of the Temple. Many Judaeans had regularly visited the Temple in order to participate in its ritual. But now there was no Temple, and the people could no longer make pilgrimage to perform the Temple’s rituals. priests, whose authority was tied to the Temple, had been powerful figures, but now their power base was gone. In the aftermath of the war of 66–70 CE and the subsequent revolt of 133–35 CE, the structure of Judaean society necessarily changed.2 By the late second and early third century, when members of the early rabbinic group created the Mishnah, the Temple had been destroyed for over a century.3 ere was no one still alive who had directly experienced the destruction and concomitant change in ritual life. More than a century after the destruction of the Temple, the normal rhythms of life must have long since resumed for members of the people of Israel living in the Roman province of Syria palaestina. post-destruction forms of ritual life had by now taken hold, and the new shape of society had become entrenched.4 Despite the passage of time and the disconnection from the physical Temple and its rituals, the early rabbis gave special prominence to Temple ritual when creating the Mishnah.5 e Temple and its ritual are indeed one of the Mishnah’s main topics. Of the six “orders” (that is, large sections, composed of “tractates”) of the Mishnah, almost the entire order of Kodashim . (“sacred of-

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

2

8/17/12

1:07 PM

Page 2

In t ro d u c tion

ferings”), significant portions of Mo‘ed (“sacred time,” or “daily and festival ritual”) and Zera‘im (“seeds,” or “agricultural rules”), and portions of the other three orders relate laws of how ritual ought to be done in the Temple and narratives about how it was done. e sheer volume of Temple material—including a significant amount that was no longer applicable after the destruction—shows how central the Temple was for the rabbis. If Temple ritual was no longer relevant in the daily life of Judaeans because, for the most part, it could not be performed, why did the rabbis who created the Mishnah in the late second and early third centuries devote so much of this text to cataloging Temple ritual in detail? A number of answers to this important question have been suggested. Some scholars have held that in presenting narrative descriptions of how rituals used to be performed in the Temple, the rabbis of the Mishnah were simply preserving earlier traditions dating back to Temple times.6 is explanation is insufficient, however, especially since—as other scholars have shown—the rabbis have demonstrably invented details of their accounts, small and large. Moreover, numerous legal opinions about how rituals were done or ought to be done are explicitly attributed to rabbis. Even if they inherited earlier traditions, like authors of all texts, they have thoroughly shaped the material and made it their own.7 Another possible explanation is that the laws and narratives about Temple ritual are part of the larger rabbinic project of creating and recording the details of an all-encompassing biblically derived legal system. Temple ritual is part of this system, so the rabbis may have been developing their own and perhaps even earlier traditions based on legal reasoning and exegesis. Aside from simply engaging in traditional legal exegesis and a larger project of legal creation, they may have focused specifically on the Temple to preserve and develop Temple ritual practices for the future, when the Temple would be rebuilt—a hope that they themselves express in the Mishnah.8 While these explanations may be partly true, they are not overly convincing, especially in the case of the Mishnah’s narrative accounts that do not simply record how rituals ought to be performed. A very different and far more compelling approach was taken by Jacob Neusner in his work on the Mishnah. According to Neusner, the extensive focus on the Temple in the Mishnah was a rabbinic “reaction” to the destruction. e loss of the Temple was still felt keenly, and the rabbis responded to the social disaster of its absence by insisting that “nothing has changed”—that the entire “system of sacrifice and sanc-

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:07 PM

Page 3

Introduction

3

tuary” centered on the Temple and described in the Mishnah remained intact.9 is explanation may be true in part, too, yet it ignores the long time that passed since the Temple had been destroyed. By the time the Mishnah was created, all Judaeans surely must have assimilated the changes that the destruction wrought. In contrast to these earlier explanations, I argue that the most compelling and fruitful explanation for why the rabbis who created the Mishnah focused to such a great extent on the Temple in the Mishnah is that the Temple and its ritual were useful to them in their own time, in the late second and early third centuries. having been born into a Temple-less world, these rabbis were not reacting to the loss of the Temple and the changes in society that resulted from this loss. Nor were they merely preserving traditions or developing the law.10 My contention is that in writing or talking about the Temple and its rituals, the rabbis who created the Mishnah were arguing for their own authority over post-destruction Judaean law and ritual practice. ey were asserting that their own tradition was correct and that all Judaeans should follow their dictates. According to the evidence of the Mishnah, the rabbis fashioned themselves as legal experts with erudition in and authority over traditional Judaean law. ese rabbis claimed to be the authentic purveyors of Judaean tradition and the traditional Judaean way of life, and they believed that all Judaeans should follow their teachings and rulings, especially in ritual practice.11 Within the larger Roman society and within the Judaean subsociety, however, the rabbis who produced the Mishnah were not particularly powerful. Cultural, political, and legal institutions were controlled by Romans, and the rabbis had neither place nor power within the Roman system. Even among Judaeans, the rabbis were not especially important or powerful. Martin Goodman showed nearly three decades ago that in the Mishnah itself it is admitted that the “Jews” did not heed rabbinic directives.12 e rabbis were not, in this interpretation, a powerful group with authority over the Jews of Roman palestine; but they hoped to be.13 Within this setting, what the rabbis said and wrote about the Temple in the Mishnah, especially in narrative form, helped make an argument for their own authenticity and authority. is argument was thoroughly bound up with their social and cultural realities and with the way they understood themselves as a group. eir memory of past Temple ritual was shaped by the place they hoped to attain for themselves and their traditions, which was itself partly a re-

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

4

8/17/12

1:07 PM

Page 4

In t ro d u c tion

sponse to the context of Roman domination. Because the Temple continued to be important outside of rabbinic circles, the rabbis seized on the Temple to argue for their own importance within society, particularly among the multiple overlapping subgroups of Judaeans living in Roman Syria palaestina at the time.14

Reading Mishnaic Accounts of Temple Ritual When recording the details of Temple ritual, the rabbis who created the Mishnah often used a distinct form, what I call the “Temple ritual narrative,” to repeatedly recount how Temple ritual had been performed in the past. In these narratives about past Temple ritual, the rabbinic authors consciously looked back at the past in a way that is distinctive in the Mishnah. As scholars who study representations of the past—sometimes termed “collective memory”— have suggested, past representations such as these are invariably shaped by their authors’ present realities and tend to serve a function in the present, expressing a group sense of self, giving meaning to the present and, in many cases, arguing for the group’s legitimacy and power.15 e Mishnah’s Temple ritual narratives, differentiated from the rest of the Mishnah, form a discrete interrelated body of Temple material consciously retelling the past; they thus point toward the ways in which the rabbis shaped the past in order to argue for authority in the present. for the rest of this book, these narratives will be the sole focus. To illustrate the nature of these texts, I consider one example, the narrative of how the first fruits were brought to the Temple by pilgrims from locales in the Land of Israel, in Mishnah Bikkurim 3:2–8:16

‫ב’ כיצד מעלים את הביכורים כל העיירות שבמעמד מתכנסות לעירו‬ ‫שלמעמד ולנים ברחובה שלעיר ולא היו נכנסים לבתים ולמשכים היה‬ ‫ ג’ הקרובים מביאין תאינים‬17‫הממונה אומ’ קומו ונעלה ציון אל ייי אלהנו‬ ‫ וקרניו‬18‫וענבים והרחוקים מביאין גרוגרות וצימוקים השור הולך לפניהם‬ ‫מצופות זהב ועטרה שלזית בראשו החליל מכה לפניהם עד שמגיעים קרוב‬ ’‫לירושלם הגיעו קרוב לירושלם שלחו לפניהם ועיטרו את ביכוריהם ד‬ ‫הפחות הסגנים והגיזברים יוצאים לקראתם ולפי כבוד הנכנסין היו‬ ‫יוצאין וכל בעלי אומניות שבירושלם עומדין לפניהם ושואלין בשלומם‬

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:07 PM

Page 5

Introduction

5

‫אחינו אנשי מקום פלוני באתם בשלום ה’ החליל מכה לפניהם עד‬ ‫שמגיעים להר הבית הגיעו להר הבית אפילו אגריפס המלך נוטל הסל‬ ‫על כתיפו ונכנס עד שמגיע לעזרה הגיע לעזרה ודברו הלוים בשיר‬ ‫ארוממך ייי כי דליתני ולא שמ’ אויבי לי הגוזלות שעל גבי הסלים‬ ‫היו עולות ומה שבידן ניתנין לכהנים ו’ עודיהו הסל על כתיפו קורא‬ ‫מהגדתי היום לייי אלהיך עד שהוא גומר כל הפרשה ר’ יהוד’ או’ עד‬ ‫ארמי אובד אבי הגיע לארמי אובד אבי מוריד הסל מן כתיפו ואוחזו‬ ‫בשפתותיו וכהן מניח ידו תחתיו ומניפו וקורא מארמי אובד אבי עד שהוא‬ ‫גומר כל הפרשה ומניחו בצד המזבח והשתחוה ויצא ז’ בראשונה כל מי‬ ‫שהוא יודע לקרות קורא וכל מי שאינו יודע לקרוא מקרין אתו נמנעו‬ ’‫מלהביא התקינו שיהו מקרין את מי שהוא יודע ואת מי שאינו יודע ח‬ ‫העשירים מביאין את ביכוריהן בקלתות של כסף ושלזהב והעניים מביאין‬ ‫אותן בסלי נצרים שלערבה קלופה והסלים והביכורים ניתנים לכהנים‬ (3:2) how do they bring up the first fruits (to the Temple)? All the towns in the district [ma‘ămād] gather in the main town of the district [‘irō shelma‘ămād] and sleep in the town square. And they did not used to enter the houses. And to those who arose early, the appointed one used to say, “Arise, and let us go up to Zion, to the Lord our God” (Jer. 31:6). (3:3) ose who live near [from the Temple] bring figs and grapes, and those who live far bring dried figs and raisins. And the ox goes before19 them with its horns covered in gold and an olive wreath on its head. e flute [.hālil] plays before them until they reach near Jerusalem. When they reached near Jerusalem, they sent out [messengers] ahead of them and wreathed their first fruits.20 (3:4) e officers, chiefs, and treasurers [of the Temple] go out to greet them, and they used to go in accordance with the status of those entering. And all the artisans in Jerusalem rise before [those entering] and greet them, “Our brothers from such-and-such place, you have come in peace.” (3:5) e flute plays before them until they reach the Temple Mount. When they reached the Temple Mount, even King Agrippa takes the basket on his shoulder and enters. [And the pilgrim continues] until he reaches the Temple courtyard. When he reached the Temple courtyard,

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

6

8/17/12

1:07 PM

Page 6

In t ro d u c tion

the Levites joined in song, “I will exalt you, Lord, for you have raised me up and not allowed my enemies to rejoice over me” (ps. 30:1). e pigeons that were on top of the baskets were offered as burnt offerings, and those that were in their hands were given to the priests. (3:6) While the basket was still on his shoulder, he recites from “I proclaim today to the Lord your God . . .” (Deut. 26:3) until he completes the entire passage [to Deut. 26:11, or perhaps to the end of the prescribed recitation, mid-26:10]. Rabbi yehudah [Judah] says: until “My father was a wandering Aramean” [Deut. 26:5, or perhaps to earlier in the biblical text, until the end of the prescribed recitation in 26:3]. When he reached “My father was a wandering Aramean,” he takes the basket down from his shoulder, grasps it by its lip, and the priest places his hands beneath [the Israelite’s hands]. And he ritually waves them and recites from “My father was a wandering Aramean . . .” until he finishes the entire passage. And he places it down at the side of the altar, and he bowed and exited. (3:7) Originally anyone who knew how to recite [in hebrew] would recite, and anyone who did not know how to recite would be prompted with the words [in hebrew]. ey stopped bringing [first fruits], and they decreed that they should prompt with the words both the one who knows and the one who does not. (3:8) e wealthy bring their first fruits in silver and gold baskets [.ke˘lātōt], and the poor bring them in wicker baskets [sallei n˘etsārim] made from peeled willow. And the baskets [sallim] and the first fruits were given to the priests. In the way it is presented, this passage recounts in a detailed manner how, in Temple times, the people of a district would gather together, bring their fruits to Jerusalem, and offer them in the Temple. A puzzling feature of this and similar narratives, one with which any interpreter of these passages must grapple, is the way that verbs of different tenses are used at the same time. In the opening paragraph, for instance, 3:2, there are five verbs: three are participles—which can function as the present tense and are translated as such here (bring up, gather, sleep)—and two are in a compound tense typically called the “iterative past,” which describes an action done

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:07 PM

Page 7

Introduction

7

repeatedly and regularly in the past (“used to enter,” “used to say”). Later in the narrative, the perfect tense, which seems to function as a simple past, appears as well (“reached,” “wreathed” [3:3]; “bowed,” “exited” [3:6]). As yochanan Breuer points out in his seminal article on the tense usage in this type of mishnaic narrative, two fundamental questions are: Why are multiple tenses used? And why are they mixed together in a seemingly arbitrary fashion?21 Breuer attempts to read the passages so that the tenses are not mixed arbitrarily; yet I prefer Albeck’s earlier understanding that the tenses vary somewhat arbitrarily. I believe that this mixing was deemed acceptable and natural. In fact, the extensive mixing of the three different tenses, unique to this type of passage, blends the subtle nuances of each tense, giving the sense that these events took place in the past and that they took place regularly, adding a feeling of immanence, and implying that what took place was the law, in an abstract sense.22 e most significant nuance of the combined use of tenses is the implication of the iterative past, the tense that compounds verbs such as “was” (“to be,” perfect tense) plus “saying” (participle) and which means, in this case, “used to say,” that is, would say every year when the ritual was performed (Bikkurim 3:2). Especially when taken together with the perfect verbs, this usage implies that all the actions described in the narrative took place in the past and that they took place repeatedly and regularly. e participles, too, though they do not have any inherent implication of the past, may take on the meaning of the iterative past. According to the mishnaic grammarian Mordechay Mishor, the participle, particularly when used in a passage together with the iterative past, may be equivalent to it, implying that the events took place regularly in the past.23 us, the opening paragraph of the first-fruits narrative, Bikkurim 3:2, could be translated: “how did they used to bring up the first fruits? All the towns in the district used to gather in the main town of the district and used to sleep in the town square. And they did not used to enter the houses. And to those who arose early, the appointed one used to say, ‘Arise, and let us go up to the Lord our God’ ” (Jer. 31:6). Alternatively, the participle, as historical present tense, may be used to give a sense of immanence to the narrative, to make it easier to imagine the events happening, or to give a sense that these events are timeless.24 e participle is used most often in the Mishnah as modal, saying what ought to be done; so these verbs could be intended to convey the law. In context, these are not simply hypothetical laws; so, as I and others have suggested, the ambiguity of the

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8

8/17/12

1:07 PM

Page 8

In t ro d u c tion

participle adds that these events that happened in the past are also what the law is, what ought to be done in the Temple.25 Overall, the shifting between tenses seems to give multiple shadings to the narrative as a whole: that the ritual occurred regularly and repeatedly in the past; that it is timeless; and that it should or must be performed in a certain way. It may even make the telling more engaging. Regardless of the precise way that one interprets the mixing of tenses, it is undeniable that the passage refers to events of the past. e rabbinic authors, living long after the destruction, are consciously looking back and saying what used to occur in the Temple in the past. In addition to looking back at the past through the combined use of verbs, four more elements tend to mark Temple ritual narratives as distinct from the rest of the Mishnah and link them to one another into a unique body of mishnaic material.26 ese are: 1) their content—rituals done in the past in the Temple or near the Temple, or in the Court; 2) their form—narratives (according to some definitions of the term) describing a series of interconnected actions that together form a whole; 3) recurring conventional phrases or plot elements; and 4) in many cases, the use of an introductory formula that introduces the narrative and contains the word ‫( כיצד‬kēitsad, “how so?”). e first of these characteristics is relatively obvious. e first-fruits narrative—like the narratives about the passover offering or the daily sacrifice in the Temple, the narrative about the Day of Atonement ritual, and the narrative about the cutting and offering of the barley grain ‘ōmer—focuses on the details of a particular ritual that once took place in the Temple.27 e second feature, the narrative nature of the passages, is less obvious and somewhat controversial. Some would hesitate to call these texts narratives because, by their very nature, they are not about specific one-time occurrences that happened to particular individuals, and so cause and effect play almost no role. e characters are relatively flat because, for the most part, they are generic roles such as Israelite, Temple officials, and priest. yet, as Moshe SimonShoshan has forcefully argued, though these may differ from some types of narratives in that they lack what he calls “specificity,” they do have a second fundamental feature of narrative, what he calls “dynamism.” having dynamism, in his view, means that they describe “transition, transformation, and change . . . rather than stasis.”28 Many narrative theorists break down this feature of narrative even further, to a more fundamental level. As h. porter Abbott writes: “Simply put, narrative is the representation of an event or a series of events.”29

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:07 PM

Page 9

Introduction

9

Narratives describe something or a number of things that happen. is, however, may be too basic a definition, so others offer a slightly more expansive definition: narratives tell of a “succession of events” that unfold chronologically in time.30 Gerald prince adds further key characteristics that are linked to a narrative’s “dynamism”: “in a ‘true’ narrative as opposed to the mere recounting of a random series of changes of state, these situations and events also make up a whole, a sequence the first and last major terms of which are partial repetitions of each other, a structure having—to use Aristotle’s terminology—a beginning, a middle, and an end.”31 ough the Temple ritual narratives lack the specificity of many narratives, they have these other key elements of narrative. e various details of the first-fruits ritual, in our example, form a series of interrelated events that unfold in time and together make a whole. e narrative begins in the town with the pilgrims gathering together and concludes in the Temple, once the fruits have been given. In the view of many contemporary narrative theorists, this is sufficient to call them narratives. e purpose of defining these passages as narrative is not merely to apply an essentialist narrative label, which would not be especially interesting. Rather, by identifying the narrative characteristics that these texts possess—their narrativity—we can see how the particular way in which the Mishnah describes Temple ritual tends to link these passages to one another intertextually and distinguish them from other passages in the Mishnah.32 As Simon-Shoshan argues, almost all segments of Mishnah can be differentiated by their degree of narrativity. In his view, this means the degree to which they possess specificity and dynamism. Building on this, and drawing on more recent theoretical work on the concept, I suggest that narrativity is not merely a product of two narrative characteristics, but of the degree to which a text has or does not have a whole range of narrative features.33 Most prominent among the Temple ritual narratives’ features are the fundamental telling of a sequential, chronologically unfolding series of events with a beginning, middle, and end, and the unique combining of the three different verb tenses to recount events that took place regularly and repeatedly in the past, as I have described.34 e third feature of the Temple ritual narratives that makes them distinct is the use of conventional words or phrases. In the first-fruits narrative, the phrase ‫השתחוה ויצא‬, “he bowed down and exited” (3:6), is a stock phrase that appears frequently in the long narrative of the daily offering in Tamid.

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

10

8/17/12

1:07 PM

Page 10

In t ro d u c tion

Similarly, the character King Agrippa (3:5) appears in the narrative in So.tah 7:8—and nowhere else in the Mishnah. In other narratives, the expression ‫תקעו הריעו ותקעו‬, “they blew a t˘ek. i‘āh blast, a t˘eru‘āh blast, and a t˘ek. i‘āh blast [on trumpets]” appears even more regularly (Pesa.him 5:5; Sukkah 4:5, 4:9, and 5:4; Tamid 7:3; and a related phrasing in Ta‘anit 2:5). Aside from the recurring words or phrases that appear only in Temple ritual narratives, there are characters, objects, and places that are also conventional elements of the genre. ese include Israelites, priests, various Temple officials, “the appointed one” (‫)ממונה‬, the Temple Mount, the altar, gold implements, sacrificial animals, and musical instruments.35 Recurring characters, places, and objects help create the imagined narrative world shared by the various passages, one in which the Temple still exists and its rituals are still carried out. e fourth key distinguishing feature of Temple ritual narratives is the use of an introductory formula containing the word ‫( כיצד‬kēitsad), “how so?” is feature does not appear consistently in these passages nor is it unique to the genre, yet it marks many of the Temple ritual narratives as distinct from and embedded in the surrounding text by announcing the topic of the narrative that follows in a manner that is technically unnecessary.36 In this way, it makes the Temple ritual narrative similar to other mishnaic forms, particularly the list and the ma‘ăśeh, the “happening,” or brief story about something that occurred involving a rabbi.37 In both these cases, the textual pericope (passage) is marked as a distinct unit of text by an introductory formula: in the case of the list, by the words ‫( אלו‬elu) or ‫( יש‬yesh), meaning “these are . . .” or “there are . . .”; and in the example of the ma‘ăśeh, by the word ‫( מעשה‬ma‘ăśeh)—usually followed by the particles ‫( ב‬bē-), ‫( ש‬she-) or ‫( ו‬wē-), which indicate the person or people involved and the events or actions that happened. In each of these different forms, the use of typical introductory formulas suggests that the rabbinic authors consciously saw the ma‘ăśeh, the list, and the Temple ritual narrative as distinct subgenres within the Mishnah. Without additional evidence outside of the passages themselves, it is difficult to be certain, though, whether the rabbis understood these passages as forming a “genre,” especially in the case of the Temple ritual narrative, where the formula is applied less consistently and where the key formulaic word is also used for other purposes. Regardless of whether the rabbinic authors consciously treat the Temple ritual narratives as a genre, the four features common to these narratives, which I have outlined, show that these passages are related to one another, are differ-

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:07 PM

Page 11

Introduction

11

ent from the other types of passages in the Mishnah, and are distinct from and thus embedded in the Mishnah’s running legal discourse. ese passages, in other words, function as a genre.38 Together, the passages of this genre form a discrete body of interrelated Temple material that consciously represents Temple ritual procedures as events of the past.

Temple Ritual Narratives as Collective Memory Because Temple ritual narratives look back at the past, it is appropriate to think of these texts as rabbinic collective memories of past events—or, more accurately, literary representations of rabbinic collective memory—which argue for the importance and authority of rabbis. In drawing on the theoretical study of collective memory, I do not intend to import a foreign concept to an ancient text but, as Jeffrey Olick puts it, to use this theory “as a starting point for inquiry” that opens up interpretive possibilities.39 e term itself, “collective memory” (and variations), refers to the notion that a group of people can share a common conception of what occurred in the past.40 Like individuals, who can look back and recollect events that they have experienced in the past or even the events that have been conveyed to them by others, groups can also—in a figurative sense—remember, or “reconstruct a shared past.”41 And as Maurice halbwachs originally observed, groups tend to shape and construct this shared conception of the past in accordance with the present needs and realities of the group.42 One important implication of halbwachs’s insight is that groups do not invent the past for insidious reasons, merely to aggrandize themselves or push their own ideology or agenda. Sometimes groups consciously engage in such propaganda; yet, for the most part, group memory is like individual memory. It is fallible and necessarily selective. Groups shape the past because this is in the nature of looking back and relating to the events of the past. And their motivations in usefully shaping the past are largely unconscious.43 perhaps more important, the concept of memory laid out by halbwachs implies that there is a direct relationship between a group’s present circumstances and the way in which it shapes the past. e past, as Barry Schwartz puts it, is a “mirror” or a “model” of the group in that it reflects the group’s “needs, problems, fears, mentality, or aspirations” or, more generally, its “social

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

12

8/17/12

1:07 PM

Page 12

In t ro d u c tion

reality.”44 e group’s construction of the past is fundamentally shaped by these components of its present and so reflects them. e past, however, is not merely reflective of the present; it also serves a function for the group in the present. A group’s memory gives meaning to the past because that past leads teleologically to the group’s present and gives meaning to the present because the present is so thoroughly rooted in the past.45 In its collective memory of the past, a group expresses its shared identity and—in a subtle manner—its claim for power.46 is approach to “memory” that I have described provides a useful interpretive paradigm that highlights the choices that the rabbis have made in recounting the ritual of the past; and it stresses that these choices help lay a rabbinic claim for power.

Temple Ritual Narratives as Discourse Another theoretical framework driving my contention that the Mishnah’s ritual narratives argue for rabbinic authority is the concept of “discourse” set out by Michel foucault and developed in a number of ways by subsequent theorists. According to foucault and his scholarly followers, groups (or larger societies) produce “discourses”—coherent bodies of writing, speech, and practices pertaining to a given topic (such as mental illness, sexuality, femininity)—that can have a real impact on the ways in which people think and act.47 undergirded by “discursive frameworks”—rules or “structures which make those statements make sense and give them their force”—discourses help form what foucault calls “knowledge” or particular ways of thinking about the given topic; they shape individuals’ understanding of what is true and what is not; and they have concrete effects on behavior and social relations.48 It is the last of these consequences that are of particular interest in this book, for it is here that discourses have “effects of power.”49 As foucault puts it, “relations of power which permeate, characterise, and constitute the social body” are “established, consolidated, [and] implemented [through] the production, accumulation, circulation and functioning of discourse.”50 Discourse, paradoxically, both shapes power relations and is shaped by them. Moreover, discourse—or perhaps competing, interrelated discourses—may be the site of resistance to and contestation for power. As feminist and postcolonial theorists have shown, those at the margins of power may employ discourse as a strategy of asserting their own agency. Dis-

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:07 PM

Page 13

Introduction

13

course, therefore, can function as a means of negotiating power relations.51 In the Mishnah, the sheer abundance of Temple material shows that the rabbis were heavily invested in speaking or writing about the Temple—in other words, that they were creating discourse about the Temple. Building on foucault and those in his tradition, I suggest that the production of this discourse was part of a rabbinic desire to establish and negotiate relations of power, namely, to assert their authority over other members of the people of Israel, or Judaeans, living in Roman palestine. It is not clear to what extent the text of the Mishnah, whether in written or oral form and whether conveyed precisely or filtered somehow through the process of communication, was conveyed to those outside of the rabbinic group. yet even if parts of the Mishnah—and the Temple discourse they contain—circulated only in limited ways, the very existence of rabbinic Temple discourse reveals a desire on the part of the rabbis to create such “effects of power” for themselves.

Rabbinic Temple Memory/Discourse in the Context of Competing Temple Memories/Discourses At the same time that the rabbis were looking back at the Temple ritual of the past and creating “Temple discourse,” other groups in the Roman Empire were producing discourse about the Jerusalem Temple that similarly expressed their own identities, argued for the legitimacy and primacy of their own ideas and practices, and expressed unique and competing claims for power. e very difference between each way of talking about the Temple points to the ways in which each group shaped the memory of the Temple and to the relationship between the particular ways of discussing the Temple and each group’s unique place in society. e rabbis, in producing their own Temple discourse and in remembering the Temple and its ritual in their own way, were laying a claim for legitimacy and authority among many competing claims. Since the Temple and its ritual were a focal point for the competing claims of a variety of Judaeans, Christians, and Romans (as well as others who cannot be classified so easily) living in the Roman Empire in the second and early third centuries, they provide a fruitful lens for scrutinizing the cultural negotiation that was taking place between these different groups. ey show, moreover, the complex and dynamic nature of this larger society.

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

14

1:07 PM

Page 14

In t ro d u c tion

Within this social and cultural landscape, the rabbis attempted to carve out their own particular niche, believing that their authority and their understanding of Judaean tradition should be recognized by all. When they looked back at the Temple and its ritual, the rabbis of the Mishnah remembered it in a way that reflected how they understood themselves and their place in society and in a way that argued for the centrality of rabbinic legal opinion and the rabbinic version of the Judaean way of life.

plan of the Book In Chapter 1 of this book, I establish the context for reading Temple ritual narratives as memory and discourse. I argue that the rabbis asserted for themselves a legal role within Judaean society, one fashioned in the image of the Roman jurist and shaped by the political realities of Roman Syria palaestina. By portraying themselves as jurists of Judaean ritual law, the rabbis asserted authority over traditional practices and the traditional way of life—against the competing claims of leaders or authorities to whom other groups of Judaeans would likely have turned. Within this political and social context, and in light of the way the rabbis portrayed themselves and imagined their role in society, I set out to demonstrate three ways in which the Mishnah’s Temple ritual narratives make specific claims for rabbinic authority. In Chapter 2, I show that the rabbis refashioned the earlier institution of the council into a powerful Court to which they gave ultimate authority over Temple ritual. ey constructed this Court and its members as their predecessors from Temple times from whom they inherited their tradition and authority. Imagining the past in a way that mirrored the present (or the desired present), the rabbis essentially invented this Court, giving it a hybrid legal-ritual authority something like the power that they wished to have themselves. e invented Court of the past thus helped justify and authorize the hybrid legal-ritual role that they claimed for themselves in the present. In Chapter 3, I argue that the narratives buttress rabbinic authority not only in content but also in form. e narrative form, in the specific ways that it conveys the chronologically unfolding “events” of Temple rituals, helps support the narratives’ truth claims as well as the authoritativeness of the rabbis

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:07 PM

Page 15

Introduction

15

over the past. e narratives’ verisimilitude, iterativity, and cohesiveness, as well as the seemingly intrusive rabbinic comments throughout the narratives, further the authority claims embedded in the rabbinic memory of Temple ritual at the level of the telling. In Chapter 4, I contend that an additional way in which Temple ritual narratives argue for rabbinic authority is by constructing the Temple’s sacred space. By repeatedly imagining ritualized entry into and exit from the Temple—which constructs the Temple’s boundaries within the narrative world and in the minds of those who read or heard the narrative—and by creating a map of the Temple in the architectural description of Middot, the rabbis assert the centrality of their own version of Temple ritual practice, of their predecessors, the Court, and ultimately of themselves. Chapter 5 returns to the social and cultural context of Roman palestine and the larger Roman world. e rabbinic discourse about the Temple was not the only one. Other groups, including non-rabbinic Judaeans, Romans, and Christians, also continued to talk about the Temple (or, more abstractly, Jerusalem or Judaea) long after its destruction. e rabbis, in remembering the Temple in their unique way, were asserting the primacy of their version of what it means to be Judaean, the authority of their version of the traditional way of life, and the power to determine how all Judaeans would follow the traditional way of life. Together, the chapters of this book argue that the memory of the Temple and its ritual and the discourse about Temple ritual put forth a claim for rabbinic power and authority. Moreover, the ways in which this memory—in the Temple ritual narrative genre—make an argument for the rabbis are firmly bound up with the social and cultural realities of the time and with the way the rabbis situated themselves within the larger Roman and Judaean societies. e Temple and the past were useful for the rabbis, and they exert a good deal of creative energy imagining the Temple in ways that ultimately argue for a Judaean society remade in their own image.

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:07 PM

Page 16

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:07 PM

Page 17

Chapter 1

Rabbis as Jurists of Judaean Ritual Law and Competing Claims for Authority

Who were the rabbis? Who, at least, did they claim to be? In the Mishnah, which is largely about law, the rabbis represent themselves as legal authorities engaged in a variety of activities pertaining to traditional Judaean law. Most commonly, rabbis in the Mishnah hold legal opinions, though they are also frequently described as teaching, debating, and issuing rulings, among other legal endeavors. To build a fuller picture of the rabbis’ legal role, however, and to understand where such a role would place them in the larger society, it is necessary to consider their claims in more detail and to read their selfrepresentations in light of the Roman provincial context in which they were situated. What the evidence suggests is that the rabbis drew on a prestigious model from the dominant Roman culture to lay claim to the only area of law that would have been available to them: they fashioned themselves as jurists, specifically in the realm of traditional Judaean ritual law. By making such a claim, the rabbis not only asserted the validity of their body of teaching but insisted that they—and no others—had the authority to determine how all Judaeans would practice the traditional biblically based rituals.1

Rabbis as Jurists Living under full Roman domination and control, the rabbis could not have had any officially recognized role in the legal system. As Seth Schwartz points out: “When the Romans annexed a province, they subjected it to Roman law and entrusted all legal and political authority in the province to the Roman governor and his staff, and to the local city councils. ey did not recognize the

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

18

8/17/12

1:07 PM

Page 18

Chapter 1

autonomy of the local population . . . and they did not appoint intermediaries between the “natives” and themselves.”2 ere may have been some room, however, for playing a legal role in settling disputes. While the Romans controlled all official legal venues in the provinces, they seem to have allowed for unofficial or informal arbitration. As Jill harries puts it: “Arbitration [could] consist of an informal agreement brokered by an adjudicator, without introducing the legal formalities required by a formal process.”3 e existence of this type of arbitration may be supported by evidence from a later period, a constitution (law) issued by Arcadius and honorius at the very end of the fourth century and codified in the eodosian Code (CT). is law asserts that Judaeans (Jews) fall under the jurisdiction of Roman law but nonetheless have a right to adjudicate civil cases by official “arbitration before Jews or patriarchs.”4 is later law may make official what had been practiced unofficially for two centuries or longer. Building on this evidence, hannah Cotton argues that the rabbis imagine themselves as this very sort of unofficial arbitrator tolerated by the Romans.5 An example in the Mishnah describing a rabbinic legal ruling may support this identification of rabbis as arbitrators. In Mishnah Bava Kamma . 8:6, Rabbi Akiva appears to arbitrate a dispute between a man and a woman whose hair the man had uncovered: It was a case [ma‘ăśeh] involving a man who uncovered a woman’s hair in the marketplace. She came before Rabbi Akiva, and he obligated him to pay her four hundred zuz. [e man] said to [Rabbi Akiva], “Rabbi, give me some time [to pay],” and he gave him some time. [e man] waited for her to be standing at the entrance to her courtyard, and he broke a jug with an ’issar’s worth of oil in it in front of her. She uncovered her head, and repeatedly patted her hand onto her head [using the spilled oil]. he had witnesses witness her, and he came to Rabbi Akiva. he said to [Rabbi Akiva], “Rabbi, I have to pay four hundred zuz to this [woman] [as a payment for shaming her when she shamelessly uncovered her own head]? [Rabbi Akiva] said to him, “you have made no argument. One who injures himself, even though he is not permitted, is exempt from liability, but others who injure him are liable.”6

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:07 PM

Page 19

Rabbis as Jurists

19

Since Rabbi Akiva is not part of a typical Jewish court of three members but is acting alone, he appears to be arbitrating the case between the two disputants, who, according to the story, both appear before him.7 And since the man goes to some lengths to argue against the verdict, the story implies that Rabbi Akiva’s authority is accepted.8 is reading of the case story—put forth by Cotton— is plausible, and it is even possible that rabbis served as arbitrators. yet this is not the predominant way in which the Mishnah represents the rabbinic legal role. e vast majority of similar examples in the Mishnah in which a rabbi or rabbis issue a legal opinion or are in some way involved in a case (‫מעשה‬ [ma‘ăśeh]) are not about a dispute between parties that is resolved but rather a case in which there is an ambiguity on a matter of Jewish law.9 In most of these narratives, the rabbi or group of rabbis issue an opinion that resolves the legal ambiguity and establishes the law.10 furthermore, the legal issue arising in these cases seems to pertain only to a single individual rather than two parties. A typical example occurs in Mishnah Kil’ayim 4:9: e one who plants the rows of his vineyard sixteen ’ammōt [approximately twenty-four feet] apart is permitted to plant seeds in the space between the rows [though normally seeds, or, non-grapes, cannot be planted together with grapes]. Rabbi yehudah said: ere was a case [ma‘ăśeh] in Tsalmon regarding an individual who planted his vineyard with the rows sixteen ’ammōt apart. And he would put the vines from two [adjacent] rows all to one side [filling the space between every other row] and plant the empty row with seeds. And the following year, he would flip the vines to the other side and plant the empty row with seeds [where all the vines had been the previous year]. And the case came before the sages, and they permitted. e narrative does not give much detail about the setting of the rabbinic ruling, except to say that the case came before the sages, which seems to imply that the sages—presumably, a group of rabbis—are at a distance from the actual scenario.11 e Mishnah’s report also leaves ambiguous how the case comes to the sages: whether the person involved comes to the sages or even has knowledge that the case is brought to them.12 is story gives no hint as to whether the

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

20

8/17/12

1:07 PM

Page 20

Chapter 1

rabbinic ruling is followed—though there is evidence in some examples that it is, and in others that it is not.13 Despite the ambiguity in the setting of this narrative and most like it, it is relatively clear that the sages are not arbitrating any dispute. What they are doing is issuing an opinion about an ambiguous matter of law. In this example, the question was: Is this potentially problematic configuration of planting in a vineyard permissible (or, is the produce from such a planting permissible)? e law is that it is permissible. e best explanation for mishnaic case stories such as this is that they depict the rabbis functioning with respect to Torah as Roman jurists function with respect to Roman law. ey show rabbis issuing opinions in matters of Jewish law that resolve an ambiguity in a case in precisely the same way that Roman jurists performed their function of respondere, issuing legal opinions formulated as responses to specific questions arising in specific cases.14 for example, in the following case, recorded in Justinian’s Digest 2.14.47, Scaevola responds to a question of law that arises in a case involving a sale of land and the collection of payment: A buyer of land undertook that he would pay twenty [unit of currency not specified] and promised this amount by stipulation. Afterward, the seller undertook an agreement by which he would be content with thirteen and would receive this within a certain time. e debtor, when sued for payment of the latter amount, made a pact that if it was not paid within a certain time, an action would lie against him on the original undertaking. e question is asked whether, when the later pact had not been kept, everything owed under the original undertaking can be recovered. I replied that, according to what had been set forth, it could.15 As Catherine hezser points out, responsa such as these can be divided into three parts: “a brief description of the legally problematic situation (casus), the formulation of the question (quaestio), and the legal expert’s solution to the problem at the end (responsum).”16 e mishnaic case stories differ slightly from the contemporary Roman form in that the legal question is rarely stated explicitly and the language of question and response is not typically used. But there are responsa of Roman jurists that omit the questions that are similar to

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:07 PM

Page 21

Rabbis as Jurists

21

a common type of mishnaic example that narrates only the case and the rabbinic ruling. Compare, for example, Digest 2.14.42 with Mishnah Nazir 2:3: A debtor and creditor agreed that the creditor should not bear the burden of tax due on land pledged to him but that the debtor should be required to pay it. I replied that such an agreement should not be enforced insofar as it relates to the imperial treasury. for it is settled that provisions of the revenue law are not set aside by the pacts of private persons. (Digest 2.14.42, papinian, Replies, book 17) ere was a case [ma‘ăśeh] with a certain woman who was drunk, and they poured [another] cup [of wine] for her. She said, “I am a Nazirite from it” [thus taking a vow of abstinence from wine and, according to mishnaic law, inadvertently taking upon herself all the Nazirite restrictions]. e sages said: She only meant [to say], for instance, “is is a sacrifice for me” [a non-Nazirite vow, and so her apparent Nazirite vow of abstinence is null and void]. (Mishnah Nazir 2:3)17 ese examples are quite similar in presenting only the case and then the ruling—though the ruling is oblique in the mishnaic case. is mishnaic example lacks the explanation of the ruling, which is given in the example from the Digest, but such explanations can be found in a number of mishnaic case stories, such as Mishnah Terumot 4:13: “Rabbi yose said: A case came before Rabbi Akiva regarding fifty bunches of greens into which one bunch which was half te˘rumāh [sacred produce to be eaten by priests] had fallen. And I said before him, ‘Let it be neutralized [that is, the small fraction that was sacred is now considered non-sacred and the entire mixture permitted to be eaten]; not because te˘rumāh is neutralized in a one in fifty-one mixture but because there were 102 halves’ [that is, it is neutralized in a 1:102 mixture].” is example is unusual in that it depicts a rabbinic disciple’s training: the student, Rabbi yose, does not issue an actual ruling but suggests it to his master, to whom the case had come. We are not told about the final ruling by Rabbi Akiva; presumably, he accepted what Rabbi yose had said. Regardless of these details of the actual ruling, we are given in this example an explanation for the ruling, similar to what we are given in the example from papinian. ough most mishnaic case stories lack the formal language of question

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

22

8/17/12

1:07 PM

Page 22

Chapter 1

and response, there are a handful of instances in which the rabbinic legal opinion is specifically given in response to being asked, and these cases are especially similar to the typical Roman responsa. In Mishnah ‘Avodah Zarah 5:2, for instance, a certain Boethus, son of Xenon (bōytas ben zinōn), asks the sages about his case: “A case with Boethus, son of Xenon, who brought dried figs on a boat, and a barrel of [forbidden] libation wine broke and [the wine] fell onto [the dried figs]. And he asked the sages, and they permitted them” (emphasis added). is particular example is more personal than the Roman examples from the Digest because the individual who asked the legal question is named; nevertheless, the act of asking is quite similar to the formal asking in the responsa of Roman jurists.18 Based on the evidence marshaled thus far, in most examples, the Roman and rabbinic responsa may differ slightly in form, but the role of the rabbinic jurist, clarifying and determining the law in real cases, is nearly identical to that of the Roman jurist.19 And the handful of instances in which the form is in fact the same are particularly suggestive of the parallel between the rabbinic and the Roman juristic role.20 In the comparable juristic and mishnaic case stories, there is a second similarity between the Roman jurists and the rabbis: both are engaged more generally in creating the law.21 Martin Goodman, who was first to suggest that the rabbis are akin in their role to Roman jurists, emphasizes the common interest in the creation of law and especially the codification of law: “e relation of the rabbis to the courts is easily explicable in terms of the relation of iurisprudentes (jurists) to a legal system. Not unlike contemporary lawyers such as ulpian from nearby Tyre, the rabbis spent their time codifying the law as they saw it, inventing problems to solve according to the principles they evolved from these laws, adding a strong element of what they would like the laws to be, and making the results known to the nonacademic public.”22 Goodman and those who make the same comparison in his wake see the rabbis as jurists primarily because their activity of creating law and especially codifying law resembles that of the Roman jurists and because the finished products of their work, the Mishnah and the Talmud, resemble law collections produced by Roman jurists.23 Additional evidence throughout the Mishnah suggests further similarities between the rabbis’ and the Roman jurists’ typical activities. Rabbis are often depicted as masters teaching or interacting with their disciples, or as disciples learning from their masters. Similarly, rabbis of presumably equal standing are

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:07 PM

Page 23

Rabbis as Jurists

23

often depicted engaging in legal debate and discussion with one another.24 Each of these types of academic interaction mirrors similar academic activities of Roman jurists.25 Summing up the Mishnah’s evidence: the rabbis are typically depicted as jurists who issue opinions on matters of Jewish law in response to ambiguities arising in cases, who codify the law they create, who teach disciples, and who debate matters of law. While the rabbinic legal role as pictured is strikingly similar to that of Roman jurists, there is a fundamental distinction between the two. Roman jurists at the time, like the Roman legal system in general, seem to have focused primarily on civil and family law and not sacred law. historically, the juristic role in Rome originated with aristocratic priests who interpreted the Twelve Tables and who were also authorities on sacred law. yet by the classical period of Roman law—which includes the second and third centuries—the secular successors of the priest-jurists dealt exclusively with civil law.26 e rabbis, in contrast, in their role as jurists in the Mishnah’s narratives, focus primarily on law that would not have been relevant in a Roman court: Judaean ritual law.27 Of seventy-six case stories and related texts in the Mishnah, only six are about civil law and six are about matters of family law not exclusive to Judaean law.28 is finding corresponds to that of Martin Goodman that the rabbis “attempted to control Jews in Galilee only in religious rather than secular matters.”29 It also correlates with Shaye Cohen’s finding that in (presumed) tannaitic (from the time of the Mishnah) case stories throughout the entire rabbinic corpus, only 4.4 percent of cases deal with civil law.30 To be sure, rabbinic law included in the Mishnah encompasses ritual law and civil (and criminal) law—all the areas of law already found in the Torah. In the Mishnah, rabbis frequently have opinions in all these areas of law; occasionally, they are even depicted issuing opinions on civil or family law cases. yet in the vast majority of narratives that purport to describe the actual legal role played by the rabbis, this role is limited to ritual law. us in the Mishnah’s narrative depictions, the rabbis are not, as Goodman and hezser suggest, jurists within the Roman legal system where their opinions would have mattered in cases adjudicated in the local courts controlled by the Romans, but jurists—styled after Roman jurists—of Judaean ritual law whose opinions mattered in the practice of Judaean ritual and in the development of Judaean law.31

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

24

8/17/12

1:07 PM

Page 24

Chapter 1

is limitation of rabbinic juristic activity to the ritual sphere can best be explained by the realities of living under Roman domination. As noted at the beginning of this chapter, rabbis, as local legal experts, did not have—and could not have had—any legal jurisdiction recognized by the ruling of the Romans. us any decisions in these realms would not be enforceable. Similarly, rabbis could not have acted as jurists within official Roman venues. In asserting jurisprudential authority over Judaean ritual law, the rabbis (or at least the Mishnah, in its depiction of the rabbis) were laying claim to the only area of law left available by the Romans and thus that they could have controlled. Indeed, later Roman law, particularly two edicts issued by the emperors Arcadius and honorius in the years 397 and 398, legalized or perhaps affirmed the distinction between Roman civil law and Judaean (Jewish) ritual law, and placed control over Judaean ritual law firmly in the hands of Judaeans (Jews).32 In the edict of 398 (eodosian Code [CT ] 2.1.10), these emperors require that Judaeans address Roman courts, except in matters pertaining to their “superstition” (“religion” in CT ’s commentary).33 At roughly the same time, they also ruled (CT 16.18.13) that Judaeans were obligated to follow Judaean ritual law—called “ceremonies”—as determined by ritual authorities named as “the illustrious patriarchs,” “the archsynagogues,” the “patriarchs,” “the presbyters,” and “others who are occupied in the rite (sacrament) of that religion.”34 In this sense, the Judaeans are made explicitly parallel to Christians who are bound by Christian ritual law.35 ese Christian Roman emperors living two centuries after the time of the Mishnah may well have had a vested interest in “marking out . . . the Jews as ‘absolute other’ to Christianity,” and doing so by inventing both as “religions.”36 yet their assumption that Judaean ritual law—what would for them fall under the rubric of superstitio/religio (“religion”)—was a discrete body of law distinct from Roman law likely goes back to earlier centuries, when Roman administrators and authorities would not have had interest in any type of law outside the boundaries of Roman law. Roman authorities in the time of the Mishnah were, however, interested in enforcing areas of law that fell within the bounds of Roman law; and the rabbis, as evidenced by the Mishnah’s case stories, were thus claiming authority over the only body of law that was available: ritual law.

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:07 PM

Page 25

Rabbis as Jurists

25

Rabbinic Jurists and Not Rabbinic Courts e reconstruction I have put forth for the judicial role that the rabbis claimed for themselves goes against a commonly held view that the rabbis were members of rabbinic courts in yavneh and elsewhere.37 e strongest evidence in the Mishnah for this alternative view can be found in four passages that claim that individual rabbis had their own court: in one, Rosh Hashanah 2:8–9, Rabban Gamliel (located in yavneh) has his own court; and in three, “Rabbi,” that is, Rabbi yehudah the Naśi, has his own court. is limited evidence about Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi yehudah the Naśi does support the notion that the rabbinic authors of the Mishnah claimed that a handful of rabbis were part of a court. however, this conclusion should not be extended to the rabbis generally. e first reason that the evidence for court affiliation should be limited to the two rabbis about whom the Mishnah is explicit is that these two rabbis are exceptional. “Rabbi” is the first rabbi to be given the special title naśi, meaning “head of the court” or perhaps “patriarch”; and Rabban Gamliel, with the relatively unusual title “Rabban,” was remembered as Rabbi’s progenitor. Even if one or both of them were not officially a patriarch in the sense used in later Roman, Christian, and rabbinic texts, they were certainly illustrious rabbis.38 ey may have been part of a judicial court, but that does not mean that any other rabbis were. is argument is supported by the details of the story in Rosh Hashanah 2:9 in which Rabban Gamliel forces Rabbi yehoshua (Joshua) to follow his ruling about the new moon: while Rabban Gamliel has his own court, none of the other major rabbis in the story—Rabbi yehoshua, Rabbi Akiva, and perhaps Rabbi Dosa ben Arkhinas—is a member of this court.39 If the two illustrious rabbis, Rabban Gamliel and “Rabbi,” are indeed heads of their own courts, these courts, as indicated in the examples, are not the typical courts found throughout the Mishnah. Normally in the Mishnah, courts are institutions that adjudicate cases, mete out punishments, and oversee formal legal actions.40 In these cases, in contrast, the rabbinically led courts do not perform any of the typical functions of a court. Rather, the two rabbinic “courts” make law and determine how rituals should be performed—the typical juristic rabbinic legal function. In the case of Rabban Gamliel, the court questions witnesses, a typical adjudicatory function. But determining the new month is not a regular type of adjudication; it is a rendering of a decision on

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

26

8/17/12

1:07 PM

Page 26

Chapter 1

a nonjudicial matter (whether the new moon has been seen) in a matter of law with ramifications only for ritual practice (when the Day of Atonement is celebrated). One could even argue that it is simply a ruling on a point of ritual law in a manner similar to the juristic decisions rendered throughout the casestory genre in the Mishnah. e same can be said about “Rabbi’s” court, which never adjudicates but only takes a vote to determine what the law is regarding the purity status of a city (’Ohalot 18:9), the transfer of property (Gi.tt. in 5:6), and food consumption (‘Avodah Zarah 2:6). With the possible exception of determining the new moon, the rabbinic courts in the Mishnah do not adjudicate in any way but perform the juristic legal function of determining what the law is; as in the examples portraying rabbis as jurists, the law is in the domain of Jewish ritual practice in most of these cases.41 us even in these exceptional cases in which rabbis are part of courts, the depiction seems to be an extension of the more common portrayal of rabbis as jurists in the area of traditional Judaean ritual law.42

Authority over Judaean Ritual practice By portraying themselves as jurists who issue rulings in matters of ritual law, the rabbis of the Mishnah were not merely claiming to be authoritative arbiters of this body of law in an academic sense. Nor were they merely maintaining that their version of the traditional way of life was correct. By imagining themselves issuing rulings, the rabbis were also asserting that Judaeans facing an ambiguous matter of ritual practice should consult with them. ey were arguing that Judaeans should perform these rituals the way they say and that their rulings were universally applicable, to rabbis and non-rabbis alike. Even if no Judaeans besides rabbis had access to the text of the Mishnah, either directly or through informal communication with rabbis, the portrayals of rabbis therein still make the argument that all Judaeans should be following the dictates of the rabbis and should practice the traditional way of life as the rabbis envision it. at the rabbis were asserting their authority over practice and not simply over the law in the abstract can be seen in the handful of mishnaic case stories that imagine anonymous men and women coming before rabbis for a juristic ruling in a matter of ritual law.43 In Mishnah Niddah 8:3, for example, it is purported that a woman actually came before a rabbi for advice on a matter of

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:07 PM

Page 27

Rabbis as Jurists

27

ritual law that would affect the way she performed the traditional ritual: “e case [ma‘ăśeh] of a certain woman who came before Rabbi Akivah and said to him, ‘I saw a (menstrual) blood stain.’ he said to her, ‘perhaps you had a wound?’ And she said, ‘yes, and it healed.’ ‘And perhaps it could have been opened up and thus produced blood?’ And she told him, ‘yes.’ And Rabbi Akivah declared her pure.” Charlotte fonrobert argues that in this passage, “rabbis are staged as ‘gynecologists,’ so to speak, as authoritative interpreters of women’s bodies.”44 But the rabbis are being constructed as more than simply experts on female bodies. ey are also being constructed as experts on the law and on how the law should be applied to the practice of the ritual. is can be seen in other examples as well. In Yadayim 3:1, for instance, a woman comes to Rabban Gamliel’s father about a matter of purity; in Nedarim 9:10, people bring a man to Rabbi yishmael for a ruling about a vow. Similarly, in Ta‘anit 3:9 people follow Rabbi Tarfon’s instruction on the fasting ritual; and in Yevamot 12:6, Rabbi hurkenos (hyrcanus) determines how a h. ălitsāh ritual is performed. In each of these examples, rabbis are presented as arbiters of traditional ritual practice, and people—seemingly ordinary Judaeans—follow their dictates. Even if these case stories and other reports are invented, they show that the rabbis are claiming authority not only over Judaean ritual law in the abstract but over Judaean ritual as practiced as well.45

Rabbinic Claims against Competing Claims for Authority Rabbis were likely not the only ones who would have claimed authority to determine how Judaeans should practice the traditional rituals ultimately deriving from the Torah. Judaean society—the subsociety within Roman Syria palaestina of those sharing a common “Israelite” ancestry and set of cultural practices—consisted of multiple subgroups, each overlapping the other in complex ways.46 Rabbis were only one small group within this variegated social landscape. presumably, the leaders or ritual experts within each of these other groups would have asserted their own primacy and power to determine how the group and perhaps how others should practice the traditional way of life. post-destruction literary sources of the first, second, and third centuries all imagine that multiple groups were living within the territory that was once

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

28

8/17/12

1:07 PM

Page 28

Chapter 1

Judaea and that became Syria palaestina. As throughout the Roman Empire, these groups were defined largely in ethnic terms. Aside from those native to Judaea and sharing a common ancestry and culture (including biblically derived ritual practice), termed Israelites (Greek, ioudaioi [Judaeans]), authors speak of Romans, Greeks, and Samaritans (‫[ כותי‬kuti] in the Mishnah). By the later second century, the nonethnic category of “Christian” also came to be used in distinction to “Judaean” and to the other ethnically defined categories.47 Even among Israelites/Judaeans themselves, according to various authors of the time, there were multiple subgroups—pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes; rabbis and non-rabbis (of a number of distinct types); and Judaean believers in Jesus.48 On the larger scale of the entire multiethnic province and the smaller scale of the Judaean ethnic group, post-destruction authors frequently treated the boundaries between these groups as sharp. yet these same authors’ writings provide ample evidence that there was boundary blurring between all these groups and subgroups and that, as a consequence, there was extensive multiplicity within Judaean society—well beyond the discrete subcategories they mention.49 e case of Judaean believers in Jesus provides a good starting point to explain this finding. It has long been recognized that all the initial and many of the subsequent followers of Jesus in the first century, including especially the Jerusalem Church described in Acts and in several of paul’s letters, were in some way “Jewish.”50 e history of defining these “early Christians” has, as Matt Jackson-McCabe shows, been ideologically fraught, yet quite a few scholars now argue that many, if not all, “early Christians”—those who followed Jesus and created many of the canonical Christian texts—were, in fact, Judaean, rather similar to other “Jewish” groups in the first century and beyond.51 As Daniel Boyarin points out, even those believers in Jesus marked as ethnically non-Judaean were—in the first and early second centuries—understood to have become Judaean in some way, as “proselytes, . . . theoseboumenoi [Godfearers], and gerim (resident aliens, who were required to keep precisely the laws marked out in Acts for Gentile followers of Jesus).”52 In the latter part of the second century and into the third century, even as Justin Martyr and others were defining “Christian” as a new category of identity—one distinct from, but fundamentally bound up with, Judaean ethnicity—there nevertheless remained numerous and diverse types of Jesus believers who could still be called “Judaean.” Boyarin, who has devoted much energy to

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:07 PM

Page 29

Rabbis as Jurists

29

elaborating the theoretical framework for picturing the sociocultural landscape, has argued: “We might think of Christianity and Judaism in the second and third centuries as points on a continuum from the Marcionites, who followed the second-century Marcion in believing that the hebrew Bible had been written by an inferior God and had no standing for Christians, and who completely denied the ‘Jewishness’ of Christianity, on one end, to many Jews on the other end for whom Jesus meant nothing. In the middle, however, there were many gradations that provided social and cultural progression across this spectrum.”53 One of Boyarin’s main points is that despite the rhetoric that began to be employed at the time that there was a pure “Judaism” (or perhaps “Israelitism”) and a pure “Christianity,” most subgroups could be considered “hybrid” in some sense and part of a larger “religious dialect map,” that is, a set of groups interrelated in the same way that different language dialects are interrelated. While it is possible to critique this model, it is particularly useful in pointing to both the hybridity that could exist between the categories posited as distinct and the diversity of ways that different subgroups may have embraced both traditional Judaean practices and belief in Jesus.54 Some Christians might fall outside of Judaean society (and not only because of ideology), yet even within Judaean society, there were likely a number of different subgroups for whom Jesus was a central figure.55 A similar blurring of boundaries, hybridity, and diversity among those hybrid groups that fall within the Judaean ethnos (people sharing ancestry and customs) seems to have existed in other categories as well. Even though many— including the authors of the Mishnah, of several New Testament and early Christian works, and Josephus—considered Judaean/Israelite and Roman/Gentile (gōyim) mutually exclusive categories, evidence suggests that there were Judaeans who embraced a Roman way of living and that for these Judaeans, the border between Roman and Israelite/Judaean was not so sharp.56 In the Galilee, including the cities of Sepphoris and Tiberias, the population was largely ethnically Judaean. Among the archaeological remains from throughout the Galilee, but especially from Sepphoris, stone (chalk/limestone) vessels and stepped pools were found—types of material culture earlier associated with the Jerusalem Temple and unique to Judaeans.57 Earlier and later authors tended to consider the Galilee wholly Judaean; even in the Mishnah (and Tosefta), Galilean locations—unlike the Gentile cities of Akko (ptolemais) and Bet She’an (Scythopolis)—seem to be largely Judaean.58 At the same time, there is

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

30

8/17/12

1:07 PM

Page 30

Chapter 1

evidence of the embrace of a Roman lifestyle, perhaps including pagan ritual practices. As Mark Chancey argues, beginning in the early to mid-second century, there was a “transformation in the landscape” of Sepphoris and Tiberias. paved streets, aqueducts, bathhouses, theaters, additional public buildings, and private houses with lavish Greco-Roman mosaics were built—including the well-known elaborate Dionysian scene in a Sepphoran house.59 is transformation corresponds with a change in the iconography of local city coins minted by the local leaders of Sepphoris and Tiberias, which now included images of pagan gods.60 Along with evidence of these public displays of Roman material culture, a small number of pagan ritual implements have been found in Sepphoris and Tiberias.61 e most plausible explanation of this evidence is not that non-Judaean Roman leadership was suddenly and temporarily introduced, or that the Judaean leadership was simply accommodating Roman rule, or that Judaeans threw off the traditional way of life in favor of a Roman one, but that these leaders and elites were Judaeans who embraced a hybrid Judaean-Roman culture that, in some cases, included pagan ritual.62 e existence of such hybridity can perhaps best be seen in a contemporaneous inscription in Katsyōn, . in the Golan, by a group of self-identified Judaeans (ioudaioi) who dedicated the monumental building that contained a stone eagle and an altar and a dedicatory inscription to the emperor Septimius Severus and his sons.63 ese Judaeans, like many of their Galilean urban brethren, seem to have embraced Roman culture. ough there is no specific available evidence, it is likely that there was diversity here as well in the ways that different Judaeans in various locations throughout Syria palaestina embraced Roman culture and mixed this embrace with adherence to traditional cultural and ritual practices. In the case of the Samaritans, there likely existed a similar intermingling and perhaps diversity of views on how Samaritanism may have related to Judaeanness. In the Mishnah, Samaritans (kutim) are not Israelites, since they are a distinct category contrasted to the Israelite (‫)ישראל‬, yet they are frequently treated as legally the same as the Israelite and are imagined to observe at least some of the same rituals.64 e category itself, in the Mishnah, seems to be hybrid; Samaritans are at once Israelite but not Israelite. To the extent that Samaritans are different, the Mishnah seems to imagine them mingling in a fundamental way with Judaeans who would have been interested in rabbinic legal rulings. A case story in Mishnah Gi.tt.in 1:5 claims that there were Judaeans in Kefar ‘Otnay (Caparcotna/Legio) who had Samaritans sign on their divorce

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:07 PM

Page 31

Rabbis as Jurists

31

contract.65 ese purported interactions may point to a genuine mixing and overlap that belie the strict divisions implied by the very categories used.66 Outside of the diversity among those who may have embraced Roman or Samaritan culture or embraced Jesus, there seems to have been diversity (and boundary blurring) as well within the polity that the rabbis, at least, firmly identified as Judaean. In the Mishnah as well as the Tosefta, the rabbis frequently admit that there are other (non-rabbinic) Judaeans who practice the traditional way of life differently from the way that the rabbis believe that it should be practiced. ere are ‘ōvrēi ‘ăvēirāh (sinners) and ‘ammēi hā’ārets (the people of the land [a biblical term])—both of whom are Israelites yet do not practice as they should, in the rabbinic view.67 As Stuart Miller has demonstrated, rabbinic sources also speak of the people of a given city (termed the “people of ” [be˘nēi or ’anshēi] a given place).68 e rabbis take these people as fully Israelite (Judaean) but distinct from themselves. ey practice the traditional way of life but not quite as the rabbis imagine that it should be practiced. ese “common” Judaeans from the city or from towns and rural areas form a distinct subgroup within society, one that may be the core of what Miller calls “complex common Judaism.”69 While it is impossible to get more than a rough picture about these other non-rabbinic Judaeans from what is largely rabbinic evidence, the rabbinic evidence shows that there were other, possibly diverse, non-rabbinic groups who formed the majority of Judaean society. I strongly suspect that these other Judaeans, too, overlapped in complex ways with the other subgroupings in society—those who may have embraced Roman or Samaritan culture or who may have been believers in Jesus.70 e rabbis who created the Mishnah were thus one small distinct group within the larger complex landscape of Judaean society in Roman Syria palaestina, yet they claimed the right to determine how all Judaeans would practice, as I suggested above. e tension between their small place in society and the wide authority they claim for their rulings can be seen in an example in which they rule on a matter regarding the people of Tiberias:

‫מעשה שעשו אנשי טבירייה הביאו סילון של צונין לתוך אמה שלחמין‬ ‫אמרו להן חכמ’ אם בשבת כחמין שהוחמו בשבת אסורים ברחיצה‬ ‫ובשתייה ואם ביום טוב כחמין שהוחמו ביום טוב אסורין ברחיצה‬ ‫ומותרין בשתייה‬

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

32

8/17/12

1:07 PM

Page 32

Chapter 1

ere was a case / It once happened that the people of Tiberias brought a pipe of cold water through a branch of the hot springs. e sages said to them: If on the Sabbath, these waters have the status of water heated on the Sabbath, they are forbidden for use in bathing or drinking; if on the festival day, they have the status of water heated on the festival day, they are forbidden for use in bathing but permitted for use in drinking. (Mishnah Shabbat 3:4) In this story, when the rabbis inform the people of Tiberias that the water from their “pipe of cold water running through a branch of the hot springs” cannot be used on the Sabbath and can be used only for drinking on festivals, they take for granted that these “commoners” should be following rabbinic law. At the same time, the story suggests that the people of Tiberias have already created heated water in a manner that the rabbis see as permitted only in very limited circumstances, and they have done so without consulting any rabbis. As Moshe Simon-Shoshan points out, even after the fact, these people of Tiberias do not seem to have solicited the rabbis’ opinion.71 e rabbis inform the people about the correct law, but it is never clear whether the people follow the rabbinic ruling in the end. from the rabbinic perspective, this group of Tiberians seem to be members of the people of Israel whom they hope to bring under their orbit so that they will conform to what the rabbis believe is the correct way of practicing the traditional Judaean way of life.72 presumably, however, these Tiberians—and, for that matter, each of the overlapping subgroups of Judaeans—had their own ritual authorities who determined how they would practice these and all traditional rituals. As Annette Reed writes with respect to Judaean believers in Jesus, “contrary to the tendency to treat the rabbis as the sole arbiters of halakha in late antique Judaism, some of [the late antique authors and communities who appear to have accepted Jesus as a special figure in salvation history] seem to have been no less preoccupied with matters such as dietary restrictions and ritual purification.”73 It is possible that these other Judaeans simply decided on their own what this practice should be, yet I find it far more likely that they turned to alternative authoritative arbiters of the tradition. part of the reason for this conclusion is that a unique understanding of what was proper observance often defined difference between subgroups. for the rabbis of the Mishnah, for instance, differing observance defined the ‘am hā’ārets, the “sinners,” and perhaps the people

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:07 PM

Page 33

Rabbis as Jurists

33

of a given city. So, too, according to the Mishnah, a particular approach to the Temple and possibly to menstrual purity laws helped define the Samaritans.74 e Christian text Didascalia Apostolorum, likely contemporaneous with the Mishnah, provides similar evidence that even among Judaean believers in Jesus, a unique version of how rituals should be practiced was also defining of difference. Describing different groups of heretical Christians, the authors write: “Again others of them taught that a man should not eat flesh, and said that a man must not eat anything that has a soul in it. Others, however, said that one was bound to withhold from swine only, but might eat those things which the Law pronounces clean.”75 for each of these two groups of (Judaean) Jesus-believing “heretics,” a distinct view on proper biblically based ritual practice defines them against the other as well as against “proper” Christians (in the authors’ view).76 Each subgroup thus seems to have tied its identity to a particular view of correct practice and so must have had its own ritual authorities and experts to determine what this practice should be. Who were these other ritual authorities? e people of cities and towns— common Judaeans—likely had their own leaders and, in the case of Sepphoris and Tiberias, perhaps even official leaders. Local leaders, even if they embraced Roman culture and ritual practice, may have claimed authority to determine how Judaean ritual or hybrid Judaean-Roman ritual should be performed. Alternatively, there may have been experts, perhaps scribes or others devoted to the interpretation of Torah and traditional law like the rabbis, to whom the leaders may have delegated this responsibility or to whom the people turned. Two types of individual Judaeans may have been particularly suited to function as legal-ritual experts for the common Judaeans of cities or villages: the priest and the synagogue leader. priests traditionally served just this role of legal-ritual expert, as evidenced by Josephus’s claim that in his youth (he was a priest), the high priests would consult him for his expertise on ta nomima (“customs,” “legal matters,” or perhaps traditions of the Torah).77 Abundant evidence, including that of the Mishnah, shows that despite the loss of the Temple, many continued to be identified as priests.78 ese priests may not have formed separate groups—as evidenced by the presence of a number of priests in the rabbinic group—yet individual priests may have continued to claim traditional authority to determine ritual practice, and groups of Judaeans may have sought (non-rabbinic) priestly expertise. ough there are no explicit references in the Mishnah to such compet-

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

34

8/17/12

1:07 PM

Page 34

Chapter 1

ing priestly authority, there are hints of such competition. On more than one occasion, brief narratives recall courts of priests in Temple times that seem to stand in contrast to and in competition with the main court or with sages— groups that, I will argue, the rabbis saw as their predecessors in Temple times. us in Mishnah Rosh Hashanah 1:7, a certain doctor named Tōviyāh (Tobias), together with his freed slave, witnesses the first sliver of the new moon: “and the priests accepted him and his son but invalidated his freed slave. And when they came before the Court [bēit din], they accepted him and his freed slave, but invalidated his son.” e story is presumably set in Temple times (indicated by “the Court”), but in depicting a group of priests who form an alternative to the (pre-)rabbinic Court, it is quite likely projecting contemporary tension with competing priests back into Temple times.79 In another passage, Rabban yo.hanan ben Zakkai, of the earliest generations of rabbis, criticizes the priests’ interpretation of a verse that tends to serve their own advantage. ough it is unclear whether in the story yohanan . ben Zakkai refers to priests of his own generation, and thus whether the text imagines groups of post-destruction priests who claim competing legal-ritual authority, the passage suggests that such competition may have existed even in the time of the Mishnah.80 In addition to priests, a second type of functionary who may have exerted authority over ritual practice was the synagogue leader. ough there is no uncontested archaeological evidence of monumental synagogues—large-scale decorated synagogue buildings of a variety of architectural types—in Roman palestine at the time the Mishnah was produced, the Mishnah and several early Christian texts presume that the institution of the synagogue (‫[ בית הכנסת‬bēit hakke˘neset] in the Mishnah) existed, and there is evidence that there were nonmonumental synagogues at the time.81 On a number of occasions in the Mishnah and Tosefta, there is mention of leaders or functionaries in the synagogue (rōsh hakke˘neset or h. azzan hakk˘eneset) who play a central role in the performance of its ritual.82 If, as some argue, the rabbis had no authority in the synagogue, these leaders or functionaries of the synagogue may have been the ones to determine how ritual was practiced, and so may have been competition for the rabbis.83 is may be why there is a case story in Tosefta Terumot 2:13 in which a synagogue head (rōsh hakk˘eneset) consults with Rabban Gamliel over a matter of ritual practice. e story of such a functionary asking a rabbi to tell him how to act may well be a fantasy in which the competing ritual authority

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:07 PM

Page 35

Rabbis as Jurists

35

actually depends on a rabbi in order to know the proper way of doing the ritual. Despite the portrayal in this toseftan story, synagogue heads—who were likely associated with the “people” of a given city or with the non-rabbinic Judaean “commoners”—may in fact have had more authority than rabbis.84 Among the other “hybrid” subgroups of Judaean society—whether or not they formed cohesive communities—there were likely also ritual authorities particular to those groups. ese authorities, too, may have been political leaders or ritual experts without any particular political power. And they may have been priests, synagogue leaders, scribes, or others, like the rabbis, dedicated to the interpretation of the Torah and its traditional practices. To the extent that Romanized Judaeans, those engaged with Samaritan society (even perhaps full Samaritans), Judaean believers in Jesus, and those whom the rabbis believed observed the traditional way of life incorrectly were distinct from the “people of ” a given city or village (that is, “common” local Judaeans), they likely had their own experts to whom they turned. e Christian Didascalia Apostolorum may be instructive on this point. According to the Didascalia (which may be, as fonrobert argues, partially addressed to Judaean believers in Jesus within a larger Christian community), bishops are empowered to determine the detailed ritual practices such as are laid out in the text, and they are empowered to adjudicate disputes, perhaps through unofficial arbitration. e Christian community imagined in this text is subject to the authority of its leaders, who, according to the text, are ritual and legal experts.85 In parallel, leaders of the various Judaean and hybrid groups likely claimed similar authority over their own communities. Based on the various hints provided by the rabbinic and non-rabbinic evidence, it seems that others in Judaean society besides rabbis also claimed the authority to determine how traditional rituals should be performed. e rabbis were but one small group in the complex social and political landscape of late second- or early third-century Roman palestine. As I argue, they aimed to be the ultimate authority over traditional Judaean practice, but others likely claimed the same authority.

e Roman Context and Cultural Mimicry Living under Roman imperial rule in the presence of numerous expressions of the dominant colonial culture and competing against other Judaean groups

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

36

8/17/12

1:07 PM

Page 36

Chapter 1

and ritual authorities, the rabbis appear to have appropriated the model of the jurist in order to lay a unique claim for their own importance and power. As Amram Tropper has suggested, it is highly probable that the rabbis were familiar with this cultural model. Based on a variety of evidence, Tropper argues: “It [is] likely that Greek-speaking lawyers who possessed at least a rudimentary knowledge of Roman law flourished throughout the east. In short, the presence of Roman legal jurisdiction and Greek-speaking lawyers in the Near East indicates that the fundamentals of Roman law were probably well known throughout the Graeco-Roman environment in palestine.”86 us the rabbis would have been at least generally familiar with elements of Roman law and the institution of the Roman jurist. By fashioning themselves jurists of Jewish ritual law, the rabbis seem to be borrowing from the Roman cultural model with which they were familiar.87 following Beth Berkowitz’s insight in her analysis of rabbinic mimicry of Roman methods of capital punishment, this cultural mimicry can be seen as an “appropriation of power” achieved by “cleverly constructing rabbinic power out of the cultural materials of Rome.”88 In Roman culture, legal ingenuity in juristic argumentation was a source of prestige for those of relatively high social standing who engaged in this activity. Indeed, Alan Watson argues that this feature of Roman law explains the continuing importance of legal interpretation by experts for many centuries.89 Rabbis were not, for the most part, from the same upper stratum of society from which the Roman jurists emerged. Nevertheless, this model seems to have presented an opportunity for rabbis to attain a modicum of power or expand the minimal power they already had simply by fashioning themselves this way.90 e rabbis mimicked Roman cultural forms pertaining to the law and legal practice in many ways, and this seems to be one of them. In addition to fashioning themselves jurists, the rabbis also appropriated Roman conceptions of capital punishment, as Berkowitz has shown; they imitated the form and ideology of the scholasticism and sophism of the Second Sophistic and perhaps even conceived of their traditional system of practice as law in imitation of Roman notions of the law, as Tropper has shown; and they mimicked the style of presenting legal material in a heterogeneous manner, as Simon-Shoshan has shown.91 In part, each of these similarities between the Mishnah and Roman literary and cultural forms stems from a shared cultural universe, as Tropper and Simon-Shoshan emphasize; but, as Berkowitz stresses, the rabbis’ use of Roman

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:07 PM

Page 37

Rabbis as Jurists

37

cultural models serves their ends specifically because they are from the dominant culture as well. As Berkowitz demonstrates, rabbinic mimicry also involved resistance to the dominant Roman culture and its power. In modeling themselves on Roman jurists, the rabbis were not merely appropriating a Roman cultural model to advance their own cause; they were also resisting Roman dominance by asserting the importance of Judaean tradition and their own version of this tradition. Law, the rabbis insist, includes ritual practice and is not limited to civil and criminal law, as it largely is in the Roman legal system of the time.92 e inclusion of ritual law signals, moreover, that at the heart of the law is the Torah, in which law encompasses all these realms. e true law, in other words, stems from the Torah. By claiming to be jurists of Judaean ritual law, the rabbis are imagining themselves in a Roman mold, but they are also asserting the primacy of their ancestral tradition. is is precisely what distinguishes them from Romans. Because they claim to be purveyors of the authentic interpretation of the ancestral tradition, this is also what establishes their authority among Judaeans.93 e rabbis, then, are not simply borrowing from the dominant culture; rather, they are negotiating multiple cultural models in order to carve out their own niche that is at the same time uniquely Jewish, uniquely Roman, and uniquely rabbinic.94

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:07 PM

Page 38

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:07 PM

Page 39

Chapter 2

e Temple, the Great Court, and the Rabbinic Invention of the past

e makeup of society in Roman palestine at the time the Mishnah was written and the place the rabbis claim for themselves within that society provide an important context for understanding how the rabbis remember the past and how the past they remember is shaped by and functions within the present. In this and the following two chapters, I take up three key ways in which the mishnaic Temple ritual narratives, as memories and as Temple discourse, make a powerful claim for the authority of the rabbis, one small group within the larger complex social landscape of Roman Syria palaestina. ese three aspects of the rabbinic narration of the Temple ritual of the past help the rabbis assert their own primacy as legal interpreters and the primacy of their version of the traditional way of life—as against the various alternative versions that existed among competing subgroups within society. In this chapter, I discuss one key component of the rabbinic memory of the Temple in the Mishnah’s Temple ritual narratives—an aspect of this memory that is fundamentally bound up with the place the rabbis assert for themselves in post-destruction society, the largely made-up “character” within these narratives: the Great Court. On multiple occasions in these narratives, the rabbis invent a key role in the performance of Temple ritual for the Great Court, and they portray the Great Court as an institution with ultimate authority over the way Temple rituals were carried out. e rabbis construct the Court and its members as their predecessors in Temple times, so the past in these accounts functions as a mirror on the present, reflecting the image of the rabbis as they see themselves. And the memory of the past, in which the rabbinic predecessors are legal-ritual authorities, makes an argument for rabbinic legal-ritual authority in post-Temple times. By inserting the Court into the past, the rabbis

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

40

8/17/12

1:07 PM

Page 40

Chapter 2

are asserting the antiquity of and providing a myth of origins for the role they claim for themselves within society.

e Great Court and the Rituals of the Temple roughout the Mishnah, not just in Temple ritual narratives, the court appears numerous times in an abstract sense, as a legal body that hears and adjudicates cases (or the location where this judicial institution engages in its activities), as well as in the concrete historical sense, as a legal institution existing in the time of the Temple. When referring to the purportedly historical Court of the Second Temple era, the Mishnah uses a number of different terms: ‫( בית דין‬bēit din, Court), ‫( בית דין הגדול שבירושלים‬bēit din haggadōl shebiye˘rushālayim, the Great Court in Jerusalem), and ‫סנהדרים‬/‫( סנהדרין‬sanhedrin/sanhedrim = synedrion [council, court]).1 Members of this court are called ‫ זקן‬or ‫( זקנים‬zākēn or ze˘kēnim, elder or elders). In the Mishnah’s narratives about events from Temple times—and, to an extent, throughout the Mishnah—the terms are essentially interchangeable, and each of these terms seems to refer to the institution of a central, authoritative court and its members.2 e Mishnah’s historical Court from Temple times is an adjudicatory body, as can be seen in the Mishnah’s accounts of how the Court carried out its judicial procedures—which I will call “judicial” or “court-centered” ritual narratives. perhaps the most famous rabbinic text of this type is the narrative in Mishnah Sanhedrin 4:3–7:1, about how the Great Court would adjudicate capital cases and mete out the death penalty. In this and similar narratives describing how the Court used to carry out its functions—including adjudication in financial disputes—the Court carries out characteristically judicial tasks.3 It hears testimony, adjudicates the case, renders a verdict, metes out punishment, and delivers speeches meant to instill fear in the witnesses, a process called ‫’( איום‬iyyum).4 ese particular Court functions are not surprising because courts in numerous societies and cultures, including those in the Roman Empire in classical to late antiquity, have performed and do perform many of these functions. What is striking about the appearance of the Court in the Mishnah’s narratives about ritual in Temple times is that it is said to have been intimately involved in a variety of Temple rituals and, more important, to have had ultimate authority over these rituals. e Mishnah’s insistence that the Court is impor-

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:07 PM

Page 41

Rabbinic Invention

41

tant in the realm of Temple ritual may explain why the single mishnaic subgenre, the Temple ritual narrative, includes descriptions of both Temple ritual and purely judicial ritual (which I call “court-centered ritual narratives”). As Martin Jaffee has pointed out, the genre focuses on “the most important institutions in ancient palestinian Jewish society: the Jerusalem Temple and the Sanhedrin.”5 e reason for this dual focus seems to be that in the Mishnah, the two institutions are not distinct but are intertwined. e Court, according to the narratives about Temple-era ritual, is an authoritative body in the domain of the judicial and the domain of the Temple and its ritual.

e Court’s Role in Temple Ritual ere are three ways in which Temple ritual narratives establish the authority of the Court to determine Temple ritual practice: by asserting that the court was involved in and had control over the ritual procedure; by recounting sectarian resistance to the correct ritual procedure established by the Court; and by narrating the Court’s changes to ritual procedure when ritual fails. e first way, inserting the Court into the ritual and giving it authority over the procedure, can be seen most clearly in two examples: parts of the Day of Atonement narrative in Mishnah Yoma 1:1–7:4; and parts of the red-heifer narrative in Mishnah Parah 3:1–11. In both these biblically mandated rituals, most of the ritual performance is done by a priest—the high priest in the case of the Day of Atonement narrative, and the “priest who burns the cow” in the red-heifer narrative.6 yet at a certain point in each of the rituals, a group of “elders” (‫)זקנים‬ become involved in the procedure. e Court and its members in these examples seem almost to intrude on the otherwise exclusively priestly affair. According to the narrative in Mishnah Yoma, the Day of Atonement (‫ )יום הכיפורים‬ritual begins “seven days before the Day of Atonement”:

‫שבעת ימים קודם ליום הכיפורים מפרישים כהן גדול מביתו ללישכת‬ ‫פרהדרין‬

Seven days before the Day of Atonement, they separate the high priest from his house [and bring him] to the parhedrin chamber [lishkāh] [in the Temple]. (Yoma 1:1)

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

42

8/17/12

1:07 PM

Page 42

Chapter 2

e first chapter of Mishnah Yoma proceeds to describe what can be called preparations before the Day of Atonement, which take place during this entire week and during the day and night before the Day of Atonement. It is during these weeklong preparations that members of the Court become involved ritually and play an important role:

‫ג’ מסרו לו זקנים מזקני בית דין קורין לפניו בסדר היום ואומרין לו אישי‬ ‫כהן גדול קרא אתה בפיך שמא שכחתה או שמא לא למדתה ערב יום‬ ‫הכיפורים בשחרית מעמידין אתו בשער המזרח ומעבירין לפניו פרים‬ ‫ואלים וכבשים כדי שיהא מכיר ורגיל בעבודה’ ד’ כל שבעת הימים לא היו‬ ‫מונעין ממנו מאכל ומשתה ערב יום הכיפורים עם חשיכה לא היו מניחין‬ ‫אותו לוכל הרבה שהמאכל מביא את השינה ה’ מסרוהו זקני בית דין לזקני‬ ‫כהונה הוליכוהו לעליית בית אבטינס השביעוהו ונפטרו והלכו להן‬ ‫ואומרין לו אישי כהן גדול אנו שלוחי בית דין ואתה שלוחינו ושלוח בית‬ ‫דין משביעין אנו עליך במי ששיכן את שמו בבית הזה שלא תשנה דבר‬ ’‫מכל מה שאמרנו לך הוא פורש ובוכה והם פורשים ובוכים‬

(1:3) ey gave [the high priest] elders from among the elders of the Court. ey read him the order of the day [from the Torah]. And they say to him, “Sir high priest, read with your own mouth [yourself ] in case you forgot or in case you never learned [it]!” On the eve of yom Kippur in the morning, they stand him at the eastern gate and they lead the bulls and rams and sheep before him so that he will be familiar with the service. (1:4) All seven days, they did not used to keep food or drink from him. On the eve of the Day of Atonement from when it became dark, they used to not allow him to eat much, for food leads to sleep. (1:5) e elders of the Court handed him over to the priestly elders and led him to the bēit av.tinās upper chamber and adjured him and took leave, and left. And they say to him, “Sir high priest, we are the emissaries of the Court and you are our emissary and the emissary of the Court. We adjure you by the One who caused his Name to dwell in this house that you not make any changes from what we have told you.” he separates and cries, and they separate and cry. e elders of the court do not appear again during the ritual of the day itself,

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:07 PM

Page 43

Rabbinic Invention

43

yet they are central in the preparations. According to the narrative, their role includes instructing the high priest in the correct procedure and ensuring that he will follow their instructions precisely. As non-priests, the elders of the court are necessarily peripheral to the main ritual, but in their role in the preparatory stages, they appear to be critical to ensuring correct performance. An identical body of elders, this time called “the elders of Israel,” plays a similar role in the red-heifer narrative in Parah. Strikingly, this narrative begins with language nearly identical to that of the Day of Atonement narrative:

‫שבעת ימים קודם לשריפת הפרה מפרישין כהן שורף את הפרה מביתו‬ ‫ללשכה שעל פני הבירה צפונה מזרחה ובית אבן היתה נקראת‬

Seven days before the burning of the heifer, they separate the priest who [will] burn the cow from his house [and bring him] to the chamber [lishkāh] that is facing the northwest of the birāh [the Temple], and it was called bēit ’even [the place of the stone].7 (Parah 3:1) e nearly identical language may suggest that one of the accounts is built upon the other or simply that the two narratives draw from a common pool of formulaic language and ritual elements. Either way, the strikingly similar opening creates a strong resonance between the two narratives. And the red-heifer narrative seems consciously aware of such a resonance when it explicitly mentions the Day of Atonement ritual and compares the ritual sprinklings for the red-heifer preparation with those of “the Day of Atonement” (3:1)—sprinklings not mentioned in the Day of Atonement narrative. The resonance between the two narratives continues in the special role played by the “elders” in the preparatory stages of the ritual.8 In the redheifer narrative, we are told that there was an arched ramp that led from the Temple Mount to the Mount of Olives, where the ritual would be performed (3:6). The cow would be led along this ramp (3:7). But before the heifer is led out to the place where it was to be slaughtered and burned on a pyre, we are told, the elders become involved and perform some unusual ritual actions:

‫ט’ זקני יש’ היו מקדימין ברגליהם להר המשחה ובית טבילה היה‬ ’‫שם ומטמין היו את הכהן השורף את הפרה מפני הצדוקים שלא יהוא או‬

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

44

8/17/12

1:07 PM

Page 44

Chapter 2

‫במעורבי שמש היתה נעשית י’ סמכו ידיהן עליו ואומ’ לו אישי כהן‬ ‫גדול טבול אחת וירד וטבל ועלה ונסתפג‬ (3:7) . . . e elders of Israel9 used to walk to the Mount of Olives before the heifer arrived. And a place of immersion was there. And they would render the priest who burned the heifer impure. [ey did this] on account of the Sadducees—so they would not say that the ritual was performed by one whose purification included waiting until sunset.10 (3:8) ey placed their hands on him and said to him: “Sir high priest, immerse yourself once!” he went down and immersed himself and came up and dried off.

It is unclear why this text uses the biblical expression “elders of Israel,” a phrase not appearing in the biblical red-heifer narrative of Numbers 19. yet the strong parallel with the Day of Atonement narrative, together with other mishnaic uses of the term “elders”—in one instance, “elders of Israel”—to refer to the Great Court suggests that these are the same elders of the Court as in the Day of Atonement narrative.11 And as in the Day of Atonement narrative, these elders play a role in the preparation for the ritual, rather than in the ritual itself. In this case, before the cow is led to the Mount of Olives (‫)הר המשחה‬, court members come to the site and perform the ritual actions of rendering the priest impure and saying a ritual utterance. ough the actions seem strange, they are a form of preparation that again ensures that the ritual is performed correctly—in this case, according to the non-Sadducean view that the priest need not wait until sunset after being purified before performing the ritual. e Court’s role in these two rituals is different from its role in the judicial narratives. ere are no witnesses and there is no courtroom, adjudication, or verdict. here, the Court members play a role in Temple-centered ritual. ough their involvement is ultimately peripheral to the larger ritual performance, their limited role establishes and demonstrates that they have authority over the entire ritual. According to both narratives, the Court is empowered to ensure that the procedure is done correctly or according to the correct view; indeed, in both cases the narrative presumes that the priests are forced to follow the dictates of the Court. Even in the ritual actions taken, the Court’s authority is in evidence. By formulaically ordering the priest, addressing him as “Sir high priest” and ordering him, “Immerse yourself once!” (Parah

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:07 PM

Page 45

Rabbinic Invention

45

3:8) or “read with your own mouth!” (Yoma 1:3), or addressing him in a similar manner and adjuring him to perform the ritual according to what they have told him (Yoma 1:5), Court members establish their authority ritually, as the ones who determine which actions are taken and who can command the priest.12 In addition to their appearance in these two narratives, the Court and its members are found in as many as seven additional Temple-centered narratives. eir role in these additional narratives can be similar to that in Yoma and Parah, with the Court involved in a fully ritual matter, as is the case in the barley ‘ōmer offering narrative in Mena.hot 10:3–5, the sō.tāh (accused adulteress) ordeal narrative in So.tah 1:3–3:4, and perhaps the ritual palm branch narrative in Sukkah 4:4. Or they may have a more hybrid judicial-Temple ritual role, as in the ‘eglāh ‘ărufāh (broken-neck calf ) narrative in So.tah 9:1–9, in which the Court is involved in a ritual associated with priests and the Temple, which still has to do with the absence of justice for the abandoned body found, and in the priest-disqualification trial narrative in Middot 5:4, in which the Court adjudicates about the validity of individual priests in the Temple.13 In Rosh Hashanah 2:5–7 and perhaps Ta‘anit 2:1–5, the court plays a central role in rituals that are at least partially centered on the Temple—the determination and proclamation of the new moon and the fast-day prayers when there is no rain— though the Temple is somewhat peripheral to these rituals, which continue to be performed even after the destruction.14 ese narratives vary in the degree of Court authority they depict; but in sum, they repeatedly portray the Court as involved in and with authority over the performance of ritual associated with the Temple in Temple times.15

Sectarian Resistance and Court Authority A second way in which the Mishnah’s ritual narratives give the Court authority over Temple ritual is by depicting the Court exercising authority against sectarian resistance. As we have seen in the red-heifer narrative, Court members are involved in the preparation for the ritual “because of the Sadducees,” which seems to mean that they ensure that the procedure does not follow the Sadducean view. According to the narrative, members of the Court would intentionally render the priest impure and then ritually order him to immerse

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

46

8/17/12

1:07 PM

Page 46

Chapter 2

himself for purification. With this unusual procedure, it was guaranteed that he did not wait until sunset to become pure before performing the ritual (indeed, he did not wait at all). And because the sectarian-Sadducean view required him to wait until sunset, the procedure ensured that the performance of the ritual did not follow the sectarian view. By describing sectarian resistance and the Court’s role in quashing this resistance, the narrative puts the Court and no one else in the position of authority over the ritual. is particular conflict about the nature of purification for the red-heifer ritual is evidenced in an earlier text, one of the Dead Sea Scrolls known as 4QMMT. is ancient scroll from the time of the Second Temple recounts the same divergence of opinion; but here, it is told from the point of view of the Mishnah’s tsaddu.kin (Sadducees or perhaps Zadokites). According to 4QMMT, the priests involved in the ritual (in contrast to the Mishnah’s single priest) must wait until sunset to become pure in order to perform their tasks.16 for those living during the time of the Temple who produced 4QMMT, this and related conflicts over Temple practice helped define their group identity; but such was not the case for the rabbis of the Mishnah. As Shaye Cohen has argued, there is little evidence of such sectarian struggle during the postdestruction era in which the rabbis lived.17 In the red-heifer narrative, the rabbis recall such conflict not because it continued in their own day but because the memory of past sectarian disputes both created and demonstrated the authority of the Temple-era Court. As Catherine Bell has suggested, rephrasing foucault, resistance itself helps create the power relationship.18 is is especially true in a literary account. e Mishnah’s inclusion of the Sadducean resistance provided the opportunity for its imagined Court to express its power to suppress this resistance. Elsewhere in the genre, sectarians—called tsaddu.kin, bēite˘sin,19 minim (heretics), and perhaps, in one instance, kutim (Samaritans)—are described as resisting in a similar manner on as many as four additional occasions.20 One of these possible occasions is the Day of Atonement narrative. e Mishnah itself never mentions any sectarian conflict about how the Day of Atonement procedure is to be performed, yet the Tosefta and both Talmuds understand that the (potentially) sectarian high priest is forced to follow the dictates of the Court and not his own sectarian views. In each of these instances, sectarian conflict is the platform upon which Court authority over the details of the ritual rests.

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:07 PM

Page 47

Rabbinic Invention

47

e extent to which the Mishnah emphasizes the absolute authority of the Court against sectarian resistance can be seen in the contrast between the Mishnah and Tosefta in the way they imagine sectarians resisting. ree times, the Tosefta imagines a sectarian priest successfully following the sectarian version of Temple practice. On singular occasions, a Boethusian (bēite˘si) or Sadducean (tsaddu.ki) manages to thwart the “correct practice” of the Day of Atonement ritual (Kippurim [= Yoma] 1:8), the red-heifer ritual (Parah 3), and the waterlibation ritual (Sukkah 3:16).21 Two of these times, he dies within a few days, for defying either the sages or Rabban yo.hanan ben Zakkai. e third time, he causes “the entire nation” to pelt him and damage the altar.22 e common consensus of “the entire nation” against the improper water libation and the supernatural punishments for performing the ritual in the sectarian way demonstrate that the sectarian view is incorrect. So, too, the seemingly singular nature of these events limits the extent of Sadducean or Boethusian influence. yet by depicting sectarian priests following sectarian practice, the toseftan version allows that these groups (or this group) may well have had some, or even extensive, control over ritual practice. In the Mishnah, in contrast, sectarians are a threat to correct practice, yet they are never imagined actually having the power to perform the ritual according to their own views. e Tosefta does not mention any Court. In the Mishnah, there is a powerful Court that has fully suppressed the sectarians.23

Ritual failure and the Court’s power to Change Ritual A third way in which the ritual narratives give authority to the Court is by describing the Court making changes in ritual procedure when ritual fails.24 According to the Mishnah, the Court is the body with the authority to make a change in how a ritual is performed every year. e role of the court in changing Temple ritual because of failure can be seen in a small section of the narrative describing the Day of Atonement ritual in the Temple, Yoma 2:1–2:2, a section that focuses on the regular clearing of the altar’s ashes:

‫פרק ב’ בראשונה כל מי שהוא רוצה לתרום את המזבח תורם בזמן שהן‬ ‫מרובין רצין ועולין בכבש וכל הקודם את חבירו לתוך ]ארבע[ אמות זכה‬ ‫אם היו שנים שוין הממונה אומ’ להן הצביעו ומה הן מוציאין אחת או‬

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

48

8/17/12

1:07 PM

Page 48

Chapter 2

‫שתים ואין מוציאין אגודל במקדש ב’ מעשה שהיו שנ]י[ם שווין רצים‬ ‫ועולים בכבש ודחף אחד מהן את חבירו ונשברה רגלו וכשראו בית דין‬ ‫שהן באין לידי סכנה התקינו שלא יהו ]תורמין[ את המזבח אלא בפייס‬ (2:1) At first, whoever wanted to clear the ashes off the altar would clear off the ashes. When there were many interested [priests], they would run and go up the ramp of the altar, and whoever reached within four cubits first, won. If they were tied, the appointed one [me˘muneh] would say to them, “Raise fingers!” [to decide the winner]. And what would they bring out? One or two [fingers], but they do not bring out a thumb in the Temple. (2:2) It once happened that two who were equal were running and going up the altar, and one pushed the other and he broke his leg. And when the Court saw that they had come to danger, they decreed that henceforth they would determine who cleared the ashes by lots.

A useful framework for interpreting this and other accounts of ritual failure in the Temple ritual narratives can be provided by the theoretical study of what Ronald Grimes terms “infelicitous performances” of ritual.25 As Grimes shows, ritual can fail in many different ways, which, in his perspective, means that it can fail to achieve the desired result, ranging from “flaws” or “hitches” in the procedure to “abuses” or “omissions.” More recently, Edward Schieffelin has argued that any account of ritual failure must acknowledge different ways of defining the phenomenon, both among ritualists and among theorists. In Schieffelin’s view, there are two fundamentally different ways ritual is thought to fail: the ritual performance can fail; or the ritual can fail to achieve its desired ends. e latter is a matter of “process” and the former a matter of “outcome.”26 In Yoma 2:2, the ashes-clearing ritual has failed because it devolved into violence. One priest aggressively pushed another and caused an injury simply to win the right to perform the ritual. is suggests that the cause of the failure was a combination of a flaw in the procedure and a natural human tendency toward competition and conflict. e performance of the ritual failed because of the way the ritual was set up as a race and because one person executing the ritual acted inappropriately.27 But this may be a matter of a failed outcome as well. e daily sacrificial rituals, following biblical ideology, were meant to ensure God’s presence and God’s favor, and the Day of Atonement ritual to effect

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 49

Rabbinic Invention

49

purgation or atonement. yet the way violence is pictured suddenly breaking out may suggest that this ritual is also normally meant to contain human conflict (through the ritual process itself ).28 But it did not in this case. As a result of failure of performance and the result of violence (whether or not this was a failure of the desired ends), the Court, according to the narrative, intervened and permanently changed the procedure to stem the violence and the “danger” it posed. A similar process of failure and the very same response can be seen in the example of the ritual for distributing lulāvim (ritual palm branches) in Sukkah 4:4:

‫מצות הלולב כיצד כל העם מוליכין את לולביהם להר הבית והחזנים‬ ‫מקבלים מידם וסודרין על גג האיסטווה והזקנים מניחין את שלהן בלשכה‬ ‫ומלמדין אותם לומר כל מי שהגיע לולבי בידו הרי הוא לו מתנה למחרת‬ ‫משכימים ובאין והחזנים מזרקין לפניהם והן מחטפין ומכין איש את‬ ‫חבירו וכשראו בית דין שהן באין לידי סכנה התקינו שיהא כל אחד‬ ‫ואחד נוטל בביתו‬

e ritual of the lulāv [palm branch], how so?29 e entire nation brings their lulāvim to the Temple Mount [on the day before the festival that coincided with the Sabbath]. And the superintendents used to receive [the lulāvim] and arrange them on the roof of the stoa. And the elders leave their [lulāvim] in the chamber [of hewn stone]. And they teach [the people] to say, “Whoever gets my lulāv, it is a gift for him.” e next morning, they would arise early and come [to the Temple] and the superintendents throw [the lulāvim] to them, and they grab and hit one another. And when the bēit din [Court] saw that they had come to danger, they decreed that henceforth each person shall ritually take the lulāv at home. In this example, there is an apparent flaw in the procedure, which, because the people have a strong desire to get their own lulāv back, allows and even seems to encourage them to grab and beat one another up in attempt to get the one they want. here, the violence and the danger it poses are prevented by the change that the Court makes to the procedure. e change corrects the apparent flaw and ensures that the natural competitiveness that leads to violence will be kept in check.

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

50

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 50

Chapter 2

e question for my study of why ritual has failed in these mishnaic narratives is not a matter of social dynamics and ritual dynamics, as it would be for a cultural anthropologist or ritual theorist. e questions are not: how do the rituals function? What do the rituals do? Rather, because Temple ritual narratives are rabbinic representations of Temple ritual, the question of why ritual failed is more a matter of how and why the mishnaic authors claimed that Temple ritual failed. As Grimes points out in his analysis of infelicitous ritual performance, ritual failure is a matter of judgment. for him, this is a theoretical problem. yet for the study of a text as discourse, this is precisely what is of interest: Why do the rabbinic authors of these narratives engage in what Grimes terms “ritual criticism,” or judging the rite and its effectiveness?30 Most fundamentally, as I have suggested, the rabbis’ portrayal of ritual failure asserts the authority of the Court to fix the ritual. e details of the ritual failure as narrated suggest certain nuances in the authority being claimed here. In imagining the court responding to the ritual failures and thus correcting the flaws, preventing improper actions by the ritualists, and ensuring that competitiveness and violence are contained, the narratives suggest that the Court had the authority to determine the details of the ritual procedure, to control the ritual actors, and to ensure harmony among the people of Israel.31 e Court, in this memory of the past, played an important role in the functioning of the Temple and, by extension, Israelite society. e distance from which the Court makes these changes to ritual procedure, its absence from the performance itself, points to the nature of the ritual authority that the narratives give them.32 is particular expression of authority seems to derive from the Court’s expertise on Jewish ritual and law as well as from a power to legislate or, more precisely, to determine what the law is.

Comparative Evidence for the Court of Temple Times: A Rabbinic Invention e elders and the Court who play such an important role in Temple ritual narratives do appear in earlier Jewish literature. e hebrew Bible and the Septuagint frequently mention elders (‫[ זקנים‬ze˘kēnim] in hebrew; presbyteroi, in Greek). In the Septuagint, the term gerousia, council, is frequently used where

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 51

Rabbinic Invention

51

the hebrew reads “elders,” suggesting a relationship between the two. postbiblical texts, especially the works of Josephus and the Gospels and Acts, refer to both elders and councils, namely local political, legislative, or judicial bodies in Judaea in late Second Temple times, which are called synedrion, gerousia, boulē, or other Greek terms.33 ese earlier references to councils include the infamous synedrion (council) that tried and convicted Jesus. Traditional scholarship has generally assumed that the Mishnah’s Court and these councils are identical for a number of reasons. first, the Mishnah uses the Greek term sanhedrin to refer to the Court in a few instances. Similarly, both the Court and the councils appear to have some power to mete out capital punishment. And each institution appears to have a central role in Judaean society.34 If we assume that the institution of the Court is the same as those appearing in earlier literature, or, more likely, that the rabbinic Great Court/Sanhedrin of the Mishnah is based (loosely) on the institution of the local council that existed in the past and is mentioned in earlier, pre-rabbinic, literature,35 we can compare the Mishnah and the earlier sources. Such a comparison reveals unequivocally that the Mishnah is unique in giving the Court (or similar institution) a role in and authority over Temple ritual.36 According to the pre-rabbinic sources, the earlier institutions were not involved in, and did not have authority over, ritual in the Temple.37 Earlier scholarship on the Great Court or Sanhedrin already noticed this difference between the nature of this institution in the Mishnah and in the earlier literature, particularly the Gospels and Acts and the works of Josephus. Solomon Zeitlin, for instance, proposed that there were two different “Sanhedrins”: a political “Synedrion,” evidenced in the works of Josephus and the New Testament, which tried capital political cases; and a religious “Sanhedrin,” evidenced in rabbinic literature, which tried capital religious cases.38 Adolf Büchler had already taken a similar position, arguing that there were two Sanhedrins: the one of rabbinic literature, which was a religious court dealing with religious law; and the one of Josephus and the Gospels, which was the highest political court dealing with criminal cases.39 ese earlier scholars treated all the sources as repositories of objective historical facts about these institutions and attempted to harmonize them. perhaps a better approach, as espoused nearly two decades ago by David Goodblatt, is to explain the Mishnah’s Great Court as a rabbinic idealization of the earlier institution.40 us those who composed, edited, and transmitted the Mishnah

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

52

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 52

Chapter 2

characteristically remember the historical institution of the “council” as a fixed judicial body located in the Temple and with authority over Temple ritual.41 In reality, or at least in the written representations of earlier sources, such an institution was not involved in, and did not have authority over, ritual in the Temple. A single exception in the earlier Jewish sources is found in the works of Josephus in a passage in which a synedrion is involved in changing Temple ritual. is passage emphatically demonstrates that the synedrion was not ordinarily involved in such matters. In Antiquities 20:216–18, Josephus recounts an incident regarding King Agrippa, who was persuaded by the Levites to convene a synedrion, a council, to allow him to grant them “permission to wear linen robes on equal terms with the priests.”42 is council—possibly similar to the Mishnah’s Court—is involved in making a change to ritual practice in the Temple. But in this case, it is not the ultimate authority because the king is the one who actually makes the change. furthermore, in Josephus’s view, the change to Temple practice here is exceptional because it violates “the traditional laws.” presumably, the authority to interpret these traditional laws, in Josephus’s view, properly lies with those he calls elsewhere “priestly experts on the traditions.”43 As Ellis Rivkin argues, Josephus treats this change as a political incursion into the realm of ritual, usually controlled fully by the priests.44 e Mishnah’s frequent insertion of the Court into this role makes it seem natural that the Court controls ritual; but why should a court and its members play such a role? is role should be—and it seems was in fact—reserved for priests.45

e Court and Its Members as Rabbinic predecessors part of the reason that the mishnaic rabbis gave the Court and its members such an important role is that they understood them to be their Temple-era predecessors who transmitted to them authority over Judaean law and tradition. Two sets of evidence scattered throughout the Mishnah establish that the rabbis saw the relationship in this way. e first are the chain-of-transmission narratives that link rabbis to figures in the past through a chain of transmission; the second are the reports of ta.kk. ānōt, emendations or enactments made by rabbis and earlier legal authorities.46

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 53

Rabbinic Invention

53

Chain-of-transmission narratives describe a series of transmissions from person to person or group to group whereby tradition in general, a tradition about a particular law, or authority travels through time from Moses at Sinai to an early rabbi or early rabbis. Some of these texts, particularly the first chapters of ’Avot, have been treated in detail in recent scholarly works.47 yet previous scholarship has failed to notice the prominence of the Court and its members as rabbinic predecessors.48 e identification of the rabbinic predecessors as Court members occurs in three of the Mishnah’s five chain-of-transmission narratives. In two of the narratives, Mishnah ’Avot 1–2 and Pe’ah 2:6, a generic set of “pairs” (Pe’ah 2:6) or a detailed list of pairs of individuals—from yose son of yoezer man of Tseredah and yose son of yohanan . man of Jerusalem (’Avot 1:4) to hillel and Shammai (’Avot 1:12–1:15; and see 2:8)—precede the rabbis in the chain. Elsewhere in the Mishnah, in Hagigah . 2:2, these pairs are referred to as ne˘śi’im (plural of naśi) and ’ăvōt bēit din (chiefs of the Court).49 ough significant evidence, largely circumstantial, has been marshaled to claim that naśi in the context of the chain means “patriarch,” a leadership position attested in Christian and Roman sources,50 its simple meaning in the Mishnah is “leader of the Court.”51 Certainly, ’av bēit din refers to a position of Court leadership. While the single example of Mishnah Hagigah . 2:2 does not prove that the pairs are considered court leaders in Mishnah ’Avot and Pe’ah 2:6, several additional examples throughout the Mishnah, as well as in the Tosefta, treat individual members of the pairs as leaders of the Court. In Tosefta Pis.ha (Pesa.him) 4:14, hillel is said to have been appointed naśi. further, some earlier individual members of the pairs are said to have performed functions normally associated with the Court or the Great Court (or, Sanhedrin). Shimon ben Shetah, . a member of the pairs (Mishnah ’Avot 1:8), is said to have meted out the death penalty (Mishnah Sanhedrin 6:4) and to have threatened to excommunicate honi . the circle drawer (Mishnah Ta‘anit 3:8), a power attributed to the Court in Mishnah ‘Eduyyot 5:6. Similarly, Shemaiah and ’Avtalyon (Mishnah ’Avot 1:10–11) are said to have enacted the sō.tāh (accused adulteress) ordeal ritual in Mishnah ‘Eduyyot 5:6, also a role given, at least partially, to the Court in So.tah. us in multiple instances throughout the Mishnah, there is an assumption that the pairs who precede the rabbis in the two chain-of-transmission narratives are members or leaders of the Second Temple–era Court.52

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

54

1:08 PM

Page 54

Chapter 2

In addition to these two chain-of-transmission narratives that refer to “the pairs,” there is a third example, which has not previously been included in consideration of this mini-genre. In Mishnah Rosh Hashanah 2:9, a statement is made that connects Rabban Gamliel (and his bēit din) in yavneh back to Moses through a series of courts (‫כל בית דין ובית דין‬, every single court) that span history “from the days of Moses until now (the time of Rabban Gamliel).”53 In this case, the entire chain is imagined to be composed of courts linked in time from the biblical era to the earliest rabbi in the post-destruction era.54 Taking the various chain-of-transmission narratives as variants of the same motif expressed differently in different contexts, there appears to be a recurrent assumption evidenced by this motif that the Court and its members preceded individual rabbis—and ultimately, all rabbis—in a chain of transmission going back to Moses. It is worth emphasizing that those who precede the rabbis are constructed as Court members and not pharisees, as is typically assumed. As Shaye Cohen has demonstrated for rabbinic literature in general, “at no point in antiquity did the rabbis see themselves clearly as pharisees or as the descendants of the pharisees.”55 e second body of evidence that demonstrates that the rabbis are seen as heirs of the Court consists of reports scattered throughout the Mishnah of ta.kk. anot, or emendations made to particular laws.56 In total, nineteen pericopae describe an emendation to a law using the formulaic word hit.kin (‫התקין‬, “he emended”) or hit.kinu (‫התקינו‬, “they emended”). ey are attributed as follows (listing the number of pericopae;57 arranged chronologically):58 Anonymous The early prophets Bēit din (Court of Temple times) hillel the elder Rabban Gamliel the elder Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel . ben Zakkai Rabban yohanan

7 1 3 3 1 1 3

e toseftan examples that expand the Mishnah’s list can be summarized similarly:59 Shimon ben Shetah. Rabban Gamliel

1 3

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 55

Rabbinic Invention

Rabbi (yehudah the Naśi) “Our rabbis” (The sages)

55

1 1 (1)

What is significant about these lists of those who have made emendations to Jewish law is that all appear in the rabbinic chain of transmission.60 parallel to the chain-of-transmission narratives, the reports of ta.kk. ānōt assume that there exists a continuity between biblical institutions, the Court of Temple times, and the earliest rabbis. In the Tosefta, this extends further to Rabbi yehudah the Naśi and to the rabbis in general. According to the evidence of these two recurrent mishnaic motifs, the Court of Second Temple times and its members are seen as the rabbis’ predecessors. e rabbis are distinct from the Court, as evidenced by the consistent lack of the title “rabbi” in the Mishnah for these predecessors; yet the act of transmission provides continuity between the two.61 furthermore, the chain of transmission provides a history and account of origins of Jewish law that establishes the legal authority of the rabbis.

Rabbinic Memory: past and present Legal Institutions in the Mishnah and the Argument for Rabbinic Authority e authoritative role in Temple ritual that the mishnaic rabbis repeatedly imagine for the Court, as well as the relationship they claim to this Court, can best be explained in light of the role that the rabbis claim for themselves in their own time. As I have shown in the previous chapter, the rabbis picture themselves as legal authorities, jurists of traditional Judaean law, who have the power to determine how Judaeans practice traditional rituals and other cultural practices. Because they claim for themselves a legal role that provides authority over ritual practice, the rabbis imagine the ritual of the past to be controlled by a similar legal institution, and they invent a connection or possibly emphasize an existing connection to this past institution. perhaps drawing loosely on earlier traditions about a council made up of elders, the rabbis create a past that mirrors the present as they would like it to be. ey turn this council into a legal body, a Court, to which they give control over the most important rituals of the Temple era. e Court’s invented hybrid legal-ritual role

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

56

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 56

Chapter 2

reflects the hybrid legal-ritual role that the rabbis claim for themselves. Because they see the Court as their predecessors, their memory of an authoritative Court provides a historical foundation out of which the rabbis and their role emerge. e memory of the Temple expressed in ritual narratives thus creates a myth of origins for the rabbinic group and their legal-ritual role that makes a powerful claim for rabbinic authority in this role. In narrating and recalling past Temple ritual, the rabbis are therefore creating a past for themselves that authorizes their own real or desired role—a role, they believe, that has always been central and has upheld tradition and correct ritual practice.62 e rabbinic memory of the past provides the rabbinic role with antiquity and establishes that those who have filled this role have always had authority. In the rabbinic view evidenced by the Mishnah, ritual law and practice in post-Temple times must follow rabbinic rulings just as ritual law and practice followed the dictates of their predecessors in the times of the Temple.63

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 57

Chapter 3

Narrative form and Rabbinic Authority

A second way in which the Mishnah’s accounts of past ritual argue for rabbinic authority is by means of narration. e narrative medium itself, I suggest, supports a claim for rabbinic authority by affirming in multiple ways the rabbis’ version of the Temple ritual of the past and by asserting rabbinic control over the very telling of how rituals were done in the past in the Temple. A number of key components of the narration, including the way these narratives are presented as events that actually happened, the narratives’ verisimilitude, their iterativity, the coherence of their “plot,” and even the way in which rabbinic opinions seem frequently to intrude on the telling of the narrative all help establish the truth and authenticity of the rabbinic version of how things were done in the past. ey validate rabbinic memory, which in turn argues for rabbinic authority. And they help assert that the rabbinic version of the Judaean ritual system as a whole is the correct one. In narrating how Temple rituals used to be performed rather than just prescribing how they ought to be done, the rabbis of the Mishnah are subtly laying claim to the Temple not only in content but also in form.

Narrative features of Temple Ritual Narratives: Claims of the Real In the Introduction to this book, I argued that Temple ritual narratives should be given the label “narrative” because they make use of a number of features typical of different kinds of narratives. ey are representations of a sequential, chronologically unfolding series of events with a beginning, middle, and end. Moreover, they purport to describe events that actually happened regularly and repeatedly in the past. e narrative rubric is useful because it points to the ways in which a unique combination of narrative features links the Temple rit-

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

58

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 58

Chapter 3

ual narratives together into a genre. In this chapter, I contend that beyond establishing a connection between the various Temple ritual narratives and delineating them from other types of passages in the Mishnah, each unique narrative feature adds—on a structural level—to the rabbis’ claims for authenticity and authority. e concept of narrative and the theoretical scholarship behind it thus prove useful for highlighting the consequences of the rabbis choosing to recount how Temple rituals were performed in the past. perhaps the most fundamental aspect of the way Temple ritual narratives are told is their claim to tell what actually happened in the past. If the narratives’ audience believes such claims, this is perhaps the most effective way to prove the truth of rabbinic memory and authority—simply by asserting it. e mishnaic accounts show that the rabbinic predecessors were in control of Temple rituals, which were performed precisely as the rabbis say that they should have been. is, in turn, lends authority to the rabbis and their version of the traditional way of life, even outside the Temple.1 Other aspects of the way Temple rituals are narrated help support the assertion that the rituals were performed this way. One is the accounts’ verisimilitude: the way they appear to be real. e example of the “celebration of the water-drawing place” (‫שמחת בית השואבה‬, sim.hat bēit hashō’ăvāh) narrative in Mishnah Sukkah 5:1–4 illustrates this point:

‫ אמרו ]כל[ מי שלא ראה שמחת בית השואבה לא ראה שמחה‬. . . ’‫פרק ה‬ ‫מימיו‬

‫ב’ מוצאי יום טוב הראשון שלחג היו יורדין לעזרת הנשים ומתקנין שם‬ ‫תיקון גדול ומנורות שלזהב היו שם וספלים שלזהב בראשיהם וארבעה‬ ‫סולמות על כל מנורה ומנורה וארבעה ילדים מפירחי כהונה ובידיהן כדי‬ :‫שמן שלמאה ועשרים לוג והן מטילין ]לתוך[ לכל ספל וספל‬

‫ג’ מבלאי מכנסי ]ה[כהנים ומהמייניהם היו מפקיעין ובהן היו מדליקין‬ ’‫לא היתה חצר בירושלם שלא היתה מאירה מאור בית השואבה‬

‫ד’ החסידים ואנשי המעשה היו מרקדים לפניהם באבוקות ואומרים לפניהם‬ ‫דברי תושבחות והלוים בכינורות ובנבלים ובמצלתים ובכל כלי שיר בלא‬ ‫מספר על חמש עשרה מעלות היורדות מעזרת ישראל לעזרת נשים כנגד‬ ’‫חמש עשרה שיר המעלות שבתילים שעליהם הלוים עומדים בשיר‬

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 59

Narrative form

59

‫ה’ עמדו שני כהנים בשער העליון היורד מעזרת ישראל לעזרת הנשים‬ ‫ושני חצוצרות בידם קרא הגבר תקעו והריעו ותקעו הגיעו למעלה עשירית‬ ‫תקעו והריעו ותקעו הגיעו לעזרה תקעו והריעו ותקעו היו תוקעים והולכים‬ ‫עד שמגיעים לשער היוצא למזרח הגיעו לשער היוצא למזרח והפכו‬ ‫פניהם למערב ואמרו אבותינו היו במקום הזה אחוריהם אל היכל ייי‬ ’‫ופניהם קדמה והמה משתחוים קדמ’ לשמ’ ואנו ליה עינינו ר’ יהודה או‬ ’‫שונין אותו לומר אנו ליה וליה עינינו‬ (5:1) ey said: Whoever did not see the celebration [lit., joy] of the place of water drawing did not see [true] celebration [lit., joy] in all of his days. (5:2) At the conclusion of the first day of the holiday [Sukkot], they used to go down to the “women’s courtyard” [the main courtyard of the Temple] and engage in a great preparation.2 And there were golden lamps there with golden bowls at their tops. And on each lamp were four ladders. And [there were] four young priests holding 120-lōg jugs of oil. And they pour [the oil] into each bowl. (5:3) ey used to cut the [fabric of the] priests’ worn-out underpants and belts into strips [to make wicks], and they used to light them. ere was not a courtyard in Jerusalem that was not illuminated by the light of the “place of water drawing.” (5:4)3 e pious [hasidim] and the men of deeds used to dance before them with torches and sing songs of praise before them. And the Levites [played] on lyres, harps, cymbals, and instruments that cannot be counted4 on the fifteen steps leading down from the “courtyard of Israel” to the “women’s courtyard”—corresponding to the fifteen “songs of ascent” in psalms—upon which the Levites [normally] stand in song. Two priests stood at the upper gate that leads down from the “courtyard of Israel” to the “women’s courtyard” holding two trumpets. When the cock crowed, they blew a te.ki‘āh blast, a teru‘āh blast, and a te.ki‘āh blast. When they reached the tenth step [of the fifteen], they blew a te.ki‘āh blast, a teru‘āh blast, and a te.ki‘āh blast. When they reached the Temple courtyard [equivalent to the women’s courtyard], they blew a te.ki‘āh blast, a teru‘āh blast, and a te.ki‘āh blast. ey used to continue blasting the trumpet until they reached the gate that leads out

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

60

1:08 PM

Page 60

Chapter 3

to the east. And [when they reached this gate,] they turned to the west and said, “Our fathers were in this place with their rears toward the palace of the Lord and their faces toward the east and they were bowing eastward to the sun.”5 But we—our eyes are toward the Lord. Rabbi yehudah says: ey repeat [the Name of God], saying, “We are to the Lord, and to the Lord are our eyes.” is account makes the events of Temple ritual verisimilar in two main ways. e first is by describing relatively small and mundane details: lamps, bowls, ladders, young priests, and jugs of oil (5:2); underpants, belts, and courtyards (5:3); and torches, musical instruments, steps, trumpet blasts, and bows (5:4). ese are the small details that matter in ritual performance, thus making the account seem realistic. e second way the account is made to seem real is with the description of highly sensory experiences. us there are golden bowls and lamps (5:2–3), torches, dancing, numerous instruments, and a procession (5:4), all to be seen; and singing, instrument playing, trumpet blowing, and ritual utterances (5:4), all to be heard. ese details help the reader or listener imagine the scene and thus make the events seem real.6 By making the events described seem particularly real to the reader, the narrative form rhetorically underscores the factuality of these events and thus further militates on behalf of the rabbinic legal system presumed in the narratives.7 e approach taken by a number of well-known scholars of rabbinics in previous centuries demonstrates the effectiveness of these methods of description at making the account seem real and factual. David Zvi hoffmann (end of the nineteenth century), Louis Ginzberg (beginning of the twentieth century), and J. N. Epstein (mid-twentieth century) argued—partly based on these features and on the narratives’ claim that these events actually happened—that this and other Temple ritual narratives must be “passage[s] from the time of the Temple,” “parts of older Mishnah-collections,” and “remnants of early Mishnahs from the time of the Temple.”8

Iterative Narrative A third fundamental feature of the way the Temple ritual narratives recount how Temple rituals used to be performed is their iterativity, the way they con-

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 61

Narrative form

61

vey that the described events happened regularly and repeatedly in the past. e dynamics of conveying iterativity turn out to be more complex than it may seem, and there are multiple ways in which the nuances of establishing iterativity help consolidate the truth claims of the narrative. A particularly helpful way into the relevant theoretical considerations is the work of the narratologist (narrative theorist) Gérard Genette. Genette’s analysis of the workings of iterativity help show how the Temple ritual narratives establish iterativity and how the dynamics of iterativity subtly affirm that rituals were, in fact, performed as described. Iterative narrative, as Genette explains, is a single telling of events that happened over and over again:9 “Of course, strictly speaking the identity of these multiple occurrences is debatable: ‘the sun’ that ‘rises’ every morning is not exactly the same from one day to another—any more than the ‘8:25 p.M. Geneva-to-paris’ train, dear to ferdinand de Saussure, is made up each evening of the same cars hooked to the same locomotive. e ‘repetition’ is in fact a mental construction, which eliminates from each occurrence everything belonging to it that is peculiar to itself, in order to preserve only what it shares with all others of the same class, which is an abstraction: ‘the sun,’ ‘the morning,’ ‘to rise.’”10 Iterative narrative, in other words, synthesizes multiple unique occurrences into a single telling to highlight their similarity, their regularity, and their repetition. Outside of the Mishnah, iterative narration most frequently provides background for the one-time happenings that are the focus of the story. e way Cinderella is normally forced to clean or normally abused by her stepfamily, for instance, may provide the backdrop for the unique events of the story.11 yet, as Genette shows, iterative narrative can be an important form of narration in its own right. In his parade example, proust’s In Search of Lost Time, the recurring events of different periods of the protagonist’s life form the core of the story.12 Temple ritual narratives surely differ from folktales such as the Cinderella story and novels such as In Search of Lost Time, yet there are important similarities in the way they convey iterativity. In the “celebration of the water-drawing place” narrative quoted earlier in this chapter, the unique events of each year are combined into a single synthetic account of how the ritual used to be done. Similar to its non-mishnaic counterparts, the water-drawing-place narrative communicates that these are the events of multiple years by using the iterative past tense—“used to go down” (5:2), “used to cut” (5:3), “used to light” (5:3),

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

62

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 62

Chapter 3

“used to dance” (5:4)—and by combining this tense with the perfect (which conveys the past tense) and the participle (which may be a contraction of the iterative past; although as indicated in the Introduction to this volume, it may also function as present tense, adding immanence, or it may have a modal, and thus legal, aspect).13 Genette’s analysis of this type of narration in general highlights the consequences of using iterative narrative in our mishnaic example. By describing the festival of the water-drawing place in this way, the passage asserts the similarity between each iteration of the ritual performance and the ritual’s regular recurrence. is inherent feature of iterative narration further supports the truth claims of the narrative. e implication that these events were performed this way every year for many years buttresses the notion that the events really did happen exactly as the rabbis are describing them. further, the implication that this Temple ritual was always performed in precisely this way, with no variation, makes it seem that this is the correct way that the ritual should be performed. In other Temple ritual narratives, there are additional techniques for conveying that what is being described are the events of multiple years that were repeatedly regularly, each adding nuance to the ways in which iterative narration furthers the passages’ truth claims. ese additional techniques actually introduce year-to-year variation in the recurring events, yet, perhaps surprisingly, introducing variety tends to reinforce the regularity with which the rituals were repeated and the overall invariance of the ritual procedure. One such technique is what Genette describes as “subdividing the recurrence to get two variants in a . . . relationship of alternation.”14 for example, in the middle of the Day of Atonement narrative, in Yoma 4:1, there is a description of two possible outcomes of the lot for the two goats:

‫טרף בקלפי והעלה שני גורלות אחד כתוב עליו לשם ואחד כתוב עליו‬ ‫לעזאזל אם שלשם עלה בימינו הסגן אומר לו אישי כהן גדול הגבה‬ ‫את ימינך ואם בשמאלו עלה ראש בית אב או’ לו אישי כהן גדול הגבה‬ ‫את שמאלך‬

[e high priest] knocked over the urn for drawing lots, and lifted up the two lots—on one of which was written “for God” [lit., “for the name”] and on the other of which was written “for Azazel.” If the one

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 63

Narrative form

63

for God came up into his right hand, the second priest says to him, “Sir high priest, raise your right hand.” And if it came up into his left hand, the head of the clan says to him, “Sir high priest, raise your left hand.” According to this paragraph, the drawing of lots for the scapegoat and the goat for God did not occur in precisely the same way every year. In some years— half of the time, as would be expected by probability—the lot “for God” would fall into the high priest’s right hand; and in others, it would fall into his left. Because of this variation, a different functionary would instruct him to raise the respective hand each time. By describing different possible outcomes in different years, the narrative makes explicit that it describes the events not of a single year but of multiple years. ough the variation demonstrates that the ritual was not exactly the same every year, the limited nature of the variation (merely between the lot falling into the left or right hand, and thus one or the other official giving the instruction to raise the hand) implies that the rest of the ritual was identical and that there was no further variation beyond the small difference. Each of the two possibilities, moreover, was repeated regularly, and this was built in to the design of the ritual.15 Minor variation helps establish that the ritual was repeated every year in exactly the same way, precisely as recounted in the Mishnah. Other key features of iterative narration may add further to the rhetorical force of the Mishnah’s iterative narration. According to Genette, three fundamental variables must be established in iterative narration: the frequency with which the events were repeated; the diachronic limits of each individual unit in the series, namely, the beginning and endpoint for the synthetic telling; and the diachronic limits, or the span, of the entire repeated series—when the events began to be repeated and when they ceased.16 In the water-drawingplace narrative in Sukkah 5:1–4, the frequency, obvious from context, is every year on the festival of Sukkot.17 e time span for each unique instance of the ritual performance—more precisely, of the synthetic retelling—begins with the preparations after the first “festival day” (after the first day of Sukkot) and continues through the performances and the procession until the people bow as they are about to exit the Temple. ese first two features of iterative narration are important for the dynamics of the narrative, yet they do not especially add to the truth claims of the narrative. e third feature, in contrast, adds sig-

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

64

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 64

Chapter 3

nificantly to supporting the veracity of the rabbinic account and the rabbinic version of the rituals. e span of time over which the yearly ritual repeats is not specified explicitly in the water-drawing-place narrative. ere is, however, a small hint about the origins of the ritual. e instruments played by the Levites—the “lyres, harps, cymbals, [and] trumpets” (Sukkah 5:4)—are the same ones mentioned in 1 Chron. 13:8 at the celebration of returning the ark to Jerusalem shortly before the building of the first Temple, and three or four of these instruments on the Mishnah’s list appear repeatedly with reference to the first Temple throughout 1 and 2 Chronicles. is allusion to the very beginning of the first Temple period in the biblical era may remind the reader or listener that the ritual—like all Temple rituals—goes back many centuries to the time of the first Temple. And the rituals continued until the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE, though this is rarely mentioned, appearing explicitly only at the end of the ‘ōmer barley-offering narrative in Mishnah Mena.hot 10:3–5.18 Even without explicit mention of when the ritual ceased, the narrative implies that it was performed for a very long time. According to the water-drawingplace narrative, therefore, this Temple ritual was done in precisely this way for a very long time. roughout the Temple ritual narrative genre, there are a handful of additional ways in which the lengthy span of time over which the rituals were performed is indicated. Sometimes, the narrative uses an adverbial phrase. Most typically, the phrases used in the Mishnah are “in all his days” (‫מימיו‬, miyyāmāv) and “in all their days” (‫מימיהם‬, miymēihem), which refer to all the days, and thus all the years, in which the priest or priests performed the ritual.19 In Mishnah Tamid 2:2, for instance, we are told: “In all his days, the priest was never lazy in clearing the ashes [from the altar].” is phrase conveys that performance of the ritual, done in a particularly meticulous manner, goes back well into the hoary past. A further important way in which the long duration of the ritual performance is indicated in Temple ritual narratives is by breaking the span into two parts. Temple ritual apparently changed on occasion, as we have seen in the examples where ritual failed and the Court had to step in to make a change. In the example of the ritual for determining who clears the ashes described in Yoma 2:1–2, the procedure was done in one way until the change was made and

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 65

Narrative form

65

in another way after the change was made. In the case of the first-fruits ritual (see the Introduction to this volume), until it was “decreed/established that they would recite the words aloud for the one bringing the fruit to repeat,” the ritual was done in one way; after the decree, it was done in another way (Mishnah Bikkurim 3:7). e narration of a change in ritual practice establishes the long duration over which the larger ritual was performed by breaking that period into two parts.20 All the ways in which the narratives establish the time span over which the ritual was repeated show how the iterative form itself confirms the rabbinic memory of the past. e insistence on the antiquity of the practices and the affirmation that they were not one-time occurrences but events that happened exactly this way over a very long time support the implicit claim that the events happened as narrated. And they back the assertion that this way is the correct way; after all, the rituals have been performed in precisely this way for a long time, as far back as the biblical period.

Beginning, Middle, and End: plot Coherence and Correct Ritual performance A fourth typical narrative characteristic of the Temple ritual narratives that tends to support rabbinic authority claims, not by underscoring the veracity of the events described but by rhetorically affirming the truth of the rabbinic version of the procedures, is the structuring of the sequence of events described into a coherent whole with a beginning, middle, and end. As hayden White has argued, choices made in how to structure plots are not neutral but tend to give meaning and coherence to the events that make up the plot.21 e reason for this is that the author chooses where to begin and end and what events to include. As many theorists have argued, the sense of closure that is frequently created at the end helps determine the significance of events throughout the narrative and the meaning of the narrative as a whole.22 While ritual narratives may seem to describe a timeless, ceaseless series of actions that take place day after day, season after season, and year after year in the Temple, they, too, have beginnings, middles, and ends, and the overall shape of the “plot” of what I call the “synthetic telling” gives the narrative

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

66

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 66

Chapter 3

meaning. e meaning of the plot’s coherence in Temple ritual narratives, I suggest, is the fundamental notion that the ritual must be and has always been done in precisely the correct fashion. e best illustration of this is the lengthy Day of Atonement narrative, parts of which I have discussed earlier. e Day of Atonement ritual encompasses a number of overlapping sub-rituals, including preparations, the morning incense, confessions over several animals, lots to determine the fate of the two goats, the slaughtering of the sacrifices, the sprinkling of sacrificial blood, the offering of sacrificial parts, the reading from the Torah, the offering of the daily sacrifices, and, throughout the day, a number of immersions in water and changes of clothing. All these various parts of the ritual are bookended in the narrative by an anonymous group taking the high priest from his home (‫ )ביתו‬to the Temple to prepare at the very beginning of the narrative (especially 1:1) and by a similar anonymous group that “accompanies him to his home” (‫)ביתו‬, where “he used to make a festival [‫ ]יום טוב‬for all his close friends [‫[ ]אוהביו‬to celebrate] that he exited in peace [‫[ ]שיצא בשלום‬from the holy of holies without dying].”23 e narrative, therefore, beginning with the first preparatory actions and finishing with the final post-performance events, is about a complete ritual performance. e sense of closure given by the end of the narrative is stressed both on the linguistic level, by the repetition of the term “his home,” and, within the action, by the reversion of the accompanied exit and the return home, which mirrors his accompanied departure. e significance of the plot’s trajectory is embedded in the beginning and the ending. e end emphasizes the successful completion of the ritual, described as “exiting in peace” and the celebration of this success. Similarly, at the beginning, the preparations made for the big day point toward the same purpose. ese preparations are necessary to ensure that the performance is done in a particular way, to ensure that the high priest “not make any changes” (1:5) from what he has been told to do. e whole plot, the series of ritual actions that take place in the Temple, is leading toward ritual success. Ritual success, which is ensured by performing the ritual correctly, is the telos, the end or purpose, of the narrative to which all events must ultimately lead. Within the Day of Atonement narrative, this very stress on correct performance is made explicit:

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 67

Narrative form

67

‫כל מעשה יום הכיפורים האמור על הסדר הקדים מעשה לחבירו לא עשה‬ ‫כלום‬ for the entire procedure of the Day of Atonement [or: for each ritual action of the Day of Atonement] given in sequence, if he performed one action before another, it is as if he has done nothing. (Yoma 5:7; 5:9 in MSS parma and Kaufmann) Any action out of sequence renders that action—and perhaps even the entire sequence—worthless and meaningless; it is a ritual failure.24 e rabbinic authors’ emphasis on the details of the performance presumably stems from their interest in correct procedure. is is precisely what is conveyed explicitly. What is conveyed implicitly is that the mishnaic rabbis are the ones determining the correct performance. e shape of the plot, particularly the choices made in how the plot begins and ends, subtly reinforces the explicit notion that the ritual must be performed correctly and affirms that the correct performance, and thus the success of the ritual, depends entirely on the rabbinic view of how the rituals were done and how they must be done. Other Temple ritual narratives do not have the same literary elegance as the Day of Atonement narrative, with an ending that recapitulates the beginning. yet the importance and coherence of the plot seems to be the same. e actions that constitute the first-fruits ritual and the water-drawing-place ritual, to take two examples already quoted in full, as well as most other rituals, lead toward the successful conclusion of the ritual.25 In the first-fruits narrative, the gathering together of the people of a district, their journey toward the Temple, their preparing the baskets, their giving the fruits to the priest, and reciting the verses lead toward the successful completion of the ritual, which culminates with a bow and departure from the Temple (Bikkurim 3:6); in the water-drawingplace narrative, the preparations of giant lamps, the dancing and playing of music, and the procession accompanied by trumpet blasts also lead to the successful conclusion of the ritual (or part of a larger ritual process) with a bow and a reaching of the exit leading to the East (5:4). e coherence and purpose of the “plots” and of the rituals related by the plots seem to lie in correct performance. e implicit message of the narratives is that the correct procedure is the one transmitted and determined by the rabbis.

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

68

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 68

Chapter 3

Rabbinic Interventions and Narrational Control e final aspect of the narrative form I would like to consider is not a typical feature of narrative in general but is a key formal feature of Temple ritual narration: the occasional or sometimes frequent interjections of rabbinic opinions—what can be called “rabbinic interventions” in the narrative. In the middle of the narrative, a rabbi or group of rabbis suddenly seem to interrupt to offer a different version of what happened or an opinion of what ought to have happened. ese interventions, too, help assert rabbinic authority—in this case, by making rabbinic control over the telling of the narrative explicit and by blurring the boundary between the telling of the narrative and the narrative world being described. Typically, rabbinic interventions have been treated separately from the narrative itself. After all, they interrupt the flow of the narration. Source critics, particularly those who see the main body of the narratives as ancient accounts preserved from Temple times, contend that the rabbinic comments are later additions to an original account.26 yet because such rabbinic interventions in the narrative are so prevalent in ritual narratives, we cannot dismiss them as mere interruptions. ough they fragment the linearity of the narration, they are nonetheless integral. In order to analyze the function of these rabbinic comments, I would like to consider a number of examples from throughout the long Day of Atonement narrative. Almost as soon as the narrative begins, in Yoma 1:1, Rabbi yehudah seems to interrupt the story, turning it into a full-blown rabbinic dispute (names of rabbis in bold for emphasis):

‫מסכת כיפורים‬

‫שבעת ימים קודם ליום הכיפורים מפרישים כהן גדול מביתו ללישכת‬ ’‫ ומתקינין לו כהן אחר תחתיו שמא יארע בו פסול ר’ יהודה או‬27‫פרהדרין‬ ‫אף אשה אחרת מתקינין לו שמא תמות אשתו שנ’ וכפר בעדו ובעד ביתו‬ ’‫ביתו היא אשתו אמרו חכמים אין לדבר סוף‬ (yoma 1:1) Seven days before yom Kippur, they separate the high priest from his house to the parhedrin chamber [in the Temple]. And they establish another priest for him to serve in his place in case

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 69

Narrative form

69

some disqualification befalls him. Rabbi Yehudah says: ey even establish another wife for him in case his wife dies, as it is said, “[And it atones] for him and for his house” (Lev. 16:11)—his house is his wife. e sages said: e matter has no end [that is, by your logic, endless replacements would be needed, and therefore no replacements are established].28 Rabbi yehudah picks up on the detail that there was a backup priest, adding that there was a backup wife. e sages dispute his logic (and perhaps the logic of having a backup priest), stating by implication that no backup wife (and perhaps no backup priest) could have been appointed. Later in the narrative, individual rabbis add their opinions, without an extended dispute breaking out. us, when the lots are being drawn, as discussed earlier in this chapter, after the lot falls to one hand or the other and the high priest is ordered to lift his left or right hand, the narrator recounts: “he placed [the lots] on the two goats and he says, ‘A h. a.tt.āt offering for God!’” Again, there is a rabbinic opinion: “Rabbi Ishmael says: he did not need to say ‘A h. a.tt.āt offering,’ only ‘for God!’” (Yoma 4:1). ough there is only one opinion here, Rabbi Ishmael can be seen as disputing the narrator in the same way in which a named rabbi might dispute the anonymous first legal opinion elsewhere in the Mishnah. In Rabbi Ishmael’s view, the way the narrator describes what happened involved an unnecessary word, so what was really said was only “for God!” from the perspective of the narrative, this dialogue with the narrator highlights the equivalence between the narrator and the rabbi. e same equivalence can be seen in two additional interventions, one during the description of the high priest’s entry into the holy of holies and the other during the description of the scapegoat ritual:

‫נטל את המחתה בימינו ואת הכף בשמאלו מהלך בהיכל עד שמגיע לבין‬ ‫שתי הפרכות המבדילות בין הקודש ובין קודש הקדשים וביניהן אמה‬ ‫ר’ יוסה או’ לא היתה שם אלא פרוכת אחת בלבד שנ’ והבדילה‬ ’‫הפרכת לכם בין הקודש ובין קודש הקדשים‬

he took the pan [with incense] in his right hand and the spoon [with incense] in his left. he would walk [that is, used to walk] in the hēikhāl

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

70

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 70

Chapter 3

[the inner sanctuary] until he reaches the space between the two curtains that separate the holy from the holy of holies. And the space between [the curtains] was one ammāh-length. Rabbi Yose says: ere was only one curtain there, as it says: “e curtain shall divide for you between the holy and the holy of holies” (Exod. 26:33). (Yoma 5:1)

‫ט’ אמרו לו לכהן גדול הגיע שעיר למדבר ומניין היו יודעים שהגיע‬ ‫שעיר למדבר דידכאות היו עושין ומניפין בסודרין ויודעין שהגיע שעיר‬ ‫למדבר’ י’ אמר ר’ יהודה והלא סימן גדול היה להם שלשת מילין‬ ‫מירושלם ועד בית חרורו הולכים מיל וחוזרים ]מיל[ ושוהים כדי מיל‬ ’‫ויודעין שהגיע שעיר למדבר‬

ey said to the high priest, “e goat has reached the desert.” And whence did they used to know that the goat had reached the desert? ey used to make relay stations and wave with scarves [at each station as a signal] and [thus they would] know that the goat had reached the desert. Rabbi Yehudah said: But did they not have a great sign? from Jerusalem to Bēit Hărōrō, . it is three mils [distance]. ey walk one mil and return one mil [to the Temple], and they wait the time it takes [to walk] one mil, and they know that the goat has reached the desert.29 (Yoma 6:8; 6:9–10 in MSS parma and Kaufmann) In these two cases, the named rabbis use the past tense and so explicitly claim that what actually happened was different from what the narrator has said. e first case may be slightly ambiguous, since by quoting a prooftext, Rabbi yose may imply that he is stating only what ought to have been done, though even here the implication seems to be that what used to happen was slightly different from what the narrator has presented.30 Regardless of the precise nature of these rabbis’ claims about what used to happen, what is surprising about their repeated interruptions is that they draw attention to the act of narration and challenge the narrator’s omniscience. is may work against the narratives’ function that I have been describing until this point, of reinforcing the truth of what is being told; yet at the same time it places the rabbis front and center. e repeated rabbinic interventions and fullblown debates draw attention to the rabbis and assert their authority over the telling of the narrative. In the Day of Atonement narrative, the regularly re-

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 71

Narrative form

71

curring appearance of rabbis creates a rabbinic web that securely envelops the narrative as a whole. e points in the narrative in which rabbis cut into the Yoma narrative are also rather significant. It can be no coincidence that at the dramatic moments in Yoma 4:1 and 6:8 when the high priest raises the lot and declares one of the goats an “offering for God” and when the scapegoat has reached the desert, a named rabbi offers a slightly different version of what used to take place. Nor can it be chance that at the climax of the entire yom Kippur ritual, when the high priest is inside the holy of holies in 5:1, Rabbi yose cuts in to inform us that, against the narrator’s claim that there were two curtains dividing the holy from the holy of holies, there was only one. ese rabbinic interventions are sprinkled throughout the yom Kippur narrative and consistently appear at critical moments of the performance.31 from the perspective of the narration, these interventions assert rabbinic narrational control and insert the rabbinic presence into the sacred places and sacred ritual acts. Rabbi yose, by being present within the narration about the holy of holies, in effect, stands beside the high priest in the holy of holies. he is asserting a rabbinic presence where a rabbi cannot in fact enter.32 As we have seen in the case of the memory of the Great Court, rabbis are asserting authority at the expense of priests. e fact that rabbinic claims for authority tend to displace priestly claims also explains the eruption of a rabbinic dispute after a law about appointing a backup priest at the beginning of Yoma (see above). is intervention centers on the replacement of the priest if he becomes disqualified. for the rabbis, the priest is dispensable; the rabbinic views on the procedure, however, are indispensable and preserved for posterity.

Narration and Rabbinic Authority Key features of the way Temple ritual narratives recount Temple ritual, as I have argued throughout this chapter, further the rabbinic claims for authority embedded in the rabbinic memory of the past. By using the past tense and claiming that this is how Temple ritual was done, the mishnaic authors are asserting that these are not merely creative renditions of Temple ritual or a highly selective and parochial retelling of how ritual was done, but what really happened. e accounts’ veracity—and hence the truth of the rabbinic version of

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

72

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 72

Chapter 3

the past—is buttressed by the details that make the telling seem particularly real and by the dynamics of conveying iterativity, especially the implications that the rituals happened as described in almost exactly the same way every year for a very long time, all the way back to the biblical period. e assertion that the events happened as described, in addition to legitimating a version of the past that makes rabbis the true authorities over traditional practice, legitimates the rabbinic version of the traditional ritual system—not only as described in these narratives but as legislated in the Mishnah as a whole. e narratives presume that Temple rituals were practiced according to the rabbinic system; if this was really how the rituals were done in the past—regularly and for a very long time—the rabbinic way must be the correct way. e inherent coherence of the narrative form, in which chronologically unfolding events must lead toward a natural conclusion, as I have suggested, furthers the sense that the rabbinic version of ritual is correct by placing emphasis on the correct performance of ritual. e ritual of the past, the narratives imply, were always done correctly, just as described and prescribed by the rabbis. If the Temple ritual narratives support rabbinic authority by the ways in which they recount the past, they also support rabbinic authority by emphasizing the act of recounting. e rabbinic interventions that dot Temple ritual narratives make clear that the rabbis are the narrators who control the memory of the past and who reach from the post-destruction act of telling into the imagined world of the Temple, placing themselves into the action and asserting their own control over what happened even in the innermost sanctum, the k. ōdesh k. o˘dāshim.

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 73

Chapter 4

Constructing Sacred Space

e use of narration and the invention of a powerful role for their putative predecessors are not the only ways in which the rabbis subtly put forth their own version of the Temple and thus assert authority over post-Temple Jewish ritual law and practice. A third way in which the rabbis lay claim to the Temple and its memory is by constructing, within the Mishnah’s textual world, the sacred space of the Temple. ey do so in two ways: by describing ritualized entry into and exit from the Temple—aspects of the ritual that create and construct the Temple’s boundaries and its sacred space; and by mapping, in Middot, the overall space of the Temple in a way that reconfigures the map of the Temple in Ezekiel 40–43. In both cases, the rabbinic construction of the Temple’s sacred space correlates with the rabbis’ understanding of Judaean social space and their own central position within this social space. e rabbis’ stress on the boundaries of the Temple’s sacred space tends to affirm the correctness of their own position either by excluding those with incorrect views, Temple-era sectarians, or by including all elements of the people of Israel within the encompassing boundaries of the Temple. Similarly, the map they construct of the Temple’s space gives primacy of place to the Great Court, the institution that, as their predecessors, stands in for themselves in the past. placing the Court in the center adds to this body’s authority in the memory of the past, and this, as I have repeatedly argued, asserts firm rabbinic authority over the Temple and its ritual. By delineating the Temple’s space and drawing its boundaries in the two ways I describe, the rabbis once again assert control over the Temple, authorizing their own version of the past and arguing for their own importance in the present.

e Construction of Sacred Space through Ritual Ritual theorists have long argued that sacred space is created by ritual action. In Catherine Bell’s view, this understanding of the relationship between ritual

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

74

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 74

Chapter 4

and place can be traced back to Arnold van Gennep’s work on rites of passage at the beginning of the twentieth century. Van Gennep, according to Bell, “alerted scholars to the ways in which ritual can actually define what is sacred, not simply react to the sacred as something already and for always fixed.”1 Building on Bell’s analysis as well as the work of Jonathan Z. Smith, Mary Suydam writes that “humans create sacred places through ritual.”2 Sacrality and the sacrality of a particular place are not preexistent but are created by the ritual activity of human beings. e sacrality of place is also a product of and exists within the mind, or, as Smith puts it, it is “a product of intellection.”3 is means that rituals work to mark off space as different and sacred by directing not only the body but also the mind. Even when a particular space is already treated as sacred, such physical ritual demarcation that creates intellectual boundaries is necessary and common. As Ronald Grimes notes, two frequent and key means by which ritual action tends to create sacred space are through “partitioning and enclosing.”4 Rituals, in these ways, can make distinctions that divide one space from another and that simultaneously enclose a space, marking it off as sacred. for Jonathan Z. Smith, the acts of forming and organizing space are more than simply a matter of orienting a person within that space and making that space meaningful; they are also political.5 partitioning space, enclosing space, and conceptually structuring space help legitimate social relations and social hierarchy that correspond to the ways in which the space is constructed and ordered. In the Mishnah, the construction and mapping of the Temple’s sacred space assert the primacy of the rabbis and their predecessors among the various subgroups of Judaeans in Roman palestine and the authority of the rabbinic version of what must be performed by those Judaeans within ritualized and sacralized space.

Ritualized Entry and Exit in Temple Ritual Narratives and the Construction of the Temple’s Sacred Space Outside the realm of Temple ritual, there is a brief story in the Mishnah about Rabbi N˘ehuniāh . ben hak. kāneh’s . personal ritual practice that can provide an interpretive paradigm for a rather widespread component of the Mishnah’s description of Temple ritual: mention of entry into and exit from the Temple—

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 75

Sacred Space

75

or spaces within the Temple. According to Mishnah Berakhot 4:2, “Rabbi N˘ehuniāh . ben hak. kāneh . used to pray a short prayer when he entered and when he exited the bēit midrāsh [study house].” In this passage, people ask Rabbi N˘ehuniāh . explicitly why he makes these prayers, and he gives a pragmatic (“functionalist,” in ritual theory terms) explanation: to protect himself from stumbling and to thank God for his lot. In addition to Rabbi N˘ehuniāh’s . understanding of how his two “prayers” function, the ritual actions, which accompany the precise moment of entry into and exit from the study space, serve a second, equally important, purpose: to help construct the space of the study house as a sacred place of Torah study. Significantly, the study space itself may have been a private home.6 Reciting a prayer when entering and exiting—when crossing the threshold between the outside and the study house—helped mark the boundaries of the space; it partitioned and enclosed the space, to use Grimes’s terminology quoted above, helping, by means of ritual action, to make the space sacred in the mind of the ritualist. As in the case of Rabbi N˘ehuniāh’s . study-house prayers in Mishnah Berakhot, entry into and exit from the Temple appear to be ritualized throughout the Temple ritual narrative genre, and these ritualized boundary crossings construct the Temple’s sacred space, within the narrative world described and within the minds of those who created and consumed these narratives. In Temple ritual narratives, more than simply creating sacred space, the literary ritualized entry and exit serve a political function, making a further argument for rabbinic authority by asserting the centrality of rabbinic law within the social space marked off by the Temple’s boundaries and by encompassing the people within the Temple, in an exclusive as well as an inclusive manner. A prime example in which entry into and exit from the Temple are ritualized is the narrative describing how the passover sacrifice was offered in Pesa.him 5:5–10. here, not only is the action of entering the Temple ritualized by association with additional ritual actions, but, on the literary level, entry and exit are given special emphasis, suggesting that for the rabbis, they are important parts of the ritual performance. I stress these key actions in the text in boldface:

‫ה’ הפסח נשחט בשלש כיתים שנ’ ושחטו אתו כל ]קהל[ עדת ישראל‬ ‫בין הערב’ קהל עדה וישראל נכנסה כת הראשונה ונתמלת העזרה‬ ‫)תקעו הריעו ותק( נעלו דלתות העזרה תקעו ]ו[הריעו ותקעו הכהנים‬ ‫עומדין שורות שורות ובידיהם בזיכי כסף ובזיכי זהב שורה שכולה כסף‬

‫‪Page 76‬‬

‫‪1:08 PM‬‬

‫‪8/17/12‬‬

‫‪cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn‬‬

‫‪Chapter 4‬‬

‫כסף ושורה שכולה זהב זהב ולא היו מעורבין ולא היו לבזיכין שוליים‬ ‫שמא יניחום ויקרש הדם’‬

‫ו’ שחט ישראל וקיבל הכהן נותנו לחבירו וחבירו לחבירו מקבל את המלא‬ ‫ומחזיר את הריקן כהן הקרוב אצל המזבח זורקו זריקה אחת כנגד היסוד’‬

‫ז’ יצאת כת הראשנה ונכנסה שנייה יצאת שנייה ונכנסה שלישית כמעשה‬ ‫הראשנה כך מעשה שנייה ושלישית קראו את ההלל אם גמרו שנו ואם‬ ‫שנו שילשו אף על פי שלא שילשו מימיהם ר’ יהוד’ או’ מימיה שלכת‬ ‫שלישית לא היגיעה לאהבתי כי ישמע ייי מפני שעמה ממועטים’‬ ‫ח’ כמעשהו בחול כך מעשהו בשבת אלא שהכהנים ]מדיחין[ את העזרה‬ ‫שלא כרצון חכמים ר’ יהודה או’ כוס היה ממלא מדם התערובת זורקו‬ ‫זריקה אחת על גבי המזבח ולא הודו לו חכמים ר’ יהודה או’ כוס היה‬ ‫ממלא מדם התערובת זורקו זריקה אחת על גבי המזבח ולא הודו לו‬ ‫חכמים’‬

‫ט’ כיצד תולים ומפשיטים? אנקליות שלברזל היו קבועים בכתלים‬ ‫ובעמודים שבהן תולים ומפשיטין כל מי שאין לו מקום לתלות מקלות‬ ‫דקים חלקים היו שם מניח על כתפו ועל כתף חבירו ותולה ומפשיט ר’‬ ‫אליעזר או’ ארבעה עשר שחל להיות בשבת מניח את ידו על כתף חבירו‬ ‫ויד חבירו על כתיפו ותולה ומפשיט’‬ ‫י’ קרעו והוציא את אימוריו נתנן במגס והקטירן על גבי המזבח יצאת כת‬ ‫הראשונה וישבה לה בהר הבית שנייה בחייל שלישית במקומה חשיכה‬ ‫יצאו וצלו את פסחיהם’‬ ‫‪(5:5) e passover sacrifice was slaughtered in three groups, as it says,‬‬ ‫]‪“All of the community [=1] of the congregation [=2] of Israel [=3‬‬ ‫‪slaughtered it” (Exod. 12:6).‬‬ ‫‪e first group entered, and the Temple courtyard was filled up. ey‬‬ ‫‪locked the gates of the Temple courtyard, and they blew a te˘k. i‘a blast, a‬‬ ‫‪te˘ru‘āh blast, and a te˘k. i‘a blast [on silver trumpets].‬‬ ‫‪e priests stand in rows holding silver and gold bowls—a row of silver‬‬ ‫‪was only silver, and a row of gold was only gold; they were not mixed.‬‬

‫‪76‬‬

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 77

Sacred Space

77

e bowls did not have a flat bottom so that they could not put them down, allowing the blood to congeal. (5:6) An Israelite slaughtered and a priest received the blood [in a bowl]. he hands it to his fellow [the priest beside him in the row], and his fellow to his fellow [it was passed down the row]. he receives the full bowl and returns the empty one [there was a steady stream of full bowls passing in one direction and empty bowls passing in the other direction]. e priest nearest the altar flings the blood once toward the base [of the altar]. (5:7) e first group exited and the second group entered. e second exited and the third entered—the procedure for the first was repeated for the second and third groups. ey recited the hallēl [prayer of praise from psalms 113–18]. If they finished [reciting the hallēl before the first group finished slaughtering their sacrifices], they repeated it, and if they finished repeating it, they recited it a third time—even though in all of their days, they never recited it three times. Rabbi yehudah says in all of the days of the third group, they never even reached “I love the Lord who hears . . .” (ps. 116:1) because there were so few people in [the third group]. (5:8) [e ritual’s] performance on the Sabbath was the same as its performance during the week, except that the priests wash the Temple courtyard against the will of the sages. Rabbi yehudah says: he used to fill a cup with the mixed blood and they fling it once onto the altar. But the sages did not praise him. (5:9) how do they hang and flay? Iron hooks were set into the walls and the pillars on which they hang and flay [the paschal lamb]. for anyone who did not find a place to hang and flay—there were thin smooth sticks there, and he places it on his shoulder and on his fellow’s shoulder and hangs and flays. Rabbi Eliezer says: If the fourteenth falls on the Sabbath, he places his hand on his fellow’s shoulder, and his fellow’s hand on his shoulder, and he hangs and flays. (5:10) he ripped it open, and removed its entrails. he placed it in a pan and burnt them on the altar. e first group exited and sat on the Temple Mount; the second on the ledge surrounding the Temple; and the third stands in its place. When it got dark, they exited and roasted their passover sacrifices.

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

78

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 78

Chapter 4

It seems obvious that in this narrative, the space of the Temple courtyard is sacred because of the regular sacrificial activities that go on there—the slaughtering, the sprinkling of blood, the evisceration of the animal, and so on. But ritual action alone does not mark the space as sacred. Sacred space is also delineated through ritualized boundary crossing. As soon as the people enter the Temple courtyard for the purpose of the ritual, the doors are locked and trumpets sounded. e acts of crossing the boundary into the Temple courtyard, creating a physical barrier between this space and the outside, and performing an accompanying ritual action all construct the Temple’s sacred space by demarcating the boundaries of the courtyard. In other narratives, additional actions help ritualize the crossing of the boundaries into and out of the Temple. Bowing, for instance, may accompany an exit from one of the particularly sacred spaces in the Temple, as in Tamid 6:1, 6:2, 6:3, and 7:1, or it may accompany an exit from the Temple itself, as in Sukkah 5:4, when the water-drawing-place festival concludes, and Bikkurim 3:6, when the person finishes giving the first fruits. Similarly, entry into a particular place or space in the Temple may be accompanied by turning in a particular direction, as when “all those who enter the Temple Mount” and “all those who exit” in Middot 2:2 turn to the right, except for a mourner or someone excommunicated, who turns to the left, and as in the case of the priest performing the sō.tāh (accused adulteress) ritual, who, in So.tah 2:2, turns to his right upon entering the hēikhāl (‫)היכל‬, the inner sanctum, also called the k. ōdesh (‫קדש‬, “holy”), the place where the incense altar, the menorah, and the showbread table were located.7 roughout the genre, entry and exit are frequently associated with additional ritual actions, which helps construct the boundaries of sacred space by ritualizing their crossing.8 e importance of boundary crossing in Temple ritual narratives is evident not only in the association of ritual action with entry and exit but on the literary level, in the repetition of “enter” and “exit” and similar words. In the passover sacrifice narrative, the word “enter” appears three times and “exit” four times. e daily sacrifice (tāmid, ‫ )תמיד‬narrative, one of the longest ritual narratives told in seven chapters of Tamid, uses the word “enter” thirteen times and the word “exit” fifteen times. roughout the Temple ritual narrative genre (including court-centered or judicial ritual narratives), nearly one-third of the narratives—or as many as half of them (if one omits the texts that are am-

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 79

Sacred Space

79

biguously part of the genre)—mention entry or exit or both. In the forty to sixty Temple ritual narratives, entering and exiting are each mentioned more than forty times.9 is emphasis on entry and exit suggests that for the rabbinic authors of the Mishnah, entry and exit are not merely mundane actions but part of the ritual itself. is is in contrast to earlier, pre-rabbinic accounts of many of the same rituals, which frequently do not include entry and exit. A small number of earlier narratives do stress entry and exit. In the biblical prescriptive account of the Day of Atonement ritual in Lev. 16:1–34, entry is mentioned six times and exit twice. here the act of entry, especially, is an important part of the ritual; here, too, these emphasized actions help demarcate the boundaries of the sacred space of the k. ōdesh (the inner sanctum). Similarly, texts not specifically about Temple ritual, including Ezekiel’s Temple description (to be taken up shortly) and—closer to the time of the Mishnah—the Gospels’ accounts of the Last Supper and of Jesus coming to the Temple, mention entry and exit multiple times.10 for the most part, however, accounts or descriptions of Temple ritual or rituals associated with the Temple before the Mishnah do not use these verbs. us while the mishnaic telling of the passover sacrifice narrative, for instance, repeats “enter” and “exit” several times, none of the many earlier accounts of this sacrifice—with the exception of one biblical verse—uses these words.11 More strikingly, in the first-fruits narrative, the Mishnah takes up the wording of the earlier biblical account, but where the biblical verse ends with bowing, the Mishnah’s account adds exiting. e biblical verse reads:

:‫והנחתו לפני ה’ אלקיך והשתחוית לפני ה’ אלקיך‬

you shall place [the basket] before the Lord your God and bow down before the Lord your God. (Deut. 26:10; emphasis added) In the Mishnah the similar line is:

:‫ומניחו בצד המזבח והשתחוה ויצא‬ And he places [the basket] at the side of the Altar and bowed down and exited [the Temple courtyard]. (Mishnah Bikkurim 3:6; emphasis added)

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

80

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 80

Chapter 4

e phrase in the Mishnah “at the side of the altar,” is simply taken from the biblical verse 4, but “he exited” does not occur anywhere in the biblical account. e Mishnah seems to use the biblical language, but in the Mishnah, exiting is part of the ritual. Again and again, the Mishnah’s Temple ritual narratives place literary emphasis on the actions of entry and exit, actions that technically did not need to be described at all and frequently were not described in earlier sources. Such emphasis shows that for the rabbis of the Mishnah, entry and exit were important parts of all Temple rituals. ey were ritualized actions that, as I have suggested, served the entire ritual performance by constructing the sacred space in which the rituals were performed.

e political function of Ritualized Space and Rabbinic Authority If the rabbis were somewhat innovative in stressing the creation of the Temple’s sacred space through ritualized boundary crossing, why did they do so? how could such a construal of Temple ritual action have functioned for them long after most of these rituals ceased to be practiced? ere are likely several ways in which it did so. On the literary level, it was presumably important to construct the space in which the action occurs because that space no longer existed. Describing entry and exit may have helped the reader or listener imagine the events, which added to the accounts’ verisimilitude. At the same time, the demarcation of the Temple’s sacred spaces seems to have been important because of the ways in which geographic space was linked to social configurations. Because of this, the construction of the Temple’s sacred space within the Temple ritual narratives also functioned to argue for the rabbis’ importance within the larger social map of Judaean Roman palestine. A different example of the ritual construction of physical space in the Mishnah, that of the ‘ēruv, the “joining” ritual of sharing food that allowed Israelites to carry within a “neighborhood” on the Sabbath, provides an interpretive paradigm for explaining how the boundary construction and enclosure of people and place may function in Temple ritual narratives.12 As Charlotte fonrobert elegantly demonstrates, the rituals associated with ‘ēruv tended to demarcate the space of the neighborhood as a geographic unit and as a ritualized location, allowing Israelites to carry within the space on the Sabbath by en-

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 81

Sacred Space

81

closing it and differentiating it from the surrounding space.13 is creation of sacred or ritualized space, as fonrobert shows, worked against an alternative demarcation of space within the Mishnah that is also ritualized, the marking off of the private domain (‫ ;רשות היחיד‬literally, “the domain of the individual”) from the public domain (‫ ;רשות הרבים‬literally, “the domain of the many”).14 Cynthia Baker has shown that physical spaces were not so neatly divided in mishnaic and talmudic times; yet, as fonrobert suggests, rituals such as the placement of the mezuzah and the restriction on carrying out of the home into the public domain (itself subverted by the ‘ēruv), marked the home as a distinct place, an Israelite place where rituals of the home are carried out.15 politically, in fonrobert’s view, ‘ēruv rituals unified the neighborhood into one community, even when the neighborhood included “non-Jews” and “nonrabbinic Jews.” e demarcated boundaries enclosed this group together, and the ritual sharing of food established their interconnection. Drawing on the outline I presented earlier of the social contours of Judaean Roman palestine, I suggest that the rabbinic discourse of ‘ēruv that fonrobert describes and the ‘ēruv rituals themselves made the political claim that all Judaeans, including those who existed at the blurred boundaries of Judaeanness and those who practiced alternative versions of the traditional way of life, were under the ritual authority of the rabbis.16 e neighborhood was unified by and unified under the rabbinic version of the traditional practices. At the same time, the private domain of the individual dwelling was distinct. Within this larger mixed environment of the neighborhood, all technically under the authority of the rabbis, only some smaller subspaces—symbolized by the distinct private domain—were purely rabbinic. Temple ritual narratives do not link the ritual construction of space with the social makeup in that space as explicitly as do the laws about the ‘ēruv, yet the ritualized boundary crossings of the former seem to function in the same way as the ritualized food-sharing of the latter. e Temple and its boundaries, after all, had been traditionally linked to the boundaries of the Judaean people. is can be seen in the warning to non-Judaeans against entering the Temple, on pain of death, evidenced by surviving inscriptions and literary sources.17 According to this warning, the Temple is the space for Judaeans alone, and the Temple’s boundaries demarcate the boundaries of the Judaean ethnos (people). In the Mishnah’s ritual narratives, a number of different types of Israelites seem to be included within the space of the Temple, suggesting that, like the

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

82

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 82

Chapter 4

‘ēruv, the ritualized construction of the Temple’s space—and all ritual that takes place inside—brings these different Judaeans together. for the most part, the Mishnah’s descriptions of the Temple ritual of the past merely imagine rabbinic-law-abiding Judaeans performing Temple ritual according to the correct (rabbinic) prescriptions. yet at times, those who may not be fully rabbinic or even fully Judaean are included as well. us in Mishnah Pesa.him 5:8 (quoted earlier in this chapter), the priests mop up the Temple courtyard even when the festival falls on the Sabbath—which is against the dictates of the (proto-rabbinic) sages. Temple ritual, therefore, includes those Judaeans—like the nonrabbinic Judaeans in the rabbis’ own time—who observe the traditional rituals but not in the rabbinic way. In one case, even a Judaean who is ambiguously both Judaean and Gentile is included in the Temple and participates in Temple ritual. According to So.tah 7:8, a narrative about how the king reads from the Torah every seven years, King Agrippa (a herodian king) once read from the Torah, as required, but cried when he read the verse forbidding a Gentile (‫נכרי‬, nokhri) from becoming king. Agrippa’s reaction demonstrates that he is a Gentile, a notion loosely based on the similar view mentioned by Josephus that herod was halfJudaean.18 yet those present assure him that he is “our brother.” In the view of this anecdote, Agrippa the Judaean king is both Judaean and Gentile; he exists at the boundary of these categories. he is very much like those Judaeans in the rabbis’ own time who are thoroughly Romanized but remain Judaean and continue to practice the traditional way of life. he, perhaps standing in for all these latter-day Judaeans, is included by the rabbis within the boundary of the Temple. e relationship between rabbis and non-rabbis and the inclusion of nonrabbis are clear in this anecdote. It is significant that the sages (‫)חכמים‬, protorabbis or perhaps rabbis unusually retrojected into the past, are said to have “praised him” when he performed the ritual. While it is possible to read this as flattery, as Rabbi Natan does in the Tosefta’s version of the story (So.tah 7:16), there is still no hint that it was inappropriate for him to be inside the Temple. Moreover, against Rabbi Natan, the sages/rabbis appear to play a role in authorizing his performance. Taking these and other examples together, it seems that the ritual narratives’ rabbinic authors include all different types of Israelites in the Temple: the Great Court and the sages, the majority of Israelites who follow the correct

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 83

Sacred Space

83

practice, those who do not quite follow the traditional practice as it should be done, and those who overlap with the category of Gentile. All, including “nonrabbinic” Israelites, fall within the boundaries of the Temple. yet significantly, Temple ritual follows the rabbinic version of how Temple ritual should be performed just as it followed the dictates of the Court.19 If the space of the Temple symbolizes the Judaean polity, which includes a variety of Judaeans, what defines their Judaeanness and what unifies the people as a whole is correct ritual performance as determined by the rabbis. Just as the Temple’s sacred space corresponds to a unified Judaean people under the dictates of the rabbis and their predecessors, it may stand for a purer social space that excludes other types of Judaeans, represented by the sectarians. In the Mishnah’s memory of the Temple, it is significant that there are never sectarians in the Temple performing Temple ritual in their incorrect way. ough the Tosefta includes three stories in which a sectarian priest performs Temple ritual incorrectly—and suffers the consequences—the Mishnah never admits that a sectarian could have been included in the Temple’s sacred space.20 Some actions were taken to ensure that the rituals were done correctly, perhaps even to snub the sectarians, but sectarians seem to be categorically excluded. In this case, the Temple’s imagined boundaries may serve to divide the rabbis from their opponents, or at least to construct a rabbinically defined authentic Judaeanness enclosed by the Temple that excludes what they understand as inauthentic Judaeanness. According to this reading, then, there is a tension in the ways in which sacred space construction seems to function for the rabbis. Sacred space simultaneously excludes and includes. is tension can perhaps be seen within the passover sacrifice narrative quoted earlier in this chapter. At the beginning of this narrative, we are told that the entire people of Israel who come to sacrifice are divided into three groups. As each group enters, the ritual actions I described earlier—locking the doors and sounding the trumpets—include only one group in the Temple’s sacred precincts, resoundingly excluding the others. however, each group is included in the whole ritual process. At the end of the narrative, each group takes its place in a different location in the Temple and on the Temple Mount, sitting and waiting until dark. yes, the groups are divided, and some are excluded at times during the ritual; but ultimately, all are included. is tension between inclusion and exclusion manifested in the passover

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

84

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 84

Chapter 4

sacrifice narrative, and which, I suggest, exists within the rabbinic construction of sacred Temple space more widely, corresponds to a tension between the rabbis’ social reality of multiple groups of Judaeans, many of whom do not practice what the rabbis consider correct Judaean practice and their ideal of all Judaeans practicing the traditional way of life according to the their dictates. e rabbis admit that there are numerous non-rabbinic Judaeans whom they view as incorrect, and, on some level, these other Judaeans—or at least those whom the rabbis see as thoroughly incorrect and akin to the sectarians—must be excluded from the Temple, the locus of pure and correct Judaean ritual practice. yet ultimately, the rabbis believe that all Judaeans—possibly excepting the most heinously incorrect in their views (perhaps heretics)—were included in the Temple and are to be included in the polity of Israel. And what once united and will again unite these different Judaeans in the rabbinic view is the acceptance of the dictates of the rabbis, the ones who carry on the correct ritual practices and who provide authentic interpretations of the traditional way of life.

Mapping the Temple: e Elevation of the Court and the Displacement of the priests A second way in which place is constructed in the Mishnah—with political implications for the rabbis in post-destruction society—is in the map of the Temple described in Middot (literally, “measurements”), an elaborate architectural description of the Temple, its gates, chambers, and furniture. In providing a “tour” of the Temple—complete with dimensions and some functions of the various structures—this tractate creates a topography of sacred space. As Jonathan Z. Smith has shown in his analysis of the series of similar “maps” of the Temple at the end of the Book of Ezekiel, such sacred topographies are not constructed at random. e boundaries within the Temple and the relative orientation of the various structures that this type of Temple map constructs tend to assert particular social boundaries and social hierarchies. Because these distinct spaces and structures are defined by who has access to them, the act of mapping serves to delineate groups, assert dominance, and reinforce social differentiation and hierarchy.21

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 85

Sacred Space

85

What stands out in the Mishnah’s map of the Temple’s sacred space, not surprisingly, is the centrality of the Court—the Great Sanhedrin—which is located in the lishkat haggāzit, the chamber of hewn stone (Middot 5:4). e very presence of the Court in the space of the Temple is a rabbinic innovation, parallel to the invention of the Court’s presence in and authority over the performance of Temple ritual. Just as the Mishnah’s ritual narratives have inserted this judicial body into the performance of Temple ritual, so the Mishnah’s map of the Temple inserts the Court into the Temple’s physical space. In order to appreciate the full extent and import of this insertion, it is necessary to compare the mishnaic map to the biblical model upon which it is built: chapters 40–43 of Ezekiel, a passage quoted in Middot four times.22 Both Ezekiel and Middot provide a tour of an imagined Temple, detailing the measurements of the various structures, gates, and chambers, and describing some of their functions. ough the two Temple tours are different in many respects, they are similar in the directional movement that organizes them: from outer spaces inward. Ezekiel’s tour—a vision in which he is led from chamber to chamber by a man who “looks like copper (or bronze),” presumably an angel—can be outlined as follows:23 1. e outer walls and gates of the Temple (40:5–27) as well as the chambers (‫ ;לשכות‬le˘shākhōt) of the “outer courtyard” (‫ ;חצר החצונה‬h. ātsēr ha.hitsōnāh) (40:17–18) 2. e walls, gates, and vestibules of the inner courtyard (‫חצר‬ ‫ ;הפנימי‬h. ātsēr happe˘nimi) (40:28–37) 3. A glimpse into the inner courtyard and a view of the sacrificial area as well as a number of priestly chambers, the functions of which are described (40:38–46) 4. Total measurement of the inner courtyard (40:47) 5. portico (‫ ;אולם‬ulām) (40:48–49) 6. Great hall (‫ ;היכל‬hēikhāl) (41:1–2) 7. e inner room (‫ ;פנימה‬pe˘nimāh) / holy of holies (‫קדש‬ ‫ ;הקדשים‬k. ōdesh ha.kk. odāshim) (41:3–4) 8. Extending measurements and volume of the Temple: height, outer pavement, empty structure (41:5–15)

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

86

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 86

Chapter 4

9. Decoration of walls and surfaces, including furniture of the inner courtyard (41:16–26) ˘ of the outer courtyard, the func10. Chambers (‫ ;לשכות‬leshākhōt) tions of which are described (42:1–14) 11. Total area of the Temple (42:15–20) 12. Reentry—transported by the wind—into the Temple and into the inner courtyard, where God addresses Ezekiel from his throne (43:1–7 ff.)24 e spatial pattern in Ezekiel is clearest in the first part of the tour, numbers 1–7 on the outline, which begins at the outer walls and gates and moves inward toward the innermost sanctum, the holy of holies. e subsequent numbers, for the most part, move back out again, describing overall features including the height, decoration, and total area of the Temple. But again, there is a movement inward (in number 12 on the outline) as Ezekiel reenters the Temple and is swept into the inner courtyard to experience God’s presence and hear his prophecy. e precise location where this prophecy occurs is somewhat ambiguous. e text says only that Ezekiel hears God speaking “from the house [Temple]” (43:6), a general term that could mean anywhere within the Temple where Ezekiel is located. Despite this vague expression, the next verse (43:7) seems to imply that God is located more specifically on his throne. is would seem to mean that God addresses Ezekiel as he did Moses, from between the ke˘ruvim (cherubs) on the ark in the holy of holies.25 us this dramatic culmination of the tour (number 12) represents a reiteration of the spatial pattern: Ezekiel moves from outside the Temple back in, toward God’s voice and presence in the holy of holies. In a general sense, the Mishnah’s tour mirrors the pattern of movement in Ezekiel. Chapter 1 focuses on the gates—both of the Temple Mount (‫הר‬ ‫ ;הבית‬har habbayit) and of the Temple courtyard (‫‘ ;עזרה‬ăzārāh). Chapter 2 describes measurements and some chambers of the Temple Mount (the area that encompasses the entire Temple), the women’s court (‫‘ ;עזרת הנשים‬ăzārat hannāshim, what is usually termed “the courtyard”), and the court of Israel (‫עזרת‬ ‫‘ ;ישראל‬ăzārat yisrā’ēl, a more restricted space than the women’s court). Chapter 3 moves to the altar and sacrificial area (3:1–6) and then to the portico (3:7) and the Great hall (3:8). e Great hall is the topic of chapter 4, and surprisingly, the holy of holies is mentioned only in passing (4:5), when de-

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 87

Sacred Space

87

scribing special passageways above it used by artisans so that they would not look at the holy of holies. up to this point, we have the same general movement from the outer part of the Temple, the Temple Mount, inward, toward the hēikhāl (Great hall). Many of the details differ from the tour in Ezekiel, but the overall pattern of movement is the same. is similarity continues when Middot moves back outward in chapter 5, to the overall dimensions of the Temple courtyard (‘ăzārāh) and its structures (5:1–2) and a description of the chambers (‫ ;לשכות‬le˘shākhōt) of the Temple courtyard. As in Ezekiel, there is a movement back outward (numbers 8–11 of the outline) with a summary of the overall measurements (compare number 11 of the outline) and description of chambers and their functions (number 10 of the outline). e general flow of the tours is thus similar; yet the ways in which they conclude differ dramatically. Whereas in Ezekiel’s tour the prophet is swept into the inner area and experiences God (presumably) in the holy of holies, the Mishnah’s tour climaxes with the description of the Court in one of the chambers of the courtyard. Describing the ultimate place, Middot concludes: ‫לשכת הגזית שם היתה סנהדרים גדולה שלישראל יושבת‬, “e chamber of hewn stone is the place where the Great Sanhedrin of Israel sits” (Middot 5:4). In Ezekiel, the holy of holies is the central, innermost, and most important space of the Temple; but in the Mishnah, the holy of holies is largely absent, mentioned only incidentally. At the same time, by describing the Court at the place in the narrative where Ezekiel has God on his throne, the Mishnah locates the Court in the central textual position, although this is not the geographical center of the Temple. e most important place in this mishnaic map is not the holy of holies, the place where the high priest goes, but the chamber of hewn stone, where the Great Court and its members go.26 following the general contours of Ezekiel’s map while introducing subtle changes, the Mishnah in fact radically reconfigures the Temple’s space. e Court, in the Mishnah, takes up the position that was once a priestly place; it displaces the priests. is displacement can be seen in three innovative aspects of the Mishnah’s account in comparison with Ezekiel. e first, as we have seen, is that while Ezekiel’s tour culminates in the holy of holies, the place into which only the high priest may enter, the Mishnah’s culminates in the Court’s chambers. Second, when listing the chambers at the end of the tour (number 10 in the outline), Ezekiel adds a description of what the priests do in one of

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:08 PM

88

Page 88

Chapter 4

the chambers: they eat their sacred meals, among other activities. e Mishnah, in contrast, describes not a priestly chamber but the Court’s chamber. finally, in the Mishnah’s narration of the Court’s activities in Middot 5:4, it assumes that the Court has the power to disqualify priests: “In the chamber of hewn stone, the Great Sanhedrin [equivalent in the Mishnah to ‘Court’] sat and judged the priesthood. And a priest in whom a disqualification is found wears black and wraps his head in black and exits and leaves. And one in whom a disqualification is not found wears white and wraps his head in white and enters and serves with his brothers the priests.” With the primacy of location and with the power to judge the validity of priests, the Mishnah’s Great Court claims greater authority for itself than priests.

Laying Claim to the Temple When the Temple still existed, it is doubtful that a non-priestly and non-aristocratic group like the rabbis could have had any important role in the Temple. But when the Temple was gone, the rabbis could lay claim to it by remembering it in characteristically rabbinic ways. ey did so not merely by inserting their predecessors into a position of authority over Temple ritual and using the narrative form to assert control over the enactment of ritual, as we have seen in previous chapters, but also by constructing and mapping the Temple’s sacred space. rough their subtle but insistent construction of the Temple’s boundaries and remapping of the Temple’s space, the rabbis imagine a Temple that is controlled by their predecessors and that operates under what they believe to be the correct form of traditional ritual practice. e demarcation of space in the Temple ritual narratives and in Middot serves to distinguish and exclude. e rabbis and the Court stand in the center; they define true and correct Judaean practice and Judaeanness more generally. Others are excluded. At the same time, the Temple as a whole includes various other subgroups. Crucially, what binds together those others from Temple times who stand in for non-rabbinic Judaeans in the rabbis’ own time is correct—rabbinic—practice, as determined by rabbinic legal tradition and lawmaking. unified Judaean society, in the rabbinic view, is held together by the authoritative

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 89

Sacred Space

89

figures of the rabbis, their traditions, and the role they play in society in determining correct practice. is is an idealized memory of the past that makes a claim for what social reality should be like in the rabbis’ own time. is memory is a contestation for power against these other groups over whom the rabbis wish to have authority but who would have made their own claims for authenticity and authority.

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 90

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 91

Chapter 5

e Mishnah in the Context of a Wider Judaean, Christian, and Roman Temple Discourse

Like texts, discourses, and memories of all kinds, the Mishnah’s Temple ritual narratives, I have argued, put forth subtle claims for the importance and authority of their authors. e rabbis, by inventing an important role for the Court and its members, by using a unique narrative form, and by constructing the Temple’s sacred space, asserted that it was they, not other types of Judaeans and their leaders or ritual experts, who preserved authentic Judaean legal traditions and practices. e usefulness of the memory of the Temple for the rabbis, however, was not simply that they could recount and remake the past in their own image and could imagine a past that helped authorize the role that they claimed for themselves in the present. e memory of the Temple was useful also because Temple discourse was widespread among a number of different groups in the century or two following the destruction. It may be surprising that the Temple is so important in the Mishnah, considering that the Temple had long been destroyed, but what is more surprising is the prevalence of discourse about the Temple—more than a century after its destruction—among other groups of Judaeans, Romans, and a variety of Christians. e rabbis of the Mishnah, in creating extensive laws and narrative accounts about Temple ritual practice, were laying their own claim to the Temple among many competing claims. In order to fully appreciate the rabbinic discourse about the Temple, it is thus necessary to consider how each of these other groups deployed the memory of the Temple for its own purposes. e rabbinic Mishnah was part of a larger, intracultural and intercultural discourse about the Temple in the Roman Empire of the first centuries CE and cannot be understood apart from it. e rabbis were likely not responding directly to any of these other groups, but the

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

92

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 92

Chapter 5

rabbinic claim for the Temple took shape in the context of this larger discourse and may well have shaped and been shaped by it.

e Continued Importance of the Temple among Judaeans after the Destruction After the Romans destroyed the Temple, it no longer existed physically and worshipers could no longer perform rituals there; nevertheless, it remained centrally important for many different Judaeans—not only for the rabbis. e Temple had always been a central locus of ritual practice; it had served as a vehicle for claiming authority over greater Judaea; conceptually, it had been a key component of Judaean or “Israelite” identity.1 After the destruction, Judaeans continued to conceive of and talk about the Temple in these three ways, despite its physical absence. Such continuity can be seen in the works of Josephus, the former Judaean general turned member of the Roman imperial court who lived through the destruction. Writing in the decades after the destruction, Josephus’s account of the revolt against Rome gives a special place to the Temple, connecting it with the heart of the Judaean people and implying that it may have been the key to all that transpired. In his other post-destruction writings, Josephus presumes that even in its absence, the Temple continued to be the ritual center of Judaean practice. Toward the beginning of his account of the first revolt, Josephus suggests that a key moment near the start of the revolt that “laid the foundation of the war with the Romans” (e Judaean War 2.409) was the rejection of Gentile sacrifices in the Temple, which led to a dispute between those taking different positions on this ritual matter and on relations with Rome, and finally to an all-out battle for control of the Temple. Events that transpired in the Temple, according to Josephus, played a critical role in starting the war. Moreover, struggle over the Temple in his account seems to have symbolized a struggle between groups to determine the destiny of Judaea.2 Later in the war, once the Romans had captured the Galilee and turned their attention to Jerusalem, Josephus again places special emphasis on the Temple. e Temple, in his account, is where the decisive and essentially final battle of the larger war takes place. e action seems to move inexorably inward, toward the Temple and its sacred spaces, which are ultimately destroyed.

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 93

Wider Discourse

93

is directionality of the battle begins when the war comes under the command of Titus (e Judaean War 5.58), who marches purposefully toward the city (5.40–70), fights his way up to the city (5.71–134), and breaches the walls (in stages) and captures the city (5.258–6.70). At this point, the Judaeans flee to the Temple (6.71), where the rebels fight valiantly as the Romans slowly conquer the Temple, finally setting the “holy place of the sanctuary” (tou naou to hagion) on fire and conquering the Temple (6.260 ff.).3 By referring to the Temple at key moments in the story, by describing internal conflict over the Temple, and by making it the goal of the plot, Josephus shows how important the Temple and its loss are to Judaeans. is importance is explicit in the narrative: though the rebels largely act impiously in the Temple (see e Judaean War 5.1–38), they show an admirable devotion to it, being inspired to fight by their intense feelings for the place (e Judaean War 6.253). e Temple can inspire in this way because it is a symbol of Judaea itself. is symbolism explains the significance of the final battle for the Temple: in defending the Temple, the rebels are defending their land and their people; if the Temple falls, they are lost. e Temple is a synecdoche for Judaea, and its defeat corresponds fully to the defeat of Judaea and its people. e Temple is the heart of Judaea and of the Judaeans, which may be why Josephus makes special note of the stream of blood of Judaean victims flowing down the steps of the sanctuary just at the moment that the Romans take control of the Temple (e Judaean War 6.259). When they destroyed the Temple, the Romans, in a figurative sense, critically wounded Judaea. Elsewhere in his writings, Josephus demonstrates the continued importance of the Temple for Judaeans by treating it as the ongoing primary place of Judaean worship. In his ethnography of the Judaeans (“Jews”) in Against Apion, written at the end of the first century, Josephus includes the Temple and its worship as an important component of how the Judaeans define themselves.4 As Goodman argues, Josephus intentionally uses a future-tense verb here to describe the priests’ actions: “[e high priest], together with his fellow priests, will sacrifice [thusei] to God . . .” (Against Apion 2.194; emphasis added), suggesting that he believes that the priests will again offer sacrifices, perhaps in the near future.5 Josephus includes the Temple and its worship in his ethnographic description of Judaeans and writes about sacrifice in the future because for him, the Temple remained the center of Judaean ritual practice and continued to be integral to Judaeanness.6

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

94

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 94

Chapter 5

Josephus was not the only one who continued to talk about the Temple and consider it important. At about the same time as Josephus and perhaps a bit later, the authors of the various “apocalyptic” texts continue to relate to the Temple in ways that presume its centrality, just as Josephus does. ese works do not go into great detail about the Temple and its worship, as do Josephus, the Mishnah, and many of the Second Temple texts, but they do mention a few details about the Temple in describing what has been lost with the destruction. ey convey a heartfelt sense of loss and a sincere belief that the Temple will be rebuilt. e best examples from this genre are 4 Ezra and 4 Baruch (Paraleipomena Jeremiou) and, to a lesser extent, 2 Baruch, all post–Second Temple texts that recount not the destruction of the Second Temple, but that of the first Temple. By imagining various biblical characters—including Baruch and Ezra—responding to the first destruction in the sixth century BCE, the authors appear to be responding theologically to the destruction they have experienced in the first century CE. perhaps the most poignant episode in this genre is Ezra’s vision in 4 Ezra of the personified Jerusalem in mourning and the consolation he offers her. In the beginning of the book, Ezra repeatedly expresses despair over the destruction and challenges God’s justice. At a crucial turning point in this larger narrative, in chapters 9–10, Ezra sees a woman whom he takes simply as a woman in despair over the loss of her son. he tries to console her—or at least chastise her for focusing on her sorrow—by describing Jerusalem’s greater sorrow, particularly the sorrow of the loss of the Temple, the altar, the harp, song and rejoicing, the light of the menorah, the ark, the priests, and the Levites. When the woman suddenly transforms into a real city, Ezra is stunned and cannot understand what is going on. e astute reader surely realizes that the woman was a metaphor: she is Jerusalem herself. e dramatic irony emphasizes the message of hope. Ezra does not realize it until the angel explains the metaphor, but the transformation is an experience of the future. Just as Ezra has promised the woman that she will have her son back at the resurrection (10:16), so God seems to be saying, Jerusalem herself, the real city, will be resurrected. According to the angel, her son, a metaphor for the Temple and its worship, will be restored to her. Ezra, in this story, has been rewarded for his actions by experiencing Jerusalem’s future “glory” and “beauty” (10:50). e real reward of the story is the hope that the tale gives the reader with the depiction and promise of the miraculously resurrected city.7

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 95

Wider Discourse

95

What this episode and 4 Ezra as a whole share with 2 Baruch and 4 Baruch is an emphasis on the loss of the physical Temple and its implements, a working out of the theological implications of the destruction, and a message of hope that the Temple will be rebuilt.8 True, if one takes the literal perspective of the characters in these stories, the promise is for the building of the Second Temple, but the parallel to the authors’ own time after the destruction of the Second Temple is implicit. e biblical characters are a mouthpiece for the authors, who are formulating responses to the Temple destruction that occurred in their own time. After the destruction, there is a keen sense of loss for the physical Temple, its objects, and priests, but also a conviction that it will be rebuilt—just as the Temple had been rebuilt in the persian era.9 Jumping ahead a few more decades, there is evidence of the continuing centrality of the Temple during the Bar Kokhba revolt of 132–35. According to Cassius Dio, the second- and third-century Roman historian—in the version surviving only in the epitome by Xiphilinus, the eleventh-century monk— the Jews were motivated to rebel by hadrian’s founding a Roman city (polis), Aelia Capitolina, on the ruins of Jerusalem and his founding a pagan Temple to Jupiter on the ruins of the Temple.10 yaron Eliav has argued recently, based on the archaeological evidence, that there was no Temple to Jupiter built on the ruins of the Temple. Rather, Eliav argues, Xiphilinus adds the detail about the Temple to Jupiter to Dio’s text because of his own understanding of the Temple Mount site.11 While this particular part of the story is likely a late addition, the archaeological and epigraphical evidence confirms that in the year 130, shortly before the revolt began, hadrian established Aelia Capitolina in what was once Jerusalem.12 Dio’s explanation that the Jews could not tolerate this Roman claim on their sacred city, the city that had once housed the Temple, is plausible. Much as they had in previous centuries, then, the Jews reacted to a perceived desecration of their holy site (Jerusalem) by taking up arms. e only difference was that there was no longer a Temple there. During this final revolt against the Romans, the Temple and its site were important not only for the people, who may have been inspired to revolt by hadrian’s actions, but also for the leader of the revolt, Shimon ben Kosiba (Bar Kokhba), who, like numerous Judaean leaders before him, linked his claim for authoritative leadership over the “house of Israel” with the imagery of Temple and the city of Jerusalem.13 ough evidence shows that Bar Kokhba never conquered the Roman Aelia Capitolina nor did he reestablish the Temple’s rit-

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

96

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 96

Chapter 5

figure 1. painting from the ancient third-century synagogue discovered in Dura Europos, Syria (panel WB 2), depicting ritual furnishings and objects and Aaron and other priests in the (Temple-like) Tabernacle. Art Resource, Ny.

ual practices, the Temple was an important symbolic motif for him and his administration. On many of the coins produced during this revolt (see one example in figure 5, below), Bar Kokhba’s minters stamped images of the Temple facade or of implements associated with Temple worship. On these same coins as well as on other coins with more neutral imagery, they incorporated the phrase “Jerusalem” (‫ )ירושלם‬or “for the freedom of Jerusalem” (‫לחרות‬ ‫)ירושלם‬.14 e imagery and words on these coins are part of a larger constellation of rhetoric that Bar Kokhba used to fashion himself “Naśi [‫ ]נשיא‬of Israel.”15 Naśi is a biblical term for “ruler,” though it is ambiguous as to what type of leader Shimon is claiming to be by using this title.16 Other available evidence suggests that Shimon modeled his leadership position on that of the Roman emperor. By dating the legal transactions, for instance, to “year three of Shimon ben Kosiba,” the scribes who produced legal documents under his rule seem to be drawing on the Roman model of dating the documents by the regnal year of the emperor. is formulation is remarkably similar to the Roman one used in an Aramaic document found in the same cave as some of the Bar Kokhba documents: in p. yadin 7, the year is given as “year three of the autokrator

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 97

Wider Discourse

97

[au.to.kra.tor in Aramaic; ‫ ]לאוטקרטור‬Traianos hadrianos Sebastos.”17 In addition to copying the Roman imperial method of dating, Bar Kokhba fashioned himself a quasi-emperor by minting coins with his name—though not his image—directly over effaced images of Roman emperors. e Temple images included on many of these coins—together with the messianic and Temple overtones of the title naśi—link Bar Kokhba’s leadership claims with the motif of the Temple. Like the hasmoneans, King herod, and the rebels of the first revolt, Bar Kokhba trumpets himself as the defender and champion of the Temple.

Judaeans after the Bar Kokhba Revolt and the Imagery in the Dura Europos Synagogue Although there is limited relevant evidence subsequent to the Bar Kokhba revolt until the later third and early fourth centuries—outside of the Mishnah— it is reasonable to assume that the Temple remained important even for non-rabbinic Judaeans, at least those who continued to adhere to some form of traditional practice and culture. It certainly remained important for the rabbis of the Mishnah. e one available body of evidence from the time, the extensive wall painting found in the mid-second-century Dura Europos synagogue, strongly supports the notion that even non-rabbinic Jews continued to make the Temple central to their ritual practice and to their self-understanding as members of the people of Israel.18 Most of the stunning painted walls uncovered in the synagogue ruins of this ancient city depict numerous scenes from the Bible.19 Some of these scenes depict the Temple. One of these (WB 2), located above and to the left (south) of the central Torah shrine, depicts “Aaron” (ΑΡωΝ) dressed in what appears to be high-priestly garb, standing inside the Temple behind the outer gate, next to the golden altar, the menorah, the inner shrine, a number of sacrificial animals, and a handful of other male figures, perhaps priests or Israelites (see figure 1). Since Aaron served in the Tabernacle in the desert but not in a Temple made of stones and columns, this picture is partially hybrid, remembering the Tabernacle as Temple. Certainly, it treats the Temple and its worship as an important component of the biblical narrative. is scene, sitting to the left of the Torah shrine, parallels a Second Temple scene (WB 3), without any objects or figures, that sits

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

98

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 98

Chapter 5

figure 2. Dura Europos synagogue painting (panel WB 3) depicting the Temple. Art Resource, Ny.

to the right and above the Torah shrine (see figure 2; the relationship to the Torah shrine can be seen in figure 4). Mirroring each other, these two Temple scenes are eye-catching and central when facing the Torah shrine.20 A third explicit depiction of the Temple occurs in the most central location in the entire room, on the panel immediately above the Torah shrine niche—on the entablature of the aedicule (see figures 3 and 4). is panel shows iconographic motifs all associated with the Temple: the facade of the Temple—strikingly similar to the one depicted on the Bar Kokhba silver tetradrachms (figure 5)—as well as a menorah, a citron (’etrōg), a palm branch (lulāv), and a scene of the binding of Isaac. is set of images, similar to those icons found in later synagogue mosaics, places special emphasis on the Temple and seemingly ties the worship taking place in the synagogue, particularly the rituals associated with the Torah, to what took place in the Temple. As Steven fine points out, the shell design in the Temple facade image, which is inscribed in a semicircular shape and held up by pillars, mirrors the identical shell shape in the architecture of the Torah shrine on which the image is painted.21 Taken together, the Temple images in the assembly room of the Dura Europos syna-

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 99

figure 3. Torah shrine of the ancient Dura Europos synagogue in situ. The portion just above the niche (the entablature of the aedicule) depicts the Temple menorah (candelabrum), ritual objects associated with the festival of Tabernacles, the Temple facade, and the binding of Isaac. yale university Art Gallery. Dura Europos Collection.

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

100

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 100

Chapter 5

figure 4. Dura Europos Torah shrine and surrounding paintings. In the painting on the upper part of the Torah shrine, just above the niche (on the entablature of the aedicule), the object within the Temple facade can be seen to include a semicircular top with shell design, two circles with smaller circles in the middle separated by a column, and two support columns. Just to the right and directly above the shrine, the painting of the Temple (panel WB 3) can be seen. yale university Art Gallery. Dura Europos Collection.

gogue show that the Temple was particularly significant and was understood to parallel the synagogue and its worship.22 While the evidence of the Dura Europos synagogue is isolated, the similarity between the depiction of the Temple facade and Bar Kokhba’s iconography suggests that the later artwork is drawing on the earlier coin imagery, and thus that there was a continuity between the Temple discourses of the earlier and later communities situated in different places. e facade on both the coins and the Dura Torah shrine has four columns, a flat roof with rounded decoration, and a bottom/floor composed of squares.23 Inside the facade, both picture a square structure topped by a semicircle. here, however, the figures differ in their particulars. e square part on the Bar Kokhba coins does not reach the

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 101

Wider Discourse

101

ground but is set within the Temple. e square portion on the coins appears to be set on legs. In the Dura Torah shrine painting, in contrast, the square within the facade is made up of columns, and the semicircle is set upon those pillars. e figure inside the Torah shrine’s Temple contains an additional element that looks like a column, a shape absent in the similar figure on the coins. One further similarity between the two images is the presence of two circles or dots within the square portion of the structure. On the coins, these are merely dots; on the Torah shrine, they are small circles within slightly larger circles. is similarity makes the parallel inner structures more similar and, in light of the overall similarity in the Temple facade iconography, suggests that the two structures are related. While it is impossible to tell for certain what these structures are meant to depict, similar possibilities have been suggested: in each case, the circles or dots may be scrolls (depicted end-on), and the structure may be a Torah shrine in which the scrolls are kept.24 e strong pictorial continuity between the image of the Temple facade in the two divergent times and places—whether or not they depict precisely the same objects—suggests that in the times and places between the Bar Kokhba revolt in Judaea and the creation of the synagogue in Dura Europos, Jews who maintained traditional practices and culture continued to hold the Temple dear. Despite the gap in available evidence, it is likely that there were nonrabbinic Jews in the later second and early third centuries who transmitted this iconography and the cultural values it represented.25

e Temple for Believers in Jesus and Early Christians Like the rabbis of the Mishnah and the various other groups of Judaeans described, believers in Jesus living in the post-destruction Roman world (Judaean and non-Judaean) and Christians continued to treat the Temple as important and actively produced competing Temple discourses that were useful to them in expressing and legitimating their own identities and practices.26 In the years, decades, and centuries following Jesus’ death, as episodes in his life were told, retold, redacted, and commented upon, these episodes were made to fit ever new contexts in Judaea and beyond. from early on, incidents in the life of Jesus centering on the Temple became a part of the mythology of new communities, including those composed of Greek-speaking Gentiles with various ties to Jesus’

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:08 PM

102

Page 102

Chapter 5

Judaean heritage. Subsequently, these Temple-centered stories, as well as the connection between Jesus and the Temple, would be elaborated in ways meaningful to a variety of authors and groups. In the aftermath of the destruction, for those who composed the Gospels, for the authors of hebrews and Revelation, and for those later authors into the early third century who embellished the earlier stories or wrote various types of texts developing Jesus traditions and working out Christian theology and ideology, discourse about the Temple functioned to establish group identity, to maintain a link with tradition, and to confer authority on particular individuals, perspectives, and ritual practices. Among early Christians, Temple discourse was widespread and meaningful.

e Temple in the Gospels In the inchoate narratives out of which the four canonical Gospels were composed, the Temple, and, to an extent, its ritual and its personnel, played a major role in Jesus’ ministry. All four Gospels share the following episodes: Jesus comes to the Temple, engages in teaching in the Temple; predicts (or threatens) the destruction of the Temple; takes his “action” in the Temple (the so-called cleansing of the Temple); engages in contestation with his opponents in the Temple; has the Last Supper, which celebrates the Temple festival of passover (except in John); and meets his end in the vicinity of the Temple on a festival that is observed in the Temple.27 e Temple, in this earlier layer of traditions about Jesus, was central to his story and to his teaching. e shared synoptic tradition (in Matthew, Mark, and Luke) and the traditions preserved in and formulated by particular Gospels give further importance to the Temple in the various ways in which they choose to recount Jesus’ life. In the synoptic Gospels, for instance, the narrative as a whole is directed toward a climactic denouement in and in relation to the Temple. According to these versions of the story, Jesus spends most of his “ministry” outside of Jerusalem, journeying there only for his final confrontation, death, and resurrection.28 As several scholars have pointed out, the journey in these tellings leads inexorably toward his “triumphal” (or not so triumphal) entry into the city and, shortly thereafter, the Temple, working toward the purpose of the narrative: his sacrifice on the cross (and resurrection).29 Moreover, in the synoptic Gospels, the dramatic moment of Jesus’ death, though it takes place out-

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 103

figure 5. Obverse of a Bar Kokhba tetradrachm (sela) discovered in the Te’omim cave in 2009. The inscription reads “yRWS[L]M (Jerusalem),” and a cross-rosette appears at the top between the letters wāw and shin. More than half of the twenty tetradrachms in this hoard (“hoard A”) bear the alternative inscription “ShM‘WN” = shim‘ōn (Simon). Note that the object within the tetrastyle Temple facade bears a resemblance to that within the similar Temple facade on the Dura Europos Torah shrine. photo courtesy archaeologist/photographer professor Boaz Zissu, Bar-Ilan university. Coin originally published (labeled A2) in Boaz Zissu, hanan Eshel, Boaz Langford, and Amos frumkin, “Coins from the Bar Kokhba Revolt hidden in Me’arat ha-Te‘omim (M˘ughâret umm et Tûeimîn), Western Jerusalem hills,” Israel Numismatic Journal 17 (2009–10): 113–47.

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

104

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 104

Chapter 5

side of the Temple, is connected to the physical structure of the Temple by the spontaneous tearing of the Temple curtain into two. Whatever its precise meaning, this event furthers the association between Jesus’ life and purpose with the Temple, ending the main story arc with the Temple.30 In contrast to the synoptic version of events, the Gospel of John has Jesus coming to the Temple to teach repeatedly throughout his ministry.31 While this telling downplays the inexorable and fated progress of his story, which reaches its climax at the Temple, it plays up the Temple in a different way, implying that Jesus is connected to the Temple throughout his life and not only at the end. Also unique in John, and likely based on paul’s pre-destruction metaphoric comparison between communities of Jesus believers and the Temple and his comparison of Jesus to different types of Temple sacrifices, are the linked assertions that Jesus himself is the Temple and the passover lamb, which was sacrificed in the Temple.32 In John, Jesus is connected to the Temple beyond the level of the story; he is also equated on a symbolic level with the Temple and some of its ritual. All the Gospels’ stories about Jesus that center on the Temple and stress the importance of the Temple are not simply stories. As foundational narratives for the groups of Jesus believers who produced them, like the Temple ritual narratives in the Mishnah, these stories convey a message central to the group’s worldview, and they argue for the importance and legitimacy of certain ritual practices. perhaps the most fundamental message, shared by the four Gospels, is the centrality of Jesus, who is linked in multiple ways to the sacred place of the Temple. Jesus is as important to defining who Jesus believers are as the Temple had been for defining Judaean identity. In each of the different texts, this message, in turn, may be given further nuance. In Luke, for example, the juxtaposition between Jesus’ prophecy that the Temple will be destroyed because of rejection of him (19:41–44) and Jesus’ entry into the Temple (19:45) may stress the defining importance of acceptance or rejection of Jesus.33 In John, the ways in which Jesus is compared to the Temple argue that Jesus is the messianic fulfillment of biblical prophecies about the Temple at the end of time, or that Jesus is the new place in which God dwells and can be accessed.34 Aside from arguing for a particular ideology related to Jesus, the stories also function to legitimate ritual practices of particular communities. for instance, the repeated descriptions in Luke and Acts of prayers in the Temple made by the disciples and others (Luke 24:53; Acts 3:1, 4:21–26, and 22:17;

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 105

Wider Discourse

105

and also Luke 1:10 and 19:46) may justify a ritual practice of particular importance to the author and his community. Similarly, if the passover sacrifice was seen as akin to Eucharistic eating rituals of the community, John’s presentation of Jesus as paschal Lamb may have authorized this particular ritual practice in addition to arguing for its significance.35 A different sort of message, one that would be developed and would become especially important in later texts, comes across in the unique overall plot structure of Luke-Acts. By framing both Luke and Acts with events that take place in the Temple, but ultimately moving the action away from the Temple and to Rome, this work argues for the legitimacy and the primary importance of the mission to the Gentiles. Luke’s story begins with Zechariah, father of John the Baptist, serving as high priest in the Temple, performing the sacred ritual in the sanctuary (1:5–23). Shortly thereafter, the narrative moves to Jesus, describing his parents repeatedly bringing Jesus to the Temple in his childhood, offering sacrifices there, and providing the boy Jesus a chance to impress the crowds with his intellectual prowess (2:21–51). ese Temple events at the beginning of Jesus’ life foreshadow his dramatic return to the Temple at the end of his career, where he teaches and ultimately meets his end. After his life, the narrative moves again outward to other figures, his disciples, who are “continually in the Temple” (24:53). e two sets of Temple episodes at the beginning of his life and those at the end form bookends on the story of Jesus’ life, giving the Temple—and, to a limited extent, its ritual—an important place in this story. In Acts, Luke’s Temple-oriented narrative structure is recapitulated, with one very important difference. here, the main story again begins in the Temple, with the disciples’ actions there (Acts 2–7). e disciples are subsequently forced to disperse (8:1) and undertake missions to the Gentiles, but paul— mirroring Jesus—returns to the Temple, where he participates in Temple ritual, teaches his message, and is accused and put on trial (Acts 19:21–26:32).36 At this point, the plot structure diverges. paul leaves Judaea, and the story ends not in the Temple but in Rome. e place that is most fundamentally important in Acts is not the Temple in Jerusalem but Rome, and the key group is the Gentile community in Rome and throughout the Roman Empire. e reason that this text, which ultimately downgrades the Temple, gives it special emphasis may be suggested by paul’s insistence on his fealty to the Temple and to “our ancestral law” (Acts 22:3; and see 21:24–27, 22:17, 24:12–18, and 28:17).

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

106

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 106

Chapter 5

e Temple lends authority to paul and his Gentile mission and legitimates his message and the communities he shaped by linking him and his work with the symbol of traditional Judaean practice.37 paul and these communities, according to this narrative, are legitimately grounded in the biblical heritage of Judaea.

Jesus, the heavenly Temple, and Supersession in Revelation and hebrews Developing the traditions connecting Jesus to the Temple discussed thus far, two additional canonical New Testament works, Revelation and hebrews, established the significance and meaning of the Temple by asserting explicitly that Jesus had superseded the physical “earthly sanctuary” (heb. 9:1). Both these works used the Temple to justify and make meaningful the way of life espoused by communities of Jesus believers by focusing specifically on the motif of the heavenly Temple or Tabernacle. Like the Gospel of John, Revelation considers Jesus to be Temple and lamb. yet here it is explicit that Jesus as Temple replaces the Temple of old. Toward the end of Revelation, there is a vision of the end of time, when the heavenly Jerusalem will descend out of heaven. In this new Jerusalem, however, the narrator sees “no temple in the city, for its temple is the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb” (Rev. 21:22). here, as in John, Jesus seems to be the Temple in the sense that he provides what had traditionally been provided by the Temple: he fulfills the Temple’s function; he provides access to the divine; and the locus of power, identity, and sacrality now resides within him.38 Earlier in Revelation, extensive description of heavenly prayer liturgy within the heavenly Temple adds nuance to the meaning of treating Jesus as the new Temple. e angelic recitation of Isa. 6:3 (“holy, holy, holy . . .”; Rev. 4:8), golden incense bowls (5:8), prayers by elders and saints to God and Jesus (4:10, 5:8, 5:11–13, and 7:11), and white-robed multitudes cleansed “in the blood of the Lamb” (7:9 and 14), all portrayals of the heavenly Temple, likely mirror the community’s own ritual practices.39 ese imaginings of the heavenly Temple thus suggest that the community’s liturgy provides access to the sacred and the divine. ey legitimate and make meaningful these practices by linking them not only with the heavenly realm but with the Temple and its traditions.

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 107

Wider Discourse

107

In the Letter to the hebrews, which also sees the Temple (more specifically, the Tabernacle) as superseded, Jesus is not the Temple but is both the high priest officiating in the inner sanctum and the Day of Atonement sacrifice offered there.40 Jesus is better than the earthly priest because his high priesthood is eternal, and his more perfect, single atoning sacrifice of himself replaces the annual ritual of the Temple (hebrews 6–10). ough the author sees Christ’s coming as definitively taking the place of Temple worship—“once for all” (9:12)—he nevertheless goes into great detail describing (inaccurately) the superseded sanctuary and some of its sacrifices (9:2–22; also 5:3, 7:27, 10:1, and 10:11). is suggests that even in denying the physical Temple’s function, that Temple still has meaning for him, which he metaphorically transfers to the practices of his own community.41 Indeed, the author’s purpose in describing Jesus as priest and as sacrifice is partly to encourage his community to “enter the sanctuary by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain” (10:19–20; and see 12:22–24). is is done, according to the author, by ensuring ritual and metaphysical purity.42 e participants must approach “with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water” (10:22). faith, purified heart, purified bodies, and more are necessary to benefit from the new eternal priesthood and one-time expiation offered by Jesus and to enter the heavenly shrine where God resides. for the author of hebrews, as for all “early Christian” authors discussed, the real interests here are the centrality of Jesus and the practices of the Christ-believing community, which are justified by a rendering of the key component of the traditional Judaean worldview.

Temple Discourse in Christian Texts of the Second and ird Centuries Into the second and third centuries, Christian authors continued to retell and embellish stories about Jesus centering on the Temple. e Protoevangelium of James, the Infancy Gospel of omas, and the Acts of omas, for example, all retell the early episodes of Jesus’ life from Luke.43 Similarly, as yaron Eliav has demonstrated, traditions centering on James—such as those preserved in the Apocryphon of James, the First Apocalypse of James, the Second Apocalypse of James,

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

108

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 108

Chapter 5

and the section of the pseudo-Clementine Recognitions, often called the Ascent of James—developed a detailed ideology about the Temple and the Temple Mount.44 perhaps the most important development for understanding the landscape of competing Temple discourses in the time of the rabbis was the appearance of discursive polemical writings asserting that Temple ritual had been abrogated.45 In the context of competing claims to the title “Israel” and to Judaean heritage, apostolic and patristic writers, including the author of Barnabas and Justin Martyr, devoted sections of their polemical works to detailing why the traditional Judaean Temple rites (and other ritual practices) were now abrogated and replaced.46 Similar to the authors of Acts, Revelation, hebrews, and perhaps some of the Gospels, these authors denigrated the Temple and saw no value in its actual practice. yet even this negative discourse about the Temple was central to the construction of their own identity as “Israel,” against the competing constructions espoused by those with whom they claim to have disputed. An even more extreme example of asserting the supersession of the physical Temple, likely also in a polemical context, is hippolytus’s early third-century view on the coming of the Antichrist and the Second Coming of Christ. Building on various earlier traditions, especially that of 2 ess. 2:3–4, which envisions “the lawless one” taking “his seat in the Temple of God,” hippolytus formulated an elaborate theory in which the Antichrist, a Judaean “perverted imitation of Christ” would come as a prelude to the Second Coming of Christ and would “raise a temple of stone in Jerusalem.”47 As Bernard McGinn has shown, this is part of hippolytus’s construction of a “double recapitulation,” whereby the Antichrist and his Temple are once again superseded by Jesus as Temple.48 What is surprising in hippolytus’s unique account of the Antichrist is that the Judaean false messiah actually rebuilds the Temple. Surely hippolytus could have read the verse in 2 essalonians as referring to a heavenly or figurative Temple. yet he does not, suggesting that he is arguing polemically against Judaeans who believed that the Temple of stone would be rebuilt. yes, he seems to be saying to these interlocutors, the Temple of stone will indeed be built. yet this Temple of stone will once again be replaced by Jesus. According to this reading, hippolytus goes further than Barnabas and the Dialogue with Trypho, arguing for the Temple’s supersession by granting that the Temple would indeed be built.

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 109

Wider Discourse

109

In addition to these Christian authors, the authors of the pseudo-Clementine Recognitions 1.27–71, whom Annette Reed has contended were fully Judaean believers in Jesus, argue for the supersession of the Temple, and their assertions about the Temple’s fate helps justify their own Judaean practices. Arguing vociferously against the Temple’s animal sacrifice, these authors claim that Jesus came to end such incorrect ritual practices and replace them with baptism. ese authors’ negative view of the Temple not only justified their own community’s practice but served as a mark of unique identity for them.49

e Details of Temple Ritual for Authorizing Christian Ritual in the ird Century While for most of these later Christian and Judaean Jesus-believing authors of the second and early third centuries, the Jerusalem Temple was largely a place and its ritual system a set of practices no longer relevant, there is one text, a Gospel-like fragment known as Oxyrhynchus papyrus 840, in which the details of Temple ritual themselves are taken up and may serve to legitimate a particular position on Christian ritual practices in its author’s own day. In this text, Jesus (called “the Savior”) and several disciples are stopped by a pharisee chief priest named Levi just as they are entering the Temple (hieron). e priest asks who gave them a right to enter to “view these holy vessels” (2.2), when they have not ritually immersed and washed themselves.50 Jesus throws the same question back at the priest, who answers straightforwardly: “I am pure, having washed myself in the pool of David and, having descended one staircase, I came up by another; and I have put on white and pure clothes, and only then did I come and lay eyes on these holy vessels” (2.5–2.6).51 for the Jesus of this fragment, this is not the type of purity that is important. Defending himself and admonishing the pharisee/priest in the withering style familiar from the canonical Gospels, Jesus argues against the physical form of water purification expected by the priest: “(2.7) e Savior answered him saying: Woe unto you, O blind ones, who do not see! you have washed yourself in these running waters where dogs and pigs have wallowed night and day, (2.8) and you have cleansed and wiped the outside skin that the prostitutes and flute-girls anoint, which they wash, and wipe, and make beautiful for human desire; but inwardly these women are full of scorpions and every

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

110

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 110

Chapter 5

wickedness. (2.9) But I and my disciples, who you say have not bathed, we have bathed in waters of eternal life, which come down from the God of heaven. But woe unto those. . . .” Jesus in this passage claims that the nonphysical type of water in which he has bathed is more appropriate than the traditional place of immersion that the priest used. It is he and his disciples, therefore, not the pharisee/priest and the priestly establishment, who belong in the Temple’s inner sacred space.52 Regardless of whether this type of encounter was possible, it is significant that a later Christian author was interested in the details of purification for entering the sacred space of the Temple and imagined an episode in the life of Jesus centering on a dispute over the proper performance of these rituals.53 In a compelling analysis of this fragment, françois Bovon argues that when the author of this fragment speaks about Jesus and purification rituals in the Temple, he has in mind the baptismal practices of Christians, perhaps in the time of a certain Justin the Gnostic (quoted by hippolytus), who lived in the second century, or in the time of the controversy between Manicheans and Elkasites in the third.54 Building on language and ideas found in the canonical Gospels and alluding to the Johannine narrative of washing the feet (John 13:1–17), the author of this fragment is arguing—according to Bovon—that although most Christian authorities required baptismal purification in water before the individual entered a church to view the sacred vessels and to perform the Eucharist, the author of this text disagreed.55 ough this author is taking a supersessionist view similar to what we have seen in hebrews, Revelation, Barnabas, and Dialogue with Trypho, he shows an interest in the details of Temple practice and uses these details to argue for a particular version of ritual practice in his own Christian community in his own day.56 Together, the various first-, second-, and early third-century Temple discourses among Judaean and non-Judaean believers in Jesus and among Christians that I have outlined demonstrate just how widespread Temple discourse was—even late in the second century and early in the third, the time of the mishnaic rabbis. Like the rabbis and other non-Jesus-believing Judaeans, believers in Jesus and Christians actively appropriated the Temple for their own purposes, using it to express the centrality of Jesus, the validity of their Jesuscentered rituals, and the meaning of belief and practice. Similarly, for different types of early Christians, discourse about the Temple could help express the way they defined themselves as a group, particularly against

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 111

Wider Discourse

111

others who may have used the Temple to define themselves in very different ways.

e Destruction of the Temple, the Making of Roman Emperors, and Why No permission Was Given by Rome to Rebuild the Temple In the wake of the destruction of the Temple at the culmination of the first revolt, different groups of Judaeans—including Judaean believers in Jesus—and Christians were not the only ones who continued to think about the Jerusalem Temple and promulgate material culture linked to it in a way that expressed claims for authority and legitimacy. perhaps surprisingly, the Temple was also integral to the discourse of Roman emperors, though in a more indirect way. Roman emperors, like the rulers of various imperial powers before them—including persian and hellenistic rulers—seem to have provided financial support for the Temple cult when it was in existence.57 But now that the Temple was gone, Roman emperors could no longer claim legitimacy as rulers over the Judaeans through their financial support of the Temple. At this point, the Temple became important for the power discourse of Roman emperors because emperors began to suppress it by not allowing it to be rebuilt. It is a curious fact about the Roman response to the destruction of the Temple—noted by Martin Goodman—that the Romans did not allow the Judaeans to rebuild their Temple.58 Roman emperors in the past had supported Temple worship, and elsewhere they had allowed defeated peoples to rebuild destroyed temples.59 further, as Goodman argues, Romans would have recognized that the proper worship of any ancestral god involved making offerings in a Temple. us, in Goodman’s view, Roman emperors must have been fully aware that they were denying the Judaeans the ability to worship their own God in the manner “standard throughout the Roman world.”60 Why, then, did the Romans not allow the Jews to rebuild their Temple? After the first revolt, Vespasian and his successors may have wished to punish the ruling powers, or they may have felt that the Temple had been a focal point for anti-Roman sentiment and political activity that destroyed the Roman peace. Refusal to allow the Temple to be rebuilt may therefore have been punitive or preventive.61 yet these explanations are not sufficient to account for the Roman policy. ese

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

112

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 112

Chapter 5

emperors could have punished those deserving of punishment and could have rebuilt the Temple, putting in power those loyal to Rome. Josephus’s assumption that the Temple would be rebuilt indicates that this would have been a reasonable course of action for the Romans.62 yet it is a path they did not take. e reason that the Roman emperors did not allow the Jews to rebuild the Temple, Goodman shows, is that the destruction of Judaea became central to their claims for legitimacy as emperors.63 us they left the Temple—the place where the war had been won and the place that was the symbolic heart of Judaea—destroyed as a reminder of their great military victory, the defeat of Judaea. Vespasian, who became emperor during his campaign in Judaea, did not have a particularly distinguished lineage. his victory—and the victory of his son Titus, who became general of the campaign—strengthened his, and later Titus’s, claim to the title imperator/autokrator (emperor). e importance of this victory can be seen in the numerous Judaea capta (sometimes Judaea devicta [defeated]) coins minted not only by Vespasian but also by his sons and the subsequent emperors, Titus and perhaps Domitian.64 ese coins typically depict a female figure, symbolic of Judaea, in a disgraced position—often seated—next to a palm tree and near a soldier (or Titus) or simply armor, symbolic of the conquering Roman army. On the obverse is a bust of the emperor with the emperor’s name and year.65 While there is nothing unusual in a Roman emperor’s commemorating a military victory on coins such as these, the disproportionately large number of this particular victory coin in comparison with others and the exceptionally long span of time over which they were minted point to the unique significance of this series of coins and this particular military victory.66 Judaea was of ongoing importance to Vespasian, Titus, and Domitian because its capture and defeat provided the foundation for their claims for power. If the place and people of Judaea remained part of the emperors’ discourse of power, so the central place of Judaean worship, the Jerusalem Temple, was integral to this discourse. According to Josephus, when Titus returned to Rome after his victory in Judaea, a spectacular victory celebration was held, in which the spoils of war were displayed. Josephus emphasizes that “conspicuous above all stood out those [spoils] captured in the Temple at Jerusalem . . . a golden table . . . a lamp stand . . . and a copy of the Jewish Law [Torah scroll(s)].”67 Among the spoils, the gold vessels from the Temple were deposited in the Tem-

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 113

Wider Discourse

113

ple of peace that Vespasian erected while the purple hangings from the sanctuary and the copy of the Torah were stored in the palace.68 e Romans gave— according to Josephus—special attention to what was captured from the Temple. When the victory was commemorated in the arch still found on the Via Sacra (the arch of Titus), Temple implements were included in this visual display as well.69 presumably, these Temple implements were displayed not only because they were particularly valuable treasures but because they were especially important to the Judaeans, and the control over these artifacts was symbolic of the capture of Judaea.70 e importance of the Temple in the Roman discourse of victory over Judaea can also be seen in the so-called Jewish tax (fiscus iudaicus/ioudaikon telesma/time dunarion duo ioudaion) imposed upon Judaeans throughout the empire after the destruction. ere is much evidence for the existence of this tax, including mentions by Cassius Dio and Suetonius, and receipts for the tax paid on second-century ostraca found in Apollinopolis Magna (modern Edfu).71 is tax, imposed after the Judaean defeat, publicized the Roman victory, and—according to Josephus, at least—it was a Roman appropriation of what was originally a tax contributed by Jews to the Temple, now to be paid to the Capitol.72 e “Jewish tax” was yet another way the Roman emperors asserted their authority specifically by invoking the victory over Judaea. If Josephus is correct, the Temple is again at the center of the claim. e various pieces of evidence show that for Vespasian, Titus, and then Domitian, the capture of Judaea and, by extension, the destruction of the Temple, were “integral” to their “public personae,” which helps explain why they did not allow the Temple to be rebuilt.73 Surprisingly, even after the end of the flavian line, the capture of Judaea and thus the continued destruction of the Temple remained important for subsequent emperors, with the exception of Nerva. Nerva’s rule brought a brief interlude in the policy toward the Judaeans because, as Goodman argues, “Nerva’s legitimacy depended on the denigration of Domitian’s rule. Domitian had been good to Nerva, and yet Nerva became emperor when Domitian was murdered. us Nerva had to justify his own rule by distancing himself from Domitian and his policies.”74 It is this context that explains Nerva’s coins that depict a palm tree—without personified Judaea sitting beside it in shame found on the flavian coins—and that pronounce fisci iudaici calumnia sublata (“the perversion of justice of the Judaean tax, removed”).75 It is not clear what perversion of justice—calumnia—

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

114

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 114

Chapter 5

Nerva removed and publicized with this coin. Goodman argues that it was the excessive investigation into who was Judaean and obligated to pay the tax. It could also have been the tax itself. Regardless of the precise meaning, the “removal” appears targeted at the policies of his predecessors and hence minimizes the importance of Judaea and its capture.76 As Goodman suggests, Nerva was not connected to the campaign in Judaea and was at pains to distance himself from Domitian’s policies. us for him, Judaea was not particularly important. yet with the accession of Nerva’s adopted son, Trajan (adopted by the emperor not as a child but in the manner of emperors thinking about their succession), the Judaean campaign again became important. As Goodman points out, Trajan’s birth father had served as a general in Judaea under Vespasian, a commander of a legion, like Titus. Trajan’s reputation, like Vespasian and Titus before him, rested on military glory in the Judaean campaign—in this case, the military glory of his father. for Goodman, the importance of victory in Judaea for Trajan helps explain what appears to be a reinstatement of the Judaean tax and later the Judaean revolts and violent suppression in the Diaspora during his reign.77 hadrian, Trajan’s successor and purported adopted son, continued Trajan’s policies, perhaps because his own legitimacy depended on that of Trajan. One of these policies seems to have been a continued assertion of domination over Judaea. As we have seen, by founding the colony Aelia Capitolina on the ruins of Jerusalem in 130, hadrian seems to have set off the Bar Kokhba revolt. It is possible that hadrian had not meant to intentionally denigrate the sacred city and Temple site of the Jews, but was merely founding a new city, as Roman emperors were wont.78 Considering that his legitimacy could ultimately be traced back to the defeat of Judaea, it is also possible that this was an intentional reassertion of the defeated status of Judaea (and the continued suppression of the Temple and its worship). Appian, the Roman historian who situates himself in hadrian’s time, certainly sees a connection between the destructions of Jerusalem wrought by Vespasian and hadrian, linking an essential Judaean predilection for resistance with the conquests of pompey, Vespasian, and finally hadrian.79 Regardless of hadrian’s motives, his decision to found Aelia cemented the legacy of Vespasian and Titus. he was required to put down the rebellion and thereby continued the cycle of violence and control. ultimately, this cycle was ended under hadrian by sheer destruction and vast killing.80 e legacy of hadrian continued, as Goodman shows, for the next century

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 115

Wider Discourse

115

after the Bar Kokhba revolt. Every emperor until 193 “owed his position to adoption by hadrian or his adopted successors.”81 Subsequently, Severus and his sons linked their authority to that of hadrian and his pseudo-line. ese emperors continued the basic policies of their predecessors, and the continued relevance of the absent Jerusalem—that is, Aelia Capitolina—can be seen in the coinage of Aelia, minted from the time of hadrian until hostilianus in the mid-third century.82 perhaps because of accidents of history—Vespasian’s lack of distinguished lineage, Nerva’s adoption of Trajan, Trajan’s connection to the war in Judaea, and so on—the Jerusalem Temple became important in imperial discourse in a way that ensured that it would not be rebuilt. ough no doubt only a small part of the imperial discourses of power and presumably of diminishing significance after the time of Vespasian and Titus, the Temple—even if indirectly—remained a part of the Roman memory of the past. Aside from the loot that was paraded and shown, the Romans were not particularly interested in the Temple or in its cult. One of the few writers to actually discuss the Temple, Tacitus (Histories 5.1–13), refers briefly to the Temple in his ethnography of the Judaeans, but this is rather minimal and seems to be aimed at denigrating the Judaeans. Once the Temple was gone, there was no reason to mention it specifically—and indeed, it was not mentioned. yet, in Goodman’s view, Tacitus’s denigration of Judaean mores and the later suppression of Jerusalem and Judaea more generally all come back to the Temple. Tacitus’s ethnography helps justify policies of domination in Judaea.83 And the centerpiece of these policies was enforced Temple-less-ness. e Temple was not important for the Romans because of the specifics of its location, structure, or the practices that took place in it. Rather, the significance of the Temple for the Romans was symbolic: the continued absence of the Temple—the heart of Jerusalem and Judaea and the site where Roman victory was sealed—asserted the importance of the Roman victory over Judaea in the year 70.84 e Roman memory of the Temple, whether early on in writing and public display or later simply by dint of absence, lay at the core of most emperors’ legitimacy in the late first, second, and early third centuries.

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

116

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 116

Chapter 5

e Rabbis’ Temple in the Context of Multiple Discourses about the Temple e evidence marshaled in this chapter shows that Judaeans of various sorts, Christians, and Romans—many different groups in Roman palestine and beyond—continued to speak and write about the Temple long after its destruction. Some Judaeans portrayed the Temple and its ritual positively, hoping to reinstate what had been a central feature of Judaean life. Other Judaeans— notably, the believers of Jesus who wrote the pseudo-Clementine Recognitions 1.27–71, as well as many Christian writers—viewed it negatively, believing it to have been replaced. Romans, too, emphasized the Temple’s destruction and absence for their own political reasons. for all the authors (and other producers of cultural products) surveyed, the Temple was at once a primary element of Judaean culture and a place of importance with the power to lend authority and legitimacy to individuals or groups and to particular ideas or practices. Temple discourse, moreover, could be a fundamental part of each author’s or group’s self-definition. One conclusion that must be drawn from the existence of a widespread discourse about the Jerusalem Temple is that the rabbinic discourse about the Temple and its ritual cannot be treated as an isolated phenomenon. e rabbis were not alone in imagining the Temple; it continued to be of importance to many groups. True, the rabbis never mention any other discourses about the Temple, aside from that of the “heretics” (minim) who are ready to mock the rabbinic version of Temple ritual in Mishnah Parah 3:3. yet the non-rabbinic sources make clear that such discourses were prevalent both during the time of the tannaim (rabbis of the Mishnah) quoted in the Mishnah and those subsequent rabbis who must have been responsible for the composition or editing of the Mishnah. Whether or not the rabbis were responding directly to these other discourses, their existence facilitated and amplified the claims that the rabbis could make for themselves: the rabbis could assert their own authority by appropriating the Temple partly because so many other groups were doing the same. e Temple was an acknowledged site for authority, and the rabbis drew on this accepted fact in laying their own claim. Most of those texts surveyed nearest to the time of the Mishnah were not written in Roman Syria palaestina but come from throughout the larger Roman Empire. What this contemporaneous evidence from the larger empire, taken

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 117

Wider Discourse

117

together with the earlier evidence from Judaea, suggests is that even within Syria palaestina at the end of the second century and the beginning of the third, non-rabbinic Judaeans, Judaean and non-Judaean Jesus believers, Christians, Romans, and those who do not fit easily into any of these categories would have continued to engage in discourse about the Temple to further their own unique vision, claims on the Judaean past, and assertions for authority. e rabbis, remembering the Temple in the Mishnah’s ritual narratives, were entering the larger discourse in subtle ways, laying claim to an authoritative position in Judaean society by making the Temple their own.

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 118

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 119

Conclusion

e Memory of the Temple and the Making of the Rabbis

A key contention undergirding the arguments of this book is that context is crucial for understanding the rabbis of the Mishnah: who they were, what their place was in society, what role they aspired to play, and—central to this book— why the Temple was so important to them and why they remembered the Temple and its ritual as they did. e rabbis of the Mishnah lived in a territory thoroughly dominated by the Roman emperor and, on a local level, by the governor, the military, and Roman elites. At the same time, they lived among many different groups, especially different groups of Judaeans with competing views on how to practice the traditional Torah-based way of life. e rabbis could not have had any official power or jurisdiction within the structures of Roman governance, nor, by their own admission, did they have authority over the majority of other Judaeans. ese Judaeans no doubt had their own leaders and ritual experts to whom they turned for guidance on matters of ritual practice. e rabbis thus had limited influence beyond the narrow bounds of their own group. In this sociocultural context, the rabbis of the Mishnah aspired to serve as jurists of Judaean ritual law with the authority to determine how all Judaeans would observe ritual practices. As I have shown, the niche that they attempted to carve out for themselves was shaped by their sociocultural reality. Official legal venues were controlled by the Romans and by local elites empowered by the Romans (of which the rabbis were not a part). At the same time, the law and its practitioners were esteemed in Roman culture. e rabbis thus claimed authority over Judaean ritual law, a domain of law left available by the Romans, and they mimicked the role of the jurist, a position aligned with their own legal activities and interests and with the potential to garner prestige and power. Such a role would have been recognized by Ro-

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

120

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 120

C o n c l u s ion

mans and especially by other groups of Judaeans living under Roman domination. Because the rabbis claimed a role in the realm of ritual law and ritual practice, the Temple—which had always been a central place of Judaean worship and ritual—was a highly appropriate virtual site of memory. But it was not only because the Temple was related to their central preoccupation that the rabbis devoted so much attention to it and recounted in great detail how its ritual had been performed. It was also because other groups at the time were writing about and making use of the Temple in ways that served their own ends. In constructing their own version of the Temple, the rabbis could claim for themselves the Temple’s authority and legitimacy in the domain of ritual— against the competing claims of other groups. As I have demonstrated throughout the book, the Mishnah’s accounts of how rituals were performed in the past in the Temple—its literary representations of rabbinic memory—claim authority for the rabbis in multiple ways. By subtly but insistently shaping the earlier institution of the council into the Great Court located in the Temple and holding ultimate authority over Temple ritual, by narrating Temple ritual performance in a particular manner, and by constructing the Temple’s space and boundaries as they do, the Mishnah’s Temple ritual narratives argue for the power and legitimacy of the rabbis and their interpretation of Judaean tradition.1 Situated as it was among competing Temple discourses, mishnaic writing about the Temple paralleled the Temple discourses of other groups. Much like other groups, the rabbis created the Temple in their own image, in a way that justified their self-definition, their vision for Judaean society, their ritual practices, and their authority. yet comparison between the Mishnah’s ritual narratives and what other Judaeans and non-Judaeans were writing or saying about the Temple reveals what is singular about the rabbinic Temple discourse and about the authority claims embedded within. unlike these other Temple discourses, the Mishnah’s Temple ritual narratives stress the great extent of Temple ritual, its correct form, and its legal nature. e numerous Temple ritual narratives—encompassing a great many Temple rituals—describe these rituals in minute detail and, through the form of iterative narration, assert that they were done regularly and repeatedly. e accounts, moreover, that suggest ongoing and exact repetition of the rituals—and that are teleologically oriented toward the completion of ritual—stress the necessity of correct performance ac-

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 121

Conclusion

121

cording to the dictates of the pre-rabbinic Court and according to the later rabbis themselves. e centrality of correct (rabbinic) performance is affirmed through explicit comments, the narration of ritual failure, and the construction of boundaries that help exclude those who would practice incorrectly. e accounts, moreover, and hence the rituals they describe, are given a legal cast. e Temple’s rituals are controlled by a legal institution—the Court—and the ritual narratives are placed within a framework of discussions of rabbinic legal opinion and incorporate the typical legal language of the Mishnah. What the Mishnah narrates, then, is correct and has the force of law—law deriving from the Torah and law parallel to the authoritative Roman system of law.2 Taken together, these three unique emphases—on the details of performance, the correctness of their version of these details, and the legal nature of their description—form a discourse of authenticity. According to the rabbis, only their version of the Temple is authentic with the force of tradition and law; so only they—and not those with a different vision or version of Judaean practice, not those who used the Temple to argue for Jesus-centered ritual, not those who rejected the Temple altogether—have a true claim to the Temple and the authority it confers. With its stress on authentic Judaean tradition, furthermore, rabbinic Temple discourse makes a statement of resistance against Roman cultural and political domination. ough the Temple has been suppressed and its rituals have fallen into desuetude, the correct Judaean way of life continues to hold sway. e Temple will be rebuilt, and its ritual—as described by the rabbis—will be reinstated. Within the complex social and cultural landscape of Syria palaestina and of the Roman Empire, the rabbis were but one group among many, each articulating a group sense of self, jockeying for power, and arguing for legitimacy and authenticity. By writing or speaking about the Temple as they do in the Mishnah, the rabbis asserted themselves within this complex and dynamic social matrix, arguing for their own importance and for the importance of their system of Judaean law and Judaean ritual practice. how effectively did the rabbinic memory of the Temple and Temple discourse empower the rabbis of succeeding generations? Because of the ambiguous nature of the available evidence, it is difficult to tell. Some scholars believe that rabbis, under the leadership of Rabbi yehudah the Naśi and his descendants, became more powerful in the succeeding centuries; others read the rabbinic evidence skeptically and hold that they remained marginal. Still others

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

122

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 122

C o n c l u s ion

take a middle position.3 Certainly by the geonic era, rabbis in Babylonia had become powerful, as evidenced by their global reach and the size of their academies.4 ough it is unclear to what extent the early rabbis’ memory of the Temple may have facilitated their consolidation of rabbinic power, it seems likely that the historical assertions in the Mishnah’s ritual narratives would have been read straightforwardly. With the passing of time, there would have been little reason to doubt its claims made in the canonical text about the Temple and about the past. e later rabbis, furthermore, had a vested interest in believing the claims of their rabbinic forebears: these later rabbis, such as Sherira Gaon, explicitly rooted their own authority in an unbroken transmission from the earlier rabbis.5 So the Mishnah’s earlier claims for rabbinic authority would minimally have buttressed the similar claims made by these later rabbis. In its own time, the Mishnah’s Temple discourse was an important means by which the rabbis expressed their group sense of self and asserted their own importance and the importance of their tradition. is was a discourse thoroughly bound up with the late second- and early third-century cultural realities of Roman domination; of multiple groups making competing use of the Temple to justify their own beliefs, practices, and claims for authority; and of a rabbinic self-styling as legal authorities, itself shaped by the Roman context. Over time, despite the growing temporal disjunction with the physical Temple and its ritual and with the social context that helped shape the mishnaic Temple discourse, the Mishnah’s Temple ritual narratives retained their importance. ey were part of the very tradition preserved and expanded by later generations of rabbis, and, in all likelihood, they continued to lend legitimacy to the later rabbis who would model themselves on the rabbis of the Mishnah and claim their own authority and authenticity by linking themselves back to them.6

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 123

Appendix A

e Mishnah’s Temple Ritual Narratives and Court-Centered Ritual Narratives

An asterisk before the reference indicates that the example is problematic and can be only questionably classified as a ritual narrative. ough the text used is MS parma, references are to standard enumeration. Included in parentheses are more inclusive or more limited renderings of the boundaries of a given narrative. e criteria for rendering these more expansive or restricted boundaries may vary from narrative to narrative and from the beginning to the end of a given narrative. In some cases, a series of narratives in close proximity may be interrelated—for instance, by being part of a larger list. ese interrelationships are not noted here. Additional instances occur throughout the Mishnah in which a part of a sentence sounds very much like these narratives; these, too, have not been noted. Compare this list with the one compiled by yochanan Breuer in “‘Pā‘al uvēinōni,” 302 n. 17; and the one compiled by Ishay Rosen-Zvi in e Rite at Was Not, 242–43 n. 1. *Ma‘aśer Sheni 5:2—bringing vineyard products of the fourth year to Jerusalem *Ma‘aśer Sheni 5:4—offering fruits of the fourth year *Ma‘aśer Sheni 5:6—disposal of sacred produce *Ma‘aśer Sheni 5:10—ritual recitation for offering sacred produce Bikkurim 3:2–8 (3:1–8 and 3:2–6)—pilgrimage and offering of first fruits Pesa.him 5:5–10 (see also 7:1–2)—offering of the passover lamb sacrifice *Pesa.him 10:1–7—passover night meal ritual (Temple reference in 10:3) *She.kalim 3:2–4—“clearing” the she.kel Temple gifts She.kalim 5:3–5—Temple accounting ritual Yoma 1:1–7:4—Day of Atonement ritual

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

124

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 124

Ap p e n d i x A

Sukkah 4:4—lulāv (ritual palm branch) distribution ritual Sukkah 4:5–6—willow procession and ritual at the altar Sukkah 4:9–10—water libation on Sukkot (Tabernacles) Sukkah 5:1–4—festival of the place of water drawing (sim.hat bēit hashō‘ăvāh) Rosh Hashanah 2:2–4 (2:1–4)—bonfires announcing new moon *Rosh Hashanah 2:5–7 (2:5–8)—testimony and announcement of new moon Ta‘anit 2:1–5—fast-day prayer ritual (also post-Temple) Ta‘anit 4:2–4 (standard edition differs significantly from the manuscripts)—non-priestly ritual by district members corresponding to work of the priestly courses Ta‘anit 4:8—dance of the virgins on the 15th of the month of Av and on the Day of Atonement Hagigah . 3:7–8—announcing the purification (cleansing) of the Temple courtyard Nazir 6:6–9—Nazirite sacrifice and related rituals So.tah 1:3–3:5 (1:1–3:5)—ritual of the accused adulteress *So.tah 7:5—biblical curse and blessing ritual at Mount Gerizim and Mount Eval *So.tah 7:6—priestly blessing So.tah 7:7—high priest’s Torah reading So.tah 7:8—king’s Torah reading So.tah 9:1–6 (9:1–9)—broken-neck calf ritual Sanhedrin 3:6–7 (3:6–8)—examination of witnesses and trial in monetary (noncriminal) cases (court-centered ritual narrative) Sanhedrin 4:3–7:3 (4:2–7:3)—capital trial and death penalty (court-centered ritual narrative) Sanhedrin 7:5—trial of the blasphemer (court-centered ritual narrative) Sanhedrin 11:2–4—trial and punishment of the rebellious elder (courtcentered ritual narrative) Makkot 3:12–14—punishment of lashes Zeva.him 5:3—festival and new-moon goat sacrifice Zeva.him 6:4—bird h. a.tt. at offering Zeva.him 6:5—bird ‘ōlah offering Mena.hot 5:6—ritual waving of the two loaves offering

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 125

Appendix A

125

*Mena.hot 8:2—inspection of fine flour for sacrificial use *Mena.hot 8:4 (8:4–5)—production of olive oil for sacrificial use Mena.hot 8:6–7—bringing wine to the Temple for sacrificial use *Mena.hot 9:1–5—measures used and various sacrifices Mena.hot 10:2–4 (10:1–5)—‘ōmer barley offering Mena.hot 11:5–7 (11:5–9)—showbread *Bekhorot 9:7—tithing animals (also non-Temple) Tamid 1:1–7:3—daily sacrifice (.tāmid) plus associated daily ritual in the Temple Middot 1:2—Temple night watch Middot 1:8–9—locking the Temple Middot 2:2—(non-priest) entering the Temple *Middot 2:4—burning the red heifer (brief mention) *Middot 2:5—description of a number of Temple rooms and brief narration of some of their functions *Middot 2:6—description of a number of Temple rooms and brief narration of some of their functions Middot 3:4—whitewashing the altar *Middot 3:5—slaughtering sacrifices (partial narration) *Middot 3:8—further partial narration of slaughtering *Middot 4:2—narration of passing through gates and cells in inner sanctum Middot 4:5—narration of going through passageway to above the roof of the holy of holies *Middot 4:7—further descriptions of passing through spaces and rooms and functions *Middot 5:3–4 (to mid-5:4)—description of a number of Temple rooms and brief narration of some of their functions Middot 5:4—trial to determine priest’s lineal purity /fitness to serve *Nega‘im 12:5–7—inspection and purification of house infection Nega‘im 14:1–10—purification ritual of the me˘tsōra (one recovered from skin disease/leprosy) Parah 3:1–11—burning of the red heifer

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 126

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 127

Appendix B

Mishnaic Narratives in Which a Rabbi or Rabbis Issue an Opinion with Respect to a Case

is list is particularly expansive. Compare the lists compiled by Shaye J. D. Cohen, “e Rabbi”; and Moshe Simon-Shoshan, “halachah Lema‘aseh.” See also hayim Lapin, “e Rabbinic Class Revisited.” Included here are cases in which it is ambiguous as to whether a rabbi is the one issuing the opinion (for example, the opinion is issued by the house of hillel or the house of Shammai) but not cases (set in Temple times) in which the ruling party is certainly not a rabbi. Cases involving a rabbi or ambiguously involving a rabbi that are nonetheless set in Temple times (or appear to be set in Temple times) are marked with an asterisk.

Ritual Law Agricultural law / sacred produce

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

*Pe’ah 2:6 Kil’ayim 4:9 Kil’ayim 6:4 Kil’ayim 7:5 Terumot 4:13

Sabbath and other sacred days

6. Shabbat 3:4 7. Shabbat 16:7

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:08 PM

128

Page 128

Ap p e n d i x B

8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.

Shabbat 22:3 ‘Eruvin 8:7 ‘Eruvin 10:10 Betsah 3:2 Betsah 3:5 Betsah 3:5 (distinct instance) Ta‘anit 2:5 (prayer) Ta‘anit 3:9

Vows

16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23.

Nedarim 5:6 (civil law implication) Nedarim 6:6 Nedarim 9:5 (marriage law ritual implication) Nedarim 9:8 Nedarim 9:10 Nazir 2:3 *Nazir 3:6 Nazir 5:4

Idolatry

24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29.

‘Avodah Zarah 1:4 ‘Avodah Zarah 3:7 ‘Avodah Zarah 4:10 ‘Avodah Zarah 4:10 (distinct) ‘Avodah Zarah 4:12 (civil law implications) ‘Avodah Zarah 5:2

Sacred/Kosher status of animal

30. Bekhorot 4:4 31. Bekhorot 5:3 32. Bekhorot 5:3 (distinct)

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 129

Appendix B

33. Bekhorot 6:6 34. Bekhorot 6:9 Sacrifices

35. Nazir 6:11 36. *Keritot 1:7 37. Nega‘im 14:13 (civil law implications) purity, purification, and ritual bath

38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45.

‘Eduyyot 7:3 Kelim 5:4 ’Ohalot 17:5 Mi.kwa’ot 7:1 Niddah 8:3 Makhshirin 1:6 Makhshirin 3:4 Yadayim 3:1

Status as Jew

46. Yadayim 4:4 family law, involving ritual or biblical rules

47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53.

Yevamot 12:5 (.hălitsāh) Ketubbot 1:10 (priestly law and marriageability) Ketubbot 7:10 (.hălitsāh; forced divorce) Gi.tt. in 1:5 (divorce writ; civil law ramifications) Gi.tt. in 6:6 (divorce writ) Gi.tt. in 7:5 (divorce writ; property ramifications) Kiddushin . 2:7 (marriage ritual; sacred produce)

129

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:08 PM

130

Page 130

Ap p e n d i x B

Especially ambiguous cases

54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64.

Berakhot 1:1 (prayer; ruling for sons) Berakhot 1:3 (prayer) Hallah . 4:7 (sacred produce) Shabbat 1:4 (Sabbath) ‘Eruvin 4:2 (Sabbath) Rosh Hashanah 1:7 (new moon) Rosh Hashanah 2:8 (new moon) Rosh Hashanah 2:8–9 (new moon) Yevamot 12:6 (.hălitsāh) *‘Arakhin 5:1 (valuations) ‘Arakhin 8:1 (valuations)

family Law: unverifiable Death of husband (1–5) and Inheritance (6) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Yevamot 16:4 Yevamot 16:4 (distinct) Yevamot 16:6 Yevamot 16:6 (distinct) Ketubbot 7:10 Bava Batra 9:7

Civil Law 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Bava Kamma . 8:6 Bava Metsi‘a 4:3 (biblical basis) Bava Metsi‘a 7:1 (ruling for son) Bava Metsi‘a 8:8 Bava Batra 10:8 ‘Eduyyot 2:3

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 131

Notes

Introduction 1. In using the term “Judaean,” from the Greek ioudaios, I am taking up Steve Mason’s (as well as John Elliott’s) suggestion regarding the most appropriate terminology for “Jews” living in this period. Mason argues that identification as part of this group was based on living in or coming from—or, more accurately, being of the people who are native to— the area of Judaea and sharing a common (though contested and complex) way of life and set of ritual practices. According to Caroline hodge (If Sons, Then Heirs), Judaeanness includes a shared kinship, or set of ancestors, as well. By Judaea, I mean, in the widest sense, all of the Land of Israel, not merely the region of Judaea/y˘ehudāh (‫)יהודה‬, which is sometimes contrasted to the Galilee and the upper Galilee, and other subregions within the Land of Israel/Judaea. “Judaeans” may be a more appropriate term than “Jews” (and “Judaean” more appropriate than “Jewish”) both because it highlights this geographic-cultural element and it reminds the reader not to presume that Judaean culture is identical to later (and contemporary) Jewish culture. On these issues of terminology, see Mason, “Jews, Judaeans”; and Elliott, “Jesus the Israelite.” See also Sh. Cohen, Beginnings of Jewishness, 25–106. for an important critique of this usage (and for a convincing argument about the complexity of this identity), see S. Miller, “Stepped pools, Stone Vessels,” 214–23 and 223 n. 32 (with references to his earlier work). The term “Israel,” which refers both to the group of people and to an individual, is the only one used in the Mishnah, with rare exception, and seems to correspond (at least loosely) to “Judaean.” See the consideration of the wide usage of the two terms in Elliott, “Jesus the Israelite,” who notes that “Israel” or “Israelite” is the more usual term used by those of this group living in Israel, though many ethnic Judaeans used the term “Judaean” (in Greek). These include Josephus, Judaeans of the Diaspora (see, e.g., the “pre–70 Diaspora” inscriptions quoted in Levine, The Ancient Synagogue, 81–134), and the ioudaioi who dedicated the monumental building, the remains of which were found in the Golan in Katsyōn . (see Chapter 1 in this volume). In addition to the terms “Judaean” and

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

132

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 132

No t e s t o Page 1

“Israelite,” I occasionally use the more traditional “Jewish” when I mean this Judaean/Israelite group in a general way, particularly as it is connected to later manifestations of the group and its traditions. 2. The evidence for most of these contentions comes from Josephus, The Judaean War. See also the helpful narrative in Goodman, The Ruling Class, 231–51, and Rome and Jerusalem, 433–42. Many additional scholarly narratives deal with the aftermath of the destruction, all of which are based in some way on Josephus. In addition to the changes, which I stress here, there are numerous continuities. On Roman domination during the time of the rabbis, there are many important sources. for evidence of Roman roads, see Isaac, The Limits of Empire, 107–13 and 304–9, “Milestones in Judaea,” and “Infrastructure,” 147–53. See Isaac and Roll, “Judaea in the Early years of hadrian’s Reign” (image on 197), “A Milestone of A.D. 69 from Judaea” (image on 37), “Legio II Traiana” (image on 200), and Roman Roads in Judaea I (esp. the numerous plates at the end with images of pavement, a bridge, and milestones). See also Leibner, Settlement and History, 15 and 17. On Leibner’s web page at the Institute of Archaeology, he mentions a project under way to publish the Israel Milestones Corpus. On Roman building more generally during this period, see, e.g., Chancey, Greco-Roman Culture, 71–99; Sperber, The City in Roman Palestine, 73–102 (much is subsequent to our period of interest); and Weiss, “Theatres, hippodromes, Amphitheatres.” for extensive evidence of the presence of the Roman army, see Isaac, The Limits of Empire, 104–7 (epigraphic evidence cited in nn. to 106), 427–35, and “Infrastructure,” 153–59; Isaac and Roll, “Judaea in the Early years of hadrian’s Reign” and “Legio II Traiana”; and Z. Safrai, “The Roman Army in Galilee” (see, esp., 105–6 for the [minimal] evidence of several sites in the Galilee). for the evidence from a slightly earlier period, which is quite relevant to reconstructing the army presence in this period, see Mor, “The Roman Army in Eretz-Israel.” Of particular relevance may be one of these army installations in Caparcotna (‫כפר עותנאי‬, Kefar ‘Otnay), later renamed Legio, where, according to epigraphic and archaeological evidence, the base of the legion VI ferrata was located during hadrian’s reign in the 120s or 130s CE and even later in the time of Septimius Severus, in 193 or 194. One case story in Mishnah Gi.tt. in 1:5 claims that Rabban Gamliel was in the village or town of Kefar ‘Otnay (the village was separate from the military base, according to Isaac) to rule on a particular writ of divorce that had Samaritan (‫ )כותי‬witnesses, which may suggest that mishnaic rabbis were familiar with this place and thus with the military installation there. On Legio, see Isaac and Roll, “Judaea in the Early years of hadrian’s Reign,” esp. 182 n. 2 and 186 (with references to earlier scholarship), and Roman Roads in Judaea; Isaac, The Limits of Empire, 432–33, and “Infrastructure,” 158; and M. Stern, Greek and Latin Authors, 2:396–7. A key piece of epigraphic evidence can be found in Isaac and Roll, Roman Roads of Judaea, 79 and 84–85 n. 27. See also Mishnah Gi.tt. in 7:7 (cf. Tosefta Gi.tt. in 5:7) and Tosefta Bekhorot 7 (paragraph 3 in the Zuckermandel ed.). for recent archaeological surveys of the site, including evidence of tiles stamped “Leg VI fer” (Legio VI ferrata), see yotam Tepper, “The Roman Legionary Camp at Legio” and “Legio, Kefar ‘Otnay”; yotam Tepper and Di Segni, A Christian Prayer Hall; and Bar-Oz and yotam

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 133

Notes to pages 1–2

133

Tepper, “Out on the Tiles.” See also the general treatment in haensch, “The Roman provincial Administration.” Judaeans may have continued to make pilgrimage to the Temple Mount (see S. Safrai, “pilgrimage to Jerusalem after the Destruction”; and Eliav, God’s Mountain, 192), but they could not make pilgrimage and perform the Temple’s rituals there. 3. I take a largely redactional approach to the Mishnah here, considering the disciples of the latest rabbis mentioned and quoted in the Mishnah as essentially its authors, even if they inherited traditions from the earlier rabbis (which they necessarily modified and shaped, and from which they selected what to include and what to omit). 4. The Mishnah, with its extensive discussion of uniquely post-destruction ritual practices, provides some evidence for these claims. So, too, Babatha’s documents (Lewis, Documents from the Bar Kokhba Period) suggest normal daily life (though the possibility that she died at the hands of Roman soldiers after hiding in a cave in the Judaean desert may show the disruption caused by the second revolt). 5. Subsequently throughout the book, whenever I use the term “rabbis,” I refer to those associated with the Mishnah, the “tannaim” of palestine. I do not mean the subsequent rabbis associated with the palestinian or Babylonian Talmud (the Talmud yerushalmi or Talmud Bavli), also sometimes called “amoraim.” 6. Thus, e.g., hoffmann, The First Mishna; Ginzberg, “Tamid”; and Epstein, Introduction to Tannaitic Literature. On this approach and its problems, see also Rosen-Zvi, The Rite That Was Not, 243–44, and “Orality, Narrative, Rhetoric,” 243–44. 7. Some scholars approach these accounts as Temple-era traditions partly because they come across as if they are accurate, straightforward descriptions of what happened (see more in Chapter 3 in this volume). yet the ways in which the rabbis invented and shaped the material give the lie to this argument. The key evidence, in my view, for rabbinic invention is earlier accounts of the same rituals. Rubenstein, e.g., has noted that many key details of the narratives describing various rituals of Sukkot (Tabernacles) in Sukkah chaps. 4–5 cannot be found in earlier sources. See Rubenstein, The History of Sukkot, 148 and 103–61, and “The Sadducees and the Water Libation.” There are details in the Day of Atonement narrative in Yoma that conflict with earlier accounts; see Stökl Ben-Ezra, The Impact of Yom Kippur, 19–28. So, too, the sō.t āh narrative appears largely invented (though based on the biblical version of the ritual); see Rosen-Zvi, The Rite That Was Not, 152–80, and “Orality, Narrative, Rhetoric,” 242–44, who provides additional arguments as to why the sō.t āh (accused adulteress) narrative must be invented (not all those given in The Rite That Was Not, 152–80, with respect to the sō.t āh narrative, however, apply to all Temple ritual narratives). further related details can be found in Chapters 2, 3, and 4 in this volume. I am currently preparing a study comparing the way ritual is described in Temple ritual narratives and in earlier, pre-rabbinic sources. On the mediation of narratives about past events, see, esp., White, Metahistory, and The Content of the Form. Earlier Judaean authors who describe Temple rituals do not present “reality” any more than the rabbis do. philo, Josephus, the authors of the Temple scroll, and

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

134

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 134

No t e s t o Pa ges 2‒3

other authors shaped their descriptions based on their own ideas of what the Temple is and should be and based on their own interests as well. 8. See the concluding lines of the narratives in Tamid 7:3 and Ta‘anit 4:8, where the text exclaims about the Temple, “may it be built speedily in our days.” On this explanation, see also Rosen-Zvi, The Rite That Was Not, 250, who does not provide a clear rationale as to why he rejects this option. 9. See Neusner, “Map without Territory,” 122, who limits this insight to the order of Kodashim, . though it can be extended to all the Temple material. See also his relatively early statement of this approach in “The Religious uses of history,” 155–61. for a similar approach, see the work of Neusner’s student Baruch Bokser, The Origins of the Seder. Cf. Neusner’s slightly different approach in “Judaism in a Time of Crisis.” his basic “response” approach was taken up by many scholars with regard to passages not about the Temple and later, post-mishnaic texts. See, e.g., Bokser, “Rabbinic Responses to Catastrophe” (similar to Neusner, “Judaism in a Time of Crisis”); Sh. Cohen, “The Destruction,” 18; Saldarini, “Varieties of Rabbinic Reponse”; and Kirschner, “Apocalyptic and Rabbinic Responses to the Destruction of 70.” Recently, Schremer, Brothers Estranged, has argued that the rise of minut (“heresy”) discourse in the Mishnah is a response to the destruction. his arguments are rather nuanced, and many of his points are important; but overall, I disagree with his methodology and conclusions. Most important, none of the texts that he cites makes an explicit connection between minut and the destruction. Though I argue here against the historical explanation given by Neusner and those who follow him, I fundamentally agree that in the imagined (mythical) world put forth in the Mishnah’s laws and narratives, the Temple is central, and this centrality creates a continuity with the past. 10. My argument does not exclude other arguments, which partly explain the prevalence of the Temple but are not, in my view, sufficient. In addition, my argument does not preclude the possibility that the memory of the destruction was emotionally charged and traumatic, and so that talking about the Temple might be cathartic—in addition to serving the needs of the rabbinic group. My argument also does not deny that, as J. Smith argues in To Take Place, the Mishnah imagines the functioning world of Temple ritual in order to remove it from its place and “re-place” it metaphorically. In a strict sense, though, these cannot be called reactions or responses to the destruction. In the Mishnah, at least, the Temple material also cannot be seen as an explanation for the destruction because it does not provide explicit explanation for why the destruction happened. 11. See Chapter 1 in this volume; see also Cohn, “Rabbis as Jurists.” Moshe SimonShoshan (“halachah Lema‘aseh”), upon whose work I build, makes a similar argument for the Mishnah’s case stories and exempla but emphasizes a deconstructive reading. 12. Goodman, State and Society in Roman Galilee. Goodman presumes here that rabbis had some political power, which is contested by more recent scholars, particularly S. Schwartz, in Imperialism and Jewish Society. See also Cohn, “Rabbis as Jurists.” The same picture of rabbinic powerlessness seems to emerge from the archaeological and epigraphic evidence. See Schwartz, Imperialism and Jewish Society, 103–76 (and Goodman, State and

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 135

Notes to pages 3–7

135

Society, 119). This position, sometimes termed “revisionist,” is championed to various degrees, and with different conclusions, by Goodman, Schwartz, Shaye J. D. Cohen, Catherine hezser, Lee Levine, hayim Lapin, Beth Berkowitz, Ishay Rosen-Zvi, et al. for more on Schwartz (including a brief critique), see Chapter 1 in this volume. 13. A handful of references in the Mishnah (and Tosefta) to rabbinic interactions with Judaeans of major diasporic cities suggests that, at least in principle, the rabbis saw their authority as more universal. yet because the evidence is so limited, I restrict my argument to the Judaeans of Syria palaestina (where the rabbis lived). 14. I am not suggesting that the Temple was the only site of rabbinic claims for power. In numerous laws throughout the Mishnah, the rabbis assert authority over the home. This is demonstrated by Baker in Rebuilding the House of Israel. To a more limited degree, the rabbis seem to assert authority over the synagogue and town square (based on the few laws and narratives set there, including the narrative in Mishnah Ta‘anit 2:1–5), yet the limited nature of such claims suggests that this was not a main focus of rabbinic discourse. This could be partly because the rabbis could not lay claim to these spaces because they were controlled by others and thus were not available, because their symbolic significance was not as great as the Temple or home, or a combination of these reasons. 15. Other terms are used for this concept; see Erll, “Cultural Memory Studies,” 1–3. particularly relevant is Assman’s “mnemohistory,” the history of how certain historical events or personages are remembered (which he applies to Egypt and Moses), in Moses the Egyptian. 16. In this example, there is some ambiguity about where the narrative begins and ends. As in a number of cases, the narrative seems to double back to fill in details, which is common in all kinds of narratives but here may be a shift back into the more typical legal discourse, prescriptions about what the law is, how the ritual ought to be done in a timeless sense. There is also ambiguity in the beginning, since another section in the paragraph immediately preceding this selection (3:1) describes how the individual marks the first fruits in his field, and this may be read as part of the larger narrative of how the first-fruits ritual is performed. 17. The first two letters of this divine name are written with ligature. 18. MS Kaufmann reads ‫ ;והשור הולך עמהן‬Geniza fragment T-S E1.36, ‫השור הולך‬ ‫ ;עמהן‬T-S E1.40, ‫ ;ו]ה[שור מהלך עמהן‬MS Munich 95, ‫והשור עולה עמהן‬. Geniza fragment T-S E1.41 agrees with the reading in MS parma. 19. MS Kaufmann, T-S E1.36, T-S E1.40, and T-S E1.41 read “with them.” MS Munich 95 (Babylonian Talmud) reads “goes up with them.” 20. Based on Bikkurim 3:9, which may be a commentary on paragraph 3:3, it seems that “wreathing” the first fruits was done by adding additional fruits, presumably on top of the basket or in the shape of a wreath around the basket. 21. Breuer, “Pā‘al uvēinōni,” 300, formulates the questions slightly differently, pointing to his answer, that there are two different types of narratives: those narrated in the participle and those in the perfect. Breuer explains away the variation within each narrative as variation for the sake of a particular meaning. While this is a plausible way to explain the evidence,

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

136

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 136

No t e s t o Pa ges 7‒8

I find the explanation unconvincing, that Breuer has fit the evidence to his model. Moreover, in a number of narratives, the two main tenses appear to be mixed in relatively equal proportion. See my more detailed analysis in “The Ritual Narrative Genre,” 51–73. 22. On the tense usage, see Breuer, “Pā‘al uvēinōni”; and Albeck, Introduction to the Mishnah, 80. Note that source critics use language shifts such as the different tenses combined here to pick apart distinct original sources, and Breuer seems to hint at the possibility. yet, as in the case of the Bible, the authors of the text as well as generations of tradents seem to accept the shifting as is, even if the difference may originate in the combination of earlier sources that were not fully integrated (a suggestion I find hard to believe, considering how much the rabbis seem to have shaped these accounts). 23. Mishor, “The Tense System in Tannaitic hebrew,” 385, and English abstract, VI. Cf. Breuer’s interpretation of Mishor, “Pā‘al uvēinōni,” 302. 24. See pérez fernández, An Introductory Grammar of Rabbinic Hebrew, 134 and also 117. On the historical present tense, see Wolfson, CHP, 16–22; Kiparsky, “Tense and Mood in Indo-European Syntax”; and fludernik, “The historical present Tense yet Again.” The model of other languages is necessarily heuristic, as mishnaic hebrew is its own language stemming from a particular context with no necessary relation to these other (modern) languages. 25. See Cohn, “The Ritual Narrative Genre,” 61–62 and 72; and Rosen-Zvi, The Rite That Was Not, 264–65. The concept was already essentially suggested by Simon-Shoshan, “halachah Le-ma‘aseh,” 58. See also Rosen-Zvi, “Orality, Narrative, Rhetoric,” 245. 26. In my estimation, there are forty to sixty Temple ritual narratives—including those that are more about the Court and its judicial ritual than about Temple ritual—ranging from a few sentences to multiple paragraphs to the majority of a tractate. for a list, see Appendix A in this volume. I give a range because some narratives are quite short and may lack typical markers of this type of passage and are thus difficult to distinguish from other types of passages. Similarly, as is to be expected, some longer passages may contain more limited markers of this genre or may more thoroughly mix together markers of other types of passages. Earlier scholarly treatments that list these passages include Breuer, “Pā‘al uveinōni”; and Rosen-Zvi, The Rite That Was Not and “Orality, Narrative, Rhetoric.” (The bulk of my research on these narratives was carried out independently of Rosen-Zvi.) See also SimonShoshan, “halachah Le-ma‘aseh,” 56–58. Scholars who list many of the narratives without attempting to create an inclusive list include Ginzberg, “Tamid”; Epstein, Introduction to Tannaitic Literature; Neusner, A History of the Mishnaic Law of Holy Things (Part 2 Mena.hot); and Jaffee, Torah in the Mouth. here, I mostly err on the side of inclusiveness. 27. Mishnah Pesa.him 5:5–10; Tamid; Yoma 1–7; and Mena.hot 10:1–5. This body of narratives also includes descriptions of judicial ritual: how death-penalty cases or noncapital cases were adjudicated (Mishnah Sanhedrin 4:3–5:5, 11:2, 7:5, and 3:6) and how the death penalty or lashes were meted out (Sanhedrin 6:1–7:4, 3:7–8, 11:4, 7:5 and Makkot 3:12–14). A hybrid example, a ritual that is both fully judicial and centers on ritual in the Temple, is

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 137

Notes to pages 8–10

137

the ritual for the accused adulteress (the sō.t āh; see So.t ah 1:3–3:5). In Chapter 2, I will explain why these two topics are fundamentally interrelated for the rabbis. 28. Simon-Shoshan, “halachah Le-ma‘aseh,” 19 (and see 53–56). These two features of narrative are central to his argument throughout his dissertation. Other scholars of rabbinic literature have referred to these passages as narratives without defining the theoretical ground for using this term. See Jaffee, Torah in the Mouth, 103–6; Swartz, “Ritual about Myth about Ritual,” 140; and Rosen-Zvi, “Orality, Narrative, Rhetoric.” Neusner frequently refers to these texts as narratives, as in A History of the Mishnaic Law of Holy Things, 5:147, where he first says that Tamid is “essentially a narrative” and then simply refers to it as “the narrative.” Cf. Neusner, Rabbinic Narrative, 1:32–47, where, based on an idiosyncratic definition of narrative, he calls these “pseudo-narratives” and “not narratives.” On causality as a key feature of narrative, see the classical treatment in forster, Aspects of the Novel (“The king died, and then the queen died of grief ”). Most narratologists do not consider this essential to narrative (see an explanation by Adams, “Causality and Narrative”), though it may be an important part of many narratives. 29. Abbott, The Cambridge Introduction to Narrative, 12. 30. On the successive ordering of the events, see Rimmon-Kenan, Narrative Fiction, 2–3. On the unfolding in time, see Chatman, in Coming to Terms, 9. And for an excellent summary of much narrative research, see the definition in prince, A Dictionary of Narratology, 58–59. 31. prince, A Dictionary of Narratology, 58. 32. I take up the narrative nature of these passages in a different way in Chapter 3 of this volume. 33. See prince’s definition, cited above (A Dictionary of Narratology, 58–59), and see, esp., Abbott, “Narrativity.” This is essentially a family characteristic or polythetic definition of narrative. See also prince, “Revisiting Narrativity,” “Narrativity,” and “Narrativehood.” See Sternberg, “Narrativity,” which seems to make a similar argument. 34. I add that the long string of interrelated events in the medium-to-long Temple ritual narratives further distinguishes this genre from the rest of the Mishnah. Even stories about a case or an event that happened with a rabbi or rabbis (ma‘ăśim) are always much shorter than most Temple ritual narratives. In addition, there are further nuances to the way in which the narratives convey that the events happened regularly and that they happened in the past. I will take up some of these in Chapter 3. Others are beyond the scope of this book. for a more detailed analysis, see Cohn, “The Ritual Narrative Genre,” 74–114. 35. “The appointed one” (Bikkurim 3:2) is found largely in Temple ritual narratives (Yoma 2:1, 3:1; She.kalim 5:4; and Tamid 1:2, 3:1–2, 5:1, 6:3, and 7:1) but also appears in an abstract law (Sanhedrin 2:1). These are not the only such elements in the genre. 36. Those interested in a more detailed analysis should consult Cohn, “The Ritual Narrative Genre,” 29–51. See also the brief comment in Rosen-Zvi, The Rite That Was Not, 243 n. 1. Other examples of the Temple ritual narrative introductory formula are: Bikkurim 3:1 (which immediately precedes our narrative); Ma‘aśer Sheni 5:4; Pesa.him 5:9 and 7:1;

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

138

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 138

No t e s t o Pa g e s 10‒11

Rosh Hashanah 2:6; So.t ah 1:3 (and possibly 1:2); Sanhedrin 3:6 (the introductory sentence is identical to that in Rosh Hashanah 2:6), 4:5, and 6:4; Zeva.him 5:3, 6:4, and 6:5; Mena.hot 5:6, 8:2, 8:7, and 10:3; Bekhorot 9:7; and Nega‘im 14:1. See also Ma‘aśer Sheni 5:6 and 5:10. And see Sukkah 4:4, 4:5, and 4:9; Ta‘anit 2:1; Nazir 6:6 and 6:7; and So.t ah 7:5, 7:6, 7:7, and 7:8, where the rhetorical question with kēitsad has the function of introducing the explication of an item from a list that has been specified. The word kēitsad functions syntactically in a variety of ways. Similar syntactic variation occurs with other formula words, such as ma‘ăśeh, which can take a variety of different prepositional particles. The word kēitsad, however can also be found in the middle of a ritual narrative, as in Pesa.him 5:9, and it has two other specific functions unrelated to the narration of past ritual: the systematic explication of list items; and the introduction of brief descriptions or laws about post-Temple rituals. List explications in the Mishnah include fully elaborated examples in Bikkurim 2:8– 11 and 4:2–5; Sukkah 4:1–5:4; Ketubbot 9:7–8; So.t ah 7:1–8; Bava Kamma . 1:4–2:2; Shevu‘ot 7:1–5; ‘Arakhin 3:1–5 and 4:1–4; Me‘ilah 1:4; Kinnim . 1:3–4; ’Ohalot 1:1–3; and Nega‘im 1:4–6 and 7:2. partially elaborated examples are in ‘Orlah 2:1–7; Yevamot 1:1–2, 5:1–6, and 7:5–6; Nedarim 2:2–3 and 3:1–4; So.t ah 1:1–3; Zeva.him 2:3–4 and 6:4–7; Mena.hot 1:3–4, 2:3–4, and 11:9; Me‘ilah 3:6; Nega‘im 5:4–5; Teharot . 4:9–10; Mikwa‘ot 7:1–2; and Yadayim 2:3–4. Two brief examples of the introduction of post-Temple rituals are Berakhot 6:1 and 7:3: ?‫( כיצד מברכין על הפירות‬6:1) how do we recite a blessing on fruit? ?‫( כיצד מזמנין‬7:3) how do we perform the invitation ritual [for the grace after meals]? What follows the question is a short description of how the ritual is performed or, in some cases, laws about how the ritual should be performed. Although this formula tends to mark the beginning of a distinct unit, the boundaries are still sometimes blurred. 37. See Neusner, A History of the Mishnaic Law of Purities, 21:164–96, on “the Mishnah’s smallest components.” Neusner adds the attributed comment and rabbinic dispute. Simon-Shoshan, “halachah Lema‘aseh,” would add “etiological stories” (see 68), but most of these are part of Temple ritual narratives. On the ma‘ăśeh, see Goldberg, “form und funktion”; and Simon-Shoshan, “halachah Lema‘aseh.” See also Gereboff, Rabbi Tarfon, 337–51 (the focus here is only on stories involving Rabbi Tarfon); and hezser, Form, Function, 283–87, who usefully summarizes previous scholarship on stories in the Mishnah, but her primary focus is similar stories in the palestinian Talmud. On the list, see Jaffee, “Deciphering Mishnaic Lists” and Torah in the Mouth, 106–9; and Neusner, “The Mishnah’s Generative Mode of Thought.” 38. On genre, see, esp., Altman, Film/Genre, 1–12; and C. Briggs and Bauman, “Genre, Intertextuality, and Social power.” 39. Olick, “from Collective Memory,” 152. Olick (and many others) note that the concept has become rather broad. here, I am drawing from the theory selectively to interpret how the rabbis chose to represent the past.

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 139

Notes to page 11

139

40. In some respects, my conception of collective memory is similar to the notion of myth as laid out by Eliade and others. 41. Erll, “Cultural Memory Studies,” 5. One interesting component of this theory (not accessible in the case of rabbinic texts) is the relationship between individual memory and group contexts. There are some intriguing elaborations of this component in a number of studies in Erll and Nünning, eds., A Companion to Cultural Memory Studies, including Marcel and Mucchielli, “Maurice halbwachs’s Mémoire Collective”; and harth, “The Invention of Cultural Memory.” 42. This principle was articulated by halbwachs in La topographie légendaire des évangiles, 7 (see also halbwachs, “The Social frameworks of Memory,” in On Collective Memory, 40). See B. Schwartz, “The Social Context of Commemoration,” 376, “Iconography and Collective Memory,” 302–3, “Memory as a Cultural System,” 908–10, and “Collective Memory and history,” 470–71; and B. Schwartz, Zerubavel, and Barnett, “The Recovery of Masada,” 149–50. for a wider overview of the concept of collective memory, see Olick and Robbins, “Social Memory Studies”; Erll, “Cultural Memory Studies”; and Olick, Vinitzky-Seroussi, and Levy, introduction to The Collective Memory Reader. Cf. Gedi and Elam, “Collective Memory.” In addition to the work of Barry Schwartz, my understanding of collective memory has been influenced by Zerubavel, Recovered Roots. In Jewish studies, the seminal work on collective memory is yerushalmi, Zakhor, who claims that the rabbis were not interested in history but rather in the meaning of history, which he defines as memory. Because he does not mention the Mishnah but focuses on midrashic texts, his analysis is not particularly pertinent here. Moreover, yerushalmi’s fundamental argument that memory is the binary opposite of history has proved difficult to sustain; see Myers, “Recalling Zakhor,” and see the stronger statement in Erll, “Cultural Memory Studies,” who calls this “a dead end in memory studies.” here, I take a different approach from yerushalmi’s. Note that in contrast to yerushalmi, the historian peter Burke considers history and memory nearly identical. Thus on the nature of the historian, he writes: “herodotus thought of historians as the guardians of memory, the memory of glorious deeds. I prefer to see historians as the guardians of awkward facts, the skeletons in the cupboard of the social memory” (“history as Social Memory,” 110). for Burke, history is the craft of the individual historian who is fundamentally part of the group with its “social memory” but who preserves details of the past that the collective group has, for its own reasons, forgotten. The only difference between collective memory and history is whether it is accepted by the group or is what the group has attempted to forget. following Burke’s definition, the project of this book can be defined as one of history. In the field of rabbinic literature, Eliav’s God’s Mountain is an important study of memory and the place where the Temple once stood, the Temple Mount. Eliav demonstrates how the Temple Mount was constructed in the writings of different groups and how these related to the physical remains at the site. Eliav’s use of memory theory centers on pierre Nora’s notion of lieux de mémoire (sites of memory, translated in the English edition title as “realms of memory”), which takes fixed places (and other “realms”) as focal points and

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

140

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 140

No t e s t o Pa g es 11‒12

embodiments of collective remembering (see Nora, Realms of Memory, vol. 1, “preface to English Language Edition,” and chapter 1). Because the Temple is no longer a physical place, Nora’s theory is of limited use here, though one might say that the Mishnah’s Temple is a virtual site of memory. Beyond the Temple Mount as analyzed by Eliav, the Western Wall, in particular, has continued to function as a physical site of memory. Albert Baumgarten has also taken up the term “collective memory” in struggling with the historicity of rabbinic texts about sectarianism (A. Baumgarten, “Rabbinic Literature as a Source,” 32– 33, 39, and 56). Baumgarten’s conception of collective memory differs from the one I espouse. he treats collective memory as the body of tradition about the past that is shared by the authors of various texts, and he is interested in how the actual past has been modified or invented. his ultimate goal is taking account of the mediating forces of different authors in order to get at the historical kernel. 43. Invention in representations can also be conscious but not insidious. Thucydides, in the History of the Peloponnesian War 1.1, admits that he has made “the speakers say what was in [his] opinion demanded of them by the various occasions, of course adhering as closely as possible to the general sense of what they really said” (Crawley, trans., http://classics.mit.edu/Thucydides/pelopwar.1.first.html). An individual or a group easily blurs the boundary between what they believe must have happened or ought to have happened and what really did happen (assuming that this is knowable); this is natural in reconstructing and representing the past. 44. B. Schwartz, “Memory as a Cultural System,” 910, col. 1. See also his comments quoted in Olick and Robbins, “Social Memory Studies,” 124. And see B. Schwartz, Abraham Lincoln in the Forge of National Memory. 45. The notion that memory makes the past meaningful for the group derives from yerushalmi, Zakhor. 46. See Olick and Robbins, “Social Memory Studies,” esp. 122–28. In this sense, memory can also be understood as a discourse of power, as I will discuss shortly. On collective memory as a discourse, see Sherman, “Art, Commerce,” 186. 47. My definition of discourse here and throughout this section is shaped especially by Mills, Discourse. In applying this theoretical framework to the Mishnah, I draw especially on Berkowitz, Execution and Invention; Rosen-Zvi, The Rite That Was Not; and SimonShoshan, “halachah Lema‘aseh.” for an earlier use of discourse theory in reading rabbinic texts, see Boyarin, Carnal Israel; and see fonrobert, “On Carnal Israel and the Consequences.” Note that discourse may include additional cultural practices that cannot be defined as speech, writing, or practice. In my discussion of Temple discourses in Chapter 5, e.g., I include visual images. physical practices—to which, in the case of the rabbis, we have no access outside of written descriptions—can also be seen as consequences or causes of written or spoken “statements.” 48. Mills, Discourse, 45, 11, and 15–16. “Statement” is a technical term denoting the component “utterances” that form discourse and have an effect. 49. foucault uses this terminology in The History of Sexuality, 11.

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 141

Notes to pages 12–18

141

50. Idem, “Two Lectures,” 93. 51. here I draw especially on Mills, Discourse, 40 (and see her quotation of foucault), and on Mills’s cogent analysis of feminist and postcolonial discourse theories, 69–115. The model of postcolonial theory, in particular, has shaped Berkowitz’s analysis in Execution and Invention; I build on her work.

Chapter 1 1. Additional approaches have been taken to placing the rabbis within the social context of Roman palestine, which I do not address here. What I propose is not mutually exclusive of these other approaches. Scholars have proposed that the rabbinic group was organized as disciple circles (see synthesis of this view in Sivertsev, Households, 9–10) and as a network of informal affiliation that largely met in private homes (hezser, The Social Structure, 205–13) and at an early-stage partially transmitted tradition in a household setting (Sivertsev, Households). Some scholars believe that under Rabbi yehudah the Naśi (sometimes taken to be an officially recognized “patriarch”), the rabbis were strongly connected to the wealthy patriarch and thus involved in politics. On this view, see, esp., Sh. Cohen, “The place of the Rabbi”; and Levine, The Rabbinic Class (and numerous publications that simply take up these views). S. Schwartz, in Imperialism and Jewish Society, denies any importance to the rabbis or patriarchs in the third century, but still sees the rabbis as connected to the patriarchs (103–28). While I do not agree with this interpretation (I do not believe that ‫[ נשיא‬naśi] in the Mishnah means “patriarch”; see further below), it does not conflict with the way I am presenting the rabbis here. It is worth stressing that in this chapter, I am reading the way the rabbis represent their own normal functioning in Judaean society, which necessarily relates in complex ways with social reality. My reading of the rabbinic self-representation and its connection to authority claims is influenced by recent feminist approaches to the representation of women in the Mishnah. See, esp., peskowitz, Spinning Fantasies (who speaks of “rabbinic fantasies” about social life); Baker, Rebuilding the House of Israel; and fonrobert, Menstrual Purity (the main focus is on the Babylonian Talmud). See also Cohn, “When Women Confer with Rabbis” and “Domestic Women.” 2. S. Schwartz, Imperialism and Jewish Society, 111, and see 104 and 106. Schwartz points out that Babatha brought even her minor cases to the court of the governor. See also Cotton, “Jewish Jurisdiction,” 13–28, who argues that the many documents found in the Judaean desert written in Greek must have been intended to be valid in Roman courts. And see Galsterer, “Roman Law in the provinces,” 13–27. 3. harries, Law and Empire, 172. This informal arbitration is distinct from formal arbitration. 4. The Theodosian Code 2.1.10 and Codex Justinianus 1.9.8. See harries, “Creating Legal Space.” Both texts from Linder, The Jews in Roman Imperial Legislation, 204–11.

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

142

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 142

No t e s t o Pa g es 18‒19

5. Cotton, “Jewish Jurisdiction,” 20–21; cf. S. Schwartz, Imperialism and Jewish Society, 111. See also Goodman, State and Society, 160; Lapin, Early Rabbinic Civil Law, 18; and Dohrmann, “The Boundaries of the Law.” Cotton claims that the rabbis actually functioned as arbitrators, yet there is no reason to make this interpretive leap. See Dohrmann, “The Boundaries of the Law.” 6. In this chapter, I quote only the English translation of the hebrew and Latin texts because the nuances of the language (beyond the few words noted) are not necessary for the arguments made here. The original passages can easily be found in the standard editions. The term ma‘ăśeh could simply denote things that happened or transpired (harry fox, in a personal communication, suggested to me “deeds,” based on his analysis in “Introducing Tosefta”). I translate as “case” to stress the legal character of the discussion about the events that occurred. 7. In suggesting that the rabbis are arbitrators who engaged in private, unofficial arbitration, Cotton, “Jewish Jurisdiction,” 21, draws on the insight of h. p. Chajes that in descriptions of rabbis as judges of some sort, “you never find people approaching a proper tribunal, but rather a single rabbi.” This also does not appear to be a fantasy in which Rabbi Akiva acts as a Roman judge. 8. See Goodman, State and Society, 128. The story leaves the end ambiguous, and we cannot know whether the man sought recourse in an official Roman legal venue. 9. A list of examples can be found in Appendix B of this volume; and see SimonShoshan, “halachah Lema‘aseh,” 215–18; and Sh. Cohen, “The Rabbi,” 980–87. On the methodology of using such narratives, see Sh. Cohen, “The place of the Rabbi” and “The Rabbi.” See also Goodman, State and Society, 93 ff.; and Neusner, Judaism in Society, 116. The consideration of the rabbinic legal role is limited here to narratives of rabbis issuing rulings in response to cases. Statements referring to rabbis voting on the law and participating in the development of the law show the rabbis creating law in general, a role noted above. As noted in the Introduction to this volume, my method of treating the Mishnah’s case stories as discourse that asserts rabbinic authority in the realm of Jewish law (see below in this chapter) builds upon—though it differs significantly from—the work of Simon-Shoshan in “halachah Lema‘aseh.” 10. As is common throughout the Mishnah, ‫( חכמים‬sages) denotes a group of rabbis. 11. This expression is quite common in case stories, though many lack it. Examples with this or a very similar expression include Mishnah Terumot 4:13; Kil’ayim 4:9 and 7:5; Shabbat 16:7 and 22:3; Ta‘anit 2:5; Yevamot 12:5; Nedarim 5:6 and 9:5; Nazir 5:4; Gi.tt. in 1:5; Bava Metsi‘a 8:8; Bava Batra 10:8; ‘Eduyyot 2:3, 7:3, and 7:4; ‘Avodah Zarah 5:2; Bekhorot 4:4 and 5:3; and Kelim 5:4. See also Sh. Cohen, “The Rabbi,” 962–64 and 980– 84. here I draw on the methodology developed by Sh. Cohen, “The place of the Rabbi” and “The Rabbi”; and Simon-Shoshan, “halachah Lema‘aseh,” 123–34. 12. In some cases, the setting is given more detail, and one or more people involved may actually appear before those issuing the legal ruling. This interpretive question is raised by Simon-Shoshan, “halachah Lema‘aseh.”

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 143

Notes to pages 20–22

143

13. Examples that indicate that the ruling will be (or was) followed include: Mishnah ‘Eruvin 10:10; Ta‘anit 3:9; Nedarim 9:5; Nazir 3:6; Bava Kamma . 8:6; Bava Metsi‘a 4:3; Bekhorot 5:3; Keritot 1:7; Mi.kwa’ot 7:1; and perhaps Bekhorot 4:4; Niddah 8:3; and Nedarim 9:10. Examples that seem to indicate that the ruling will not be (or was not) followed include: Mishnah Shabbat 16:7 and 22:3; Ta‘anit 2:5; and Makhshirin 3:4. In the majority of cases, there is no evidence one way or the other. The importance of hints that the rabbinic ruling is not followed was first raised by Simon-Shoshan, “halachah Lema‘aseh,” 123–34. 14. Numerous examples can be found throughout Justinian’s Digest. According to historians of Roman law, this is the jurists’ most typical function. See Mousourakis, The Historical and Institutional Context, 292; and Robinson, The Sources of Roman Law, 44. for the comparison between the responsa of Roman jurists and case stories in the yerushalmi, see hezser, “The Codification” and “Roman Law,” 154. hezser also considers the Mishnah’s case stories to mirror Roman jurists’ responsa, but because her primary focus is the yerushalmi, she does not elaborate the comparison in the case of the Mishnah. 15. The Digest of Justinian, trans. Alan Watson. See a few more examples in hezser, “The Codification,” 588–89, 591. 16. hezser, “The Codification,” 588–89, and “Roman Law,” 154. The legal ambiguity in this case of Scaevola seems to be whether the later pact is valid. 17. following the commentary in the Babylonian Talmud, the sages’ reasoning seems to be that because she is drunk, she is attempting to get out of drinking another cup by taking this vow, so the vow (abstinence from wine and the Nazirite restrictions in general) is not binding. 18. See also Mishnah Betsah 3:5; Pe’ah 2:6 (an unusual example, seemingly about Temple times); and Nega‘im 11:7 (which may be picturing rabbis among themselves) and 14:13. See also Mishnah Kil’ayim 6:4 and ‘Eruvin 4:2, where a rabbi or rabbis “say” a question to another rabbi, who responds to this question. hezser, “The Codification,” 589, emphasizes the anonymity of the litigants, which is also the norm in the mishnaic case stories. The person involved is usually called “the one” (‫ ;אחד‬or ‫אשה אחת‬, “a woman”), or similar formulation, rather than ‫( פלוני‬p˘elōni). See, e.g., Mishnah Kil’ayim 4:9 and 7:5; Ta‘anit 2:5; Yevamot 16:4; Nedarim 5:6 and 9:5; Bava Kamma . 8:6; Bava Metsi‘a 8:8; ‘Eduyyot 2:3; Bekhorot 5:3; Niddah 8:3; and Yadayim 3:1. 19. According to hezser, “Roman Law,” 154, these rulings suggest a similar “Sitz im Leben in rabbis’ and jurists’ function of providing legal advice to all those who approached them.” yet in the Mishnah, only one example seems to describe legal advice: Mishnah Bava Metsi‘a 7:1, and here a rabbi advises his own son. Cf. Schultz, History of Roman Legal Science, 111 ff., who claims that in the classical period of Roman jurisprudence, jurists became more and more academically oriented, and were less frequently consulted by clients. 20. See Mishnah Betsah 3:5; Pe’ah 2:6 (unusually set in Temple times); ‘Avodah Zarah 5:2; and Nega‘im 11:7 and 14:13. See also similar formulations in Mishnah Kil’ayim 6:4 and ‘Eruvin 4:2.

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

144

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 144

No t e s t o Pa g e s 22‒23 21. Cf. the slightly different point in A. Tropper, Wisdom, Politics, and Historiography,

194. 22. Goodman, State and Society, 127, and see 160. Goodman mixes the juristic conception of the rabbis with a judicial one (94, 101) and sees the rabbis as actual jurists within the Roman system, offering legal advice on civil and family law, at the same time as they hear cases and adjudicate matters of ritual law. he may go a bit far in claiming that the rabbis were “making the results known to the nonacademic public.” Beyond the cases in which they issue rulings (which, as I will argue shortly, have practical ramifications), there is no evidence of their making their rulings known to the nonacademic public. 23. See hezser, “The Codification” and “Roman Law,” 144–63; A. Tropper, Wisdom, Politics, and Historiography, 189–204; Elman, “Order, Sequence, and Selection,” 65–70; and Simon-Shoshan, “halachah Lema‘aseh,” 93–99. 24. The clearest example of teacher-student interaction is the case story in Mishnah Niddah 8:3. See also, e.g., Mishnah Kil’ayim 6:4; Terumot 4:13; ‘Orlah 2:12; ‘Avodah Zarah 2:5; Keritot 3:7–3:9 and 3:10; and Nega‘im 7:4, 9:3, and 11:7. See also Rabban yo.hanan ben Zakkai and his five students in Mishnah ’Avot 2:8 ff. Debate between rabbis about the law occurs in, e.g., Mishnah Yadayim 4:4; Shevi‘it 8:9–10; ‘Eruvin 1:2; Pesa.him 6:2; She.kalim 1:4; Yevamot 15:3 and 16:7; Nazir 7:4; Gi.tt. in 3:4; ‘Eduyyot 2:5; and Bekhorot 3:1. 25. See Mousourakis, The Historical and Institutional Context, 292. On the role of jurists as teachers, see, e.g., pomponius on Sibinus in the Digest 1.2.2.49–50 (cited by Robinson, The Sources of Roman Law, 11) and the educational treatises written by jurists, mentioned by Robinson, The Sources of Roman Law, 46. Narratives in the Mishnah and Tosefta describing a group of rabbis taking a vote on matters of Jewish law also depict rabbis in a legal-academic role. See Mishnah Shabbat 1:4; ’Ohalot 18:9; and Yadayim 4:3–4:4 (see also Yadayim 4:1 and Mi.kwa’ot 4:1); Tosefta Shevi‘it 4:21; Ketubbot 8:1; ’Ohalot (’Ahilut) 18:15 and 18:18; and Mi.kwa’ot 7:11. This voting mirrors that of the Sanhedrin on the guilt or innocence of the defendant in a capital case (Mishnah Sanhedrin 4:3–5:5; and see 3:6), yet the rabbinic voting does not decide the outcome of a case in a court but rather determines the law. 26. See Watson, The State, Law and Religion, who explains the secular nature of Roman law as deriving fundamentally from the creation of the Twelve Tables as a law for the plebeians and the subsequent prominence of this code in the development of Roman law. Note that civil law is part of private law, while sacred law (or ritual law) is part of public law. On the categorization of Roman law, see ulpian in the Digest, 1.1.1. See also Watson, The State, Law and Religion, 14–29. 27. The rabbis focus on family law but primarily on the ritual dimension of family law: aspects of the law that would not have been found in Roman law and presumably would have been irrelevant to cases judged under Roman law. It is unclear to what extent nonRomans could have controlled even these areas of family law, though Babatha’s marriage document suggests that ritual pertaining to family law could have followed Judaean practice and thus may have involved Judaean legal experts. Note that ritual law is not an explicit

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 145

Notes to pages 23–25

145

category in the Mishnah, even though this Roman classification seems to have had an effect on the distribution of topics in case stories. 28. for a list and classification of the cases, see Appendix B of this volume. 29. Goodman, State and Society, 107. Despite this conclusion, which is based especially on case stories, Goodman does not connect his suggestion that the rabbis were jurists to their apparent limitation to ritual law. 30. Sh. Cohen, “The Rabbi,” who includes the Mishnah, Tosefta, and baraitot (texts purported to be orally transmitted pericopae on par with the Mishnah and Tosefta) in the Babylonian and palestinian Talmuds. Only two of his non-mishnaic examples (A18 and C15 in his appendix) pertain to family law that is not specifically Judaean. Cohen considers a different body of evidence from that considered here. here, only cases in the Mishnah are considered, but a wider body of texts that appear to fall within the subgenre is included. A similar assessment of the evidence is made by Lapin, “The Rabbinic Class Revisited,” who argues that even in the non-ritual law cases, the concerns are exclusively rabbinic. I would like to thank Dr. Lapin for sharing this manuscript with me before it went to press. 31. While the case stories depicting rabbis issuing opinions on matters of civil law cannot be ignored, they certainly cannot be generalized to the notion that the rabbis were jurists functioning within the Roman legal system. On the relationship between rabbinic and Roman legal authority, see Dohrmann, “The Boundaries of the Law.” Dohrmann, in an unpublished manuscript, views the rabbinic emphasis on law (“itemized law”) as a form of Romanization (I thank her for sharing this manuscript with me). See also A. Tropper, Wisdom, Politics, and Historiography, 194–96, and, for an argument that the rabbis could have been familiar with the institution of the jurist, 195–98. 32. See Linder, The Jews in Roman Imperial Legislation, 201–11. 33. Jews in this later period were not prohibited from going before mutually agreedupon unofficial Jewish arbitrators. Even so, as S. Schwartz points out (Imperialism and Jewish Society, 112), for the earlier period, if the evidence of the Babatha archive (early second century) can be applied to Judaea, Jews “apparently made almost no use of local judges but brought even trivial cases to the Roman governor.” 34. Linder, The Jews in Roman Imperial Legislation, 202. These emperors do not name “rabbis,” though rabbis could be included in any of the groups that they mention. 35. See S. Schwartz, Imperialism and Jewish Society, 121. 36. Boyarin, Border Lines, 209. See also 214–20. 37. See, e.g., Alon, The Jews in Their Land, and, in a very different way, Lapin, “The Rabbinic Class Revisited.” Aside from considering the rabbis as judges, Lapin’s argument (for the Mishnah) is quite similar to mine. See also S. Schwartz, Imperialism and Jewish Society, 128, who suggests this only in passing. Note that these scholars do not differentiate the way that the rabbinic role is represented from the role itself. 38. S. Stern, “Rabbi and the Origins of the patriarchate,” questions whether Rabban Gamliel was a patriarch. The same question can be raised about Rabbi yehudah the Naśi (though the Greek and Latin sources demonstrate that later rabbis with the same first names

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

146

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 146

No t e s t o Pa g es 25‒27

were indeed patriarchs). for an important collection of the primary evidence, see Levine, “The Jewish patriarch” and “The Status of the patriarch.” 39. See further analysis of this passage in Chapter 2 in this volume. The other rabbis refer to the court in the third person, and Rabbi Joshua is in a different location. There are other unusual aspects to this story: no one on this court is given a voice, and the claim that it is a court appears only at the end of the story, as an afterthought. for additional examples of Rabban Gamliel and his court in the Tosefta, see Tosefta Berakhot 2:6; and Shevi‘it 1:1 and 6:27. 40. for a summary of the evidence, see Cohn, “The Ritual Narrative Genre,” 220–21 n. 600. 41. Such roles are not typical of courts in the Roman world, either. 42. In the Mishnah, there are additional hints that rabbis are associated with courts. In Yevamot 12:6, Rabbi hurkenos (hyrcanus) performs a h. ălitsāh ritual, which, according to the same passage, is normally performed by a court. yet since he is said to have performed the ritual under a tree, it is doubtful that he is imagined to have a formal court. In Bekhorot 4:4, Rabbi Tarfon is called “an expert in court” (‫)מומחה בבית דין‬, yet he is only an expert in judging blemishes in firstling animals and is not actually part of a court. In Keritot 1:7, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel enters into “court” and establishes the law for sacrifices offered by parturients. This is unusual in that it appears to be set in Temple times, when such sacrifices were offered. In all three examples, the rabbis are involved specifically in ritual law and practice; in the latter two, they are engaged in the typical juristic activity of determining what the law is. In the Tosefta, there are a number of examples similar to those cited here, as well as examples in which a group of rabbis constitutes a court. In all these toseftan examples, too, the rabbis are engaged in determining the law in ritual practice or in determining the calendar. See, e.g., Tosefta Terumot 5:10; Yevamot 14:7; Ketubbot 4:7; Nezirut (Nazir) 5:1, Sanhedrin 2:8 (Rabbi Akiva intercalating the year), ’Ohalot /’Ahilut 18:18, ‘Eduyyot 3:2; and perhaps ‘Avodah Zarah 4:11 (attributing a court to Rabbi yehudah in the parallel to one of the “Rabbi” examples in the Mishnah). The claim that a number of rabbis form a “court,” even when this is not the same type of court typical of the Mishnah’s abstract laws and narratives about the historical Court, is linked to the notion that the Court of Temple times and its members are the rabbis’ predecessors, a notion I develop shortly. 43. This is in contrast to those case stories that do not say whether the people involved actually consult the rabbi or rabbis or whether they follow the rabbinic prescription. In most cases, the ruling could simply be academic, though the implication is still that the rabbis are the authoritative arbiters of the law. 44. fonrobert, Menstrual Purity, 113. Cf. fonrobert’s reading with Cohn, “When Women Confer with Rabbis.” 45. See also Mishnah Nedarim 9:5 (and Cohn, “When Women Confer with Rabbis”; this case combines ritual practice with civil law). And see the ambiguous examples Mishnah Shabbat 3:4 and Yevamot 16:4, in which the ruling seems to be addressed to those involved

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 147

Notes to pages 27–28

147

in the case (but cf. Makhshirin 3:4). See also Mishnah Ta‘anit 3:9; and perhaps Rosh Hashanah 1:6, 1:7, and 2:8–9; Yevamot 16:7; and ‘Eduyyot 7:7. The colorful details of the interaction in Mishnah Niddah 8:3 are reminiscent of the way a Roman jurist’s interaction with the people is described in Cicero, De oratore 1.45.200, quoted by Watson, The State, Law and Religion, 70–71. Cf. my reading of the Mishnah’s case stories as assertions of rabbinic legal authority with that of Simon-Shoshan in “halachah Lema‘aseh,” esp. 108, 123–25, and 212–13. Each of these cases, too, can be read against the grain, but I am stressing the authority claims that they put forth. 46. On my choice of terminology, see Introduction to this volume. I use “Judaean” and “Israelite” interchangeably. 47. “Christian” (or believer in Jesus) was, as Boyarin argues, not a defining mark of identity before the heresiology initiated by Justin Martyr (Border Lines, 17). Before this, belief in Jesus and being part of a community of believers in Jesus may have been important but were not defining of identity. Thus, e.g., in Acts, people are identified based on ethnicity, as “Judaeans” (11:19 and 14:1), “circumcised believers” (10:45 and 11:2), “Gentiles” (10:45, 11:1, and 14:27) , and “Greeks” (14:1 and perhaps 11:20), or based on the place where they lived, as in numerous examples. Even these Jesus believers were likely considered Judaean. See further below. On the second-century and later use of the term “Christian,” the evidence for palestine itself is extremely slim, though Justin Martyr was born in this province, and Eusebius later imagines that there were “Christians” there in the early third century. See Eusebius passages in n. 55 below. 48. By Judaean believers in Jesus, I mean believers in Jesus of Judaean ethnic origin and those who practiced the biblically derived Judaean way of life—whom I do not presume are necessarily the same. I do not mean those called “Gentile” and also considered, through Jesus, to have become Israelite in the New Testament texts. Though some obviously consider these followers of Jesus Judaean, I do not believe that the rabbis would have done so, nor would they have considered them competition, which is the issue here. In my view, further, pharisee, Sadducee, and Essene were categories relevant during the Temple period and, to an extent, in its immediate aftermath (as in the works of Josephus and the Gospels and Acts). from the perspective of the Mishnah, only faint hints that pharisees (assuming that they are the same as the p˘erushim or parōshim [‫ )]פרושים‬exist in post-destruction times. Christian texts from the time seem to be dealing with a conventional type. Thus I do not see these categories as relevant (cf. Goodman, “Sadducees and Essenes after 70 CE,” and Burns, “Essene Sectarianism”). On pharisees in Christian texts, see Saldarini, Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees. On the pharisees in Josephus, see Mason, Flavius Josephus on the Pharisees. On the pharisees as potential synagogue leaders in these sources and in the writings of the early church fathers, see Sh. Cohen, “Were pharisees and Rabbis the Leaders?.” I do not deal with priests as a group, since there is no evidence that they form a group. Shortly, I raise the possibility that individual priests may have been important; they are certainly a type, according to the Mishnah. This list is not meant to be exhaustive. In the Mishnah, as noted, the category of non-rabbi includes additional distinctions, which I discuss below.

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

148

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 148

No t e s t o Pa g es 28‒29

Diaspora Judaeans may be seen as a distinct category, though in the Mishnah it seems that they are not. 49. As I argue below, the authors at times admit the existence of blurred boundaries; yet for the most part, their categories are clearly delineated. 50. Acts 1–3, 15:6–29, and 21; Gal. 2:1–3:14; 1 Cor. 11:16 and 14:34; 1 Thess. 2:14; and Rom. 15:19 and 15:25–27. See hill, “The Jerusalem Church.” 51. On the Judaean nature of Jesus believers, see Jackson-McCabe, “What’s in a Name?,” 2. On the fraught nature and history of this question, see ibid.; Becker and Reed, Introduction to The Ways That Never Parted; and A. y. Reed, “‘Jewish Christianity.’” Scholarship debating the Judaean nature of Matthew includes Saldarini, Matthew’s ChristianJewish Community and “The Social World of Christian Jews”; Overman, Matthew’s Gospel, 72–161 (whose essentializing of “formative Judaism” is problematic; but his understanding of discipleship in Matthew suggests an important comparison with discipleship in the Mishnah); and Gale, Redefining Ancient Borders (but cf. Sim, The Gospel of Matthew, esp. 31– 62). By “fully” Judaean, I mean that they would have identified themselves as Judaean and nothing else (in contrast to Gentile Jesus believers; they may, however, have connected their identity to place of origin as well, which may not necessarily have been Judaea/Israel/Syria palaestina). 52. As suggested by Boyarin, “Rethinking Jewish Christianity,” 28. parenthetical comment in the original. The theoseboumenoi, God-fearers, has been a disputed category; see, e.g., Marcus, “The Sebomenoi in Josephus.” On these and other notions of becoming Judaean—in Maccabean and Roman times—see Sh. Cohen, The Beginnings of Jewishness (following Boyarin, I would dispute Cohen’s claim that becoming Judaean based on adhering to certain cultural practices means that this is a change of “religion”). If believers in Jesus are thought to have become ethnically Judaean, it must be explained why they are still labeled ethnically “Gentile” or “Greek.” According to hodge (If Sons, Then Heirs), for paul at least, Gentile followers adopted Israelite kinship, lineage, and ethnicity through Jesus (though they did not adopt ethnic ritual practices). for hodge, this created a composite ethnic identity through which they were both Israelite and Gentile. Buell (Why This New Race) shows that for many Christian authors of the second and third centuries, the new category of “Christian” was seen as partly ethnic-racial, though these authors’ ethnic-racial selfdefinition—and the very concept of ethnicity/race (genos/ethnos/laos) they employed—was rather complex and fluid (despite some appeals to fixity in the case of the former). Buell notes that different Christian communities surely constructed their identities and their Christianness differently. 53. Boyarin, “Semantic Differences,” 74; and see idem, Dying for God, 8, and Border Lines, 17–18. This formulation is useful for highlighting nuanced difference, the range of difference, and the hybridity in the middle. for various works (canonical and noncanonical) created by those who could be seen in some way as Judaean, see many of the articles in Becker and Reed, The Ways That Never Parted; and Jackson-McCabe, Jewish Christianity Reconsidered. See also A. Baumgarten, “Literary Evidence for Jewish Christianity,” who takes

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 149

Notes to page 29

149

up the pseudo-Clementine Homilies and Recognitions. These are discussed earlier by Marmorstein, “Judaism and Christianity,” and more recently by A. y. Reed, “‘Jewish Christianity’”; and f. S. Jones, “The pseudo-Clementines.” See also fonrobert, “The Didascalia Apostolorum” (a text mentioned by Marmorstein as well). for important ruminations on what might define the Jewish and what might define the Christian components of a hybrid identity (presuming the necessity of using polythetic definitions), see Jackson-McCabe, “What’s in a Name?”; and hill, “The Jerusalem Church.” 54. One critique of Boyarin’s model is that the two-dimensional “continuum” model may be overly limiting, since there are multiple variables by which these individuals and groups would have defined their own identity and similarly by which the heresiologists would define “Christianity” and “Judaism.” Adherence to the traditional way of life is a key factor in my analysis, since this is the feature most relevant to my discussion of competing sources of authority. Contemporaneous heresiologists certainly mention this feature. See, e.g., Irenaeus, AH 1.26.2 (in Klijn and Reinink, Patristic Evidence, 105); hippolytus, refutation 7.34.1–2 and 9.14.1 (in Klijn and Reinink, 113 and 117); and Origen, hom. in Gen. 3.5, in Matth. 11.12, in Matth. comm., ser. 79 (in Klijn and Reinink, 127, 129, and 133). The hybridity of identity can be seen in Origen, who calls “Jews who accepted Jesus”— “Jewish Ebionites” (Ἰουδαῖοι Ἐβιωναῖοι). Most tellingly, according to Origen, they refer to themselves as “Christians” (Χριστιανοὶ). for Origen, these “Ebionites” are not entirely Christians or entirely Jews for the very reason that they “wished to live according to the law of the Jews like the mass of the Jews.” See In Lucam 14, 18ff. (in Klijn and Reinink, 133); Contra Celsum, 2.1 and 6.61 (in Klijn and Reinink, 135). Cf. Justin Martyr (Dialogue with Trypho, 47); see Boyarin, “Justin Martyr Invents Judaism” and Border Lines, 37–73. On the feature of continuing traditional practices, see the important discussion in hill, “The Jerusalem Church,” 46–51. Cf. the discussion of how this category may be problematic in Jackson-McCabe, “What’s in a Name?,” 20–23. 55. The strongest evidence that Jesus believers existed specifically in Syria palaestina around the time of the Mishnah are the stories in Tosefta Hullin, . chap. 2, in which rabbis engage with believers in Jesus, as well as references to the Gospels (gilyōnim) in the Tosefta. See Boyarin, Dying for God, 22–41; and Schiffman, Who Was a Jew?, 62–73. Boyarin’s remarkable suggestion that Rabbi Eliezer had close ties to Jesus believers points to hybridity (on the individual level) between rabbis and other Judaean subgroups. Regarding believers in Jesus in Syria palaestina, it should be mentioned that Eusebius, who was centered in Caesarea, looked back on this period and wrote (imagined, perhaps) that there were (orthodox) Christian bishops (and presumably larger groups led by these bishops) living in palestine at the time. See, e.g., his description of the Easter controversy in the Emperor Commodus’s tenth year (190), where he mentions Narcissus, bishop of Jerusalem; Theophilus, bishop of Caesarea; and Clarus, bishop of ptolemais, all palestinian bishops (The Ecclesiastical History, 5.22–23). See also The Ecclesiastical History, 5.12, 5.25, 6.8.7, 6.10–11, 6.19, 6.27, and 7.32. 56. The path taken by Josephus himself seems to belie the categories, so perhaps it is

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

150

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 150

No t e s t o Page 29

ironic—and telling—that Josephus draws the categories starkly, defining himself as Judaean, when he had become integrated into Roman society. 57. See Chancey, The Myth of a Gentile Galilee, esp. 79–80 (on Sepphoris) and 65– 68; as Chancey notes, these particular items are concentrated in areas known (from the various sources of evidence) to have been Judaean and are largely absent from non-Judaean areas. On the stepped pools in Sepphoris, see E. Meyers, Netzer, and C. Meyers, “Sepphoris: ‘Ornament,’” 17–18; Galor, “The Stepped Water Installations”; and Rutgers, “Some Reflections on the Archaeological finds.” The vast majority of pools possibly identifiable as ritual baths are not from the Galilee and not from this period; see Zissu and Amit, “Common Judaism,” 48. The most helpful recent summary of the evidence (with maps) of stepped pools and chalk vessels subsequent to the second revolt (though dating can always be challenged) is in Amit and Adler, “The Observance of Ritual purity,” beginning on 124 (their discussion of the “talmudic” evidence on the previous pages, however, is highly problematic). See also S. Miller, “Some Observations on Stone Vessel finds,” “Stepped pools and the Nonexistent,” and “Stepped pools, Stone Vessels”; and Leibner, “Excavations,” 226 (the latter on stone vessels alone). See, generally, Meyers, “Sanders’s ‘Common Judaism,’” and Zangenberg, “Common Judaism,” on the connection between these archaeological finds and the notion of common Judaism (which I discuss further below). In his survey of the eastern Galilee, Leibner, Settlement and History, 349, refers to numerous miqva’ot (mi.kwa’ot) from this period in the eastern Galilee but only refers specifically to these ritual baths in Kul‘at Ibn Man (site 35; pp. 237–38) and ambiguous finds (with ambiguous dating) at ‘Akbara (114 n. 16), hoqoq (151; based on yigael Tepper, Daryn, and yotam Tepper, Nahal ‘Amud), Sheikh Nashi (155–56; see his discussion there of earlier scholarship), Arbel Caves West (240), and el Ma‘aser (249–50). See also Leibner’s helpful map of this subarea on 350. On stone vessels (and ossuaries), see also Magen and Tsfania, The Stone Vessel Industry, esp. 148–62; 160–61 on the Galilee; and see the map in Aviam, Jews, Pagans and Christians, 19. for a good summary of the earlier evidence and history of these vessels, see Aviam, “first Century Jewish Galilee.” See also the helpful discussion of the slightly earlier period in Berlin, “Romanization and Anti-Romanization”; J. Reed, Archaeology and the Galilean Jesus, 43–55 (and see the full book for consideration of the Q traditions in the Gospels in light of the findings of archaeology); and Richardson, Building Jewish, esp. 55–71, 77, and 105–6. for an important interpretation of the period more relevant here, see S. Miller, “Stepped pools, Stone Vessels,” and “Some Observations on Stone Vessel finds.” for the evidence for various Galilean villages (with emphasis on the first century and the New Testament), see Chancey, The Myth of a Gentile Galilee, 63–119. Also relevant is the interconnectedness of locations in the Galilee and Golan demonstrated by Adan-Bayewitz, Common Pottery in Roman Galilee, in his survey of pottery distribution (see, esp., the map on 216–17). Adan-Bayewitz links usage of Kefar hananya ware to “Jewish” ethnicity. for a general treatment on ethnicity and the boundaries between groups, see Goodblatt, “population Structure and Jewish Identity” and Elements of Jewish Nationalism, 1–27. See also Lapin, “palestinian Inscriptions”; and Zangenberg, “A Region

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 151

Notes to page 29

151

in Transition.” Cf. Aviam, “Distribution Maps of Archaeological Data” and “Borders between Jews and Gentiles.” 58. Before the time of the Mishnah: Josephus claims that he had authority over these two cities and also the city of Tarichae (as well as a number of villages) in Life, 188 (and see The Judaean War 1.169–70 on Sepphoris in the first century BCE). See also Josephan references throughout Chancey, The Myth of a Gentile Galilee, and summary comments on 119. Literary evidence for a “Jewish” Galilee also includes the many stories set in the Galilee in the Gospels. Though these texts were produced well before the time that the Mishnah was produced (the place in which the Gospels were created and their connection to social reality in the Galilee may be questioned), their assumption of a largely Judaean population in the Galilee, in the absence of evidence that the population changed, further suggests that the population continued to be ethnically Judaean, even if the precise nature of this ethnic identity may have shifted. J. Reed, “Galileans, ‘Israelite Village Communities,’” provides a useful collation of the relevant Gospel materials. Sh. Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome, 181–231, provides useful discussion of the places in the Galilee in Josephus; Meyers, “Sepphoris on the Eve of the Great Revolt,” deals with Sepphoris. After the time of the Mishnah: Eusebius claims that Diocaesarea (which he also says is called “Lud” in Aramaic, which would be Lydda, or Diospolis) is wholly “Jewish” in the Syriac manuscript of Eusebius, History of the Martyrs of Palestine, trans. Cureton, 29. See also Epiphanius, Panarion 30.11.9–10. On Epiphanius and Eusebius, as well as on the rabbinic evidence, see S. Schwartz, Imperialism and Jewish Society, 132. On the Jewishness of the Galilee (and on the place of Gentiles in rabbinic texts), see Goodman, State and Society, 31–52. The high concentration of synagogues in the Galilee may not be good evidence for this period, since their dating is highly contested (see further below); nevertheless, they provide evidence that later the area was rather “Jewish.” for a thorough treatment of the Jewishness of the Galilee, see Chancey, The Myth of a Gentile Galilee. On the rabbinic evidence for Sepphoris, see Mishnah Bava Metsi‘a 8:8 and perhaps Kiddushin . 4:5 (see S. Miller, Studies, 46–55) and Bava Batra 6:7; and Tosefta Shevi‘it 4:13; Shabbat 15:8; Yoma 1:4 (referring to Temple times; see S. Miller, Studies, 63–88); ‘Eruvin 4:11 and 6:26; Ta‘anit (Ta‘aniyot) 1:13 (see S. Miller, Studies, 106–10); Megillah 2:4; So.t ah 3:16 and 13:7 (referring to Temple times, see S. Miller, Studies, 88–102); Bekhorot 7:3; Hullin . 3:2; Kelim Bava Batra 2:2; Makhshirin 3:5; and perhaps Kil’ayim 1:4. On Tiberias, see Mishnah Shabbat 3:4 and ‘Eruvin 10:10; Tosefta Shevi‘it 4:1; Shabbat 13:2; ‘Eruvin 4:11; So.t ah 3:16; Shevu‘ot 3:6 (here, however, the rabbi engages with a “philosophos”); and perhaps Shabbat 12:13, 16:15, and 16:20; ‘Eruvin 5:2; Bava Kamma . 8:18; and Bava Metsi‘a 6:5. Mishnah and Tosefta sources describing rabbis in thoroughly Gentile Scythopolis (Bet She’an): Mishnah ‘Avodah Zarah 1:4 and 4:12 (two case stories involving members of Israel making purchases in Bet She’an when the merchant or at least some of the merchants are distinctly non-Israelite [and are idol worshipers]); ptolemais (Akko): Mishnah ‘Avodah Zarah 3:4 (Rabban Gamliel and proklus in the bathhouse of Aphrodite); Tosefta Mo‘ed Ka. . tt. an 2:15 (an exemplum in which Rabban Gamliel sat on a bench of gōyim [Gentiles] on the Sabbath); Ketubbot 5:10 (Rabbi Elazar

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

152

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 152

No t e s t o Pa g es 29‒30

berabbi Tsadok claims to have seen the daughter of Nakdimon ben Gorion in Akko in a pitiful situation); ‘Avodah Zarah 4 (a case involving the purchase of foodstuff of questionable status); Pesa.him 2:15 (Rabban Gamliel, traveling from Akko to Keziv, picks up a loaf, which turns out to have been owned by a non-Israelite—though in the story, it was not obvious that the bread belonged to a non-Israelite, since Rabban Gamliel only knew this with “divine inspiration,” thus implying that Israelites could have been living in the vicinity). 59. See the excellent synthesis in Chancey, Greco-Roman Culture, 105–7 and 102–4. See also Meyers, “Roman Sepphoris,” 329. Cf. horsley, Archaeology, History, and Society in the Galilee, 43–65. The name Sepphoris was also changed to Diocaesarea; see the coins minted under Antoninus pius (138–61 CE) in Rosenberger, City Coins of Palestine, 61, and the milestone dated to hadrian’s reign (either 120 or 130 CE) in Isaac and Roll, “Judaea in the Early years of hadrian’s Reign,” and “Legio II Traiana in Judaean.” further relevant archaeological studies include: Meyers, Netzer, and Meyers, “Sepphoris: ‘Ornament of All Galilee’” and Sepphoris; Weiss and Netzer, Tsippōri; Meyers, “Roman Sepphoris”; Rutgers, “Some Reflections on the Archaeological finds”; Strange, “Six Campaigns at Sepphoris” and “first Century Galilee”; and Strange, Longstaff, and Groh, Excavations at Sepphoris. 60. for the coins of Sepphoris, I have used Rosenberger, City Coins of Palestine, 3:60– 62; Nagy et al., Sepphoris in Galilee, 195–98; and Meshorer, City Coins of Eretz-Israel, 36– 37. for the coins of Tiberias, see Kindler, Coins of Tiberias (and see Meshorer, City Coins of Eretz-Israel, 34–35). hygeia: Kindler, Coins of Tiberias, 55–56 and 82. Tyche: Kinder, Coins of Tiberias, 56 and 83. Caduceus: Rosenberger, City Coins of Palestine, 61 (no. 4); and Nagy, Sepphoris in Galilee, 196 (no. 47). And see Chancey, Greco-Roman Culture, 184–92, which forms the basis of my analysis. for further collections of coins, see the full list of references provided by Chancey (Greco-Roman Culture), 184 n. 90. See also Belayche, IudaeaPalaestina, 87. On the shift, see Rosenberger, City Coins of Palestine, 61–62; Kindler, Coins of Tiberias, 57–63 and 87–104; and Chancey, Greco-Roman Culture, 189–92. 61. On the incense shovels, see Rutgers, “Incense Shovels at Sepphoris”; on the variety of implements, see S. Schwartz, Imperialism and Jewish Society, 144–45. See also Nagy, Sepphoris in Galilee, 171–74 and 205; Strange, “Six Campaigns at Sepphoris,” 353; Millar, The Roman Near East, 369–70; and Belayche, Iudaea-Palaestina. On a figurine at Tiberias, see hirschfield, “Tiberias,” 108. Of course, the small number of pagan ritual implements can be attributed to non-Judaeans, as Belayche does (Iudaea-Palaestina, 87). The evidence is inherently ambiguous. 62. The first is the suggestion made by A. h. M. Jones, “The urbanization of palestine,” 82. And see Belayche, Iudaea-Palaestina, 85–89. See also Chancey’s vehement argument against this view in The Myth of a Gentile Galilee. The second view, explaining away especially the pagan evidence (but allowing that the leaders embraced Roman culture), can be found in Goodman, State and Society, 129. The third view is S. Schwartz’s, Imperialism and Jewish Society, esp. 176. And see his argument on 139 and 159 that the local coins were minted for internal use, so the use of pagan motifs must have been intentional. My view is more closely aligned with Chancey, Greco-Roman Culture, who

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 153

Notes to page 30

153

asserts (following the trend in Roman studies) that “Romanization” was subtle and complex. A small number of pagan ritual implements could be explained as belonging to ethnic Romans who lived there; yet, following Schwartz, I believe that some Judaeans may have embraced Roman practices even as they continued to identify as Judaean and perhaps continued to practice the traditional Judaean way of life. 63. On the remains at Katsyōn . (or Qatsyon, Qazion), see S. Schwartz, Imperialism and Jewish Society, 131; and Ilan, Ancient Synagogues in Israel, 57–59 (which includes relevant images). Also possibly relevant are the remains from Beth She‘arim. In Catacomb 20, e.g., a catacomb with Greek and hebrew inscriptions, including an inscription on the coffin of ‫קירה מגה אשתו שלרבי יהושע בן לוי‬, “Lady [κυρὰ] Mega, wife of Rabbi yehoshua son of Levi,” archaeologists found numerous marble sarcophagi with Roman mythological motifs. See Mazar, Beth Shearim, 1:54–55, 197–98; Schwabe and Lifshitz, Beth Shearim, 2:5. Elsewhere at Beth She‘arim, tombs are marked both in hebrew and Greek, e.g., in Catacomb 1, hall A, Room II, the graves of “Miriam” and “Kyrillos” are marked both in hebrew (‫ )]ק[רילוס ומירים‬and Greek (Κύριλος Μαριάµ[µη] and Κύριλλος). While it is difficult to date these burials precisely (Avigad, Beth Shearim, 3:165, 169, claims that the sarcophagi date to the second or third century) or to tell whether these were local Jews or Jews from the Diaspora, the use of the Greek language and of Roman sarcophagi with Roman iconography are quite suggestive of their mixed culture; on these, see Chancey, Greco-Roman Culture, 122–65 and 193–220. In addition to the material from Beth She‘arim, Chancey points to a fragment of an ointment vase with Greek found at Gush halav, . Greek graffiti at a cave in Gush halav, . and a Greek ossuary inscription at Qiryat Tiv’on (136–37) as well as a Greek tombstone inscription at horvat Asaf (139). On these Greek inscriptions, see Chancey, “The Epigraphic habit”; peppard, “personal Names and Ethnic hybridity”; and Moreland, “The Inhabitants of the Galilee” (and see hezser, Jewish Literacy in Roman Palestine, 356–421). 64. See Mishnah Berakhot 7:1; Demai 3:4; Ketubbot 3:1; and Niddah 7:3 (cf. Niddah 4:1). In a number of sources, they are definitely not classed with the Israelite, and their ritual practices are distinct: Mishnah Berakhot 8:8; Demai 7:4 (where the Samaritan is similar to the ‘am hā’ārets; see also Demai 3:4); Shevi‘it 8:10 (according to Rabbi Eliezer); and ’Ohalot 17:3. And see examples in which the legal status goes in both directions: Mishnah Gi.tt. in 1:5. In Mishnah Niddah 4:1, they are legally classed as Israelites, but their ritual practice is considered different (in fact, less stringent, similar to the way of looking at many non-rabbinic Jews described above; this similarity may suggest that this is a stereotyped trope for the rabbis); see also a potentially similar hybrid case in Mishnah Terumot 3:9. A slightly different ambiguity exists in Mishnah Kiddushin . 4:3, where they are Israelites but of doubtful lineal status (this seems to be connected to potential myths about their origins). In Mishnah Demai 5:9 and 6:1, the kuti is a distinct category from both the Israelite and the Gentile (‫נכרי‬, nokhri); this same tripartite grouping is even more common in toseftan examples. Because of the abundance of mishnaic examples, I do not cite the (even more abundant) toseftan examples, which, as far as I can tell, are rather similar. Schiffman, in his important article on the topic, “The Samaritans in Tannaitic halakhah,” cites an explicit

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

154

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 154

No t e s t o Pa g e s 30‒31

dispute between Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and “Rabbi” (yehudah the Naśi) about whether Samaritans are considered Israelites, and uses this to argue that there was a development—based on historical changes in the practices and demography of the Samaritans—in rabbinic attitude toward their status. This is a reasonable interpretation, though not the only one. Alternatively, the various passages can be read as expressing the ambiguous categorization of and relationship toward this group. Earlier works on the Samaritans in rabbinic texts (references can be found in Schiffman, “The Samaritans in Tannaitic halakhah”) do not differentiate the layers of rabbinic tradition. for an excellent compendium and commentary on most of the relevant non-rabbinic texts (as well as on some inscriptional material, and possibly relevant passages in Ben Sira, 2 Maccabees, and the Dead Sea Scrolls), see pummer, The Samaritans in Flavius Josephus. On Samaritans, see also Crown, “Redating the Schism.” 65. The place name is pointed k˘efar ‘otni in MS Kaufmann, yet I follow the general usage. 66. for a general comment on the blurred boundaries of these categories, see S. Miller, “Stepped pools, Stone Vessels,” 221. for more on the Samaritans, see hjelm, The Samaritans and Early Judaism; and pummer, The Samaritans in Flavius Josephus and Early Christian Authors on Samaritans. 67. The mishnaic terms or categories discussed here have received important treatments, including Oppenheimer, The ‘Am Ha-aretz (see, however, Sh. Cohen’s review). See also S. Stern, Jewish Identity, 114–20. haas, “The Am Ha’Arets as Literary Character,” which summarizes most of the examples, is quite useful and shows the change in the construction of the ‘am hā’ārets between the Mishnah and Babylonian Talmud. Most recent and most important are S. Miller, Sages and Commoners and “Stepped pools, Stone Vessels.” Sources that seem to treat the ‘ammēi hā’ārets as a group include Mishnah ’Avot 3:10, which refers to “synagogues of ‘ammēi hā’ārets,” and Kinnim . 3:6, which contrasts ‘am hā’ārets elders with Torah elders. Levine, The Rabbinic Class, 113, suggests that the ‘am hā’ārets represents the majority of the Jewish population. See Boyarin, Border Lines, 256 n. 154, who cites Levine. Levine ties this insight to the evidence of the Babylonian Talmud, so we cannot presume that the same is true (assuming that Levine is correct) for the time of the Mishnah (or that the category means the same thing in the two texts). The ‘am hā’ārets is seen in the Mishnah as a category that overlaps with those who properly observe rabbinic law. A law in Mishnah Demai 6:9 imagines a case in which a h. āvēr has a father and a brother who are ‘ammēi hā’ārets, and a law in the Tosefta Demai 2:17 imagines a case in which the daughter or (ex-)wife of a h. āvēr marries an ‘am hā’ārets. See also Tosefta ‘Avodah Zarah 3, which claims that Rabban Gamliel the elder married his daughter (MS Erfurt and Geniza fragment T-S OR. 1080 13.69; MS Vienna reads: a woman) to a certain priest Shimon ben Netanel, who is construed as an ‘am hā’ārets. Other examples of intimate coexistence include Mishnah Demai 6:12; and Teharot . 7:1, 7:2, 7:4, 7:5, 8:1, 8:2, and 8:5. See also Tosefta Demai 2:18– 19 and 3:8. References to “sinners” can be found in Mishnah Shevi‘it 4:1, 5:9, and 9:1; She.kalim 1:2; and Gi.tt. in 5:9; Tosefta Shevi‘it 3:9, Shabbat 3:3, Pis.ha (Pesahim) 2:4, and

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 155

Notes to page 31

155

Shevu’ot 3 (MS Erfurt only). further consideration of these categories, while important, is beyond the scope of this book. Another important rabbinic category of “others” who incorrectly observe the traditional way of life is minim, which can be translated as “heretics.” Their prayer ritual is not done quite correctly (Mishnah Megillah 4:8–9), nor is the way they slaughter meat correct (Mishnah Hullin . 2:9). See Kalmin, “Christians and heretics.” On slaughtering meat, see also Tosefta Hullin, . chap. 2. for passages that group them with other Judaeans or contrast them with Gentiles, see Tosefta Bava Metsi‘a 2:33; Shabbat 13:5; Hullin . 1:1 (contrasted with Gentiles); Tosefta Berakhot 3:25 (grouped with pharisees); and Sanhedrin, chap. 13 (grouped with apostates and informer). While minim may sometimes refer to believers in Jesus, as Goodman puts it, for the rabbis, “more than one variety of wicked Jew can come within the category of min.” Whether the majority of the passages that talk about minim refer to Jesus believers, most of them see minim as Judaeans who have an incorrect view about ritual practice. In the Mishnah alone, relevant passages include: Megillah 4:8 and 4:9; Hullin . 2:9; Parah 3:3 (the word minim, found in the manuscripts, has been changed to ts˘edō.kim [‫ ]צדוקים‬in the printed versions); and perhaps Rosh Hashanah 2:1. In the Tosefta, see Kippurim (Yoma) 2:10; Hullin . 2:19; and Parah 3:3. As noted in most earlier studies, in some sources an ideological/belief component to the difference is marked as well. The supposed blessing against the minim is largely post-tannaitic; a “blessing of the heretics” is mentioned in Tosefta Berakhot 3:25, but this is ambiguous. It certainly need not refer to believers in Jesus, and it need not be negative; perhaps it is a prayer hoping for their return to the fold (on this blessing, see Schremer, Brothers Estranged, 57–59; Schiffman, Who Was a Jew?, 53–61; and Kimelman, “Birkat Ha-Minim”). A very select bibliography on minim in the Mishnah includes Schremer, Brothers Estranged; Schiffman, Who Was a Jew?; Goodman, “The function of Minim”; Kalmin, “Christians and heretics”; S. Miller, “The Minim of Sepphoris”; and herford, Christianity in Talmud and Midrash. 68. See S. Miller, Sages and Commoners, esp. 105, 115–16, 164, 168–77, 186, 302–5, 310–12, and 329–31, and “Stepped pools, Stone Vessels.” The key examples involve a rabbi or rabbis interacting with the people of a given locale—including Tiberias (Mishnah Shabbat 3:4; and Tosefta ‘Eruvin 5:2 and So.t ah 3:16), Jericho (Mishnah Mena.hot 10:8 and Pesa.him 4:8, both, however, likely set in Temple times), Lydda (Tosefta Hagigah . 2:13), Sepphoris (Tosefta So.t ah 3:16 and Makhshirin 3), and unnamed cities (Mishnah Makhshirin 3:4; Tosefta Ma‘aserot 2:1; and perhaps Mishnah ‘Eduyyot 2:3). It must be noted that the people of a given place may specify a larger geographical region as well as foreign cities. The people of a place may also be an abstract legal concept. 69. S. Miller, Sages and Commoners and “Stepped pools, Stone Vessels.” Miller identifies the ‘ammēi hā’ārets as rural Judaeans (the nonobservance of specifically agricultural ritual laws is defining of the category)—see his Sages and Commoners, 329–36. In “Stepped pools, Stone Vessels,” he connects the diversity of “complex common Judaism” with the archaeological remains (in Sepphoris) of stepped pools, stone vessels, and Judaean pottery

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

156

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 156

No t e s t o Pa g e s 31‒33

(which may all point to a biblically derived interest in ritual purity). On the notion of common Judaism, see M. Smith, “The Dead Sea Sect,” 356; Sanders, Judaism: Practice and Belief; and, more recently, McCready and Reinhartz, Common Judaism; udoh, Redefining First-Century Jewish and Christian Identities, 69–193; and S. Miller, Sages and Commoners and “Stepped pools, Stone Vessels.” 70. Even among rabbis, in Boyarin’s reading, there may have been some overlap with believers in Jesus. See Boyarin, Dying for God, 22–41. A similar overlap may well have existed between rabbis and other groups of Judaeans. 71. Simon-Shoshan, “halachah Lema‘aseh,” 124–26, who astutely shows that the precise nature of the interaction and the presumed rabbinic authority in this example (and a few others) is ambiguous. On this example, see also S. Miller, “Stepped pools, Stone Vessels.” 72. Simon-Shoshan, “halachah Lema‘aseh,” 126. 73. A. y. Reed, “‘Jewish Christianity,’ ” 189. 74. See the helpful comments in S. Miller, “Stepped pools, Stone Vessels.” On Samaritans and menstrual purity, see fonrobert, “When Women Walk in the Way of Their fathers.” On rabbinic views of Samaritan difference tied to Temple ritual, see Mishnah Nedarim 3:10 and She.kalim 1:5. 75. Didascalia Apostolorum 23, quoted from fonrobert, “The Didascalia Apostolorum,” 493 (and see 492–93). Emphasis in fonrobert’s text. fonrobert, however, argues that these should not be taken as distinct groups (against the rhetoric of the authors) but components of the authors’ audience who adhere to these practices (see 495). What fonrobert shows of fundamental importance is that the debates described in this text center on matters of correct ritual practice and tend to create a set of teachings that make an argument for the authority of one particular group. 76. In a similar way, a particular view on traditional practice seems to be defining for the authors of the pseudo-Clementine Recognitions 1.27–71, who are also demonstrably Judaean and believe in Jesus. As Annette Reed shows, these authors stress that animal sacrifice should not be part of the proper Judaean way of life, and this view is central to their unique vision. See A. y. Reed, “‘Jewish Christianity,’” 208–9. 77. Josephus, The Life, 9. Josephus surely exaggerates, but this fits with his depiction of decision making in War 2.409 and with the evidence of the late biblical Mal. 2:7. On the terminology used in the Josephan passages, see Steve Mason’s commentary to the line quoted at pace.mcmaster.ca; and see Mason, Flavius Josephus on the Pharisees, 100–105. On the function of priests according to Josephus, see S. Schwartz, Josephus and Judaean Politics, 58– 96. The high priests in Josephus are a class of priests, rather than the priests at the top of the sacred hierarchy, of which there was only one at a time. 78. This can be seen in the title of priest by which a number of individuals are marked, both in the Mishnah and in epigraphical remains, including synagogue inscriptions and grave inscriptions. Rabbinic priests: see S. Schwartz, Josephus and Judaean Politics, 100–105. Synagogue benefaction: see the three Byzantine examples in Levine, The Ancient Synagogue,

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 157

Notes to pages 33–34

157

522–23. Graves: see Schwabe and Lifshitz, Beth Shearim, 2:31 (no. 49) and 153 (no. 180), both in Greek. Goodman (State and Society, 244 n. 14) points out that the hiereis of the Theodosian Code 16:8:13 (see text in Linder, The Jews in Roman Imperial Legislation, 201– 4) are not necessarily “priests” but religious functionaries who are parallel to similar Christian functionaries. The epigraphical material is not extensive, and in the main is likely from a later period, but it nonetheless shows that the status of priest remained meaningful. In the Mishnah, the priest has various advantages, including those that might give him a certain authority. Reading the first portion: Mishnah Gi.tt. in 5:8; normally serving as the reader and prayer leader: Mishnah Megillah 4:5 (the one who reads the prophetic reading should be the one to lead the Shema and Amidah and recite the priestly blessing). On these passages, see Levine, The Ancient Synagogue, 526. The Talmuds, as Levine notes, do not interpret the Mishnah this way, but it is possible that this passage assumes that priests might normally serve as prayer leaders. According to the evidence of the Mishnah, the status of being a priest was not merely titular: priests read the first portion of the Torah reading and perhaps even normally serve as the ones who read from the prophets (the haftarah) and who lead the congregation in prayer. Outside of the synagogue, the priest was entitled to certain priestly gifts, which the Mishnah’s laws repeatedly assume were still given “not in the presence of the Temple,” meaning “after the destruction” (She.kalim 8:8, Bikkurim 2:3, and Hullin . 10:1, cited by Schürer, History of the Jewish People, 1:524 and 2:57; and hezser, The Social Structure, 481 n. 76). 79. See also Mishnah Ketubot 1:5, explicitly set in Temple times, where the priests form a court. On these examples, see S. Schwartz, Josephus and Judaean Politics, 106. On Rosh Hashanah 1:7, Schwartz writes: “It goes without saying that this Rabbinic admission of the existence of a powerful, or at least, ambitious, priestly court is of more historical significance than the story’s possibly tendentious conclusion.” See also hezser, The Social Structure, 483, and, earlier, D. Tropper, “Bet Din shel Kohanim.” 80. See also Mishnah ‘Eduyyot 8:3, cited by hezser, The Social Structure, 484. The language is somewhat ambiguous in this case, and there are disjunctures between the phrases. “priests” here seem to partially agree and partially disagree with an opinion expressed earlier, possibly part of the “testimony” of Rabbi yehoshua and Rabbi yehoshua ben Beteira, who may be the antecedent of the pronoun “you” (plural). It is possible to read these priests as some type of competing institution to the rabbis. The rabbis are working out the law based on testimony as well as the precedent of Rabban yo.hanan ben Zakkai’s decree. The priests “listen” to or “obey” (‫ )שומעין‬the view expressed but only in part. Are these meant to be competing legal opinions? Do the priests actually practice differently (hence “listen” in part)? Do they form a competing legal institution? The answers to these interpretive questions are unclear. 81. Monumental synagogues existed throughout the Diaspora before the Temple’s destruction and in Syria palaestina from the late third century onward. On the Mishnah’s evidence of synagogues (battēi k˘enēisiōt), see n. 82 below. Synagogues appear throughout the New Testament, including some imagined in palestine. In early Christian texts nearer

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

158

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 158

No t e s t o Page 34

to the time of the Mishnah, see examples in which the synagogue appears to be a real place: Justin Martyr (mid-second century), Dialogue with Trypho, 13, 16, 96, 97, 122, and 137; Origen (mid-third century), On Prayer 12, Contra Celsus 6.23, Sel. in Exod. xii.46 (see the latter in De Lange, Origen and the Jews, 86). See also Sh. Cohen, “pagan and Christian Evidence on the Ancient Synagogue”; and horbury, “Early Christians on Synagogue prayer.” On the relevance of Justin Martyr for studying the rabbis, see hirshman, A Rivalry of Genius, 31 ff. Justin and Origen lived outside of palestine and could have had in mind diasporan synagogues. On non-monumental synagogues, see Leibner, Settlement and History, 403 (who argues against the earlier view of Levine that later monumental synagogues were built on top of earlier synagogues; see The Ancient Synagogue, 182–87). I am grateful to Dr. Leibner for providing the following references on several structures that are not monumental and lack art (features of later synagogues) but do contain concentric rows of benches and are thus nondomestic: Magen, Tzionit, and Sirkis, “Kiryat Sefer”; Onn and Wexler-Bedolah, “Kh. um el-umdan”; and Zissu and Ganor, “The public Building at horvat ‘Ethri.” And see also Zissu and Ganor, “horvat ‘Ethri—A Jewish Village.” Leibner has indicated that some now take the structure at Magdala as such a synagogue, against Netzer, “Was the Spring-house at Magdala a Synagogue?” (and see Richardson, “Early Synagogues as Collegia”). In the Mishnah, as Z. Safrai points out (“The house of Leontis,” 247), several laws presume that an individual’s house could become a synagogue and vice versa, further suggesting that the synagogues of the time were non-monumental. On monumental synagogues, see Leibner, “Excavations” and “Khirbet Wadi Ḥamam.” According to Leibner, the earlier stage of this monumental synagogue must have existed before the late third century, since earlier materials were put into secondary use in the later third to early fourth centuries. 82. See Mishnah Yoma 7:1 (imagined for Temple times); So.t ah 7:7–8 (7:8 is parallel to Yoma 7:1); and possibly Makkot 3:12; Tosefta Terumot 2:13; Sukkah 4:6 and 4:11–12 (Temple times); Megillah 3:21; and Ta‘anit 1:13. The leader is either ‫( ראש הכנסת‬rōsh hakk˘eneset, equivalent to the Greek archisynagogos, found in the New Testament, in the writing of Justin Martyr and in many inscriptions), or ‫( חזן הכנסת‬.hazzan hakk˘eneset). See the debate regarding whether the archisynagogos has a real role or is simply given a title for a large donation, in Rajak and Noy, “Archisynagogoi”; and Levine, The Ancient Synagogue, 415–27. On synagogue leadership and the various titles, see Levine, The Ancient Synagogue, 412–53. And see Goodman, State and Society, 123–24. for references to synagogues, see Mishnah Berakhot 7:3; Terumot 11:10; Bikkurim 1:4; Pesa.him 4:4; Sukkah 3:13; Rosh Hashanah 3:7; Megillah 3:1–3; Nedarim 5:5 and 9:2; Shevu‘ot 4:10; ’Avot 3:10; and Nega‘im 13:12. The synagogue is mentioned similarly in the Tosefta: Berakhot 2:4; Terumot 1:10; Ma‘aśerot 2:20; Bikkurim 2:8 (a ritual narrative about Temple times); Shabbat 16:22; Pesa.him 10:11; Kippurim 3:8; Sukkah 2:10, 4:5, and 4:11–12; Rosh Hashanah 2:7; Megillah 2:3, 2:5, 2:12, 2:14, 2:16–18, 3:12–13, and 3:21–22; Ta‘anit 2:4 and 3:4; S0.tah 6:3; Bava Kamma . 11:23; Bava Metsi‘a 11:23; ’Ahilut (’Ohalot) 4; Teharot . 8; and Nega‘im 6 and 7. And see Levine, “The Sages and the Synagogue” and The Ancient Synagogue, 485–98; and S. Schwartz, Imperialism and Jewish Society, 215–39.

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 159

Notes to pages 34–36

159

83. On the lack of rabbinic power in the synagogue, see Levine, “The Sages and the Synagogue in Late Antiquity”; Sh. Cohen, “Epigraphical Rabbis”; and Goodman, State and Society, 99. There is also a hint in the case story in Mishnah Ta‘anit 2:5, where “in the days of Rabbi halafta . and Rabbi hananiah . ben Teradyon that someone passed before the ark (i.e., to lead the prayers) and completed the blessing, and they responded ‘amen.’ [he said] ‘Blow long blasts on the trumpets, priests, blow long blasts; blow short blasts, sons of Aaron, blow short blasts. May he who answered you on the shores of the Red Sea answer you and hear the voice of your cries today.’ And when the matter came before the sages, they said, ‘They only acted this way at the eastern gate [of the Temple].’” In the Mishnah’s version of events, no sages are in the synagogue when the ritual is done in a manner with which the sages disagree. This may hint at a lack of rabbinic authority in the synagogue. In the Tosefta’s version of the same story, Rabbi halafta . chooses to do the ritual in a similar manner in Sepphoris, and Rabbi hananiah . ben Teradyon chooses to do so in Sikhnin. The sages disagree with these two rabbis. If the Tosefta’s story is interpreting the Mishnah’s, it is doing away with any hint of rabbinic lack of authority, or simply assuming that rabbis must have had such authority. 84. I find this explanation more plausible than the explanation that synagogue leaders did not have ritual expertise. 85. See the ritual practices described throughout the Didascalia Apostolorum. On the bishops’ ritual authority, see Didascalia Apostolorum 5. On their legal authority to adjudicate, see Didascalia Apostolorum 11. On the nature of this legal authority, see harries, Law and Empire in Late Antiquity, 192–95. On the nature of the implied audience to the text and also on the authority claims in the Didascalia mirroring rabbinic authority claims, see fonrobert, “The Didascalia Apostolorum.” 86. A. Tropper, Wisdom, Politics, and Historiography, 191; see also 189–207. 87. A. Tropper, following Goodman, holds that rabbis are jurists, having adopted this aspect of Roman legal culture. A. Tropper, though, does not tie this insight to the depiction of rabbis in case studies. 88. Berkowitz, Execution and Invention, 162–63; see also 153–55. 89. Watson, The Spirit of Roman Law, 205–7. 90. The juristic role is not entirely a Roman model or a rabbinic invention. Some typical judicial functions, including adjudicating, issuing rulings, and collecting laws, performed by Roman jurists, occur in much earlier ancient Near Eastern cultures (see Westbrook, A History of Ancient Near Eastern Law, 1:1–30). The academic aspect of the rabbinic role (including debating matters of law and training students), which partly makes the rabbis akin to jurists, does not seem to occur in earlier indigenous cultures in the area, including biblical (see SimonShoshan, “halachah Le-Ma’aseh,” on rulings in biblical narratives) and other ancient Near Eastern cultures (Westbrook, A History of Ancient Near Eastern Law, 20). Within the Roman world and the further pre-mishnaic textual evidence, it is noteworthy that Matt. 12:10 ff. and 19:3 ff., paralleled in Mark 10:2 ff., contain stories in which Jesus is asked a legal question and issues a quasi-legal answer. The stories in Matthew present the pharisees asking him in order to challenge him (though in 12:10 ff., it is ambiguous as to who asks him the question), but

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

160

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 160

No t e s t o Pa g e s 36‒40

in Mark, it is his disciples who ask him. According to Basser, Studies in Exegesis, 16–19 and 21, Jesus in Matthew is fully engaged in pharisaic reasoning. Certainly in Mark, he is engaged in traditional legal reasoning (not marked as pharisaic). Even if the Matthew stories are intended to lampoon serious rulings in matters of Judaean law, the model presented in these three instances (though the model is lacking in the two parallels to Matt. 12:10 ff.) offers a striking parallel to the picture of rabbis issuing rulings on matters of Jewish law. I doubt that the Gospels provide evidence for earlier practice in the time of the Temple, but the similarity in the post-destruction model may be important. These instances deserve a more detailed study. On Jesus’ engagement with “Jewish” law and the pharisees in the Gospels in general, see Basser, Studies in Exegesis, 15–49, who demonstrates that Jesus repeatedly engages in traditional Judaean law and legal reasoning in the Gospels (though the precise way Basser uses rabbinic texts to demonstrate the earlier tradition within the Gospels I find problematic). 91. Berkowitz, Execution and Invention; A. Tropper, Wisdom, Politics, and Historiography (for the second point, see 194); and Simon-Shoshan, “halachah Lema‘aseh.” 92. I am indebted to prof. Jill harries for an e-mail correspondence that spurred these insights. Evidence indicates that at least some Roman ritual practice (in the provinces) was still viewed in legal terms. See the correspondence between pliny and Trajan in Beard, North, and price, Religions of Rome, 2:250–51, who show that authority over ritual practice in the provinces redounded to the governor, who had several classes of priestly ritual experts actually performing the rituals (1:313–63). 93. My use of the concept of cultural mimicry is inspired by Bhaba, The Location of Culture, 3: “The social articulation of difference, from the minority perspective, is a complex, on-going negotiation that seeks to authorize cultural hybridities that emerge in moments of historical transformation. The ‘right’ to signify from the periphery of authorized power and privilege does not depend on the persistence of tradition; it is resourced by the power of tradition to be reinscribed through the conditions of contingency and contradictoriness that attend upon the lives of those who are ‘in the minority.’” My analysis is also dependent on Berkowitz, Execution of Invention, 153–79. The mimicry involved here works slightly differently from that described by Berkowitz, partly because the power to execute is a very different form of power from the power to determine ritual practice. 94. The mixing of models can also be read as “a tacit acknowledgement of [the] pressure to conform, and at the same time an expression of resistance to it” (Lapin, “hegemony and Its Discontents,” 333). As Berkowitz demonstrates (Execution and Invention, 162–65), the rabbis of the Mishnah struggle explicitly with the tension between the foreign culture that they are appropriating and their own native culture.

Chapter 2

1. MS parma typically uses the form ‫( סנהדרים‬sanhedrim); the two forms are interchangeable variants. The ‫ –ים‬ending appears to be a hebraicized form (with a plural

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 161

Notes to pages 40–44

161

ending) of the Greek word (which could alternatively be transliterated sunedrion). In addition to these three forms, there are a number of related combinations. 2. for part of the evidence on the terms “Great Court” and “Sanhedrin,” see Goodblatt, The Monarchic Principle, 105–6 n. 54, and “Sanhedrin.” These terms relate to those found in earlier sources, as I shall discuss below. In general, I follow Goodblatt’s conclusion (The Monarchic Principle, esp. 77–130, and “Sanhedrin”) that the rabbinic Great Court / Sanhedrin is only loosely based on similar (frequently only local or ad hoc) institutions—which can generally be termed “councils”—found in earlier sources. In earlier sources, these councils (usually gerousia) may be composed of elders, so the members of the earlier Great Court–like institutions are also frequently termed “elders” (presbyteroi) in these earlier sources. Thus, as Goodblatt shows (The Monarchic Principle, 92–99), the Septuagint frequently substitutes gerousia (council) where the Masoretic Text has elders. Similarly in Luke 22:66, the council that tries Jesus is called a presbyterion, a council of elders (and see Acts 22:5). In Mark 14:53–55, the elders, too, can be construed as part of the synedrion that tries Jesus. In Goodblatt’s interpretation, the term gerousia may, in general, denote an informal council of elders. 3. Court proceedings in financial disputes: see Sanhedrin 3:6–7. Other examples are: the capital case of the one who curses God (Sanhedrin 7:5); the trial and capital punishment of the zākēn mamrē (the elder who goes against the ruling of his compatriot elders; Sanhedrin 11:2–4); and, a somewhat unusual case, the trial of the priest who may be disqualified (Middot 5:4). 4. Cf. Rosen-Zvi, The Rite That Was Not, 50–55, who argues that the speech is a feature added by the Mishnah to make the ritual performance “theatrical.” yet the two are not mutually exclusive. This is a typical judicial action that is also theatrical, i.e., meant to contribute to the spectacle of the entire procedure. for this interpretation of the deathpenalty ritual, see Berkowitz, Execution and Invention. 5. Jaffee, Torah in the Mouth, 103. 6. In the manuscripts (as in Tosefta manuscripts), Yoma is called Kippurim; I use the conventional tractate name. 7. On the meaning of the term birāh, see Eliav, God’s Mountain, 207; and Mandel, “‘Birāh.’” 8. In addition to the parallels mentioned, the verbs used to describe the immersion process—“he went down and immersed himself and came up and dried off ” (Parah 3:8)— appear in precisely this combination (with the addition of “he undressed”) throughout the Day of Atonement narrative. 9. “Israel” is written out more fully in MS Kaufmann (’‫)ישרא‬, MS parma 2596 (’‫)ישר‬, and MS Munich 95 (’‫)ישר‬. 10. By rendering him impure and then ordering him to immerse in water, the Court forces the priest into the status of .te˘vul yōm, one who has immersed that day but has not waited until the sun has set after his immersion. According to this narrative, the sectarian Sadducees held that without waiting until sunset, the priest could not perform this rite. The

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

162

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 162

No t e s t o Pa g es 44‒45

view held by Court members is that in such a status, the priest could perform the rite. The Court could have allowed one who had waited until sunset (or who had been pure for a much longer time) to perform the ritual, but by forcing this priest into the status of the t. evul yōm, Court members are ensuring that the sectarian view is not followed. See further on this passage below. 11. In Mishnah Rosh Hashanah 2:9, “the elders of Israel” (Exod. 24:9) are called “the Court of Moses” (emphasis added), presumably understood as a high court headed by Moses. Similarly, in So.t ah 9:1, “your elders” (‫ ;זקניך‬Deut. 21:2) are interpreted as “three [members] of the Great Court in Jerusalem,” and in Yevamot 12:6, the biblical “elders of his town” (‫ ;זקני עירו‬Deut. 25:8) are called a Court. The general term “elders” (‫ )זקנים‬also appears to refer to the members of the Court in Ta‘anit 3:6, Sanhedrin 1:3, and perhaps ‘Eruvin 3:4. In Ma‘aśer Sheni 5:9, Shabbat 16:8, ‘Eruvin 10:10, Sukkah 2:1, and Yadayim 4:3, “elders” appears to refer to a group of rabbis in the post-destruction era (most of them with Rabban Gamliel). On Sukkah 4:4, a brief ritual narrative, see below. The usage in the Tosefta is similar, with a greater number of rabbinic “elders.” Note that the term “elders” can refer to non-court and non-rabbinic elders or old people as well. The manuscript enumeration (in the hebrew) differs from the standard enumeration (in the English). 12. In Mishnah Yoma 1:7, the young Levites also utter an order and address the high priest as “Sir high priest,” though their order functions slightly differently. They must ensure that he remains awake; their role is purely practical. Cf. somewhat similar ritual orders in Bikkurim 3:2; Yoma 2:1, 2:4, and 3:1 (these Yoma instances are all paralleled in Tamid); Sukkah 4:9; Tamid 1:4, 3:1, 3:2, 3:3, 5:1, and 5:2; and, esp., Tamid 6:3, which has the language “Sir high priest” (if the high priest is performing the ritual). 13. In the accused adulteress (sō.t āh) ordeal narrative, the Court’s role also partially combines its judicial activities with its nonjudicial ritual activities. In addition to the Court’s apprentices (talmidēi h. ăkhāmim; see Sanhedrin 4:4) bringing the woman to Jerusalem, the Great Court in Jerusalem delivers a speech meant to instill fear in her (‫)איום‬. In this sense, she is like the witness in the capital case, who has the potential to deliver testimony with grave consequences (in the sō.t ah account, the grave consequences explicitly mentioned are that the divine name may be erased). unlike the capital witness, this woman is also the defendant and is being asked to confess. Cf. Rosen-Zvi, The Rite That Was Not, 64–68. The relationship between this narrative and the judicial narratives suggests that the court’s typical adjudicatory function thus seeps into its role in Temple ritual. Cf. Rosen-Zvi, The Rite That Was Not, 54–55, who argues that this type of speech is not adjudicatory but merely theatrical. This interpretation ignores the fact that the Mishnah states explicitly that the So.t ah ritual draws on the death-penalty ritual. Certainly from a literary perspective, the narrative sees the speech instilling fear in the witness as deriving from the capital court case. Regarding the problem that Mishnah Sanhedrin assumes that capital cases are tried in a “court of 23” (1:4; The Rite That Was Not, 51), it must be noted that the death-penalty ritual narrative (Mishnah Sanhedrin 4:4–7:1) imagines the death-penalty ritual being enacted by the Sanhedrin, which is the Great Court in Jerusalem. In the ritual palm branch (lulāv)

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 163

Notes to pages 45–46

163

narrative (see text below), the anonymous term “they teach” may refer back to the elders. 14. Both these rituals are understood to be performed in Temple and post-Temple times, though the Rosh Hashanah narrative imagines a Temple setting while the Ta‘anit narrative imagines a post-Temple setting. Cf. Rosen-Zvi, “Orality, Narrative, Rhetoric,” 245, who mentions only the narrative in Rosh Hashanah. The appearance of the Court members is somewhat ambiguous in the Ta‘anit narrative. There, the naśi and ’av bēit din, who are normally in rabbinic literature two leaders of the Court, play a role in the ritual (2:1), while “the eldest among them” delivers a speech that seems typical of the Court (2:1), and the ritual prayers are offered by “an elder who is familiar [with the prayers]” (2:2). These “elders” may simply be old people, yet in the context of a ritual imagined to be controlled fully by the Court (Ta‘anit 1:5–6), also called the “elders of Jerusalem” (Ta‘anit 3:6), it seems likely that these are not old people but elders, or members of the Court. The narrative is set in the “town square,” the same setting imagined as the gathering point for pilgrims in the first-fruits narrative; however, the “sages,” who appear in an incident at the end of the Ta‘anit narrative, imagine that the ritual may have once taken place at the “eastern gate” of the Temple (2:5). The narrative of the broken-neck heifer hews rather closely to the biblical version of Deut. 21:1–9, though making explicit that the “elders and magistrates” (21:2) are members of the Great Court in Jerusalem and that the local elders are members of the local courts. The system of courts (local courts and the high Great Court in Jerusalem) that is imagined in this narrative is identical to that in the suspected adulteress narrative, though slightly different from the system imagined in other narratives and mishnaic texts. The broken-neck calf ritual is Temple-like in involving sacrifice and priests but is also judicial in the sense that the finding of a murdered corpse creates a situation in which there is a lack of justice. Normally, the existence of justice depends on the adjudication of the Court, and here a ritual makes up for the lack of that justice. The biblical account gives as a reason for the ritual: “you will remove from your midst guilt for the blood of the innocent” (JpS Tanakh translation). Normally, it would seem that the court would find a murderer guilty, but that cannot be done in this case. 15. In Mena.hot 10:3, the “emissaries of the Court” (the same term is used by the elders of the Court in Yoma 1:5 to refer to themselves) are also involved in preparing for the ritual in a practical way, though this narrative does not explicitly imply that the Court has authority (though it does not preclude such a reading). precisely because the role of the Court and its emissaries is seemingly so unnecessary (bundling the grain stalks to make it easier to harvest), the Court’s occurrence in this narrative is significant: they could easily have been left out, but they are specifically included. 16. 4Q394 frags. 3–7 col. 1, and 4Q395 = 4QMMT A 19–21 and B 1–16. for a wider consideration of the red-heifer purification rites in Qumran texts and in rabbinic texts, see J. Baumgarten, “Red Cow purification Rites.” for a comparison of law in the Mishnah and those in the Dead Sea Scrolls (including the law of waiting after immersing), see Sussman, “.Hē.ker tōldōt ha-hălākhāh” and “Appendix 1: The history of the halakha”;

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

164

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 164

No t e s t o Pa g es 46‒47

and Schiffman, “The pharisees and Their halakhah” (see 273), who problematically refers to the Mishnah’s law as “pharisaic.” for an important treatment of the relationship between purity law in the Dead Sea Scrolls and that in the Mishnah (written before the publication of 4QMMT), see J. Baumgarten, “The pharisaic-Sadducean Controversies.” for an important methodological considering of the use of rabbinic sources for understanding Second Temple sectarianism, see A. Baumgarten, “Rabbinic Literature as a Source,” who focuses on the value of the rabbinic sources for history. Though I have no doubt that the rabbinic memory of sectarian conflict in the Temple is based on historical events, I do not believe that the question of their historicity is the most productive approach to the Temple ritual narratives. 17. Sh. Cohen, “The Significance of yavneh” (cf. Burns, “Essene Sectarianism”). There may have been other conflict among groups, but it cannot be classified as sectarian. In several works in progress, I explore the relationship between the memory of sectarian conflict and relationships among groups of Judaeans (real or rabbinically imagined) in the rabbis’ own time. One aspect of this investigation relates to Boyarin, Border Lines, 58–63. 18. Bell, Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice, 201. In contrast to Bell, who analyzes rituals, I am analyzing literary representations of rituals (though the two are frequently conflated). 19. I follow the vocalization in MS Kaufmann (in Mena.hot 10:3); alternatively, Boethusians. It seems that these terms are essentially interchangeable for the rabbis of the Mishnah (though ‫כותי‬, kuti, always refers to Samaritans, a group in existence in the rabbis’ own day, and these are not usually imagined as sectarians). On the terms used for sectarians in the Mishnah and Tosefta (and elsewhere in rabbinic literature), as well as the relationship to the pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes and to authors of the Qumran sectarian documents, see the important discussion in Sussman, “Appendix 1: history of the halakhah,” esp. 193– 96, and “.Hē.ker tōldōt ha-hălākhāh,” 40–53 (the latter an expanded earlier version of the former). While I disagree with a number of Sussman’s conclusions, his treatment of the issue is helpfully thorough. On the terms for sectarians, see also A. Baumgarten, “Rabbinic Literature as a Source,” esp. 22–30, and Schremer, “The Name of the Boethusians.” 20. Resistance is also narrated in Mena.hot 10:2–3, and possibly in Yoma 1:3–5, understood by the Tosefta as related to sectarian conflict, and Rosh Hashanah 2:1–2 (two instances), which does not mention the Court but occurs in the context of a ritual fully controlled by the Court. In Mena.hot 10:3, an elaborate call-and-response ritual is attributed to the need to quash sectarian (bēit˘esi/Boethusian) resistance to the correct version of the ritual. here, too, the bēit din is involved, though this role does not explicitly extend to the call and response. The ritual actor who leads the call and response is not named and could be a member of the Court but is more likely a priest. This narrative shares many elements of the red-heifer narrative but does not explicitly give the Court authority, as the red-heifer narrative does. 21. Enumeration follows the Lieberman edition. Where there is no Lieberman edition, only the chapter is given, as in the manuscripts. Note that the Tosefta has added explicit mention of sectarians in the water-libation and Day of Atonement rituals. In the Tosefta, it

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 165

Notes to pages 47–50

165

is not the Court but rabbis, Rabban yo.hanan ben Zakkai and the sages, who cause the priest to die supernaturally. 22. In the Talmud yerushalmi (palestinian Talmud) Sukkah 54d (4:8), the suggestion is made that these three sectarian priests are the same person. for discussion of these texts, see Rubenstein, “The Sadducees,” 419–24. See also Sh. Cohen, “parallel historical Tradition in Josephus and Rabbinic Literature,” 12. 23. The need for special procedures shows that sectarian resistance has influenced Temple practice, in the Mishnah’s view; yet it is always the Court, or simply the nonspecified establishment, that is in control. 24. Changes to ritual procedure in ritual narratives that are “decreed” or “enacted” (the hebrew verb is ‫התקין‬, hit.kin) are not always in response to ritual failure (see nn. 31 and 58 below). In a number of narratives, e.g., Bikkurim 3:7, those responsible for the change to ritual procedure are anonymous (they could be Court members, but this is not specified). See further below. 25. Grimes, Ritual Criticism, 191–209. The earlier foundational text for the study of ritual failure is Geertz, “Ritual and Social Change.” 26. Schieffelin, Introduction to When Rituals Go Wrong, 3. As Schieffelin shows for Geertz’s foundational example of a failed Javanese funeral, the ritual was both “disrupted” and it “failed to work with its accustomed effectiveness,” which was to bring the survivors “safely through the difficulty of the post-mortem period” (Geertz, “Ritual and Social Change,” 35). 27. See the distinction between the ritual itself and those performing it in Grimes, Ritual Criticism, 209. 28. On this typical function of ritual, see Bell, Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice, 171–81, who critiques this position, preferring to see ritual as a strategy for attaining power. I take up an approach more similar to this below. Note that there are additional ways that similar narratives portray ritual failure. In Sukkah 4:9, the ritual seems to fail because the ritual actor did not perform the ritual correctly (accidentally or intentionally) because of contestation for authority and because of violence. I developed these ideas in “Ritual failure and Violence in the Mishnah’s Accounts of Temple Ritual,” a paper delivered at the 2009 annual meeting of the AJS. 29. This ritual is based on Lev. 23:40. 30. See Grimes, Ritual Criticism, esp. 191–209. 31. This harmony is imagined in other Temple ritual narratives, such as the first-fruits narrative discussed in the Introduction to this volume. Note that the narration of these emendations is part of a larger body of the narration of changes in law throughout the Mishnah as well as that of decrees made to correct failed ritual recounted in ritual narratives. Such emendations, usually made in response to a single event of ritual failure (but, in some cases, due to a change in historical circumstances), occur in ten different narratives. These include (some questionably ritual narratives): Ma‘aśer Sheni 5:2; Bikkurim 3:7; Yoma 2:1– 2:2; Sukkah 4:4; and Rosh Hashanah 2:1, 2:2, and 2:5, all of which state that “they decreed”

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

166

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 166

No t e s t o Pa g es 50‒51

the change; Sukkah 4:9 and Yoma 3:2, which provide etiologies of a particular aspect of the ritual related to “one time” when things went awry, implying that the practice differed before this “one time”; and Ta‘anit 4:2, in which “the early prophets decreed” the division into districts and the local Israelite ritual to parallel the priestly sacrifice in the Temple. The last example is more an origin than a change. In most of these cases, the group of people who make this change remain anonymous and collective—“they”—yet in four examples, including the two instances of ritual failure quoted, they are named. In Yoma 2:1 and Sukkah 4:4, the Court (bēit din) makes the decree; in Mena.hot 10:5 Rabban yo.hanan ben Zakkai makes the decree; and in Rosh Hashanah 2:5, Rabban Gamliel “the elder” makes the decree. These examples are fundamentally tied to the larger phenomenon of decrees in the Mishnah (see further below). The anonymous “they” who make decrees during Temple times in most of the narratives likely refers to the Court because in the two instances in the Temple era in which the subject is named, in Yoma 2:1 and Sukkah 4:4, the subject is the Court. Alternatively, the Mishnah may conveniently shroud the reality that it was a group of priests who had such power. 32. In Sukkah 4:4, the Court may function in both ways. As noted, “the elders” who leave their palm branches in “the chamber” may be the ones who “teach” the people to make a declaration relinquishing ownership to whoever gets the branch the next day. 33. See Zeitlin, “The political Synedrion and the Religious Sanhedrin,” 109–22; and Goodblatt, The Monarchic Principle, 83–130 (with references to earlier works, esp. Mantel, Studies in the History of the Sanhedrin; and hoenig, The Great Sanhedrin). 34. Goodblatt suggests that both have a central role in The Monarchic Principle, 103– 4, though in the following pages he undermines this claim. 35. See idem, “Sanhedrin,” esp. 8103. See also The Monarchic Principle, 103–25, where Goodblatt does not state this conclusion explicitly. 36. The first to suggest that the great court or Sanhedrin in rabbinic literature is a fictional institution was Joshua Efron, in “The Great Sanhedrin in Vision and Reality,” in Studies on the Hasmonean Period, 290–303. Efron, however, limited this conclusion to the purely legal rabbinic passages. he believed that the courts depicted in the Mishnah’s ritual narratives were real courts “manned by pharisee sages” (298). See also Goodblatt’s more nuanced treatment of the rabbinic construction of the Sanhedrin in “Sanhedrin,” 8101–4. Berkowitz, in “Arguments for Authority” and Execution and Invention, and Rosen-Zvi, in “The Ritual of the Suspected Adulteress,” 61–69, show that in specific ritual narratives— the execution narrative in Mishnah Sanhedrin 6–7 and the bitter-waters ritual in Mishnah So.t ah 1–3—the role that the court is given is at least partly fictional, not appearing in earlier sources. Rosen-Zvi argues that in Mishnah So.t ah 1:3–4, the court has been inserted into the narrative and its role invented; on 69 n. 33, he ties this insertion to the role of authority that the court is given over the priests in Mishnah Yoma 1:3–6 and Middot 5:4. 37. The earlier accounts must have their own biases; however, the minimal agreement between the earlier sources, together with their earlier date, suggests that they are closer to the historical reality. Goodblatt makes this argument in “Sanhedrin,” 8103. In this

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 167

Notes to pages 51–52

167

encyclopedia entry, he presents an excellent concise summary of the bodies of evidence for the Sanhedrin/Great Court. On this evidence, see also Efron, Studies on the Hasmonean Period, 287–338. 38. Zeitlin, “The Trial and Crucifixion of Jesus Re-Examined,” “The political Synedrion,” and Who Crucified Jesus?. See also Rivkin, “Beth Din, Boulé, Sanhedrin.” 39. Büchler, Hasanhedrin, 39. 40. Goodblatt, The Monarchic Principle and “Sanhedrin.” This conclusion ends up similar, in a sense, to that of Kuenen and the other German scholars against whom Büchler argues (see Büchler, Hasanhedrin). for more on Goodblatt’s view, see n. 41 below. Goodblatt notes his reliance on Efron, Studies on the Hasmonean Period, and the similarity of his position to that of Sanders in Judaism: Practice and Belief, 472–90. Goodblatt’s chapter “The problem of the Council before 70,” in The Monarchic Principle, 77–130, is the most thorough and important study of the relevant pre-rabbinic sources. The only desideratum is a detailed analysis of passages using the term “elders” (presbyteroi), which Goodblatt simply takes as “a noninstitutionalized oligarchy” (99), an “indeterminate group rather than a formally constituted collective” (91), and “lay nobles” (123). 41. See Goodblatt, “Sanhedrin,” 8103. Goodblatt sees the rabbinic Sanhedrin as idealized but does not explain the characteristic difference between the rabbinic and earlier sources: The accounts of the Sanhedrin in our sources neither overlap chronologically nor confirm one another. Moreover, each account is problematic. The rabbinic is idealized, and the New Testament is inconsistent. Josephus describes in one case a shortlived system imposed by the Romans, and in the other case his own parallel accounts know nothing of the sunedrion. So we have no unequivocal historical evidence for the Sanhedrin. What we probably do have in the Greek sources are the historical realities from which the rabbinic account of the Sanhedrin was created: an aristocratic council (gerousia or presbuterion), judicial or administrative bodies of seventy, and possibly a municipal council (boulē) in Jerusalem. 42. Josephus, Antiquities; trans. feldman (1965), 503–5. 43. Josephus, The Jewish War 2.417, trans. Thackeray. 44. Rivkin, “Beth Din, Boulé, Sanhedrin,” 184–85. See also Büchler, Hasanhedrin, 40. As Tessa Rajak argues, for Josephus, Judaean society would ideally be led both politically and ritually by priests (Rajak, “The Against Apion and the Continuities in Josephus’ political Thought”). The way Josephus views monarchic authority as an incursion into priestly authority in this account seems to be linked to a negative view of the herodian dynasty and its relationship to the priesthood or a negative view of Roman dominance. his positive portrayal of priestly authority (in the domain of traditional ritual) may stem from his priestly worldview (after Rajak), from a desire to promote the interests of the lower priests after the destruction (after S. Schwartz, Josephus and Judaean Politics, 95–96), or from a desire for the

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

168

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 168

No t e s t o Pa g es 52‒54

continuation of the traditional Judaean Temple-centered way of life (after Goodman, Rome and Jerusalem, 426). 45. See further on the rabbinic displacement of priests below. 46. Simon-Shoshan, “halachah Lema‘aseh,” 153–54, comes to a similar conclusion based on the parallel between Rabban Gamliel and his court and the Court of Temple times in the laws and narratives in Mishnah Rosh Hashanah 1–2. 47. See, most recently, Boyarin, Border Lines, 74–86; and A. Tropper, Wisdom, Politics, and Historiography. See also Stemberger, “Mischna Avot.” On the Graeco-Roman intellectual and literary model for the chain of transmission, see A. Tropper, Wisdom, Politics, and Historiography. 48. B. Cohen, Jewish and Roman Law, 1:276, sees the pairs (see below) as court leaders, but in comparing the pairs to the Roman magistrates, he de-emphasizes the significance of the court leaders as the predecessors of the rabbis. There is no evidence to suggest that the rabbis see these pairs as pharisees or that they consider the pharisees their predecessors. 49. In the rabbinic portion of the chain in Mishnah ’Avot, Rabbi Judah is called naśi. None of the earlier pairs are called naśi explicitly in this source, but a parallel may be implicit. 50. Nearly universally, the title naśi given to Judah, hillel, and Gamliel is taken by scholars to mean “patriarch,” the title given to important Jewish leaders of the later third, fourth, and fifth centuries in Christian and Roman sources later than the Mishnah. The basis for the assumption that naśi is equivalent to “patriarch” seems to be an apparent continuity between these early figures and those later figures with the same names in the Greek-language sources and the Talmuds. This is pointed out by Levine, “The Jewish patriarch,” 652. yet the title naśi in the Mishnah and Tosefta need not mean “patriarch”— see Goodman, State and Society, 111–18; and S. Stern, “Rabbi and the Origins of the patriarch,” 193, end of n. 1. 51. The pairing of the term naśi with ’av bēit din in Mishnah Hagigah . 2:2 as well as Mishnah Ta‘anit 2:1 suggests that naśi refers to a Court leader. In Tosefta Sanhedrin 7:8 and 8:1, the naśi is explicitly a leader present in the Great Court /Sanhedrin. See also Mantel, Studies in the History of the Sanhedrin. Note that the use of this term in Horayot is unique to that tractate. 52. On this attribution as a late/editorial addition, see Boyarin, Border Lines, 81; and see Geiger, cited in Büchler, Hasanhedrin, 11. 53. Cf. Goodblatt, The Monarchic Principle, 205. 54. In the parallel in Tosefta Rosh Hashanah 1:18, the biblical prophets yerubaal, yiftah, . and Samuel are also imagined to have had courts (see also Tosefta So.t ah 11:14). The prophets in ’Avot 1:1 are part of the same chain, though they are not tied to courts. 55. Sh. Cohen, “The Significance of yavneh,” 40. See also hezser, The Social Structure, 69. pharisees (p˘erushim or pārōshim; see A. Baumgarten, “The Name of the pharisees”) are named in the Mishnah and Tosefta in three instances as the opponents of the Sadducees or bēit˘esim/Boethusians (Mishnah Yadayim 4:6–7 and its parallel in Tosefta Yadayim 2:20 and Tosefta Hagigah . 3:35). yet only in one of these instances, Tosefta Hagigah . 3:35, is the typical

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 169

Notes to page 54

169

Temple practice associated with the pharisees. In contrast, in one of the instances, Mishnah Yadayim 4:6, Rabban yohanan . ben Zakkai is clearly not a pharisee because he refers to the pharisees as a group distinct from “us.” And yohanan . ben Zakkai is one of the first two rabbis in the chain of transmission who elsewhere (Tosefta Parah 3:8) is an opponent of the Sadducees, ensuring that Temple ritual follows the correct practice (in the parallel mishnaic narrative this correct practice is associated with the Court). More commonly in the Mishnah and Tosefta, the correct Temple practice (or in the one case in Tosefta Sanhedrin 6:6, judicial practice) is typically associated with the Court (see below) and goes against the sectarian view held by the Sadducees or Boethusians. This does not mean that it follows the pharisee view, as Shaye Cohen points out (Cohen, “The Significance of yavneh,” 38–39). While it seems likely that at least some rabbis were descended from pharisees, supported by the fact that a Gamaliel and a Simon son of Gamaliel appear as pharisees in the New Testament and in the works of Josephus (but see Cohen, “The Significance of yavneh,” 36–37), what is crucial is that in the Mishnah and even in the Tosefta, the rabbis are not constructed as the genealogical or intellectual heirs of the pharisees. Cf. Boyarin, Border Lines, 78–79. On the problematic claim by B. Cohen, Jewish and Roman Law, 275–76, that the chain of transmission in Mishnah ’Avot is modeled on the Roman jurist pomponius’s narration of the history of Roman law (Digest of Justinian 1.2), see A. Tropper, Wisdom, Politics, and Historiography, 201–4. 56. Cf. Jaffee, “The Taqqanah.” 57. Adjacent reports are considered a single pericope. 58. Anonymous: Mishnah Berakhot 9:5; Shevi‘it 4:1; Ma‘aśer Sheni 5:2; Bikkurim 3:7; She.kalim 1:2; and Rosh Hashanah 2:1 (likely the Court), 2:2 (likely the Court), and 4:4. Early prophets: Mishnah Ta‘anit 4:2. Bēit din: Mishnah She.kalim 7:5 and 7:6; Yoma 2:2; and Sukkah 4:4 (all three pericopae refer to Temple practice, and thus “the Court” is from the Temple era); see also Tosefta Ketubbot 1:2. hillel the elder (called “hillel” and “hillel the elder”): Mishnah Shevi‘it 10:3; Gi.tt. in 4:3; and ‘Arakhin 9:4. Rabban Gamliel the elder: Mishnah Rosh Hashanah 2:5; and Gi.tt. in 4:2. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel: Mishnah Gi.tt. in 4:3 (some MSS read Rabban Gamliel). Rabban yohanan . ben Zakkai: Mishnah Rosh Hashanah 4:1 (see Tosefta Rosh Hashanah 2:9), 4:3, and 4:4; Mishnah Sukkah 3:12; and Mena.hot 10:5 (see Tosefta Mena.hot 10:26). The number of emendations (as opposed to pericopae) are: Anonymous, 9; bēit din, 9; hillel the elder, 2; Rabban Gamliel the elder, 4; Rabban yo.hanan ben Zakkai, 5; and the early prophets, 1. yo.hanan ben Zakkai’s emendations argue for rabbinic authority that is specifically tied to the Temple. Ritual practice as determined by yo.hanan ben Zakkai after the destruction (regarding blowing the shofar, observing Tabernacles, and eating the new barley grain after passover) is portrayed as a direct continuation of earlier Temple practice, and this founding rabbi had the authority to make the necessary changes. These examples thus stress the legitimacy of rabbinic law by linking it to Temple ritual—though it is actually the absence of the Temple that makes such authority possible. 59. Shimon ben Shetah: . Tosefta Ketubbot 12:1. Rabban Gamliel: Tosefta Shevi‘it 1:1

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

170

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 170

No t e s t o Pa g es 54‒60

(“Rabban Gamliel and his court”) and 6:27; and Tosefta Kil’ayim 4:1. Rabbi (yehudah the Naśi): Tosefta Rosh Hashanah 1:14. “Our rabbis”: Tosefta Ketubbot 5:7. The sages: Tosefta So.t ah 13:4, assuming “the sages” in 13:3 are the antecedent. 60. The early prophets presumably correspond to “the prophets” (Mishnah ’Avot 1:1 and Pe’ah 2:6; and see Tosefta Yadayim 2:16). As noted above, in the toseftan parallel to Mishnah Rosh Hashanah 2:9, Tosefta Rosh Hashanah 1:18, yiftah, . Samson, and Gideon are said to have had their own courts. for Rabbi yohanan . ben Zakkai, see also Mishnah Yadayim 4:3 and Mishnah ‘Eduyyot 8:7. 61. The relationship between the Great Court of Temple times and the rabbis appears to have influenced the occasional notion that Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi have their own courts. These two prominent rabbis are successors of the Court of Temple times in this way. As we have seen, their courts are not typical courts, so they differ significantly from the courts of Temple times. 62. No doubt the recollections of past ritual preserve lost ritual practice and codify the correct procedure for the future. 63. The importance of ritual for the rabbis and the connection that they claim to Temple ritual help explain the prominence of the Temple in the rabbinic memory of the past and in the Mishnah.

Chapter 3 1. See Rosen-Zvi, “Orality, Narrative, Rhetoric,” 245. 2. Neusner’s translation, “enactment,” based on the Jerusalem Talmud, Sukkah 5:2 (55b) and the Babylonian Talmud, Sukkah 51b, is grammatically impossible. The Mishnah does not describe a one-time event but rather what was done every year; furthermore, there is no hint in the Mishnah that any enactment is involved. If the parallel Tosefta, Sukkah 4:1, is taken into account (that a balcony was constructed), ‫( תיקון‬ti.kk. un, in 5:2) may refer to the construction rather than the preparations described but certainly not to any enactments requiring the separation of men and women. 3. The manuscript enumeration, used in the hebrew text here, differs from that of the printed edition, used in the translation here. 4. The list of instruments is quoted (with one instrument not included) from 1 Chron. 13:8. The instruments also appear together in 1 Chron. 15:28, 16:5–6, and 25:1; and 2 Chron. 5:12, 20:28, and 29:25–27. And see Neh. 12:27. 5. This is a ritual use of Ezek. 8:16. for a similar use of a verse out of context as a ritual utterance, see Bikkurim 3:2. 6. The first-fruits narrative, quoted in the Introduction to this volume, achieves verisimilitude similarly. In the water-drawing place narrative, the use of biblical language to name the instruments (lyres, harps, cymbals, trumpets) and perhaps an allusion to the dancing when David brought the ark to Jerusalem (2 Samuel 6) may add to the

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 171

Notes to pages 60–63

171

verisimilitude, implying a continuity in Temple ritual from biblical times until the late Second Temple period. The language in 2 Samuel 6 (which refers to a time before the Temple was built) is slightly different from that of the Mishnah. See the list of instruments in v. 5 and the dancing in vv. 14–16. 7. Rosen-Zvi makes a similar claim in “Orality, Narrative, Rhetoric,” 245. On the power of the seeming naturalness of narrative, see White, The Content of the Form, 3–6 and 20. In overtly fictional narrative, the realness of the events does not make them seem factual; my claim is that in narratives that purport to tell of real events, the narrative form, with its ability to impart a sense of the real, heightens the seeming factuality of the account. 8. The quotations are from hoffmann, The First Mishna, 26 (and see 24–44); Ginzberg, “Tamid,” 1:38; and Epstein, Introduction to Tannaitic Literature, 25 (and see 25– 58), respectively. These scholars’ claims are more complex than the way I am representing them here. They focus on the unique vocabulary found in these passages, language that might imply that the Temple still stands and other factors. But central to their argument is that the passages claim to describe what really happened in the Temple and appear to do so. See also Rosen-Zvi, “Orality, Narrative, Rhetoric,” 243–44; and cf. Jaffee, Torah in the Mouth, 196 n. 15. 9. Genette, Narrative Discourse, 113 and 116. 10. Ibid., 113. 11. On the many Cinderella stories, see B. Smith, “Narrative Versions,” 216–21. 12. Genette, Narrative Discourse, 116–60. 13. perfect verbs appear in 5:1, 5:3, and 5:4; and the participle in 5:2 and 5:4. for a more detailed analysis of the verb usage, see Introduction to the volume. With regard to tense-mixing, I have not examined the original french of In Search of Lost Time, but in Lydia Davis’s English translation (Swann’s Way), there is a mixing of tenses as well, primarily the compound tense “would” plus infinitive, which implies the iterative past, the past tense, and the present tense. 14. Genette, Narrative Discourse, 132. 15. Examples of this technique are in In Search of Lost Time. E.g., at the opening of the book, when describing bedtime every night, the narrator says that “sometimes” he would fall asleep just as the candle went out. This variation is not as orderly as the one in Mishnah Yoma but conveys iterativity and the regular repetition that happened in those times when it happened as described. An additional technique that is much rarer in Temple ritual narratives is what Genette calls “the singulative in service of the iterative,” or a description of something that happened only one time, in one iteration, that demonstrates the events that normally happened as described every year or every day or other frequency (see Genette, Narrative Discourse, 139– 40). Sometimes the example of what happened one time is an instance of the events that occurred regularly and repeatedly. Thus in Middot 1:2, Rabbi Eliezer ben yaakov’s anecdote about his uncle supports the general narration that the Levite’s garment could be burned if he was discovered asleep on the job of guarding the Temple. In other cases, the example is

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

172

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 172

No t e s t o Pa g e s 63‒67

not an instance of what is narrated but an exception to the general rule that proves the rule because it happened only once that way. An example like this occurs in a court-centered ritual narrative: in Sanhedrin 6:4, it is debated as to whether Shimon ben Sheta.h’s action of hanging women in Ashkelon is an exception to the rule that women are not hanged or an instance of the rule that women are hanged. 16. Genette, Narrative Discourse, 127–43. I omit Genette’s technical terminology, which is not particularly helpful. 17. According to 4:1 (repeated at the beginning of 5:1), this ritual is repeated in the festival on every night of the festival that is not a “festival day” and not the Sabbath. The narrative, however, seems to speak only about the night following the first day of the festival. Thus it is ambiguous as to whether the narrative means to narrate daily events on the festival. Most Temple ritual narratives speak of events that occur regularly every year, though some rituals, such as the ritual for fast days when there is no rain or various judicial rituals, occur whenever the need arises. 18. The destruction is mentioned elsewhere in the Mishnah but not directly connected to a Temple ritual narrative. 19. for these phrases, see Tamid 2:2 and Pesa.him 5:7. See also Sukkah 5:1 for a similar phrase. Cf. Pesa.him 1:6 and ‘Eduyyot 2:1. 20. for this way of establishing the chronological limits of the entire period of repetition, see Genette, Narrative Discourse, 229–30. 21. See White, The Content of the Form, 1–25, esp. 9 and 21, and The Tropics of Discourse, 91–92. See also his more developed theory in Metahistory, 1–38, the details of which are not especially relevant to Temple ritual narrative. 22. See Brooks, Reading for the Plot, 94. On endings and closure, see also J. Miller, “The problematic of Ending,” Bennett and Royle, An Introduction to Literature, 197–205, and B. Smith, Poetic Closure. On beginnings, see Bennett and Royle, An Introduction to Literature , 1–8, and Said, Beginnings: Intentions and Method. for a wider consideration of beginnings and ends, see Cohn, “The Ritual Narrative Genre,” 101–5. 23. Yoma 7:4. Ōhăvāv (translated as “close friends”) could mean “his supporters.” 24. The importance of correct performance is underlined by the story in the Tosefta, in which a high priest once followed Boethusian (bēit˘esi, bēit ’esi, bait˘esi, or baitusi, depending on vocalization) practice—incorrect practice—and made the incense smoke outside of the holy of holies, causing the entire Temple to “tremble” and resulting in his death three days later. In this story, a single detail performed incorrectly caused a cosmic disturbance and led to the death of the ritual performer. 25. In making this generalization, I am glossing over the complexities of many narratives. Some narratives may begin in medias res, or the beginning may be implied by the surrounding legal material. Others may present the events out of order or may cycle back to fill in detail (not uncommon in all types of narration!). My point is that even with these complexities, the telling tends to have a directionality, leading through a coherent series of events to the conclusion of a completed performance.

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 173

Notes to pages 68–74

173

26. This is the approach of Ginzberg, Epstein, et al., who simply cut these comments to get at the original. On this sort of intervention in narratives of the Babylonian Talmud, see Rubenstein, Talmudic Stories, 129–30, who notes that these interventions have been integrated, yet still treats them source-critically as “glosses.” 27. MS Cambridge, T-S E1.54 reads ‫( פלהדרין‬palhedrin). 28. Rabbi yehudah’s midrashic interpretation of the verse is: the word “house” in the verse is taken to refer (in a midrashic way, not literally) to his wife; since the sacrifice atones for the wife as well, there must be a wife, or the atonement will not be effected properly; thus there must be a backup wife, just in case. The sages object to Rabbi yehudah’s interpretation on the grounds that if we applied his logic, there would be no end to the replacements we would have to appoint. This is an argument by reductio ad absurdum. Note that the sages may dispute the narrator’s detail that a backup priest is appointed, since the sages’ logic can be applied to this as well. 29. Rabbi Ishmael’s subsequent opinion in the printed edition is lacking in the manuscripts. 30. In the first three examples, the opinion about what used to happen is based on reasoning or exegesis; in the fourth example, the rabbi seems simply to claim that things used to be done differently. yet it seems that in all examples (with the exception of the sages’ opinion in the first example), the rabbis claim that their version is what actually happened in the past. 31. Interventions occur at Yoma 1:1, 2:3, 3:7, 4:1, 4:4, 4:5, 4:6, 5:1, 5:4, 5:5, 5:7, 6:1, 6:3, 6:6, 6:7, 6:8, and 7:3. The absence of interventions in chap. 2, which largely parallels portions of Tamid, in which only three rabbinic interventions occur (3:8, 5:2, and 7:2), would seem to support Ginzberg’s thesis (or a variation thereof ) in “Tamid,” that material has been drawn from Tamid (or an earlier source upon which it is based) for use in Yoma. 32. The merging of settings created by the rabbinic interventions in the narrative discourse not only brings the rabbis to the Temple but also brings the Temple into the setting of the rabbinic debate, the real or imagined bēit midrāsh.

Chapter 4 1. Bell, Ritual, 37. 2. Suydam, “Background,” 14. As Grimes points out, Smith seems to assume that the sacrality of place is preexistent, not determined by ritual action. See Grimes, “Jonathan Z. Smith’s Theory of Ritual Space” and Rite out of Place, 101–13. for the relevant passage upon which Suydam builds, see J. Smith, To Take Place, 28. 3. J. Smith, To Take Place, 26. 4. Grimes, Rite out of Place, 95; Grimes’s point is that the action of sacralizing space (he speaks specifically of Byzantine icon screens, but his comment applies more generally) is an example of “a more widespread, utterly ordinary, quite political, necessarily theatrical

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

174

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 174

No t e s t o Pa g e s 74‒79

human activity, that of partitioning and enclosing.” here I focus on the specific actions that he associates with the rituals that construct sacred space. Another helpful reference on the narrative construction of the Temple’s sacred space is Sleeman, “Mark, the Temple, and Space.” 5. On conferring meaning to place, see J. Smith, To Take Place, 28. On the implications of place creation for social hierarchy, see ibid., 35–73. I take the term “political” from fonrobert, “The political Symbolism of the Eruv.” 6. The relationship between this ritualization and the possibility that the study house was a private home was suggested to me by Natalie Dohrmann. On private homes as study places, see hezser, The Social Structure, 205. A similar example to prayers upon entering and exiting the study house can be found at the end of Berakhot 9:4, where one who enters a city (k˘erakh) “should recite two prayers, one upon entering and one upon exiting.” 7. The k. ōdesh, “holy,” is distinct from the innermost sanctum, the k. ōdesh k. odāshim, holy of holies, where the ark was. Note that turning often accompanies ascent up the altar, which could be constructed as a distinct sacred space as well. See Mishnah Sukkah 4:9 and Zeva.him 5:3 and 6:5. In the Middot example, it may be highly significant that the Mishnah has named the space as the Temple Mount. In “The Temple Mount, the Rabbis” and subsequently in God’s Mountain, yaron Eliav convincingly argues that the space surrounding the Temple that was built by herod and called the Temple Mount in rabbinic literature did not have sacred status in the time of the Second Temple but was sacralized by the rabbis in the Mishnah. 8. Note the association between ritual action and the crossing of multiple boundaries of increasing holiness in the first-fruits narrative discussed earlier. As the people reach the boundary of Jerusalem, they adorn their fruits and are greeted; as they reach the boundary of the Temple Mount, they place the basket on their shoulders; as they reach the Temple courtyard, the Levites break out in song. here ritualized boundary crossing (denoted only by the verb “to reach” [‫הגיע‬, higi‘a]) marks concentric rings of sacred space. 9. Entry and exit are repeated several times in the passover sacrifice narrative (Pesa.him 5:5–10) and in the daily sacrifice narrative in Tamid. Entry appears throughout the genre, using the verbs ‫( נכנס‬Bikkurim 3:4; Pesa.him 5:5 and 5:7 [twice]; She.kalim 3:2 and 3:3; Yoma 3:3–4, 5:3, and 7:3; Ta‘anit 4:3; So.t ah 2:2; Sanhedrin 3:6, 3:7, 4:5, and 5:4; Tamid 1:3 [twice], 1:4, 3:4, 3:7 [twice], 3:9 [twice], 5:6 [twice], 6:1 [twice], and 7:1 [twice]; Middot 2:2, 4:2, and 5:4; and Nega‘im 14:2) (and note that in some cases, it appears in the negative or in the causative construction); ‫( בא‬Yoma 7:1; Zeva.him 5:3 and 6:5; and Tamid 1:2; cf. also the use of ‫ בא‬to denote movement toward ritual space in Sukkah 4:4; Sanhedrin 5:5 and 11:2 [three times]; Tamid 2:5, 3:7, 4:3, 7:2, and 7:3; Nega‘im 14:8 and 14:10; and Parah 3:3); and ‫( הגיע‬Yoma 5:1). Exit appears using the verbs ‫( יצא‬Bikkurim 3:3 and 3:6; Pesahim 5:7 [twice] and 5:10 [twice]; Yoma 5:1, 5:3, 5:4, 5:5 [part of verse], 7:3, and 7:4; Sukkah 5:4 [‫שער‬ ‫היוצא למזרח‬, twice, though no exit actually recorded, only implied]; Ta‘anit 2:1 [‫מוציאין‬, in taking out the ark, there is exiting] and 4:8 [twice]; So.t ah 3:4 [people cry out ‫הוציאוה‬ ‫ הוציאוה‬to remove the accused woman before her body explodes, though the actual removal

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 175

Notes to page 79

175

is only implied]; Sanhedrin 3:6 and 7:5 [‫מוציאין‬, those who are removed from the courthouse exit]; Mena.hot 10:3 [going out to the site of the ritual] and 10:5 [with a conditional sense]; Tamid 1:1 [twice], 3:2–3, 3:4 [‫הוציאו‬, parallel to ‫]נכנסו‬, 3:9 [twice], 6:1 [twice], 6:2, 6:3 [twice], and 7:1 [three times]; Middot 1:9 [twice, parallel to Tamid 1:1] and 5:4; and Parah 3:6); ‫( ירד‬Sukkah 4:5 and 5:2; Yoma 4:5 and 5:5; and Tamid 2:5 [leaving the altar by descending it]; and Parah 3:2 and 3:3); and in singular cases, ‫( נפטרו‬So.t ah 9:5) and ‫( חזר‬Sanhedrin 11:2). The verb “to arrive” (‫ )הגיע‬narrates the entry into a demarcated space, as part of a progression through a series of spaces. The verb appears in Bikkurim 3:2– 3; Yoma 5:1; and Sukkah 5:4. progression through distinct spaces also occurs in Yoma 6:4– 6; Rosh Hashanah 2:3–4; Sanhedrin 6:1–4; and Sanhedrin 11:2. 10. See Lev. 16:1–34 and subsequent retellings of how the Day of Atonement rituals are to be done. Another biblical text that stresses entry and exit (though is not a description of ritual) is Ezekiel’s Temple vision in the final eight chapters of the Book of Ezekiel (to be discussed shortly). There, “enter” occurs twenty-three times (including nominal forms of the verb) and “exit” thirteen times. In postbiblical texts near the time of the Mishnah, in the Last Supper narratives in the Gospels (with which the rabbis of the Mishnah may or may not have been familiar), entry and exit are featured prominently. On the Last Supper, see Mark 14:12– 26, Matt. 26:17–30, Luke 22:7–39, and John 13:1–30. The disciples ask where to go out to prepare the passover (aperchomai, Mark 14:12); Jesus commands them to go into the city (hupagō, Mark 14:13) or mentions when they go into the city (eiserchomai, Luke 22:10); he mentions when a man enters a house (eiserchomai, Mark 14:14; eisporeuō, Luke 22:10); and Jesus and the disciples go out to the Mount of Olives (exerchomai, Mark 14:26, Matt. 26:30, Luke 22:39) or Judas exits (exerchomai, John 13:30). On Jesus coming to the Temple, see Matt. 21:12 (eiserchomai), 21:23 (erchomai), and 24:1 (exerchomai); Mark 11:11 (eiserchomai), 11:15 (eiserchomai), 11:27 (erchomai used in conjunction with entering Jerusalem), and 13:1 (ekporeuō, go out); and Luke 19:45 (eiserchomai) and 21:37 (exerchomai). And see Acts 3:8, 5:21, and 21:26. A further consideration of descriptions of Jewish, Christian, and Roman rituals is beyond the scope of this chapter. 11. Examples considered are: Deut. 16:1–8; Ezek. 45:21–24; Ezra 6:19–21; 2 Chron. 30:1–27 and 35:1–19; Jubilees 49:1–23; the Temple Scroll (11QT), col. xvii; 1 Esd. 1:1–22; philo, Special Laws 2.145, On the Birth of Abel 63, Who Is Heir of Divine Things 255, and On Moses 2:224; John 11:55; Josephus, Antiquities 3.248, 9.263, 9.267–72, 10.70–72, 11.109–11, 17.213–14, and 20.106; Judean War 2.10–13, 2.224, 6.290–94, and 6.423– 427; and pseudo-philo, Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum 50:2 (though it is highly unlikely that this last source is pre-mishnaic). The search for non-rabbinic examples was aided immensely by Colautti, Passover in the Works of Josephus. The one exception to this rule is Exod. 12:22, regarding the original passover sacrifice when the Jews left Egypt: ‫ואתם לא תצאו איש מפתח‬ ‫ביתו עד בקר‬, “And none of you may exit from the door of his house until morning.” This command not to exit effectively seals off the sacred interior of the home and allows the blood to serve its apotropaic function. for a fuller treatment of these earlier sources, see Cohn, “The Ritual Narrative Genre,” 123–26.

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

176

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 176

No t e s t o Pa g es 79‒81

Earlier accounts do not use these two verbs but describe people moving toward the Temple to perform the ritual and moving away from the Temple once the ritual is complete. These earlier texts simply use different verbs: the people come to the place of sacrifice or return home (Deut. 16:7 [going from the Temple, ‫ ;]והלכת לאהלך‬2 Chron. 30:1 [‫לבוא‬ ‫ ]לבית ה’ בירושלים‬and 30:11 [‫ ;]ויבאו‬Jubilees 49:19; New Testament, John 11:55 [anabainō]; Josephus, Antiquities 9.263 [anabainō] and 17.214 [kateimi], Judean War 2.10 [kateimi]), they bring the sacrifice (philo, On Moses 2:224 [prosagō and anagō]); and they gather together (2 Chron. 30:13 [‫ ;]ויאספו‬Josephus, Antiquities 10.70 [calls the people together, sunkaleō], 11.109 [surreō], and 20.106 [sunagō]; Judean War 2.224 [sunerchomai], 6.290 [athroizō], and 6.423 [sullegō]). Each of these verbs or phrases construes the movement toward (or away from) the Temple in a very different way. Going to the Temple emphasizes the space between home and the Temple and the relationship between these two important places. Bringing the sacrifice spotlights the animal as ritual object. Gathering together highlights the formation of the group as part of the ritual performance. In contrast to these three verbs commonly used in earlier sources, entry and exit in the Mishnah place the emphasis of the motion on crossing the boundary—from outside the Temple to the inside, and vice versa. 12. The ‘ēruv is not the only other example of ritual action functioning to create sacred space in the Mishnah. Elsewhere, ritual actions and other ritual regulations seem to be associated with the construction of the sacred space of the sukkah (hut or booth for the Tabernacles festival); the home, where passover and the seder are observed; the field; and perhaps the synagogue. for the Sukkah example, drawing on Lehman, “The Gendered Rhetoric of Sukkah Observance” (which focuses on the Talmud Bavli), the ritual instructions in Mishnah Sukkah for how one must build and dwell in the sukkah in the Mishnah can be understood to ritualize the space and make it sacred. So, too, the rules and procedures for cleaning the home and holding the seder in Mishnah Pesa.him, as well as rules pertaining to the farming of the field in the order of Zera‘im and how one acts with respect to the space of the synagogue (see Levine, The Synagogue), all may function to construct sacred space. This is, of course, not an exhaustive list. 13. fonrobert, “The political Symbolism of the Eruv” and “Neighborhood as Ritual Space.” 14. fonrobert, “Neighborhood as Ritual Space,” 245–48. 15. Baker, Rebuilding the House of Israel; and fonrobert, “Neighborhood as Ritual Space,” 245–48. Baker demonstrates how a variety of ritual practices regarding women and their mobility and visibility help construct domestic and nondomestic space in particular (gendered) ways. Though the gendered nature of the rabbinic construction of Temple sacred space is important, little material in the Mishnah speaks to it, so I leave it for a different discussion. 16. This is similar to the argument that Baker makes about rabbinic gender regulations and the way they construct space. See Baker, Rebuilding the House of Israel, 131–37. 17. See Sh. Cohen, The Beginnings of Jewishness, who refers to the inscriptions, to several of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and to Acts (The Beginnings of Jewishness, 65, 250–51, and

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 177

Notes to pages 81–87

177

360–62). On these inscriptions, see Schürer, The History of the Jewish People, 2:284–85 and esp. n. 57. See also p. Segal, “The penalty of the Warning Inscription”; and M. Ben-Dov, In the Shadow of the Temple, 102. See also Berkowitz, Execution and Invention, 220 n. 40. for a photograph of the inscription, see Eliav, God’s Mountain, 38. On the relationship between Jewish festival ritual and sociological boundaries, particularly those between Jews and nonJews, see Weitzmann, “from feasts into Mourning,” 562. 18. Josephus, Antiquities 13.257–58. See Sh. Cohen, The Beginnings of Jewishness, 13–24. 19. The priests who mop up “against the will of the sages” is the one major crack in the rabbinic memory of the past, hinting that things may not actually have been done as the rabbis say. 20. See Tosefta Kippurim 1:8, Sukkah 3:16, and, seemingly, Parah 3 (which are all similar). In the parallels in the first chapter of Mishnah Yoma, in Mishnah Sukkah 4:9, and in Parah 3:7–8, there is no indication that any Boethusian/bēit˘esi or Sadducean sectarian actually performed the ritual in the wrong way (or in Sukkah 4:9 that the person who performed the ritual incorrectly did so because he was a sectarian). Similarly, the descriptions of further measures taken against sectarians described in Chapter 2 of this volume never say that sectarians were in the Temple having or trying to have their way. 21. J. Smith, To Take Place, 47–73. 22. Two more quotations are in the tractate from subsequent chapters, also part of the Temple visions. 23. Outlines are necessarily interpretive in that they focus on certain details and omit others. I do not claim that this is the essential structure of the passage, or that it is not possible to delimit the section otherwise—indeed, J. Smith ends the section later, in chap. 44 (see n. 24 below). The outline is a useful way of including detail that is helpful for comparison. I rely heavily on the paragraphing in the new JpS Tanakh. 24. The vision continues and includes more measurement (including that of the altar, with the altar’s function, in 43:13–27) and a vision of the locked gate and of the presence of the Lord filling the Temple (44:1–5). Even if the angelic guide is the one who leads him back out of the Temple in the beginning of 44 (the language is ambiguous), showing him the locked gate and the view back in to the presence of the Lord filling the Temple, I have omitted these because they do not seem integral to his tour (indeed, the larger tour structure seems to break down). These subsequent passages, however, recapitulate for a third time the pattern of movement back out and then inward. This third recapitulation is not mirrored in Mishnah Middot. 25. See Exod. 25:22 and Num. 7:89. 26. The map of the Temple in Mishnah Middot contrasts sharply with a different map, of the “ten levels of sanctity,” in Mishnah Kelim 1:6–9. In Kelim, the place of the court is absent, and the map culminates with the holy of holies. In Middot 5:4 (in the printed edition), the exclamation purportedly made upon the priest being found to have no disqualification, which ends with k. odshēi ha.kk. o˘dāshim (adding further connection to

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

178

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 178

No t e s t o Pa g es 87‒92

Ezekiel!), does not appear in MS parma or MS Kaufmann (or in MS Munich 95 of the Babylonian Talmud or MS paris 328–29 with Maimonides’ commentary on the Mishnah). In Geniza fragment TS.E1.118, this exclamation is added secondarily between the lines by another hand.

Chapter 5 1. for the Temple as identity marker and central place of worship, sources show that Judaeans regularly paid dues to the Temple and sometimes made pilgrimage and participated in its ritual. On the Temple tax, see Josephus, Antiquities 3.194–96, 14.110–13, 16.28, 16.45, 16.160–72, and 18:312–13, and The Judaean War 7.218; philo, Who Is Heir of Divine Things, 186–89, Special Laws 1.77, and Legation to Gaius, 156–57, 216, 291, 311–16; Cicero, Pro Flacco, 67; and Tacitus, Histories 5.5.1. See discussion in Tallbe, “The Temple Tax.” On mass pilgrimage, see, e.g., Josephus, Antiquities 9.263, 10.70, 11.109, 17.213–17, and 20.106 [kateimi], and The Judaean War 2.10, 2.224, 6.290, and 6.420–27; and philo, Special Laws 1.69–70 (I do not include references in the Gospels and Acts, since these are post-Temple). On pilgrimage, see the discussion in Goodman, Rome and Jerusalem, 61–62, and see his interesting discussion of pilgrimage in “The pilgrimage Economy of Jerusalem.” See also S. Safrai, Pilgrimage at the Time of the Second Temple. On worship in the Temple, see the Books of Tobit and Judith. See the Theodotus synagogue, discussed in fine, “Did the Synagogue Replace the Temple?.” See the summary treatments in Eliav, God’s Mountain, 1–46 (who focuses especially on the Temple Mount); and S. Schwartz, Imperialism and Jewish Society, 49–87. The many writings about the Temple in this period, including portions of Jubilees, the Temple Scroll, portions of 4QMMT, a large part of the letter of Aristeas, chap. 50 of Ben Sira (Sirach), some of philo’s works, and key moments in the narratives of Tobit and Judith, show how important the Temple was to average Judaeans. See, esp., hayward, The Jewish Temple. On philo, in addition to the passages quoted by hayward, see Special Laws 1.66–345, Flaccus, 46, and Embassy, esp. 278 and 281 (see fraade, “The Temple as a Marker”). See also hecateus of Abdera, quoted by Josephus, Against Apion 1.187 and 197–99. perhaps because of the centrality of the Temple to the people, it was often tied to leaders’ claims for authority and legitimacy. Going back to the hebrew Bible, accounts of Solomon’s Temple dedication (1 Kings 8), Josiah’s rededication (2 Kings 23), and the returnees’ dedication of the altar for the Second Temple (Ezra 3–6) imagine the mass of the people of Israel present in the Temple, and each of these accounts makes a claim for the legitimacy of a particular line of leadership or for the legitimacy of a particular community. Similarly, the Maccabees, according to the hasmonean foundation myths in 1–2 Maccabees, were the ones who rescued the Temple and its correct service; consequently, the hasmoneans’ power and authority were bound up with the Temple’s existence and proper functioning (they were, after all, high priests as well). When King herod supplanted the

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 179

Notes to pages 92–95

179

hasmoneans, he did not assume the title of high priest, as the hasmoneans had; yet there can be no doubt that the Temple was central to his royal image and agenda as well, since he rebuilt the Temple, and the minimal remains of this Temple provide him a legacy that continues to this day. presumably, the monumental Temple that herod created in Jerusalem—larger than any other Temple in the Roman Empire—contributed to the reputation of Jerusalem, in the words of pliny the Elder, as “by far the most famous city of the East and not of Judaea only” (Natural History, in M. Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism, 2:471). On the size of the Temple, see Eliav, God’s Mountain, 25. herod built many other Temples, but this was the only one in Judaea and was the most monumental. On herod’s building, see Richardson, Herod; and Netzer, The Architecture of Herod. 2. Later, toward the end of the war (Josephus, The Judaean War 5.1–26), different factions again do battle for control of the Temple. 3. According to Josephus, The Judaean War 6.73, Judaeans as well as Romans see the battle for the Temple as the decisive point in the war. The fighting continues for several weeks, until the final razing of Jerusalem, but the battle for the Temple is the turning point in the larger battle at Jerusalem. The last holdout at Masada is not central to the war, though the story has become central in Israeli memory of the past, as yael Zerubavel has shown. See B. Schwartz, Zerubavel, and Barnett, “The Recovery of Masada”; and Zerubavel, Recovered Roots, “The Death of Memory,” and “The Multivocality of a National Myth.” 4. See Josephus, Against Apion 2.102–9 and 2.193–98. 5. Goodman, Rome and Jerusalem, 426. 6. See ibid.; and idem, Ruling Class, 232, “The Diaspora Reactions,” 28, and “The Temple in first-Century CE Judaism,” 55. This would suggest that Josephus’s description of the Torah’s sacrifice and festival regulations in Antiquities 3.224–73 is not merely academic. 7. On this episode, see Stone, “Reactions to Destructions”; and see idem, Fourth Ezra, 310–42. 8. The message of each text is unique. 4 Ezra emphasizes the despair and questions of theodicy; 4 Baruch emphasizes the confidence that the rebuilding is imminent (in 4 Baruch, there is no explicit theology, theodicy, or reaction to the destruction; the message here is implicit). In 2 Baruch, as Klijn points out (The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha 1:617), the Temple is largely incidental and not central to the work as a whole. for the Temple in 2 Baruch, see 4:1–3 (what has been lost; hopeful message), 6:7–8 (angels hide sacred furniture, priestly garments, sacred vessels—the most detailed description of the Temple), 6:1–8:2 (generally, what has been lost), 31:5 (hopeful message), 35:1–4 (what has been lost), and 59:4 (Jerusalem in heaven). In several chapters, there is no mention of the Temple where one would expected (see Klijn, ibid., 617, for one such example). On the Temple in 2 Baruch, see Lied, The Other Lands of Israel, 31–58. I thank Shayna Sheinfeld for bringing this reference to my attention. for Temple appurtenances in 4 Baruch, see 2:10 and 3:7–14. Abimelech’s miraculous sleeping through the destruction and period of Jerusalem’s change is the key to the hopeful message provided by the story; indeed, this is what leads the old

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

180

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 180

No t e s t o Pa g es 95‒96

man (4 Baruch 5) and Baruch (4 Baruch 6) to understand that redemption is at hand. 9. Martin Goodman (Rome and Jerusalem, 427) suggests that Josephus highlights the parallel between the first and second destruction to imply the “plausibility” of rebuilding. 10. See Greek and English text of this passage in M. Stern, Greek and Latin Authors, 2:391–93. Eusebius (The Ecclesiastical History 4.6) claims that Aelia Capitolina was founded in the aftermath of the revolt; yet he is a much later historian, and his claim seems to be disproved by numismatic evidence. See Tsafrir, “Numismatics,” 34; and Meshorer’s dating of the coins in Ancient Means of Exchange, 121. Tsafrir, “Numismatics,” 31–36, provides a useful discussion of various pieces of evidence. 11. Eliav, God’s Mountain, 85 ff. 12. On Aelia Capitolina, see below. See the coins reproduced in Meshorer, Ancient Means of Exchange, 120–21, and The Coinage of Aelia Capitolina, 22–23. The Bar Kokhba revolt can be dated partly by documents found in the Cave of the Letters and others from Nahal . hever . (see discussion in Cotton and yardeni, Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek Documentary Texts). See also Eshel, “The Dates used during the Bar Kokhba Revolt.” 13. On the importance of the phrase “house of Israel,” see Goodblatt, Elements of Ancient Jewish Nationalism, 134. 14. These are written in paleo-hebrew script. for an excellent collection of these coins, see Meshorer, Ancient Means of Exchange, 121–37. for a collection of coins with the Temple facade, see Muehsam, Coin and Temple (Muehsam’s hypothesis that many of these coins derive from the first revolt is incorrect; the overstruck images on many of these coins of Trajan and hadrian—with remaining bits of Latin writing—prove that the coins come not from the first revolt but from the Bar Kokhba revolt). See also, recently, porat, Eshel, and frumkin, “finds from the Bar Kokhba Revolt,” esp. 49 (images of tetradrachms including Roman coins of the type that were typically overstruck); and Zissu et al., “Coins from the Bar Kokhba Revolt.” I would like to thank Amos frumkin for providing me with a copy of these two articles (as well as Boaz Zissu for a copy of the latter). The Temple implements pictured are the lulāv and ’etrōg (ritual palm branch and citron), harp, lyre, and perhaps Temple vessels. On these, see Meshorer, Treasury of Jewish Coins, 129–31 and 135–36. The lulāv and ’etrōg also appear on coins from the first revolt (see Meshorer, Ancient Means of Exchange, 105) and appear together with other Temple imagery in the Dura Europos and in most later synagogues. Shimon’s instructions regarding the delivery of lulāvin and ’etrōgin (and the other two of the “four species” used on Sukkot) to his “large” camp in p. yadin 57 (see yadin et al., Documents from the Bar Kokhba Period) may show that these ritual objects were not necessarily tied to the Temple. Alternatively, the ritual may have been important precisely because of their connection to the Temple. 15. This is his title evidenced in the legal documents found in the Judaean desert. See p. yadin 44, 45, and 46; Mur 24 B:2–3, B:9–10, C:3, D:2–3, and I:2–3; Xhev/Se 7:1, 8:1, 8:8, 13:2 and 31. See further in yadin et al. (yardeni and Levine), Documents from the Bar Kokhba Period from the Cave of the Letters, 46–47. 16. Significantly, in Ezekiel 46, this title has messianic (i.e., eschatological) overtones,

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 181

Notes to pages 96–101

181

and the naśi in Ezekiel’s vision enters the Temple to worship there! See also the title given Sheshbezzar, the Davidic ruler at the time of the return from Babylonia, in Ezra 1:8. 17. The year is also dated by the number of years since the province of Arabia was established and by the consuls of that year. The Aramaic precisely matches the Greek terminology used in, e.g., p. yadin 20 (with the addition only of kaisaros after hadrianou). Cf. the interpretation of the term in appendix 1 of yadin et al., Documents from the Bar Kokhba Period in the Cave of Letters (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Nabatean-Aramaic Papyri), 369– 72. Note that this document does not give ben Kosiba a title, as might be expected. 18. Recently, uzi Leibner has uncovered what may be relevant visual depictions of the Temple from a slightly later period. Among the fragmentary remains of the mosaic floor in the synagogue at Khirbet Wadi hamam, . which Leibner convincingly dates to the late third or early fourth century, are depictions of workmen building a structure. Though the scene cannot be identified with certainty, as Leibner shows, it likely portrays the building of Solomon’s Temple. Though different from the representations of the facade of a built Temple on the Bar Kokhba coins and in the Dura Europos synagogue paintings, it shows the continuing importance of the Temple. See Leibner, “Khirbet Wadi hamam” . and “Excavations at Khirbet Wadi hamam.” . 19. See, e.g., the reconstructed Western Wall in Goodenough, Jewish Symbols, vol. 11, color plate 1. Even in antiquity, the defunct synagogue’s art made an impression. See the middle persian “graffito” in Kraeling, The Synagogue, 302. The date of this synagogue— 556 of the Seleucid era, or 244/245 CE—is established by the Aramaic dedication inscription (Kraeling, The Synagogue, 263–64), though the earlier structure existed before this time (see summary, Levine, “The Synagogue of Dura Europos,” in Ancient Synagogues Revealed, ed. Levine, 173). particularly helpful treatments of the Dura Europos synagogue are Kraeling, The Synagogue; Goodenough, Jewish Symbols, vols. 9–11; hachlili, Ancient Jewish Art; fine, This Holy Place, 141–47; and Levine, Ancient Synagogues Revealed, 172–77. On the dating of the fall of the city to the persians, see MacDonald, “Dating the fall of Dura-Europos.” 20. The location of these panels seems to be reconstructed. On scenes featuring the Torah, see fine, This Holy Place, 144–45. 21. Ibid., 141. 22. See Kraeling, The Synagogue, 60–61. 23. On this parallel, see ibid., 60. See also Jodi Magness’s helpful comment in “helios and the Zodiac Cycle,” 383. 24. Reifenberg, Ancient Jewish Coins, 60, suggests this for the coins; and Kraeling, The Synagogue, 60, suggests this for the Dura Torah shrine (he lists alternative interpretations of the coin image as well). Alternatively, the structure on the coins may be an ark (‫ארון‬, ’ărōn), with cherubs and wings or perhaps with the two tablets or with Torah scrolls (after Exod. 25:16, 21 and 1 Kings 8:9). Because the graffito indicating who made the actual Torah shrine calls this structure bēit ’ărōnāh (‫בית ארונה‬, the place of the ark; see Kraeling, The Synagogue, 269; and fine, This Holy Place, 141–43), the image a Torah shrine within the Temple facade suggests a parallel between and the Temple ark (’ărōn) and the Torah shrine

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

182

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 182

No t e s t o Pa g e s 101‒102

(’ărōnāh). Cf. the image of the biblical ark in panel WB 4 (Kraeling, The Synagogue, plate 66; and Goodenough, Jewish Symbols, vol. 11, color plate 13). perhaps the picture on the Torah shrine shows an open ark with two scrolls within. In this case, it is unclear what the pillar in the middle is. for more on the Bar Kokhba coins, see Meshorer, A Treasury of Jewish Coins, 127–28. for an argument similar to mine on the object within the Temple on the Bar Kokhba tetradrachms (based partly on a different comparison with the Dura Europos synagogue paintings), see Revel-Neher, “An ‘Encore’ on the Bar Kokhba Tetradrachm,” who, however, suggests that the two dots are the poles of the ark behind the curtain. 25. I am assuming that the Dura Europos community was made up of non-rabbinic Jews. This is suggested by the epigraphy, which does not mention the title “Rabbi” (see Kraeling, The Synagogue, 261–82). 26. I use these labels in a rough heuristic way. Some of the later authors referred to themselves as Christians. Others, though they may not have called themselves that, are largely considered by scholars to fall into that category. for the earlier period, the term “believers in Jesus” seems more apt, and most, if not all, of these could be considered Judaean in some way, as discussed in the notes to Chapter 1 of this volume. I would like to thank my colleague Carly Daniel-hughes for providing detailed feedback on the present section of this chapter, saving me from many errors, helping me sharpen my presentation, and providing critical insights regarding the significance of this material. 27. Coming to the Temple: Matt. 20:17–21:12 (and 21:23); Mark 10:32–11:11 (and 11:15 and 11:27); Luke 18:31–19:45 (and 2:22 and 2:41–42); and John 2:13, 5:1 (with 5:14), 7:14, and 8:2. Teaching in the Temple: Matt. 21:23 (and seemingly until 23:39) and 26:55; Mark 12:35–44; Luke 19:47–21:38; and John 7:14–8:59 and 18:20. predicts destruction of the Temple: Mark 13:2 and 14:58 (and see 15:29–30); Matt. 23:38, 24:2, and 26:61; Luke 13:35, 19:41–44, and 21:6; and John 4:21. Takes action in Temple: Matt. 21:12–13 (and perhaps 18–22); Mark 11:15–19; Luke 19:45; and John 2:14–21. Contestation in the Temple: Matt. 21:23–23:39; Mark 11:27–12:34; Luke 19:47–20:47 and 22:2; and John 5:10, 7:25–32, 7:45, and 8:6–20. Last Supper: Matt. 26:17–30; Mark 14:12–26; and Luke 22:7–39 (cf. John 13:1 ff.). Meets his end: Matt. 26:57–27:54; Mark 14:53–15:39; Luke 22:54–23:47; and John 18:12–19:38. for a helpful summary of scholarship on what the Last Supper is, see Klawans, Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple, 214– 15. Note that the way Jerusalem, the city, is treated can be separated from the way the Temple is treated, as Walker, Jesus and the Holy City, points out. yet here the focus is the Temple, which is situated in and central to the city of Jerusalem. On death and resurrection, it is significant that they are not in the Temple, perhaps highlighting opposition to the Temple. Even in this case, though, the Temple is defining. Scholarship on Temple passages in the New Testament is enormous. I cite some relevant works in the following notes. One important discussion is how to interpret Jesus’ “action” in the Temple; see, esp., Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 61–90; Evans, “Jesus’ Action in the Temple”; fredriksen, “Gospel Chronologies”; and Klawans, Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple, 213–45.

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 183

Notes to pages 102–104

183

28. In Luke, as I will discuss shortly, Jesus is in the Temple early in his life but not during his ministry. 29. fredriksen, “Gospel Chronologies,” 247; Gray, The Temple in the Gospel of Mark; Kinman, “parousia,” 279, and Jesus’ Entry into Jerusalem; fitzmyer, The Gospel according to Luke, 166–69; and Johnson, The Gospel of Luke, 14–15. On the climactic nature and directionality of the journey, see Gray, The Temple in the Gospel of Mark, 10–23 and 43–44; Riches, Conflicting Mythologies, 135–43; Davies, The Gospel and the Land, 254–55; and Walker, Jesus and the Holy City, 58. 30. for interpretations, see, esp., Gurtner, The Torn Veil, who summarizes earlier views on 1–24. See also idem, “The Rending of the Veil”; and Green, “The Demise of the Temple.” 31. John 2:13–3:21, 5:1–47, 7:14–8:1, 8:2–59, 10:22–39, and 12:12–17:26. 32. On paul, Jesus as Temple: 1 Cor. 3:16 and 6:19; and 2 Cor. 6:16. Jesus as sacrifice: Rom. 3:25 and 1 Cor. 5:7. On paul’s references to sacrifice, see Stökl Ben-Ezra, The Impact of Yom Kippur, 197–205. Note that paul draws on earlier Judaean metaphoric use of the Temple. See Gärtner, The Temple and the Community; McKelvey, The New Temple; Newton, The Concept of Purity, 53–58; hogeterp, Paul and God’s Temple, 295–378; and Gupta, “Which ‘Body’ Is a Temple?” Newton, The Concept of Purity, 52–97, shows that Temple and cultic imagery is used extensively throughout the pauline Epistles to argue for the sacrality and authority of his own mission and the communities he addresses. On Jesus as Temple, see John 2:19–21. See also Kerr, The Temple of Jesus’ Body, 241– 45; McKelvey, The New Temple 80–83; and Walker, Jesus and the Holy City, 167–68. On Jesus as passover lamb, see John 19:14–18, where Jesus is killed at the precise time of the passover sacrifice. And see 1:29 and 1:36, where he is called the “lamb of God.” In my understanding, John is combining paul’s two references to Jesus as a Day of Atonement sacrifice (Rom. 3:25) and passover offering (1 Cor. 5:7), calling Jesus the passover lamb that atones. for the reading that Jesus is compared to the passover sacrifice, see Barrett, “The Lamb of God”; McKelvey, The New Temple, 76; Kerr, The Temple of Jesus’ Body, 207–26; Zeitlin, “The Time of the passover Meal”; Carey, “The Lamb of God”; and Story, “The Bearing of Old Testament Terminology.” Kerr, 209, adds important arguments. 33. Kinman, “parousia,” 280. This is only one such example. In Mark, the Temple action, e.g., may stress contestation as important. See Gray, The Temple in the Gospel of Mark, 25–43; and Wennel, “Contested Temple Space.” The particular way that Jesus’ entry is framed in Mark makes a similar point. See Gray, The Temple in the Gospel of Mark, 25; Duff, “The March of the Divine Warrior”; and McKelvey, The New Temple, 62. 34. After his death in John, Jesus’ body is pierced by a soldier, and water (with blood) comes out (19:34). Scholars have read this as an allusion to Ezekiel’s prophecy of the future Temple, out of which water flows. This suggests that Jesus as Temple fulfills this prophecy. See Kerr, The Temple of Jesus’ Body, 241–45; McKelvey, The New Temple, 80–83; and Walker, Jesus and the Holy City, 167–68. The opening of John may imply that Jesus as Temple is the new place where God dwells and can be accessed, as he dwelled and was accessed in the Temple. 1:14 reads: “Word became flesh and lived among us.” As scholars point out, the

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

184

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 184

No t e s t o Pa g e s 104‒107

Greek text denotes “living among us” with the verb skeneoō, the same verb used to denote God’s dwelling (shākhan in hebrew) in the Temple or Tabernacle. This passage seems to shed light on why the narrator calls Jesus the Temple. On the verb, see Kerr, The Temple of Jesus’ Body, 121–24, and earlier, McKelvey, The New Temple, 75–76. Webster, Ingesting Jesus, makes an argument similar to what I put forth here. 35. See Webster, Ingesting Jesus, 151–54. 36. See fitzmyer, The Acts of the Apostles, esp. 685–709. 37. See holmås, “‘My house Shall Be a house of prayer’” (cf. Stephen’s possibly sharp [prophetic] critique of the Temple in Acts 6:8–7:60). I do not deny that the author of LukeActs may have a “positive” attitude toward the Temple. The Temple is the basis for arguing for paul’s and perhaps other apostles’ missions and communities. On the Temple in LukeActs, see Weinert, “The Meaning of the Temple”; and Barrett, “Attitudes to the Temple.” See also Klawans, Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple, 217–18; and Walker, Jesus and the Holy City, 37–112. 38. My treatment of this, as with other New Testament topics, is necessarily abridged. See Stevenson, Power and Place; Overstreet, “The Temple of God”; Spatafora, From the “Temple of God,” 127–305; McKelvey, The New Temple, 170–71; Kistemaker, “The Temple in the Apocalypse”; and Walker, Jesus and the Holy City, 243–48. My reading closely matches that of Stevenson: “The temple language in Revelation addresses the struggle of the Christian community to maintain its identity with respect to the world and to God. Revelation’s temple language accomplishes this by functioning much like the Temple did, i.e., by providing unity and continuity, creating group cohesion, establishing boundaries, and by defining the Christian’s relationship with the world” (Power and Place, 223; see also 267– 68 and 276–77). All New Testament quotations are from the NRSV. 39. See the similar point in McKelvey, The New Temple, 160. On these passages, see Stevenson, Power and Place, esp. 225–26, 252–57, and 280; see also 239–40. Additional important Temple-oriented passages in Revelation are beyond the scope of this discussion. 40. for an important treatment of Day of Atonement Temple ritual in hebrews (as well as in additional early Christian texts), see Stökl Ben-Ezra, The Impact of Yom Kippur, 180–97. On the Greek terms used for the heavenly sacred space, see Schenck, Cosmology and Eschatology, 144–81. Significantly, the author imagines the Tabernacle and not the Temple; yet the ritual described is clearly associated with the Temple, so I treat this as Temple discourse, modified as it is (see also Walker, Jesus and the Holy City, 205). Note that philo and Josephus both speak of the Tabernacle and seem to have in mind the Temple and its ritual more generally. The language used to describe the earthly and heavenly Tabernacle suggests a platonic model; yet as Schenck, Cosmology and Eschatology, shows, the precise wording is not platonic. The description of Jesus acting within the heavenly realm does not fit the platonic paradigm (cf. Attridge, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 219–20); more likely, the author is drawing on earlier traditions of the heavenly Temple found in 1 Enoch, the Songs of the Sabbath sacrifice, and 4 Ezra, among other texts, as suggested by the reference to the

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 185

Notes to pages 107–110

185

model for the Tabernacle mentioned in Exod. 25:40 and explicitly quoted in heb. 8:5. 41. See Schenck, Cosmology and Eschatology, 168, who argues that in hebrews, the heavenly Tabernacle is more an abstract metaphor than a real place. On the simultaneous use and denial of the Tabernacle/Temple, see Walker, Jesus and the Holy City, 203–4. Note Aitken’s important argument (“portraying the Temple in Stone and Text”) that the imagery of hebrews draws on and responds to the flavian visual imagery of Judaea’s conquest, including that found on the arch of Titus, making the claim that Jesus is the true conqueror. I disagree with her conclusion of the dating of the book, since the arch of Titus and, as I will shortly show, the propaganda of Judaea’s defeat and the Temple’s destruction continued to exist well after the flavian reign. 42. On this notion in paul, see Newton, The Concept of Purity. 43. See Eliav, God’s Mountain, 48. See also his references to the Letter of Abgar and the Apocalypse of Peter. Eliav does not mention the Infancy Gospel of Thomas; and cf. his interpretation of the passage in the Acts of Thomas. Most of these texts are not realistic imaginings of the Temple—Protoevangelium of James seems to imagine the Temple as a daycare (as pointed out by one of the reviewers of this book)—yet the point is that they include the Temple in their narratives. 44. See Eliav, God’s Mountain, 60–82; Apocryphon of James 16:9–10; First Apocalypse of James 25:15–18 and 36:18–16; Second Apocalypse of James 44:15, 45:24–25, 60:14–22, and 61:21–23; and pseudo-Clementine, Recognitions 1:55:2 and 70:6–8 (these references are all drawn from Eliav; for further references on James and on these texts, see Eliav). for a study of the development of traditions of James, see Ward, “James of Jerusalem.” 45. In addition, writers such as Origen (mid-third century; esp. in Contra Celsum) and Irenaeus (late second century) in Against Heresies (Ante Nicene Fathers, vol. 1) frequently mention New Testament passages about the Temple and adduce these examples to make their point. 46. Letter to Barnabas 2–8; and Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 22 and 40–42. On Day of Atonement scapegoat imagery in the supersessionist writings of Barnabas, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and hippolytus, see Stökl Ben-Ezra, The Impact of Yom Kippur, 147–51. 47. hippolytus, On the Antichrist 6 (Roberts-Donaldson ed., Ante Nicene Fathers, 5:206). 48. See McGinn, Antichrist, 58–63, esp. 59. 49. See A. y. Reed, “‘Jewish Christianity,’” esp. 208–13. 50. for the text and translation (which I use here), see Bovon, “fragment Oxyrhynchus 840.” On this fragment, see also fraade, “The Temple as a Marker.” 51. While the white garments seem to be priestly garments, see Bovon’s interpretation of these words as deriving from Christian baptism practices, “fragment Oxyrhynchus 840,” 719. I discuss this further below. 52. Note the parallel to Jesus as high priest in the innermost sanctum of the heavenly Tabernacle in hebrews.

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

186

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 186

No t e s t o Pa g e s 110‒112

53. for mishnaic examples of purification by water for entry into the sacred spaces of the Temple, see Yoma 3:3–4, 3:6, 7:4, and perhaps Tamid 2:1 and Middot 1:6, and implied in Tamid 1:1 and Middot 1:9. 54. Bovon, “fragment Oxyrhynchus 840,” 726 and 728. Justin the Gnostic is quoted by hippolytus, Elenchos 5.27.3. Bovon ties the type of pool described here to Ambrose of Milan and Theodore of Mopsuestia, both of whom lived in the fourth century. 55. Bovon, “fragment Oxyrhynchus 840,” 720–21. 56. Based on the negative use of women in the fragment, I assume that the author is male. 57. Evidence of imperial support: Cyrus: 2 Chron. 36:23 and Ezra 1:1–4, 5:13–17, and 6:1–12 (the last shows Darius’s support of the Temple). ptolemy philadelphus: Letter of Aristeas, Josephus, Antiquities 12.7 ff. (the dating of the Letter of Aristeas is subject to dispute; see Thackeray, “Translation of the Letter of Aristeas,” 337–40). Antiochus III (father of Antiochus Epiphanes): Josephus, Antiquities 12.137–46. Demetrius I: 1 Macc. 10:44. Demetrius II: 1 Macc. 11:34. Antiochus VII: 1 Macc. 15:1–9. Augustus: philo, Embassy to Gaius, 157; cf. Josephus, Against Apion 2.77, and The Judaean War 2.409, who claims that the Jews made sacrifices on behalf of the emperor. Obviously, not all emperors supported the Temple; hence philo was obliged to make his arguments specifically because Gaius intended to desecrate it. Even when there was official support, there seem to have been numerous additional instances of disrespect and desecration (typically similar to the actions of Antiochus Epiphanes), such as the Roman soldier farting in the Temple and the repeated raids on the Temple treasury by the Roman procurators (The Judaean War 2.223–93 and Antiquities 20.105 to the end of book 20). 58. Goodman, Ruling Class, 235, “The Temple in first-Century CE Judaism,” and Rome and Jerusalem, 428. 59. Goodman, Ruling Class, 235, and Rome and Jerusalem, 428. They did not, however, allow all others to rebuild their Temples. 60. Goodman, Rome and Jerusalem, 428. Cf. Clifford Ando’s critique of this reasoning in his review “Jewish privilege.” Despite this critique, I believe that Goodman’s interpretation about the significance of the Temple is correct. I would like to thank my colleague Lorenzo DiTommaso for drawing my attention to this review. 61. On these, see Goodman, Ruling Class, 239 and 247–49. 62. Ibid., 235; and idem, “The Temple in first-Century CE Judaism,” 55, and “The Diaspora Reactions,” 28. See also Goodman’s use of this Josephan passage in Rome and Jerusalem, 428. 63. Goodman, “The Temple in first-Century CE Judaism,” 53–54. 64. Meshorer (Ancient Jewish Coinage, 2:197) argues that the rare Judaea capta coin with Domitian is an accidental hybrid type and that, consequently, the type should not be seen as continuing during his reign. See this coin in Madden, History of Jewish Coinage, 197. Domitian minted Germania capta coins, commemorating his victory in Germany. possibly undermining Meshorer is a second coin, in the Abramowitz family collection (see

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 187

Notes to pages 112–114

187

auction catalog, December 8, 1993, p. 20; I thank my colleague Dr. Michael Oppenheim for this reference and for providing me with the catalog), with a typical image of captured Judaea and the legend “Iudaea.” As David hendin notes in the catalog, this seems to support the idea that Domitian continued to publicize this victory, perhaps because it remained foundational to his own legitimacy. 65. See examples in Madden, History of Jewish Coinage, 183–97; see also Meshorer, Ancient Means of Exchange, 107–14, and Ancient Jewish Coinage, 2:190–97. 66. See Meshorer, Ancient Jewish Coinage, 2:191; and Goodman, Rome and Jerusalem, 432–33. 67. Josephus, The Judaean War 7.148–50, Thackeray translation. 68. Ibid., 7.160–61. 69. So, too, an arch on the Circus Maximus commemorated the victory celebration. On these, see Goodman, Ruling Class, 236, and Rome and Jerusalem, 432–33. I would like to thank my research assistant, Shayna Sheinfeld, for pointing out that only Temple implements and not scrolls of the law are displayed on the arch of Titus. 70. Goodman (Rome and Jerusalem, 431 ff.) claims that the display of the law in the original victory parade (but not appearing on the arch of Titus) shows that they waged a war on “Judaism,” but as others have shown, it is not clear that there is such a concept of Judaism at this point—beyond simply the customs of the Judaeans. 71. Dio (Dio’s Roman History) 66.7.2; Suetonius, Domitian 12.2; and Tcherikover et al., Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum, 2:108–77. 72. Josephus, The Judaean War 7.218. And see Goodman, Rome and Jerusalem, 433. 73. Goodman, Rome and Jerusalem, 443, who goes even further, arguing that these emperors vilified “Judaism” to justify their conquest and continued degradation of this “religion” (or, at least, superstitio). See ibid., 428–77. 74. Ibid., 446–47. 75. See an example in Meshorer, Ancient Means of Exchange, 119 (no. 438). The palm tree alone as a symbol of Judaea was already common; Domitian had struck coins with only the palm tree, as in nos. 430–31 in Meshorer, ibid., but on the heels of the Judaea capta coins and in the context of the tax, the absence of the Judaea capta motifs is particularly significant. 76. for an interpretation of the meaning of the phrase, see Goodman, “Nerva, the Fiscus Judaicus,” who also cites the Epistle of Barnabas as evidence of a Judaean hope for the rebuilding of the Temple in Nerva’s time (Rome and Jerusalem, 448). Though Nerva downplays Judaea by publicizing the removal of the calumnia, he nonetheless advertises the centrality of Judaea’s defeat. 77. Goodman, Rome and Jerusalem, 452–53, who quotes the tax receipt from Edfu, dated to the first year of Trajan’s reign. 78. See Eliav, God’s Mountain, 117, who sees hadrian’s motives as pragmatic. 79. See M. Stern, Greek and Latin Authors, 2:179. 80. This argument is valid even if the founding of Aelia Capitolina occurred after the revolt.

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

188

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 188

No t e s t o Pa g e s 115‒122

81. Goodman, Rome and Jerusalem, 472. 82. Meshorer, The Coinage of Aelia Capitolina; and Kadman, The Coins of Aelia Capitolina, who adds two coins from Valerian. Goodman, Rome and Jerusalem, 475 (and see 476), mentions a memorial medallion from 201 of Septimius Severus, his wife, Julia Domna, and their sons. 83. On Tacitus, see Goodman, Rome and Jerusalem, 471. See the passage from Tacitus in M. Stern, Greek and Latin Authors, 2:17–31. Most of the practices described by Tacitus are not related to the Temple, which is not surprising, since the Temple had already been destroyed when he wrote his account. 84. This is because the Temple had been and continued to be important to Judaeans because the conquest of the Temple was the climax of the war against the Judaeans and, most important, because the absence of the Temple supported the legitimacy of emperors.

Conclusion 1. The entire tractate Middot, discussed above in Chapter 4, is not a Temple ritual narrative, yet because it encompasses a number of Temple ritual narratives, I feel that this rubric is nevertheless appropriate. 2. The language used to convey the regular events of the past, especially the many participles, is identical to the language used in the strictly legal passages, suggesting, as I have argued, that there is an overlap between what used to happen, what ought to happen in a legal sense, and perhaps what will again happen in the future. further on the literary level, the rabbinic comments that interrupt the narrator add to the blurring of the boundary between telling the story of what happened in the Temple and creating and transmitting the law in the abstract because, again, the same form is used in both cases. I have gone into greater detail about the legal nature of the Temple ritual narratives in “Narrating the Iterative: The Mishnah’s Ritual Narrative Genre,” a paper presented at the 2008 annual conference of the American Academy of Religion. 3. Levine, Rabbinic Class, believes that rabbis became more powerful. hezser, The Social Structure, seems to read the rabbinic evidence in a similarly “maximalist” (i.e., maximizing rabbinic power and importance) way. See also Sh. Cohen, “The place of the Rabbi.” Those who take a more “minimalist” position include S. Schwartz, Imperialism and Jewish Society; and Lapin, “Rabbis and Cities.” S. Miller, Sages and Commoners, takes a more middle position (though it is closer to Levine than to Schwartz). for a helpful review of earlier positions, see Miller, Sages and Commoners, 7–17. for an overview and contextualization of the larger scholarly debate, see S. Schwartz, “The political Geography.” I suspect that the evidence of the case stories, collected and analyzed by Lapin in “The Rabbinic Class Revisited,” which shows a shift in the topics taken up juristically by rabbis in the Talmud yerushalmi, may be important for this question, but further conclusions

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 189

Notes to page 122

189

based on this comparative evidence is a desideratum. I would like to thank hayim Lapin for sharing this manuscript with me. 4. On the geonim, see Brody, The Geonim of Babylonia, esp. 35–53. for a revisionist reading of the geonic evidence, which drastically limits the actual authority of the geonim, see Groner, “ha-geonim.” Even in this more minimalist reading of the geonic evidence (to which I am sympathetic), these later rabbis had more influence and authority than the rabbis of the Mishnah. 5. Significantly, the Karaite author Jacob al-Kirkisani lays claim to the Sadducees as Second Temple–era predecessors of sorts to the Karaites. See Nemoy, Karaite Anthology, 49–50. 6. In the immediate post-mishnaic period, talmudic rabbis connect themselves to the rabbis of the Mishnah. So, too, Sherira, in the geonic period, begins his rabbinic succession list, or history, with the rabbis of the Mishnah.

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 190

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 191

Bibliography

pRIMARy RABBINIC TEXTS Babylonian Talmud. Digital images of manuscripts. Online Treasury of Talmudic Manuscripts. http://jnul.huji.ac.il/dl/talmud/intro_eng.htm. Babylonian Talmud. Vilna ed. Bar-Ilan’s Judaic Library [CD-ROM]. Version 13 plus. Monsey, N.y.: Torah Educational Software, 2005. The Iggeres of Rav Sherira Gaon. Translated and annotated by Rabbi Nosson Dovid Rabinovich. Jerusalem: Moznaim, 1988. ’Iggeret Rav Sh˘erira Gāon. Edited by B. M. Lewin. Jerusalem: Makor, 1972. Mekhilta. Manuscripts transcribed online. primary Textual Witnesses to Tannaitic Literature. http://www.biu.ac.il/JS/tannaim. Mishnah. Albeck edition (Shishāh sidrēi mishnāh m˘efōrāshim biy˘edēi h˘ . anōkh albeck um˘enukadim h˘ . anōkh yālōn). 6 vols. Tel Aviv: Dvir; Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1959. Mishnah. Digital images of manuscripts. Online Treasury of Talmudic Manuscripts. http://jnul.huji.ac.il/dl/talmud/intro_eng.htm. The Mishnah: A New Translation. By Jacob Neusner. New haven, Conn.: yale university press, 1988. Rashi [commentary of Rabbi Sh˘elōmō ben yitshā. . k to the Babylonian Talmud]. In Vilna ed. of the Babylonian Talmud. Sifra. MS New york transcribed online. primary Textual Witnesses to Tannaitic Literature. http://www.biu.ac.il/JS/tannaim. Talmud Yerushalmi [Jerusalem Talmud]: According to Ms. Or. 4720 (Scal. 3) of the Leiden University Library with Restorations and Corrections. With an introduction by yaacov Sussman. Jerusalem: Academy of hebrew Language, 2001.

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

192

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 192

Bi b l i o g raphy

Tosefta. Digital images of manuscripts. Online Treasury of Talmudic Manuscripts. http://jnul.huji.ac.il/dl/talmud/intro_eng.htm. Tosefta. Online transcription of manuscripts and editio princeps. http://www.biu.ac.il/JS/tannaim. The Tosefta. 6 vols. Translated by Jacob Neusner. Vol. 1, edited by Jacob Neusner and Richard S. Sarason, translated by Alan J. Avery-peck et al. New york: Ktav, 1977– 86. Tosefta: According to Codex Vienna, with Variants from Codex Erfurt, Geniza MSS. and Editio Princeps (Venice 1521). Edited and with brief commentary by Saul Lieberman. 2nd ed. (vols. Mo‘ed and Nashim) and 3rd augmented ed. (vols. Zera‘im and Nezi.kin). 4 vols. New york: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1992–2001.

pRIMARy ROMAN, ChRISTIAN, AND NON-RABBINIC JEWISh TEXTS 2 Baruch. See Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 1. 4 Baruch (Paraleipomena Jeremiou). Translated and edited by Jens herzer. Atlanta: Society for Biblical Literature, 2005. 4 Ezra. See Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 1. Ante Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers Down to A.D. 325. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Vol. 1 (Barnabas, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus), vol. 4 (Origen), vol. 5 (hippolytus), and vol. 9 (Origen). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1951–62. www.ccel.org/fathers.html. Apocryphon of James. Translated by Einar Thomasson. In New Testament Apocrypha: Revised Edition, vol. 1, edited by Wilhelm Schneemelcher and Robert McLachlan Wilson, 285–99. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 1991. Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek Documentary Texts from Nahal . Hever . and Other Sites. By hannah M. Cotton and Ada yardeni. Oxford: Clarendon, 1997. Cicero, Marcus Tullius. Pro Flacco. In Cicero: Orations, translated by C. Macdonald. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, Mass.: harvard university press, 1977. Dead Sea Scrolls: Study Edition. 2 vols. Edited by florentino García Martínez and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar. Leiden: Brill; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2000. Originally published 1997–98. Didascalia Apostolorum. Translated by R. hugh Connolly. Oxford: Clarendon, 1929. The Digest of Justinian. 4 vols. Latin text edited by Theodor Mommsen. English translation edited by Alan Watson. philadelphia: university of pennsylvania press, 1985. Dio’s Roman History. Vol. 8. Translated by Earnest Cary. Loeb Classical Library. London: heinemann, 1925. Digital transcription of translation available at http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cassius_Dio/66*.html; digi-

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 193

Bibliography

193

tal images available at http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/books/dio_cass. Documents from the Bar Kokhba Period from the Cave of the Letters (Greek Papyri). Edited by Naphtali Lewis. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, hebrew university, Shrine of the Book, 1989. Documents from the Bar Kokhba Period from the Cave of the Letters (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Nabatean Documents). Edited by yigael yadin et al. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2002. Epiphanius of Salamis. The panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis. Book 1. 2nd ed. Translated by frank Williams. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Epistle of Barnabas. Translated by J. B. Lightfoot. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/barnabas-lightfoot.html. Eusebius. The Ecclesiastical History. 2 vols. Loeb Classical Library. Translated by Kirsopp Lake (vol. 1) and J. E. L. Oulton and h. J. Lawlor (vol. 2). London: heinemann, 1926 and 1932. ———. History of the Martyrs in Palestine. Edited and translated by William Cureton. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/pearse/morefathers/files/eusebius_martyrs.htm. The First Apocalypse of James. In New Testament Apocrypha: Revised Edition, vol. 1, edited by Wilhelm Schneemelcher and Robert McLachlan Wilson, 313–26. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 1991. The Gospel of Thomas. Translated by Thomas O. Lambdin. In The Nag hammadi Library in English, 3rd rev. ed., edited by James M. Robinson, 124–38. San francisco: harper and Row, 1988. Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism. 3 vols. Edited, with introductions, translations, and commentaries, by Menahem Stern. Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and humanities, 1974–84. The Greek New Testament. 4th rev. ed. Edited by Barbara Aland et al. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2001. The HarperCollins Study Bible, Revised Edition. New Revised Standard Version [NRSV] Bible. Edited by harold W. Attridge. New york: harperCollins, 2006. Infancy Gospel of Thomas. In New Testament Apocrypha: Revised Edition, vol. 1, edited by Wilhelm Schneemelcher and Robert McLachlan Wilson, 439–51. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 1991. Jewish Publication Society [JpS] Hebrew English Tanakh: The Traditional Hebrew Text and the New JPS Translation. 2nd ed. philadelphia: Jewish publication Society, 2003. The Jewish Study Bible. Edited by Adele Berlin and Marc Z. Brettler. New york: Oxford university press, 2004. The Jews in Roman Imperial Legislation. See secondary sources, under “Linder.” Josephus. Against Apion; The Judean Antiquities; The Judean War; Life of Josephus. Greek and English translation online. http://pace.cns.yorku.ca/york/york/texts.htm.

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

194

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 194

Bi b l i o g raphy

———. Against Apion; Antiquities; Life; Wars. English translation by William Whiston. http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com. Josephus. 9 vols. Translated by h. St. J. Thackeray, Ralph Marcus, Allen Wilkgren, and Louis h. feldman. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, Mass.: harvard university press; London: heinemann, 1926–65. published in 10 vols. by harvard university press beginning 1997. Jubilees. See Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 2. Justin Martyr. Dialogue with Trypho. Roberts-Donaldson English translation. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-dialoguetrypho.html. Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum. See Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 2. New Testament Apocrypha. Rev. ed. Edited by Wilhelm Schneemelcher. Translation edited by Robert McLachlan Wilson. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 2003. The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. 2 vols. Edited by James h. Charlesworth. New york: Doubleday, 1983–85. Origen. Contra Celsum. Translated by henry Chadwick. Cambridge: Cambridge university press, 1965. The Oxford Study Bible: Revised English Bible with the Apocrypha. Edited by Jack Suggs, Katharine Doob Sakenfeld, and James R. Mueller. New york: Oxford university press, 1992. Philo. 10 vols. and 2 supp. vols. Translated by f. h. Colson, G. h. Whitaker, and Ralph Marcus. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, Mass.: harvard university press; London: heinemann, 1929–53. The Protevangelium of James. In New Testament Apocrypha: Revised Edition, vol. 1, edited by Wilhelm Schneemelcher and Robert McLachlan Wilson, 421–38. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 1991. Qumran Cave 4. V. Miqsat Ma‘ase ha-Torah. Edited by Elisha Qimron and John Strugnell. Oxford: Clarendon, 1994. Schneemelcher, ed. See New Testament Apocrypha. The Second Apocalypse of James. In New Testament Apocrypha: Revised Edition, vol. 1, edited by Wilhelm Schneemelcher and Robert McLachlan Wilson, 327–41. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 1991. Septuagint. Computer Assisted Tools for Septuagint/Scriptural Study. http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rak/catss.html. Septuaginta. 2 vols. Edited by Alfred Rahlifs. Stuttgart: Württenbergische Bibelanstalt, 1971. Suetonius. 2 vols. Translated by J. C. Rolfe. Loeb Classical Library. London: heinemann, 1964–65. Tacitus: Histories. 2 vols. Translated by Clifford h. Moore. Loeb Classical Library. London: heinemann, 1925–37.

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 195

Bibliography

195

SECONDARy LITERATuRE Abbott, h. porter. The Cambridge Introduction to Narrative. Cambridge: Cambridge university press, 2002. ———. “Narrativity.” In The Handbook of Narratology, edited by peter hühn, 309–28. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2008. The Abramowitz Family Collection of Judean and Biblical and Related Coinage. December 8, 1993. New york: Superior Galleries, 1993. Adams, Jon-K. “Causality and Narrative.” Journal of Literary Semantics 18 (1989): 149– 62. Adan-Bayewitz, David. Common Pottery in Roman Galilee: A Study in Local Trade. Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan university press, 1993. Aitken, Ellen Bradshaw. “portraying the Temple in Stone and Text: The Arch of Titus and the Epistle to the hebrews.” In Hebrews: Contemporary Methods, New Insights, edited by Gabriella Gelardini, 131–48. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Albeck, hanoch. Māvō Lammishnāh [Introduction to the Mishnah]. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute; Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1969. Alon, Gedaliah. The Jews in Their Land in the Talmudic Age, 70–640 C.E. Translated by Gershon Levi. Cambridge, Mass.: harvard university press, 1989. Originally published in hebrew, 1980–84. Alter, Robert. The Art of Biblical Narrative. New york: Basic Books, 1981. Altman, Rick. Film/Genre. London: British film Institute, 1999. Amit, David, and yonatan Adler. “The Observance of Ritual purity after 70 C.E.: A Reevaluation of the Evidence in Light of Recent Archaeological Discoveries.” In “Follow the Wise”: Studies in Jewish History and Culture in Honor of Lee I. Levine, edited by Zeev Weiss et al., 121–43. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2010. Ando, Clifford. “Jewish privilege.” Review of Rome and Jerusalem: The Clash of Ancient Civilizations, by Martin Goodman. Times Literary Supplement, April 6, 2007, 6–7. Assman, Jan. Moses the Egyptian: The Memory of Egypt in Western Monotheism. Cambridge, Mass.: harvard university press, 1997. Attridge, harold W. The Epistle to the Hebrews. philadelphia: fortress, 1989. Auerbach, Erich. Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Culture. princeton, N.J.: princeton university press, 1968. Aviam, Mordechai. “Borders between Jews and Gentiles.” In idem, Jews, Pagans and Christians in the Galilee: 25 Years of Archaeological Excavations and Surveys: Hellenistic to Byzantine Periods. Rochester, N.y.: university of Rochester press, 2004. ———. “Distribution Maps of Archaeological Data from the Galilee: An Attempt to Establish Zones Indicative of Ethnicity and Religious Affiliation.” In Religion, Ethnicity, and Identity in Ancient Galilee: A Region in Transition, edited by Jürgen Zangenberg, harold W. Attridge, and Dale B. Martin, 115–32. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007.

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

196

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 196

Bi b l i o g raphy

———. “first Century Jewish Galilee: An Archaeological perspective.” In Religion and Society in Roman Palestine: Old Questions, New Approaches, edited by Douglas R. Edwards, 7–27. London: Routledge, 2004. ———. Jews, Pagans and Christians in the Galilee: 25 Years of Archaeological Excavations and Surveys: Hellenistic to Byzantine Periods. Rochester, N.y.: university of Rochester press, 2004. Avigad, Nahman. Beth Shearim: Report on Excavations during 1953–1958. Vol. 3. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers university press; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1976. Baker, Cynthia M. Rebuilding the House of Israel: Architectures of Gender in Jewish Antiquity. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford university press, 2002. Bar-Asher, Moshe. “The Different Traditions of Mishnaic hebrew.” In “Working with No Data”: Semitic and Egyptian Studies, Presented to Thomas O. Lambdin, edited by David M. Golomb, 1–38. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1987. Bar-Oz, Guy, and yotam Tepper. “Out on the Tiles: Animal footprints from the Roman Site of Kefar ‘Othnay (Legio), Israel.” Near Eastern Archaeology 73 (2010): 244–47. Barrett, C. K. “Attitudes to the Temple in the Acts of the Apostles.” In Templum Amicitiae: Essays on the Second Temple Presented to Ernst Bammel, edited by William horbury, 345–67. Sheffield: JSOT, 1991. ———. “The Lamb of God.” New Testament Studies 1 (1955): 210–18. Barth, fredrik, ed. Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The Social Organization of Cultural Difference. prospect heights, Ill.: Waveland, 1998. Originally published 1969. Basser, herbert W. Studies in Exegesis: Christian Critiques of Jewish Law and Rabbinic Responses 70–300 C.E. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Bauman, Richard. “Genre.” Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 9 (2000): 84–87. Baumgarten, Albert I. “Literary Evidence for Jewish-Christianity.” In The Galilee in Late Antiquity, edited by Lee I. Levine, 39–50. New york: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1992. ______. “The Name of the pharisees.” Journal of Biblical Literature 102 (1983): 411–28. ———. “Rabbinic Literature as a Source for the history of Jewish Sectarianism in the Second Temple period.” Dead Sea Discoveries 2 (1995): 14–57. Baumgarten, Joseph M. “The pharisaic-Sadducean Controversies about purity and the Qumran Texts.” Journal of Jewish Studies 81 (1980): 157–70. ———. “Red Cow purification Rites in Qumran Texts.” Journal of Jewish Studies 46 (1995): 112–19. Beard, Mary, John North, and Simon price. Religions of Rome. 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge university press, 1998. Becker, Adam h., and Annette yoshiko Reed. The Ways That Never Parted: Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages. Minneapolis: fortress, 2007. Originally published 2003.

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 197

Bibliography

197

Belayche, Nicole. Iudaea-Palaestina: The Pagan Cults in Roman Palestine (Second to Fourth Century). Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001. Bell, Catherine. Ritual: Perspectives and Dimensions. New york: Oxford university press, 1997. ———. Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice. New york: Oxford university press, 1992. ———. “Ritualization of Texts and Textualization of Ritual in the Codification of Taoist Liturgy.” History of Religions 27 (1988): 366–92. Ben-Dov, Jonathan, and Stéphane Saulnier. “Qumran Calendars: A Survey of Scholarship 1987–2007.” Currents in Biblical Research 7 (2008): 124–68. Ben-Dov, Meir. In the Shadow of the Temple: The Discovery of Ancient Jerusalem. Translated by Ina friedman. New york: harper and Row, 1985. Bennett, Andrew and Nicholas Royle. An Introduction to Literature, Criticism and Theory: Key Critical Concepts. London: prentice hall; harvester Wheatleaf, 1995. Berkowitz, Beth A. Execution and Invention: Death Penalty Discourse in Early Rabbinic and Christian Cultures. New york: Oxford university press, 2006. Berlin, Andrea M. “Romanization and Anti-Romanization in pre-Revolt Galilee.” In The First Jewish Revolt, edited by idem and J. Andrew Overman, 57–73. London: Routledge, 2002. Bhaba, homi. The Location of Culture. London: Routledge, 2004. Bokser, Baruch M. The Origins of the Seder: The Passover Rite and Early Rabbinic Judaism. New york: Jewish Theological Seminary, 2002. Originally published 1984. ———. “Rabbinic Responses to Catastrophe: from Continuity to Discontinuity.” Proceedings of the American Academy of Jewish Research 50 (1983): 37–61. Bovon, françois. “fragment Oxyrhynchus 840, fragment of a Lost Gospel, Witness of an Early Christian Controversy over purity.” Journal of Biblical Literature 119 (2000): 705–28. Boyarin, Daniel. Border Lines: The Partition of Judaeo-Christianity. philadelphia: university of pennsylvania press, 2004. ———. Carnal Israel: Reading Sex in Talmudic Culture. Berkeley: university of California press, 1993. ———. “The Christian Invention of Judaism: The Theodosian Empire and the Rabbinic Refusal of Religion.” Representations 85 (2004): 21–57. ———. “The Diadoche of the Rabbis; Or, Judah the patriarch at yavneh.” In Jewish Culture and Society under the Christian Roman Empire, edited by Richard Kalmin and Seth Schwartz, 285–318. Louvain: peeters, 2002. ———. Dying for God: Martyrdom and the Making of Christianity and Judaism. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford university press, 1999. ———. “The Gospel of Memra: Jewish Binitarianism and the prologue to John.” Harvard Theological Review 94 (2001): 243–84. ———. “Justin Martyr Invents Judaism.” Church History 70 (2001): 427–61.

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

198

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 198

Bi b l i o g raphy

———. “Rethinking Jewish Christianity: An Argument for Dismantling a Dubious Category (to Which Is Appended a Correction of My Border Lines).” Jewish Quarterly Review 99 (2009): 7–36. ———. “Semantic Differences; or, ‘Judaism’/‘Christianity.’” In The Ways That Never Parted: Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, edited by Adam h. Becker and Annette yoshiko Reed, 65–85. Minneapolis: fortress, 2007. Originally published 2003. ———. “Two powers in heaven: Or, The Making of a heresy.” In The Idea of Biblical Interpretation: Essays in Honor of James L. Kugel, edited by hindy Najman and Judith h. Newman, 331–70. Leiden: Brill, 2004. ———. Unheroic Conduct: The Rise of Heterosexuality and the Invention of the Jewish Man. Berkeley: university of California press, 1997. Breuer, yochanan. “‘Pā‘al’ uvēinōni b˘etei’urēi t. e.kes bammishnāh” [The perfect and the participle in descriptions of ceremony in the Mishnah]. Tarbiz 56 (1987): 299–326. Briggs, Charles L., and Richard Bauman. “Genre, Intertextuality, Social power.” Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 2 (1992): 131–72. Briggs, Robert A. Jewish Temple Imagery in the Book of Revelation. New york: peter Lang, 1999. Brody, Robert. The Geonim of Babylonia and the Shaping of Medieval Culture. New haven, Conn.: yale university press, 1998. Brooks, peter. Reading for the Plot: Design and Intention in Narrative. New york: Knopf, 1984. Büchler, Adolf. Hasanhedrin [hebrew]. Translated by Naphtali Ginton and Tsvi Bar Meir. Jerusalem: Mosad harav Kook, 1974. Originally published in German, 1902. ———. The Priests and Their Cult: In the Last Decade of the Temple in Jerusalem [hebrew]. Translated by Naphtali Ginton. Jerusalem: Mosad harav Kook, 1966. Originally published 1895. Buell, Denise Kimber. Why This New Race: Ethnic Reasoning in Early Christianity. New york: Columbia university press, 2005. Burke, peter. “history as Social Memory.” In Memory: History, Culture, and the Mind, edited by Thomas Butler, 97–113. New york: Blackwell, 1989. Burns, Joshua Ezra. “Essene Sectarianism and Social Differentiation after 70 C.E.” Harvard Theological Review 99 (2006): 247–74. Burrus, Virginia, et al. “Boyarin’s Work: A Critical Assessment.” Henoch 28 (2006): 7–30. Carey, George L. “The Lamb of God and Atonement Theories.” Tyndale Bulletin 32 (1981): 97–122. http://tyndalehouse.com/tynbul/library/TynBull_1981_32_04_Carey_LambOfGodAtonement.pdf. Chajes, h. p. “Les juges juifs en palestine, de l’an 70 à l’an 500.” Revue des Études Juifs 39 (1899): 39–52. Chancey, Mark A. “The Epigraphic habit of hellenistic Roman Galilee.” In Religion,

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 199

Bibliography

199

Ethnicity, and Identity in Ancient Galilee: A Region in Transition, edited by Jürgen Zangenberg, harold W. Attridge, and Dale B. Martin, 83–98. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007. ———. Greco-Roman Culture and the Galilee of Jesus. Cambridge: Cambridge university press, 2005. ———. The Myth of a Gentile Galilee. Cambridge: Cambridge university press, 2002. Chartrand-Burke, Tony. “Completing the Gospel: The Infancy Gospel of Thomas as a Supplement to the Gospel of Luke.” In The Reception and Interpretation of the Bible in Late Antiquity: Proceedings of the Montréal Colloquium in Honour of Charles Kannengiesser, 11–13 October 2006, edited by Lorenzo DiTommaso and Lucien Turcescu, 101–19. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Chatman, Seymour. Coming to Terms: The Rhetoric of Narrative in Fiction and Film. Ithaca, N.y.: Cornell university press, 1990. Cohen, Boaz. Jewish and Roman Law: A Comparative Study. 2 vols. New york: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1966. Cohen, Shaye J. D. The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties. Berkeley: university of California press, 1999. ———. “The Destruction: from Scripture to Midrash.” Prooftexts 2 (1982): 18–39. ______. “Epigraphical Rabbis.” Jewish Quarterly Review 72 (1981): 1–17. ———. From the Maccabees to the Mishnah. 2nd ed. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2006. ———. Josephus in Galilee and Rome: His Vita and Development as a Historian. Leiden: Brill, 1979. ———. “The Judaean Legal Tradition and the Halakhah of the Mishnah.” In The Cambridge Companion to the Talmud and Rabbinic Literature, edited by Charlotte Elisheva fonrobert and Martin S. Jaffee, 121–43. New york: Cambridge university press, 2007. ———. “pagan and Christian Evidence on the Ancient Synagogue.” In The Synagogue in Late Antiquity, edited by Lee I. Levine, 159–81. philadelphia: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1987. ———. “parallel historical Tradition in Josephus and Rabbinic Literature.” World Congress of Jewish Studies 91, B1 (1986 [1985]): 7–14. ———. “The place of the Rabbi in Jewish Society of the Second Century.” In The Galilee in Late Antiquity, edited by Lee I. Levine, 157–73. New york: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1992. ———. “The Rabbi in Second Century Jewish Society.” In The Cambridge History of Judaism, vol. 3, The Early Roman Period, edited by William horbury, W. D. Davies, and John Sturdy, 922–90. Cambridge: Cambridge university press, 1999. ———. “Review of Aharon Oppenheimer, The Am Ha-aretz: A Study in the Social History of the Jewish People in the Hellenistic-Roman Period.” Journal of Biblical Literature 97 (1978): 596–97.

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

200

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 200

Bi b l i o g raphy

———. “The Significance of yavneh: pharisees, Rabbis, and the End of Jewish Sectarianism.” Hebrew Union College Annual 55 (1984): 27–53. ———. “Were pharisees and Rabbis the Leaders of Communal prayer and Torah Study in Antiquity? The Evidence of the New Testament, Josephus, and the Early Church fathers.” In Evolution of the Synagogue: Problems and Progress, edited by howard C. Kee and Lynn h. Cohick, 89–105. harrisburg, pa.: Trinity press International, 1999. Cohn, Naftali S. “Domestic Women: Constructing and Deconstructing a Gender Stereotype in the Mishnah.” In From Antiquity to the Postmodern World: Contemporary Jewish Studies in Canada, edited by Daniel Maoz and Andrea Gondos, 38–61. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars, 2011. ———.“Rabbis as Jurists: On the Representation of past and present Legal Institutions in the Mishnah.” Journal of Jewish Studies 60 (2009): 245–63. ______. “Ritual failure and Violence in the Mishnah’s Accounts of Temple Ritual.” paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for Jewish Studies, Los Angeles, Calif., December 2009. ———. “The Ritual Narrative Genre in the Mishnah: The Invention of the past in the Representation of Temple Ritual.” ph.D. diss., university of pennsylvania, 2008. ———. “When Women Confer with Rabbis: On Male Authority and female Agency in the Mishnah.” Journal of Textual Reasoning 6 (March 2011). http://etext.virginia.edu/journals/tr/volume6/number2/TR06_02_Cohn.html. Colautti, frederico M. Passover in the Works of Josephus. Leiden: Brill, 2002. Coser, Lewis A. Introduction to halbwachs, On Collective Memory. Chicago: university of Chicago press, 1992. Cotton, hannah M. “Jewish Jurisdiction under Roman Rule: prolegomena.” In Zwischen den Reichen: Neues Testament und Römische Herrschaft, edited by Michael Labahn and Jürgen Zangenberg, 13–28. Tübingen: francke, 2002. ———, and Ada yardeni. Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek Documentary Texts from Na.hal Hever . and Other Sites. Oxford: Clarendon press, 1997. Crown, Alan D. “Redating the Schism between the Judaeans and the Samaritans.” Jewish Quarterly Review 82 (1991): 17–50. Davies, William David. The Gospel and the Land: Early Christianity and Jewish Territorial Doctrine. Berkeley: university of California press, 1974. De Lange, Nicholas R. M. Origen and the Jews: Studies in Jewish-Christian Relations in Third-Century Palestine. Cambridge: Cambridge university press, 1976. Dohrmann, Natalie. “The Boundaries of the Law and the problem of Jurisdiction in an Early palestinian Midrash.” In Rabbinic Law in Its Roman and Near Eastern Context, edited by Catherine hezser, 82–103. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. Donnan, hastings. Borders: Frontiers of Identity, Nation, and State. Oxford: Berg, 1999. Douglas, Mary. Natural Symbols: Explorations in Cosmology. 2nd ed. London: Routledge, 1996. Originally published 1970.

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 201

Bibliography

201

———. Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo. London: Routledge, 2002. Originally published 1966. Duff, paul Brooks. “The March of the Divine Warrior and the Advent of the GrecoRoman King: Mark’s Account of Jesus’ Entry into Jerusalem.” Journal of Biblical Literature 111 (1992): 55–71. Efron, Joshua. Studies on the Hasmonean Period. Leiden: Brill, 1987. Originally published in hebrew, 1980. Eliade, Mircea. Cosmos and History: The Myth of the Eternal Return. Translated by Willard R. Trask. New york: harper, 1959. ———. Myth and Reality. Translated by Willard R. Trask. New york: harper and Row, 1963. ———. The Sacred and the Profane: The Nature of Religion. Translated by Willard R. Trask. New york: harcourt, 1959. Eliav, yaron Z. God’s Mountain: The Temple Mount in Time, Place, and Memory. Baltimore: Johns hopkins university press, 2005. ———. “The Matrix of Ancient Judaism.” Prooftexts 24 (2004): 116–28. ———. “The Temple Mount, the Rabbis, and the poetics of Memory.” Hebrew Union College Annual 74 (2005): 49–113. Elior, Rachel. “from Earthly Temple to heavenly Shrines: prayer and Sacred Song in the hekhalot Literature and Its Relation to Temple Traditions.” Jewish Studies Quarterly 4 (1997): 217–67. ———. Temple and Chariot, Priests and Angels, Sanctuary and Heavenly Sanctuaries in Early Jewish Mysticism [hebrew]. Jerusalem: Magnes, 2002. ———. The Three Temples: On the Emergence of Jewish Mysticism. Translated by David Louvish. portland, Ore.: Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 2004. Originally published 2002. Elliott, John h. “Jesus the Israelite Was Neither a ‘Jew’ nor a ‘Christian’: On Correcting Misleading Nomenclature.” Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 5 (2007): 119–54. Elman, yaakov. “Order, Sequence, and Selection: The Mishnah’s Anthological Choices.” In The Anthology in Jewish Literature, edited by David Stern, 53–80. New york: Oxford university press, 2004. Epstein, Jacob N. Introduction to Tannaitic Literature [hebrew]. Jerusalem: Magnes; Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1957. Erll, Astrid. “Cultural Memory Studies: An Introduction.” In A Companion to Cultural Memory Studies, edited by idem and Ansgar Nünning, 1–15. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2010. ———, and Ansgar Nünning, eds. A Companion to Cultural Memory Studies. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2010. Eshel, hanan. “The Dates used during the Bar Kokhba Revolt.” In The Bar Kokhba War Reconsidered, edited by peter Schäfer, 93–105. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003.

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

202

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 202

Bi b l i o g raphy

Evans, Craig A. “Jesus’ Action in the Temple and Evidence of Corruption in the firstCentury Temple.” In idem, Jesus and His Contemporaries: Comparative Studies, 319– 44. Leiden: Brill, 2001. feintuch, I. Z. “On the parma Manuscript (de Rossi 138)” [hebrew]. Bar-Ilan 18/19 (1981): 196–217. fine, Steven. “Between Liturgy and Social history: priestly power in Late Antique Synagogues.” Journal of Jewish Studies 56 (2005): 1–9. ———. “Did the Synagogue Replace the Temple?.” Bible Review 12 (1996). http://cojs.org/stevenfine/files/Did_the_Synagogue_Replace_the_Temple.pdf. ———. This Holy Place: On the Sanctity of the Synagogue during the Greco-Roman Period. Notre Dame, Ind.: university of Notre Dame press, 1997. fitzmyer, Joseph A. The Acts of the Apostles. New york: Doubleday, 1998. ———. The Gospel according to Luke X–XXIV. Garden City, N.y.: Doubleday, 1985. fludernik, Monika. “The historical present Tense yet Again: Tense Switching and Narrative Dynamics in Oral and Quasi-Oral Storytelling.” Text 11 (1991): 365–97. fonrobert, Charlotte Elisheva. “The Didascalia Apostolorum: A Mishnah for the Disciples of Jesus.” Journal of Early Christian Studies 9 (2001): 483–509. ———. Menstrual Purity: Rabbinic and Christian Reconstructions of Biblical Gender. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford university press, 2000. ———. “Neighborhood and Ritual Space: The Case of the Rabbinic Eruv.” Archiv für Religionsgeschichte 10 (2008): 239–58. ———. “On Carnal Israel and Its Consequence: Talmudic Studies since foucault.” Jewish Quarterly Review 95 (2005): 462–69. ———. “The political Symbolism of the Eruv.” Jewish Social Studies 11 (2005): 9–35. ———. “When Women Walk in the Way of Their fathers: On Gendering the Rabbinic Claim for Authority.” Journal of the History of Sexuality 10 (2001): 398–415. forster, E. M. Aspects of the Novel. New york: harcourt, 1954. foucault, Michel. The History of Sexuality. Vol. 1, An Introduction. Translated by Robert hurley. New york: Vintage, 1990. ———. “Two Lectures.” In Michel foucault, Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972–1977, 78–108. New york: pantheon, 1980. fox, harry. “Introducing Tosefta: Textual, Intratextual, and Intertexual Studies.” In Introducing Tosefta: Textual, Intratextual, and Intertextual Studies, edited by idem and Tirzah Meacham, 1–37. hoboken, N.J.: Ktav, 1999. fraade. Steven D. “Nomos and Narrative before Nomos and Narrative.” Yale Journal of Law and the Humanities 17 (2005): 81–96. http://pantheon.yale.edu/~frasted/. ———. “The Temple as a Marker of Jewish Identity before and after 70 CE: The Role of the holy Vessels in Rabbinic Memory and Imagination.” In Jewish Identities in Antiquity: Studies in Memory of Menahem Stern, edited by Lee I. Levine and Daniel R. Schwartz, 237–65. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. http://pantheon.yale.edu/~frasted.

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:08 PM

Page 203

Bibliography

203

———. “To Whom It May Concern: 4QMMT and Its Addressee(s).” Revue de Qumran 76 (2000): 507–26. http://pantheon.yale.edu/~frasted. fredriksen, paula. “Gospel Chronologies, the Scene in the Temple, and the Crucifixion of Jesus.” In Redefining First Century Jewish and Christian Identities: Essays in Honor of Ed Parish Sanders, 246–82. Notre Dame, Ind.: university of Notre Dame press, 2008. Gärtner, Bertil. The Temple and the Community in Qumran and the New Testament: A Comparative Study in the Temple Symbolism of the Qumran Texts and the New Testament. Cambridge: Cambridge university press, 1965. Gale, Aaron M. Redefining Ancient Borders: The Jewish Scribal Framework of Matthew’s Gospel. New york: T. and T. Clark, 2005. Galor, Katharina. “The Stepped Water Installations of the Sepphoris Acropolis.” In The Archaeology of Difference: Gender, Ethnicity, Class and the “Other” in Antiquity: Studies in Honor of Eric M. Meyers, edited by Douglas R. Edwards and C. Thomas McCollough, 201–13. Boston: American Schools of Oriental Research, 2007. Galsterer, hartmut. “Roman Law in the provinces: Some problems of Transmission.” In L’Impero romano e le strutture economiche e sociali delle province, edited by Michael h. Crawford, 13–27. Como: Edizioni New press, 1986. Gedi, Noa, and yigal Elam. “Collective Memory—What Is It?.” History and Memory 8 (1996): 30–50. Geertz, Clifford. “Ritual and Social Change: A Javanese Example.” American Anthropologist 59 (1957): 32–54. Genette, Gérard. Narrative Discourse: An Essay in Method. Translated by Jane E. Lewin. Ithaca, N.y.: Cornell university press, 1980. Gennep, Arnold van. The Rites of Passage. Translated by Monika B. Vizedom and Gabrielle L. Caffee. Introduction by Solon T. Kimball. Chicago: university of Chicago press, 1960. Originally published 1909. Gereboff, Joel. Rabbi Tarfon: The Tradition, the Man, and Early Rabbinic Judaism. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars press, 1979. Ginzberg, Louis. “Tamid: The Oldest Treatise of the Mishnah.” pts. 1, 2, and 3. Journal of Jewish Lore and Philosophy 1 (1919): 33–44; 197–209; and 265–95. New york: Ktav, 1969. Goldberg, Arnold. “form und funktion des Ma‘ase in der Mischna.” In Rabbinische Texte als Gegenstand der Auslegung: Gesamelte Schriften II, edited by Margarete Schlüter and peter Schäfer, 22–49. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999. Originally published 1974. Goldin, Judah. “The freedom and Restraint of haggadah.” In Midrash and Literature, edited by Geoffrey h. hartman and Sanford Budick, 57–76. New haven, Conn.: yale university press, 1986. Goodblatt, David. Elements of Ancient Jewish Nationalism. New york: Cambridge university press, 2006.

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

204

8/17/12

1:09 PM

Page 204

Bi b l i o g raphy

———. The Monarchic Principle: Studies in Jewish Self-Government in Antiquity. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994. ———. “population Structure and Jewish Identity.” In The Oxford Handbook of Jewish Daily Life in Roman Palestine, edited by Catherine hezser, 102–21. Oxford: Oxford university press, 2010. ———. “Sanhedrin.” In The Encyclopedia of Religion, 2nd ed., edited by Lindsay Jones, 12:8101–4. New york: Macmillan, 2005. Originally published 1987. Goodenough, Erwin R. Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period. Vol. 11. New york: pantheon, 1964. Goodman, Martin. “The Diaspora Reactions to the Destruction of the Temple.” In Jews and Christians: The Parting of the Ways AD 70–135, edited by James D. G. Dunn, 27–38. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992. ———. “The function of Minim in Early Rabbinic Judaism.” In idem, Judaism in the Roman World: Collected Essays, 163–73. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Originally published in Geschichte-Tradition-Reflexion: Festschrift für Martin Hengel zum 70. Geburtstag, edited by h. Cankik, h. Lichtenberger, and p. Schäfer, 1:501–10. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996. ———. “Nerva, the Fiscus Judaicus, and Jewish Identity.” Journal of Roman Studies 79 (1989): 40–44. ———. “The pilgrimage Economy of Jerusalem in the Second Temple period.” Reprinted in idem, Judaism in the Roman World: Collected Essays, 59–67. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Originally published in Jerusalem: Its Sanctity and Centrality to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, edited by Lee I. Levine, 69–76. New york: Continuum, 1999. ———. “Religious Variety and the Temple in the Late Second Temple period and Its Aftermath.” Journal of Jewish Studies 60 (2009): 202–13. ———. Rome and Jerusalem: The Clash of Ancient Civilizations. New york: Knopf, 2007. ———. The Ruling Class of Judaea: The Origins of the Jewish Revolt against Rome, A.D. 66–70. Cambridge: Cambridge university press, 1987. ———. “Sadducees and Essenes after 70 CE.” In Crossing the Boundaries: Essays in Biblical Interpretation in Honour of Michael D. Goulder, edited by Stanley E. porter, paul Joyce, and David E. Orten, 347–56. Leiden: Brill, 1994. ———. State and Society in Roman Galilee, A.D. 132–212. 2nd ed. London: Vallentine Mitchell, 2000. Originally published 1983. ———. “The Temple in first-Century CE Judaism.” In idem, Judaism in the Roman World: Collected Essays, 47–58. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Originally published in Temple and Worship in Biblical Israel, edited by J. Day, 459–68. London: T. and T. Clark, 2005. Gray, Timothy C. The Temple in the Gospel of Mark: A Study in Its Narrative Role. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. Green, Joel B. “The Demise of the Temple as ‘Culture Center’ in Luke-Acts: An Explo-

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:09 PM

Page 205

Bibliography

205

ration of the Rending of the Temple Veil (Luke 23:44–49).” Revue Biblique 101 (1994): 495–515. Grimes, Ronald L. Deeply into the Bone: Re-inventing Rites of Passage. Berkeley: university of California press, 2002. ———. “Jonathan Z. Smith’s Theory of Ritual Space.” Religion 29 (1999): 261–73. ———. Rite out of Place: Ritual, Media, and the Arts. New york: Oxford university press, 2006. ———. Ritual Criticism. Columbia: university of South Carolina press, 1990. Groner, Tsvi. “Hagg˘eōnim.” In Manhig vehanhagāh: Kōvets ma’ămārim [Leaders and leadership], edited by I. Malkin and Z. Tsahor, 143–63. Jerusalem: Merkaz Zalman Shazar, 1992. Gruenwald, Ithamar. “M˘ekōman shel m˘esōrōt kōhaniyōt biy˘etsirātāh shel hammistikāh shel hammerkāvāh v˘eshel shiur ha.kk. ōmāh” [The place of priestly traditions in the creation of merkavah and shiur komah mysticism]. International Congress on Jewish Mysticism [hebrew] 1 (1987–98): 65–120. Gupta, Nijay K. “Which ‘Body’ Is a Temple (1 Corinthians 6:19)? paul Beyond the Individual/Communal Divide.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 72 (2010): 518–36. Gurtner, Daniel M. “The ‘house of the Veil’ in Sirach 50.” Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 14 (2005): 187–200. ———. “The Rending of the Veil and Markan Christology: ‘unveiling’ the ‘yIOΣ ΘEOy (Mark 15:38–39).” Biblical Interpretation 15 (2007): 292–306. ———. The Torn Veil: Matthew’s Exposition of the Death of Jesus. Cambridge: Cambridge university press, 2007. haas, peter J. “The Am Ha‘arets as Literary Character.” In From Ancient Israel to Modern Judaism: Intellect in Quest of Understanding: Essays in Honor of Marvin Fox, edited by Jacob Neusner, Ernest S. frerichs, and Nahum M. Sarna, 2:139–53. Atlanta: Scholars press, 1989. hachlili, Rachel. Ancient Jewish Art and Archaeology in the Diaspora. Leiden: Brill, 1998. haensch, Rudolph. “The Roman provincial Administration.” In The Oxford Handbook of Jewish Daily Life in Roman Palestine, edited by Catherine hezser, 71–84. Oxford: Oxford university press, 2010. halbwachs, Maurice. The Collective Memory. Translated by francis J. Ditter, Jr., and Vida yazdi Ditter. New york: harper and Row, 1980. ———. La topographie légendaire des évangiles. paris: presses universitaires de france, 1941. ———. On Collective Memory. Edited, translated, and with an introduction by Lewis A. Coser. Chicago: university of Chicago press, 1992. Translated from Les cadres sociaux de la mémoire (paris: presses universitaires de france, 1952) and La topographie légendaire des évangiles en terre sainte: Étude de mémoire collective (paris: presses universitaires de france, 1941). hamm, Dennis, S. J. “The Tamid Service in Luke-Acts: The Cultic Background behind

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

206

8/17/12

1:09 PM

Page 206

Bi b l i o g raphy

Luke’s Theology of Worship (Luke 1:5–25, 18:9–14, 24:50–53; Acts 3:1, 10:3, 30).” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 25 (2003): 215–31. han, Kyu Sam. Jerusalem and the Early Jesus Movement: The Q Community’s Attitude toward the Temple. London: Sheffield Academic press, 2002. harries, Jill. “Creating Legal Space: Settling Disputes in the Roman Empire.” In Rabbinic Law in Its Roman and Near Eastern Context, edited by Catherine hezser, 63–81. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. ———. Law and Empire in Late Antiquity. Cambridge: Cambridge university press, 1999. harth, Dietrich. “The Invention of Cultural Memory.” In A Companion to Cultural Memory Studies, edited by Astrid Erll and Ansgar Nünning, 85–96. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2010. hasan-Rokem, Galit. Tales of the Neighborhood: Jewish Narrative Dialogues in Late Antiquity. Berkeley: university of California press, 2003. ———. Web of Life: Folklore and Midrash in Rabbinic Literature. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford university press, 2000. hauptman, Judith. Rereading the Mishnah: A New Approach to Ancient Jewish Texts. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. hayward, C. T. R. The Jewish Temple: A Non-Biblical Sourcebook. London: Routledge, 1996. hendin, David. Guide to Biblical Coins. New york: Amphora, 1987. herford, R. Travers. Christianity in Talmud and Midrash. Clifton, N.J.: Reference Book publishers, 1966. hezser, Catherine. “The Codification of Legal Knowledge in Late Antiquity: The Talmud yerushalmi and Roman Law Codes.” In The Talmud Yerushalmi and Graeco-Roman Culture, vol. 1, edited by peter Schäfer, 581–641. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998. ———. Form, Function, and Historical Significance of the Rabbinic Story in Yerushalmi Neziqin. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1993. ———. Jewish Literacy in Roman Palestine. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001. ———. “Roman Law and Rabbinic Legal Composition.” In The Cambridge Companion to the Talmud and Rabbinic Literature, edited by Charlotte E. fonrobert and Martin S. Jaffee, 144–63. Cambridge: Cambridge university press, 2007. ———. The Social Structure of the Rabbinic Movement in Roman Palestine. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997. ———, ed. The Oxford Handbook of Jewish Daily Life in Roman Palestine. Oxford: Oxford university press, 2010. hill, Craig C. “The Jerusalem Church.” In Jewish Christianity Reconsidered: Rethinking Ancient Groups and Texts, edited by Matt Jackson-McCabe, 39–56. Minneapolis: fortress, 2007 hirsch, E. D., Jr., Validity in Interpretation. New haven, Conn.: yale university press, 1967.

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:09 PM

Page 207

Bibliography

207

hirschfield, yizhar. “Tiberias.” Excavations and Surveys in Israel 9 (1989–90): 107–9. hirshman, Marc G. A Rivalry of Genius: Jewish and Christian Biblical Interpretation in Late Antiquity. Albany: State university of New york press, 1996. hjelm, Ingrid. The Samaritans and Early Judaism: A Literary Analysis. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic press, 2000. hodge, Caroline Johnson. If Sons, Then Heirs: A Study of Kinship and Ethnicity in the Letters of Paul. New york: Oxford university press, 2007. hoenig, Sidney B. The Great Sanhedrin: A Study of the Origin, Development, Composition, and Functions of the Bet Din Ha-Gadol during the Second Jewish Commonwealth. philadelphia: Dropsie College, 1953. ———. “The Suppositious Temple-Synagogue.” Jewish Quarterly Review 54 (1963): 115– 31. Reprinted in The Synagogue: Studies in Origins, Archaeology, and Architecture, edited by Joseph Gutmann, 55–71. New york: Ktav, 1975. hoffmann, David Z. The First Mishna and the Controversies of the Tannaim: The Highest Court in the City of the Sanctuary. Translated by paul forchheimer. New york: Maurosho, 1977. hogeterp, Albert L. A. Paul and God’s Temple: A Historical Interpretation of Cultic Imagery in the Corinthian Correspondence. Leuven: peeters, 2006. holmås, Geir Otto. “‘My house Shall Be a house of prayer’: Regarding the Temple as a place of prayer in Acts within the Context of Luke’s Apologetical Objective.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 27 (2005): 393–416. horbury, William. “Early Christians on Synagogue prayer and Imprecation.” In Tolerance and Intolerance in Early Judaism and Christianity, edited by Graham N. Stanton and Guy G. Stroumsa, 296–317. Cambridge: Cambridge university press, 1998. horsley, Richard A. Archaeology, History, and Society in the Galilee: The Social Context of Jesus and the Rabbis. Valley forge, pa.: Trinity press International, 1996. hüsken, ute, ed. When Rituals Go Wrong: Mistakes, Failure, and the Dynamics of Ritual. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Ilan, Zvi. Ancient Synagogues in Israel [hebrew]. Jerusalem: Ministry of Defense, 1991. Irshai, Oded. “The priesthood in Jewish Society of Late Antiquity” [hebrew]. In Continuity and Renewal: Jews and Judaism in Byzantine-Christian Palestine, edited by Lee I. Levine, 67–106. Jerusalem: yad Izhak Ben-Zvi; Dinur Center for the Study of Jewish history; and Jewish Theological Seminary, 2004. ———. “The Role of the priesthood in the Jewish Community in Late Antiquity: A Christian Model?.” In Jüdische Gemeinden und ihr christlicher Kontext, edited by Christoph Cluse, Alfred haverkamp, and Israel J. yuval, 75–85. hannover: hahn, 2003. Isaac, Benjamin. “Ethnic Groups in Judaea under Roman Rule.” In idem, The Near East under Roman Rule: Selected Papers, 257–67. Leiden: Brill, 1998. ———. “Infrastructure.” In The Oxford Handbook of Jewish Daily Life in Roman Palestine, edited by Catherine hezser, 145–64. Oxford: Oxford university press, 2010.

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

208

8/17/12

1:09 PM

Page 208

Bi b l i o g raphy

———. The Limits of Empire: The Roman Army in the East. Revised ed. Oxford: Clarendon, 1992. ———. “Milestones in Judaea: from Vespasian to Constantine.” In idem, The Near East under Roman Rule: Selected Papers, 48–75. Leiden: Brill, 1998. Originally published in Palestine Exploration Quarterly 110 (1978): 47–60. ———. The Near East under Roman Rule: Selected Papers. Leiden: Brill, 1998. Isaac, Benjamin, and Israel Roll. “A Milestone of A.D. 69 from Judaea: The Elder Trajan and Vespasian.” In Benjamin Isaac, The Near East under Roman Rule: Selected Papers, 36–45. Leiden: Brill, 1998. Originally published in Journal of Roman Studies 56 (1976): 9–14. ———. “Judaea in the Early years of hadrian’s Reign.” In Benjamin Isaac, The Near East under Roman Rule: Selected Papers, 182–97. Leiden: Brill, 1998. Originally published in Latomus 38 (1979): 54–66. ———. “Legio II Traiana in Judaea.” In Benjamin Isaac, The Near East under Roman Rule: Selected Papers, 198–207. Leiden: Brill, 1998. Originally published in Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 33 (1979): 149–56. ———. Roman Roads in Judaea I: The Legio-Scythopolis Road. Oxford: B.A.R., 1982. Jackson-McCabe, Matt A. Jewish Christianity Reconsidered: Rethinking Ancient Groups and Texts. Minneapolis: fortress, 2007. Jaffee, Martin S. “Deciphering Mishnaic Lists: A form-Analytic Approach.” In Approaches to Ancient Judaism, vol. 3, Text as Context in Early Rabbinic Literature, edited by W. S. Green, 19–34. Chico, Calif.: Scholars press, 1981. ———. “Oral Tradition and Rabbinic Studies.” Oral Tradition 18 (2003): 37–39. http://journal.oraltradition.org/issues/18i/jaffee. ———. “The Taqqanah in Tannaitic Literature: Jurisprudence and the Construction of Rabbinic Memory.” Journal of Jewish Studies 41 (1990): 204–25. ———. Torah in the Mouth: Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism 200 BCE– 400 CE. New york: Oxford university press, 2001. ———. “Writing and Rabbinic Oral Tradition: On Mishnaic Narrative, Lists and Mnemonics.” Journal of Jewish Thought and Philosophy 4 (1994): 123–46. Janowitz, Naomi. “Rabbis and Their Opponents: The Construction of the ‘Min’ in Rabbinic Anecdotes.” Journal of Early Christian Studies 6 (1998): 449–62. Jenks, Gregory C. The Origins and Early Development of the Antichrist Myth. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1990. Johnson, Luke Timothy. The Gospel of Luke. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical, 1991. Jones, A. h. M. “The urbanization of palestine.” Journal of Roman Studies 21 (1931): 78– 85. Jones, f. Stanley. “The pseudo-Clementines.” In Jewish Christianity Reconsidered: Rethinking Ancient Groups and Texts, edited by Matt Jackson-McCabe, 285–304. Minneapolis: fortress, 2007. Kadman, Leo. The Coins of Aelia Capitolina. Jerusalem: universitas, 1956.

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:09 PM

Page 209

Bibliography

209

Kalmin, Richard. “Christian and heretics in Rabbinic Literature and Late Antiquity.” Harvard Theological Review 87 (1994): 155–69. Kawin, Bruce f. Telling It Again and Again: Repetition in Literature and Film. Ithaca, N.y.: Cornell university press, 1972. Kerr, Alan R. The Temple of Jesus’ Body: The Temple Theme in the Gospel of John. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic press, 2002. Kimelman, Reuven. “Birkat Ha-Minim and the Lack of Evidence for an Anti-Christian Jewish prayer in Late Antiquity.” In Jewish and Christian Self-Definition, edited by E. p. Sanders, 226–44. philadelphia: fortress, 1981. Kindler, Arie. Coins of Tiberias. Tiberias: hamei Tiberia, 1961. Kinman, Brent. Jesus’ Entry into Jerusalem: In the Context of Lukan Theology and the Politics of His Day. Leiden: Brill, 1995. ———. “parousia, Jesus’ ‘A-Triumphal’ Entry, and the fate of Jerusalem (Luke 19:28– 44).” Journal of Biblical Literature 118 (1999): 279–94. Kiparsky, paul. “Tense and Mood in Indo-European Syntax.” Foundations of Language 4 (1968): 30–57. Kirschner, Robert. “Apocalyptic and Rabbinic Responses to the Destruction of 70.” Harvard Theological Review 78 (1985): 27–46. Kistemaker, Simon J. “The Temple in the Apocalypse.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 43 (2000): 433–41. Klawans, Jonathan. Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple. New york: Oxford university press, 2006. Klijn, A. f. J., and G. J. Reinink. Patristic Evidence for Jewish-Christian Sects. Leiden: Brill, 1973. Kraeling, Carl h. The Synagogue. New york: Ktav, 1979. Krupp, Michael. “Manuscripts of the Mishnah.” In The Literature of the Sages, vol. 1, Oral Tora, Halakha, Mishna, Tosefta, Talmud, External Tractates, edited by Shmuel Safrai. Assen/Maastricht: Van Gorcum; philadelphia: fortress, 1987. ———. “On the Relationship between Mishnah Manuscript parma de Rossi 138 and Sifra and Seder Eliyahu Rabbah and Zuta Manuscript Vatican 31” [hebrew]. Tarbiz 49 (1980): 194–96. Lapin, hayim. Early Rabbinic Civil Law and the Social History of the Roman Galilee: A Study of Mishnah Tractate Baba’ Me.si‘a’. Atlanta: Scholars press, 1995. ———. “hegemony and Its Discontents: Rabbis as a Late Antique provincial population.” In Jewish Culture and Society under the Christian Roman Empire, edited by Richard Kalmin and Seth Schwartz, 319–47. Leuven: peeters, 2003. ———. “palestinian Inscriptions and Jewish Ethnicity in Late Antiquity.” In Galilee through the Centuries: Confluence of Cultures, edited by Eric M. Meyers, 239–68. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1999. ———. “The Rabbinic Class Revisited: Rabbis as Judges in Later Roman palestine.” In “Follow the Wise”: Studies in Jewish History and Culture in Honor of Lee I.

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

210

8/17/12

1:09 PM

Page 210

Bi b l i o g raphy

Levine, edited by Zeev Weiss et al., 255–73. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2010. ———. “Rabbis and Cities in Later Roman palestine: The Literary Evidence.” Journal of Jewish Studies 50 (1999): 187–207. Larsson, Edvin. “Temple-Criticism and the Jewish heritage: Some Reflections on Acts 6– 7.” New Testament Studies 39 (1993): 379–95. Lehman, Marjorie. “The Gendered Rhetoric of Sukkah Observance.” Jewish Quarterly Review 96 (2006): 309–35. Leibner, uzi. “Excavations at Khirbet Wadi hamam . (Lower Galilee): The Synagogue and the Settlement.” Journal of Roman Archaeology 23 (2011): 220–37. ———. “Khirbet Wadi hamam: . Village and Synagogue from the Roman period in the Galilee” [hebrew]. Qadmoniot 139 (2010): 30–40. ———. Settlement and History in Hellenistic, Roman, and Byzantine Galilee: An Archaeological Survey of the Eastern Galilee. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. Levine, Lee I. The Ancient Synagogue: The First Thousand Years. 2nd ed. New haven, Conn.: yale university press, 2005. ———. “The Jewish patriarch (Nasi) in 3rd Century palestine.” Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt II.19.2 (1979): 649–88. ———. The Rabbinic Class of Roman Palestine in Late Antiquity. Jerusalem: yad Izhak Ben-Zvi; New york: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1989. ———. “The Sages and the Synagogue in Late Antiquity: The Evidence of the Galilee.” In The Galilee in Late Antiquity, edited by idem, 201–22. New york: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1992. ———. “The Status of the patriarch in the Third and fourth Centuries: Sources and Methodology.” Journal of Jewish Studies 47 (1996): 1–32. ———, ed. Ancient Synagogues Revealed. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1981. Lewis, Naphtali, ed. Documents from the Bar Kokhba Period from the Cave of the Letters. See above, under “primary Roman, Christian, and Non-Rabbinic Jewish Texts.” Lieberman, Saul. Hellenism in Jewish Palestine. printed together with Greek in Jewish Palestine. New york: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1994. Lied, Liv Ingeborg. The Other Lands of Israel: Imaginations of the Land in 2 Baruch. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Lieu, Judith. Image and Reality: The Jews in the World of the Christians in the Second Century. Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1996. Linder, Amnon, ed. and trans. The Jews in Roman Imperial Legislation. Detroit: Wayne State university press, 1987. MacDonald, David. “Dating the fall of Dura-Europos.” Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte 35 (1986): 45–68. Madden, frederic W. History of Jewish Coinage and of Money in the Old and New Testament. New york: Ktav, 1967. Originally published 1864. Magen, Itzchak, and Levana Tsfania. The Stone Vessel Industry in the Second Temple Period:

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:09 PM

Page 211

Bibliography

211

Excavations at Hizma . and the Jerusalem Temple Mount. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and Israel Antiquities Authority, 2002. Magen, Itzchak, yoav Tzionit, and Orna Sirkis. “Kiryat Sefer: A Jewish Village and Synagogue from the Time of the Second Temple” [hebrew]. Qadmoniot 117 (1999): 25– 32. Magness, Jodi. “helios and the Zodiac Cycle in Ancient palestinian Synagogues.” In Symbiosis, Symbolism, and the Power of the Past: Canaan, Ancient Israel, and Their Neighbors from the Late Bronze Age through Roman Palaestina, edited by William Dever and Seymour Gitin, 363–89. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2003. Maier, Johann. The Temple Scroll: An Introduction, Translation, and Commentary. Sheffield: JSOT, 1985. Mandel, paul. “‘Birāh’ as an Architectural Term in Rabbinic Literature” [hebrew]. Tarbiz 61 (1992): 195–217. Mantel, hugo. Studies in the History of the Sanhedrin. Cambridge, Mass.: harvard university press, 1965. Marcel, Jean-Christophe, and Laurent Mucchielli. “Maurice halbwachs’s Mémoire Collective.” In A Companion to Cultural Memory Studies, edited by Astrid Erll and Ansgar Nünning, 141–49. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2010. Marcus, Ralph. “The Sebomenoi in Josephus.” Jewish Social Studies 14 (1952): 247–50. Marmorstein, Arthur. “Judaism and Christianity in the Middle of the Third Century.” Hebrew Union College Annual 10 (1935): 223–65. Martin, Wallace. Recent Theories of Narrative. Ithaca, N.y.: Cornell university press, 1986. Mason, Steve. Flavius Josephus on the Pharisees: A Composition Critical Study. Leiden: Brill, 1991. ———. “Jews, Judaeans, Judaizing, Judaism: problems of Categorization in Ancient history.” Journal for the Study of Judaism 38 (2007): 457–512. Mazar, Benjamin. Beth Shearim: Report on Excavations during 1936–1940. Vol. 1. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers university press; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1973. McCready, Wayne O., and Adele Reinhartz, eds. Common Judaism: Explorations in Second-Temple Judaism. Minneapolis: fortress, 2008. McGinn, Bernard. Antichrist: Two Thousand Years of the Human Fascination with Evil. New york: harperCollins, 1994. McKelvey, R. J. The New Temple: The Church in the New Testament. Oxford: Oxford university press, 1969. Meshorer, yaakov. Ancient Jewish Coinage. Vol. 2. Dix hills, N.y.: Amphora, 1982 ———. Ancient Means of Exchange, Weights, and Coins [hebrew]. haifa: university of haifa, 1998. ———. City Coins of Eretz-Israel and the Decapolis in the Roman Period. Jerusalem: Israel Museum, 1985.

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

212

8/17/12

1:09 PM

Page 212

Bi b l i o g raphy

———. The Coinage of Aelia Capitolina. Jerusalem: Israel Museum, 1989. ———. Treasury of Jewish Coins: From the Persian Period to Bar-Kochba. Jerusalem: yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, 1997. Meyers, Eric M. “Roman Sepphoris in Light of New Archaeological Evidence and Recent Research.” In The Galilee in Late Antiquity, edited by Lee I. Levine, 321–38. New york: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1992. ———. “Sanders’s ‘Common Judaism’ and the Common Judaism of Material Culture.” In Redefining First-Century Jewish and Christian Identities: Essays in Honor of Ed Parish Sanders, edited by fabian E. udoh, 153–74. Notre Dame, Ind.: university of Notre Dame press, 2008. ———. “Sepphoris on the Eve of the Great Revolt (67–68 C.E.): Archaeology and Josephus.” In Galilee through the Centuries: A Confluence of Cultures, edited by idem, 109–22. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1999. ———, Ehud Netzer, and Carol Meyers. Sepphoris. Winona Lake, Ind. : Eisenbrauns, 1992. ———. “Sepphoris: ‘Ornament of All Galilee.’” Biblical Archaeologist 48 (1986): 4–19. Millar, fergus. The Roman Near East 31 BC–AD 337. Cambridge, Mass.: harvard university press, 1993. ———. “Transformations of Judaism under Graeco-Roman Rule: Responses to Seth Schwartz’s Imperialism and Jewish Society.” Journal of Jewish Studies 57 (2006): 142– 50. Miller, J. hillis. Fiction and Repetition: Seven English Novels. Cambridge, Mass.: harvard university press, 1982. ———. “The problematic of Ending in Narrative.” Nineteenth-Century Fiction 33 (1978). 3–7. Miller, Stuart S. “The Minim of Sepphoris Reconsidered.” Harvard Theological Review 86 (1993): 377–402. ———. “Roman Imperialism, Jewish Self-Definition, and Rabbinic Society: Balyche’s Iudaea-Palaestina, Schwartz’s Imperialism and Jewish Society, and Boyarin’s Border Lines Reconsidered.” AJS Review 31 (2007): 336–50. ———. Sages and Commoners in Late Antique ’Erez Israel: A Philological Inquiry into Local Traditions in Talmud Yerushalmi. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006. ———. “Some Observations on Stone Vessel finds and Ritual purity in Light of Talmudic Sources.” In Zeichen aus Text und Stein: Studien auf dem Weg zu einer Archäologie des Neuen Testaments, edited by S. Alkier and Jürgen Zangenberg, 402–19. Tübingen: francke, 2003. ———. “Stepped pools and the Nonexistent Monolithic ‘Miqveh.’” In The Archaeology of Difference: Gender, Ethnicity, Class and the “Other” in Antiquity: Studies in Honor of Eric M. Meyers, edited by Douglas R. Edwards and C. Thomas McCollough, 215– 34. Boston: American Schools of Oriental Research, 2007.

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:09 PM

Page 213

Bibliography

213

———. “Stepped pools, Stone Vessels, and Other Identity Markers of ‘Complex Common Judaism.’” Journal for the Study of Judaism 41 (2010): 214–43. ———. Studies in the History and Traditions of Sepphoris. Leiden: Brill, 1984. Mills, Sara. Discourse. London: Routledge, 2004. Mishor, Mordechay. “The Tense System in Tannaitic hebrew” [hebrew]. ph.D. diss., hebrew university, 1983. Mor, Menahem. “The Roman Army in Eretz-Israel in the years AD 70–132.” In The Defence of the Roman and Byzantine East: Proceedings of a Colloquium Held at the University of Sheffield in April 1986, edited by phillip freedman and David Kennedy, 575–602. Oxford: B.A.R., 1986. Moreland, Milton. “The Inhabitants of the Galilee in the hellenistic and Early Roman periods.” In Religion, Ethnicity, and Identity in Ancient Galilee: A Region in Transition, edited by Jürgen Zangenberg, harold W. Attridge, and Dale B. Martin, 133–59. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007. Mousourakis, George. The Historical and Institutional Context of Roman Law. hampshire: Ashgate, 2003. Muehsam, Alice. Coin and Temple: A Study of the Architectural Representation on Ancient Jewish Coins. Leeds: Leeds university Oriental Society, 1966. Myers, David N. “Recalling Zakhor: A Quarter-Century’s perspective.” Jewish Quarterly Review 97 (2007): 487–90. Nagy, Rebecca Martin, et al., eds. Sepphoris in Galilee: Crosscurrents of Culture. N.p.: North Carolina Museum of Art, 1996. Nemoy, Leon, ed. and trans. Karaite Anthology: Excerpts from the Early Literature. New haven, Conn.: yale university press, 1952. Netzer, Ehud. The Architecture of Herod the Great Builder. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2008. Originally published 2006. ———. “Was the Spring-house at Magdala a Synagogue?” [hebrew]. In Synagogues in Antiquity, edited by A. Kasher, A. Oppenheimer, and u. Rappaport, 165–72. Jerusalem: yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, 1987. Neusner, Jacob. “The fellowship (‫ )חבורה‬in the Second Jewish Commonwealth.” Harvard Theological Review 53 (1960): 125–42. ———. A History of the Mishnaic Law of Appointed Times. 5 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1981–83. ———. A History of the Mishnaic Law of Damages. 5 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1983–85. ———. A History of the Mishnaic Law of Holy Things. 6 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1978–80. ———. A History of the Mishnaic Law of Purities. 22 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1974–77. ———. A History of the Mishnaic Law of Women. 5 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1980. ———. “Judaism in a Time of Crisis: four Responses to the Destruction of the Second Temple.” Judaism 21 (1972): 313–27. ———. Judaism in Society: The Evidence of the Yerushalmi. Chicago: university of Chicago press, 1983.

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

214

8/17/12

1:09 PM

Page 214

Bi b l i o g raphy

———. Judaism: The Evidence of the Mishnah. 2nd ed. Atlanta: Scholars press, 1988; reprint, Wipf and Stock, 2003. ———. “Map without Territory: The Mishnah’s System of Sacrifice and Sanctuary.” History of Religions 19 (1979): 103–27. ———. “The Mishnah’s Generative Mode of Thought: Listenwissenschaft and Analogical-Contrastive Reasoning.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 110 (1990): 317–21. ———. Rabbinic Narrative: A Documentary Perspective. Vol. 1. Leiden: Brill, 2003. ———. “The Religious uses of history: Judaism in first-Century A.D. palestine and Third-Century Babylonia.” History and Theory 5 (1966): 153–71. Newton, Michael. The Concept of Purity at Qumran and in the Letters of Paul. Cambridge: Cambridge university press, 1985. Nora, pierre, ed. Realms of Memory: Rethinking the French Past. 3 vols. Engl. lang. ed. edited by Lawrence D. Kritzman. Translated by Arthur Goldhammer. New york: Columbia university press, 1996–98. Olick, Jeffrey K. “from Collective Memory to the Sociology of Mnemonic practices and products.” In A Companion to Cultural Memory Studies, edited by Astrid Erll and Ansgar Nünning, 151–61. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2010. ———, and Joyce Robbins. “Social Memory Studies: from ‘Collective Memory’ to the historical Sociology of Mnemonic practices.” Annual Review of Sociology 24 (1998): 105–40. ———, Vered Vinitzky-Seroussi, and Daniel Levy, eds. The Collective Memory Reader. New york: Oxford university press, 2011. Onn, Alexander, and Shlomit Wexler-Bedolah. “Khirbet um el-umdan: A Jewish Village with a Second-Temple Synagogue in Modi‘in” [hebrew]. Qadmoniot 130 (2006): 107–16. Oppenheimer, Aharon. The ‘Am Ha-aretz: A Study in the Social History of the Jewish People in the Hellenistic-Roman Period. Translated by I. h. Levine. Leiden: Brill, 1977. Overman, J. Andrew. Matthew’s Gospel and Formative Judaism: The Social World of the Matthean Community. Minneapolis: fortress, 1990. Overstreet, R. Larry. “The Temple of God in the Book of Revelation.” Bibliotheca Sacra 166 (2009): 446–62. patai, Raphael. Man and Temple: In Ancient Jewish Myth and Ritual. 2nd enlarged ed. New york: Ktav, 1967. Originally published 1947. peppard, Michael. “personal Names and Ethnic hybridity in Late Ancient Galilee: The Data from Beth She‘arim.” In Religion, Ethnicity, and Identity in Ancient Galilee: A Region in Transition, edited by Jürgen Zangenberg, harold W. Attridge, and Dale B. Martin, 99–113. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007. pérez fernández, Miguel. An Introductory Grammar of Rabbinic Hebrew. Translated by John Elwolde. Leiden: Brill, 1999.

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:09 PM

Page 215

Bibliography

215

peskowitz, Miriam. Spinning Fantasies: Rabbis, Gender, and History. Berkeley: university of California press, 1997. porat, Roi, hanan Eshel, and Amos frumkin. “finds from the Bar Kokhba Revolt from Two Caves at En Gedi.” Palestine Exploration Quarterly 139 (2007): 35–53. http://geography.huji.ac.il/~geo/personal/frumkin/pdf/2006%20pEQ.pdf. prince, Gerald. A Dictionary of Narratology. Rev. ed. Lincoln: university of Nebraska press, 2003. ———. “Narrativehood, Narrativeness, Narrativity, Narratability.” In Theorizing Narrativity, edited by John pier and José Ángel García Landa, 19–27. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, 2008. ———. “Narrativity.” In The Routledge Encyclopedia of Narrative Theory, edited by David herman, Manfred Jahn, and Marie-Laure Ryan, 387–88. London: Routledge, 2005. ———. “Revisiting Narrativity.” In Grenzüberschreitungen: Narratologie im Kontext, edited by Walter Grünzweig and Andreas Solbach, 43–51. Tübingen: Gunter Narr, 1999. ———. “Surveying Narratology.” In What Is Narratology? Questions and Answers Regarding the Status of a Theory, edited by Tom Kindt and hans-harald Müller, 1–16. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2003. proust, Marcel. Swann’s Way. Translated by Lydia Davis. New york: penguin, 2002. pummer, Reinhard. Early Christian Authors on Samaritans and Samaritanism. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002. ———. The Samaritans in Flavius Josephus. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. Rajak, Tessa. “The Against Apion and the Continuities in Josephus’ political Thought.” In Understanding Josephus: Seven Perspectives, edited by Steve Mason, 222–46. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic press, 1998. ———, and David Noy. “Archisynagogoi: Office, Title, and Social Status in the GrecoJewish Synagogue.” Journal of Roman Studies 83 (1993): 75–93. Reed, Annette yoshiko. “‘Jewish Christianity’ after the ‘parting of the Ways’: Approaches to historiography and Self-Definition in the pseudo-Clementines.” In Adam h. Becker and idem, eds., The Ways That Never Parted: Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, 189–231. Minneapolis: fortress, 2007. Originally published 2003. Reed, Jonathan L. Archaeology and the Galilean Jesus: A Re-Examination of the Evidence. harrisburg, pa.: Trinity press International, 2000. ———. “Galileans, ‘Israelite Village Communities,’ and the Sayings Gospel Q.” In Galilee through the Centuries: A Confluence of Cultures, edited by Eric M. Meyers, 87–108. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1999. Reifenberg, Adolf. Ancient Jewish Coins. 3rd ed. Jerusalem: R. Mass, 1963. Revel-Neher, Elisheva. “An ‘Encore’ on the Bar Kokhba Tetradrachm: A Re-Vision of Interpretation.” In “Follow the Wise”: Studies in Jewish History and Culture in Honor of

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

216

8/17/12

1:09 PM

Page 216

Bi b l i o g raphy

Lee I. Levine, edited by Zeev Weiss et al., 189–205. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2010. Richardson, peter. Building Jewish in the Roman East. Waco, Tex.: Baylor university press, 2004. ———. “Early Synagogues as Collegia in the Diaspora and palestine.” In Voluntary Associations in the Graeco-Roman World, edited by John S. Kloppenborg and Stephen G. Wilson, 90–109. London: Routledge, 1996. ———. Herod: King of the Jews and Friend of the Romans. Columbia: university of South Carolina press, 1996. Riches, John K. Conflicting Mythologies: Identity Formation in the Gospels of Mark and Matthew. Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 2000. Rimmon-Kenan, Shlomith. Narrative Fiction: Contemporary Poetics. 2nd ed. London: Routledge, 2002. Rivkin, Ellis. “Beth Din, Boulé, Sanhedrin: A Tragedy of Errors.” Hebrew Union College Annual 46 (1975): 181–99. Robinson, O. f. The Sources of Roman Law: Problems and Methods for Ancient Historians. New york: Routledge, 1997. Rosenberger, M. City Coins of Palestine. Vol. 3. Jerusalem: N.p., 1977. Rosenthal, David. “Mishnah Aboda Zara” [hebrew]. ph.D. diss., hebrew university, 1980. Rosen-Zvi, Ishay. “Orality, Narrative, Rhetoric: New Directions in Mishnah Research.” AJS Review 32 (2008): 235–49. ———. The Rite That Was Not: Temple, Midrash, and Gender in Tractate Sotah [hebrew]. Jerusalem: Magnes, 2008. ———. “The Ritual of the Suspected Adulteress (So.tah) in Tannaitic Literature: Textual and Theoretical perspectives” [hebrew]. ph.D. diss., Tel Aviv university, 2004. Rubenstein, Jeffrey L. The History of Sukkot in the Second Temple and Rabbinic Periods. Atlanta: Scholars press, 1995. ———. “Mythic Time and the festival Cycle.” Journal of Jewish Thought and Philosophy 6 (1997): 157–83. ———. “The Sadducees and the Water Libation.” Jewish Quarterly Review 84 (1994): 417–44. ———. Talmudic Stories: Narrative Art, Composition, and Culture. Baltimore: Johns hopkins university press, 1999. Rutgers, Leonard V. “Incense Shovels at Sepphoris.” In Galilee through the Centuries: Confluence of Cultures, edited by Eric M. Meyers, 177–98. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1999. ———. “Some Reflections on the Archaeological finds from the Domestic Quarter on the Acropolis of Sepphoris.” In Religious and Ethnic Communities in Later Roman Palestine, edited by hayim Lapin, 179–95. Bethesda: university press of Maryland, 1998.

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:09 PM

Page 217

Bibliography

217

Said, Edward. Beginnings: Intentions and Method. New york: Basic Books, 1975. Safrai, Samuel. Pilgrimage at the Time of the Second Temple [hebrew]. Tel Aviv: Am hasefer, 1965. ———. “pilgrimage to Jerusalem after the Destruction of the Second Temple.” In Jerusalem in the Second Temple Period: Abraham Schalit Memorial Volume, edited by Aharon Oppenheimer, uriel Rappaport, and Menahem Stern, 376–93. Jerusalem: yad Izhak Ben-Zvi and Ministry of Defense, 1980. ———. “Temple [Ritual].” In Encyclopaedia Judaica. 2nd ed. Online. Safrai, Zeev. “The house of Leontis ‘Kaloubas’—a Judaeo-Christian?.” In The Image of the Judaeo-Christians in Ancient Jewish and Christian Literature, edited by peter J. Tomson and Doris Lambers-petry, 245–66. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. ———. “The Roman Army in the Galilee.” In The Galilee in Late Antiquity, edited by Lee I. Levine, 103–14. New york: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1992. Saldarini, Anthony. Matthew’s Christian-Jewish Community. Chicago: university of Chicago press, 1994. ———. Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees in Palestinian Society: A Sociological Approach. Wilmington, Del.: Michael Glazier, 1988. ———. “The Social World of Christian Jews and Jewish Christians.” In Religious and Ethnic Communities in Later Roman Palestine, edited by hayim Lapin, 115–54. Bethesda: university press of Maryland, 1998. ———. “Varieties of Rabbinic Response to the Destruction of the Temple.” Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 21 (1982): 437–58. Sanders, E. p. Jesus and Judaism. philadelphia: fortress, 1985. ———. Judaism: Practice and Belief: 63 BCE to 66 CE. philadelphia: Trinity press International, 1992. Schechner, Richard. Between Theater and Anthropology. philadelphia: university of pennsylvania press, 1985. ———. Performance Studies: An Introduction. 2nd ed. New york: Routledge, 2006. ———, and Willa Appel, eds. By Means of Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge university press, 1990. Schenck, Kenneth L. Cosmology and Eschatology in Hebrews: The Settings of the Sacrifice. Cambridge: Cambridge university press, 2007. Schieffelin, Edward L. Introduction to When Rituals Go Wrong: Mistakes, Failures, and the Dynamics of Ritual, edited by ute hüsken, 1–20. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Schiffman, Lawrence h. “At the Crossroads: Tannaitic perspectives on the Jewish-Christian Schism.” In Jewish and Christian Self-Definition, vol. 2, Aspects of Judaism in the Greco-Roman Period, edited by E. p. Sanders, 115–46. philadelphia: fortress, 1981. ———. “The pharisees and Their halakhah according to the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Dead Sea Discoveries 8 (2001): 262–77. ———. “The Samaritans in Tannaitic halakhah.” Jewish Quarterly Review 75 (1985): 323–50.

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

218

8/17/12

1:09 PM

Page 218

Bi b l i o g raphy

———. Who Was a Jew? Rabbinic and Halakhic Perspectives on the Jewish-Christian Schism. hoboken, N.J.: Ktav, 1985. Schremer, Adiel. Brothers Estranged: Heresy, Christianity, and Jewish Identity in Late Antiquity. New york: Oxford university press, 2010. ———. “The Name of the Boethusians: A Reconsideration of Suggested Explanations and Another One.” Journal of Jewish Studies 48 (1997): 290–99. Schürer, Emil. The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C.–A.D. 135). 4 vols. Revised and edited by Geza Vermes and fergus Millar. Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1973. Schultz, fritz. History of Roman Legal Science. Oxford: Oxford university press, 1946. Schwabe, Moshe, and Baruch Lifshitz. Beth Shearim: Report on Excavations during 1936– 1940. Vol. 2. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers university press; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1974. Schwartz, Barry. Abraham Lincoln in the Forge of National Memory. Chicago: university of Chicago press, 2000. ———.“Collective Memory and history: how Abraham Lincoln Became a Symbol for Racial Equality.” Sociological Quarterly 38 (1997): 469–96. ———. “Iconography and Collective Memory: Lincoln’s Image in the American Mind.” Sociological Quarterly 32 (1991): 301–19. ———. “Memory as a Cultural System: Abraham Lincoln in World War II.” American Sociological Review 61 (1996): 908–27. ———. “The Social Context of Commemoration: A Study in Collective Memory.” Social Forces 61 (1982): 374–402. ———, yael Zerubavel, and Bernice M. Barnett. “The Recovery of Masada: A Study in Collective Memory.” Sociological Quarterly 27 (1986): 147–64. Schwartz, Seth. Imperialism and Jewish Society: 200 B.C.E. to 640 C.E. princeton, N.J.: princeton university press, 2001. ———. Josephus and Judaean Politics. Leiden: Brill, 1990. ———. “The political Geography of Rabbinic Texts.” In The Cambridge Companion to the Talmud and Rabbinic Literature, edited by Charlotte Elisheva fonrobert and Martin S. Jaffee, 75–96. New york: Cambridge university press, 2007. Segal, Alan f. Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism. Leiden: Brill, 2002. Originally published 1997. Segal, peretz. “The penalty of the Warning Inscription from the Temple of Jerusalem.” Israel Exploration Journal 39 (1989): 79–84. Shemesh, Aharon. “The Laws of the first fruits in the Dead Sea Scrolls (Rēshit and Bikkurim in the Law of Qumran)” [hebrew]. Meghillot: Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls 1 (2003): 147–64. Sherman, Daniel J. “Art, Commerce, and the production of Memory in france after World War I.” In Commemorations: The Politics of National Identity, ed. John R. Gillis, 186–212. princeton, N.J.: princeton university press, 1994.

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:09 PM

Page 219

Bibliography

219

Sim, David C. The Gospel of Matthew and Christian Judaism: The History and Social Setting of the Matthean Community. Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1998. Simon-Shoshan, Moshe. “halachah Lema‘aseh: Narrative and Legal Discourse in the Mishnah.” ph.D. diss., university of pennsylvania, 2005. Sivertsev, Alexei M. Households, Sects, and the Origins of Rabbinic Judaism. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Skarsaune, Oskar, and Reidar hvalvik. Jewish Believers in Jesus: The Early Centuries. peabody, Mass.: hendrickson, 2007. Sleeman, Matthew. “Mark, the Temple, and Space: A Geographer’s Response.” Biblical Interpretation 15 (2007): 338–49. Smith, Barbara herrnstein. “Narrative Versions, Narrative Theories.” Critical Inquiry 7 (1980): 213–36. ———. Poetic Closure: A Study of How Poems End. Chicago: university of Chicago press, 1968. Smith, Jonathan Z. “Constructing a Small place.” In Sacred Space: Shrine, City, Land, edited by Benjamin Z. Kedar and R. J. Zwi Werblowsky, 18–31. New york: New york university press, 1998. ———. Imagining Religion: From Babylon to Jonestown. Chicago: university of Chicago press, 1982. ———. Map Is Not Territory: Studies in the History of Religions. Leiden: Brill, 1978. ———. Relating Religion: Essays in the Study of Religion. Chicago: university of Chicago press, 2004. ———. To Take Place: Toward Theory in Ritual. Chicago: university of Chicago press, 1987. Smith, Morton. “The Dead Sea Sect in Relation to Ancient Judaism.” New Testament Studies 7 (1961): 347–60. Spatafora, Andrea. From the “Temple of God” to God as the Temple: A Biblical Theological Study of the Temple in the Book of Revelation. Rome: pontificia università Gregoriana, 1997. Sperber, Daniel. The City in Roman Palestine. New york: Oxford university press, 1998. Stemberger, Günter. “Mischna Avot: frühe Weisheitsschrift, pharisäisches Erbe, oder spätrabbinische Bildung?.” ZNW 96 (2005): 243–58. Stern, Menahem, ed. and trans. Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism. 3 vols. Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and humanities, 1974–84. ———. “‘Jerusalem, the Most famous City in the East’ (pliny, Natural History V, 70)” [hebrew]. In Jerusalem in the Second Temple Period: Abraham Schalit Memorial Volume, edited by Aharon Oppenheimer, uriel Rappaport, and Menahem Stern, 257– 70. Jerusalem: yad Izhak Ben-Zvi and Ministry of Defense, 1980. Stern, Sacha. Jewish Identity in Early Rabbinic Writings. Leiden: Brill, 1994. ———. “Rabbi and the Origins of the patriarch.” Journal of Jewish Studies 54 (2003): 193–215.

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

220

8/17/12

1:09 PM

Page 220

Bi b l i o g raphy

Sternberg, Meir. “Narrativity: from Objectivist to functional paradigm.” Poetics Today 31 (2010): 507–659. Stevenson, Gregory. Power and Place: Temple and Identity in the Book of Revelation. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2001. Strange, James f. “first Century Galilee from Archaeology and from the Texts.” In Archaeology and the Galilee: Texts and Contexts in the Greco-Roman and Byzantine Periods, edited by Douglas R. Edwards and C. Thomas McCullough, 39–48. Atlanta: Scholars press, 1997. ———. “Six Campaigns at Sepphoris: The university of South florida Excavations, 1983–1989.” In The Galilee in Late Antiquity, edited by Lee I. Levine, 339–56. New york: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1992. ———, Thomas R. W. Longstaff, and Dennis Groh. Excavations at Sepphoris: University of South Florida Probes in the Citadel and Villa. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Stökl Ben Ezra, Daniel. The Impact of Yom Kippur on Early Christianity: The Day of Atonement from Second Temple Judaism to the Fifth Century. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. Stone, Michael E. Fourth Ezra: A Commentary on the Book of Fourth Ezra. philadelphia: fortress, 1990. ———. “Reactions to Destructions of the Second Temple: Theology, perception, and Conversion.” Journal for the Study of Judaism 12 (1981): 195–204. Story, Cullen I. K. “The Bearing of Old Testament Terminology on the Johannine Chronology of the final passover of Jesus.” Novum Testamentum 31 (1989): 316–24. Strack, h. L., and Günter Stemberger. Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash. Translated and edited by Markus Bockmuehl. 2nd ed. Minneapolis: fortress, 1996. Sussman, yaacov. “Appendix 1: The history of the halakha and the Dead Sea Scrolls: preliminary Talmudic Observations on Miqsat Ma’ase Ha-Torah.” In Discoveries in the Judaean Desert: Volume 10. Qumran Cave 4: Miqsat Ma’aseh Ha-torah, edited by Elisha Qimron and John Strugnell, 179–200. Oxford: Oxford university press, 1994. ———. “.Hē.ker tōldōt ha-hălākhāh u-m˘egillot midbar y˘ehudāh: Hirhurim talmudiyim rishōnim le’ōr m˘egillat ‘mi.ktsat ma‘ăsēh hattōrāh” [The investigation of the history of Jewish law and the Dead Sea Scrolls: first talmudic thoughts in light of 4QMMT]. Tarbiz 59 (1990): 11–76. Suydam, Mary. “Background: An Introduction to performance Studies.” In Performance and Transformation: New Approaches to Late Medieval Spirituality, edited by idem and Joanna E. Zeigler, 1–25. New york: St. Martin’s, 1999. Swartz, Michael D. “Ritual about Myth about Ritual: Towards an understanding of the Avodah in the Rabbinic period.” Journal of Jewish Thought and Philosophy 6 (1997): 135–55. Tcherikover, Victor A., Alexander fuks, and Menahem Stern, eds. Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum. 3 vols. Jerusalem: Magnes; Cambridge, Mass.: harvard university press, 1957–64.

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:09 PM

Page 221

Bibliography

221

Tellbe, Mikael. “The Temple Tax as a pre-70 CE Identity Marker.” In The Formation of the Early Church, edited by Ådna Jostein. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. Tepper, yigael, Gil Daryn, and yotam Tepper. Nahal ‘Amud Region: Chapters on the Settlement History [hebrew]. Tel Aviv: hakkibutz hameuchad, 2000. Tepper, yotam. “Legio, Kefar ‘Otnay.” Hadashot Arkhealogiyot: Excavations and Surveys in Israel 118 (June 21, 2006). http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.asp?id=363&mag_id=111. ———. “The Roman Legionary Camp at Legio, Israel: Results of an Archaeological Survey and Observations on the Roman Military presence at the Site.” In The Late Roman Army in the East from Diocletian to the Arab Conquest: Proceedings of a Colloquium Held at Potenza, Acerenza and Matera, Italy (May 2005), edited by A. S. Lewin and p. pellegrini, 57–71. Oxford: Archaeopress, 2007. ———, and Leah di Segni. A Christian Prayer Hall of the Third Century CE at Kefar ‘Othnay (Legio): Excavations at the Megiddo Prison 2005. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority, 2006. Teppler, yaakov y. Birkat haMinim: Jews and Christians in Conflict in the Ancient World. Translated by Susan Weingarten. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007. Thackeray, h. St. J. “Translation of the Letter of Aristeas.” Jewish Quarterly Review 15 (1903): 337–91. Tropper, Amram. “Tractate Avot and Early Christian Succession Lists.” In The Ways That Never Parted: Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, edited by Adam h. Becker and Annette yoshiko Reed, 159–88. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. ———. Wisdom, Politics, and Historiography: Tractate Avot in the Context of the GraecoRoman Near East. Oxford: Oxford university press, 2004. Tropper, David. “Bet Din Shel Kohanim.” Jewish Quarterly Review 63 (1973): 204–21. Tsafrir, yoram. “Numismatics and the foundation of Aelia Capitolina: A Critical Review.” In The Bar Kokhba War Reconsidered, edited by peter Schäfer, 31–36. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. Turner, Victor W. Dramas, Fields, and Metaphors: Symbolic Action in Human Society. Ithaca, N.y.: Cornell university press, 1974. ———. The Forest of Symbols: Aspects of Ndembu Ritual. Ithaca, N.y.: Cornell university press, 1967. ———. The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure. Chicago: Aldine, 1969. ———, and Edith Turner. Image and Pilgrimage in Christian Culture: Anthropological Perspectives. New york: Columbia university press, 1978. udoh, fabian E., ed. Redefining First-Century Jewish and Christian Identities: Essays in Honor of Ed Parish Sanders. Notre Dame, Ind.: university of Notre Dame press, 2008. Vermes, Geza. The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls. London: penguin, 1998. Walker, p. W. L. Jesus and the Holy City: New Testament Perspectives on Jerusalem. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1996.

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

222

8/17/12

1:09 PM

Page 222

Bi b l i o g raphy

Ward, Roy B. “James of Jerusalem in the first Two Centuries.” Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt II.26.1 (1992): 779–812. Watson, Alan. The Spirit of Roman Law. Athens: university of Georgia press, 1995. ———. The State, Law and Religion: Pagan Rome. Athens: university of Georgia press, 1992. Webster, Jane S. Ingesting Jesus: Eating and Drinking in the Gospel of John. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003. Weinert, francis D. “The Meaning of the Temple in Luke-Acts.” Biblical Theology Bulletin 11 (1985): 85–89. Weiss, Zeev. “Theatres, hippodromes, Amphitheatres, and performances.” In The Oxford Handbook of Jewish Daily Life in Roman Palestine, edited by Catherine hezser, 623– 42. Oxford: Oxford university press, 2010. ———, and Ehud Netzer. Tsippōri [hebrew]. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1994. Weitzmann, Steven. “from feasts into Mourning: The Violence of Early Jewish festivals.” Journal of Religion 79 (1999): 545–65. Wennel, Karen J. “Contested Temple Space and Visionary Kingdom Space in Mark 11– 12.” Biblical Interpretation 15 (2007): 323–37. Westbrook, Raymond, ed. A History of Ancient Near Eastern Law. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2003. White, hayden. The Content of the Form: Narrative Discourse and Historical Representation. Baltimore: Johns hopkins university press, 1987. ———. Metahistory: The Historical Imagination in Nineteenth-Century Europe. Baltimore: Johns hopkins university press, 1973. ———. The Tropics of Discourse: Essays in Cultural Criticism. Baltimore: Johns hopkins university press, 1978. ———. “The Value of Narrativity in the Representation of Reality.” Critical Inquiry 7 (1980): 5–27. Wimpfheimer, Barry S. “Legal Narratives in the Babylonian Talmud.” ph.D. diss., Columbia university, 2005. Wolfson, Nessa. CHP: The Conversational Historical Present in American English Narrative. Dordrecht: foris, 1982. yadin, yigael. The Temple Scroll: The Hidden Law of the Dead Sea Sect. New york: Random house, 1985. ———, et al. Documents from the Bar Kokhba Period. See above, “primary Roman, Christian, and Non-Rabbinic Jewish Texts.” yerushalmi, yosef hayim. Zakhor: Jewish History and Jewish Memory. Seattle: university of Washington press, 1996. Originally published 1982. Zangenberg, Jürgen. “Common Judaism and the Multidimensional Character of Material Culture.” In Redefining First-Century Jewish and Christian Identities: Essays in Honor

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:09 PM

Page 223

Bibliography

223

of Ed Parish Sanders, edited by fabian E. udoh, 175–93. Notre Dame, Ind.: university of Notre Dame press, 2008. ———. “A Region in Transition: Introducing Religion, Ethnicity, and Identity in Ancient Galilee.” In idem, harold W. Attridge, and Dale B. Martin, eds., Religion, Ethnicity, and Identity in Ancient Galilee: A Region in Transition, 1–10. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007. Zeitlin, Solomon. “The political Synedrion and the Religious Sanhedrin.” Jewish Quarterly Review 36 (1945): 109–40. ———. “Synedrion in the Judeo-hellenistic Literature and Sanhedrin in the Tannaitic Literature.” Jewish Quarterly Review 36 (1946): 307–15. ———. “The Time of the passover Meal.” Jewish Quarterly Review 42 (1951): 45–50. ———. “The Trial and Crucifixion of Jesus Re-Examined.” pts. 1, 2, and 3. Jewish Quarterly Review 31 (1941): 327–69; 32 (1941): 175–89; and 32 (1941): 279–301. ———. Who Crucified Jesus?. 2nd ed. New york: harper, 1947. Zerubavel, yael. “The Death of Memory and the Memory of Death.” Representations 45 (1994): 72–100. ———. “The Multivocality of a National Myth: Memory and Counter-Memories of Masada.” Israel Affairs 1 (1995): 110–28. ———. Recovered Roots: Collective Memory and the Making of Israeli National Tradition. Chicago: university of Chicago press, 1995. Zissu, Boaz, and David Amit. “Common Judaism, Common purity, and the Second Temple period Judaean Miqwa’ot (Ritual Immersion Baths).” In Common Judaism: Explorations in Second-Temple Judaism, edited by Wayne O. McCready and Adele Reinhartz, 47–62. Minneapolis: fortress, 2008. Zissu, Boaz, and Amir Ganor. “horvat ‘Ethri—A Jewish Village from the Second Temple period and the Bar Kokhba Revolt in the Judaean foothills. Journal of Jewish Studies 60 (2009): 90–136. ———. “The public Building at horvat ‘Ethri.” In And Let Them Make for Me a Sanctuary: Synagogues from Ancient Times to the Present Day, edited by y. Eshel et al., 31– 42. Ariel: College of Judea and Samaria, 2004. Zissu, Boaz, hanan Eshel, Boaz Langford, and Amos frumkin. “Coins from the Bar Kokhba Revolt hidden in Me‘arat ha-Te’omim (M˘ughâret umm et Tûeimîn), Western Jerusalem hills.” Israel Numismatic Journal 17 (2009–10): 113–47.

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:09 PM

Page 224

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:09 PM

Page 225

Index

General Index abstract laws, 2, 7–8, 57, 121, 135 n.16, 137 n.35, 146 n.42, 188 n.2 adjudication: by Christian bishops, 35; by courts in the Mishnah, 25–26, 40, 44, 136 n.27, 144 n.22, 159 n.90, 162–63 nn.13– 14; in Roman context, 18, 23 Aelia Capitolina, 95, 114–15, 180 nn.10–12, 187–88, nn.80–82 agricultural ritual, 19–21, 123–24, 127, 130, 176 n.12. See also ‘am hā’ārets Agrippa, 5, 10, 52; as Gentile, 82 Akiva, Rabbi, 18–19, 21, 25, 27, 142 n.7 Akko (ptolemais), 29, 149 n.55, 151–52 n.58 altar: in 4 Ezra, 94; in the Bible, 177 n.24, 178 n.1; and creation of sacred space, 174 n.7; golden incense, 78, 97; non-Temple, 30; sacrificial, 5–6, 10, 47–48, 64, 76–80, 86, 124–25. See also Temple rituals, clearing the ashes ‘am hā’ārets, 31–32, 153 n.64, 154 n.67, 155 n.69 appointed one, the, 4–7, 10, 47–48, 137 n.35 arbitration, 18–20, 35, 141–42 nn.3–7, 145 n.33 archaeology, 29–30, 132 n.2, 150–51 n.57, 152–53 nn.59–63, 156–57 n.78, 181 n.18 arch of Titus, 113, 185 n.41, 187 nn.69–70 ark: David’s, 64, 86, 94, 170 n.6; Dura Eur opos Torah shrine, 97–101, 181–82 n.24;

in synagogue, 159 n.83, 181 n.24; in Temple, 174 n.7, 174 n.9, 181–82 n.24; in visual imagery, 96–97, 99–101, 103–4, 181–82 n.24 authority, rabbinic arguments for, 3–4, 12– 15, 26–27, 35–37, 119–22; through the construction of sacred space, 73–89; in the context of competing authority claims, 4, 27–37, 91–117; and narrative form, 57–72 authority of the Court, 51; to emend Temple ritual, 47–50; invented by the rabbis, 50– 52, 55–56, 163 n.14; against sectarian resistance, 45–47. See also Court, the authority over ritual, competing claims, 27– 35. See also rabbis, the, as authentic purveyors of tradition ’ăv bēit din, 53, 163 n.14, 168 n.51 Babatha, 133 n.4, 141 n.2, 144 n.27, 145 n.33 Bar Kokhba revolt, 1, 95–97, 114–15, 133 n.4. See also Shimon ben Kosiba bēit midrāsh, 75, 173 n.32 believers in Jesus. See Judaean believers in Jesus Bell, Catherine, 42, 73–74, 165 n.28 Berkowitz, Beth, 36–37, 135 n.12, 140 n.47, 141 n.51, 161 n.4, 166 n.36, 177 n.17 Bet She’an (Scythopolis), 29, 151 n.58 Boethusians, 47, 164 nn.19–20, 168–69

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

226

8/17/12

1:09 PM

Page 226

In d e x

n.55, 172 n.24, 177 n.20 boundaries of the Temple, 15, 79, 81–84 boundary crossing, ritualized, 75–80. See also entry and exit; sacred space Boyarin, Daniel: Border Lines, 145 n.36, 154 n.67, 164 n.17, 168 n.47, 168 n.52, 169 n.55; on discourse, 140 n.47; on followers of Jesus, 28–29, 147 n.47, 148–49 nn.52– 55, 156 n.70 Breuer, yochanan, 7, 123, 135–36 nn.21–23, 136 n.26 Büchler, Adolf, 51 Caparcotna. See Legio capital cases. See death penalty case stories, 10, 24, 146 n.43; and considerations of narrative, 137 n.34; specific examples, 18–22, 26–27; and the term ma‘ăśeh, 142 n.6 chain of transmission: rabbinic, 52–55; of Roman jurists, 168 n.47, 169 n.55 chamber of hewn stone (lishkat haggāzit), 49, 85, 87–88 Chancey, Mark, 30, 132 n.2, 150–53 nn.57– 63 changes to Temple ritual: in Josephus, 52. See also authority of the Court, to emend Temple ritual Christians, 149 n.55; among groups in the Roman Empire, 13; as social/ethnic category, 28–29, 147 n.47, 148 n.52; and the Temple, 91. See also Judaean believers in Jesus; ritual practice, Christian (or Jesus-believing community); Temple discourse, among Christian authors civil law, 18, 23–24, 37, 128–30, 144 nn. 22, 26, 145 n.31, 146 n.45 coherence of plot, 57, 65–67, 72; beginningmiddle-end, 9, 57, 65; and correct performance, 66–67, 72; and ritual success, 66–67; and telos of the narrative, 66–67 coins: of the Bar Kokhba revolt, 96–97, 100– 101, 103–4, 180–82 nn.10–24; city, 30, 152 nn.59–62; Roman, 112–15, 186–88 collective memory, 3, 11–12, 55–56, 134 n.10, 138–40 nn.39–46; and authority, 4; definitions, 135 n.15 common Judaism. See Judaean society, complexity and multiplicity therein

correct performance of ritual, 172 n.24; and the Court, 44; and the rabbis, 66–72, 83; thwarted, 47. See also coherence of plot, and correct performance; ritual failure Cotton, hannah, 18–19, 141–42 councils, 14, 50–52, 161 n.2 Court, the, 14–15, 34, 39–56, 82, 161 n.2, 163 n.14; in central position in the Temple, 85, 87–88; judicial functions, 40; as rabbinic invention, 50–52, 74, 167 n.41; as rabbinic predecessors, 39, 52–56. See also authority of the Court court-centered ritual narratives, 40–41, 78, 124, 136 nn.26–27, 162 n.13, 172 n.15 courts, typical functions, 25 courts of rabbis. See rabbis, the, as members of courts criminal law, 23, 37, 51 Day of Atonement narrative, 123; as coherent plot, 66–67; contradicting earlier accounts, 133 n.7; and Court authority, 41–48, 68–71; iterative narrative, 62–63; rabbinic interventions therein, 68–72; as Temple ritual narrative, 8. See also Day of Atonement ritual Day of Atonement ritual, 8, 46; in Christian texts, 185 n.46; drawing lots, 48, 62–63, 66, 69; in the hebrew Bible, 79, 175 n.10; in hebrews, 107, 184 n.40; in rabbinic times, 28; scapegoat, 63, 69–71, 185 n.46; and sectarianism, 46–47, 164–65 n.21; subcomponents of, 66 death penalty ritual, 36, 40, 51, 53, 124, 136 n.27, 144 n.25, 162 n.13 destruction of the Temple: in 4 Ezra, 4 Baruch, and 2 Baruch, 94–95, 179 n.8; aftermath of, 1–2; distant memory in the Mishnah, 1, 8, 15, 72, 91; as endpoint for synthetic narrative, 64; first Temple (standin for second), 94–95; and Jesus, 102, 104; in Josephus, 92–94; and no rebuilding allowed, 111–16; and rabbis, 2–4, 169 n.58; response to, 2–4, 134 nn.9–10. See also ritual practice, post-destruction diaspora Judaeans, 135 n.15 Diocaesarea. See Sepphoris Diospolis. See Lydda discourse, 12–13, 140–41 nn.47–51. See also

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:09 PM

Page 227

Index Temple discourse Dura Europos. See synagogue, at Dura Europos elders (z˘ekēnim, presbyteroi), 40–44, 49–51, 55, 162 n.11, 163 nn.13–15, 166 n.32, 167 n.40; of the ‘ammēi hā’ārets, 154 n.67; council of, 161 n.2; heavenly, 106; rebellious elder, the, 124, 161 n.3. See also Gamliel, Rabban; hillel Eliav, yaron: on hadrian, 187 n.78; on memory, 139–40 n.42; on pilgrimage to the Temple Mount, 133 n.2; on the significance of the Temple, 178–79 n.1; on the size of the Temple, 185 nn.43–44; on the Temple Mount in Jesus-centered sources, 107; on the Temple Mount in the Mishnah, 174 n.7; on the Temple to Jupiter, 95; on the term birāh, 161 n.7 entry and exit, 15, 74–80; emphasis on, as innovative, 79–80 Epstein, J. N., 60, 133 n.6, 136 n.26, 173 n.26 ‘ēruv, and the creation of sacred space, 176 n.12 Essenes, 28, 164 n.19. See also sectarians, and the Dead Sea Scrolls exit. See entry and exit family law, 23, 27, 30–31, 129–30, 144 n.22, 144 n.27, 145 n.30 feminist readings, 141 n.2, 176 n.15. See also Judaean, women fine, Steven, 98, 178 n.1, 181 nn.19–20, 232 first fruits: exiting upon completion, 78–80; and harmony in Israel, 165 n.31; and the town square, 163 n.14 first-fruits narrative, 123, 135 nn.16–20; as coherent plot, 67; and ritual change, 65; and sacred space, 79, 174 n.8; as Temple ritual narrative, 4–9; and verisimilitude, 170 n.6. See also first fruits first revolt. See war of 66–70 CE followers of Jesus. See Judaean believers in Jesus foucault, Michel, 12, 46 Galilee, 131–32 nn.1–2; Judaean nature, 29, 150–53 nn.57–63; and the rabbis, 23; and

227

the war of 66–70 CE, 92 Gamliel, Rabban, 34, 132 n.2; account of father’s ruling, 27; as authority in the chain of transmission, 54, 169–70 n.59; in different locations, 151–52 n.58; the elder, 154 n.67, 166 n.31, 169 n.58; with elders, 162 n.11; and his court, 25, 145–46 n.39, 168 n.46, 170 n.61; as patriarch, 145 n.38, 168 n.50 Genette, Gérard, 61–63, 171 n.15, 172 n.20 Gennep, Arnold van, 74 genre. See under Temple ritual narrative gentiles (Romans), 13, 28–29, 82–83, 92, 151–52 n.58, 152–53 n.62, 153 n.64; followers of Jesus, 101, 105 Ginzberg, Louis, 60, 133 n.6, 136 n.26, 173 n.26 Goodblatt, David, 51, 150 n.57, 161 n.2, 166–67 nn.33–41, 168 n.53, 180n.13 Goodman, Martin: on arbitration, 142 n.5; on Bava Kamma 8:6, 142 n.8; on case stories, 142 n.9; on the Jewishness of the Galilee, 151 n.58, 152 n.62; on the Jewish tax, 187 nn.76–77; on minim, 155 n.67; on Josephus and the Temple, 93, 168 n.44, 180 n.9; on not rebuilding the Temple, 111–15; on the patriarch, 168 n.50; on pharisees after the destruction, 147 n.48; on pilgrimage, 168 n.1; on priests, 157 n.78; on rabbis’ religious authority, 23; on rabbis as jurists, 22–23, 134–35 n.12, 144 n.22, 145 n.29, 159 n.87; on rabbis’ lack of authority, 3, 134–35 n.12; on synagogue leadership, 158–59 nn.82–83; on the war of 66–70 CE, 132 n.2, 187 nn.69–74 Great Court, the. See Court, the Greek ethnicity, 28, 147 n.48, 148 n.52 Grimes, Ronald, 48–50, 74–75, 173 n.2 hadrian, 95–97, 114–15, 132 n.2, 152 n.59, 180 n.14 halbwachs, Maurice, 11, 139 nn.41–42 harries, Jill, 18, 159 n.85, 160 n.92 hasmoneans, 97, 178–79 n.1 heresiology, 116, 147 n.47, 149 n.54, 155 n.67. See also minim herod, 82, 97, 174 n.7, 178–79 n.1 hezser, Catherine: on case stories, 138 n.37; on Greek inscriptions, 153 n.63; on priests,

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

228

8/17/12

1:09 PM

Page 228

In d e x

157 nn.78–80; on private homes as study places, 174 n.6; on rabbinic social structure, 141 n.1; on rabbis as jurists, 20, 23, 143 nn.14–19; on rabbis not being pharisees, 168 n.55; as revisionist, 135 n.12, 188 n.3 high priest: addressed directly, 42, 44, 62–3, 162 n.12; in Dura Europos painting, 96– 97; garb, 97; hasmonean, 178–79 n.1; Jesus as, 107, 185 n.52; Jesus confronts, 109; sectarian, 172 n.24; in Temple ritual, 41–46, 62–63, 66–71, 87, 93, 105, 107, 124 hillel, 53–54, 168 n.50 hoffmann, David Zvi, 60, 133 n.6 holy of holies: in Ezekiel, 85–87; in Josephus, 93; in the Mishnah, 66, 69–72, 87, 125, 172 n.24, 174 n.7, 177–78 n.26 hybridity: in rabbinic legal-ritual role, 14, 45, 55–56; social, 29–35, 82–83, 148–49 nn.53–55, 153 nn.63–64, 160 n.93 immersion. See ritual immersion In Search of Lost Time, 61, 171 n.13, 171 n.15 introductory formulas, 8, 10, 137–38 n.36 ioudaioi, 28, 30, 113, 131 n.1. See also Judaean iterative narrative, 57, 60–65, 120, 137 n.34, 171–72 nn.13–17; definition of, 61; diachronic limits as aspect of, 63–64; frequency as characteristic of, 63, 172 n.17; and regularity of repetition, 63, 172 n.17; as synthetic telling, 61, 63, 65; variation as technique of, 62–63, 171 n.15. See also verb usage Jackson-McCabe, Matt, 28, 148–49 nn.51– 53 Jerusalem Temple. See Temple Jesus: death of, 102, 183 n.34; as jurist, 159– 60 n.90; ministry of, 102, 104; as sacrifice, 183 n.32; supersedes the Temple, 106–10; and tearing of the Temple curtain, 104; and the Temple, 79, 102–5; as Temple, 104, 106, 183 n.32, 184 n.34; trial of Jesus, 51; triumphal entry, 102, 104. See also under high priest Jewish tax, 113–14, 178 n.1 (Temple tax)

Josephus: as Judaean, 33, 149–50 n.56; on Judaean society, 167 n.44; on the Temple, 92–94 Judaean: ethnicity, 27–30, 81, 131 n.1, 147 n.47, 151–53 nn.58–64; as a term, 131 n.1, 147 n.46; women, 18, 27, 141 n.1 Judaean believers in Jesus, 28–35, 101–11, 116–17, 121, 147–49 nn.47–55, 155–56 nn.67–76 passim, 182 n.26 Judaeans, non-Rabbinic, 15, 26–35, 82–84, 88, 97–101, 116–17, 182 n.25; sinners, 31–32. See also ‘am hā’ārets; Judaean believers in Jesus; Judaeans embracing Roman culture; Judaean society Judaeans embracing Roman culture, 29–31, 82 Judaean society: all Judaeans under Court authority, 47 (see also authority of the Court); all Judaeans under rabbinic authority, 3–4, 17, 26–27, 81–84, 88–89; complexity and multiplicity therein, 13, 27–35, 91, 154–56 nn.67–69, 156 n.75; non-rabbis, 26–35, 81–82; subgroups, 4, 27–35, 39, 74; unified, 81–84, 88–89 Judah the Naśi, Rabbi. See yehudah the Naśi, Rabbi judicial ritual, 136–37 n.27, 161 n.3. See also court-centered ritual narratives jurists: papinian, 20; rabbinic role limited to ritual law, 23–24; rabbis as, 14, 17–27, 35– 37, 55–56, 143 n.19, 146 n.42, 159 n.87, 159 n.90; Roman, 14, 20–23, 36, 143 n.14; Scaevola, 20, 143 n.16 Katsyōn, . 30, 131 n.1, 153 n.63 Kefar ‘Otnay. See Legio Last Supper, 79, 102, 175 n.10, 182 n.27 laws. See abstract laws Legio, 30–31, 132 n.2 Lydda, 151 n.58, 155 n.68 ma‘ăśeh. See case stories manuscripts of the Mishnah, x–xi; different from printed edition, 155 n.67, 161 n.6, 162 n.11, 170 n.3, 173 n.29; variant readings in, 135 nn.18–19, 160–61 n.1, 161 n.9, 173 n.27, 177–78 n.26 map of the Temple, 15; in Ezekiel, 79, 85–

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:09 PM

Page 229

Index 88; in Middot, 84–88 memory. See collective memory menorah, 78, 94, 97–98, 99–100 mimicry, 35–37, 160 nn.93–94 minim, 46, 116, 155 n.155 Mishor, Mordechay, 7, 136 n.23 Mount of Olives, 43–44, 175 n.10 musical instruments, 5, 10, 58–60, 64, 67, 94, 170 n.6, 180 n.14. See also trumpets narrative: definition of, 8–9, 137 nn.28–34; iterative (see iterative narrative); mediating real events, 133 n.7 narrative features, 8–9, 57–58; closure, 65– 66; rabbinic interventions, 68–72. See also closure; coherence of plot; iterative narrative; verisimilitude narrative form, 14; in Temple ritual narratives (see under Temple ritual narratives) narrators, rabbinic, 69–72 Naśi: Shimon ben Kosiba, 96–97; in rabbinic literature (see patriarch; yehudah the Naśi) Neusner, Jacob, 2–3, 134 n.9, 136 n.26, 137 n.28, 138 n.37, 142 n.9, 170 n.2 new moon, 25–26, 45, 124, 130 Olick, Jeffrey, 11, 138 n.39, 139 n.42 ‘ōmer (barley) offering narrative, 8, 45, 64, 125, 169 n.58 pairs, the, 53, 168 n.48. See also hillel; Shimon ben Shetah. passover sacrifice: in the hebrew bible, 175 n.11; Jesus as, 104–6, 183 n.32; in nonrabbinic texts, 175–76 n.11 passover sacrifice narrative, 75–79; 123; and entry and exit, 75–79, 174–75 n.9; and Jesus, 104–5; and motion toward the Temple, 175–76 n.11; and sacred space, 83–84; as Temple ritual narrative, 8. See also Last Supper patriarch, 53, 141 n.1; as title for certain rabbis, 25, 53, 141 n.1, 145–46 n.38, 168 n.50; official capacity, 18, 24. See also Gamliel, Rabban; yehudah the Naśi, Rabbi paul, 28, 148 n.52, 183 n.32; in Acts, 104–6, 184 n.37 people of the town, 31–33. See also Tiberias pharisees, 28, 147 n.48, 155 n.67; not rab-

229

binic predecessors, 54, 163–64 n.16, 166 n.36, 168 n.48, 168–69 n.55; in relation to Jesus, 109–10, 159–60 n.90 pilgrimage, 4–6, 133 n.2, 178 n.1. See also first fruits prayer in the Temple, 104 prayer of Rabbi N˘ehuniāh . ben hak. kāneh, . 75 priests, 1, 33–34, 156–57 nn.77–80; and the Court, 44–46; in Dura Europos painting, 96–97; in Ezekiel, 87; rabbis displacing, 52, 71, 87–89; trial and disqualification, 88, 161 n.3, 177 n.26 prince, Gerald, 9, 137 nn.30–33 prophets, the, 54, 166 n.31, 168 n.54 rabbinic rulings, evidence that followed, 143 n.13, 156 n.71. See also case stories; jurists rabbis, the: as authentic purveyors of tradition, 3, 37, 84, 91, 121; lack of power, 3, 19–20, 177 n.19, 134–35 n.12, 143 n.13 (see also Judaean society, all Judaeans under rabbinic authority); as members of courts, 25–26, 142 n.7, 145–46 nn.37–42, 170 n.61; role claimed in society, 17–27 (see also under jurists); teaching disciples, 21–23, 144 n.24 rebuilding Temple: by Antichrist, 108; by herod, 179 n.1. See also Temple, hope for rebuilding red heifer narrative, 125–26; and Court authority, 41–45, 164 n.20 red heifer ritual: in 4QMMT, 46, 163–64 n.16; in the Mishnah (see red heifer narrative); and sectarianism, 46–47 Reed, Annette, 32, 109, 148 n.51, 149 n.53, 156 n.76 responsa. See case stories; jurists ritual: function of, 48–50, 75; and violence, 48–50 ritual actions: bowing, 78; turning, 78 ritual failure, 47–50, 67, 121, 165–66 n.24– 31 ritual immersion, 43–46, 66, 109–10, 161 nn. 8, 10, 186 n.53 ritual law, 14, 17–27, 37, 56, 73, 119–20, 127–30, 144–46 passim ritual practice: Christian (or Jesus-believing community), 35, 102, 104–5, 109–10; non-Temple, 138 n.36; pagan, 30, 95, 152–

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

230

8/17/12

1:09 PM

Page 230

In d e x

53 nn.61–62, 160 n.92; post-destruction, 1, 45, 133 n.4, 157 n.78. See also agricultural ritual; authority over ritual; rabbis, the, as authentic purveyors of tradition; Temple ritual; Temple rituals Roman domination, 3–4, 17–18, 24, 35–37, 114–15, 120–22, 132 n.2 Roman emperors, 24, 30, 96–97, 111–15, 119; Antoninus pius, 152 n.59; Arcadius, 18, 24; Commodus, 149 n.55; Domitian, 112–14, 186–87 n.64, 187 n.75; honorius, 18; Nerva, 113–15; Trajan, 114–15, 160 n.92, 180 n.14; Vespasian, 111–15. See also hadrian; Titus Roman ethnic group. See gentiles (Romans) Roman legal institutions, 3, 23–24, 141 nn.1–4. See also under jurists Roman local administration, 17–18, 23, 119 Roman material culture: roads, building, 132 n.2 Roman military, 1, 92–93, 112–15, 119, 132–33 n.2, 133 n.4 Rosen-Zvi, Ishay, 123, 133–34 nn.6–8, 135 n.12, 136–37 nn.25–28, 137 n.36, 140 n.47, 161 n.4, 162–63 nn.13–14, 166 n.36, 170 n.1, 171 nn.7–8 Sabbath: ritual, 31–32, 80–81, 127–28, 130; Temple ritual on, 49, 77, 82, 172 n.17 sacred law. See ritual law sacred space, 15; construction of, and social hierarchy, 84, 174 n.5; created by intellection, 74; and ritual action, 73–80 sacrificial offerings, disputed, 156 n.76. See also Day of Atonement ritual; first fruits; passover sacrifice; Temple rituals Sadducees, 28, 44–46, 147 n.48, 161 n.10, 164 n.19, 168–69 n.55, 189 n.5. See also sectarianism Samaritans, 132 n.2, 153 n.64, 156 n.74, 164 n.19; ethnic group, 28, 30–35, 154 nn.64– 66; as sectarians, 46 Sanhedrin, 51–52, 160–61 nn.1–2, 167 n.41. See also councils; Court, the Schieffelin, Edward, 48 Schwartz, Barry 11, 139 n.42 Schwartz, Seth, 17, 134–35 n.12, 141 nn.1– 2, 145 nn.33–37, 151–58, 167 n.44, 178 n.1, 188 n.3

second revolt. See Bar Kokhba revolt sectarians, 45–47, 83, 161–62 n.10, 165 n.17; and the Dead Sea Scrolls, 164 n.19 (see also red heifer ritual, in 4QMMT); after the destruction, 46. See also Boethusians; Sadducees Sepphoris, 29–33, 150–52 nn.57–61, 155 n.68, 159 n.83. See also Galilee Sherira Gaon, 122 Shimon ben Kosiba, 95–97; as emperor, 96– 97. See also Bar Kokhba revolt Shimon ben Shetah, . 53–54, 172 n.15 Simon-Shoshan, Moshe: on case stories, 127, 134 n.11, 136 n.26, 142 n.9, 142–43 nn.11–13; on Mishnah as discourse, 140 n.47, 147 n.45; on Mishnah as narrative, 8–9, 137 n.28, 138 n.37, 168 n.46; on Mishnah Shabbat 3:4, 32, 156 n.71; on narrative presentation of law, 36, 136 n.25; on rulings in biblical narratives, 159 n.90 Smith, Jonathan Z., 74, 84, 134 n.10, 173 n.2, 174 n.5 sō.tāh (accused adulteress) narrative, 124, 163 n.14; and Court authority, 45 sō.tāh (accused adulteress) ritual, 78, 133 n.7, 137 n.27, 162–63 n.13; enacted by Shemaiah and ’Avtalyon, 53 source criticism, 68, 136 n.22 stepped pools, 29, 150 n.57, stone (chalk/limestone) vessels, 29, 150 n.57, 155–56 n.69 Sukkot (Tabernacles) ritual, 133 n.7;’etrōg, 98, 99–100, 180 n.14; lulāv (ritual palm branch), 45, 49, 98, 99–100, 124, 162 n. 13, 166 n.32, 180 n.14; sukkah, 176 n.12. See also water-drawing place synagogue: at Dura Europos, 96–101, 180 n.14, 181 n.18–19, 181–82 nn.24–25; inscriptions, 156 n.78; as institution, 34–35, 158 n.82; and (lack of ) rabbinic authority over, 34–35, 135 n.14, 159 nn.83–84; remains, 97–101, 157–58 n.81. See also archaeology synagogue head (rōsh hakken˘eset; archisynagogos), 34, 158 n.82 Syria palaestina, 14, 34, 36; believers in Jesus living in, 149 n.55; complexity of society, 27–32, 35, 39, 74, 116–17, 121; Judaean society within, 1, 4, 27, 135 n.13

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:09 PM

Page 231

Index Tabernacles. See Sukkot (Tabernacles) ritual ta.kk. ānōt (emendations/enactments), 52, 54– 55, 165–66 n.31, 170 n.2 tāmid (daily) sacrifice: aspects of, 10, 64, 137 n.35, 162 n.12; on the Day of Atonement, 66; function of, 48 tāmid (daily) sacrifice narrative, 125, 137 n.28, 173 n.31; entry and exit in, 78; as Temple ritual narrative, 8–9 Temple: centrality of for rabbis, 1–4; devotion to, 1, 93; imperial support, 111, 186 n.57; and Judaean identity, 92–107, 116, 178 n.1. See also destruction of the Temple; Temple, hope for rebuilding Temple, heavenly, 106, 184 n.40 Temple, hope for rebuilding, 187 n.76; in 4 Ezra, 4 Baruch, and 2 Baruch, 94–95; in Josephus, 93–94; in the Mishnah, 2, 121, 134 n.48 Temple courtyard: in Ezekiel, 85–86; in the first-fruits narrative, 5, 79, 174 n.8; in Middot, 87; in the passover sacrifice narrative, 76–78, 85; purification of, 124; in the water-drawing place narrative, 59–60 Temple dedications (in the hebrew Bible), 178 n.1 Temple discourse, 12–13, 121; in 4 Ezra, 4 Baruch, and 2 Baruch, 94–95; among Christian authors, 107–11; and authority claims for Judaean leaders, 92, 95–97; and authority claims for non-Judaean rulers, 111–15; competing, 13–14, 91–117; and the Dura Europos Synagogue, 97–101; in the Gospels, 101–6; in hebrews, 107; in Josephus, 92–93; among Judaeans, 92–107; in Revelation, 107; and Roman emperors, 111–15; in second Temple sources, 178–79 n.1; of Shimon ben Kosiba, 95–97 Temple facade, 96–101; comparison of images, 100–101 Temple Mount: in the Mishnah, 5, 10, 43, 49, 77–78, 83, 86–87; in other ancient sources, 108, 133 n.2; in the work of yaron Eliav, 95, 133 n.2, 139–40 n.42, 174 nn.7– 8, 178 n.1 Temple ritual: rabbinic invention in describing, 2, 50–52, 133 n.7 Temple ritual narrative: as genre, 4–11, 41, 57–58, 64, 75, 78–79, 136 nn.26–27, 137–

231

38 nn.34–36; as narrative, 3, 8–9, 14, 57– 67, 137 nn.28–34; truth claims of, 57–65, 171 n.7; verb and tense usage in (see verb use). See also iterative narrative; narrative Temple rituals: clearing the ashes, 47–48, 64; opposition to animal sacrifice, 109; preparation for ritual, 44. See also daily offering (tāmid); Day of Atonement ritual; first fruits; passover sacrifice; red heifer ritual; ritual immersion; Sukkot (Tabernacles) ritual; trumpets Temple warning, 81, 176–77 n.17 tenses. See verb usage Tiberias, 29–33, 151–52 nn.58–61, 155 n.68. See also Galilee; Sepphoris Titus, 93, 112–15. See also arch of Titus Torah shrine. See ark tour of the Temple (in Ezekiel and Middot). See map of the Temple town square, 135 n.14, 163 n.14 traditional way of life. See ritual practice Tropper, Amram, 36, 144 nn. 21, 23, 145 n.31, 159 n.87, 168 n.47, 169 n.55 trumpets, 10, 59–60, 64, 67, 76, 83, 159 n.83, 170 n.6 Twelve Tables, 23, 144 n.26 verb usage, 6–8, 135–36 nn.21–24; iterative past, 6–7, 61–62, 171 n.13 (see also iterative narrative); participles, 6–8, 62, 135 n.21, 171 n.13, 188 n.2; past tense, 62, 70–71; perfect, 7, 62, 135–36 n.21, 171 n.13 verisimilitude, 15, 57–60, 80, 170–71 n.6 voting on law, 26, 144 n.25 war of 66–70 CE, 1, 92–94, 111–13 water-drawing place, 58–64, 67, 78, 124, 170 n.6 women. See under Judaean yavneh, 25, 54 yehudah the Naśi, Rabbi, 25, 55, 121, 141 n.1, 145 n.38, 154 n.64, 170 nn.59–61 yo.hanan ben Zakkai, 34, 47, 54, 144 n.24, 157 n.80, 165 n.21, 166 n.31, 169–70 nn.55–60 Zeitlin, Solomon, 51, 166 n.33, 183 n.32

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

232

1:09 PM

Page 232

In d e x

Ancient Sources

Mishnah

Hebrew Bible, Apocrypha, and New Testament subentries arranged in standard order; Mishnah and Tosefta and all other subentries arranged alphabetically

‘Avodah Zarah: 1:4, 128; 2:5, 144 n.24; 2:6, 26; 3:4, 151 n.58; 3:7, 128; 4:10, 128; 4:12, 128, 151 n.58; 5:2, 22, 128, 142 n.11, 143 n.20 ’Avot: 1:1, 168 n.54, 170 n.60; 1:4, 53; 1:8, 53; 1:10–11, 53; 1:12–15, 53; 1–2, 53; 2:8, 53, 144 n.24; 3:10, 154 n.67, 158 n.82 ‘Arakhin: 3:1–5, 138 n.36; 4:1–4, 138 n.36; 5:1, 130; 8:1, 130; 9:4, 169 n.58 Bava Batra: 6:7, 151 n.58; 9:7, 130; 10:8, 130, 142 n.11 Bava Kamma: . 1:4–2:2, 138 n.36; 8:6, 18–19, 130, 143 nn. 13, 18 Bava Metsi‘a: 4:3, 130, 143 n.13; 6:5, 151 n.58; 7:1, 130, 143 n.19; 8:8, 130, 142 n.11, 143 n.18, 151 n.58 Bekhorot: 3:1, 144 n.24; 4:4, 128, 142 n.11, 143 nn. 13, 18, 146 n.42; 5:3, 128, 142 n.11, 143 n.13; 6:6, 129; 6:9, 129; 9:7, 125, 138 n.36 Berakhot: 1:1, 130; 1:3, 130; 4:2, 75; 6:1, 138 n.36; 7:1, 153 n.64; 7:3, 138 n.36, 158 n.82; 8:8, 153 n.64; 9:4, 174 n.6; 9:5, 169 n.58 Betsah (= Yom Tov): . 3:2, 128; 3:5, 128, 143 nn. 18, 20 Bikkurim: 1:4, 158 n.82; 2:3, 157 n.78; 2:8– 11, 138 n.36; 3:1, 137 n.36; 3:2, 6–7, 137 n.35, 162 n.12, 170 n.5; 3:2–3, 175 n.9; 3:2–8, 4–7, 123; 3:3, 7, 135 n.20, 174 n.9; 3:4, 174 n.9; 3:6, 7, 67, 78–80, 174 n.9; 3:7, 65, 165 nn.24, 31, 169 n.58; 3:9, 135 n.20; 4:2–5, 138 n.36 Demai: 3:4, 153 n.64; 5:9, 153 n.64; 6:1, 153 n.64; 6:9, 154 n.67; 6:12, 154 n.67; 7:4, 153 n.64 ‘Eruvin: 1:2, 144 n.24; 2:3, 155 n.68; 3:4, 162 n.11; 4:2, 130, 143 n.18, 143 n.20; 8:7, 128; 10:10, 128, 143 n.13, 151 n.58, 162 n.11 ‘Eduyyot: 2:1, 172 n.19; 2:3, 130, 142 n.11, 143 n.18; 2:5, 144 n.24; 3:2, 146 n.42; 5:6, 53; 7:3, 129, 142 n.11; 7:4, 142 n.11; 7:7, 147 n.45; 8:3, 157 n.80; 8:7, 170 n.60 Gi.tt. in: 1:5, 30–31, 142 n.11, 129, 132 n.2, 153 n.63; 3:4, 144 n.24; 4:2, 169 n.58;

hebrew Bible Exodus: 12:6, 76; 12:22, 175 n.11; 24:9, 162 n.11; 25:16, 181 n.24; 25:21, 181 n.24; 25:22, 177 n.25; 25:40, 185 n.40; 26:33, 70 Leviticus: 16:1–34, 79, 175 n.10; 16:11, 69; 23:40, 165 n.29 Numbers: 7:89, 177 n.25; 19, 44 Deuteronomy: 16:1–8, 175 n.11; 16:7, 176 n.11; 21:1–9, 163 n.14; 21:2, 162 n.11; 25:8, 162 n.11; 26:3, 6; 26:5, 6; 26:10, 79; 26:11, 6 2 Samuel: 6, 170–71 n.6 1 Kings: 8, 178 n.1; 8:9, 181 n.24 2 Kings: 23, 178 n.1 Isaiah: 6:3, 106 Jeremiah: 31:6, 5, 7 Ezekiel, 79, 84–87, 175 n.10, 183 n. 34; 1–7, 86; 8:16, 170 n.5; 40–43, 73, 85; 40:5–27, 85; 40:17–18, 85; 40:28–37, 85; 40:38– 46, 85; 40:48–49, 85; 41:1–2, 85; 41:3–4, 85; 41:5–15, 85; 41:16–26, 86; 42:1–14, 86; 42:15–20, 86; 43:1–7ff, 86; 43:6, 86; 43:7, 86; 45:21–24, 175 n.11; 46, 180 n.16 psalms, 59; 30:1, 6; 113–18, 77 Ezra: 1:1–4, 186 n.57; 1:8, 181 n.16; 3–6, 178 n.1; 5:13–17, 186 n.57; 6:1–12, 186 n.57; 6:19–21, 175 n.11 Nehemiah: 12:27, 170 n.4 1 Chronicles: 64; 13:8, 64, 170 n.4; 15:28, 170 n.4; 16:5–6, 170 n.4; 25:1, 170 n.4 2 Chronicles: 64; 5:12, 170 n.4; 20:28, 170 n.4; 29:5–7, 170 n. 4; 30:1, 176 n. 11; 30:1–27, 175 n.11; 30:11, 175–6 n.11; 30:13, 176 n.11; 35:1–19, 175 n.11; 36:23, 186 n.57

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:09 PM

Page 233

Index 4:3, 169 n.58; 5:6, 26; 5:8, 157 n.78; 5:9, 154 n.67 6:6, 129; 7:5, 129; 7:7, 132 n.2 Hagigah: . 2:2, 53, 168 n.51; 3:7–8, 124 Hallah: . 4:7, 130 Horayot, 168 Hullin: . 2:9, 155 n.67; 10:1, 157 n.78 Kelim: 1:6–9, 177 n.26; 5:4, 129, 142 n.11 Keritot: 1:7, 129, 143 n.13, 146 n.42; 3:7–9, 144 n.24; 3:10, 144 n.24 Ketubbot: 1:5, 157 n.79; 1:10, 129; 3:1, 153 n.64; 7:10, 129–30; 9:7–8, 138 n.36 Kil’ayim: 4:9, 19, 127, 142 n.11, 143 n.18; 6:4, 127, 143 nn. 18, 20, 144 n.24; 7:5, 127, 142 n.11, 143 n.18 Kiddushin: . 2:7, 129; 4:3, 153 n.64; 4:5, 151 n.58 Kinnim: . 1:3–4, 138 n.37; 3:6, 154 n.67 Ma‘aśer Sheni: 5:2, 123, 165 n.31, 169 n.58; 5:4, 123, 137 n.36; 5:6, 123, 138 n.36; 5:9, 162 n.11; 5:10, 123, 138 n.36 Makhshirin: 1:6, 129; 3:4, 129, 143 n.13, 147 n.45, 155 n.68 Makkot: 3:12, 158 n.82; 3:12–14, 124, 136 n.27 Megillah: 3:1–3, 158 n.82; 4:5, 157 n.78; 4:8–9, 155 n.67 Mena.hot: 1:3–4, 138 n.36; 5:6, 124, 138 n.36; 8:2, 125, 138 n.36; 8:4, 125; 8:6–7, 125; 8:7, 138 n.36; 9:1–5, 125; 10:2–3, 164 n.20; 10:2–4 (10:1–5), 125, 136 n.27; 10:3, 138 n.36, 163 n.15, 164 nn.19–20, 175 n.9; 10:3–5, 45, 64; 10:5, 166 n.31, 169 n.58; 10:8, 155 n.68; 11:5–7, 125 Middot, 15, 73, 84–88, 174 n.7, 177 nn. 24, 26, 188 n.1; 1, 86; 1:2, 125, 171 n.15; 1:6, 186 n.53; 1:8–9, 125; 1:9, 186 n.53; 2, 86; 2:2, 78, 125; 2:4, 125; 2:5, 125; 2:6, 125; 3:1–6, 86; 3:4, 125; 3:5, 125; 3:7, 86; 3:8, 86, 125; 4:2, 125, 174–75 n.9; 4:5, 86, 125; 4:7, 125; 5:1–2, 87; 5:3, 125; 5:4, 45, 85, 87–88, 125, 161 n.3, 166 n.36, 174 n.9, 177–78 n.26 Mi.kwa’ot: 4:1, 144 n.25; 7:1, 129, 143 n.13 Nazir: 2:3, 21, 128; 3:6, 128, 143 n.13; 5:4, 128, 142 n.11; 6:1, 129; 6:6, 138 n.36; 6:6–9, 124; 6:7, 138 n.36; 7:4, 144 n.24 Nedarim: 2:2–3, 138 n.36; 3:1–4, 138 n.36; 3:10, 156 n.74; 5:5, 158 n.82; 5:6, 128,

233

142 n.11, 143 n.18; 6:6, 128; 9:2, 158 n.82; 9:5, 128, 142 n.11, 143 nn.13, 18, 145 n.45; 9:8, 128; 9:10, 27, 128, 143 n.13 Nega‘im: 1:4–6, 138 n.36; 5:4–5, 138 n.36; 7:2, 138 n.36; 7:4, 144 n.24; 9:3, 144 n.24; 11:7, 143 nn.20, 144 n.24; 12:5–7, 125; 13:12, 158 n.82; 14:1, 138 n.36; 14:1–10, 125; 14:2, 174 n.9; 14:8, 174 n.9; 14:10, 174 n.9; 14:13, 129, 143 n.18, 143 n.20 Niddah: 4:1, 153 n.64; 7:3, 153 n.64; 8:3, 26–27, 129, 143 nn.13, 18, 144 n.24, 147 n.45 ’Ohalot: 1:1–3, 138 n.36; 17:3, 153 n.64; 18:9, 26, 144 n.25 ‘Orlah: 2:1–7, 138 n.36; 2:12, 144 n.24 Parah: 3:1, 43; 3:1–11, 41, 45, 125; 3:2, 175 n.9; 3:3, 116, 155 n.67, 174–75 n.9; 3:6, 175 n.9; 3:7–8, 177 n.20; 3:8, 44–45, 161 n.8 Pe’ah: 2:6, 53, 127, 143 n.18, 143 n.20, 170 n.60 Pesa.him, 176 n.12; 1:6, 172 n.19; 4:4, 158 n.82; 4:8, 155 n.68; 5:2, 172 n.19; 5:5, 10, 174 n.9; 5:5–10, 75–78, 123, 136 n.27, 174 n.9; 5:7, 174 n.9; 5:8, 82; 5:9, 137–38 n.36; 5:10, 174: n.9; 6:2, 144 n.24; 10:1– 7, 123 Rosh Hashanah: 1:6, 147 n.45; 1:7, 34, 130, 147 n.45, 157 n.79; 2:1, 155 n.67, 165 n.31, 169 n.58; 2:1–2, 164 n.20; 2:2, 165 n.31, 169 n.58; 2:2–4, 124, 163 n.14; 2:3– 4, 175 n.9; 2:5, 165–66 n.31, 169 n.58; 2:5–7, 45, 124; 2:6, 138 n.36; 2:8, 130; 2:8–9, 25, 130, 147 n.45; 2:9, 25, 54, 162 n.11, 170 n.60; 3:7, 158 n.82; 4:1, 169 n.58; 4:4, 169 n.58 Sanhedrin: 1:3, 162 n.11; 2:1, 137 n.35; 3:6, 136 n.27, 138 n.36, 144 n.25, 174 n.9; 3:6–7, 124, 161 n.3, 175 n.9; 3:7, 174 n.9; 3:7–8, 136 n.27; 4:3–5:5, 136 n.27, 144 n.25; 4:3–7:3, 40, 124, 162 n.13; 4:4, 162 n.13; 4:5, 174 n.9; 5:4, 174 n.9; 5:5, 174 n.9; 6:1–4, 175 n.9; 6:1–7:4, 136 n.27, 166 n.36; 6:4, 53, 172 n.15; 7:5, 124, 136 n.27, 161 n.3, 175 n.9; 11:2, 136 n.27, 174–75 n.9; 11:2–4, 124, 161 n.3 Shabbat: 1:4, 130, 144 n.25; 3:4, 31–32, 127, 146 n.45, 151 n.58, 155 n.68; 16:7,

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

234

8/17/12

1:09 PM

Page 234

In d e x

127, 142 n.11, 143 n.13; 16:8, 162 n.11; 22:3, 128; 142 n.11, 143 n.13 She.kalim: 1:2, 154 n.67, 169 n.58; 1:4, 144 n.24; 1:5, 156 n.74; 3:2, 174 n.9; 3:3, 174 n.9; 3:2–4, 123; 5:3–5, 123; 5:4, 137 n.35; 7:5, 169 n.58; 7:6, 169 n.58; 8:8, 157 n.78 Shevi‘it: 1:1, 169–70 n.59; 4:1, 154 n.67, 169 n.58; 5:9, 154 n.67; 8:9–10, 144 n.24; 8:10, 153 n.64; 9:1, 154 n.67; 10:3, 169 n.58 Shevu‘ot: 4:10, 158 n.82; 7:1–5, 138 n.36 So.t ah: 1:1–3, 138 n.36; 1:2, 138 n.36; 1:3, 138 n.36; 1:3–4, 166 n.36; 1:3–3:5, 45, 53, 137 n.27, 166 n.36; 2:2, 78, 174 n.9; 3:4, 174 n.9; 7:1–8, 138 n.36; 7:5, 124, 138 n.36; 7:6, 124, 136 n.36; 7:7, 124, 138 n.36, 158 n.82; 7:8, 10, 82, 124, 138 n.36, 158 n.82; 9:1, 162 n.11; 9:1–9, 45, 124; 9:5, 175 n.9 Sukkah, 176 n.12; 2:1, 162 n.11; 3:12, 169 n.58; 3:13, 158 n.82; 4:1–5:4, 138 n.36; 4:4, 45, 49–50, 124, 133 n.7, 138 n.36, 162 n.11, 165–66 nn.31–32, 169 n.58, 174 n.9; 4:5, 10, 138 n.36, 175 n.9; 4:5–6, 124, 133 n.7; 4:6, 158 n.82; 4:9, 10, 138 n.36, 162 n.12, 165 n.28, 166 n.31, 174 n.7, 177 n.20; 4:9–10, 124, 133 n.7; 4:11– 12, 158 n.82; 5:1, 172 n.19; 5:1–4, 58–64, 133 n.7; 5:2, 170 n.2, 175 n.9; 5:4, 10, 64, 67, 78, 174–75 n.9 Ta‘anit: 1:5–6, 163 n.14; 2:1, 138 n.36, 168 n.51, 174 n.9; 2:1–5, 45, 135 n.14, 124, 163 n.14; 2:5, 10, 128, 142 n.11, 143 nn.13, 18, 159 n.83, 163 n.14; 3:6, 162 n.11, 163 n.14; 3:8, 53; 3:9, 27, 128, 143 n.13, 147 n.45; 4:2, 166 n.31, 169 n.58; 4:2–4, 124; 4:3, 174 n.9; 4:8, 124, 134 n.8 Tamid: 1:1, 175 n.9, 186 n.53; 1:1–7:3, 9, 78, 125, 136 n.27, 173 n.31; 1:2, 137 n.35, 174 n.9; 1:3, 174 n.9; 1:4, 162 n.12, 174 n.9; 2:1, 186 n.53; 2:2, 64, 172 n.19 , 174 n.9; 2:5, 174 n.9; 2:5, 175 n.9; 3:1–2, 137 n.35, 162 n.12; 3:2–3, 175 n.9; 3:3, 162 n.12; 3:4, 174–75 n.9; 3:7, 174 n.9; 3:9, 174–75 n.9; 4:3, 174 n.9; 5:1, 137 n.35, 162 n.12; 5:2, 162 n.12; 5:6, 174 n.9; 6:1, 78, 174–75 n.9; 6:2, 78, 175 n.9; 6:3, 78, 137 n.35, 162 n.12, 175 n.9; 7:1, 78, 137 n.35, 174–75 n.9; 7:2, 174 n.9; 7:3, 10,

134 n.8, 174 n.9 Terumot: 3:9, 153 n.64; 4:13, 21, 127, 142 n.11, 144 n.24; 11:10, 158 n.82 Teharot: . 4:9–10, 138 n.36; 7:1, 154 n.67; 7:2, 154 n.67; 7:4, 154 n.67; 7:5, 154 n.67; 8:1, 154 n.67; 8:2, 154 n.67; 8:5, 154 n.67 Yadayim: 2:3–4, 138 n.36; 3:1, 27, 129, 143 n.18; 4:1, 144 n.25; 4:3, 162 n.11, 170 n.60; 4:3–4, 144 n.25; 4:4, 129, 144 n.24; 4:6, 169 n.55 4:6–7, 168 n.55 Yevamot: 1:1–2, 138 n.36; 5:1–6, 138 n.36; 7:5–6, 138 n.36; 12:5, 129, 142 n.11; 12:6, 27, 130, 146 n.42, 162 n.11; 15:3, 144 n.24; 16:4, 130, 143 n.18, 146–47 n.45; 16:6, 130; 16:7, 144 n.24, 147 n.45 Yoma (= Kippurim): 1:1, 41, 68–69, 71, 173 n.31; 1:1–7:4, 41, 66–67, 123, 133 n.7, 136 n.27; 1:3–5, 42–45, 164 n.20, 166 n.36, 177 n.20; 1:5, 163 n.15; 1:7, 162 n.12; 2:1, 137 n.35, 162 n.12; 2:1–2, 47– 49, 64–65, 165–66 n.31; 2:2, 169 n.58; 2:3, 173 n.31; 2:4, 162 n.12; 3:1, 137 n.35, 162 n.12; 3:2, 166 n.31; 3:3–4, 174 n.9, 186 n.53; 3:6, 186 n.53; 3:7, 173 n.31; 4:1, 62–63, 69, 71, 173 n.31; 4:4, 173 n.31; 4:5, 173 n.31, 175 n.9; 4:6, 173 n.31; 5:1, 69–71, 173 n.31, 174–75 n.9; 5:3, 174 n.9; 5:4, 173 n.31, 174 n.9; 5:5, 173 n.31, 174–75 n.9; 5:7, 66–67, 173 n.31; 6:1, 173 n.31; 6:3, 173 n.31; 6:4–5, 175 n.9; 6:6, 173 n.31; 6:7, 173 n.31; 6:8, 70–71, 173 n.31; 7:1, 158 n.82, 174 n.9; 7:3, 173 n.31, 174 n.9; 7:4, 172 n.23, 174 n.9, 186 n.53 Zeva.him: 2:3–4, 138 n.36; 5:3, 124, 138 n.36, 174 n.7, 174 n.9; 6:4, 124, 138 n.36; 6:4–7, 138 n.36; 6:5, 124, 138 n.36, 174 n.7, 174 n.9

Tosefta Paragraphs given only for tractates found in the Lieberman edition ‘Avodah Zarah: 4, 146 n.42, 152 n.28 . 8:18, 151 n.58; 11:3, 158 n.82 Bava Kamma:

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:09 PM

Page 235

Index Bava Metsi‘a: 2:33, 155 n.67; 11:23, 158 n.82 Bekhorot: 3, 146 n.42; 7, 132 n.2, 151 n.58 Berakhot: 2:4, 158 n.82; 2:6, 146 n.39; 3:25, 155 n.67 Bikkurim: 2:8, 158 n.82 Demai: 2:17, 154 n.67; 2:18–19, 154 n.67; 3:8, 154 n.67 ‘Eruvin: 4:11, 151 n.58; 5:1, 155 n.68; 5:2, 151 n.58; 6:26, 151 n.58 Gi.tt. in : 5:7, 132 n.2 Hagigah: . 2:13, 155 n.68; 3:35, 168–69 n.55 Hullin: . 1, 155 n.67; 2, 149 n.55, 155 n.67; 3, 151 n.58 Kelim, Bava Batra: 2, 151 n.58 Ketubbot: 1:2, 169 n.58; 4:7, 146 n.42; 5:7, 170 n.59; 5:10, 151–52 n.58; 8:1, 144 n.25; 12:1, 169 n.59 Kil’ayim: 1:4, 151 n.58; 4:1, 170 n.59 Ma‘aśerot: 2:1, 155 n.68; 2:20, 158 n.82 Makhshirin: 3, 151 n.58. 155 n.68 Megillah: 2:3, 158 n.82; 2:4, 151 n.58; 2:5, 158 n.82; 2:12, 158 n.82; 2:14, 158 n.82; 2:16–18, 158 n.82; 3:12–13, 158 n.82; 3:21, 158 n.82; 3:21–22, 158 n.82 Me‘ilah: 1, 138 n.36; 3, 138 n.36 Mena.hot: 10, 169 n.58 Mi.kwa’ot: 7, 144 n.25 Mo‘ed Ka.tt. an: 2:15, 151 n.58 Nezirut (Nazir): 5:1, 146 n.42 Nega‘im: 6, 158 n.82; 7, 158 n.82 ’Ohalot (’Ahilut): 4, 158 n.82; 18,144 n.25, 146 n.42 Parah: 3, 47, 169 n.55, 177 n.20 Pesa.him (Pis.ha): 2:4, 154 n.67; 2:15, 152 n.58; 4:14, 53; 10:11, 158 n.82 Rosh Hashanah: 1:14, 170 n.59; 1:18, 168 n.54, 170 n.60; 2:7, 158 n.82; 2:9, 169 n.58 Sanhedrin: 2, 146 n.42; 6, 169 n.55; 7, 168 n.51; 8, 168 n.51; 13, 155 n.67 Shabbat: 3:3, 154 n.67; 12:13, 151 n.58; 13:2, 151 n.58; 13:5, 155 n.67; 15:8, 151 n.58; 16:15, 151 n.58; 16:20, 151 n.58; 16:22, 158 n.82 Shevi‘it: 1:1, 146 n.39; 3:9, 154 n.67; 4:1, 151 n.58; 4:13, 151 n.58; 4:21, 144 n.25; 6:27, 146 n.39 Shevu‘ot: 3, 151 n.58, 155 n.67

235

So.t ah: 3:16, 151 n.58, 155 n.68; 3:17, 151 n.58; 7:16, 82; 11:14, 168 n.54; 13:4, 170 n.59 Sukkah: 2:10, 158 n.82; 3:16, 47, 177 n.20; 4:1, 170 n.2; 4:5, 158 n.82; 4:11–12, 158 n.82 Ta‘anit (Ta‘aniyot): 1:13, 151 n.58, 158 n.82; 2:4, 158 n.82; 3:4, 158 n.82 Terumot: 1:10, 158 n.82; 2:13, 34–35, 158 n.82; 5:10, 146 n.42 Teharot: . 8, 158 n.82 Yadayim: 2, 168 n.55, 170 n.60 Yevamot: 14:7, 146 n.42 Yoma (= Kippurim): 1:4, 151 n.58; 1:8, 47, 177 n.20; 2:10, 155 n.67; 3:8, 158 n.82

Talmud Babylonian Talmud, Sukkah: 51b, 170 n.2 palestinian (Jerusalem) Talmud, Sukkah: 54d (4:8), 165 n.22; 55d (5:2), 170 n.2

Apocrypha Tobit, 178 n.1 Judith, 178 n.1 Ben Sira, 154 n.64; 50, 178 n.1 1 Maccabees, 178 n.1; 10:44, 186 n.57; 11:34, 186 n.57; 15:1–9, 186 n.57 2 Maccabees, 154 n.64, 178 n.1 1 Esdras: 1:1–22, 175 n.11

New Testament Matthew, 102, 148 n.51; 12:10, 159–60 n.90; 19:3, 159 n.90; 20:17–21:12, 182 n.27; 21:12, 175 n.10; 21:12–13, 182 n.27; 21:18–22, 182 n.27; 21:23, 175 n.10, 182 n.27; 21:23–23:39, 182 n.27; 23:38, 182 n.27; 24:1, 175 n.10; 24:2, 182 n.27; 26:17–30, 175 n.10, 182 n.27; 26:30, 175 n.10; 26:55,182 n.27; 26:57– 27:54, 182 n.27; 26:61, 182 n.27

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

236

8/17/12

1:09 PM

Page 236

In d e x

Mark, 102, 160 n.90; 10:2, 159–60 n.90; 10:32–11:11, 182 n.27; 11:11, 175 n.10; 11:15, 175 n.10, 182 n.27; 11:15–19, 182 n.27; 11:27, 175 n.10, 182 n.27; 11:27– 12:34, 182 n.27; 12:35–44, 182 n.27; 13:1, 175 n.10; 13:2, 182 n.27; 14:12, 175 n.10; 14:12– 26, 175 n.10, 182 n.27; 14:13, 175 n.10; 14:14, 175 n.10; 14:26, 175 n.10; 14:53–55, 161 n.2; 14:53– 15:39, 182 n.27; 14:58, 182 n.27; 15:29– 30, 182 n.27 Luke, 102, 105, 107, 183 n.28, 184 n.37; 1:5–23, 105; 1:10, 105; 2:21–51, 105; 2:22, 182 n.27; 2:41–42, 182 n.27; 13:35, 182 n.27; 18:31–19:45, 182 n.27; 19:41– 44, 104, 182 n.27; 19:45, 104, 175 n.10, 182 n.27; 19:46, 105; 19:47–20:47 182 n.27; 19:47–21:38, 182 n.27; 21:6, 182 n.27; 21:37, 175 n.10; 22:2, 182 n.27; 22:7–39, 175 n.10, 182 n.27; 22:10, 175 n.10; 22:39, 175 n.10; 22:54–23:47, 182 n.27; 22:66, 161 n.2; 24:53, 104–5 John, 102, 104–6; 1:14, 183–84 n.34; 1:29, 183 n.32; 1:36, 183 n.32; 2:13, 182 n.27; 2:13–3:21, 183 n.31; 2:14–21, 182 n.27; 2:19–21, 183 n.32; 4:21, 182 n.27; 5:1, 182 n.27; 5:1–47, 183 n.31; 5:10, 182 n.27; 5:14, 182 n.27; 7:14, 182 n.27; 7:14–8:1, 183 n.31; 7:14–8:59, 182 n.27; 7:25–32, 182 n.27; 7:45, 182 n.27; 8:2, 182 n.27; 8:2–59, 183 n.31; 8:6–20, 182 n.27; 10:22–39, 183 n.31; 11:55, 175–76 n.11; 12:12–17:26, 183 n.31; 13:1, 182 n.27; 13:1–17, 110; 13:1–30, 175 n.10; 13:30, 175 n.10; 18:12–19:38, 182 n.27; 18:20, 182 n.27; 19:14–18, 183 n.32; 19:34, 183 n.34 Acts, 28, 51, 105, 108, 176 n.17, 178 n.1, 184 n.37; 1–3, 148 n.50; 2–7, 105; 3:1, 104–5; 3:8, 175 n.10; 4:21–26, 104–5; 5:21, 175 n.10; 6:8–7:60, 184 n.37; 8:1, 105; 10:45, 147 n.47; 11:1, 147 n.47; 11:2, 147 n.47; 11:19, 147 n.47; 11:20, 147 n.47; 14:1, 147 n.47; 14:27, 147 n.47; 15:6–29, 148 n.50; 19:21–26:32, 105; 21, 148 n.50; 21:24–27, 105; 21:26, 175 n.10; 22:3, 105; 22:5, 161 n.2; 22:17, 104–5; 24:12–18, 105; 28:17, 105–6 Romans: 3:25, 183 n.32; 15:19, 148 n.50;

15:25–27, 148 n.50 1 Corinthians: 3:16, 183 n.32; 5:7, 183 n.32; 6:19, 183 n.32; 11:16, 148 n.50; 14:34, 148 n.50 2 Corinthians: 6:16, 183 n.32 Galatians: 2:1–3:14, 148 n.50 1 essalonians: 2:14, 148 n.50 2 essalonians: 2:3–4, 108 hebrews, 102, 106–8, 110, 184–85 nn.40– 41, 185 n.52; 5:3, 107; 6–10, 107; 7:27, 107; 8:5, 185 n.40; 9:1, 106; 9:2–22, 107; 9:12, 107; 10:1, 107; 10:11, 107; 10:19– 20, 107; 10:22, 107; 12:22–24, 107 Revelation, 102, 108, 110, 184 nn.38–39; 4:8, 106; 4:10, 106; 5:8, 106; 5:11–13, 106; 7:9, 106; 7:11, 106; 7:14, 106; 21:22, 106

Additional Judaean Authors and Texts 1 Enoch, 184 n.40 2 Baruch, 94–95; 4:1–3, 179 n.8; 6:1–8:2, 179 n.8; 6:7–8, 179 n.8; 31:5, 179 n.8; 35:1–4, 179 n.8; 59:4, 179 n.8 4 Baruch (Paraleipomena Jeremiou), 94–95; 2:10, 179 n.8; 3:7–14, 179 n.8; 5, 180 n.8; 6, 180 n.8 4 Ezra, 94–95, 179 n.8, 184 n.40 4QMMT, 46, 163–64 n.16, 178 n.1 Josephus, Against Apion: 1.187, 178 n.1; 1.197–99, 178 n.1; 2.102–9, 179 n.4; 2.193–98, 179 n.4; 2.194, 93; 2.77, 186 n.57 Josephus, Antiquities: 3.194–96, 178 n.1; 3.224–73, 179 n.6; 3.248, 175 n.11; 9.263, 175–76 n.11, 178 n.1; 9.267–72, 175 n.11; 10.70, 176 n.11, 178 n.1; 10.70–72, 175 n.11; 11.109, 176 n.11, 178 n.1; 11.109–11, 175 n.11; 12.7, 186 n.57; 12.137–46, 186 n.57; 13.257–258, 177 n.18; 14.110–113, 178 n.1; 16.28, 178 n.1; 16.45, 178 n.1; 16.160–72, 178 n.1; 17.213–14, 175 n.11; 17.213–17, 178 n.1; 17.214, 176 n.11; 18:312–13, 178 n.1; 20:105 ff, 186 n.57; 20.106, 175–76 n.11, 178 n.1; 20:216–18, 52

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:09 PM

Page 237

Index Josephus, e Judaean War, 132 n.2; 1.169– 70, 151 n. 58; 2.10, 176 n.11, 178 n.1; 2.10–13, 175 n.11; 2.223–93, 186 n.57; 2.224, 175–76 n.11, 178 n.1; 2.409, 92, 156 n.77, 186 n.57; 2.417, 167 n.42; 5.1– 26, 179 n.2; 5.1–38, 93; 5.40–70, 93; 5.58, 93; 5.71–6.7, 93; 6.71, 93; 6.73, 179 n.3; 6.253, 93; 6.259, 93; 6.260, 93; 6.290–94, 175–76 n.11, 178 n.1; 6.420– 27, 178 n.1; 6.423, 176 n.11; 6.423–27, 175 n.11; 7.148–50, 187 n.67; 7.218, 178 n.1 Josephus, Life: 9, 156 n.77; 188, 151 n.58 Jubilees, 178 n.1; 49:1–23, 175 n.11; 49:19, 176 n.11 Letter of Aristeas, 178 n.1, 186 n.57 philo, 133, 184 n.40 philo, Embassy to Gaius: 156–57, 178 n.1; 157, 186 n.57; 216, 178 n.1; 278, 178 n.1; 281, 178 n.1; 291, 178 n.1; 311–16, 178 n.1 philo, Flaccus: 46, 178 n.1 philo, On Moses: 2:224, 175–76 n.11 philo, Special Laws: 1.66–345, 178 n.1; 1.69–70, 178 n.1; 1.77, 178 n.1; 2.145, 175 n.11 philo, Who Is Heir of Divine ings: 186–89, 178 n.1 pseudo-Clementine Recognitions: 1.27–71. See under Christian Authors and Texts pseudo-philo, Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum: 50:2, 175 n.11 Septuagint, 50, 161 n.2 Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, 184 n.40 Temple Scroll, 133 n.7, 178 n.1; col. xvii, 175 n.11

Judaean papyri Mur 24, 180 n.15 p. yadin: 7, 96–97; 20, 181 n.17; 44, 180 n.15; 45, 180 n.15; 46, 180 n.15; 57, 180 n.14 Xhev/Se: 7:1, 180 n.15; 8:1, 180 n.15; 8:8, 180 n.15; 13:2, 180 n.15; 13:31, 180 n.15

237

Christian Authors and Texts Acts of omas, 185 n.43 Apocalypse of Peter, 185 n.43 Apocryphon of James, 107; 16:9–10, 185 n.44 Didascalia Apostolorum, 33, 35, 149 n.53, 159 n.85; 5, 159 n.85; 11, 159 n.85; 23, 156 n.75 Eusebius, 147 n.47 Eusebius, e Ecclesiastical History: 4.6, 180 n.10; 5.12, 149 n.55; 5.22–23, 149 n.55; 5.25, 149 n.55; 6.8.7, 149 n.55; 6.10–11, 149 n.55; 6.19, 149 n.55; 6.27, 149 n.55; 7.32, 149 n.55 Eusebius, History of the Martyrs of Palestine, 29, 151 n.58 Epiphanius, Panarion: 30.11.9–10, 151 n.58 First Apocalypse of James, 107; 25:15–18, 185 n.44; 36:18–16, 185 n.44 hippolytus, 108, 110, 185 n.46 hippolytus, Elenchos: 5.27.3, 186 n.54 hippolytus, On the Antichrist: 6, 108, 185 n.47 hippolytus, Refutation: 7.34.1–2, 149 n.54; 9.14.1, 149 n.54 Infancy Gospel of omas, 107, 185 n.43 Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 149 n.54, 185 n.45 Justin Martyr, 28, 147 n.47, 158 n.82, 185 n.46 Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 108; 13, 158 n.81; 16, 158 n.81; 22, 185 n.46; 40– 42, 185 n.46; 47, 149 n.54; 96, 158 n.81; 97, 158 n.81; 122, 158 n.81; 137, 158 n.81 Letter of Abgar, 185 n.43 Letter to Barnabas, 108, 110, 187 n.76; 2–8, 185 n.46 Origen, Contra celsum, 185 n.45; 2.1, 149 n.54; 6.23, 158 n.81; 6.61, 149 n.54 Origen, Homily in Genesis: 3.5, 149 n.54 Origen, In Exodus: xii.46, 158 n.81 Origen, In Lucam: 14, 149 n.54; 18ff, 149 n.54 Origen, In Matthew: 11.12, 149 n.54; 79, 149 n.54 Origen, On Prayer: 12, 158 n.81 Oxyrhynchus papyrus 840, 109–11 pseudo-Clementine Ascent of James, 108 pseudo-Clementine Homilies, 149 n.53

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:09 PM

238

Page 238

In d e x

pseudo-Clementine Recognitions, 108, 149 n.53; 1.27–71, 109, 116, 156 n.76; 1.55.2, 185 n.44; 1.70.6–8, 185 n.44 Protoevangelium of James, 107, 185 n.43 Second Apocalypse of James, 107; 44:15, 185 n.44; 45:24–25, 185 n.44; 60:14–22, 185 n.44; 61:21–23, 185 n.44 Tertullian, 185 n.46

Roman Authors and Texts Appian, 112 Cassius Dio, Roman History: 66.7.2, 113, 187 n.71; 69.12.1–69.14.3, 95 Cicero, Marcus Tullius, De oratore: 1.45.200, 147 n.45 Cicero, Marcus Tullius, Pro Flacco: 67, 178 n.1 Codex Justianiaus: 1:9:8, 141n.4 Justinian’s Digest, 143 nn.14–15; 1.1.1, 144 n.26; 1.2, 169 n.55; 1.2.249–50, 144 n.25; 2.14.47, 20 Suetonius, Domitian: 12.2, 113, 187 n.71 Tacitus, Histories: 5.1–13, 115, 188 n.83; 5.5.1, 178 n.1 eodosian Code: 2.1.10, 141 n.4; 2.14.42, 21; 16.8.3, 157 n.78 ucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War: 1.1, 140 n.43

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:09 PM

Page 239

Acknowledgments

is book has its roots in a moment of discovery during a year I spent at a yeshiva in Israel before I began my university studies. I was at yeshivat hakotel in the Jewish quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem, overlooking some archaeological remains of the Jerusalem Temple, and I was looking for a topic to study in my spare time. My father, a longtime student of the Mishnah, suggested that I look at the third chapter of tractate Bikkurim, which just happened to relate to the sacred place that I could see from the yeshiva’s windows. As I studied this narrative about how the first-fruits were brought to and then offered in the Temple and as I studied my father’s continued recommendations (and no doubt aided by mild “Jerusalem syndrome”), these ancient descriptions came alive in my imagination, and my interest in and passion for what I call the Mishnah’s “Temple ritual narratives” were cemented. I am grateful to you, Abba, for helping provide me (in this and other ways) with the foundation on which I have built my career. Some of my work on this topic took place at the university of pennsylvania. I would like to thank Dan Ben-Amos and Natalie Dohrmann and, especially, David Stern, whose intellectual imprint can be seen on every page of this book. Since I arrived at Concordia university in Montreal, I have been privileged to be part of a warm, nurturing, and remarkably collegial department. I am especially grateful for the support and guidance of all my colleagues in the religion department at Concordia. In particular, I thank Lorenzo DiTommaso, Marc Lalonde, André Gagné, and, especially, Carly Daniel-hughes—as well as Judah (Lionel) Sanders (in the classics, modern languages, and linguistics department)—for providing references or feedback relevant to specific sections of the book. I would also like to single out for thanks my Judaic studies colleagues

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

240

8/17/12

1:09 PM

Page 240

Ac k n ow l e d gments

Norma Joseph, Michael Oppenheim, Norm Ravvin, and Ira Robinson. And I would like to thank Munit Merid and Tina Montandon in the department for all their support. I would like to thank those colleagues outside of Concordia who have provided references or feedback and with whom I have had discussions that have had a significant impact on ideas and passages in this book: Steven fine, Beth Berkowitz, and Jill harries. I thank Beth for organizing a panel at the 2008 annual conference of the American Academy of Religion in which I participated; I thank my fellow presenters, Jane Kanarek and Barry Wimpfheimer; the respondent Charlotte fonrobert; and the audience, for valuable feedback on my presentation, which was the basis for parts of Chapter 3 of this book. further valuable insights were inspired by questions and comments from participants at the symposium “history, Memory, and Jewish Identity,” which I co-organized in May 2011 at Concordia university, at which I presented related research; I am grateful to those participants. I am especially grateful to Jerry Singerman at the university of pennsylvania press, not only for his ongoing interest in the project but also for his encouragement and help in navigating the publication process. I am grateful to the editors of the Divinations series, particularly Daniel Boyarin, whose initial enthusiasm about the book has only grown throughout the process. I would like to thank the two anonymous readers of the book, who, together with Daniel Boyarin, have made enormously helpful and productive suggestions about how to improve it. I thank, as well, Caroline Winschel, Erica Ginsburg, and the copy editor, who have done important editorial jobs during publication at the university of pennsylvania press. I thank the editors of the Journal of Jewish Studies for permission to reuse my article “Rabbis as Jurists: On the Representation of past and present Legal Institutions in the Mishnah,” which I have revised as parts of Chapters 1 and 2. In addition, I would like to thank Concordia university for a start-up grant that helped support the research and writing of this book, and the fonds de Recherche Société et Culture Québec for an Établissement de Nouveaux professeurs-Chercheurs grant that helped support the final stages of revision of the manuscript. I would like to thank as well friend and research assistant Shayna Sheinfeld for extremely helpful assistance toward the end of the editing and publication process. I am grateful to the yale Art Gallery and Megan

cohn 4th pass.qxd:Cohn

8/17/12

1:09 PM

Page 241

Acknowledgments

241

Doyon and to archaeologists Boaz Zissu and Amos frumkin for providing me with images to use in this book. My family’s life in Montreal has been wonderful, and, as I say to anyone who will listen, we love Montreal! I would like to thank our many friends, whom I cannot single out here, for welcoming us, helping us, and sharing so many wonderful moments in life, large and small. you have truly made us feel as though we belong, and you have enriched our lives in so many ways. Most important, I would like to thank my family: my parents, Reuven and Rochelle Cohn; my parents-in-law, Joseph and Judy Berger; and my sister and brother-in-law, Beruria and Jonathan Novich, for so much love and support. I would like to thank my children, Tirza, Raya, and Itiya, for their love and affection, for inspiring me every day, and for putting up with some of my late nights at the office. And finally, I would like to thank my wife, Zehava, to whom I dedicate this book, for her ongoing love and support throughout the many stages of our lives and throughout the various stages of this project. you are the best spouse and the best in-house editor a person could ask for.