AJS Review 1985: Spring, No. 1

Front Matter Source: AJS Review, Vol. 10, No. 1 (Spring, 1985) Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the...

Author: Robert Chazan

44 downloads 1468 Views 12MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

Front Matter Source: AJS Review, Vol. 10, No. 1 (Spring, 1985) Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486269 . Accessed: 30/06/2011 01:39 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Cambridge University Press and Association for Jewish Studies are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to AJS Review.

http://www.jstor.org

AJS VOL. SPRING

X,

NO.1 1985

ti9 TheJournalof the Associationfor JewishStudies

('I

REVIE

Volume X, Number 1, Spring, 1985 ASSOCIATION FOR JEWISH STUDIES CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS

AJS Review EDITOR:

Robert Chazan, QueensCollege ASSOCIATE EDITORS:

Seymour Feldman, RutgersUniversity Robert Goldenberg, StateUniversityof New Yorkat Stony Brook Paula E. Hyman, JewishTheologicalSeminaryof America David C. Jacobson, Universityof Pennsylvania Baruch A. Levine, New YorkUniversity Benjamin C. I. Ravid, BrandeisUniversity CORRESPONDING EDITOR:

Lloyd P. Gartner, Tel-AvivUniversity BOOK REVIEW EDITOR:

Arnold J. Band, Universityof Californiaat Los Angeles The AJS Review(ISSN 0364-0094) is publishedtwice annuallyby the Association for Jewish Studies.

The Association for Jewish Studies is a constituent society of the American Council of Learned Societies. Manuscripts for consideration should be sent to Prof. Robert Chazan, Dept. of History, Queens College, Flushing, N.Y. 11367. Books for review should be sent to Dr. Charles Berlin, Association for Jewish Studies, Widener Library M, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. 02138. @ 1985 by the Association for Jewish Studies MANUFACTURED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

AJS REVIEW THE JOURNALOFTHEASSOCIATION FORJEWISHSTUDIES VOLUMEX, NUMBER 1, SPRING, 1985

Articles 1

BARUCHM. BOKSER

ChangingViewsof Passoverand the Meaningof Redemptionaccording to the PalestinianTalmud 19

SHAYE J. D. COHEN

The Originsof the MatrilinealPrinciplein RabbinicLaw 55

DAVID G. DALIN

Cyrus Adler, Non-Zionism,and the Zionist Movement:A Study in Contradictions 89

YAIR MAZOR

The Poetics of Composition of the Hebrew Short Story in the HaskalahPeriod Book Reviews 111 Robert G. Boling and G. ErnestWright.Joshua BARUCHHALPERN

114 Alan F. Segal. Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism SHAYEJ. D. COHEN

118 Harold M. Schulweis. Evil and the Morality of God NORBERT M. SAMUELSON

120 Jonathan D. Sarna. Jacksonian Jew: The Two Worlds of Mordecai Noah DAVID G. DALIN

124 Warren Bargad. Ideas in Fiction: The Works of Hayim Hazaz STANLEYNASH

CollectedStudies 129 William Scott Green, ed. Approaches to Ancient Judaism: Studies in Liturgy, Exegesis, and Talmudic Narrative 129 Marc Lee Raphael, ed. Approaches to Modern Judaism 130 Jacques Kornberg, ed. At the Crossroads: Essays on Ahad Ha-Am

130 Victor D. Sanua, ed. Fields of Offerings: Studies in Honor of Raphael Patai

133 Books Received

Changing Views of Passover and the Meaning of Redemption According to the Palestinian Talmud Author(s): Baruch M. Bokser Source: AJS Review, Vol. 10, No. 1 (Spring, 1985), pp. 1-18 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486270 . Accessed: 30/06/2011 01:39 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].



CHANGING VIEWSOF PASSOVER AND THE MEANING OF REDEMPTION ACCORDING TO THE PALESTINIANTALMUD by BARUCH M. BOKSER Gershom Scholem points out that within Judaism the concept of redemptiondoes not merelyconsistof an abstractfeelingbut entailsa belief in a concretephysicalredemption,publiclyvisiblein this world and taking placeon the stageof historyand withinthe community.However,it projects the realizationof this hope to the future,thereforemakingJewishlife provisional, incomplete,and unfulfilled-a "lifelivedin deferment."'The history of the Passoverseder illustrateshow both aspects of this outlook became expressedin a specifictime and place. But it also indicatesthatthe hopewas not alwaysprojectedinto the future,for we findpeoplewho both believedin a physicalredemptionand at the same time triedto internalizeredemption in their own lives. The Passoverrite providesa fittingplace to analyzetheseviews because throughoutthe history of Judaism,the holiday of Passoverhas revolved 1. Gershom Scholem, "Towards an Understanding of the Messianic Idea in Judaism" (from the German of 1959), in idem, The Messianic Idea in Judaism and Other Essays on Jewish Spirituality (New York, 1979), pp. 1, 35.

I

2

BARUCH M. BOKSER

aroundthe idea of redemption,and alreadyin the Bible the Exodusexperience held out to people the hope for a betterlife.2By comparingdifferent versionsof the rite, we are thereforeable to examinechangesin the ways Jews saw themselves,their world, and their future. Here we contrastthe attitudesto redemptionin the first rabbinicseder,M. Pesabhim 10, and one of its first adaptations,in the PalestinianTalmud.

The Mishnaic heritage provided later generations with a point of departurein theirthinkingregardingPassover.As I havedemonstratedelsewhere, the Mishnahrestructuresthe celebrationto make it viable without the sacrificialcult, so that, for example,the eatingof unleavenedbreadand bitter herbs may be independentof the Passoveroffering.In doing so, it draws on the notion of redemption,mentioningdifferentaspects of this concept in three of the nine mishnayotin the chapter.3 First, M. 10:4is designedto make people appreciatethe fact of God's deliverance.A parentis to explainthe distinctivenessof Passovernight by reviewingJewishhistory,startingwith its "disgraceful"originsand ending with its "glorious" heights."4In addition, the parent is to undertakea separateexposition of the classicalbiblical section epitomizingthe divine patronageand concern for Israel, Deut. 26:5 ff., "A wanderingAramean was my father..." Here the individualsupplementsand expandsthe biblical text.5 Second, the theme of redemptionfiguresin M. 10:5'ssymbolicexpansion of Rabban Gamaliel'steachingrequiringan individualto say, i.e., to concentrate on, not to do, the characteristicelements of the rite, the Passover offering, the unleavenedbread, and the bitter herbs. Gamaliel therebyelevatesthe unleavenedbreadand bitterherbsto the samestatusas the Passoverofferingand distancesus fromthe physicalqualityof each rite. An anonymousauthority,extendingthis trend, offers the symbolicinter2. See, e.g., Samuel Lowenstamm, the Traditionof the Exodus in Its Development[Hebrew], 2d ed. (Jerusalem, 1972), pp. 21-22. 3. Baruch M. Bokser, The Origins of the Seder: The Passover Rite and Early Rabbinic Judaism (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984). The discussion is based on an evaluation of the readings in the Kaufmann and other manuscripts and early editions, freeing the Mishnah's text from postmishnaic glosses; see, e.g., n. 10 below and text thereto. 4. See Bokser, Originnn.s of the Seder, chap. 4, text to nn. 15-19; and chap. 6, nn. 17-2

5. See Bokser,Originsof the Seder,chap. 4, text to nn. 15-19; and chap. 6, nn. 17-21.

CHANGING VIEWS OF PASSOVER

3

pretations.For the unleavenedbread he draws on the currentnotion that leaven connotes somethingspoiled or impureand explains:"'Unleavened bread'-because they were redeemed."6Accordingly, eating unleavened bread acts out or symbolizesthe liberationfrom destruction. The Mishnah'smentionof the redemptiveact providesthe rationalefor the next requirement,to praiseand thankGod for what He has done for us and our ancestors:"Thereforewe are obligatedto give thanks,to praise,to glorify,to crown,to exalt the One who did for us all thesemiraclesand took us out of slaveryto freedom,and let us say beforeHim Hallelujah"(M. 10:5 end).7Although the participants,in referringto themselves("for us") in additionto their"ancestors,"identifywith the ancientIsraelites,they speak not only from the state of anxiety of the first Passovereve, awaitingthe Exodus, but also from an after-the-factsituation, acknowledgingthe redemption. Third, M. 10:6, following up on M. 10:5'sclosing referenceto singing Hallelujahand discussingthe extentof the firstportionof the Hallel section of Psalms, ensures that the psalmist'sview of divine salvation is incorporatedinto the eveningritual.Sincethe Mishnahassumesthat one follows the House of Hillel, who hold, in contrastto the House of Shammai,that Psalm 114and Psalm 113are recited,the outlookis shapedby both psalms.8 In their choice of languagereferringto God, these chaptersaddressJews irrespectiveof theirpoliticalsituation.Psalm 113speaksof God, enthroned on high, deliveringeven the lowliestindividual.Psalm 114treatsthe exodus of the peoplefrom Egypt,emphasizingthe responseof natureto that act. In particular,the commentthat "mountainsskippedlike rams"(v. 4), referring to the Sinai revelationof the Torah, fits in with the mention that Israel becameGod's sanctuaryand Judah His dominion(v. 2). Here the chapter follows the biblical strand that asserts that God's presencedwells on the whole people and is not limited to a single location or building. The Mishnah's focus on Hallel gains special significance once we rememberthat accordingto both the Book of Chroniclesand the Mishnah and Tosefta only Temple experts such as the Levites, during the cultic activity,sang these songs. In thereforeassertingthat the Hallel is said as a response to the divine act, the lack of the sacrifice implicitly becomes inconsequential,and individuals,even in their nonsacrificialmeal, become obligated to sing the Hallel.9 This position likewise emerges from the rabbinicrequirementto make Hallel a liturgicaltext by surroundingit with blessings,with the closing one addressingthe theme of redemption. These passagesare thus designedto makepeople recognizethe ongoing

4

BARUCH M. BOKSER

significanceof the Exodus event. Since the divine act, symbolizedin the unleavened bread, redeemed every generation, it continually provides benefit.Jews thereforeare foreverrequiredto expresstheir thanks to the divine redeemer. Nevertheless,although the Mishnah emphasizesthe relevanceof the Exodus redemption,it does not openly addressthe problemof the actual existenceof post-70 C.E.and post-Bar KokhbaJewry,lackingredemption and living under Roman rule without the cultic center. This disregard, however, accords with the Mishnah'soverall static view of religiouslife, generallysettingout procedureswithoutexpresslyacknowledgingdevelopments. M. Pesabhim 10 thus writesas if the Passoverrite had neverchanged since Templedays. But its accountdiffersfrom all previousdescriptionsof the celebration,which assume the centralityof the sacrificeand which make nonsacrificialelementscontingenton the offering.Accordingly,the mishnaicmasters,withoutstatingwhatthey are doing, respondto the situation by redefiningthe role of the Passoversacrifice.As we saw in regardto Gamaliel'steachingin M. 10:4,they treatthe Passoverofferingasjust one of severalequal elements.M. 10:3exemplifiesthis ahistoricaloutlook: [A] [They] served him- [he] dips the lettuce [bazeret;i.e., the vegetables used for the bitter herbs] before he reaches the bread condiment. [B] [They] served him unleavened bread and lettuce and haroset [a mixture, e.g., of nuts, fruit, and vinegar pounded together], even though the baroset is not a mi;vah.

6. Our exegesis of this passage builds on HowardJacobson, The Exagoge of Ezekiel (New York, 1983),pp. 128-129. See 1 Cor. 5:6-8; Matt. 16:11-12;and Bokser,Originsof the Seder,chap. 3, n. 13. of unleavenedbreadthird(after 7. I followthe manuscriptsin presentingthe interpretation thatof the bitterherbs)and in deletingthe postmishnaicgloss (drawnfromthe B.T.)explicitly biddinga personto empathizewith the redemption("In everygenerationa personis required to regard himself as if he went out from Egypt, as it is said . . ."). See Bokser, Origins of the Seder, chap. 3, n. 13.

8. The second half of the Mishnah,includingboth the Akiva and Tarfon traditions, assumesthat it is appropriateto mentionthe themeof redemption.

9. See 2 Chron 30:21, 35:15; M. Pesahim 5:5, 7, 9:3; T. Pisba 4:11 (Lieberman ed., p. 163,1. 69), 8:22 (Lieberman ed., p. 188, 1. 72). Menalhem b. Solomon ha-Meiri, Beit ha-Behirah, Pesaihim,ed. Joseph Klein, 2d ed. (Jerusalem, 1967), p. 250, already sensed this transformation, and Meir [Ish Shalom] Friedmann, Me'ir Ayin al Seder ve-Haggadah shel leilei Pesah (Vienna, 1895), pp. 71, 72, recognized the dynamic behind the Mishnah. Note Jubilees 49:6 and Wisdom of Solomon 18:9, describing the Israelites in Egypt praising God; and see Bokser, Origins of the Seder, chap. 2, text to n. 14, and chap. 4, nn. 20-25 and text thereto.


5

R. EleazarbenZadoksays, [Itis a] mi;vah. [Cj id in the Temple[they]servehimthe carcassof the Passoveroffering.'0 When we follow, in C, the readings of the manuscripts, which have "they , without the auxiliary "used to," riji,added in printed editions, serve," T,'K' we see that the text employs language commonly used to contrast practices inside and outside the Temple. The clause therefore refers not to two stages in the law but to two pre-Destruction customs: a general and ostensibly standard protocol for outside the Temple, and an added special feature for inside the holy precincts. In adding the auxiliary, making the verb into the past tense, the printed editions reflect a later outlook that turns the clause into an acknowledgment of change. This later perspective is also reflected in the postmishnaic gloss that interpolates, in B, the phrase "two cooked foods," representing the Passover and festival sacrifices. Mentioning these symbolic substitutes makes the loss of the sacrifice implicit. But this outlook differs from the Mishnah's static view. M. 10:6 provides the only apparent exception to this ahistorical perspective. But on close examination it turns out to be an exception that proves the rule. It follows after Gamaliel's equation of the three Passover elements, the anonymous interpretations emphasizing the divine redemption, and the resulting requirement to thank God through the Hallel ("and let us say before Him Hallelujah"). M. 10:6 presents a dispute between R. Tarfon and R. Akiva concerning how to close the expression of gratitude. R. Tarfon says, [One says:] "Who has redeemed us and redeemedour ancestorsfrom Egyptand broughtus to this night" [some texts add:"to eat thereon unleavenedbreadand bitterherbs"]... R. Akivasays, [Oneaddsto the blessing:]"ThusO LORD, our God andGod of our ancestors,bring us in peace to the approachingfestivalswhich are comingto meetus, happyin the buildingof Yourcity [sometextsadd:"joyous in Your service"],[so as] to eat from the Passoverand festiveofferingwhose blood will reachthe wallof Youraltarwith favor,andlet us thankYou for our redemption.Praised art Thou, O LORD, Who redeemed[or "redeems"] Israel."'' 10. See Bokser, Origins of the Seder, chap. 3, nn. 6-9 and reference there. 11. The reading "to eat thereon ... herbs" is in the Cambridge and Paris (but not the Kaufmann and Parma) MSS and early editions; "joyous in your service" is in the Cambridge,

6

BARUCH M. BOKSER

To be sure,Akivaformulatesa petitionthat clearlyalludesto the current situation preventing Jews from offering sacrifices ("bring us .

. .

happy in

the buildingof Yourcity"). But sincehe expressesthe new sentimentonly in passing,his prayerremainstied to the passage'swidercontextof the Egyptian redemption,which is mentionedin the precedingpassageclosing M. 10:5, "and let us say before Him Hallelujah";in Tarfon'stext, to which Akiva adds, "Who has redeemedus and redeemedour ancestors";and in the close of Akiva's own text, "and let us thank You for our redemption. Praised art Thou, 0 LORD, Who redeemed [or "redeems"]Israel."'2 Hence, while the prayercontains the potential for a new approach,in its presentform it remainsa simple hope expressedin traditionalterms and hardly comes to grips with the problemposed by the contemporaryhistorical reality. The Mishnah thus makes redemptiona central motif but presentsit primarilyas an ahistoricalconcept and promise.It does not dwell on the dissonanceundoubtedlyfaced by first- and second-centuryJews speaking of redemptionyet having suffereddefeat at the hands of Rome. We may understandingthis disregard by noting that it may accord with the Mishnah'soverall design: by concentratingon remythingthe celebration and makingeverythingindependentof the Passoveroffering,the Mishnah respondsto the relatedbut differentchallengeposed by the lack of the sacrifice, which biblicallymade up the foundationto the rite.'"In anachronistically describingthe currentpracticeas if it had existedin Templedays, the Mishnahcould hardlyexplicitlytreat the lack of redemption;indeed, that would be counterproductive. Preciselybecausethe Mishnahgenerallydisregardsthe lack of actual redemption,in structuringthe sederas a ritualit dealswiththe problemin a nonverbal manner. Modern scholars illuminate this notion of ritual. JonathanZ. Smith, for example,suggeststhat ritualsoften are meaningful Parma, and Paris MSS (with slight variations); "redeems" is in the Kaufmann and Parma MSS. See Bokser, Origins of the Seder, chap. 3, nn. 14-16, and chap. 6, nn. 22-26 and text thereto, for a fuller citation of the variants and a discussion of this text. 12. This point is recognized by both E. D. Goldschmidt (The Passover Haggadah: Its Sources and History [Hebrew] [Jerusalem, 1960], pp. 56-57) and Joseph Heinemann ("Book Review of E. D. Goldschmidt's Haggadah" [Hebrew], Tarbi; 30 [1960-61]: 407), who otherwise differ in the analysis of this text. 13. Bokser, Origins of the Seder, esp. chap. 7. See also Jacob Neusner, "Towards the Natural History of a Religion: The Case of the Palestinian Talmud," in idem, Formative Judaism (Chico, Calif., 1982), pp. 23-36, esp. 25; and idem, "The Messiah in the Context of the Mishnah," in idem, Formative Judaism, Second Series (Chico, Calif., 1983), pp. 91-113.


7

because they deal with disparities, providing an experience differing from reality and otherwise unobtainable in normal life, designed to enable people to realize what ought to be and to think about the ideal-in this case, their redemption.14 Alternatively, following Victor Turner, we might see the Passover celebration as an occasion for a liminal experience, making the participants especially sensitive to the ideological meaning of the rite, thereby channeling their dissonance into a ritual that enables them to experience a sense of harmony and personal integration.'5 When we compare this indirect approach with the divergent one of the Palestinian Talmud, we shall see how one may more directly respond to the disparity between the rite and reality.

The P.T.'s novel response to the issue of redemption may be discerned by focusing on seven passages.'6 First, the notion of redemption is personalized as the liberation from slavery, a perspective meaningful to individual Jews irrespective of the nation's political situation. Thus in explaining M. 10:1's requirement that everyone, even a poor person, follow the standard banquet custom of reclining, we read: SaidR. Levi,Becauseit is the customof slavesto eat standing,here[, Passover eve, it is the customof people]to eat recliningto proclaimthat theyhavegone out from slaveryto freedom.'7 The Mishnah's reference to a poor person has thus become a slave, transforming a social-economic category into a social-political one. 14. Jonathan Z. Smith, "The Bare Facts of Ritual," History of Religions 20 (1980): 112-127. 15. See, e.g., Victor Turner, The Ritual Process (Chicago, 1966; Ithaca, N.Y., 1977) and Drama, Fields, and Metaphors (Ithaca, N.Y., 1974); and the application of Turner's theory in Bokser, Origins of the Seder, chap. 7, text to nn. 11-25. 16. Since Baruch M. Bokser, The Talmudof the Land of Israel: Tractate Pesabim (Chicago, forthcoming) will contain a corrected and annotated text of the P.T., we presently provide only minimal textual notes. ~ lo 1 n'r 5 17. Following the Leiden MS: Ton 1r1nrT5 "1*2nx m,1 a-r7,D,' ,'9 , the notion •mnr1 of "freedom" In B.T. l,Pesabhim, mnyna~ t appears in a statement r,'nn,. m•rn5 attributed to R. Nalhman (116a) and is employed by the anonymous late circles in their clarification of various traditions, e.g., 108a.

BARUCH M. BOKSER

8

Second, the cups of wine, likewisecommon at banquets,though here four in number,symbolizethe redemptionof the individualand the group. In its exposition,the P.T.explicitlyaddressesthe starkrealityof life, asserting that the act of deliverancetakes place not just in the past:God is destined to redeemIsraeland vanquishthe oppressoragainin the future.Four commentsexplainingthe significanceof the four cupsjoin in expressingthis message,highlightedby an interpolationin the middleof the last comment. Let me reviewthis passage.'8 1. Drawingon the exampleof Egypt:the four cups correspondto the four terms and dimensionsof redemptionused in Exodus 6:6-7. 2. Drawing on the example of Joseph, an individualredeemedfrom prison:the four cupscorrespondto four instancesthat the cup is mentioned in conjunctionwith the cupbearer'sdream. 3. Drawingon the Daniel motif of four successiveworld empires:the four cupscorrespondto the fourworldempires,afterwhichthe Kingdomof God will come. 4. Drawingon the propheticreferencesto a cup:the four correspondto "fourcups of retributionthat the Holy One, Praisedbe He, will give to the nations of the world to drink." After citing ". .. a scorching wind shall be the portion of their cup" (Ps.

11:6)as the fourth verse, the explanatorygloss adds: Whatis "theportionof theircup"? R. Avin said, A bowl of poterionlike the bowl of poterionafter bathing.""9

This enigmatictext underscoresthe alternativeuses of the divine cup. Pliny helps us understand the reference to poterion. Such a concoction,

consistingof the root of thepoterionbush,honey,and otheringredients,was ~ 18. P.T. 10:1, 37b-c: ,* In

i nliv3n11?w ni= lO1 T3K

2'1... nown n•ta

Tfl vin -,•n,' m 1r=n 13nnn,1DI35 Yn 'Ii

,, ...)-n

,

p, lnd, ,)2"n•imn r,93 ynnx?

rim

w [nr]5[

K1nx-=ViK

i3ri ... [probably correct to: ',9(')D],D'1 "-iKf3K nitni nfKn•pvr "y n??Pnw ,'x•i1n n• i137,n j nxi nipwnV correct to: [probably [nh]3m rnI 7-ri= ln t ''•"•-, ,flVX i•,rn 7,'-9m1 ,)(,)Cn] ,'-)' 7,rrtuv ... lnin 1noi=. •r 19. See Bokser, Talmud, ad loc., for a discussion of the textual problems. Briefly: Leiden MS's reading of D would mean a "double measure of poterion." If poterion, following v•ti•a of the Greek an alternative meaning word, means "cup," the phrase would then refer to a double cup, defining the exact amount of the "portion of their cup." Although this rendering is possible and may be alluded to with a play on words, we prefer the reading "vial of poterion," The latter is firmly grounded on the basis of the usage and readings elsewhere and r-•,t• ,,(,). See Marcus the realia. Jastrow, A Dictionary of the Targumim,the TalmudBabli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature (New York, 1903), pp. 304a, 1140b; and n. 20 below.


9

taken to relaxa person'smuscles.In our case, however,the cup is harmful insteadof therapeutic.Wemay understandthis in lightof rabbinictexts elsewherethat mention a bowl of poterionin describingthe ill fate that befell severalindividuals.For example,Titus, aftera bath, took a cup of poterion that, undoubtedlythroughits honey ingredient,attracteda fly that wentup his nose, killinghim.20In a like manner,the divinecup will not bringblessings but punishmentsto the nations. The interpolateddefinitionof the cup leadsus into the secondhalf of the exposition, providinga fitting closure to the whole passage. theHolyOne, to them[i.e.,thefourcupsof retribution], Andcorresponding Praisedbe He, willgive Israelfourcupsof consolationto drink. Here we have more than the Mishnah'ssimplereferenceto redemption in the past or even to an ongoing participationin the past deliverance,for the Yerushalmidoes not just explain the Mishnah,showing, for example, how the groupcontinues to benefit from the past divine act. Rather the commentsalter the focus, connectingboth the individualand the group to the redemption.Moreover,they add a new dimension:instead of treating redemptiononly as a past event that is to be appreciatedor a fact that is to be acknowledged,they dwell on the currentlack of redemption,claim that the traditionalapocalypticand prophetic schemes apply to the ultimate future,and thus relateto redemptionas a promiseand a hope for the future. Whilethesehopes certainlywerefirmlybelieved,theyare not presentedas if bearing fruit in the immediatefuture.2' 20. The story of Titus appears in Leviticus Rabbah 22:3 (Margulies ed., p. 501); ARNB, chap. 7 (Schechter ed., p. 27), and in part, depending on the readings, in Genesis Rabbah 10:7 (Theodor and Albeck ed., pp. 82-83). The vial of poterion and the fly likewise figure in the explanation of the sin of Pharaoh's cupbearer, in Genesis Rabbah 88:2 (Theodor and Albeck ed., p. 1078 and variants). The correction in the pericope from P.T. Pesahim 10 is confirmed by Genesis Rabbah 51:3 (Theodor and Albeck ed., pp. 534-535), which quotes Psalm 11:6 and an analogue to P.T.'s explanatory question and answer differing only in the attribution. Several manuscripts, including Vatican 60 (Midrash Bereshit Rabbah, Codex Vatican60. A Page Index by A. P. Sherry [Jerusalem, 1972], p. 191), read (or ',',,D); see Theodor and Albeck ad 5",• loc. Cf. Samuel Krauss, Griechische und lateinische Lehnworter in Talmud, Midrasch und Targum,2 vols. (Berlin, 1898-99), 2:210. See Pliny, Natural History 27.97.122-123, 25.77.123 (Loeb Classical Library ed., trans. Harris Rackham, 10 vols. [Cambridge, Mass., 1938-62], 7:465, 7:227); and Bokser, Talmud, ad loc. 21. In this light, note a parallel to the P.T. pericope in Genesis Rabbah 88:5 (Theodor and Albeck ed., pp. 1081-1083), which contains an analogue for the four interpretations of the cups but not for the explanatory gloss to "portion of their cup." Two variations between the P.T. and

10

BARUCH M. BOKSER

the delicacyinto which Third,the symbolicinterpretationof the .aroset, the bitterherbsare dipped,furthercontributes to the concreteidentification with the dynamicsof redemption.In one comment,the harosetrepresents the mortarand thus providesa reminderof the physicalburdenof slavery. In another comment, it representsthe blood and thus the saving act of redemptionachievedthroughthe blood.22 Hence, both reinforcethe personal element of redemption. Fourth, a baraitareferringto four types of childrenand supplementing M. 10:4 offers an interestingnuance of the notion of redemption.The Mishnahmentionstwo types of children,one who is able to ask and one who lacks sufficient intelligenceto do so, and suggests three questions concerningthe main elementsof the celebration.The Yerushalmibaraita, shaped by the alternativewisdom typology of four types of children,providesfour differentexplanationsof the meaningof Passover.Comparingthe P.T.'sversionsof this text with the other versionsin the Mekhiltaand the Haggadahbringsout the Yerushalmi'sparticularstresson redemption.The first variationcenterson the placementof Exod. 13:14,whichcharacterizes the redemptionfromEgyptas an act achievedthroughthe LORD's"mighty hand."The P.T.employsthe verseas the responseto the wise child'squestion concerning the meaning of the "exhortations,laws, and norms" enjoined by God (Deut. 6:20). The Mekhiltaand Haggadah,on the other hand, make it the answerfor the simplechild'squestionof "whatis this?" As for the answerfor the wise child, the lattersuggestmentioningthe laws of Passover,in particularM. 10:8'srequirementnot to end the meal with revelry(afikomanor afikomon),an attemptto dissociatethe seder from a symposium.23Evidentlythen, P.T.saw in the mightyact of redemptionthe Genesis Rabbah may be significant. First, the P.T.'s use of the verbal form - r'n instead of Genesis Rabbah's simple future in the form of the participle, may emphasize the future ,in,"cups of consolation," element. Second, the P.T.'s calling of the cups given to Israel mnrm, the word used in the last proof-text, instead of Genesis Rabbah's "cups of deliverance," ,raw, that tempers the messianic anticipation. from Psalm 116:13, may direct the hopes in a manner The B.T., in contrast to the P.T. and Genesis Rabbah, does not offer extensive symbolic interpretations of the four cups. At most, an anonymous authority, at 108a, believes that the cups connote freedom. (The reference at 109b bottom is a post-talmudic gloss interepolated into Ravina's comment; see Raphaelo Rabbinovicz, Variae Lectiones in Mishchnam et in TalmudBabylonicum, 15 vols. [Munich and Przemysl, 1867-97]. Tract. Psachim, p. 331, n. 20, and Columbia MS X 893-T14, "The Babylonian Talmud. Tractates Begah, Megillah, and 22. P.T. 10:3, 37d. See Saul Lieberman, Ha-Yerushalmi ke-Feshuto: A Commentary Pesa.him.") (Jerusalem, 1934), p. 520. Cf. B.T. 116a, the interpretations attributed to the Palestinians R. Levi and R. Yolhanan. 23. See Bokser, Origins of the Seder, chap. 5, n. 62 and text thereto.


11

subtlest meaning of the rite, while the latter two sources believed that other issues were of greater import. The second variation lies in the language in the question and answer associated with the evil child. The P.T. has him contemptuously speaking of "what is this rite [avodah]of yours" (Exod. 12:26) with the words, "what is this bother [torah] that you impose on us every year," a characterization that the Mekhilta and Haggadah lack. Of special significance is the formulation of the response. While all three see the evil child as excluding himself from the group, they differ in describing his exclusion from redemption. The P.T. states, "If that person had been in Egypt he would never have been worthy [ra'ui] to be redeemed from there."24The Mekhilta and Haggadah, by contrast, speak of being actually redeemed: "he would not have been redeemed." P.T.'s preference thus stresses meriting redemption, whenever it might arrive, in place of an emphasis on the actual onset of the deliverance.25 This understanding of the Yerushalmi's approach receives support from the next P.T. section. Fifth, the end of M. 10:4, elicits two thoughts concerning the nature of redemption. First, explaining the Mishnah's instruction to a parent to "start [reading] with the disgrace [section of the Bible] and end with the glory," the P.T. comments with the following reference to the initial history of the Jews: Ray said, As with the [very]beginning[glossin Leiden:"(one)is requiredto startwith"],"In olden times,yourancestors-even Terah,fatherof Abraham and father of Nahor-lived beyond the Euphrates,"etc. ["and worshipped othergods"]. "But I took your fatherAbrahamfrombeyondthe Euphrates," etc. [= "and led him throughthe whole land of Canaan"]"and multiplied" [va'arbe(h)]["his offspring.I gave him Isaac.. ."] [Joshua24:2-4].26 The choice of Joshua 24 to describe early Israelite history is significant. As Yehezkel Kaufmann observes, this chapter treats the history in a distinc-

-24. P.T. 10:4, 37d: ol 'nix=~' o ownr-o 'ixt1x1 •,Tn ix 1n',x. Cf. Mekhilta, Bo 18 (Horovitz and Rabin ed., pp. 73-74); and Goldschmidt, Passover Haggadah, p. 118. In general see Goldschmidt, Passover Haggadah, pp. 22-25; Fred Francis, "The Baraita of the Four Sons," Journal of the American Academy of Religion 42 (1974): 280-297; and Bokser, Origins of the Seder, chap. 6.i. 25. Cf. Joseph Heinemann, "The Art of Composition in Leviticus Rabbah" [Hebrew], Ha-Sijrut 2 (1971): 825-827, which finds an analogous outlook in Leviticus Rabbah. 26. P.T. 10:4 (Venice 10:5), 37d. See Saul Lieberman, Tosefta ki-Feshutah, 8 vols. to date (New York, 1955-), I:xxi n. 40, which suggests that we delete the phrase "is required to start with" and read: innm; and Bokser, Talmud, ad loc. ,

12

BARUCH M. BOKSER

tive manner, focusing on the Israelites' giving up of idolatry and clinging to God. This theme is mentioned in the quoted verses and at the chapter's end, which speaks of the present task before the Israelites.27The standard alternative definition of the notion of disgrace and redemption, coming from Deut. 26, deals with the more common view of Israelite history retelling the Egyptian slavery and the national redemption. The P.T.'s inclusion of only the former interpretation centering on Joshua 24, in contrast to the B.T.'s mention of it along with the standard alternative, may not be arbitrary, for it fits the Palestinian situation under Roman subjugation. Indeed, the perception of Passover as a liberation from false ideas and ideologies would entail less dissonance among Passover celebrants than a message of political freedom.!8 Joshua 24's overall message to convince the Israelites to remain faithful to God is brought out in an exegesis appended to this biblical text. The P.T. contains two explanations of the word K1xi,usually read as if written ,mani (va'arbeh), with a final he, and rendered "I multiplied." The comments, however, read the word defectively, as printed in the Bible, taking va'arebin the sense of either a test or an ambush. According to the former rendering, the text, emphasizing the fact that faith requires a person to endure tests, reminds the participants that God repeatedly tested Abraham before giving him the child Isaac. According to the latter, in speaking of an ambush, God indicates that He stood in wait to see how Abraham would act. If Abraham sinned he would get his reward, that is, his punishment. But if he proved righteous, vindicating himself, he would receive a different type of reward. The passage reads: is written:How manytests did I test him beforeI gave him Said R. Aba, •wim Isaac. Anothermatter:I becamein regardto him [i.e., to Abraham]an ambush-if he sinnedto give him [his due], and if he justified [himself]to give him [his due-a child, Isaac, as his reward].29

27. Yehezkel Kaufmann, Sefer Yehoshua(Jerusalem, 1959), p. 196. 28. See Bokser, Origins of the Seder, chap. 6, nn. 17-19 and text thereto and references,esp. to David Hoffman, Goldschmidt, and Joseph Tabory; and Bokser, Talmud, ad loc. The fact that the tradition is attributed to the Babylonian Rav in itself is not problematic. First, the P.T. chose to include this teaching. Second, the passage may be an instance of what scholars claim to be the tendency of Rav, who studied in Palestine, to represent the Palestinian position or to be sensitive to the Palestinian situation. 29. See Bokser, Talmud, ad loc.


13

Both interpretationsunderscorethe notion that Israelin its historyhas not just receivedgrants and experiencedredemptionbut has also faced crises testing its faith and has lived up to a standard.By implication,later Jews too must vindicatethemselvesin their faith in order to receivetheir due. Sixth, the P.T.to M. 10:6,treatingthe disputein regardto the extentof the Hallel,emphasizesthe cogencyof the Hilleliteview thatboth Psalms113 and 114 are recited. While to some degree adjudicationsof the Mishnah such as this fall withinthe rangeof expectedcommentson the Mishnah,the fact remainsthat initiallythe Mishnahpresentsboth as viable options and only implicitly favors the Hillelite view, which in particular,as we saw above, speaksto Jewsirrespectiveof theirpoliticalsituation.But in addition to makingthe last point explicit, the Yerushalmi,by citing and glossing a baraitathat explains the two opinions, may also read somethinginto the dispute. Accordingto the P.T., the House of Shammaihold that the rite must strictlyfollow the sequenceof the originalExodus.Sincethe Israelites did not leaveEgyptuntilthe morningafterthe eveninggatheringaroundthe Passoveroffering,Jews should not thank the LORD for redemptionuntil the day of Passover.The Hillelites,however,rejectthis logic. Accordingto P.T.'sanonymous amoraic gloss, it is not just an issue of the historical record:"One who starts with a mi;vah,they tell him, 'Finish it.'" Hence, even though people may not have experienced"even half of the redemption,"if theycan startsayingsomething,thenthey mustfinishit. Surely,this attitude accords with the other P.T. comments in freeing the notion of redemptionfrom being a simple acknowledgmentof past divine acts. Seventh,in providinga proof-textfor the sayingof Hallel, the P.T.indicates that God may act without bringing an immediatecomprehensive redemption.The passage, relevantto both M. 10:6 and 7, reads: for Israel,whenpeopleofferwill[A] It is written,"Inexactingretribution

ingly-Praise the LORD" [Judg. 5:2]. Let the heads of the people offer willingly-when the Holy One, Praisedbe He, does miraclesfor them-[that is,] they should sing a song.

[B] [Theyobjected,challengingthe principlein A:] Lo, [whatof the redemption of] Mordechaiand Esther [whenHallel is not said]? [C]It is a different[there],for theywereoutsidethe Land[of Israel].

14

BARUCH M. BOKSER

[D] Theyobjected,Lo, whatof the Egyptianredemption[whichalso occurred outside the Land but-for which Hallel is said]? [E] It is a different[there],for it was the beginningof theirredemption[which was completedwhen they enteredthe Land of Israel]. [F] And there are those who want to say [as an alternativelto C] that Mordechai and Esther were redeemed from their enemies but were not redeemedfrom the [foreign]government.[This explanationfor the lack of hymns removesthe basis for D's question.]30 This text yields two relevant observations. First, the present use of A may contribute toward redefining the meaning of Hallel and the Passover rite. Hallel is a human response appropriate not just for a full redemption such as the Exodus experience; what is crucial about the Exodus is that God did miracles for Israel-not that He redeemed the people. The second observation emerges from B-F. While it does not strictly accord with the previous proposition, it ends up making a similar overall point. The case of Mordechai and Esther indicates that the notion of "redemption" must be distinguished from the relief Israel may gain from an oppressor or some similar divine intervention in Israel's behalf. Hence, while true redemption might be something that only the distant future brings (as we saw above in the exposition of the four cups), a Purim event is something that can still be hoped for. While such an event may not merit the recitation of Hallel, that does not change the fact that people experience a respite from oppression. Moreover, the case of the Egyptian exodus indicates that something not initially appearing to be a real redemption might yet turn out to be one. Both of these cases in different ways thus offer a basis for hope. Accordingly, while B-F may differ with A-or limit its prin30. P.T. 10:6 (Venice 10:7), 37d (in Leiden MS [= L]) +Nehemya Alloni, Geniza Fragments of Rabbinic Literature [Hebrew] [Jerusalem, 1973], p. 44 [=G]) = P.T. Sotah 5:4 (Venice 5:6) (in L + Vatican MS [=V]): )i nmry rno nrn X-1wKn Pnir=my [missing in V to Sotah=] =vtxn m '1-') ni'D inmunn, nn,5 i xin 'In o'n [L Pesabim alone= ITvni [Venice Pesabim alone = inn] •In' =] m/T• •n T• For clauses B-D, all the manuscripts have the sequence of DEBC, but we have followed the commentaries that reverse the order; see Lieberman, Ha-Yerushalmiki-Feshuto, p. 523, and n. 9 above; YalkutShimoni to 1 Chron. 29, no. 1181; and Bokser, Talmud,ad loc. Cf. B.T. to Pesabim, chap. 10, 117a-b, which discusses the possible original contexts eliciting the psalms and their later use by the nation and individuals, and 118a-119b, which further discusses the context and meaning of the psalms; and Megillah 14a and Arakhin 10b, for an analogue to the P.T. pericope that gives a different emphasis to the several traditions.


15

beyond ciple-they agreein expandingthe conceptof divineinvolvement andimmediateredemption. just a comprehensive theP.T.'sdirect Reviewingthesesevensectionsof theP.T.demonstrates Whilein partit followstheMishnah's approachto theissueof redemption. seeingredemption, symbolizedin the unleavenedbread,as a perspective, centralfact of Jewishexperienceand affectingeverygeneration,overallit a departure fromtheMishnah.First,theP.T.bringsoutthepoint represents is notjusta singleeventin thepastthathasaffectedalllater thatredemption on anindividuallevelthat history.Ratherit makestheconceptmeaningful Thus it transcendshistory. repeatedlyemphasizesthe symbolicnatureof rituals;it speaksof the liberation,for example,of a slavefromslavery as of thewholegroup;andit definesredemption insteadof the redemption the releasefromthe falseideologyof idolatry. theYerushalmi, in openlytreatingthe Secondandevenmoresignificant, the current of lack redemption,presentsa message problemposed by the situation of Jews livingundera foreignpowerlike strikinglyfitting This is little for immediate divineintervention. Rome and having hope definitionof redemptionas liberation reflectedin the above-mentioned of adversecurrent fromidolatry,somethingfor whichJews,irrespective politicalsituations,mayremainthankful.Thisthemeis evenclearerin the of the four cups of wine, which employpropheticand interpretations motifs to suggestthatthe full redemption willmaterialize not apocalyptic soonbutin the distantfuture.At thattimeGodwillpourfromHis cupof bountyfor Israeland fromHis cup of wrathfor the nationsoppressing Israel.Moreover,the P.T.makesclearthatthePassoverexperience teaches thatindividuals mustbecomeworthyof redemption andactin a mannerto thata crisismayactuallyrepresent a divinetrial,it meritit. In thusasserting andchallenges orindividual encourages anygeneration desiringdivinehelp. Inaddition,in suggesting thata deliverance shortof animmediate interventionandcomprehensive it alternative models of exists, redemption provides divineassistancefor whichpeoplemayaspire. TheYerushalmi thusprovidesa varietyof approaches to theproblemof redemption.Since such a divergenceexists,the commentsundoubtedly derivenot froma singleunifiedeffortbutfroma commonperspective that tries directlyto cope with the currentpolitical-religious situation.This concernactuallyfits into a wideroutlook.In contrastto the Mishnahas a whole,the P.T.does not try to give the impressionthat the rabbinicrite merelycontinuesthe pre-70celebrationheld outsidethe Temple,but thata gulf separatescontemporary expresslyacknowledges practicefrom

16

BARUCH M. BOKSER

that of Templedays.3'Therefore,as partof thatrecognition,it can fullydeal with the disparitybetweenthe ideal and reality. The interest in redemptionand the recognitionof a discontinuityin religiouspracticeare also found in the otherpostmishnaicwork, the Babylonian Talmud. But the Bavli differs from the Yerushalmiin the way in which it develops these materials.I have noted several featuresof that approach,but a discussionof it on its own terms must await a separate occasion.

Ourobservationsregardingthe P.T.'shandlingof the conceptof redemption have broader implicationsconcerningthe history of Judaism.32We have pointed to one aspect of the differencebetweenmishnaicand postmishnaicJudaism.The Mishnah'sperspective,while quite influential,did not determine the Yerushalmi'sapproach. Similarly, interpretingand explainingthe Mishnah'steachingsdid not circumscribethe thinkingof the postmishnaicmasters. Rather the latter drew upon the Mishnah for a repertoireof subjectsand extendedits themesin newways,oftentransformScholarssuchas ing themand makingthemfit a verydifferentperspective.33 NahumGlatzer,JacobNeusner,E. E. Urbach,and JudahGoldinwho have studiedthe historyof redemptionand messianicideas in late antiquityhave marshaledotherevidenceto highlightrelatedthird-centurydevelopments.34 31. See Baruch M. Bokser, "Rabbinic Responses to Catastrophe: From Continuity to Discontinuity," Proceedings of the American Academyfor Jewish Research 50 (1983). As part of recognizing the gulf, the P.T. here-as elsewhere-becomes open to articulating the symbolic dimension of religious life. See the materials discussed in Baruch M. Bokser, "Recent Developments in the Study of Judaism 70-200 C.E.," The Second Century 3 (1983): 2.C. 32. Our results regarding the P.T.'s concentrated focus on redemption and its selection and treatment of traditions, which together make up a coherent and distinctive message, are in accord with the notion that the P.T. editors imposed their point of view on the contents when they selected the material, in particular those portions transmitted from Babylonia. Hence, we are justified in drawing historical conclusions from the literary evidence. See Saul Lieberman, The Talmudof Caesarea, Supplement to Tarbi; 2, 4 [Hebrew] (Jerusalem, 1931), pp. 22-23; and Baruch M. Bokser, Post Mishnaic Judaism in Transition(Chico, Calif., 1980), p. 469 and nn. 33. See Bokser, Post Mishnaic Judaism, esp. pp. 467-482. 34. Nahum N. Glatzer, "The Attitude Towards Rome in Third-Century Judaism" (1962), in idem, Essays in Jewish Thought(University, Ala., 1978), esp. p. 5; Jacob Neusner, A History of the Jews of Babylonia, 5 vols. (Leiden, 1966-70), 2:52-72, 159-168, 236-240; E. E. Urbach, The Sages, 2d enl. English ed., 2 vols. (Jerusalem, 1979, from the 2d Hebrew ed. of 1971), pp. 676-686, 1000-1005, cf. pp. 655-658, 661, 668-671; and Judah Goldin, "The Messianic Tradi-


17

In analyzing that century's increasedinterest in messianic themes, they describea quietisticapproachthat on the one hand, at least for the immediate present,acceptedRoman ruleand the currentpoliticalorder,and, on the other hand, hoped for the futurerealizationof the traditionalmessianic hopes. This explains why third- and fourth-centuryliteraryand artistic sourcesportrayan idealizedview of the messianicor futureworld-to-come and a glorifiedvision of the Templeand Jerusalem.As the memoryof the Templefaded and its restorationno longer formedan actual hope for the present reality, people thought about and describedthe future in more imaginaryterms.35 Let me reviewour resultsto show how the P.T.'streatmentof Passover may reflectthis posture.First,we see the concernfor redemptionalongwith the implicationthat redemptionwill not immediatelyoccur.Herethe Yerushalmidrawson and adaptsthe two biblicalstrandsdifferingover the place of redemptionin the divine scheme.Accordingto one strand,redemption requiresIsrael'smerit;accordingto the other, it will come automaticallyas a result of the divine promises. Followingthe first strand,rabbisemphasizedthe importanceof meritto encouragepenitenceand to stressthat individualhumanacts can be significant. Passagessuch as the answerto the evil child and the exegesisof Joshua 24 illustratethis approach.On the other hand, rabbisalso respondedto the strongattractionfor the alternativepoint of view, givingprominenceto the notion that God will compassionatelylive up to His promises.36The interpretationof the four cups of wine vividly exemplifiesthis trend. But even when setting out these teachings,the P.T.does not specifywhen that futurewill materialize.Ratherit appearsto be partof the indefinitefuture. Althoughthe individualcommentsemphasizeone or anotheraspectof these two positions, the P.T.as a whole, by juxtaposingboth outlooks, integrates both positions, perhaps suggesting that each conveys part of the truth. tion in Judaism" (Paper delivered at the Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the Association for Jewish Studies, Boston, Mass., December 1981). 35. See nn. 13 and 22 above. It is for this reason that scholars such as Urbach can rightly criticize the treatment by Avi-Yonah (The Jews of Palestine [Oxford, 1976, trans. and adapted from the Hebrew eds. of 1946, 1952, 1962, 1969], pp. 127-132) as too schematic, undifferentiated, and therefore inaccurate. 36. See, e.g., Urbach, Sages, pp. 668-671, 683; and Jacob Neusner, Eliezer Ben Hyrcanus, 2 vols. (Leiden, 1973), 1:477-479, 2:418. The treatment of Abraham's binding of Isaac, the Akedah, provides a vivid example of the increased emphasis on God living up to His promises; see Dan Ben-Amos, "The Akedah: A Folklorist's Response," in The Biblical Mosaic, ed. Robert Polzin and Eugene Rothman (Philadelphia and Chico, Calif., 1982), pp. 166-167.

18

BARUCH M. BOKSER

Whilethe futureredemptionis sure,it is not immediate.Likewise,by requiring merit, it both encouragespeople to becomeworthyof redemptionand suggeststhat redemptionon its own is not shortly about to burst forth.37 Second,the P.T.may reflecta wideroutlook in speakingto Jewson two differentlevelsof consciousness.It structuresthe riteso that the participants in the celebrationboth experiencea senseof redemptionand also look to the futurefor a comprehensiverealizationof theirhopes-hopes whichtheyare to verbalize.IndividualJewsarethusto believethat if theymeritit, theywill share in the great consolationand vindication,wheneverit comes. Meanwhile, they may feel that other forms of redemptionremainvalid. Jews are not slaves;they are free from theirenemiesand persecutors;they are liberated from false religiousbeliefs. In addressingthese divergentaspects of redemption,the P.T.thus not only interpretsthe religiousrites of Passoverin light of traditionalnotions and currenttrends,but also makesits own contribution,mediatingbetween opposing perspectives.This conclusionbringsus to Scholem'sobservation that deferringthe full realizationof a betterlife to the futurecharacterizes rabbinicattitudes to messianismin general. Our study suggeststhat this position took root in the postmishnaicperiod,in certainPalestiniancircles. We must,however,also note thatdefermentis not thecompletestory.As we have seen, seder participants,awareof the gulf otherwiseseparatingthem from the ideal, actualizeaspects of redemptionin the ritual. Similarly,if they follow the P.T.versionof the rite, they minimizethose featuresof the celebrationcausingdissonancein theirown lives. In the P.T.'sprogram,the lack of redemption-and not the lack of the Templeand sacrificialcultcauses the problem. Nevertheless,even in this personalizeddimensionof redemption which addresses each individual, since the participantssee themselvesas part of the whole, the groupcharacterof Judaismremainsin effect. In this senseScholemis correctthat redemptionis not "in the private world of each individual."38 DropsieCollege Merion,Pa. 37. See n. 25 above. 38. Scholem, "Messianic Idea in Judaism," p. 1. I am appreciative of the critical comments of Lawrence H. Schiffman and Robert Goldenberg, who read earlier drafts of this paper; and of the constructive suggestions of the participants at the Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, December 19, 1982, where an earlier version of this study was delivered, and of the anonymous reviewers for the AJS Review.

The Origins of the Matrilineal Principle in Rabbinic Law Author(s): Shaye J. D. Cohen Source: AJS Review, Vol. 10, No. 1 (Spring, 1985), pp. 19-53 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486271 . Accessed: 30/06/2011 01:39 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].



THE ORIGINS OF THE MATRILINEAL PRINCIPLE IN RABBINIC LAW by SHAYE J. D. COHEN

According to rabbinic law, from the second century to the present, the offspring of a gentile mother and a Jewish father is a gentile, while the offspring of a Jewish mother and a gentile father is a Jew (albeit, according to the Mishnah, a mamzer, a Jew of impaired status).' Each of these two Research on this paper was supported by a generous grant from the Nisson Touroff Fund of the Jewish Theological Seminary. References to the Mishnah, Tosefta, Babylonian Talmud, and Palestinian Talmud are indicated respectively by M., T., B., and P. followed by the name of the tractate. Unless otherwise noted, all translations in this essay are mine. This paper has benefited from the suggestions and advice of Mr. David Cherry, Mr. Leonard Gordon, and Professor Sarah Pomeroy. A capsule version of this essay has appeared in Judaism 34, 1 (Winter 1985): 5-13.

1. A mamzer is a male or female Jew (the feminine form of the noun is mamzeret) who, because of the circumstances of his or her birth, may not marry a native-born Jew; if he or she does, the children are mamzerim. I leave mamzer untranslated because the English terms "illegitimate" and "bastard" derive from a completely different legal system and do not accurately reflect the meaning of the Hebrew.

19

20

SHAYE J. D. COHEN

rulings has its own history, as I shall show below, but it is convenient to group them together under the general heading of the "matrilineal principle." Anthropologists and sociologists use the term matrilineal to describe societies in which kinship is determined through the females and not the males. Such societies once existed in ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia, and can still be found in parts of Africa, India, and Polynesia.2 Although rabbinic society and family law have not yet been studied in the light of modern anthropological and sociological theories, it seems clear that the kinship patterns which characterize matrilineal societies are thoroughly foreign to rabbinic society. With only a few exceptions, rabbinic family law is patrilineal. Status, kinship, and succession are determined through the father. ("The family of the father is considered family, the family of the mother is not considered family," B. Bava Batra 109b.) Why, then, did the rabbis adopt a matrilineal principle for the determination of the status of the offspring of mixed marriages? In the first section of this essay I examine the Bible and the texts of the Second Temple period in order to determine the earliest attestation of the matrilineal principle in Jewish sources. The second section is dedicated to the Mishnah, the Tosefta, and the two Talmudim. In the third section I assess various explanations for the origins of the matrilineal principle, and in the fourth I attempt to reach a conclusion.3

2. Paul Koschaker, "Fratriarchat, Hausgemeinschaft und Mutterrecht in Keilschriftrechten," Zeitschrift fiir Assyrologie 41 n.s. 7 (1933): 1-89; David M. Schneider, Matrilineal Kinship (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1961); in general see Jack Goody, ed., Kinship:Selected Readings (Baltimore: Penguin, 1971) and Jack Goody, ComparativeStudies in Kinship (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1969), chap. 3. For recent kinship studies see Robert A. Oden, Jr., "Jacob as Father, Husband, and Nephew: Kinship Studies and the Patriarchal Narratives," Journal of Biblical Literature 102 (1983): 189-205. 3. This article is the fourth in a series about conversion and intermarriage in antiquity; see also "Conversion to Judaism in Historical Perspective: From Biblical Israel to Postbiblical Judaism," Conservative Judaism 36, no. 4 (Summer 1983): 31-45; "From the Bible to the Talmud: the Prohibition of Intermarriage," Hebrew Annual Review 7(1983): 23-39; "Was Timothy Jewish (Acts 16:1-3)? Patristic Exegesis, Matrilineal Descent, and Rabbinic Law," Journal of Biblical Literature (in press). The most important scholarly contributions to the study of the matrilineal principle are: Victor Aptowitzer, "Spuren des Matriarchats im juedischen Schrifttum," Hebrew Union College Annual 4 (1925): 207-240 and 5 (1926): 261-297; Louis M. Epstein, Marriage Laws in the Bible and the Talmud(Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1942), esp. pp. 174 and 194-197; Boaz Cohen, "Some Remarks on the Law of Persons in Jewish and Roman Jurisprudence," Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research 16 (1946-47): 1-37, esp. 12-24; and Lawrence Schiffman, "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, ed. E. P.

THE ORIGINS OF THE MATRILINEAL PRINCIPLE

21

I

TheBiblicalPeriod The preexilicportions of the Hebrew Bible are not familiarwith the matrilinealprinciple.NumerousIsraeliteheroesand kings marriedforeign women; for example, Judah marrieda Canaanite,Joseph an Egyptian, Moses a Midianite and an Ethiopian, David a Philistine, and Solomon women of every description.4Although Exod. 34:16 and Deut. 7:1-3 prohibit intermarriageonly with the Canaanites,a prohibitionthat was supposedto have originatedwith the patriarchsAbraham(Gen. 24:3) and Isaac(Gen. 27:46-28:1),some Israelitesextendedthe prohibitionto include all foreigners(Judg. 14:3).But it neveroccurredto anyonein preexilictimes to argue that such marriageswere null and void. Marriagewas the nonsacramental,private acquisitionof a woman by a man, and the state had little or no legalstandingin the matter.5The foreignwomanwho marriedan Israelitehusbandwas supposedto leave her gods in her father'shouse, but even if she did not, it neveroccurredto anyone to arguethat her children werenot Israelites.Sincethe idea of conversionto Judaismdid not yet exist (see below),it neveroccurredto anyoneto demandthatthe foreignwoman undergosome ritualto indicateher acceptanceof the religionof Israel.The woman was joined to the house of Israel by beingjoined to her Israelite husband;the act of marriagewas functionallyequivalentto the lateridea of conversion.In somecircumstancesbiblicallaw and societydid pay attention to maternalidentity-the childrenof concubinesand femaleslaves sometimes rank lower than the children of wives6-but it never occurredto Sanders et al. (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981), pp. 115-156, esp. 117-122. The abundant literature spawned by the debate in the State of Israel on the question "Who is a Jew?" (see, e.g., Baruch Litvin and Sidney Hoenig, eds., Jewish Identity: Modern Responsa and Opinions [New York: Feldheim, 1965], a book brought to my attention by Rabbi Wolfe Kelman) is important for the student of contemporary Jewry but not for the historian of antiquity. The same judgment applies to the recent pronouncements of the Reform movement justifying a patrilineal or nonlineal system (see the Winter 1983 issue of the Journal of Reform Judaism). 4. A convenient collection of the material is Raphael Patai, Sex and Family in the Bible (New York: Doubleday, 1959), pp. 31-35. It was first collected in modern times by Leopold Low, "Eherechtliche Studien," Gesammelte Schriften III, ed. Immanuel Lbw (Szegedin, 1893; reprint ed., Hildesheim: Olms, 1979), pp. 112-143. 5. Most legal systems of antiquity shared this attitude. See, e.g., Elias Bickerman, "La ' conception du mariage Athenes," Bulletino dell' Istituto di Diritto Romano 78, n.s. 17 (1975): 1-28. 6. See, e.g., Gen. 21:10, 22:20-24, and 25:5-6; Judg. 9:1-5 and 11:1-2; cf. Exod. 21:4.

22

SHAYE J. D. COHEN

anyone to impose any legal or social disabilities on the children of foreign women. Although Deut. 7:3 prohibits Israelite men from marrying Canaanite women, and Israelite women from being given in marriage to Canaanite men, the legislator is particularly concerned about the former possibility, because "their daughters will lust after their gods and will cause your sons to lust after their gods" (Exod. 34:16, cf. Deut. 7:4).7This concern indicates not a matrilineal principle but a patriarchal society in which the cult, as well as everything else of importance, was the domain of the men. If Israelite men are incited by their foreign wives to abandon the worship of the true God, the result could be catastrophic; if Israelite women are turned astray by their foreign husbands, who would notice?8 Furthermore, when an Israelite woman was married to a foreigner she usually became part of her husband's family (just like the foreign woman who was married to an Israelite husband) and was no longer under the jurisdiction or authority of her native people. Hence the legal and narrative texts pay little attention to marriages between Israelite women and foreign men. Like the women themselves, they were easily overlooked. A similar phenomenon can be observed not only in the Mishnah (see below) but also in the literature of other societies which enacted prohibitions of marriage with foreigners.9 The meager biblical data about such marriages suggest that the offspring of Israelite women and foreign men were judged matrilineally only if the marriage was matrilocal, that is, only if the foreign husband joined the wife's domicile or clan.'0 1 Chron. 2:34-35 describes a marriage between an

There are many parallels in other legal systems of antiquity; see G. R. Driver and John Miles, The Babylonian Laws, 2 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1952), 1:350-353. A notable exception is Egyptian law, according to which the offspring of a slave mother and a free father is legitimate (Diodorus of Sicily 1.80.3). 7. On Deut. 7:4 see below. 8. The Bible seldom notices idolatrous acts by Israelite women: see 2 Kings 23:7; Jer. 7:18 (the whole family); and Ezek. 8:14. 9. On Periclean Athens see below. Matroxenoi, "those born of foreign mothers," is an attested Greek word (Pollux, Onomasticon 3.21 [E. Bethe ed., vol. 1, p. 161]; see the passages listed in Bethe's note, especially the scholion to Euripides, Alcestis 989); patroxenoi, "those born of foreign fathers," is unattested. The Digest gives the Roman version of the matrilineal principle but omits the Lex Minicia (see below). (Mr. David Cherry suggests that it was omitted because the Constitutio Antoninianaof 212 C.E.,which conferred Roman citizenship on virtually all inhabitants of the empire, effectively rendered it obsolete.) 10. On matrilocal marriage in general, see Edward Westermarck, The History of Human Marriage, 3 vols. (New York: Allerton, 1922), 1:296-297. On matrilocal marriage in the ancient Near East, see Koschaker, "Fratriarchat, Hausgemeinschaft und Mutterrecht," pp.


23

Egyptianslave and the daughterof his Israeliteowner. The marriagewas probably a form of adoption." Other instances of matrilocalmarriage involving a foreign male are recordedby Lev. 24:1012and 1 Chron. 2:17 (contrast2 Sam. 17:25).If the marriagewas not matrilocal,that is, if the Israelitewomanjoined the house of her foreignhusband,I assumethat the fellow nationalsof both the husbandand the wifewould haveconsideredthe childrento be of the same nationalityas their father.Unfortunately,little evidenceconfirmsthis assumption.'3 Ezra The situation becomes less clear in the fifth century B.C.E.At about the time that Pericles was enacting a law restricting Athenian citizenship to those born of an Athenian woman lawfully wedded to an Athenian man (451 B.C.E.),Ezra was promoting a similar reform in Judea.'4 After exacting a pledge from the notables of Jerusalem to refrain from marriages with foreigners, Ezra attempted to expel from the community approximately 113 foreign wives with their children. Only two aspects of this obscure episode need to be treated here. First, why did Ezra virtually ignore the marriages between Israelite women and foreign men?'5 Second, why did he attempt to 84-85; G. R. Driver and John C. Miles, The Assyrian Laws (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1935), pp. 134-142; E. Neufeld, Ancient Hebrew Marriage Laws (London and New York: Longmans, Green, 1944), pp. 56-67; idem, The Hittite Laws (London: Luzac, 1951), pp. 126, 140-141, and 151-153; Werner Plautz, "Zur Frage des Mutterrechts im alten Testament," Zeitschriftfir die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft74 (1962): 9-30, esp. 18-26; Patai, Sex and Family in the Bible, pp. 52-53. 11. For the legitimation of the offspring of a slave father and a free mother, cf. Driver and Miles, Babylonian Laws, 1:353-356. 12. The verse carefully contrasts the "son of an Israelite woman" with the "Israelite," thereby implying that the former was marked by a social stigma. 13. 1 Kings 7:13-14, cf. 2 Chron. 2:12-13. 14. On the citizenship law of Pericles, see W. K. Lacey, The Family in Classical Greece (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1968), pp. 100-103; Jean-Marie Hannick, "Droit de cite et mariages mixtes dans la Grece classique," L'antiquite classique 45 (1976): 133-148; John K. Davies, "Athenian Citizenship: The Descent Group and the Alternatives," Classical Journal 73 (1977): 105-121; Cynthia Patterson, Pericles' Citizenship Law of 451-50 B.C. (New York: Arno, 1981). The parallel between Pericles and Ezra was observed by George Foot Moore, Judaism in the First Centuries, 3 vols. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1927), 1:20, and by Solomon Zeitlin, The Rise and Fall of the Judean State, 3 vols. (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1968-78), 1:17. 15. He briefly mentions these marriages in his penitential prayer (Ezra 9:12) but otherwise ignores them. So too his contemporary Malachi (2:11-16).

24

SHAYE J. D. COHEN

expel the children of the foreign wives as well as the wives themselves? The usual answer to these questions is that Ezra introduced the matrilineal principle. He attacked marriages between Israelite (at this period we can begin to say "Jewish") men and foreign women because their consequences were serious; like their mothers, the offspring were not Jewish. In contrast, he could ignore (at least temporarily) the marriages between Jewish women and foreign men because their consequences were relatively benign; like their mothers, the offspring were Jewish.16 (Of course, according to the Mishnah these offspring should have been expelled anyway, since they were mamzerim-a minor detail.) This view may be correct, but it is not necessarily so; other explanations are possible. Perhaps Ezra ignored the marriages between native women and foreign men because, as I have just mentioned, such marriages were generally ignored by both biblical and nonbiblical texts. Ezra's jurisdiction extended only to the members of his people,'7 and he could do nothing to a foreign man who had married an Israelite woman. Even the attempted expulsion of the children of the foreign wives does not necessarily presume a matrilineal principle. Perhaps, like Pericles, Ezra introduced a bilateral requirement for citizenship. This innovation affected matroxenoi (offspring of foreign mothers) more than patroxenoi (offspring of foreign fathers) in both Athens and Jerusalem, since the former had previously been regarded as citizens while the latter had always been regarded as foreigners.'8 Furthermore, the attempted expulsion of the children was an act of supererogation by Shecaniah ben Jehiel (Ezra 10:2-3) and was not demanded by Ezra himself (Ezra 10:11).19 If we insist on seeing the matrilineal principle in this 16. Chaim Tchernowitz, History of Hebrew Law [Hebrew], 4 vols. (New York: no publisher, 1943-44), 3:108-111; Samuel Belkin, "The Problem of Paul's Background," Journal of Biblical Literature 54 (1935): 47-48; Zeitlin, Judean State, 1:27, referring to Solomon Zeitlin, "The Offspring of Intermarriage,"Jewish QuarterlyReview 51 (1960): 135-140; Schiffman, "At the Crossroads," p. 121. The amora R. Haggai also deduces the matrilineal principle from the Ezra story (see below). 17. Ezra 7:25, reading ammak or ammehinstead of amma. See H. L. Ginsberg, The Israelian Heritage of Judaism (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1982), p. 17, n. 18. 18. Anastasios Christophilopoulos, Dikaion kai Historia (Athens: no publisher, 1973), p. 69 (part of his article "Marriage with a Foreign Woman According to Ancient Hellenic and Hellenistic Law" [Greek]); C. Vatin, Recherches sur le mariage et la condition de la femme maride l'depoquehellinistique (Paris, 1970), pp. 120-122; and the studies listed in note 14 above. Isaeus, Orations 8.43 summarizes the Periclean law as follows, "If our mother was not a citizen, we are not citizens" (quoted by Lacey, Family in Classical Greece, p. 282, n. 14). 19. This was sensed by Thomas de Vio Caietan (1469-1534) in his commentary on Ezra 10:5, 11, and 44; see his Opera Omnia quotquotin Sacrae Scripturae Expositionem Reperiuntur,


25

story, we mustascribeits originnot to Ezrabut to an unheraldedmemberof the clan of Elam.

The Second TemplePeriod

The likelihoodthat Ezra (or a contemporary)introducedthe idea that the offspringof a Jewishfatherand a gentile motheris a gentile is further diminishedby the fact that this half of the matrilinealprincipleis never attested explicitly, and is frequentlycontradictedimplicitly,by the later literatureof the Second Temple period.20When confrontingthe biblical narrativesabout the heroes of Israel who married foreign women, an exegete committed to the matrilinealprincipleand to the prohibitionof intermarriagewith all gentileshas only threeoptions:(1) he can assertthat the principleand the prohibitionwere in effect in biblical times, but that they were occasionallyignored;(2) he can admit that the principleand the prohibitionwere not in effectin biblicaltimes;or (3) he can arguethat the principleand the prohibitionwere in effect and were observedby all. The first two possibilitieswere near impossibilitiesfor anyone who believedin the harmonyof SacredScriptureand Jewishlaw. Some rabbiscould admit that Jacoband his sons did not observethe legal distinctionsbetweenclean and unclean animals (M. Flullin 7:6),21 and some works of the pseudepi-

grapha could portray the patriarchs in exotic ways, but the general 5 vols. (Lyons: Jacobus et Petrus Prost, 1639), 2:370-371. Similarly, according to some Karaite exegetes Ezra did not even attempt to expel the children; see below. Some modern Jewish apologists explain that Ezra did not regard the women and their children as gentiles; he was merely purifying the lineage of the aristocracy from admixture with Jews of poor pedigree. See Heinrich Graetz, Geschichte der Juden, 2d ed. (Leipzig: O. Leiner, 1902), II, 2, pp. 130-136 (with the critique of Yehezkel Kaufmann, History of the Religion of Israel, vol. 4, From the Babylonian Captivity to the End of Prophecy, trans. C. W. Efroymson [New York: Ktav, 1977], pp. 340-342); F. Rosenthal, Monatschriftfiir die Geschichteund Wissenschaftdes Judentums30 (1881): 120-122; and Lewi Freund, "Iber Genealogien und Familienreinheit in biblischer und talmudischer Zeit," in Festschrift Adolf Schwarz, ed. Victor Aptowitzer and Samuel Krauss (Berlin and Vienna: R. L6wit, 1917), pp. 168-169. 20. Of course, one could argue that this fact is merely further testimony to Ezra's relative lack of success; see, e.g., Morton Smith, Palestinian Parties and Politics That Shaped the Old Testament (New York: Columbia University Press, 1971), pp. 121-122. The documents of Elephantine describe several cases of intermarriage, but the matrilineal principle is nowhere in evidence. See Bezalel Porten, Archives from Elephantine (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1968), pp. 148-149, 203-213, and 252-258. 21. E. E. Urbach, The Sages, trans. I. Abrahams, 2 vols. (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1979), 1:335-336.

26

SHAYE J. D. COHEN

tendencyof rabbinicliterature,Jubilees,and the Testamentsof the Twelve Patriarchsis to claim that the patriarchsobservedthe law in a manner consonantwith later beliefs.And even if an excusecould be found for the marriagesof the sons of Jacob, what excuse could be found for Moses himself and for the figureswho lived after the revelationof the Torah at Mount Sinai? Rabbinic midrash, therefore,chose the third course, and arguedthat the foreignwomen were not foreignat all, eitherbecausethey were of Israeliteorigin or becausethey convertedto Judaismbefore their marriages.22This exegesis does not necessarilypresume the matrilineal principle-the removalof the blot of intermarriageis sufficientincentiveto invent stories about Israelite lineage and conversions to Judaism-but withoutit the matrilinealprinciplecannotbe maintainedin the presenceof the biblical data. Therefore,the absence of this exegesis from the vast majorityof the midrashicand exegeticalworksof the SecondTempleperiod implies that these works are not familiarwith the matrilinealprinciple. Some examples:The Book of Jubileeshas Abraham(20:4, 22:20, and 25:5), Rebecca(25:1-3), and Isaac(27:10)admonishtheirsons not to marry Canaanitewomen, "for the seed of Canaanwill be rootedout of the land," but the author mentionswithout commentthe Canaanitewives of Simon and Judah (34:20), marriageswhich were sanitizedby rabbinicexegesis.23 According to Jubilees 41:1 and Testament of Judah 10:1 Tamar, the daughter-in-lawand paramourof Judah,was an Aramean;in rabbiniclore (and in Philo) she was a convert to Judaism.24Testamentof Joseph 18:3 mentionswithoutcommentJoseph'smarriageto the daughterof the priest of Heliopolis; rabbinicmidrash(and Joseph and Asenath) removes this cause for opprobrium.25 EgyptianJews told manywonderfulstoriesabout 22. L. Ginzberg, Legends of the Jews, 7 vols, reprint ed. (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1967-68), index, s.v. "conversion" and "proselytes"; Victor Aptowitzer, "Asenath, the Wife of Joseph," Hebrew Union College Annual 1(1924): 239-306; and Bernard Bamberger, Proselytism in the TalmudicPeriod (1939; reprint ed., New York: Ktav, 1968), pp. 174-217. I hope to study these techniques elsewhere. 23. R. H. Charles, Apocrypha and Pseudepigraphaof the Old Testament,vol. 2, Pseudepigrapha (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913), note ad loc. 24. In some midrashim, notably TargumJonathan on Gen. 38:6, she is the daughter of Shem. (Her loyalty to God is indicated in TargumJonathan and Fragment Targum to Gen. 38:25.) See Marshall Johnson, The Purpose of the Biblical Genealogies (Cambridge: At the University Press, 1969), pp. 156, 159-162, and 270-272 (who omits Ps.-Philo, Biblical Antiquities 9.5). For Philo (On the Virtues 40. 220-222) Tamar plays the same role as Asenath in Joseph and Asenath: she is the perfect archetype of the female proselyte, just as Abraham is of the male. See Marc Philonenko, Joseph et Aseneth (Leiden: Brill, 1968), p. 55. 25. See Aptowitzer, "Asenath."


27

Moses' Ethiopian wife, but one story they did not tell was her conversion to Judaism; that motif appears only in the rabbinic version of the tale.26The rabbis insist that a female war captive must convert to Judaism before being married by her Israelite captor; Deut. 21:10-14 neglects this provision, as does the Temple Scroll, a work closely related to Jubilees.27In the middle of its paraphrase of Gen. 34, the story of Shechem's rape of Dinah, Jubilees inserts a tirade against intermarriage. It condemns the unions of Israelite men with foreign women and the unions of Israelite women with foreign men, but, influenced by the scriptural text, directs the brunt of its anger toward the latter, not the former. A man who gives his daughter to a gentile is guilty of handing his seed over to Molech, and therefore both the man and his daughter deserve death (30:7-11, esp.10). In rabbinic texts, by contrast, the prohibition of Molech worship (Lev. 18:21) is understood to refer to unions between Israelite men and foreign women: "this is a man who has sexual intercourse with a gentile woman and raises up children who are the enemies of God." Jubilees does not know the matrilineal principle, the rabbis do.28 Following the biblical tradition, few texts of the Second Temple period indicate the status of the offspring of unions between Jewish women and gentile men. Some scholars have adduced Acts 16:1-3 to prove that such offspring were considered to be Jewish, but the passage is ambiguous. And he [Paul]came also to Derbeand to Lystra.A disciplewas there,named Timothy,the son of a Jewishwomanwho was a believer;but his fatherwas a Greek. He was well spoken of by his brethrenat Lystraand Iconium.Paul wanted Timothyto accompanyhim; and he took him and circumcisedhim becauseof the Jewsthat werein those places,for they all knewthat his father was a Greek.29 Paul circumcises his new traveling companion so that he will not offend the Jews of Asia Minor, but his act can be interpreted in either of two ways: is

26. Tessa Rajak, "Moses in Ethiopia: Legend and Literature,"Journal of Jewish Studies 29 (1978): 111-122, and Avigdor Shinan, "Moses and the Ethiopian Woman," in Studies in Hebrew Narrative Art, Scripta Hierosolymitana, vol. 27 (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1978), pp. 66-78. 27. R. Akiva in Sifrei Deut. 213 (Finkelstein ed., p. 246); Temple Scroll, col. 63. 28. M. Megillah 4:9 and the statement of R. Ishmael in B. Megillah 25a; see S. Cohen, "Prohibition of Intermarriage." 29. The translation is the Revised Standard Version.

28

SHAYE J. D. COHEN

Paul circumcising an uncircumcised Jew, or is he converting a gentile to Judaism? In other words, was Timothy a Jew with a gentile father or a gentile with a Jewish mother? The latter possibility is supported by the simple meaning of the phrase "for they all knew that his father was a Greek." Patristic exegetes unfamiliar with the rabbinic matrilineal principle had no doubt that Timothy was a gentile.30 Philo, Paul, and Josephus, three authors of the first century, are unfamiliar with either half of the matrilineal principle. Philo applies the term nothos ("bastard") to the offspring of both types of mixed marriage: Israelite mothers with gentile fathers, and Israelite fathers with gentile (or slave) mothers. This usage is somewhat puzzling, but it certainly does not presume familiarity with the matrilineal principle."3Paul thinks that either a Christian father or a Christian mother could "consecrate" the children to Christ (1 Cor. 7:14). Josephus knows that priestly lineage can be debased if a priest's wife is raped or is unfaithful,32but he does not know that a gentile woman married to a Jewish man produces gentile children. Josephus carefully narrates the conversion (or, in some cases, nonconversion) of the gentile men who married the princesses of the Herodian house, but he never mentions the conversion (or nonconversion) of the gentile women who were married to the princes of the house, and Josephus obviously has no doubt that their children are Jewish. The biblical principle still applies: a gentile

30. S. Cohen, "Was Timothy Jewish?";cf. David Daube, Ancient Jewish Law (Leiden: Brill, 1981), pp. 25-26. 31. Israelite mother and gentile father: On the Life of Moses 2.36 ? 193 (referring to Lev. 24:10). Israelite father and gentile (or slave) mother: On the Virtues40 ? 224, and cf. Allegorical Interpretation2.24 ? 94 (referring to the offspring of Bilhah and Zilpah); On the Life of Moses 1.27 ? 147 (referring to the mixed multitude, the offspring of Egyptian women and Hebrew men). In some Greek cities the offspring of a citizen mother and a noncitizen father was a nothos (see Demosthenes, 23 [Against Aristocrates] ? 213, referring to Oreus in Euboea), but I think that Philo is using the term in a nontechnical sense: "of impure lineage" or "a product of mixed breeding." This usage is well attested. Samuel Belkin argues that Philo knew the rabbinic matrilineal principle, but the merits of his argument need not be considered (and they are few) because he mistakenly believes that Philo restricts the term nothos to the offspring of Israelite fathers and gentile mothers. See his Philo and the Oral Law (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1940), pp. 233-235. The mistake originates with Isaac Heinemann, Philons griechische undjiidische Bildung (Breslau: Marcus, 1932), pp. 313-314, but Heinemann, at least, realized that Philo's usage is not compatible with rabbinic law. See too B. Cohen, "Law of Persons," p. 24, n. 71. 32. Jewish Antiquities 3.12.2 ? 276, 13.10.5 ? 292, 13.13.5 ? 372; cf. 11.3.10 ? 71 and Against Apion 1.7 ? 35.


29

woman "converts" by being married to a Jewish husband.33 Herod the Great is labeled an "Idumean" and a "half-Jew" because of his paternal ancestry; the fact that his mother was an "unconverted" Arab woman is ignored. 4

Conclusion The Apocrypha, the pseudepigrapha, the Qumran scrolls, Philo, Paul, Josephus, and Acts are not familiar with the rabbinic matrilineal principle. It is probably not a coincidence that most of these works also do

not knowthat foreignwomencan convertto Judaismby a meansotherthan marriage to a Jewish husband. Conversion to Judaism by men is first attested in the sixth and fifth centuries B.C.E.;its identification with circumcision is first attested (aside from the ambiguous story in Gen. 34) in the second century B.C.E. Few texts of the Second Temple period, however, speak of the conversion of women, and no text of the period prescribes immersion as a component of the ritual of conversion for either man or woman. (In Joseph and Asenath the ritual of Asenath's conversion is the eating of honey from a honeycomb.) If the only way foreign women can "convert" to Judaism is through marriage, the biblical material prevents any matrilineal theory, since the Bible shows that the children of such marriages were accepted as Israelites. With the emergence of the possibility that women could convert to Judaism on their own, the matrilineal principle could develop. This process is underway in the latter part of the Second Temple period but is not complete until the second century, when immersion for women (and men) and the matrilineal principle are securely attested for the first time.35 33. Jewish Antiquities 16.7.6 ? 225, 18.5.1 ? 109, 18.5.4 ?? 139 and 141, and 20.7.1-3 ?? 139-147. (Josephus does not say whether Agrippa, the son of Drusilla and the uncircumcised Felix [? 143], was Jewish.) 34. Herod: Jewish Antiquities 14.1.3 ??8-10, 14.7.3 ? 121, and 14.15.2 ? 403; cf. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 1.7.11-14. Joseph Justus Scaliger noticed this problem and solved it by arguing that Herod's mother converted to Judaism; see the Animadversionesin Chronologica Eusebii, p. 149, in his Thesaurus Temporum:Eusebii Pamphili... ChronicorumCanonum ... Libri Duo (Leiden: T. Basson, 1606). 35. For a brief history of conversion to Judaism, see S. Cohen, "Conversion to Judaism." Several scholars have noted that conversion for women developed only after conversion for men: see Tchernowitz, History of Hebrew Law, 1:301-303; Belkin, Philo, p. 235, n. 60; and the

SHAYE J. D. COHEN

30

The Mishnah The central rabbinic text on the matrilineal principle is M. Kiddushin 3:12.36 [A] Whereverthereis potentialfor a valid marriageand the marriagewould not be sinful,the offspringfollowsthe male.And what [woman]is this?Thisis the daughterof a priest, Levite, or Israelitewho was marriedto a priest, Levite, or Israelite. [B]Whereverthereis potentialfor a validmarriagebut the marriagewouldbe sinful,the offspringfollowsthe parentof lowerstatus.37And what [woman]is this? This is a widow with a high priest,a divorceeor a "releasedwoman" [balu;ah,Deut. 25:5-10] with a regularpriest,a mamzeretor a netinah[Ezra 2:43-58, etc.] with an Israelite,an Israelitewomanwith a mamzeror a natin. [C]And any womanwho does not havethe potentialfor a validmarriagewith this man but has the potentialfor a valid marriagewith other men, the offspringis a mamzer.And what [man]is this?This is he who has intercourse with any of the relationsprohibitedby the Torah. [D] And any woman who does not have the potentialfor a valid marriage either with this man or with other men, the offspringis like her. And what [man]is this? This is the offspringof a slave woman or a gentile woman. Paragraph D clearly states that the offspring of a slave or gentile mother (and a Jewish father) follows the mother, a ruling which appears also in M. Yevamot2:5 and which constitutes half of the matrilineal principle. This mishnah is carefully constructed out of four paragraphs which share a common literary structure (each states a general rule followed by one or more examples of the rule) but differ from each other in style. Paragraphs A and B begin with kal makom she-yesh kiddushin,ask whether chapter on conversion in Daube, Ancient Jewish Law. Elsewhere I hope to study the development of the rituals of conversion (including immersion) and the emergence of nonmarital conversion for women. 36. I translate Albeck's text. For representative variants I have checked facsimiles of the following codices: Parma De Rossi 138 and 984, Budapest Kaufmann A 50, Paris 328-329, Leiden Scal. 3 (the most important manuscript of the Palestinian Talmud), and Munich 95 (the most important manuscript of the Babylonian Talmud). 37. All the manuscripts listed in the previous footnote read (ha-)pagum she-bi-shneihen.

OFTHEMATRILINEAL PRINCIPLE THEORIGINS

31

the unionis sinfulor not, ignorethe potentialof the womanto contracta legal marriagewith other men, and introducewomen as their examples. Paragraphs C and D begin with ve-kal mi she-ein lah alayv kiddushin, ask

whetherthe womanhas the potentialto contracta legalmarriagewith other men, ignorethe sinfulnessof the union,and introducemen(morepreciselya man in C and a masculinenoun in D) as theirexamples.In theirexamplesA and C use a verb (she-niset/she-ba),B and D do not. These interlocking patternsimplythat the examplesare an intrinsicpartof eachparagraphand that the mishnahas a whole is an organiccomposition.38 The literaryunityof the mishnahis complementedby its thematicunity. The mishnahis basedon two assumptionswhichare unknownto the Bible: first, some marriagesare valid and some invalid;second, the statusof offspringis determinednot by the marriageof the parentsbut by the potential of the parentsto contract a valid marriagewith each other (kiddushin).39 ParagraphA treats unions which are permittedand potentiallyvalid; B, unions which are prohibitedbut potentiallyvalid; and C and D, unions which have no potentialvaliditybecausethey are prohibited(althoughthis point is left unstated). The literaryand thematicunity of this mishnahimpliesthat each of the four paragraphsis based on this postbiblicallegal theory,but the implication is misleading.The redactorhas broughtorderout of chaosby imposing a single theory upon practices of disparateorigins. The basic principle enunciated by A is biblical (the offspringof a union between Israelites follows the father). C's ruling that incestuous relationships produce mamzerimmay also be biblical,as some scholarshave argued.40Half of D may be biblical(the offspringof a slave woman follows the motherat least to someextent),41but the otherhalfcertainlyis not (the offspringof a gentile woman follows the mother).Nor is thereany biblicalsupportfor the principle stated by B. A furtherindicationof the artificialityof the structureof 38. Albeck's edition uses ve-eizeh zeh to introduce the examples of A and B, and ve-eizo zo to introduce the examples of C and D. Most of the manuscripts are not so exact. 39. "Potential to contract a valid marriage" is the only possible meaning of the term in paragraphs C and D, a point not appreciated by many translators of this Mishnah. See B. Cohen, "Law of Persons," p. 14. The rabbis do not require marriage of the parents for a child to have the status of its father; see below. 40. The meaning of mamzer in Deut. 23:3 is obscure. See Neufeld, Ancient Hebrew Marriage Laws, pp. 224-227; Encyclopaedia Biblica [Hebrew], vol. 5 (1968), s.v. mamzer; Calum M. Carmichael, The Laws of Deuteronomy (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1974), pp. 173-174. 41. See note 6.

32

SHAYE J. D. COHEN

this mishnah is the fact that two of the four examples in paragraph B are inappropriate. Examples three and four (mamzer/mamzeret and natin/ netinah with an Israelite) well illustrate the principle that the offspring of certain unions follow the parent with the lower status, but examples one and two (widow with a high priest, divorcee and balurah with a priest) do not. The children of these unions do not follow either parent; they are ballalim, a status held by neither the father nor the mother.42

The Other Half of the Matrilineal Principle Nor does M. Kiddushin3:12 account for all the anomalies of the rabbinic law of status. The two Talmudim, the Tosefta (Kiddushin4:16 [Lieberman ed., p. 292]), and the rabbinic commentators on this mishnah point out many omissions, one of which is the union of a Jewish woman with a gentile man. Like the Bible, the Mishnah is interested primarily in those who may and may not be married by Israelite men. As the Palestinian Talmud says, "Israelite men of good pedigree are prohibited from marriage with women who are unfit, but Israelite women of good pedigree are not prohibited from men who are unfit."43Elsewhere, however, the Mishnah does refer to this half of the matrilineal principle. M. Yevamot7:5 states, without giving any reason, that the child of a Jewish mother and a gentile or slave father is a mamzer. Perhaps the ruling is a development of the principle stated by paragraph D of M. Kiddushin3:12, which declares that the offspring of a woman who does not have kiddushinfollows the status of the mother. The logic of the argument is not spelled out, but most commentators assume that the mother's incapacity to enter a valid marriage renders her child fatherless. Since there is no potential for de jure paternity, the child follows the mother.44 Perhaps, then, this logic was extended also to men who lack kiddushin.The offspring of a Jewish woman by a slave or a gentile does not have a legal father and therefore follows the status of the mother. But just as the law penalizes a Jewish man who has fathered a child on a gentile woman

42. In his commentary on this mishnah Maimonides tries to answer this difficulty. 43. P. Kiddushin3:14 64c; cf. B. Kiddushin73a and parallels. Neither the Babylonian nor the Palestinian Talmud asks why the Mishnah omits the union of an Israelite woman with a gentile or slave. The answer was obvious. 44. This is not, however, the logic of paragraph C; incestuous and various other prohibited relations produce a mamzer, not a fatherless child who follows its mother.


33

(the child is a gentile), the law had to penalize a Jewish woman who conceived a child from a gentile man: the child is a Jew but a mamzer. Roman law provides a good analogy to this process (see below). If this exegesis is correct, paragraph D of M. Kiddushin3:12, as elaborated by M. Yevamot7:5, testifies to both halves of the matrilineal principle. The Talmudim, however, use not paragraph D but paragraph C for determining the consequences of a union between a Jewish woman and a gentile or a slave: since the mother does not have the capacity to contract a valid marriage with the father (because he is a gentile) but does have that capacity with other (i.e., Jewish) men, her offspring therefore is a mamzer.45 If this explanation is correct, one half of the matrilineal principle comes from paragraph C, the other from paragraph D. The two halves are even further apart if we accept the implications of T. Kiddushin 4:16 (Lieberman ed., p. 292). A gentileor a slavewho had intercoursewith an Israelitewomanandshegave birth to a child-the offspringis a mamzer.R. Simeonb. Judahsays in the name of R. Simeon, "There is no mamzerexcept [for the offspring]of a womanwhose prohibitionis amongthe relationsprohibitedby Scriptureand on account of whom [those who have intercoursewith her] are liable to extirpation." The first opinion, which is that of M. Yevamot7:5, declares that the offspring of a Jewish mother and a gentile father is a mamzer. R. Simeon, however, says that the child is not a mamzer but a legitimate Jew.46This debate, the Talmudim say, centers on the question whether or not paragraph C ("the offspring is a mamzer") extends to the case under discussion. When shorn of the talmudic additions, however, the debate in the Tosefta seems to be based not on paragraph C of M. Kiddushin3:12 but on M. Yevamot4:13. In that mishnah, which reflects neither the ideas nor the terminology of M. Kiddushin 3:12, R. Akiva, Simeon the Temanite (perhaps the same R.

45. See P. Kiddushin3:14 64d and B. Yevamot45b (and parallels). The counter-argument in both Talmudim is difficult to understand. That the principle of paragraph C includes male gentiles and slaves seems to be confirmed by M. Gittin 9:2. 46. In medieval times some commentators (notably Rashi) argued that R. Simeon meant that the offspring was not a mamzer but a gentile. See Aptowitzer, "Spuren des Matriarchats," p. 268. This view, incompatible with B. Yevamot44b-45b and contradicted by P. Yevamot4:15 6c (and P. Kiddushin3:14 64c-d), is a willful distortion of the Talmud and is a product of the medieval period.

34

SHAYE J. D. COHEN

Simeon quoted by the Tosefta), 47 and R. Joshua debate the definition of mamzer. In their debate these three rabbis do not refer explicitly to the consequences of a union between a Jewish woman and a gentile or a slave, but T. Kiddushin4:16, by echoing the language of M. Yevamot4:13, implies that this case too was included in their debate. If the Tosefta's interpretation is correct, the Mishnah is unfamiliar with a single matrilineal principle. The status of the offspring of a Jewish father and a gentile or slave mother was determined by one legal principle (paragraph D of M. Kiddushin3:12), while the status of the offspring of a Jewish mother and a gentile or slave father was determined by another (M. Yevamot4:13 as understood by T. Kiddushin 4:16). In sum, one mishnah clearly states that the offspring of a gentile mother and a Jewish father is a gentile, and offers a reason for this ruling, although the reason may not be the original one. Another mishnah clearly states that the offspring of a Jewish mother and a gentile father is a mamzer, but offers no reason for this ruling. The reason offered for the first ruling may be applicable also to the second, although the Mishnah does not connect them.

Date Both M. Kiddushin3:12 and M. Yevamot7:5 are anonymous. Can they be dated? Jacob Neusner argues that M. Kiddushin3:12 is Yavnean (end of the first century and beginning of the second century C.E.)because Rabbis Eliezer and Tarfon refer to it in M. Kiddushin3:13, but this exegesis is incorrect. Rabbis Eliezer and Tarfon debate whether a mamzer can ever produce children who are not mamzerim, but they do not discuss the definition of mamzer and do not presume the principles outlined in 3:12.48 J. N. Epstein argues that M. Kiddushin3:12 opens a tractate on "Forbidden Relations and Pedigrees" which extends through 4:14, and which, aside from various interpolations, is an "ancient mishnah" of Second Temple times.49Unfortunately, this "tractate" is neither a thematic nor a literary unit, and the principles

47. The manuscripts and testimonia of T. Kiddushin 4:16 provide various readings; see Lieberman's apparatus and commentary. 48. J. Neusner, A History of the Mishnaic Law of Women,5 vols. (Leiden: Brill, 1980), 5:173 and 200-201. 49. J. N. Epstein, Introduction to TannaiticLiterature, ed. E. Z. Melamed [Hebrew] (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1957), pp. 54 and 414-415. See Schiffman, "At the Crossroads," p. 118.


35

of 3:12 nowhere recur within it. The discussion of the ten "genealogical stocks" in chapter 4 includes many of the anomalous unions omitted by 3:12 (see above). But Neusner and J. N. Epstein, taken together, are correct to the extent that M. Kiddushin 3:12-4:14 (or 4:12) is a series of anonymous texts on genealogical matters, into which comments by named authorities, almost all of them Yavnean, have been inserted. This implies that 3:12 is Yavnean (if not earlier), but the conclusion is far from certain. If M. Yevamot7:5 is to be connected with M. Yevamot4:13, as T. Kiddushin4:16 implies, it too is probably Yavnean.50 The two halves of the matrilineal principle are combined explicitly for the first time in the Babylonian discussion of M. Kiddushin3:12. In order to prove the scriptural origin of the ruling that the offspring of a gentile woman follows the status of its mother, the two Talmudim quote (in slightly different forms) a statement of R. Yohlanan in the name of R. Simeon b. Yolhai. The Babylonian version (B. Kiddushin 68b and parallels) appends the following comment of Ravina, "Learn from this [the exegesis of R. Simeon] that your daughter's son who is fathered by a gentile is called 'your son.' " The Palestinian Talmud has nothing comparable to Ravina's comment, perhaps because it thought that R. Simeon's exegesis extends also to the offspring of Israelite mothers and gentile fathers (see below). If this is correct, the two halves of the matrilineal principle were first connected by R. Simeon (middle of the second century). According to the Babylonian Talmud, however, the credit for this connection belongs not to R. Simeon but to Ravina (late fourth century).

Dissenting Opinions The anonymity of M. Kiddushin3:12 implies that the editor regarded its rulings as beyond dispute. Virtually all tannaim and amoraim agreed that the offspring of a gentile or slave woman follows the status of the mother. Everyone further agreed that the offspring of a Jewish woman by a gentile or a slave is a Jew, although there was a vigorous debate among the amoraim whether to accept the Mishnah's view that such an offspring is a mamzer.

50. Neusner, Law of Women, 5:68 leaves M. Yevamot7:5 unassigned. A Yavnean date also fits R. Ishmael's exegesis of Lev. 18:21 (see n. 28). Perhaps the matrilineal principle entered rabbinic Judaism from the marriage regulations of pre-70 sectarianism (cf. Neusner, Law of Women, 5:179-192), but I see no evidence to support this conjecture.

36

SHAYE J. D. COHEN

The lenient view came to prevail, but in all other aspects the mishnaic statement of the matrilineal principle was followed.5' The consensus was not unanimous, however. Rabbinic literature preserves several traces of an antimishnaic view (relics of the premishnaic view?). Lev. 24:10 describes how a man, the son of an Israelite mother and an Egyptian father, argued with an Israelite "in the camp," cursed God, and was brought before Moses for judgment. The Sifra comments that the phrase "in the camp" implies that the man had "converted" to Judaism (Weiss ed., p. 104c). Nalhmanides and many other medieval commentators are puzzled by this statement, for how can the son of an Israelite woman, that is, a born Jew, convert to Judaism? None of the answers they offer is as strong as the question. Whoever is responsible for this pericope of the Sifra did not accept the dominant rabbinic view that the offspring of a Jewish mother is a Jew.52 Similarly, some rabbis believed that the offspring of a gentile mother and a Jewish father was a mamzer, not a gentile. R. Zadok in Rome excused himself from spending the night with a woman who had been offered to him because, he said, he feared that he might "multiply mamzerim in Israel."53Even more extreme is the view of Jacob of Kefar Neburaya, who argued that such a child was a Jew in all respects-the old patrilineal view of

51. On this debate see B. Cohen, "Law of Persons," pp. 15-19. The dynamics of this debate remain to be investigated. The Talmudim ignore the evidence of 1 Chron. 2:34-35 (see above note 11). 52. The reading of Weiss's edition of the Sifra is confirmed by codex Assemani 66, p. 465 in the facsimile edited by Louis Finkelstein (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1956). See the following commentaries on Lev. 24:10: Nahmanides (Chavel ed., pp. 162-163), HIizzekuni (Chavel ed., p. 410), Moshav Zekenim (S. Sassoon ed., p. 396), and Malbim. See Aptowitzer, "Spuren des Matriarchats," pp. 274-277. Rashi on Lev. 24:10 had no difficulty with the Sifra, since he thought that the offspring of a Jewish mother and a gentile father was a gentile; see note 46. The end of T. Eduyyot refers to Lev. 24:10, but the text is corrupt. 53. Fathers According to Rabbi Nathan, version A, chap. 16 (Schechter ed., p. 32a). Aptowitzer's interpretation ("Spuren des Matriarchats," pp. 266-267) is far-fetched: R. Zadok feared that he might father a gentile son who might, in turn, marry a Jewish woman and father mamzerim. See the ingenious suggestion of I. Heinemann, Zion 4 (1939): 284, n. 55 (mamzer is here used as a translation of the Greek nothos) and the discussion of M. Herr, Studies in Aggadah and Folk Literature, Scripta Hierosolymitana, vol. 22 (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1971), p. 137. Some medieval commentators found the same view in the statement of R. Asi in B. Yevamot16b, "A gentile who betroths [a Jewish woman] at this time-we suspect that the betrothal might be valid because he might be a descendant of the ten lost tribes." See the Tosafot ad loc. with the comments of D. W. Halivni, Sources and Traditions:A Source-Critical Commentaryon Seder Nashim [Hebrew] (Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1968), pp. 703-704, on B. Kiddushin 68a.


37

the Bible! After a sternrebukefrom R. Haggai,he retractedhis opinion.54 All in all, these exceptionsdo not amount to much. Perhapsoutside the rabbinicpale the matrilinealprinciplehad its opponents,but within rabbinic society it commandedalmost universalassent.55 III The matrilinealprincipleis not attestedin eitherthe Bible or the literature of the Second Templeperiod. Even in the first centuryof our era it is still unknownto Philo, the New Testament,and Josephus.All of thesetexts seem to be familiarwith a patrilinealsystem.The Mishnah,however,states the two halvesof the matrilinealprincipleas if theywereagreeduponby all. Why did the rabbis break with previous practice?The innovation (or innovations,if we keep the halves separate)can be explainedeither as the productof a new ideology(a chapterin the historyof ideas)or as a response to new social conditions (a chapter in social history). I shall treat each approachseparately. IdeologicalOrigins:Deuteronomy7:3-4 Both Talmudimusuallytry to find a basis in Scripturefor the rulingsof the Mishnah,and both Talmudimadducethe exegesisof R. Yobananin the 54. P. Kiddushin3:14 64d; P. Yevamot2:6 4a; Genesis Rabbah 7:2 (Theodor-Albeck ed., pp. 51-52); and parallels. 0. Irsai suggests a different interpretation of Jacob's argument: Jacob regarded the child as a convert to Judaism but believed that a child convert could be circumcised on the eighth day even if it was a Sabbath. See O. Irsai, "Ya'akov of Kefar Niburaia-A Sage Turned Apostate" [Hebrew], Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought 2, no. 2 (1982/83): 153-168, esp. 157-163. (I am grateful to Dr. Marc Hirshman for this reference.) 55. The evidence for the practices of the nonrabbinic Jews of antiquity is meager. If gentiles were allowed to erect epitaphs in the Jewish catacombs for their relatives who had converted to Judaism, the sepulchral inscriptions of Rome provide no instance against the rabbinic matrilineal principle. See H. J. Leon, The Jews of Ancient Rome (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1960), appendix, inscriptions 68 and 222. Compare nos. 256 and 462; no. 21 is difficult to understand, matrilineal principle or no. According to the Karaites the child of a gentile mother and a Jewish father is a Jew. Therefore, they argued, Ezra expelled the foreign women (because they had not converted to Judaism) but did not expel their children (since they, like their fathers, were Jewish). See Bernard Revel, "The Karaite Halakah," Jewish Quarterly Review 3 (1912-13): 375-376. Compare the latter-day apologists for Ezra (n. 19). (The Karaites followed the rabbis in presuming that the Bible knew the institution of conversion for women; see, e.g., Aaron b. Joseph the Karaite, Sefer ha-Mivbhar[Eupatoria, 1835], p. 17b, commentary on Deut. 21:10-11 [the law of the female war captive; see above n. 27].)

38

SHAYE J. D. COHEN

name of R. Simeon b. Yobai to prove the scriptural origin of half of the matrilineal principle. Here is the Palestinian version (P. Kiddushin3:14 64d, cf. P. Yevamot2:6 4a): It is written"Youshallnot intermarrywiththem:do not giveyourdaughterto his son" [Deut. 7:3], and it is written"For he shall turnyour son away from me" [Deut.7:4].Yourson froman Israelite[woman]is called"yourson,"but your son from a gentile woman is not called "your son" but her son. This version differs from the Babylonian (B. Kiddushin68b and parallels) chiefly by having R. Simeon quote Deut. 7:3 as well as 7:4, but how the verse or verses lead to the requisite conclusion is equally obscure in both sources.56 In their commentaries on the Babylonian Talmud, Rashi and Rabbenu Tam suggest that R. Simeon's deduction is based on the anomalous syntax of Deut. 7:4. Scripture prohibits the marriage of Israelite men with Canaanite women as well as the marriage of Israelite women with Canaanite men. Why, then, does Scripture say, "For he shall turn your son away from me"? The verse should have read either "For she [or they] shall turn your son away from me" or "For he shall turn your daughter away from me." It is this anomaly which impelled R. Simeon to deduce that the son of a gentile woman by an Israelite man is "her son" and not "your son." So far Rashi and Rabbenu Tam agree; how the anomaly is connected with the conclusion, however, is the subject of debate. Rashi argues that R. Simeon understood Deut. 7:4 to refer to the marriage of an Israelite woman with a gentile man: "for he [the gentile who married the Israelite woman] shall turn your son [the son of his Israelite wife] away from me." R. Simeon deduced that the son of an Israelite woman by a gentile man is "your son" but that the son of a gentile woman by an Israelite man is not "your son." Rashi's interpretation is perhaps corroborated by the Palestinian version, which has R. Simeon quote "Do not give your daughter to his son" in addition to the first part of Deut. 7:3. This implies that R. Simeon thought that the anomalous syntax of Deut. 7:4 referred to the marriage of an Israelite woman with a gentile man, just as Rashi says.57 56. In the Babylonian version the anonymous redactor (the setam) quotes Deut. 7:3, thereby splitting R. Simeon's exegesis in half. 57. The reading in P. Kiddushin3:14 64d is confirmed by codex Leiden Scal. 3. The parallel in P. Yevamot2:6 4a (even in codex Leiden Scal. 3), however, omits the phrase "Do not give your daughter to his son." Since scribes often exercised great freedom in copying biblical quotations in the Talmud, my argument is, at best, suggestive.


39

R. Simeonfindsa basisin Scripture Accordingto Rashi'sinterpretation, for both halves of the matrilinealprinciple.Accordingto RabbenuTam, however, R. Simeon understoodDeut. 7:4 to referto the marriageof an Israeliteman with a gentilewoman:"for he [thegentilefather-in-law]shall turn your son [his son-in-law]away from me." Only half of the matrilineal principleis derivedfrom Scripture.RabbenuTam'sinterpretationhas two distinct advantagesover Rashi's:it is supportedby Ravina, who did not think, as Rashi does, that R. Simeon treatedmarriagesbetweenIsraelite women and gentile men (see above); and it is ratherclose to the simple meaningof Deut. 7:4. For if we excludethe obviouspossibilitiesthat the text of SacredScripturehas sufferedcorruption,or that the singular"he" and "son" shouldbe understoodas equivalentto "they"and "sons,"the simple meaningof the text is that of R. Simeonas explainedby RabbenuTam.58As Exod. 34:16 demonstrates,Scripture is concerned primarily about the marriageof Canaanitewomen with Israelitemen. But even in RabbenuTam'sinterpretation,R. Simeon'sconclusioncan be extractedfrom the scripturaltext only with great difficulty.The Babylonian Talmud admits as much by seeking scripturalproof-textsfor the principlethat gentilesand slavesdo not havethe capacityto contracta valid marriage,an exercisewhich would have been unnecessaryhad the proof from Deut. 7:4 been convincing.59 The PalestinianTalmudadmitsas much when R. Haggai, in order to silence the obstreperousJacob of Kefar Neburya, deduces the matrilinealprinciplechiefly from Ezra 9-10, not Deut. 7:4 (see above). PerhapsR. Simeonintendedhis exegesisto be merely a scriptural hook from which to hang a rabbinic law (an asmakhta). 58. TargumNeofiti, TargumJonathan, TargumOnkelos, and Saadiah Gaon, followed by the new (1962) Jewish Publication Society version, understand "he shall turn" to mean "they shall turn" (Neofiti even supplies a subject, "their daughters shall turn"). Most of these also take "son" to be the equivalent of "sons" ("children" in the JPS version). Rashi's exegesis is followed by R. Meyuhas b. Eliyahu, Commentary on the Book of Deuteronomy, ed. Yehiel Katz [Hebrew] (Jerusalem: Mosad ha-Rav Kook, 1968), pp. 27-28; Rabbenu Tam's exegesis is followed by R. Joseph Bekhor Shor in his Torah commentary, ed. Joseph Gad, 3 vols. (Jerusalem: no publisher, 1959), 3:16 (= Der Pentateuch Kommentar des Joseph Bechor-Schor zum fiinfien Buche Moses, ed. Alfred Zweig [Breslau: Koebner, 1914; reprint ed., Jerusalem: Makor, 1978], p. 26), by Hjizzekuni(Chavel ed.), and by Aaron b. Joseph the Karaite, Sefer ha-Mivbar, p. 6b (who discusses two other interpretations as well). 59. Medieval rabbis continued the exercise; see, e.g., the Sheiltot de Ray Abai Gaon, chap. 25 (ed. Samuel Mirsky, vol. 1 [Jerusalem, 1961], pp. 158-163), and B. M. Lewin, ed. Orar ha-Ge'onim, vol. 9, Kiddushin (Jerusalem: Mosad ha-Rav Kook, 1940), p. 167, ? 376. Some medieval rabbis were not convinced by any of these proof-texts; see the comment by R. Israel in the Responsa of R. Asher b. Yebiel, ? 55.9 (Vilna, 1881, p. 52c).

40

SHAYE J. D. COHEN

Whateverhis intention,his statementdoes not disprovemy argumentthat the matrilinealprincipleis unknownto Scripture.60 Ideological Origins:Ezra

If the matrilinealprincipledoes not come from Deut. 7:4, what are its ideologicalorigins?In his refutationof Jacobof KefarNeburya,R. Haggai anticipatesthe modernscholarswho suggestthat it was introducedby Ezra. I demonstratedabove that this view is wrong, or, at least, not necessarily correct,but perhapsR. Haggaiand his modernfollowersare correctto the extent that the rabbisdeducedthe matrilinealprinciplefrom the Ezraepisode. Since the rabbis tried to avoid basing halakhahon any part of the Bibleotherthanthe Pentateuch,we can understandtheirhesitationto admit that the matrilinealprinciplewas derivedfrom the Book of Ezra. But the difficultywith this suggestionis that accordingto the MishnahEzrashould have expelled the childrenof the Jewish motherstoo. As mamzerimthey could not remainas full-fledgedmembersof the community.6' The Ezra episodecould have servedas a sourceonly for those who saidthat a Jewish motherand a gentilefatherproducea legitimateJew, not a mamzer,a view which did not gain ascendancyuntil amoraictimes. Ideological Origins: The Uncertainty of Paternity and the Intimacy of Motherhood

Scripture,then, does not providethe ideologicalorigins for the matrilinealprinciple.I offerthreeothersuggestions.First,perhapsthe principleis based on the idea stated by Paulus in the Digest 2.4.5, semper [mater] certa est, etiam si vulgo conceperit,pater vero is est quem nuptiaedemonstrant,"the

motheris alwaysknown,even if she conceivedout of wedlock,whereasthe father is he whom the marriageindicates."The identity of a mother is alwaysknowable,but the identityof a fatheris neverknowable;if a woman 60. Some modern Jewish apologists imply that the matrilineal principle really is to be found in the sacred text. See S. D. Luzzatto, Commentaryto the Pentateuch [Hebrew] (1871; Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1965), p. 520; David Hoffmann, Das Buch Deuteronomium,2 vols. (Berlin: Poppelauer, 1913-22), 1:91; and J. J. Hertz, The Pentateuch and Haftorahs (1936), 2d ed. (London: Soncino Press, 1961), p. 775. 61. See note 19 above.


41

is married,the law presumesthat her husbandis the fatherof herchild, but this presumptionalways lacks certainty.Perhapsthe rabbis too believed that paternitywas alwaysunknowableand felt that a child'sidentityshould be determinedin the first instance by its mother and not by its putative This view is unsatisfactoryfor two father.Hencethe matrilinealprinciple.62 reasons. First, as I remarkedin the first paragraphof this essay, the rabbis but paternityis restrictedthe matrilinealprincipleto casesof intermarriage, no more uncertainin those marriagesthan it is in unions betweenJews. Paulustoo adducesthe uncertaintyof paternitynot in connectionwith the Roman matrilinealprinciple(whichwill be discussedbelow) but in connection with somethingelse entirely(respectfor one's parents).Second,unlike the Romans,the rabbisdid not requiremarriagebetweenthe fatherand the motherfor the offspringto inheritfromhis fatheror receivehis status.If an unmarriedwoman is pregnantand declaresthat the fatherof her child is a priest, R. Gamalieland R. Eliezersay that she is to be believed;if a woman becomespregnantas the resultof rape,the offspringis presumedto havethe same status as the majorityof the people where the rape occurred(M. Ketubbot1:9-10). In these cases paternityis very uncertain,but the rabbis did not judge the offspringmatrilineally.63 Instead of emphasizingthe uncertaintyof paternity,some have suggested that the matrilinealprincipleis the result of the naturalcloseness betweenmotherand child.64The offspringof a gentilemotherand a Jewish fatheris a gentilebecausethe intimateconnectionbetweena motherand her child makes it certain that she will influencehim and instructhim in the waysof the gentiles.This suggestiontoo is unconvincing.The ancients,both Jewish and gentile, recognizedthe intimacyof motherhood,but drew no legal inferencesfrom this intimacy.Indeed,it was not until the nineteenth centurythat the legal systemsof Europebeganto recognizethe legal rights of a motherto her children.65 Accordingto rabbiniclaw a woman'sobliga62. Paulus' comment is usually summarized by the phrase mater certa, pater incertus. I have not succeeded in finding a scholarly presentation of this view, but I believe that it is widely accepted. At the 1983 meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, it was advanced by several people during the discussion of this paper. See below for another widely held view which lacks scholarly documentation. 63. See Zeitlin, "Offspring of Intermarriage," p. 136. M. Ketubbot 1:9-10 is addressing the status of the woman, not that of the child, but the implications are clear. 64. 1 have not found a scholarly presentation of this view, but it too was advanced during the discussion at the 1983 meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature. 65. Priscilla Robertson, An Experience of Women: Pattern and Change in Nineteenth Century Europe (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1982), p. 648, index, s.v. "child

42

SHAYE J. D. COHEN

tion to carefor herchildrenderivesmorefromherstatusas a wifethanfrom her statusas a mother.It is the dutyof the fatherto raisethe children,andit is the duty of the wife to assist him. The intimacyof motherhooddid not have legal consequences.66 Ideological Origins: Roman Law

The citation from Paulusleads to my secondsuggestion:the matrilineal principleenteredrabbinicthought underthe influenceof Roman law. The parallelbetweenthe Roman and the rabbiniclaw of personswas observed scholars,but it was Louis M. by variouseighteenth-and nineteenth-century Epsteinin 1942(followed, without acknowledgment,by Boaz Cohen)who first suggestedthat the Roman law influencedthe rabbinic.67The suggestion, therefore,is not new; on what evidencedoes it rely? Accordingto Roman law, a child is the legal heir of his fatherand is in his father'scustody(potestas)only if his fatherand motherwerejoined in a legal marriage (justummatrimonium).The capacity to contract a legal and was possessed marriagewas called conubium(also spelledconnubium), almost exclusively by Roman citizens. Marriagebetween a person with

custody" (I owe this reference to Professor Paula Hyman). Intimacy of motherhood: Lacey, Family in Classical Greece, p. 169 (quoting Xenophon, Memorabilia 2:2:5-10 and Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics 8:12:3 [1161B]). The rabbis know that a child often "honors" his mother more than his father (B. Kiddushin 30b-31a and parallels). 66. Obligation of father to raise his children: M. Kiddushin4:14 and T. Kiddushin5:15-16 (Lieberman ed., pp. 297-298). Obligation of mother: T. Niddah 2:4-5 (Zuckermandel ed., p. 642) and M. Ketubbot 5:5. The intimacy of motherhood did have legal implications for the treatment of animals: Sifra on Lev. 22:28 (Weiss ed., p. 99b) and B. Bekhorot 45. "The mother is not of kin to her child," writes Henry Swinburne, A Treatise of Testamentsand Last Wills (1591), quoted by Laurence Sterne, The Life and Opinionsof TristramShandy, vol. 4, chap. 29. Some rabbis knew that a fetus was formed from matter contributed by both the mother and the father (see B. Niddah 30b [and parallels] with the comments of J. Needham, A History of Embryology, 2d ed. [Cambridge: At the University Press, 1959], pp. 77-79), but knowledge of embryology had no impact on the development of law. 67. J. J. Wetstenius, Novum Testamentum Graecum, 2 vols. (Amsterdam: Officina Dommeriana, 1752), 2:552 (commentary on Acts 16:3); Isaac Weil, Prosilytisme chez les Juifs selon la Bible et la Talmud(Strassburg, 1880), pp. 79 ff., a work which I know only through the citation by Bamberger, Proselytism in the Talmudic Period, pp. 89-90; M. Mielziner, The Jewish Law of Marriage and Divorce (New York: Bloch, 1884), pp. 95-97; Epstein, Marriage Laws, and B. Cohen, "Law of Persons." In his review of Epstein's book in Historia Judaica 6 (1944): 87-90, B. Cohen commented specifically on Epstein's suggestion (p. 89); why did he not refer to it in his own essay on the subject?


43

conubiumand a personwithoutconubiumwas valid, but it was not ajustum matrimonium; and without a justum matrimonium, the status of the child

follows that of its mother. Consequently,if a Roman citizen marriesa noncitizen woman, the children are noncitizens.If a Roman citizen has intercoursewith a slave woman, the childrenare slaves. Accordingto the legal theory,if a Roman matronmarriesa noncitizen,the childrenare citizens, except that the Lex Minicia,a law probablyenactedduringthe first centuryB.C.E.,declaredthat the childrenof such unions follow the parent with the lower status, that is, the childrenfollow the father.Similarly,the childrenof a Romanmatronby a slaveoughtto be, accordingto the theory, free citizens like their mother, except that a law enacted under Claudius declaredthat they are slaves.68 The differencesbetweenthe Roman and rabbinicsystemsare numerous and important.For a son to follow his fatherthe Romansdemandnot only conubium,the potentialfor a legal marriage,but alsojustummatrimonium, the legal marriageitself. A child born of a matrimonium injustumwas considered spurius or vulgo quaesitus. In M. Kiddushin3:12, however, the rabbis use kiddushin to mean not "legal marriage" O'ustummatrimonium)but the

capacity to contract a legal marriage(conubium).Marriagebetween the father and the mother is not essential,accordingto rabbiniclaw, for the offspringto follow the father(see above).The rabbisdo not havea category correspondingto the spurius,and the Romansdo not have a categorycorresponding to the mamzer.69In Roman law, even the offspringof an incestuous relationshipis nothingmorethan a spurius(Gaius,Institutes1.64and Ulpian, Tituli5.7). A final distinction:the Romans allow their rulesto be affectedby the intention of the actors. If a Roman citizen, either male or female,marriesa noncitizenin the erroneousbelief that the noncitizenis a citizen, and can demonstratethat the mistakewas an honest one, the non68. R. Taubenschlag, The Law of Greco-Roman Egypt, 2d ed. (Warsaw: Panistwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1955), pp. 104-108; J. Crook, Law and Life of Rome (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1967), pp. 36-68 ("The Law of Status"), esp. 40-41; A. Watson, The Law of Persons in the Later Roman Republic (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967), pp. 27-28; M. Kaser, Das r6mische Privatrecht,2d ed. (Munich: Beck, 1971), ??66 I 2, 68 I, 73 II, and 84 II; Joseph Modrzejewski, "Un aspect du 'couple interdit' dans l'antiquit6: les mariages mixtes dans I'6gypte hell6nistique," Le couple interdit: Entretiens sur le racisme, ed. Leon Poliakov (Paris: Mouton, 1980), pp. 53-73, esp. 64-67 (a reference I owe to Professor Roger Bagnall). The major primary texts are: Digesta 1.5; Ulpian, Tituli 5; Gaius, Institutiones 1.48-96. For the law of Claudius, see Tacitus, Annals 12.53. 69. The closest rabbinic approximations to the spurius are the shetuki and asufi (M. Kiddushin4:1-2).

44

SHAYE J. D. COHEN

citizen spouse and the children automaticallybecome citizens (Gaius, Institutes1.67-68).70The rabbis have no parallelto this remarkablelaw, althoughthey often accordintentionan importantplace in theirrulings.In the law of status they make no such allowances.7' These differences, however, cannot mask the conceptual similarity betweenthe Roman and rabbinicsystems.Marriagesbetweencitizensand marriagesbetween noncitizens72produce childrenwhose status is determined patrilineally.Marriagesbetween citizens and noncitizensproduce childrenwhose status, in theory at least, is determinedmatrilineally;but both legal systemstried to equalizethe consequencesfor male and female citizens who strayed from the fold. A Roman matron impregnatedby a noncitizen or a slave bears a noncitizenor slave, not a citizen; a Jewish woman impregnatedby a gentile or a slave bears a mamzer,a citizen of impairedstatus. Even the languageof M. Kiddushin3:12 echoes Roman legal terminology. Ulpian, Tituli5.8 is a briefsummaryof the Romanlaw of status,and its phraseologyis closely paralleledby M. Kiddushin3:12.73Conubiointerveniente liberi semper patrem sequuntur74 (compare the Mishnah's "Wherever there is potential for a valid marriage . . . the offspring follows the male") non intervenienteconubio matris condicioni accedunt75(compare

the Mishnah's"And any womanwho does not havethe potentialfor a valid marriageeitherwith this man or with other men, the offspringis like her") excepto eo qui ex peregrino et cive Romana peregrinus nascitur, quoniamlex Minicia ex alterutro peregrino natum deterioris parentis condicionem sequi 70. See too Gnomon of the Idios Logos, ??39, 46, and 47. 71. The importance of intention in the Mishnah is analyzed and exaggerated by Jacob Neusner, Judaism.:The Evidence of the Mishnah (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981), pp. 270-281. 72. See R. Yohanan in P. Yevamot2:6 4a and cf. B. Kiddushin67a; R. Hanina in B. Sanhedrin 57b. See the Roman sources analyzed by Kaser, Das rimische Privatrecht,? 73 II, and P. E. Corbett, The Roman Law of Marriage (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1930), pp. 96-106. The offspring of a marriage between peregrini might follow the status of the mother if her nationality received a privilegium from the Romans to this effect; see Digesta 50.1.1.2. 73. "When conubium intervenes [between the father and the mother] the children always follow the father; when conubiumdoes not intervene, they accrue to the status of the mother, except that he who has a noncitizen father and a citizen mother is born a noncitizen, because the Minician law ordains that one born of a noncitizen mother or father follows the status of the lower parent." 74. Compare cum legitimae nuptiaefactae sint, patrem liberi sequuntur(Celsus in Digesta 1.5.19). 75. Compare ex eis inter quos non est conubium,qui nascitur . .. matris condicioni accedit (Gaius, Institutes 1.78).


45

iubet'6 (comparethe Mishnah's"The offspringfollows the parentof lower

status").M. Kiddushin3:12is one of the few sectionsof the Mishnahwhich can be translatedeasily into classicalLatin.7 Althoughit is generallyverydifficultto prove the influenceof one legal The Roman law, systemupon another,herethe evidenceis ratherstrong.7" whose principlesare clearly attested in republicantimes," antedatesthe earliestattestationof the rabbiniclaw. As far as I have been able to determine, if the rabbiniclaw had an externalsource,Romanlaw is the only real possibility. The Greek law of the classical and Hellenisticperiods is not comparable,nor is the law of Egypt or the other kingdomsof the ancient Orient."0This suggestionaccounts for the phraseologyof the Mishnahas well as its dominantideas. It also takesseriouslythe Mishnah'sexplanation of itself, since the MishnahignoresScriptureand emphasizesthe notion of kiddushin(a translationof conubium).It also is economical,sinceit accounts at once for both halves of the matrilinealprinciple. A full assessmentof this suggestionmust await a detailedstudyof other possible influencesof Roman ideas and institutionsupon ancientJudaism. If the matrilinealprinciplecan be shown to be but one of the manylegacies of Rome to Jerusalem,the suggestionwill gain force. This study will also have to addressseveral difficult questions. How did the rabbis learn the principlesof the Romanlaw of status?Surelynot from the study of Roman law books. How, then?Why did they allow themselvesto drawon Roman 76. Compare Gnomon of the Idios Logos, ? 39 (ta tekna hettoni genei akolouthei). 77. A point unappreciated by Guilielmus Surenhusius, Seder Naschim sive Legum Mischnicarum Liber qui Inscribitur de Re Uxoria (Amsterdam: Borstius, 1700), p. 377, who translates the Mishnah literally (quocunque in loco obtinent desponsationes et non obtinet transgressio infans sequitur virum, etc.). 78. For the methodological difficulties, see, e.g., R. Yaron, "Jewish Law and Other Legal Systems of Antiquity," Journal of Semitic Studies 4 (1959): 308-331; Zeev Falk, "Zum fremden Einfluss auf das juidische Recht," Revue internationale des droits de I'antiquite',3d series 18 (1971): 11-23; and Bernard Jackson, "On the Problem of the Roman Influence on the Halakah," in Jewish and Christian Self-Definition, vol. 2, Aspects of Judaism in the GrecoRoman Period, ed. E. P. Sanders et al. (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981), pp. 157-203 (with extensive bibliography). 79. Cicero, De Natura Deorum 3.18 ? 45 and Topica 20. Livy 43.3.1-4 (a reference I owe to Mr. David Cherry) seems to imply that the principle was already in force in 171 B.C.E. 80. The status of the offspring of mixed marriages varied from one Greek state to another; see Vatin, Recherches sur le mariage, pp. 123-128 and Hannick, "Droit de cite et marriages mixtes." In Roman Athens the offspring of an Athenian mother and a slave or noncitizen father was a noncitizen; see Dio Chrysostom, Orations 15.3 (trans. T. Wiedemann, Greek and Roman Slavery [Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1981], p. 225). For the law of the ancient Orient, see n. 10.

SHAYE J. D. COHEN

46

wisdom when hatredof Rome was so widespreadin Judeansociety, even among those opposedto war with Rome?These questionsare analogousto those which must be asked in any study of rabbinic"Hellenism,"and the answersremainelusive.

Ideological Origins: ForbiddenMixtures

My third suggestionsees the matrilinealprinciplenot as the result of externalinfluencebut as an organicpart of rabbinicthought. The Babylonian Talmudasks whetherthere is scripturalsupportfor the notion that slaves lack the capacityto contracta valid marriageand gives as its answer Gen. 22:5, Abraham'sstatementto his servants"You stay here with the ass."This is interpreted,in a veryunecumenicalpun, as "You stayhere,you who are a race similar to an ass" (im

ha-domeh la-bamor).

ha-.amor/am And since asses are unableto contractvalid marriages,so too gentileslaves Kiddushin are unableto contractvalidmarriages(B. 68a). I am not aboutto suggest that this oft-repeatedexegesis accuratelyportraysthe ideological origins of our mishnah-I am not even sure of its real intents--but I am suggestingthat the Mishnah'streatmentof the consequencesof intermarriageshould be juxtaposedto its discussionof the resultsof mixedbreeding in the animal kingdom.82Scriptureprohibitsthe breedingof animals of differentspecies (Lev. 19:9),but if the prohibitionis violated,what is the statusof the resultingoffspring?Does it belongto the speciesof the fatheror the speciesof the mother?Or is it a new speciesaltogether?In the Toseftathe sages argue that a mule is neithera horse nor a donkey, but a new and distinctspecies.It makesno differencewhetherthe mule'smotheris a horse or a donkey;a mule is a mule (T. Kilayim5:5 [Liebermaned., p. 222]). The 81. Joseph Heinemann, "'A Race Similar to an Ass': The Transformation of a Midrash" [Hebrew], Molad 22, nos. 193-194 (October 1964): 456-462. Heinemann observes that the application of this exegesis to halakhic matters characterizes the Babylonian Talmud, not the Palestinian. Heinemann argues that the original purpose of the exegesis was anti-Christian polemic. More convincing is his argument that the exegesis should not be taken as rabbinic "philosophy." Compare B. Hullin 5a (the sinners of Israel resemble animals) and Morton Smith, "On the Shape of God and the Humanity of Gentiles," in Religions in Antiquity: Essays in Memory of E. R. Goodenough, ed. J. Neusner (Leiden: Brill, 1968), pp. 315-326. 82. In his commentary on Deut. 7:4 R. Joseph Bekhor Shor observes, "[the offspring of] a gentile or a slave follows the mother, just like an animal." For the structural parallel between the classification of humans and the classification of animals, see Mary Douglas, Implicit Meanings (London and Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1975), pp. 267-271.


47

Mishnah, however, seems to ignore this opinion in favor of that of R. Judah (M. Kilayim 8:4).83 R. Judahsays:All those bornfroma [female]horse,althoughtheirfatheris a donkey,arepermittedone with another.Thustoo, those bornfroma [female] donkey,althoughtheir fatheris a horse,are permittedone with another.But those bornfroma [female]horsewiththose bornfroma [female]donkey,they are prohibitedone with the other. R. Judah's statement is ambiguous. Perhaps it means that a mule whose mother is a horse and whose father is a donkey is permitted to mate not only with other such mules but even with pure-bred horses, since a mule follows the status of its mother.84If this interpretation is correct, M. Kilayim 8:4 and M. Kiddushin 3:12 are exactly parallel. The offspring yielded by the mixed breeding of either animals or humans is judged matrilineally: a mule, like the offspring of a gentile mother and a Jewish father, belongs to the species of its mother. The view of the sages (a mule is a separate species) has its analogue in M. Yevamot7:5, since the status of a mule, which cannot mate with the kind of either its father or its mother, is analogous to that of the mamzer, the offspring of a Jewish mother and a gentile father (analogous but not parallel-a mamzer is a Jew).85 It is most regrettable, therefore, that the Babylonian Talmud rejects this interpretation and suggests that R. Judah posits two types of mules, those whose mothers are horses and those whose mothers are donkeys. Mules may mate only with their own kind (B. flullin 83. "Seems to ignore" because there is room for doubt; see M. Kilayim 1:6 with T. Kilayim 1:8 (Lieberman ed., p. 204). The rabbis knew that a mule is sterile, but the question had to be treated anyway. 84. In their commentaries on the Mishnah R. Samson of Sens and R. Yom Tov Lipmann Heller recognize that this is the simple meaning of R. Judah's statement. See too H. Albeck ad loc. 85. B. Pesahim 54a explicitly compares the mamzer (the offspring of incest) to the mule: Anah, the mamzer son of Esau, was the first man to mate a horse with a donkey. See TheodorAlbeck's discussion of Genesis Rabbah 82:14 in their edition, pp. 993-994. (I am grateful to Dr. David Lieber for bringing this passage to my attention.) Cyrus the Great was a "mule" because he was the son of a Persian father and a Median mother; see Herodotus 1.55.2 and J. Fontenrose, The Delphic Oracle (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1978), p. 302. C. M. Carmichael suggests that the deuteronomic prohibition of plowing with an ox and an ass together (Deut. 22:10) is a veiled allusion to mixed marriage, especially the Dinah story of Gen. 34. See his Laws of Deuteronomy, pp. 159-163. He expands upon this thesis in his "Forbidden Mixtures," Vetus Testamentum32 (1982): 394-415, and Women, Law, and the Genesis Traditions (Edinburgh: At the University Press, 1979), pp. 33-48 and 57-73.

48

SHAYE J. D. COHEN

78b-79a).A6According to this interpretation,the parallel between R. Judah'sview and M. Kiddushin3:12is not exact. In the mixedbreedingof humans, the result is either Jew or gentile, and the matrilinealprinciple servesto determinewhetherthe offspringis the formeror the latter;in the mixed breedingof animals,the resultis a hybrid,and the matrilinealprinciple serves to distinguishone sort of hybrid from another. In any case, the importantpoint is that the laws of kilayim,prohibited mixtures,providean ideologicalcontextfor the matrilinealprinciple.Jacob Neusnerhas well demonstratedthe Mishnah'sdeep and abidingfascination with mixturesand with creatureslike hermaphrodites,Samaritans,and the land of Syriathat defy simpleclassification.87 For a reasonwhich I do not this did fascination not extend to know, gentiles who have become Jews or to the union of diverse kinds. forbidden (proselytes), intermarriages, Althoughthe Mishnahsays very little about these two categories,perhaps what it does say, especiallyin M. Kiddushin3:12, should be understoodin the light of its largerinterests.The offspringof mixedmarriageis a form of kilayim.

Social Origins

I have surveyedfive possibilitiesfor the ideologicaloriginsof the matrilineal principle:Deut. 7:4, the Ezra episode, the uncertaintyof paternity

86. See too T. Kilayim 5:5 (Lieberman ed., p. 222). The discussion of Irving Mandelbaum, A History of the Mishnaic Law of Agriculture: Kilayim (Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1982) is not entirely helpful. In his commentary on T. Kilayim 1:8, Mandelbaum writes (p. 47, n. 156, referringto p. 324), "Cf. M[ishnah] 8:4, where Judah distinguishes between the mule (the dam of which is a mare) and a hinny (the dam of which is a she-ass) and does not allow one to be mated with the other. T[osefta] (which makes no such distinction) and M[ishnah] thus represent two different traditions of Judah concerning the same issue." On p. 270, however, Mandelbaum explains R. Judah's opinion of T. Kilayim 5:5 in the light of M. Kilayim 8:4-so the Tosefta is aware of the Mishnah's view. On p. 267, commenting on M. Kilayim 8:4, Mandelbaum writes, "According to Judah two mules which were born of dams of a single kind (and, of course, of sires of a single kind as well) may be paired with one another, for these animals themselves form a single 'kind.' " His parenthetic remark is far from obvious and needs greater support than an introductory "of course." B. Hullin 78b adduces another instance of the matrilineal principle in the animal kingdom: the prohibition of slaughtering an animal with its young on the same day applies only to a mother and her young. See further Sifra on Lev. 22:28 (Weiss ed., p. 99b) and B. Bekhorot 45b. 87. Neusner, Judaism: The Evidence of the Mishnah, pp. 256-270. Neusner is applying to the Mishnah the interpretation of Leviticus by Mary Douglas, Purity and Danger (London and Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1966), pp. 52-53.


49

theRomanlawof status,andthelawsof (andtheintimacyof motherhood), forbiddenmixtures.The last two are far more compellingthan the first three. The major difficultywith all of them, however,is that they explain how the rabbis could come to the matrilinealprinciplebut not why they

wouldwantto cometo it. Whatcompelledthemto departfromthebiblical

tradition and from the practiceof the Second Templeperiod?Did some societal need dictate the new law?It has been suggestedthat many Jewish women were raped by Roman soldiers during the wars of 66-70 and 132-135, and that the rabbis,out of pity for their plight, declaredthe resultingoffspringto be Jewish,not gentile.But the qualityof this suggestion befits the obscurityof its origins,"8becausetelling an unfortunatewoman who has been rapedthat she is aboutto beara mamzeris only slightlymore consolatory than telling her that she is about to bear a gentile. In some respectsit is less consolatory:a gentile,at least,can convertto Judaism,but a mamzercan neverbe legitimated.89 Further,why declarethe offspringof a Jewishfatherand a gentile motherto be gentile?If its purposewas to discourageintermarriageby Jewishmen, there seems to have been little need for such legislation. Perhapsin first-centuryRome and AlexandriaintermarriagebetweenJewsand gentileswas not uncommon,but it certainlywas uncommonin first-centuryJudeaand in rabbinicsocietygenerallythroughout the followingcenturies.90 And if the primarymotivationwas to restrain rabbis should haveintroduceda bilateralrequirementfor the intermarriage, Pericles in did Athens and Ezra did (perhaps)in Jerucitizenship,just as salem (see above). 88. This view is widely held, especially in contemporary rabbinic circles, but I have not found its original author; it is repeated by Daube, Ancient Jewish Law, pp. 27-30, but he too does not indicate his source. The rape of women by victorious soldiers was a normal part of ancient warfare (Isa. 13:16 and Zech. 14:2; see S. G. Cole, "Greek Sanctions against Sexual Assault," Classical Philology 79 [1984]: 97-113, esp. 111-113, who refers to D. Schaps, "Women of Greece in Wartime," Classical Philology 77 [1982]: 203-204), and it is likely therefore that many women were raped during the wars of 66-70 and 132-135 (see M. Ketubbot 2:9 with the Talmudim ad loc.; and Song of Songs Zuta, end, as presented by S. Lieberman, Greek in Jewish Palestine [1942; reprint ed., New York: Feldheim, 1965], pp. 179-184). The question remains whether their plight was the social setting for the emergence of the matrilineal principle. 89. The amoraim reverse the ruling that the child is a mamzer, but the Mishnah is quite clear on this point. See above. 90. S. Cohen, "Prohibition of Intermarriage."The problem with the lineage of the Jews of Messene, etc., is not intermarriage but mamzerim and improper divorces; see B. Kiddushin 71b-72b (and parallels). Prof. Sarah B. Pomeroy impresses upon me that this suggestion should not be rejected so lightly, since the purpose of Pericles' citizenship law (and its subsequent imitations) may have been to improve the marriageability of Athenian women (see Lacey, Family in Classical Greece, pp. 100-103).

50

SHAYE J. D. COHEN

PrimitiveMatriarchy In order to explain the matrilineal principle Victor Aptowitzer suggests not societal need but social tradition. It is a relic of very ancient times when Israelite kinship was matrilineal and Israelite society was matriarchal. Aptowitzer offers a striking parallel to the rabbinic law from Herodotus' description of the Lycians (1.173): Theircustomsare in partCretanand in partCarian.But they haveone which is theirown and sharedby no othermen;theytaketheirnamesnot fromtheir fathersbut fromtheirmothers;andwhenone is askedby his neighborwho he is, he will say thathe is the son of sucha mother,andrecountthe motherof his mother.Nay, if a womanof full rightsmarrya slave,her childrenaredeemed pure-born;and if a true-bornLycianman takes a foreignwife or concubine, the childrenare dishonored,though he be the first in the land.9' This is the passage which launched J. J. Bachofen on his quest for Das Mutterrecht, and this is the passage cited by Aptowitzer to prove that the rabbinic law is a relic of primitive times.92Aptowitzer supports this thesis by the discovery of numerous other "relics" in both the Bible and the Talmud, none of them more striking than two mishnaic laws which appear on the page following M. Kiddushin3:12. M. Kiddushin4:4 ordains that "He who wishes to marry the daughter of a priest must investigate her lineage through four mothers which are eight"-the pedigree of the bride's mother and grandmothers is checked, but not the pedigree of her father and grandfathers. A proselyte, or the son of proselytes, may not marry the daughter of a priest, and a priest may not marry the daughter of a proselyte. But if the second-generation proselyte has a native-born Jewish mother, he or she may marry into the priesthood (M. Kiddushin4:7). The same requirement for a native-born Jewish mother appears elsewhere too.93 Is the matrilineal principle a relic of prehistoric times? Various scholars 91. The translation is that of A. D. Godley in the Loeb Classical Library, slightly modified. 92. J. J. Bachofen, Das Mutterrecht: Eine Untersuchungaber die Gynaikokratie der alten Welt (Stuttgart, 1861). See Myth, Religion, and Mother Right.- Selected Writings of J. J. Bachofen, trans. R. Manheim and introduced by J. Campbell (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1967). Aptowitzer, in "Spuren des Matriarchats," forgot to cite Bachofen. 93. M. Bikkurim 1:4-5, B. Yevamot45b, B. Kiddushin76b, and elsewhere. These passages are misconstrued by Daube, Ancient Jewish Law, pp. 24-25. Compare Demosthenes 59 (Against Neaera), ? 106 (the Plateans who received Athenian citizenship may not become archons, but their children born of native Athenian women may become archons).


51

have attemptedto findtracesof matrilinealorganizationin the legalsystems of antiquity,but Aptowitzerdoes not aid his case when he confusesmatriliny (determinationof kinship through females)with matriarchy(rule by females), a social form which never existed.94Whether ancient Israelite society was ever matrilineal,I leave for othersto determine,but the alleged relicsof that allegedsociety collectedby Aptowitzerare, for the most part, trivialor debatable.95 I am not surehow M. Kiddushin4:4 and 4:7 shouldbe but relics which are nowhereattestedin the Bibleandpostbiblical explained, Jewishliteratureand which surfacemiraculouslyin rabbinictexts a millennium or two after the period of their origins-these are remarkablerelics indeed. Perhapsa methodologicallysophisticatedstudy of rabbinicfamily law and kinshippatternswill revealtracesof a matrilinealsociety,but in the absence of such a study, Aptowitzer'ssuggestionis unconvincing.

IV Summaryand Conclusions In the biblicalperioda mixed marriagebetweenan Israeliteand a non94. E. Kornemann, "Mutterrecht," in Pauly, Wissowa, and Kroll, eds., Realencyclopadie der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft,supplementary vol. 6 (1935), pp. 557-558; J. Bamberger, "The Myth of Matriarchy," in Woman, Culture, and Society, ed. M. Z. Rosaldo and L. Lamphere (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1974), pp. 263-280; and the works listed by Sarah Pomeroy, "Selected Bibliography on Women in Classical Antiquity," in Women in the Ancient World. The Arethusa Papers, ed. J. Peradotto and J. P. Sullivan (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1983), pp. 347-354. For an erudite but disjointed discussion of Herodotus 1.173, see Simon Pembroke, "Women in Charge: the Function of Alternatives in Early Greek Tradition and the Ancient Idea of Matriarchy," Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 30 (1967): 1-35. 95. The rabbinic predilection for uncle-niece marriages is not a relic of a matrilineal society, since most such societies would regard the marriage of a man with his sister's daughter as incestuous. Rabbinic ideology and practice on this matter must be studied anew, especially in light of the Qumran Temple Scroll, col. 66. See Samuel Krauss, "Die Ehe zwischen Onkel und Nichte," in Studies in Jewish Literature in Honor of Kaufmann Kohler (Berlin: G. Reimer, 1913), pp. 165-175; Louis Ginzberg, An Unknown Jewish Sect (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1976), pp. 23-24; Aptowitzer, "Spuren des Matriarchats," pp. 232-237; and Salo Baron, Social and Religious History of the Jews: Ancient Times, 2d ed., 2 vols. (New York: Columbia University Press, 1952), 1:310, n. 20, and 2:230 with 411, n. 14. Even matronymy is occasionally encountered in rabbinic sources (see S. Lieberman, Tosefet Rishonim, 4 vols. [Jerusalem: Bamberger et Wahrmann, 1939], 3:160, and B. M. Lewin, Orar ha-Ge'onim, vol. 7 Yevamot [Jerusalem: no publisher, 1936], p. 156, ? 360; see too Bamberger, Proselytism, pp. 230-231), but in all likelihood this practice too is not a relic of primitive times. Compare A. Christophilopoulos, "Matronymy among the Ancient Greeks" in idem, [Greek], Dikaion kai Historia, pp. 60-67.

52

SHAYE J. D. COHEN

Israeliteproducedoffspringwhichwas usuallyjudgedpatrilineally. If an Israelitewomanwasmarriedto a non-Israelite man,shewouldjoinhisclan and bearchildrenwho werenot Israelite.If he joinedher clan through matrilocalmarriage,the childrenapparently wereconsideredIsraelite.A matrilocal couldevenlegitimate thechildrenof anIsraelitemother marriage and a slavefather(1 Chron.2:34-35).In the Mishnah,however,the childrenof an Israelitemotherand a gentilefather(eitherslaveor free)are declarethesechildrento Jewsof impairedstatus.TheTalmudim mamzerim, but full andlegitimateJews.Bothdecisions,at leastin be not mamzerim In biblicaltimesmany casesof patrilocalmarriage,contradictthe Bible.96 Israelitemenmarriedforeignwomen,andtherewasneveranydoubtthat thechildrenwereIsraelite.Theoffspringof a slavemotherandan Israelite sufferfromsomedisabilities, butno onequestioned fatherdid,apparently, its Israelitestatus.The Mishnah,however,explicitlystatesthat suchoffspringfollowthe mother,andthisrulingis not disputedin theTalmudim. As faras I havebeenableto determine, thetransitionfrombiblicalpatriliny cannot be dated beforethe periodof the Mishnah rnishnaic to matriliny to introducethematrilineal itself.Thereis no evidencethatEzraattempted principle,and evenif he did, thereis abundantevidencethat it was still unknownin thefirstcenturyof ourera.WhydidtheYavneanrabbisdepart frombiblicalpractice? Therearetwo goodexplanations, one internal,the otherexternal.The the mishnaiclaws regardingthe accords with matrilineal principle nicely mixtureof diversekinds(kilayim).Theunionof a Jewwitha gentileis akin to theforbiddenunionof a horsewitha donkey.In bothcasestheMishnah Evenmorestrikingis theparaljudgestheresultingoffspringmatrilineally. lel affordedby the Romanlaw of status.The terminology,ideas,and 3:12arethoroughly Roman:if oneparentdoes of M.Kiddushin conclusions in Latin, not possessthe capacityto contracta legalmarriage(conubium in Hebrew),theoffspringfollowsthemother.Therabbis,likethe kiddushin Romans,departedfromthisprinciplein orderto penalizea citizenwoman thattheoffspring whomarrieda noncitizenor a slave:theRomansdeclared followsthe parentof lowerstatus(in this case, the father),the rabbis I amunableto decidebetweenthese declaredthattheoffspringis a mamzer. two explanations.Perhapsthey are both true, the rabbinicnotionsof kilayimfacilitatingthe influxof the Romanlaw. 96. Why the Talmudim reversed the Mishnah, and why some medieval scholars reversed the Talmud (n. 46), requires investigation.


53

Another factor is relevanttoo. The idea of conversionto Judaismis a creationof the exilicperiod.At firstit was an option only for men;its ritual was circumcision. A gentile woman "converted" to Judaism through marriagewith a Jewish husband,a procedurepresumedby the Bible and still presumedby Josephus.Gradually,however,conversionfor womenwas introduced;its ritualwas immersion(a practicewhich also becamepart of the conversionritualfor men). This facilitatedthe rise of half of the matrilinealprinciple,sincethe gentilewomanwas now a personwhoseJewishness could be determinedwithout referenceto her Jewishhusband.If she converts to Judaism,the childrenshe bears to her husbandare Jewish;if she does not, they are gentile, in spite of the Jewishnessof her husband.This new ideology mandatedthe reinterpretationof the biblicalnarrativeswhich glibly admittedthat the heroes of ancient Israel marriedforeign women. Thesedevelopmentsare obscure,but they certainlyformpartof the ideological backgroundto the emergenceof the matrilinealprinciple.97 All of these suggestionsare exercisesin intellectualhistory. Did social historytoo play a rolein the creationof the matrilinealprinciple?Numerous practitionersof Jewish Wissenschafthave argued that rabbinic law was determined,at least in part, by the social and economic needs of contemporary Jewry. The matrilinealprinciplehas had enormous social consequencesfor modernJews,and it is easy to believethat the rabbismusthave been compelled by some societal need to institute it. But there is little evidenceto supportthis belief. Intermarriagewas not a severeproblemin rabbinicsociety,and even if it was,the logicalresponsewouldhavebeenthe institutionof a bilateralsystem(eithera gentile fatheror a gentile mother rendersthe offspringa gentile).Perhapsin regardto othermattersthe rabbis werelegislatorslisteningattentivelyto the demandsof theirconstituency.In their statementof the matrilinealprinciple,however,the rabbiswerephilosophers, and, like most philosophers,they did not always live in the real world. JewishTheological of Seminary America New York,N.Y.

97. Perhaps this development is connected with a change in the status of the woman in ancient Judaism.

Cyrus Adler, Non-Zionism, and the Zionist Movement: A Study in Contradictions Author(s): David G. Dalin Source: AJS Review, Vol. 10, No. 1 (Spring, 1985), pp. 55-87 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486272 . Accessed: 30/06/2011 01:39 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].



CYRUS ADLER, NON-ZIONISM, AND THE ZIONIST MOVEMENT: A STUDY IN CONTRADICTIONS by DAVID G. DALIN

Introduction For close to fifty years,CyrusAdlerwas one of AmericanJewry'smost influentialcommunalleadersand publicservants.Takingpartin the founding of the JewishPublicationSociety(1888), on whose variouscommittees he would serveas chairmanthroughouthis life, Adlerwas a founderof the AmericanJewishHistoricalSociety(1892), and its presidentfor more than twenty years. Togetherwith Louis Marshall,Jacob Schiff, Oscar Straus, Felix Warburg,and his cousin, Judge Mayer Sulzberger,Adler played an instrumentalrole in organizingthe AmericanJewishCommittee(1906),and servedas its presidentfrom 1929until his death in 1940.During his thirtytwo years (1908-1940) as presidentand chief administrativeofficer of the DropsieCollegefor Hebrewand CognateLearning,Adlershapedthe institution into one of the preeminentinstitutionsof higherJewishlearningin America.When Solomon Schechterdied in 1915,Adler succeededhim to the presidencyof the JewishTheologicalSeminary,with whichhe had been 55

56

DAVID G. DALIN

closely associatedsince its foundingin 1886,while remainingpresidentof Dropsie as well. Servingas presidentof the seminaryfor twenty-fiveyears, Adlerplayeda centralrole in the foundingof the UnitedSynagogue,whose presidencyhe also held. As such, it can be said without exaggerationthat Adler was one of the most influentialleadersand importantpersonalitiesin the Conservativemovement. Duringhis distinguishedpubliccareer,whichspannedhalf a century,the one Jewishpublic cause in which Adler did not take a leadershiprole was that of Zionism.As SimchaKling has so aptly noted, "wheneverthe relationship between ConservativeJudaism and Zionism is discussed, it is always pointed out that the latter has been an integralpart of the former since its inception and even before . . . except for Cyrus Adler."'

Adler'snon-Zionismwas a productof a numberof factors,one of which was certainly his unique environmentand upbringing.Unlike so many Jewishleadersof his generation,Adler'sroots were not in EasternEurope, but ratherin the AmericanSouth. Born in Van Buren,Arkansas,in 1863, whilethe Civil Warstill raged,Adlerwouldthroughouthis publiccareerbe, firstand foremost,a proudand patrioticAmerican,for whomthe specterof dualloyaltywouldalwaysbe anathema.For Adler,who reveredand studied Thomas Jeffersonas he did the ancient rabbis,2and who spent close to twenty years as an official of the U.S. government,the political Zionism formulatedby TheodorHerzlat the first Zionist Congressin Baslein 1897 posed the potential threat of "strings"to his allegianceas an American citizen, to which he would always be sensitive. Adler's non-Zionism was, as we shall suggest, predicatedupon his vigorous opposition to Herzlian political Zionism, which envisionedthe

I would like to thank Professors Ismar Schorsch, Paula Hyman, and Jonathan D. Sarna for their encouragement and suggestions in the preparation of this essay.

1. Simcha Kling, "Cyrus Adler and Zionism," ConservativeJudaism, Fall 1979, p. 22. 2. Adler's reputation as a Jefferson scholar was given recognition when he was invited by the Thomas Jefferson Association of the United States to contribute a study on Jefferson to the memorial edition of his works then being published under its auspices in 1904. His contribution, "Jefferson as a Man of Science," has been republished in Cyrus Adler, Lectures, Selected Papers, Addresses (Philadelphia, 1933). See Also Adler's interesting paper, "The Jefferson Bible," which constituted his introduction to Jefferson's The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth (Washington, 1904). This essay is also republished in Adler's Lectures, Selected Papers, Addresses.

CYRUS ADLER, NON-ZIONISM, AND THE ZIONIST MOVEMENT

57

creationof a Jewishstate, and the renaissanceof Jewishself-government,in Palestine. While recognizingthat Palestine held a unique historical and religioussignificancefor worldJewry,Adler felt that to affirmthe creation of a separateJewishstate and nationalitywould endangerthe rightssecured by Jews in Americaand throughoutthe emancipatedworld, and create a problem of dual loyalty. A fundamentaldifferencebetween Zionists and non-Zionistssuch as Adler centeredon the questionof "whetherthe Jews need a separateState to surviveor not; whetherthe place of the Jewsin the spiritualunfoldingof mankindis the whole world or delimitedto Palestine as a distinct political entity."3Adler and other non-Zionistsin the years prior to World War I consideredlarge-scaleJewish immigrationto Palestine-a centralobjectiveof the Zionist program-politically futile as long as the Ottoman Empireruled Palestine.While they did not regardmass Jewish immigrationto Palestineas practicalor even desirableduringthis (pre-1917)period,they did appreciatethe urgencyof havinga havenfor the persecutedJews of EasternEurope.Therefore,as we shall discussin some detail in this study, Adler and other non-Zionist leaders were actively involvedin investigatingJewish immigrationand colonizationpossibilities in other lands. After World War I, non-Zionistssuch as Adler recognized that with the defeatof the OttomanTurksand the beginningsof the British Mandate,a part of the Jewishpeople could migrateto Palestine,but they maintainedthat the majority of Jews would stay in America and other countrieswhereinthey enjoyed equal civil and religiousrights.4 And yet, in the aftermathof the BalfourDeclaration,as we shall suggest in this study,Adlerbecameincreasinglyreceptiveto the nonpoliticalaspects of the Zionist program,and to cooperationbetweenthe Zionist movement and non-Zionistleaderslike himself.Adler was a non-Zionistratherthan an anti-Zionist, in that he supported the Balfour Declaration, which "viewedwith favour"the establishmentof a Jewish"home"or homeland in Palestine, rather than the Herzlian objective of a politically secured Jewish state. For non-Zionistleaders,"Palestinewas to be 'a' ratherthan 'the' nationalhome, a culturaland social but never a political structure."5 This distinctionbetween a Jewish home for those who wished it and the politicallysovereignstateof the Jewishpeoplewas a crucialone for defining 3. Richard Keith Harkavy, "Non-Zionism Within Reform Judaism: 1917-1948" (Rabbinical School thesis, Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, Cincinnati, 1984), p. 21. 4. Ibid., p. 22.

58

DAVID G. DALIN

theparameters andanti-Zionism. of, anddifferences between,non-Zionism Non-Zionistssuch as Adlerwerecommittedto the BalfourDeclarationand its nonpoliticalramifications,and were ready to support Zionist work in Palestinewithoutsharingits politicalaims, a commitmentthat anti-Zionists wereneverreadyto make. In contrast,the anti-Zionists,fromwhom Adler would carefully dissassociate himself, rejected the Balfour Declaration outright,and stubbornlyrefusedto cooperatewith both Zionistsand nonZionists in their shared nonpolitical endeavors for the expansion of the JewishAgency, and for the buildingand developmentof Palestine,during the 1920s. Stuart E. Knee's definitionof non-Zionismas opposition to a Jewish state but not to "Jewishimmigrationto Palestine,or [to] the revivalthereof religio-culturalJudaism"6would accuratelycharacterizethe position of CyrusAdler after 1917.Whileremainingopposedto the reestablishmentof Jewishpoliticalsovereigntyin Palestine,Adler,as a non-Zionist,was ready to cooperatewith thosewithinthe Zionistmovementwho sought"to establish in Palestinea centerfor Judaism,for the stimulationof our faith,for the pursuitand developmentof literature,scienceand art in a Jewishenvironment, and for the rehabilitationof the land."7Thus, as we shall note, Adler and his non-Zionistcolleagueswere not only ready to cooperatewith the Zionist leadershipin fosteringthe economicdevelopmentof Palestine,but were increasinglyreadyto activelycooperatein promotingthe growthand developmentof agricultural,scientific,charitable,and educationalinstitutions in Palestine.In their willingnessto work closely togetherwith the Zionist movementfor the rehabilitationof Palestine,it can be argued,the non-Zionistsweremuchcloserto the Zionistleadershipthanto its virulently anti-Zionistopponents. Adler had long viewed Palestine as the spiritualcenter, or home, of world Jewry. He and other non-Zionistsfavoredthe creationof a Jewish culturalcenterin Palestine,at least in part, because"they were concerned with the culturaland spiritualpredicamentof AmericanJewsfacingassimilation.""In this respect,as more than one scholarhas suggested,Adlerwas influencedby the culturalZionism of Ahad Ha-Am, whose conceptionof 5. Ibid. 6. Stuard N. Knee, "Jewish Non-Zionism in America and Palestine Commitment, 1917-1941," Jewish Social Studies, Summer 1977, p. 209. 7. Abraham A. Neuman, Cyrus Adler: A BiographicalSketch (New York: American Jewish Committee, 1942), p. 205. 8. Harkavy, "Non-Zionism Within Reform Judaism," p. 162.


59

Palestineas a spiritual(ratherthan political)centerthat would sustainand revitalize Diaspora Jewry fit the non-Zionists'perception of American Jewry'sneeds. Non-Zionism, for Adler, was predicatedin part upon the beliefthat Jewishspiritualand culturalcreativityand survivalwerepossible in Palestineas well as in the AmericanDiaspora, an assumptionthat the anti-Zionist leadershipof American Reform Judaism were (prior to the mid-1930s)unwillingto accept. Anti-Zionists,as RichardK. Harkavyhas noted, refusedto even acknowledgethe possibilitythat a Jewishcultural centerin Palestinemight benefitAmericanJewry.To do so, they believed, "would be an admittancethat Jewishlife in the diasporawas a failure."9 Non-Zionistslike Adler, however,as Harkavyhas so aptly put it, differed from the leadershipof the Zionist movement in that they envisioned a Jewishculturalcenterin Palestineas "enrichingJewishlife everywherebut not replacing it."'I

Adler's steadfastnon-Zionismwas undoubtedlyshaped in part by the German-Jewishworld in which he was raisedand lived. For CyrusAdler, who was on his mother'sside a Sulzberger,had been born into one of the leading familiesof AmericanJewry'sGerman-Jewishupperclass. Moving to PhiladelphiafromArkansasafterhis father'sdeath,CyrusAdlergrewup comfortably in the rarefiedworld of the German-Jewisharistocracyof which his uncle David Sulzbergerand his cousin, the prominent Philadelphiajuristand JewishcommunalleaderMayerSulzberger,wereso much a part. The attitudes and prejudicesof this Jewish world of wealth and privilege,so far separatedfrom the very differentworld and cultureof the EasternEuropeanJewishimmigrantmasses,whomAdlerneverreallyidentified with or understood,were shared by Adler throughouthis careerin Jewishpublic life. Adler was a pivotal and uniquememberof the "OurCrowd"GermanJewish leadership group, comprising such influential Jewish figures as Schiff, Marshall,Mayerand CyrusSulzberger,Oscar and Nathan Straus, Harry and Herbert Friedenwald, Daniel Guggenheim, and Judah L. Magnes,to namebut a few,who organizedthe AmericanJewishCommittee and who would exercisea profoundand far-reachinginfluenceon the direction and reorganizationof AmericanJewishcommunallife from the end of the nineteenthcenturythroughthe first three decadesof the"twentieth.In the eyes of many East EuropeanJews, especiallythose identifyingwith the 9. Ibid., p. 23. 10. Ibid., p. 162.

60

DAVID G. DALIN

Zionist movement, Adler and his "uptown"colleagues of the American Jewish Committeerepresentedthe personificationof shtadlanutand nonZionism in AmericanJewish public life. And yet, Adler was in many respectsa unique,as well as a representative, figurewithinthis German-Jewishleadershipgroup. Adler's successas one of the preeminentJewish public servantsof his era lay in his unique ability to bridge worlds which early in the twentieth century had little commonground.A religiouslyobservantJew, knowledgeablein the field of Jewishscholarship,he was also well-knownand respectedin the world of Americangovernmentand scholarship.To cite but one example,his discovery, while an officer of the AmericanPhilosophicalSociety, of the socalled JeffersonBible createda scholarlysensationeven beforeits publication, with an introductionby Adler, in 1904," at the expressauthorization of Congress. Having achieved a distinguishedrecord of twenty years of governmentalservicein Washington,D.C., duringwhich time, as assistant secretaryof the SmithsonianNational Museum,he held one of the highest appointivepolitical offices ever occupied by a Jew in the United States, Adler enjoyed the respect and "ear" of senators and presidentsin each administrationfrom TheodoreRooseveltto FranklinRoosevelt.A tireless communalleaderand a creativeand constructiveadministrator,Adlerwas Jews to the uniquelyable to interpretthe needs of the traditional-minded men of wealth and influencein AmericanJewry. Indeed, even those who disagreedwith Adler over a number of issues, Zionism included, never questionedhis devotion to Judaism nor denied that his views should be given the most serious consideration. And yet, his aloofness from Zionism and steadfastopposition to the democratizationof AmericanJewish public life limited his relationswith those to whom he was closest in his observanceof Judaism.Almost alone amongstthe leadersof the Conservativemovementof his generation,Adler refusedto identifywith the causeof politicalZionismor to join the ranksof the Zionist movement. Adler remained, to the amazementof many, a committednon-Zionist,a true lover of Zion who remainedcontinuously distrustfulof the Zionist movement. The ambivalentand seemingly paradoxicalnature of Cyrus Adler's 11. For a discussion of Adler's discovery and purchase of the Jefferson manuscript, the "fervor it created in religious circles," and its publication, see Neuman, Cyrus Adler, pp. 95-99. This is also discussed in Adler's autobiography, I Have Considered the Days (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1941), pp. 58-59.


61

relationshipto Zionismhas not, with the singularexceptionof an uncritical and all-too-brief essay by Simcha Kling,'2 been the subject of serious scholarlystudyand analysis.Sucha criticalstudy,I believe,is long overdue. Ira Robinson's excellent new edition of Adler's correspondencehas provided us with muchnew materialrelevantto a criticalstudyof the subject.13 It is my hope that the following examinationof Adler'scomplexattitudes and relationshipto Zionismwill contribute,in some smallway, to a better understandingand appreciationof what is perhapsthe most puzzlingand American inexplicablechapterin the publiclife of one of twentieth-century most communal servants. significant Jewry's TheBeginningsof Non-Zionism:Adler,Herzl,andtheMesopotamian Plan Upon convening the first Zionist Congressin Basle in 1897,Theodor Herzl and his fellow leaders of the emerging Zionist movement had announcedtheirobjective"to securefor the Jewishpeoplea publiclyrecognized, legally secured home in Palestine."The Basle programgenerated heated public debate and controversywithin the AmericanJewishleadership circlesof whichAdlerwas a part.Looking,as always,at the "practical" aspects of the problem, Adler was doubtful whether Palestine with its limitedresourcescould indeedsolve the Jewishrefugeeproblemor whether Jewish immigrationinto Palestinewould even be allowed by the Turks. Adlerrecommendedan alternativehavenfor the persecutedJewsof Eastern Europe:Syria and Mesopotamia. Adlerhad been consideringsuch a "non-Zionist"schemefor the colonization of Mesopotamiasince the early 1890s,when he had first visitedthe Near East on a special assignmentfor the United States government.In 1887,following the completionof his Ph.D. in Semiticsat Johns Hopkins, Adlerhad beenappointedcuratorof the Departmentof OrientalAntiquities at the SmithsonianNational Museum.In 1888,as an officialof the National Museum and representativeof the United States government,Adler had arrangedan exhibit on biblicalarchaeologyand Palestinianobjectsat the 12. Kling, "Cyrus Adler and Zionism," pp. 22-27. 13. Ira Robinson, ed., Cyrus Adler Letters (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society and Jewish Theological Seminary, 1984). My citations from the Adler letters in this study are from a prepublication copy of Professor Robinson's work, made available to me by Professor Louis Finkelstein of the Jewish Theological Seminary. I wish to acknowledge my thanks to Dr. Finkelstein for allowing me to read and study his copy of the Adler letters.

62

DAVID G. DALIN

CentennialExpositionof the Ohio Valley,which was followed soon thereafter by a series of exhibitionswhich he arrangedfor the United States governmentin Atlanta, Chicago, and St. Louis. When it was proposedto celebratethe four-hundredthanniversaryof the discoveryof Americawith an International Exposition in Chicago in 1892, President Benjamin HarrisonappointedAdler specialcommissionerof the ColumbianExposition. In this capacity, Adler traveledto Turkey,Egypt, Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco,Syria(andlaterto Palestine),to secureexhibitsandto presentthe official invitationsto the countriesand securetheir active participation. His travelsas specialcommissionerwerea "strikingsuccess."In each of the countries he visited, great interest was developed in the Columbian Exposition.Governments,as well as manufacturersand merchants,"were inducedto subscribethe necessaryfunds" to assurethe representationof theirnativeindustriesand culturalenterprisesat the exposition.14 The presidential appointmentas commissionerwas, moreover,a "singulardistinction" for Adler,who, as a younggovernmentofficial,wasjust embarkingon the first chapter of a distinguishedpublic career in Washingtonduring whichtime he would earna nationalreputationbasedon the extraordinary talentfor adminstration,creativeplanning,andpracticalstatesmanshipthat would later serve him in such good stead duringhis years as presidentof Dropsie College and the JewishTheologicalSeminary. Equally important, as Louis Finkelstein has recently pointed out, whereverAdler went on his fifteen-monthjourney throughoutthe Near East, "he sought out the Jewishcommunityand its leaders,discoveringthe sufferingsunderwhichso manyJews lived."'5During the sevenmonthshe spent in Constantinople,Adler became friendly with the grand vizier, Kiamil Pasha,and had the opportunityto discusswith him "the part that Turkeymightplay in the solutionof the Jewishproblem."'6Moreconscious than ever of the oppressionof the Jews of Russia and of their need for a refuge,AdlersoughtpermissionfromKiamilPashaandthe Turkishgovernment to allow mass Jewishimmigrationto Palestine.Kiamil Pashaargued that Syriaand Mesopotamiawouldbe more"practical"havensfor the Jews of Europe, an apparentlyconvincingargumentthat Adler soon began to espouse. In 1892, Professor Paul Haupt, the eminent Assyriologist of Johns 14. Neuman, Cyrus Adler, p. 34. 15. Louis Finkelstein, Preface to Robinson, Cyrus Adler Letters, p. 5. 16. Neuman, Cyrus Adler, p. 36.


63

Hopkins University and Adler's dissertation adviser and close friend, published a pamphlet advocating the same "Mesopotamian plan" for the resettlement and colonization of Russian Jews."7 At Adler's suggestion Haupt, who had earlier studied Mesopotamia as a region for possible German colonization at the request of Bismarck, met with Oscar Straus and Mayer Sulzberger, who shared Adler's interest in the plan. The Mesopotamia scheme, conceived several years prior to the first Zionist Congress in 1897 and later referred to as the "Cyrus Adler plan" by Theodor Herzl,'8 was predicated upon the non-Zionist assumption that "the best region for the settlement of the Russian Jews ... undoubtedly" was Mesopotamia and Syria rather than Palestine. Adler's dedication to this plan, which led to his rift with Herzl, helps to explain, in some measure, his nonsupport for the first Zionist Congress' Basle Program and for the early goals of political Zionism. It is more than a little surprising that in his autobiography Adler does not record the fact that in 1896, after "consultation with Mayer Sulzberger and Oscar Straus," he initiated correspondence with Herzl, wherein he outlined his program for the settlement of East European Jewry in Mesopotamia and Syria rather than in Palestine. Nor does Adler discuss, in either of his two published books, the relevant fact that he enclosed copies of Haupt's pamphlet with his letter to Herzl, and that, much to his chagrin, Herzl failed to respond to his letter for more than two years. Adler's letter to Herzl is worth quoting in its entirety. Recognizingthe fact that more than half of the Jews of the world are now living in countriesin which they are regardedas aliens and subjectedto the most degradingpolitical, social and economic restrictions,I have become convincedthat in the nextcenturya seriesof veryconsiderablemigrationswill be renderednecessary. Variousorganizationsare now engagedin colonizationin Palestineand Argentinaand these I thinkshouldbe advisedto proceedalong the lines they have hithertofollowed.I do not thinkthat a largepercentageof immigration to Palestineshould now be encouragedas I feel sure that the countryis not able to absorbpeoplerapidly,and besidesit wouldprobablyraisesuch oppositionon the partof orthodoxChristiansas to bringaboutexpulsionof suchas are alreadysettled there. 17. For a detailed discussion and analysis of Haupt's "Mesopotamian plan," see Moshe Perlmann, "Paul Haupt and the Mesopotamian Project, 1892-1914," Proceedings of the American Jewish Historical Society, January 1958. 18. Ibid., p. 164.

64

DAVID G. DALIN

Judging from what I have heard you have larger plans in mind and I accordingly invite your attention to two countries in Western AsiaMesopotamia and Syria-both of which in my opinion should be seriously considered. I take the liberty of sending under separate cover several copies of a plan for colonization in Mesopotamia which was carefully worked out some years ago. I have reason to think that you may find agencies among prominent persons in Paris which would assist in colonization in Syria. When in Beirut some years ago, I met with a gentleman who had acquired large tracts of land as an agent for persons in Paris with the view of Jewish settlement. Mesopotamia offers the greatest facilities. Besides it has more than once been the home of the children of Israel, where they acquired the discipline and rehabilitation which enabled them to reconstruct their nationality. Both religious sentiment and Biblical precedent would favor the repetition of this plan. There are practicable reasons for it rather than a settlement in Palestine which would encounter opposition at the start and prevent colonization from strengthening itself sufficiently to acquire power and permanency to build up and maintain itself. A large part of the lands belong to the Turkish Crown and could be purchased directly from the Sultan. It would be to his interest to have a strong, thrifty and aggressive population settled there. A sine qua non in the case of all persons settling in any part of the Ottoman Dominions should be their willingness to give up their previous subjection or citizenship. In making these suggestions I wish you would understand that I am speaking only for myself and for a few of my friends, some, I may add, of distinguished political and diplomatic experience a conference with whom suggested this communication. My letter should not be construed as implying anything more than it explicitly says. I would say however that there is no official Jewish opinion in this country, as you probably know, although a number of rabbis more particularly of Reformed congregations have condemned your proposed conference in advance. But such opposition or disapproval, I would characterize as being rather individual opinions than in any sense representative either of the Jews in this country of much influence who would be glad to see some extensive plan of colonization in the east established and they are not without hope that eventually an independent state might grow up. All of this should be left to the slow operation of time but it may well be aided by intelligent and statesmanlike action. Should the Conference see fit to entertain the notion of colonizing either in Syria or Mesopotamia I should be glad to know of it and I may be able to put you in the way of some useful suggestions. I have no desire to appear in this matter and you can if you wish make any of these suggestions on your own initiative. On the other hand I have not the slightest objection to the use of my name.


65

I am livingin the countryof my birth,am sincerelyattachedto it, and feel neitherthe desirenor need to changeit. But I cannotforgetthe fact that more than half of the men of my faith and blood are being subjectedto a daily mental torturewhich in the end will have resultsmore horriblethan death. That they should leave the countriesin whichthey are persecutedbecomesa necessity.That they shouldturnto the East is natural.That theirbrethrenin more favoredlandsshouldguide and assistthemis but a duty.Thatthey may have many hardshipsI can well believe. But it is betterto perishin a noble strugglethan to live a life of servitude. If you and your confrerescan form a plan whichwill realizethis end then those who now call you visionariesand dreamerswill learn that it is of such that leadersare born. My hope is that the wisdomof your body will be equalto its singlenessof purpose-that you will do all thingsslowly-and that no matterwhatdiscouragementscome in your path you will be strong and of good courage.,9 Herzl may, as Abraham A. Neuman has speculated,20 have been too much preoccupied with the preparations for the first Zionist Congress and "too little informed" about American Jewry and its leadership to take seriously the communication of an "unknown" correspondent; nor, probably, did he recognize the potential diplomatic and financial resources which American Jewish leaders such as Adler, Sulzberger, Straus, and their associates might have lent in support of the emerging movement for political Zionism. Whatever the explanation, Adler never received an acknowledgment of this letter to Herzl. It was not until two years later, toward the end of 1899, that he did get a message from Herzl, forwarded by Professor Richard Gottheil of Columbia University, the first president of the Federation of American Zionists. By this time, however, Adler had already become unequivocally opposed to the political Zionism that Herzl and his colleagues at Basle espoused. Thus, in response to Herzl's belated correspondence, Adler wrote the following cold reply: Beforethe first Congressat Basle, I took the libertyof forwardinga copy of the same documentto you togetherwith a memorandumon the subject,of whichI also sendyou a copy. I am boundto say in all franknessto you, therefore, that since the variousCongresseshave met and the Zionistprogramme has been formulated,my judgementhas led me away from believingin the 19. Cyrus Adler Letters, no. 62, pp. 1-5: Letter to Theodor Herzl, undated draft. 20. Neuman, Cyrus Adler, pp. 194-195.

66

DAVID G. DALIN

successof theplansthusfarannounced. I considera "publicly, legallyguaranteedhome"fortheJewsin theOttomanEmpireanimpossibility andI further believethatanyguarantee givenwouldbe valueless.21 These letters are obviously of historicalimport. Strangelyignored by many historiansof AmericanZionism, the Adler-Herzlletters are significant historicaldocumentsfor analyzingand illuminatingthe emergingnonZionist opposition of Cyrus Adler, Mayer Sulzberger,Oscar Straus, and theircircleto the politicalZionismof Herzl.The factthat Adlerdid not refer to them in either of his two principalbooks--especially in his autobiography, I Have Consideredthe Days-has both fascinatedand perplexed scholarswho have previouslysought to analyzeAdler'spublic careerand evolving attitudestowardZionism.Not the least interestingaspectof these letters,as HerbertParzenhas noted, is "thatthey containthe full arsenalof arguments"employed by non-Zionistsand Zionists alike, includingthe non-Zionistslogan of Jewishcolonizationanywherebut not in Palestine.22 Adler, moreover,was a prolificcorrespondentwho was not used to having his advice and counsel go unheeded.He was understandably"miffed"by Herzl'sfailureto even acknowledgehis letter, a fact that may have helped shape his emergingoppositionto the leadershipand tactics of the Zionist movement. The interveningyears between Adler's first and second communicationswith Herzl,whom Adlerwould nevermeet,had createda wide and seeminglyunbridgeablechasm betweenHerzl and the AmericannonZionist leadershipthat Adler, Sulzberger,and Strausrepresented. His secondletterto Herzlmarksthe beginningof Adler'spublicopposition to the kind of political Zionism that Herzl envisioned. It is in this response to Herzl's letter that Adler made a clean break with political Zionism, citing the practicalobjections to the fulfillmentof the Zionist program that he had come to share with other prominentnon-Zionist leadersof the AmericanJewishcommunity.Indeed,Adler'sletterto Herzl may well be consideredthe first publicarticulationof the emergingAmerican Jewishnon-Zionistposition, for whichAdler would remainone of the most unrelentingspokesmenfor the next twenty-fiveyears. 21. Cyrus Adler Letters, no. 71, p. 1: Letter to Theodor Herzl, undated draft (January 1900). 22. Herbert Parzen, Architects of ConservativeJudaism (New York: Jonathan David, 1964), pp. 92-93.


67

It can legitimatelybe arguedthat Hertzlmade a serioustacticalerrorin ignoring the first Adler letter and the advice that had been forwardedby Adler, Sulzberger,and Straus.In so doing, he alienated,perhapsinadvertently, the most politically influentialleadershipgroup within American Jewry, which, by 1899, had become increasinglyinimical to political Zionism. For while, as Adler admittedto Herzl, he was only speakingfor himselfand "for a few of my friends,"it was indeed a group with "distinguishedpoliticaland diplomaticexperience,"not to mentionpoliticalclout, for whom he spoke. OscarStraus,who was (from 1898to 1900)servinghis second stint as United States minister to Turkey, and would, in 1906, become the first AmericanJew appointedto a cabinet post, enjoyedeasy entry into government circles and the "ear" of the president and his administration.And Sulzberger,who had been elected to the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas on the Republicanticket, was, togetherwith his friend and political confidant Louis Marshall, one of the pillars of the Republicanpartyat the verytime that the leadershipof the nascentZionist movementwas beginningto seek political support within high circles in Washingtonand Londonin orderto furtherthe Zionistprogramand objectives. During a period in which the Republicanpartywas in power in the United States, their active support for, and participationin, the Zionist movementwould have been invaluable. Of all the lands proposedfor Jewishsettlementduringthe decadefollowing the first Zionist Congressin 1897,Mesopotamiamost intriguedthe AmericanJewish leadershipgroup of which Adler, Sulzberger,and Straus were a part. StrategicallysituatedbetweenAfricaand Asia, historicallythe birthplaceof Abraham,Mesopotamiawas repeatedlynoted as a desirable alternativeto Palestineby the non-Zionistleadershipin the United States. Adler, Straus, Sulzberger,and Jacob Schiff continued to advocate the "CyrusAdlerplan"for the Jewishcolonizationof Mesopotamiafor several years following Adler's second letter to Theodor Herzl. In 1903, when Turkey granted a concession permittingthe extension of the Berlin-toBagdadRailwaydown to the PersianGulf, Adlerand Strausrecognizedthe implicationsthe railwaywouldhavein worldpoliticsand the implicationsit could have for Jewishsettlement.Strausand Adler alertedJacob Schiffto the possibilityof openingup Mesopotamiafor colonizationin conjunction with the railway,especiallyif Jewishbankersparticipatedin financingthe project.SinceSchiff'sfriend,the BritishfinancierSir ErnestCasselwas also interestedin the railroad,Schiff subsequentlysent him informationon the

68

DAVID G. DALIN

Haupt-Adlerscheme.23As late as 1909, as Naomi W. Cohen has noted, Adler, Schiff,and other membersof the Executiveof the AmericanJewish Committeemet with Strausjust priorto his departurefor Constantinople, wherehe was to begin his third tour of duty as Americanambassador,to discussthe details of a Mesopotamiansettlement.24 By that time, however, in the aftermathof the TurkishRevolution of 1908, "realitiesmitigated against success."The new Turkishgovernment,underthe influenceof the nationalisticpolicies of the newly entrenchedYoung Turks, increasingly discouragedJewish immigrationto all parts of the Ottoman Empire. JudaismandZionism:ThePositionof CyrusAdler Conservative Whenhis close friendSolomonSchechterjoined the ranksof the Zionist movementin 1906,CyrusAdleraloneamongstthe leadershipof the Conservative movementremainedinimicalto the Zionist cause. From its earliest days, even before it had become a distinct movement,the leadershipof ConservativeJudaismhad "wholeheartedlyembracedthe Zionist idea."25 As Moshe Davis has pointed out, Zionism was "an integralpart of the programof thought and action" which the HistoricalSchool developedin the closing years of the last century and which it "transmitted"to the WithHerzl'scall for the firstZionistCongressin Conservativemovement.26 1897,most membersof the HistoricalSchool participatedactivelyin Zionist affairs. MarcusJastrow, for example, took "a very deep interest"in the Zionist movement and was elected vice-presidentof the Federation of American Zionists.27Benjamin Szold's active participation in Zionist societies is, as Moshe Davis notes, documentedin the AmericanHebrew press of the 1890s.28The first intercollegiateZionist society, the Young 23. Naomi W. Cohen, A Dual Heritage: The Public Career of Oscar S. Straus (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1969), p. 139. 24. Naomi W. Cohen, Not Free to Desist: The American Jewish Committee, 1906-1966 (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1972), p. 106. 25. Simcha Kling, "Zionism in the Early Days of Conservative Judaism," in Perspectiveson Jews and Judaism. Essays in Honor of Wolfe Kelman, ed. A. Chiel (New York: Rabbinical Assembly, 1978), p. 257. 26. Moshe Davis, The Emergenceof ConservativeJudaism (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1963), p. 268. 27. Ibid., p. 271; for Jastrow's published views on Zionism, see Marcus Jastrow, "Zionism and Its Critics," Maccabean, 1901. 28. Davis, Emergence of ConservativeJudaism, pp. 271-272.


69

AmericanZionists, was organizedin 1896 by seminarystudentswith the help of undergraduatesof the City College of New York.29 The identificationof ConservativeJudaismwith Zionism becameeven more pronouncedunderthe leadershipof SolomonSchechter(1902-1915), although, it should be noted, Schechterdid not support Herzl and the Zionist cause immediately.Indeed, upon his arrivalin Americain 1902, Schechterhad gone so far as to state that "Zionism divorced from the religiousidea is a menace."However, Schechtercould not long resist the "cherisheddreamof Zionism,"althoughhe recognizedthat "the dreamwas not withoutits nightmares."30 In an essayexplaininghis decisionto join the Federationof AmericanZionists in 1906, he wrote: "To me, personally, after long hesitationand carefulwatchingZionism recommendeditself to me as the great bulwark against assimilation. .... Zionism ...

is the

Declaration of Jewish Independencefrom all kinds of slavery whether materialor spiritual.""'ManyyearslaterLouis Lipskywould comment:"It was Dr. Schechter... who madethe JewishTheologicalSeminaryan institution for the graduationnot only of Rabbis,but also of Zionists.Without exception,its Rabbis... havecarriedthe messageof Zionismto all partsof America."32 Indeed,a study of seminaryalumniindicatesthat in 1914,the last year of Schechter'spresidency,over 60 percentof the graduatesof the seminary'srabbinicalschool were active and self-declaredZionists.33The leading membersof the seminaryfaculty broughtin by Schechter-Louis Ginzberg, Israel Friedlaender,Israel Davidson, and Mordecai M. Kaplan-were all Zionists.34Indeed, with the encouragementof Schechter, ProfessorsFriedlaenderand Kaplan became the "chief proponents"of Ahad Ha-Am's cultural Zionism, which they adapted to the American

29. Herbert Parzen, "Conservative Judaism and Zionism, 1896-1922," Jewish Social Studies, October 1964, p. 237. 30. Neuman, Cyrus Adler, p. 199. 31. Kling, "Zionism in the Early Days," p. 263. 32. Louis Lipsky, "Early Days of American Zionism," Palestine Yearbook,vol. 2 (New York: Zionist Organization of America, 1946), p. 451. 33. Parzen, "Conservative Judaism and Zionism," p. 239. 34. As Baila Shargel has noted, however, "of all the Seminary faculty, it was Friedlaender who devoted the greatest portion of his time and creative energy both to the theoretical defense of the Zionist ideology and the day-by-day, year-by-year functioning of American Zionism." Baila Round Shargel, "Israel Friedlaender and the Transformation of European Thought in America" (D.H.L. diss., Jewish Theological Seminary, 1982), p. 280. For a detailed discussion and analysis of Friedlaender's role in, and contributions to, American Zionism, see ibid., pp. 280-316.

DAVID G. DALIN

70

scene.35 It was, perhaps, Professor Louis Ginzberg who most succinctly

enunciatedthe prevailingattitudetowardZionismof most of his colleagues on the seminaryfaculty and within the Conservativerabbinate,when he said: "Jewish nationalism without religion would be a tree without fruit, Jewish religion without Jewish nationalism would be a tree without roots."36 With the death of Solomon Schechter in 1915, Cyrus Adler became acting president of the seminary and president of the United Syangogue. As such, as we noted earlier, he was the acknowledged leader of the Conservative movement. He was at the same time, however, the only leader of Conservative Judaism to remain outside the ranks of the Zionist movement. On the issue of Zionism, Adler found himself in the paradoxical situation of being on the side of Reform, "on the side of the religious party that had repudiated the religious tenets which he strove to maintain all his life."37On the other hand, his own colleagues in the institutions of the Conservative movement were to be found in "the ranks of the Zionist party" to which he was strenuously opposed. His continued and vocal antipathy to political Zionism through the mid-1920s remained, for many within the Conservative movement, an inexplicable contradiction which they were unable to empathize with or understand. The extent of Adler's antipathy to political Zionism, and the friction that it generated within the Conservative movement, can be gauged by his role in a bitter controversy that shook the fifth annual convention of the United Synagogue of America, of which Adler was then president, in July 1917. Convened just four months prior to the issuance of the Balfour Declaration, at a time in which favorable Jewish public opinion was crucial for generating official political support in Washington on behalf of the declaration, the convention proposed the following resolution: "Be it Resolved that the United Synagogue of America joins with the Zionists throughout the world in voicing the claim to a legally recognized and internationally secured homeland for the Jewish people in Palestine." Although an amendment to the resolution was immediately proposed substituting "Jews" for "Zionists," Adler stringently protested. I stronglyobjectto this resolution,whichI thinkis againstthe constitutionof the United Synagogue.The constitutionof the United Synagogueon the subjectof Palestinehas one phrase-to preservein the servicethe referenceto 35. Kling, "Zionism in the Early Days," p. 267. 36. Louis Ginzberg, United Synagogue Reports, 1913-19, p. 21. 37. Neuman, Cyrus Adler, p. 199.


71

Israel'spast and the hopes for Israel'srestoration.That is the agreementon that point that we reachedwhenthe UnitedSynagoguewas organized.I stand here representinga congregationwhich has neverauthorizedme to vote in favorof the Basleprogramme.I shallnot vote for it; I shallnot be boundby it. This is a matterof principleand consciencewhich no vote can force upon a man. I shall not discussthe Zionistprogrammehere.I may discussit at some futuretime, when I considerit wise and pertinentto discussit. But I submit that this is not the place nor is it properthat by a vote of this body I shallbe put in a position of assentingto somethingto which I do not now assent.38 A second controversial issue debated at the United Synagogue convention, involving representation at the sessions of the American Jewish Congress, led to Adler's resignation as president of the United Synagogue. As part of the struggle for control of Jewish organizational life, the creation of a congress had, of course, been a source of tension between the American Jewish Committee, of which the United Synagogue was an affiliate, and the leadership of the American Zionist movement. By the summer of 1917, Adler remained a bitter foe of the congress, while Louis Marshall and other prominent members of the American Jewish Committee had, in the spirit of communal compromise, come to accept the idea of the congress as a fact of Jewish organizational life. Indeed, at the annual meeting of the American Jewish Committee in November 1915, a resolution had been passed whereby Marshall and a majority of the leadership of the committee had decided to abandon their opposition and "switch over to the Congress movement." When this resolution was passed, Adler had "denounced the Congress movement as fraudulent" and declined to have his name considered for reelection as a member of the AJC's executive committee.39 The United Synagogue's decision was one with which Adler could not concur. Hence, when it was proposed by the delegates to the United Synagogue "that the Convention proceed to the election of a delegate to the American Jewish Congress," Adler immediately announced his opposition with the threat that he would resign his office if the resolution were approved. I riseto say that I am entirelyopposedto thatresolutionor to the electionof a delegateto the Congressfrom this body, and that I will not associatemyself

38. Quoted in Parzen, Architects of ConservativeJudaism, p. 121. 39. Cyrus Adler Letters, no. 310, p. 3: Letter to Louis Marshall, July 6, 1917. (Adler was subsequently persuaded to relent and remain on the American Jewish Committee's executive.)

72

DAVID G. DALIN

with such a resolutionif it is carried.I desireto announcehere that in no circumstanceswill I feel bound in any way by the act of that Congress.40 Despite Adler's dissent, the resolution was resoundingly passed. Professor Israel Friedlaender was elected as the delegate to the congress, and Adler adamantly refused to accept reelection to the presidency of the United Synagogue. Moreover, when the first meeting of the pro-Zionist American Jewish Congress was held in Philadelphia in December 1918, attended by most of the members of the American Jewish Committee, Adler and Felix Warburg, alone amongst the committee's membership, did not attend. Adler's uncompromising opposition to Zionism, as reflected in his minority dissent from the prevailing consensus at the United Synagogue convention, produced tensions between Adler and the seminary faculty, almost all of whom (as we noted earlier) were committed and outspoken cultural Zionists. It may, for example, it is reasonable to assume, have been one of the several sources of friction between Adler and Professor Louis Ginzberg, who, as acting president of the United Synagogue in 1919, urged greater participation in the very "Zionist enterprise" that Adler continued to heatedly oppose. I believethat the time has come when the United Synagogueshouldtake an activepartin the workfor the restorationof Palestine.Most of the membersof the UnitedSynagogue,congregationsas well as individuals,areenthusiastically engagedin the kindof work,and it is hightime that the voiceof ourorganization be heardin a matterso deeplyaffectingthe spirituallife of the Jews.41 The uncompromising nature of Adler's persistent opposition to the Basle program and the political aims of Zionism, as evidenced by his behavior at the United Synagogue convention, seems especially inexplicable in comparison with the mellowing attitude toward political Zionism being articulated by other prominent German-Jewish communal leaders, such as Louis Marshall and Jacob Schiff. In fact, the conventional interpretation that Adler's antipathy toward Zionism prior to the 1920s was shaped primarily by the attitudes of the Schiff-Marshall leadership group of which he was a part, and that, as Simcha Kling has tried to argue,42he was in fact "a non-

40. Parzen, Architects of ConservativeJudaism, p. 122. 41. United Synagogue Reports, 1913-19, p. 20. 42. Kling, "Cyrus Adler and Zionism," p. 24.


73

Zionistwho was reallya Zionist,"now seemsto be sadlymisleading.On the contrary:It can be arguedon the basis of his newly publishedcorrespondence that by 1917 Adler's "non-Zionism"had become much more stringent and uncompromisingthan that of most of the otherJewishcommunal leadersin his social circle.Take,for example,LouisMarshall,Adler'sconfidant as chairman of the board of overseers of the Jewish Theological Seminaryand longtimepresidentof the AmericanJewishCommittee.It was Marshall,as JeromeC. Rosenthalhad correctlysuggested,more than any other contemporary"uptown" German-Jewishleader, "who eloquently voiced . . . sympathy for the early Zionist efforts in the first decade of the

twentiethcentury."43 Marshall,althoughagreeingwith Adlerin his opposition to the Basle programand Jewishnationalism,was more open-minded with respectto the Zionist movement.Duringthe firstdecadefollowingthe first Zionist Congress, "he had not so much opposed the movement as UnlikeAdler, shownlittle interestin it becausehe thoughtit impractical."44 Marshallstressedthat though "he was neitherZionist nor Jewishnationalist," he rejectedthe argumentthat Zionismwas "incompatiblewith loyalty to America."45 It is also reasonableto assumethat Marshall'sclose association with his brother-in-law,Judah L. Magnes, brought him into close contactwith "the culturalZionismof the Americantype"that was gaining increasingcredencein AmericanZionist circles duringthe first decade of this century. Cultural Zionists such as Magnes, Harry Friedenwald, Schechter(after 1906),and especiallyIsraelFriedlaenderbegan"to reinterpretZionismin termsthat werebettersuitedto AmericanJewishrealities," and to "create bridges" between themselvesand Jewish leaders such as Marshall.Unlike Marshall,however,Adler remainedcuriouslyindifferent to theirappeal,despitethe fact that so manyof theseculturalZionistswere religiousJewslike himself,and stronglyidentifiedwiththe goals and institutions of ConservativeJudaism. Adleralso remainedantagonisticto politicalZionismfar longerthanhis friendand colleagueJacobSchiff,who until 1917had beencountedamongst the AmericanZionist movement'smost vocal opponents.In Decemberof that year, Schiff,the outstandingJewishphilanthropistof the era and one of 43. Jerome C. Rosenthal, "A Fresh Look at Louis Marshall and Zionism, 1900-1912," American Jewish Archives, November 1980, p. l l. 44. Evyatar Friesel, "Jacob H. Schiff Becomes a Zionist: A Chapter in American-Jewish Self-Definition, 1907-1917," Studies in Zionism, Spring 1982, p. 63. 45. Ibid.

74

DAVID G. DALIN

the most influential patrons of the Jewish Theological Seminary, announced

his readinessto join the Zionist movement.Writingto the futurepresident of the Zionist Organization of America, Judge Julian Mack, Schiff stated that he had become convinced of the desirabilityto seekthe establishmentof a Jewishhomeland-and logically this shouldbe Palestine-where the Jewishpeople would be againenabledto developundertheirown institutionsand in theirown atmosphereJewishlife and idealsin theirpurity,and becomeonce morea centerfromwhichthe Jews throughoutthe world could draw religiousinspirationand Jewish cultural development.46 And yet, as Professor Evyatar Friesel has noted in his thoughtful analysis of the episode, Adler could not understand Schiff's dramatic "conversion" to the Zionist cause, and greeted it with critical skepticism, rather than with enthusiastic support. "When Zionism adopts Judaism," wrote Adler, "I believe a basis can be found on which all Jews will unite in promoting Jewish settlement in Palestine, but I would consider a settlement in Palestine on an anti- or non-religious basis the greatest misfortune that has happened to the Jews in modern times."47Subsequently, when Judge Mack, in his first official act as president of the newly formed Zionist Organization of America, invited Schiff, Marshall, and Adler to become "Shekel paying" members of the organization, Adler alone amongst the trio refused to consider joining. "I cannot accept," Adler wrote to Mack at the time. "The Zionist programme as I am sure you know from our frequent conversations is not adequate to satisfy my Jewish views with regard to the restoration of Palestine."48 Also, Adler was on occasion less tolerant and understanding of Zionist leaders whom he did not respect or trust than other non-Zionist American Jewish leaders. Take, for example, his thoughts concerning the AngloJewish Zionist leader Israel Zangwill, about which the recently published Adler letters shed much new light. In the aftermath of the seventh Zionist Congress, held in Basle in 1905, a faction within the Zionist movement that advocated acceptance of the British government's offer of a Jewish territory within the protectorate of East Africa broke off from the movement. A rival

46. Ibid., p. 55. 47. Ibid., p. 72. 48. Cyrus Adler Letters, no. 326: Letter to Julian Mack, July 2, 1918.


75

body, the Jewish Territorial Organization, was formed under the leadership of the Jewish writer Israel Zangwill to explore non-Palestinian alternatives for mass Jewish settlement and to create autonomous Jewish territories wherever practicable. Adler's attitude to this program, however, in opposition to that of such colleagues and friends as Oscar Straus and Mayer Sulzberger (who were among Zangwill's leading supporters), was the same as his attitude toward Zionism-total rejection. Moreover, his correspondence with Israel Zangwill, whom Adler had known through his work with the Jewish Publication Society since the early 1890s, reveals that his attitude to Zangwill's leadership within the Jewish community, and to Zangwill personally, was more antagonistic than one would ever imagine from reading the comments on Zangwill in Adler's two published books. Adler wrote to Zangwill on November 1, 1905, in part as follows: In replyingto your letter,I shall speakwith the absolutefranknesswhichits importancedemands.I cannotrecognizethat you are a fittingleaderin Israel and I cannot follow your leadership.Critic,poet, novelistand dramatistyou are, and, as such, I have admiredyou ... but at no time in all our contact have I evertakenyou seriouslyas a leaderin Israelor even suspectedthatyou took yourself seriously. Your whole trend as a literaryman dealing with Jewishthingshas beento projectyourselfoutsideof yourown peoplein order that you might the better see them, and it seems to me that your habitual thought and your habitual life should have suggestedto you, were your powersof introspectionas greatas your facultyof observation,that to other hands must be left the captaincyof the Jewish people.49 Adler's heretofore unpublished correspondence with Zangwill is, to say the least, distinctly at variance with the praise in which he eulogized Zangwill in an address delivered at a memorial meeting for Zangwill in 1926, and reprinted in Adler's Lectures, Selected Papers, Addresses, published in 1933.50It is similarly at variance with his more tolerant and understanding assessment of Zangwill in his autobiography. His uncompromisingly hostile attitude to Zangwill and the program he espoused, as his correspondence with Oscar Straus indicates, came as a source of surprise and concern to some of his more tolerant non-Zionist colleagues. Straus wrote to Adler, expressing surprise and apparent displeasure at the "rudeness and insulting tone" toward Zangwill conveyed by Adler in the above 49. Ibid., no. 102, p. 3: Letter to Israel Zangwill, November 1, 1905. 50. Adler, Lectures, Selected Papers, Addresses, pp. 103-108.

76

DAVID G. DALIN

letter. Adler responded to Straus, justifying his attitude toward Zangwill as follows: You speak of my rudenessand insultingtone towardZangwill.I think that neitherof these chargesarejustified.. . . I consideredmy letterto Zangwillfor severaldaysand toneddownas muchas I couldconsistentwithmy tellinghim what I understoodto be the truth.I mighthavetold him that he was incapacitated on many groundsfrom being a leader. . . becausehe was a traitor-a traitorto Herzl and a traitorto the Jewishpeople.... I, too, am in earnestaboutthis territorialistorganizationand I believethat its final or partialsuccesswould be a greaterdisasterthan was broughtby ShabbatiZevi. It is more likelyto end as did the Araratprojectof Mordecai M. Noah, and so I am all the sorrierto see menof standingand sobrietyassociated with it.5~ The paradoxical nature of Adler's relationship to Zionism has been noted by most students of Adler's public career. It can be said, without exaggeration, that Adler's attitude to Zionism and the Zionist movement was a study in contradictions. Adler's staunch opposition-indeed antipathy-to political Zionism prior to the 1920s was more uncompromising, and continued far longer, than that of his non-Zionist colleagues, such as Schiff, Straus, and Marshall. And yet, there were limits to the extent and vituperation of Adler's non-Zionism. In October 1918, to cite but one example, Adler "unconditionally refused" to join in sponsoring a public meeting "in opposition to the Zionist Movement" being organized by Dr. David Philipson of Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati. Philipson and a group of Reform rabbis, all "rabid anti-Zionists," had called this meeting at a time when Zionism was at the "pinnacle of triumph" in the aftermath of the Balfour Declaration, issued the previous November. Forever the staunch non-Zionist, Adler refused to associate himself with the tactics and assumptions of the more virulently anti-Zionist forces within the Reform movement, led by Philipson and Hebrew Union College President Kaufmann Kohler of Cincinnati.52 Schiff, Marshall, Oscar Straus, and Henry

51. Cyrus Adler Letters, no. 103, pp. 1 and 2: Letter to Oscar Straus, November 12, 1905. 52. The early history of the Reform movement's staunch opposition to Zionism is analyzed in, among other works: Naomi Wiener Cohen, "The Reaction of Reform Judaism in America to Political Zionism (1897-1922)," Publications of the American Jewish Historical Society 40 (June 1951): 361-394; Joseph P. Sternstein, "Reform Judaism and Zionism, 1895-1904," Herzl YearBook 5 (1963): 11-31; Howard R. Greenstein, TurningPoint: Zionism and Reform Judaism


77

Morgenthau,Sr., all leadingmembersof the AmericanJewishCommittee, followedAdler'slead in rejectingthe Philipsonproposalto fightZionism.53 AdlerandZionismDuringthe1920s There were several reasons why Adler became more receptiveto the Zionist program during the 1920s. First, Chaim Weizmann and other Zionist leadersbeganto play down the ideology of Jewishnationalismand to stress "practicalprojectsto meet the challengeof transformingdeserts and swampsinto an economicallysound country."The growingrealization that Palestineremainedthe one land of refugeopen to Jewish victims of persecutionwas another factor. While, as Naomi W. Cohen has noted, Adler, Marshall,and their non-Zionistcolleaguescould neversupportthe Zionist argument "which denied any possibility of meaningful Jewish survivalin the Diaspora,"and would never activelyencourageAmerican Jewishemigrationto Palestine,they did "recognizein Palestinea havenfor East EuropeanJewry."54Finally, following the Balfour Declaration,the United Statesgovernment,throughthe Wilsonadministration,had officially approvedthe establishmentof a Jewishhomeland,an especiallyimportant considerationfor the politically influential and sophisticatednonZionist leadership group to which Adler belonged. The Zionist vs. non-Zionistdebatesof a decadeearlierno longer held any meaning,since the BalfourDeclarationand the Mandatehad raisedthe dreamof a Jewish homelandto a reality.Withthe approvalof the U.S. Congressfor the establishmentof that homeland,non-Zionistscould now for the firsttime "move forwardto work for Palestine"as loyal Americancitizens,"untroubledby spuriouschargesof dual loyalty.""5By the early 1920s,Jewishleadersnot formally affiliated with the Zionist movement, such as Adler, Marshall, Straus, and Irving Lehman, had come to feel that if the United States governmentcould actively support the movement to establish a Jewish homeland,"everyJew was morallybound to respondin a positiveway as (Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1981), chap. 1; and Michael A. Meyer, "American Reform Judaism and Zionism: Early Efforts at Ideological Rapprochement," Studies in Zionism, Spring 1983, pp. 49-64. 53. Parzen, "Conservative Judaism and Zionism," p. 242. 54. Cohen, Not Free to Desist, p. 150. 55. Melvin I. Urofsky, American Zionismfrom Herzl to the Holocaust (Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor Press/Doubleday, 1975), p. 319.

78

DAVID G. DALIN

well." Thus, Louis Marshallcautionedthe non-Zioniststhat "indifference ... can do us a thousandtimes moreharmthan all the Ku Klux Klansand Henry Fords."56Adler and the non-Zionist leadershipof the American

JewishCommitteehad, moreover,neveradmittedthat the "questionof

Palestine"was the "exclusivepreserve"of the Zionists. Adler had often "waxedindignant"at the claim that only Zionistscould do work in Pales-

tine."I do not agreewithanymanthat... Palestineis thesoleconcernof

the Zionist Organization,"he had earlier stated. "The restoration of Palestine,except as far as the Reformmovementis concerned,has always been the aim of the Jewish people, and nobody and no organizationcan speak for the Jewishpeople and say that it has the sole right to deal with it."57Adler reaffirmedhis view that non-Zionistscould work on behalf of Palestineby his growingdetermination,throughoutthe 1920s,to continue to help out in the developmentof the land. Encouragingnon-Zionistfinancial supportfor Palestinethroughbusiness,cultural,scientific,and agricul-

in establishing(in 1924)a new tural projects,Adler was instrumental the Palestine Economic investment company, Corporation.58

Adler's experience as the representativeof the American Jewish Committeeat the Paris Peace Conferencein 1919 had, moreover,further

convincedhim of the importanceof Zionist-non-Zionist cooperationin 56. Ibid. 57. Neuman, Cyrus Adler, pp. 128-129. 58. It is important to note that Adler's genuine and abiding concern for Jews throughout the world motivated him to aid in the efforts for Jewish agricultural and educational development in Palestine even prior to the 1920s. Thus, for example, when Solomon Schechter of the Jewish Theological Seminary asked Adler to join Louis Marshall, Mortimer L. Schiff, and himself on the American board of trustees of Haifa's Technion, Adler accepted. Always willing to promote the "practical" work of Jewish colonization in Palestine, Adler had (in 1909) urged support for the Jewish Agricultural Experiment Station at Athlit as a means of raising the agricultural productivity of Palestine. He, like Louis Marshall, Jacob Schiff, and other Jewish leaders, became interested through meetings with a young agricultural scientist named Aaron Aaronsohn, who had discovered how to grow a prototype of wheat, barley, rye, and oats. World-renowned German botanists and the United States Department of Agriculture had praised Aaronsohn's discovery. In writing to Louis Marshall, Adler introduced Aaronsohn as "a man who has made important agricultural discoveries .... I believe that if he can carry out his plans, the agricultural regeneration of Palestine can be accomplished; that moreover, they have the greatest importance for all dry lands as indicating a form of reclamation which does not imply the great expense attached to irrigation" (Cyrus Adler Letters, no. 136, p. 1: Letter to Louis Marshall, November 8, 1909). Adler wrote letters of introduction for Aaronsohn to Marshall, Schiff, and Professor Morris Loeb, urging that "the man and his ideas are worthy of a mighty push" (ibid., no. 136, pp. I and 2).


79

pursuitof commongoals. The four monthsthat CyrusAdler spentin Paris in the springof 1919were, as Moshe Davis has pointed out,59"one of the most significantperiods" in his public career.While Louis Marshallwas officiallythe presidentand spokesmanfor the Committeeof JewishDelegations to the PeaceConference,he workedclosely with Adler in negotiating and articulatingthe positions arrivedat by the Zionist and non-Zionist membersof the committeeat Paris. Marshalland Adler "regardedthemselves, and were regardedby others, as a team."60Their Committeeof JewishDelegations,while involvedprimarilyin securingminorityrightsfor the Jewsof EasternEurope,supportedthe Zionist programvis-a-visPalestine as well.61 The committee'stheme was Jewish unity, and Adler, as the representativeof the non-Zionist AJC, played an instrumentalrole in bringing non-Zionist and Zionist delegates to the Peace Conference togetherto achievethis end. Adlerwas, for example,instrumentalin bringing Marshalland AmericanJewish CongressrepresentativeJudge Julian Macktogether,thusestablishing"thebasisfor a unifiedapproach"between Zionist and non-Zionistmembersof the delegations.62He worked closely with the EuropeanZionistleaderNahum Sokolowas well. The non-Zionist press "cementedthe buddingrelationship"forged by Adler and Marshall "by displayingan indomitablefaithin the peace-makers'abilityto solve the Jewish problem in Europethroughagreementswith the states of Central and EasternEurope and in Palestinevia Britishassumptionof the mandate,"63which was essentiallythe Zionist programas well. Adler'schangeof attitudetowardZionismwas also attributable,in part, to the change in leadershipof the World Zionist Organization,after its acrimoniousClevelandConferenceof 1921, from Brandeisto Weizmann. Adler's attitude toward Zionism prior to 1921 had been shaped in some degreeby his dislikeand distrustof the men who constitutedthe American Zionist leadership,Stephen S. Wise and Louis D. Brandeisin particular, and the democratizationof Jewishpubliclife whichtheyespoused.Adler,as many of his contemporariesand associateshave attested,was above all an aristocrat,and while he was a firmdefenderof democracyin Americanlife, 59. Moshe Davis, "The Human Record: Cyrus Adler at the Peace Conference, 1919," in Essays in American Jewish History (Cincinnati: American Jewish Archives, 1958), p. 457. 60. Ibid., p. 463. 61. Knee, "Jewish Non-Zionism," p. 212; see also Lawrence Kessler, "American Jews and the Paris Peace Conference," Yivo Annual of Jewish Social Science, 1947-48, pp. 232-235. 62. Moshe Davis, "The Human Record," p. 462, fn. 14. 63. Knee, "Jewish Non-Zionism," p. 212.

80

DAVID G. DALIN

this belief did not necessarilycarryover to Jewish affairs.64Adler'slong-

standingpersonalityconflictswith the leadershipof the Federationof

AmericanZionists were, beginningin 1915, accentuatedduringthe battle over the issue of the AmericanJewishCongress.Adlerhad long considered the leadershipof the Federationof AmericanZionists a "highlyunpalatable" group with whom to work. Weakin membershipand funds, the FAZ

nonetheless "attracted oratorsandjournalists whotookparticular delightin at the American Jewish Committee for its undemocratic sneering organization, discreet methods, alleged political conservatismand lack of Jewish heart."65Adler and his colleaguesof the committeeinterpretedthe Zionist

methodsof mass appeal,gearedespeciallyto the new immigrantsfrom Eastern Europe, as an effort to capture the leadershipof the American

JewishCommittee.Thus,in June1915,for example,Adlerwrotein complaint to Solomon Schechteras follows:

In the Jewishpoliticalworld, [Louis]Marshall,[Jacob]Schiff,Judge[Mayer]

and myselfare now the principalobjectsof attackand we are Sulzberger

denouncedas beingunfitfor the managementof Jewishaffairs.A verystrong

and determinedmovement... are makinga politicalcampaignfor the purposeof securingan AmericanJewishCongressand definitelyin my

opinionfor the purposeof overthrowingthe AmericanJewishCommittee.... It is part of a generalZionistprogrammefor the captureof Jewishorganiza-

JewishCongressunderZionist tions and the callingof an international auspices.66

The urbane and charming Chaim Weizmann posed no such threat. On the contrary: Weizmann, like Adler, had disliked Theodor Herzl, as he and 64. Louis Lipsky has commented that Adler "refused to go along with the democratic trends in Jewish life. . . . he seemed to think that democracy was an alien notion in Jewish life." In his leadership style, Lipsky has suggested, Adler was, at least during most of his career, "critical and caustic, dictatorial and intolerant." Louis Lipsky, A Gallery of Zionist Profiles (New York: Farrar, Straus & Cudahy, 1956), pp. 210-212. Herman Rubenovitz, one of Adler's contemporaries and his coworker in the organization of the United Synagogue, would later comment that Adler was "a firm believer in maintaining the established order whereby leadership in Jewish affairs was to be left to certain prominent families of wealth and public spirit. He was entirely out of sympathy with the democratic trends in Jewish life which became manifest at the turn of the century" and found expression in the Zionist movement and the Zionist-inspired campaign for an American Jewish Congress. Herman and Mignon Rubenovitz, The Waking Heart (Cambridge, Mass.: Nathaniel Dame, 1967), pp. 55-56. 65. Cohen, Not Free to Desist, p. 105. 66. Cyrus Adler Letters, no. 254: Letter to Solomon Schechter, June 9, 1915.


81

Adler would later scorn their common rival, Brandeis.Weizmann,like Adler, was now readyto avoid all discussionsof Zionistpoliticalideology, and all questions of statehood, in a common program devoted to the economic and agriculturaldevelopmentof Palestine.By the early 1920s, Weizmanncould explainthat Zionistslike himselfwould be happyto work on a nonideologicalbasisalongsidethose who did not sharetheirparticular philosophicalviews. Indeed, Weizmannapproviinglyquoted Judge Mayer Sulzberger'scommentthat "it is sometimesgood to do the rightthing even an attitudewithwhichthe alwayspragmaticAdler for the wrongreasons,"67 could easily concur. In fact, it can be arguedthat in termsof theirpersonalitiesand leadership styles, as well as theirpoliticalpragmatism,Adler and Weizmannhad much in common. Weizmann,like Adler, was by naturean aristocratwho had a profound distrust of the Jewish masses and their role in Jewish affairs.68Yosef Gorni's characterizationof Weizmanncould well have appliedto Adleras well: His "elitistaristocraticbent . .. basedon his belief in the servingelite, set him apartfromthe masseswhomhe ... pitiedbut by whom he was also repelled."69 Weizmannand Adler shared,moreover,an autocraticleadershipstyle that left little room or tolerancefor opposition. Weizmann,like Adler, had dislikedTheodorHerzl. Both wereopenlycontemptuousof some rivals-e.g., Adler'scontinualantipathytowardIsrael Zangwill and Stephen Wise,70as evidenced in his correspondence,and Weizmann'swell-knownand often bitterrivalrywith David Ben-Gurionand did not hesitateto employinsultinglanguageagainstthose with whom they disagreed. To his political opponents Weizmann"bore a constant grudgeand neverforgavethem,""a trait exhibitedby Adleras well. Adler 67. Urofsky, American Zionism, pp. 320-321. 68. "On several occasions," as Yehuda Reinharz has noted, "Weizmann made it clear that he distrusted the instincts of the masses." Yehuda Reinharz, "Chaim Weizmann: The Shaping of a Zionist Leader Before World War I," Journal of ContemporaryHistory 18, no. 2 (April 1983): 207. Moreover, as Yosef Gorni has pointed out, "Weizmann underestimated mass action and did not comprehend its political importance." Yosef Gorni, "Chaim Weizmann as Zionist Leader," Midstream, May 1982, p. 47. 69. Gorni, "Chaim Weizmann as Zionist Leader," p. 43. 70. Thus, for example, Adler noted in a letter to Judah L. Magnes concerning the board of governors of the Hebrew University: "The insistence of yourself and others of the presence of Dr. Stephen S. Wise on this Board is not likely to make for my continued cooperation, at least, if I have to sit in the room with that gentleman very often." Cyrus Adler Letters, no. 470, p. 3: Letter to Judah L. Magnes, July 21, 1926. 71. Ibid.

82

DAVID G. DALIN

could never forgive Brandeisand Wise for opposing him on the congress issue, and thus would not ally himselfwith the Zionistmovementuntil they had been ousted from its leadership,and had been replacedby Weizmann. Adler, Weizmann,and the Jewish Agency

The changein personalitieswithin the leadershipof the Zionist movement after 1921 thus significantlyinfluencedAdler's relationshipto the movement. Chaim Weizmann,unlike Herzl, Wise, or Brandeis, shared Adler's pragmatism,sought Adler's advice, and respected his political judgment.Indeed,Adler'schangingattitudetowardZionismand cooperation with the Zionist movementduringthe 1920scan be attributed,in no small measure,to the politically shrewdinitiativetaken by Weizmannto seek the involvementof Adler and other prominentnon-Zionistsin the practicalaffairsand goveranceof the Yishuv.He intendedto achievethis by expanding the Jewish Agency, the body which served as the "official liaison"with Great Britainon mattersaffectingJewishPalestine.The first step towarda Zionist-non-Zionistrapprochementwas takenin 1924when Adler and Louis Marshallagreed,at Weizmann'surging, to assemble"a full-scale conference of non-Zionists" to discuss participation in an enlargedJewishAgencyand the establishmentof an investmentcorporation to aid the economicdevelopmentof Palestine.On February8, 1924,Adler, Marshall,HerbertLehman,and Judge Horace B. Stern-all pillars of the German-Jewishnon-Zionist community-sent out a letter to 150 prominentJews not affiliatedwith the Zionist Organizationof America."The time has come," said the invitation,"whenwe firmlybelievethat the duty restsuponthe Jewsof this countrywho arenot membersof or affiliatedwith the Zionist Organization,to considerseriouslytheirrelationsto the economic problemsof Palestineand to its culturaland industrialupbuilding."72 Initial oppositionto Weizmann'splan disappearedwhen Adler and his non-Zionistcolleaguesacceptedthe term "JewishNational Home" in the preambleof the Jewish Agency's constitution.73In 1928, a committeeof seven non-Zionists,includingAdler, was appointedto name the forty-four Americanmembersof the enlargedagency.Weizmann'slong-sought-after goal was finally achievedat Zurichin the summerof 1929.Weizmannwas 72. Urofsky, American Zionism, p. 318. 73. Cohen, Not Free to Desist, p. 151.


83

elected president,and Marshallchairman,of the agency'scouncil,in which Zionists and non-Zionistsheld 112 seats each. Among the eminent nonZionists who attendedthe first meetingof the expandedagency at Zurich were Leon Blum, Albert Einstein,and Cyrus Adler. WhileAdlerwould laterdisclaimany significantrole in the creationand developmentof the expandedJewishAgency,he must certainlybe credited with being one of its most influentialarchitectsand farsightedleaders.A monthafterthe ZurichmeetingLouisMarshalldied,and Adlerassumedhis role and responsibilitiesas the leadingnon-Zionistmemberof the agency, serving both as presidentof the agency'scouncil and as chairmanof its adminstrativecommittee.With characteristicdedicationand effectiveness, Adler would subsequentlyparticipatein the managementand decisionmakingof the JewishAgency for close to a decade.Throughhis work on behalfof the agency,whichoccupiedmuchof his time and correspondence between 1929and 1932,Adlergained a new respectfor ChaimWeizmann, correspondedwith him regularly,and supportedhim on a numberof public issues. And, as the severalreferencesto Adler in the publishedlettersand papersof ChaimWeizmannindicate,Adler'sgrowingrespectfor Weizmann did not go unreciprocated.Weizmannbegan, increasingly,during these years, to value Adler's political advice, support,and friendship.74 A few days afterthe sessionsof the expandedagencyconcludedin 1929, riots brokeout in Palestine.Theywerefollowedby the issuanceof the Passfield White Paper,which announcedthe Britishgovernment'sdecision to curtail land sales and Jewish immigrationto Palestine.The Revisionists within the World Zionist Organizationand the JewishAgency Executive, led by VladimirJabotinsky,blamedthe WhitePaperon Weizmann'spolicy of cooperation with the British, and sought his ouster from leadership. Adler,however,spokeeloquentlyin Weizmann'sdefense,claimingthat"the blame for the White Paper could not be laid.. . on the shoulders of Weizmann."75In subsequentlyurging Felix Warburgto reconsiderhis decisionto resignfromthe JewishAgencyExecutive,he remindedWarburg of the importanceof the participationof non-Zionistssuch as themselves within the newly expandedagency that Weizmannhad created. 74. See, for example, Weizmann's Letters to Felix M. Warburg of November 22, 1929, January 16, 1930, January 17, 1930, February 28, 1930, and June 26, 1930. The Letters and Papers of Chaim Weizmann,vol. 14, series A (Jerusalem: Israel Universities Press, 1978), letters no. 102, 184, 188, 209, and 328. See also Weizmann's letter to Cyrus Adler of January 4, 1932, in ibid., vol. 15, series A, letter no. 234. 75. Cyrus Adler Letters, no. 533, p. 5: Letter to Felix Warburg, March 31, 1931.

84

DAVID G. DALIN

If you withdraw,it will involvethe withdrawalof manyothernon-Zionistsin the Agencyin this countryand possiblysome abroad.One has to contemplate whatthe finaleffectwill be. Of course,I cannotpredictthe comingelectionsto the Zionist Congress, but with the announcementof your withdrawalI imagine a considerablepart of the support of Weizmannwould fall. The Revisionists,joined by the Mizrachi,would I think probablycontrol the Congress.76

Adler's response to the Passfield White Paper was not delimited to support for his new friend and colleague, Weizmann, in the internecine struggles of the Zionist movement. Adler responded vigorously in the public arena as well, "denouncing the British for hypocrisy and tearing the White At a public meeting in Philadelphia, he declared: "Our Paper to shreds."''77 effort in Palestine may be delayed [but] it cannot be stopped."78 The riots that led to the Passfield White Paper had begun with Arabs attacking Jews at the Wailing Wall. Wanting to disprove Arab contentions, Weizmann asked Adler to prepare a memorandum to be submitted to the League of Nations clarifying Jewish rights to the Western Wall, an undertaking that Adler could not refuse. As he wrote to the British historian and Zionist leader Louis Namier: "The request, originally conveyed by Doctor [Chaim] Weizmann through Mr. [Felix M.] Warburg, places upon me a great responsibility which I am far from anxious to have, but which I do not feel that I have a right to shirk if it is the deliberate judgement of everybody In his lengthy concerned that I am the person to undertake the task.""79 memorandum, published in book form in 1930,80Adler succinctly outlined the argument for Jewish rights at the Wall and endeavored, as he wrote to Weizmann, "to establish the historical basis for the Jewish claim that for at least one thousand years they have had free access to the Wall for the purpose of prayer.""' Adler's effort was an unequivocal success. His book proved to be "a masterly presentation of the historic rights of Jews," and "a model of scholarship."82Indeed, the volume proved to be "so convincing" 76. Ibid., p. 10.

77. Kling, "CyrusAdler and Zionism,"p. 26. 78. Adler, Lectures, Selected Papers, Addresses, p. 331.

79. CyrusAdlerLetters,no. 513, p. 1: Letterto Louis Namier,January30, 1930. 80. This was published as Memorandum on the Western Wall, Prepared for the Special Commissionof the League of Nations on Behalf of the Jewish Agencyfor Palestine (Philadelphia, 1930).

81. CyrusAdlerLetters,no. 515, p. 3: Letterto ChaimWeizmann,April 2, 1930. 82. Kling, "CyrusAdler and Zionism,"p. 26.


85

that the specialcommissionappointedby the Leagueof Nations grantedall the claims set forth in it. After the Britishwithdrewthe worst featuresof the WhitePaper,Adler withdrewfrom the leadershipranksof the JewishAgencyto devotehis time and energiesto his manifoldcommunalresponsibilitiesas presidentof the seminary, Dropsie College, and the AmericanJewish Committee.When Louis Marshall died in September 1929, Adler had succeeded him as committee president.Togetherwith Judge Horace Stern of Philadelphia, Adlersought"to stir the impulsesand imagination"of the AmericanJewish Committee'sinfluentialnon-Zionistleadership"in the spirit and for the cause" of the Jewish Agency for Palestine.83While presidentof the committee, Adler continued as an active and valuablememberof the Jewish Agency, devotingmuch of his increasinglyscarcetime, and a great deal of his correspondence,to its activitiesand programs.For example,when the British issued another White Paper following the 1936 riots, one which suggested the partitioning of Palestine, Adler drafted an "alternative" proposal for the JewishAgency Executiveto consider.Achievingpeaceful relationsbetweenJews and Arabs in Palestinewas anothergoal of Adler's during the 1930s,which he hoped to furtherthroughhis work within the JewishAgency. One of the most "intractableand elusiveproblems"Adler ever faced,it was one to whichhe devotedmuchenergyandcorrespondence during his last decade.84 As one of the pivotal figureswithinthe leadershipof the JewishAgency during the 1930s, Adler provided the necessary link between the nonZionist world, for which the AmericanJewishCommitteewas spokesman, and the realizationof the Zionist programthat only non-Zionistcooperation and supportcould help to achieve.Adler remindedthe Zionist leadership of the agencyof the seminalrole playedby the non-Zionistleadership of his AmericanJewish Committeein financialcontributionsto Palestine since 1929,85 and even threatenedto resign from the agency if the nonZionists within the body were to be made "the target of constant Adlerdid not resign,however,butcontinedto workfor Zionist reproach."86 and non-Zionist cooperation and succeeded in shaping the consensus 83. Neuman, Cyrus Adler, p. 212. 84. See, for example, his correspondence with Judah L. Magnes during this period: e.g., his letter to Magnes of March 5, 1930-Cyrus Adler Letters, no. 514a, pp. 1-7. 85. Ibid., no. 546: Letter to Moses A. Leavitt, February 11, 1932. 86. Ibid.

86

DAVID G. DALIN

betweenZionistsand non-Zionistsupon whichthe successand achievement of the Jewish Agency for Palestinewas based. This was, perhaps,one of CyrusAdler'sgreatestcontributionsto Jewishpubliclife duringthe 1930s. Conclusion

One of the most gifted and farsightedJewish public servants and communal leaders of his generation,Adler played a pivotal role in the creationand developmentof an extraordinarynumberof Jewishinstitutions and communalenterprises.A Jewishpublicfigurewho was able to uniquely interpretthe needs of religiousJews to the wealthyGerman-Jewishphilanthropistsof AmericanJewry,Adler inspiredawe and respect(if not affection) in all the variousgroupingsof the Jewishcommunity,includingthose opposed to him. It would thus be difficult to overestimatethe potential ramificationsthat Adler's active involvementwith the AmericanZionist movementmight have had. What EvyatarFrieselhas said of Jacob Schiff can, I think, legitimatelybe said of Adler as well: "His joining the Zionist Movementwould certainlyhave been a considerablemoralvictoryfor the Zionists, and a strong impetusfor the movementin the United States.""87 Unlike Julian Mack and Nathan Straus,among othersin his social circle, Adler would never formally identify with or join the Zionist movement. he would nevereven come close to officially Unlike Schiff and Marshall,88 joining the Zionist ranks.And yet, duringthe 1920she playedperhapsthe pivotal role in forging the rapprochementbetween the Zionist and nonZionist leadershipwithin the Jewish Agency for Palestine,and played a significantrole in the growth and developmentof that most importantof Zionist institutions.In so doing, it may be argued,he helped to make the Zionistmovementof that day more"respectable"to the non-Zionistleadership of his social circle,while at the same time guaranteeingthe continued participationand financial support of the non-Zionistleadershipof the American Jewish Committee in the work and program of the Jewish Agency.This was, to say the least, not an insignificantachievement.It was, arguably,an accomplishmentthat a StephenWise, Judah Magnes, Israel Friedlaender,or even a Solomon Schechtercould never have achieved.It 87. Friesel, "Jacob H. Schiff Becomes a Zionist," pp. 56-57. 88. For a thoughtful and detailed discussion of why "Schiff's intention of joining the Zionist Movement was never consummated," see ibid., pp. 55-92.


87

took someone with the avowedly non-Zionist backgroundand "credentials" of a CyrusAdler-so long aloof from the Zionist movementand its politicalconcerns-who at the same time could commandthe cooperation and respectof those to whom he was opposed.Indeed,it can be arguedthat afterthe deathof Marshall,no otherAmericanJewishcommunalfigurebut Adler could have succeededin bringingsuch a rapprochementabout. To have been thus able to shape such an alliance, and working consensus, between the non-ZionistAmericanJewish establishmentof his era and a section of the WorldZionist movementmay well be consideredone of the moreimportantaccomplishmentsof Adler'svariedand distinguishedpublic career.Thus, paradoxically,within the last decadeof his life, and without everadheringto Zionistideology,CyrusAdlermadea profoundand enduring contribution to the Zionist movement of which he never formally became a part. JewishTheological Seminary of America New York,N.Y.

The Poetics of Composition of the Hebrew Short Story in the Haskalah Period Author(s): Yair Mazor Source: AJS Review, Vol. 10, No. 1 (Spring, 1985), pp. 89-110 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486273 . Accessed: 30/06/2011 01:39 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].



THE POETICSOF COMPOSITION OF THE HEBREW SHORT STORY IN THE HASKALAH PERIOD by YAIR MAZOR Art in general,andartof fictionin particular, stands or falls on organization. -Victor Sklovskij

Preface The main goal of this paper is to determine and describe the poetics of composition of the Hebrew short story in the Enlightenment (Haskalah) period. (The Haskalah was a major literary movement in Hebrew literature, mainly in Germany, Austria, and Russia, from 1780 to 1870. This movement evolved in three distinct phases: neoclassic, romantic, and realistic.) The narrative of the Haskalah period has received considerable attention from many critics and researchers, beginning with the first critics of Hebrew literature (such as Kovner, Brainin, Paperna, and Lilienblum), through critics of the early twentieth century (such as Feitelson, Robinson, Zitron, Zinberg, Frischmann, Slouschz, Shapira, Klausner, and Lachower), up to 89

90

YAIRMAZOR

contemporarycritics(Patterson,Weinfeld,Wersses,Shaked,Miron, Feingold, and others).' However,all the above-mentionedcriticshave most often concentrated eitheron a particularliterarypieceor on a majoraestheticelementfound in a work of one of the Haskalahauthors.Thus, none of themmade a significant attempt to reconstructthe coherent compositional poetics of the Haskalahnarrative.Indeed,thoughone may findin thesecriticssome useful and illuminatingobservationsrelating to Haskalah prose fiction, these cannot substitutefor a detaileddescriptionof the actualpoetics.2Furthermore, previousresearchand criticismof the corpusof Haskalahfiction did not make a distinctionbetweenthe compositionalpoetics of the Haskalah novel and those of the Haskalahshort story.One of the majorassumptions of the presentstudy is that this kind of distinctionmust be made, since the Haskalahshortstorydisplaysa differentpoeticsof compositionfromthat of the Haskalahnovel. Indeed,previousHaskalahcriticismcorrectlypointed out many weaknesses in numerousHaskalahcompositions:loose organization;too many interwovenplots loosely or artificiallyconnected;and the narrator'sexcessive intrusionsinto the plot with unrelateddidacticsermons.All thesefaults can be found in the Haskalah narrative,but almost exclusivelyin the novels.3The short storiesof this perioddemonstratea drasticallydifferent compositionalmethod, a differencewhich demandsa reevaluationof the period'scompositionalpoetics. The presentpaperattemptsto show that in additionto the poeticsof the Haskalah novel, there exists a different compositional poetics (for the Haskalah short story) which is complicated, varied, and aesthetically impressive. As has been mentionedabove, in dealingwith Haskalahfiction, we are 1. The specific works of all these critics are mentioned in the course of this paper. 2. For instance, the most useful generations summarized by Shaked; see Gershon Shaked, Ha-Sipporet ha-Ivrit 1880-1970 [The Hebrew narrative 1880-1970] (Tel Aviv: Keter ha-Kibbutz ha-Me'uhad, 1928), pp. 48-51. 3. Although these weaknesses in numerous novels in the corpus are undoubtedly not to be denied, many of the novels which carry these compositional faults also include many other compositional phenomena which are highly impressive and well wrought. Thus, the obvious weaknesses in these novels led most critics to make normative generalizations and to abandon any discussion of other compositional phenomena that exist in the same corpus and deserve a favorable evaluation. This issue has been discussed in detail in Yair Mazor, "Aspects and Trends in the Poetics of Composition in Hebrew Realistic Narrative in the Enlightenment Period" [Hebrew] (doctoral diss., Tel Aviv University, 1981).

THE POETICS OF COMPOSITION OF THE HEBREW SHORT STORY

91

actually dealing with the realisticperiod of HebrewEnlightenmentliterature, a literary period in Eastern Europe during the years 1833-1881.4 Duringthis period,the majoraim of Hebrewliteraturewas a didacticone: to demolishthe walls of the Jewishsocial-mental"ghetto";to urgethe Jew to adopta new spirit,a spiritof enlightenment,and to extricatehimselffrom his bleak reality.This was the periodwhichgave rise to the most significant Hebrew narrativeof the nineteenthcentury,the period in which Hebrew narrativewas, in fact, first established.This phenomenonis easily understood, sincethe natureof narrative-and especiallyof the novel-lends itself to the reflectionof currentlife, the "hereand now";as HenryJamesput it: "A novel is in its broadestdefinitiona personal,directimpressionof life."' James also states, "I may thereforeventureto say that the air of reality (solidity of specification)seems to me to be the supreme virtue of the novel."6 Hence, when we deal with the Haskalahshort story we deal with the realisticstory. The precisenatureof the realismexpressedin the works of this literaryperiod is an issue of debate.Shapiraclaims that the realismof this periodis not a "pure"realism,since it is stronglydidactic;the literary works do deal with reality, but not always with the techniquesof literary realism.7Halkin prefersthe term "actualism,"or "strugglingactualism."8 Ewencalls it "historicalrealism,"'and Shaananprefers"criticalrealism"'• (a term first used by V. L. Parrington)."But this division of opinion is predictable, since it seems that the number of definitions of the term "realism"is equal to the number of researcherswho deal with literary 4. Klausner was the critic who outlined the "period of the Hebrew realistic literature"-as he puts it-to these exact years; see Joseph Klausner, Historyah shel ha-Sifrut ha-Ivrit ha-fladashah [History of modern Hebrew literature] (Jerusalem: Achisaph, 1955), vol. 3, p. 350. 5. James Miller, ed., Theory of Fiction: Henry James (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1922), "The Art of Fiction," p. 33. 6. Ibid., p. 35. 7. Hayyim N. Shapira, Toledot ha-Sifrut ha-Ivrit ha-HUadashah [History of modern Hebrew literature] (Tel Aviv: Massada, n.d.), vol. 1, p. 162. 8. Simon Halkin, Mavoh la-Sipporet ha-Ivrit [Approach to Hebrew narrative], ed. Tsofia Hillel (Jerusalem: Mifal ha-Shikhpul, Hebrew University, 1958), pp. 228, 233. 9. Joseph Ewen, Millon Munabheiha-Sipporet [Dictionary of narrative terms] (Jerusalem: Academon, Hebrew University, 1958), p. 15. 10. Avraham Shaanan, Ha-Sifrut ha-Ivrit ha-IUadashahli-Zerameha [Currents of modern Hebrew literature] (Tel Aviv: Massada, 1962), vol. 1, p. 36. II. See Harry Levin, Concepts of Criticism (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1958), p. 62.

92

YAIR MAZOR

criticism.Frye, Wellek,Levin, Jakobson,Ewen, Brinker,and many other critics all agree that "realism"is one of the vaguestand most ambiguous terms in the history of criticism.12D. Grant, in his book dedicatedto the meaningof "realism,"gives twenty-sixdifferentdefinitionsof this elusive

term.'•

However,the divisionof opinionconcerningthe natureof the realismof the Haskalahrealisticnarrativedoes not eclipse the substantialaesthetic and ideologicalsimilaritiesof the prominentauthorsof this period.In this sensethe era of Haskalahrealisticnarrativefits Wellekand Warren'sdefinition of the literaryperiodof Russianformalism:"a timesectiondefinedby a systemof normsembeddedin the historicalprocessand irremovablefrom it.",14

The most recognizableauthorsof this literaryperiod are Smolenskin, Braudes,Brandstaedter,Gottlober,Y. L. Gordon,and E. Schulmann.One mayalso includeMapuand MendeleMokherSeforim(Abramovitsch),who are perhapsthe most distinguishedauthorsof HebrewEnlightenmentliterature.Mapuwas the authorof the firstHebrewnovel,Ahavat-Ziyyon ("Love for Zion," 1830). Mapu also wrote the first realisticHebrew novel, Ayit Zavu'a ("The Hypocrite," 1875). However, this novel is still strongly anchored in historical-romanticconventions. The step toward realism whichwas takenin this novel is frailand hesitant.Essentially,then, Mapu's literaryworkis mainlyrootedin the romanticperiodof Haskalahliterature. Mendelewas the one who extricatedand freedthe Hebrewnovel fromits weaknesses(especiallyof language,whichwas mostly inflexible,using biblicalpatternsof speechin a clumsy,clich6dway).Mendele'sLimmeduHeitev ("StudyWell,"1862),the firstmodernHebrewnovel, achievedan aesthetic complexityneverreachedbefore.This novel was republishedsix yearslater (1868)with many improvementsundera new title (Avot u-Vanim;"Fathers and Sons"). But quite soon afterwards,Mendele abandonedwriting in Hebrew,and for about twentyyearswroteexclusivelyin Yiddish.Whenhe 12. See Northrop Frye, Anatomy of Criticism (New York: Princeton University Press, 1973), p. 49; Rene Wellek, Concepts of Criticism (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1962), p. 24; Levin, Concepts of Criticism, p. 233; Roman Jakobson, "Al ha-Realism ba-Omanut" [About realism in art], Ha-Sifrut 2, no. 2 (January 1920): 269; Ewen, Millon Munahey ha-Sipporet, p. 14; Menachem Brinker, Mi-Ba'ad la-Medumeh [From behind the imaginary] (Tel Aviv: Israeli Institute of Poetics and Semiotics, Ha-Kibbutz ha-Me'uIhad, 1980), p. 90. 13. Damian Grant, Realism (London: Methuen, 1920), p. 1. 14. Rene Wellek and Austin Warren, Theory of Literature (1943; New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1956), p. 256.


93

returnedto Hebrew writing, toward the end of the Haskalahperiod, he returnedas a literaryinnovator,having left Haskalahrealismfar behind. Smolenskinand Braudescomposedshort stories as well as novels, but their fame is mostly due to their novels. Their short stories are usually regardedas the less significantpartsof theirliterarycreation.Y. L. Gordon was perhapsthe most prominentpoet of the Haskalahperiod, but, as we shall see, he also wrote short stories which merit esteem. Gottlober, who owes his fame mainly to his poetry, and Schulmann,who owes his fame mainly to his literary-historicalresearch,wrote short stories which could definitelycontributeto theirreputations,if only theywereknown.Of all the above-mentionedwriters,Brandstaedteris the only one mainly recognized for his short stories, with their delicate humor and well-wroughtsatire highlypraisedby the critics.'"Therefore,the reconstructionof the poeticsof compositionof the Haskalahshort story in this paperis also a recompense for a significantstratumof Hebrewliteraturethat has been unjustifiably forgotten. CompositionalPoetics of the HaskalahShort Story: Major Latitudesand Meridians Since one of the major goals of this study is to make a distinction betweenthe poetics of compositionof the Haskalahnovel and that of the Haskalah short story, it seems appropriateto emphasizethe main differencesbetweenthesetwo poetics.Let us look firstat plot structure.The plots of many of the Haskalah novels consist of interwovenstrandsloosely or artificiallyconnected, and lacking a logical and thorough development. Many of these plots are overloaded with exceedinglycomplicated and 15. See Shalom Streit, Ba-Alot ha-Shaihar[As dawn rises] (Tel Aviv: Hedim, 1937), pp. 104-105; Fishel Lachower, Toledot ha-Sifrut ha-Ivrit ha-kladashah [History of modern Hebrew literature] (Tel-Aviv: Dvir, 1966), vol. 2, p. 238; Menachem Ribalow, "Al Kever Mordechai David Brandstaedter-ha-Sofer" [Brandstaedterthe author-in front of his tomb], Hadoar 7, no. 28 (1928): 438-440; Joseph Klausner, "Mordechai David Brandstaedter," Ketuvim2, no. 37 (1928): 1; Shelomoh Baron, "Al Kever Mordechai David Brandstaedter-haIsh" [Brandstaedter the man-in front of his tomb], Hadoar 7, no. 28 (1928): 440-441; Aharon Ben-Or, Toledot ha-Sifrut ha-Ivrit ha-fIadashah [History of modern Hebrew literature] (Tel Aviv: Izre'l, 1949), vol. 1, p. 316; Moshe Ben-Menachem, "Mordechai David Brandstaedter," Ha-Po'el ha-Za'ir 25, nos. 1-3 (1954): 19; Moshe Pelli, "Darkho ha-Sippurit shel M. D. Brandstaedter be-'Mordechai Kizyavitch'" [Brandstaedter's way of narration of his story "Mordechai Kizyavitch"], Bitzaron, no. 67 (1976), pp. 28-30.

94

YAIR MAZOR

confusingsituationsand scenes,and are developedin a waywhichhopelessly harms the unity of the piece, sometimes to the point of preventing comprehension. Anyone reading, for instance, Smolenskin's Ha-To'eh be-Darkheiha-IHayyim ("The Wandererin Life's Ways") cannot avoid these many obstacles; considerableeffort is demandedfor an adequate comprehensionof the novel's fictionalworld. Another aspect of the Haskalah novel's plot structureis the large numberof heroes in any one plot. HalfwaythroughreadingMapu'sAyit Zavu'a ("The Hypocrite"),for example, one can hardly rememberthe almost countlessfigureswho appear,disappear,and reappear.Admittedly, Ayit Zavu'a is the very first Haskalah realistic novel, and thereforethe aestheticconventionsof Haskalahrealismare far from being achievedand established.Thus, one may claim that this novel is not a suitableexample. But its too largefictional"population"unfortunatelyacted as a model for imitation for many years and novels to come.'6 Another element in the poetics of the Hebrew Haskalah novel is its strongdidacticism.Smolenskin,for instance,claimedthat he gave the very same priorityto the didacticlevel of his novels as he did to the aesthetic level. In a letter to David Kaufmann,he emphasizedthat "the story is, in contrastto the opinion of the French(also sharedby Spielhagen),not only for entertainment,but for teachinga lesson, but not througha thorough investigationlike the researchbooks, but in a way which combines the usefuland the pleasant."'7Althoughnot all the Haskalahauthorsexpressed their ars poetica as clearly as Smolenskin did, the strongly didactic characterof their works indicatesthat they sharedthe very same idea. The authorsof the Haskalahnovelwishedto preachthroughtheirworks in orderto pull awayfromthe "mentalghetto"in whichthe Jewshad been isolated and locked for hundredsof years, and in order to expose their readers to the liberatingideas of the Enlightenment.The author of the Haskalahnovel was thereforean educatorno less than he was an author; and sometimes,regretfullyindeed,even moreso. His effortsto persuade,to teach, to preach through his literarywork often becameone of the most disturbingliteraryweaknessesof the piece, for the authorsdid not always succeed in maintainingthe delicatebalancebetweenaesthetictextureand 16. Shaanan summarizes the many aspects of this compositional error in Ayit Zavua; see Shaanan, Ha-Sifrut ha-Ivrit ha-Hadashah li'Zerameha, vol. 1, p. 235. 17. See Reuben Brainin, ed., Me'ah Mikhtavim: Mikhtevei Pere; ben Moshe Smolenskin [One hundred letters: The letters of Perez ben Moshe Smolenskin] (Vilna, 1901), pp. 31-32.


95

didacticmessage.The narrator'soften uncontrollable"invasions"into the plot, with didactic sermons having no connection to the fictional events, interferedwith the plot to such a degreethat they threatenedthe qualityof the whole piece,creatingthe impressionthat the novelwas patchedtogether ratherthan woven of whole cloth. However,many Haskalahnovels of the period here discusseddemonstrate not only compositional flaws but also ratherimpressivecompositional devices and patterns.'8But these compositional achievements,as impressiveas they are, cannot cancel-or even hide-the poor impression createdby the above-mentionedweaknessesof the plot, especiallysincethe plot is one of the most prominentcomponentsof a novel. On the other hand, the plot of the Haskalah short story shows such weaknessesonly rarely. It seems rather easy, therefore,to designatethe compositionalpoeticsof the Haskalahshortstoryas the positive"alterego" of the compositionalpoetics of the Haskalahnovel. Many of the Haskalah novel'scompositionalweaknessesare put rightin the Haskalahshortstory. The plot is usuallywell organizedand unified, and its events are causally connectedand woven into a planneddevelopmentalsequence.The narrator is controlled,avoids rendingthe plot by didactic"invasions,"and protects the delicate balance between the aesthetic stratum and the educational message.The fictionalfiguresarereasonablydelineatedin a way thatcontributesto the unityof the plot and makesthe storymoreflexible,persuasive. But the special feel of the compositionalpoetics of the Haskalahshort storygoes far beyondthe phenomenamentionedabove.Among the specific compositional devices, patterns, and constructionswhich serve both the didacticand the aestheticlevelof the storiesand establishthe uniquecharacter of the pieces areintentionalretardation,19the suspensionof expositional and informativematerials,20the use of informationalgaps for establishing 18. See Mazor, "Aspects and Trends in the Poetics of Composition," esp. pp. 23-33, 49-50, 55-56, 58-62, 66-67, 90-109, 114-126, 141-181. 19. About literary retardation and its aesthetic functions, see Victor Erlich, Russian Formalism (The Hague and Paris: Mouton, 1969). 20. The suspension of expositional information as a literary device was first discussed by the Russian formalists; see T. L. Lemon and N. J. Reis, eds., Russian Formalist Criticism, p. 73. Later this phenomenon was discussed by the following: Roman Ingarden, The Literary Workof Art, trans. G. G. Grabowicz (Evanston, Ill.: Northwestern University Press, 1973), pp. 38-40; C. M. Beardsley, Aesthetics (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1958), pp. 242-245; Wolfgang Iser, "Indeterminancy and the Reader's Response in Prose-Fiction," in Aspects of Narrrative,ed. J. H. Miller (New York: Columbia University Press, 1971), p. 8. A very detailed discussion of this compositional phenomenon is to be found in Meir Sternberg, Expositional

96

YAIRMAZOR

both curiosityand tension,variouskindsof analogies,2'manipulationof the order of the fabula with a sujet which does not follow the chronological sequenceof events,22a dynamic characterizationthat efficientlyuses the dynamics of the literary sequence,23and intentional use of the tension betweenshowingand telling,24betweennarrativetime and narratedtime.25 Although these compositionalphenomenacan also be found in some Haskalahnovels, they are found only infrequently.In addition,there are two significantfacts that maintainthe considerabledifferencesbetweenthe compositionalpoeticsof the Haskalahnovel and that of the Haskalahshort story. As discussedabove, the plot and the unity of the Haskalahnovel are often severelydamagedbecauseof the lack of balancebetweenits didactic Modes and Temporal Ordering in Fiction (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978), pp. 50-53. 21. The first critic who systematically dealt with the analogy as a major compositional pattern was Fergusson; see Francis Fergusson, The Idea of a Theater (New York: Doubleday, 1949), pp. 109-110, 114-123, 139-144. The concept of the analogy was thoroughly developed by Empson; see William Empson, Some Versions of Pastoral (New York: New Directions, 1950), pp. 27-88. The phenomenon of the analogy in the English novel has been discussed by Richard Stang, The Theory of the Novel in England 1850-1870 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1971), pp. 15-133. 22. Fabula-the chronological sequence of the fictional events in the piece. Sujet-the sequence of the fictional events as it is wrought and presented in the piece, which in many cases contradicts the chronological sequence. A well-known example of manipulation of the sujet in the order of the Jabula is the opening of the piece in medias res. See Lemon and Reis, Russian Formalist Criticism, p. 63. E. M. Forster translated fabula as "story" and sujet as "plot"; but this seems to be a rather confusing translation, as Forster admits to another meaning of the terms; see E. M. Forster, Aspects of the Novel (London, 1961), p. 35. 23. The first critic to discuss the dynamic nature of the literary text was Lessing; see G. E. Lessing, Laocoon (1766; New York: Noonday Press, 1957). The first modern critics to deal with the dynamics of the literary text were Ingarden, Mukarovsky, and Tynjanov; see Ingarden, Literary Work of Art, pp. 9-145; Jan Mukarovsky, On Poetic Language, trans. and ed. J. Burbank and P. Steiner (1940; Lisse: Peter de Ridder Press, 1976), pp. 50-59; Joseph Frank, "Spatial Form in Modern Literature," in Criticism, ed. M. Schorer (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1958), pp. 379-392; S. E. Fish, "Literature and the Reader: Effective Stylistics," New Literary History 2, no. 1 (Autumn 1920): 123-162, Iser, "Indeterminancy and the Reader's Response," 1-45. This issue has been impressively developed by Menachem Perry in many works; see esp. Perry, "The Dynamics of the Literary Text" [Hebrew], Ha-Sifrut, no. 28 (April 1929), pp. 6-46. A book which is wholly dedicated to this topic is Yair Mazor, The Dynamics of Motifs in Selected Works of S. Y. Agnon [Hebrew] (Tel Aviv: Dekel Academic Press, 1979). 24. An adequate discussion of these terms and their literary functions will be found in W. C. Booth, The Rhetoric of Fiction (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961), pp. 3-20. Also see Percy Lubock, The Craft of Fiction (New York: Viking Press, 1963), p. 110. 25. Narrative time-the duration of the narrative process; narrated time-the duration of the narrated material. See Franz Stanzel, Narrative Situations in the Novel (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1971), p. 17.


97

and aesthetic levels, a lack of causal connections,.and a profusion of dramaticevents and heroes only loosely connected.Since the plot and the novel'scompositionalunityarethe majorsourcesof the structuralimpactof the piece, flawsin theseareasovershadoweventhe most attractivecompositional achievements.Also, the fact that the rangeof the novel is muchwider than the range of the short story does not enable isolated compositional devicesand patternsto be made conspicuous,as happensin the shortstory. Hence, the very same compositionalpatternthat resoundsmightilyin the short story is likely to createa rathermodest impressionin a wide-ranging novel, especiallyin one with a defectiveplot. Consideringthe well-wroughtplot (generallyspeaking,of course)of the Haskalah short story, its capacity to maintaina satisfactorybalance between didactic and aestheticelements, and its efficiencyin using various compositionaldevicesand patterns,one cannotdenythe laudablenatureof the poetics of compositionof the Haskalahshort story. Poeticsof theHaskalahShortStory:SelectedExamples Compositional It is obviousthat a completedescriptionof the poeticsof compositionof the Haskalahshort storyis beyondthe capacityof a singlepaper.So let me againnote that the principalaim of this articleis to providea basiccompositional "portrait"of the Haskalahshort story through exemplificationof some of its more importantaspects.Hence, in the threefollowingsections, using Brandstaedter,Schulmann,and Gottloberas our exemplars,we will concentrateon the compositionalaspects of three Haskalahshort stories, one by each of these writers.Althoughthis selectionis rathermodest in its range, the compositionalphenomenato be discussedare typical of many Haskalahshort stories, and therefore,their presentationcan shed light on some of the most attractiveaspects of the compositionalfeaturesof the Haskalahshort story. Retardationin Brandstaedter's ba-IrGrileb" "Zorerha-Yehudim Brandstaedter's"Zorer ha-Yehudimba-Ir Grileb" ("The Foe of the Jews in the Town of Grileb")26seems at first a very simple and uncompli26. See M. D. Brandstaedter, Sippurim [Stories], ed. B. A. Feingold (Jerusalem: Mossad Bialik, 1974), pp. 116-160.

98

YAIR MAZOR

catedstory.And it is, at least fromthe standpointof its content.It is a story about a young man named Shelomoh,who becomes acquaintedwith the governorof his hometown,Grileb.The governoris notoriousfor his deep disdainof the Jews, but as their friendshipgrows, Shelomohdiscoversthat this "foe of the Jews"is, as a matterof fact, a most charmingyoung man, highly educated,who tries to do his best for the town. Shelomohrealizes that the governor'smanydemands-such as that the marketand the streets be cleaned-have been wronglyregardedby the Jews as unreasonable,and consequentlythey have incorrectlyassumedthat he is a "foe of the Jews." Young Shelomoh, who detests the atmosphereof the Jewish mental ghetto, and longs for contactwith nonreligiousEnlightenmentculture,finds in the governora truthfulfriend,pleasantand inspiring.Thegovernor,fully aware of Shelomoh'seagernessfor education,encourageshim, and gives him many books which open new horizonsto him. Towardthe end of the story,a suspendedexpositionalelementis revealed:the supposed"foe of the Jews" is Jewish himself. The suspension of this expositional information permits the poenta (epiphany)at the end of the storyand also movesthe plot towardits end:the governormarriesShelomoh'ssister.Indeed,despitethe efficientfunctioning of the delayingdevice(the suspensionof expositionalinformationuntil the story's end), the story's plot does not seem impressiveat all: it is rather banal and the contentis rathertrite. But a closerlook at the story'scomposition revealsthe skillfulnessof its construction. An illuminatingexampleof the compositionalqualityof this story can be demonstratedby its use of retardation.Retardationis usuallydefinedas a compositionaldevice based on cuttingoff the plot's sequenceand consequently suspendingits development(usually at a point of tension in the plot). This is done by interjectinga paragraphwhich is detachedfrom the plot, or whose place in the plot is, for the moment, concealed. In many cases, retardationis used to increasethe plot's tension:plot developmentis suspendedat a certainclimacticpoint, creatinga desirein the readerfor its resolutionbut for which he has to wait. However, the retardationdevice can also be used for other aestheticgoals, as is demonstratedin the story under consideration. As Shelomohis walkingalong and talkingwith the "foe of the Jews,"he is surprisedto find out that "scholarlybooks had also been writtenin the Germanlanguage"(p. 132). Until this point he has been convincedthat all books in the Germanlanguage"are fictionalstories which narrateevents and deeds that neverhappened"(ibid.). Shelomohdemonstratesthis inno-


99

cent conceptionabout Germanbooks by tellingthe governorthe plot of one of the German novels which he has recentlyread. As Shelomohstartstellingthe plot of this novel, the readereasilyrecognizes it as TheCountof MonteCristoby AlexandreDumas. Shelomoh,who is intriguedby the storyof this novel, findspleasurein narratingit in a very detailed way. As Shelomoh tells Dumas's story, his own story's plot is interrupted.The plot of TheCountof MonteCristothus functionsas a long retardationparagraph(pp. 132-133). At this point the readermay wonder what the author'sintentionwas in relatingin such detail the plot of The Countof Monte Cristoin the middleof his story,especiallysinceit is likely that the governor,as well as the reader(both of whom listen to Shelomoh's story), are well acquaintedwith the plot of The Countof Monte Cristo. The penetrationof this retardationsectioninto the story becomeseven more curiousas one considersthe obvious discontinuityof the two stories: whaton earthcan be the connectionbetweenthe adventuresof the Countof Monte Cristoand Jewishlife in EasternEurope?In fact, the inclusionof this materialmay, at first,seem a compositionalerrorof an authorwho cannot control his own medium. But a closer look reveals a significantparallel between the retardationand the suspensionof the story'splot. As surprisingas it may seem, the adventuresof the Count of Monte Cristo echo the way of Shelomoh,the young Jew who is avid for cultural enlightenment.This unexpectedparallelis revealedin the majorelementsof the Count'sagonizingadventure:he is a youngman who is forcedto entera dark dungeonbut, thanksto his friendshipwith a kind and generousolder man, finds his way out of prison.We realizethat Shelomohis also a young man forcedto be in a "dungeon"-the dungeonof ignorance,the dungeon of an environmentwhich tries to preventhis escape to culturalenlightenment. The parallelbetweenthe concretedungeon of the Count of Monte Cristo and the metaphoricalone of Shelomoh is emphasizedby a verbal parallel:the very same word, bor ("pit"), is used for describingboth the Count's physicalprison and Shelomoh'spsychologicaland culturalprison (see pp. 127, 132). The parallel between the plot of the novel about the Count and Shelomoh'sown story continues:the way in which the Count escapes his prison-by means of his friendshipwith his older, generous guardian-is repeatedin Shelomoh'scase. Shelomoh'sfriendshipwith the governor-the "foe of the Jews," who becomes his guide and gives him books, good advice-leads him from his culturalprison to the longed-for enlightenment. Hence, the retardation,which at first seems totally separatefrom the

100

YAIRMAZOR

story's fictional world, is revealed to be a most relevant piece of fictional material indeed. It functions as a metaphor, as a mirror which reflects the main ideological issue of the story. It is an exhortation to abandon the Jewish mental ghetto and expose oneself to the cultural advantages of the nonreligious Enlightenment. In addition, the parallels between the retardational material and the story which it interrupts reinforce the positive role of the supposed "foe of the Jews." This, in turn, reinforces another ideological point of the story: the "implied author's" rejection of the prejudices of the Jewish community against those who attempt to free themselves from their mental ghetto. Hence, the retardation based on the adventure of the Count of Monte Cristo functions at both the aesthetic and the didactic level of the story: it contributes to the story's complexity without damaging its unity; and it emphasizes and enriches the didactic message. Beyond the first impression of a clumsy author who loses control of his own medium, another author is discovered: one who is sophisticated, sharp, and sensitive. TransformativeAnalogy in Schulmann's "Emanuel" E. Schulmann's story "Emanuel"27also does not at first seem particularly impressive, especially from the standpoint of content. The traditional platitudinous Haskalah themes are repeated in this modest story, almost tiresomely: love, frustrated love, searching for love, neglected tradition, and the search for enlightenment. The story is based on two figures: Emanuel, the rejected poet and lover, whose frustrated love for Mathilda leads him to an agonizing death; and Mathilda, a frustrated actress, who rejects Emanuel's love but at the same time is rejected by her Christian lover, the prince, and consequently is also driven to a grim death. Indeed, this kind of content does have but a humble appeal. But once again, the compositional character of the story makes the difference between a tiresome story and a sophisticated one. The compositional basis of the story is the analogy. At the very beginning of the story, a most obvious contrasting analogy is established between the two major protagonists: Emanuel and Mathilda. Emanuel is painted as a little man, whose appearance is extremely unattractive. He is described as restless. He suffers from a 27. Eleazar, Schulmann, Ozar Sippurim [Collected Stories] (Warsaw: S. B. Schwarzberg, 1894), pp. 7-29.


101

lack of self-assurance; his eyes run nervously to and fro and reflect a bitter outlook (p. 17). Mathilda seems to be his complete opposite: she is cheerful, full of joie de vivre, extremely attractive, graceful, and seems most sure of herself. Indeed, one cannot imagine a sharper contrast between two human beings. But further reading into the story leads the reader to an unexpected discovery: the analogy that seems clearly one of contrast is gradually revealed to be an analogy of parallels. Systematically, the narrator gradually spreads throughout the story elements which expose many threads of parallelism between Mathilda and Emanuel, and in this way gradually closes the gap between them. This surprising change takes place in six well-planned stages. In each stage, another aspect of similarity between Emanuel and Mathilda is revealed by the narrator; thus, the scattering of the relevant information throughout the text is carried out by a highly conscious author, who skillfully masters his medium in order to achieve certain aesthetic-didactic goals. As mentioned above, Mathilda has suffered a humiliating failure as an actress. As she confesses, her name has become "disgracefully notorious" (p. 14) because of her poor performance. This fact about Mathilda forms a parallel with Emanuel in the first stage of the analogy's process of change. The reader is informed of a similar artistic failure experienced by Emanuel: like Mathilda, who was actually expelled from the theater's stage, Emanuel was expelled from the editor's office because of his rejected poetry. Mathilda and Emanuel are both denied and humiliated as a reward for their artistic performances. In the second stage of the analogy's process of change, a thread of similarity between Mathilda and Emanuel is revealed in the personal aspect of their lives. As already noted, Emanuel is unhappy in his personal life: his love for Mathilda has been hopelessly rejected. This emotional misfortune is also shared by Mathilda, who complains: "Shall I seek love? Love touched my heart three times and always increased my pain!" (p. 15).28 In the third stage of the analogy's process of change, the thread of similarity between Mathilda and Emanuel in the artistic aspect becomes clearer. The narrator reveals here that Emanuel too has suffered a failure in the theater, exactly as Mathilda has. This new thread of similarity between them is emphasized by a verbal parallelism. When Mathilda tells about her failure as an actress, she says: ". . . and it turned to calamity!" (p. 14). The 28. All translations from the Hebrew have been done by this writer-Y.M.

102

YAIRMAZOR

very same expression (Heb. balahot) is used by Emanuel when he tells about his own failure as an actor (p. 25). In the fourth stage of the process of the analogy's change, an ideological parallelism is discovered between Emanuel and Mathilda: they both reject the conservative Jewish tradition, the conformist Jewish way of life, and they both prefer, instead, the nonreligious cultural life. Emanuel declares his disappointment with the Jewish religion (p. 21), and Mathilda declares the same in a deed: she is to marry a Christian prince (p. 27). The fifth stage of the analogy's change is closely related to the previous one. As mentioned above, Mathilda falls in love .with a Christian prince. Emanuel had himself once been in love with a Christian princess (p. 25). This leads directly to the coming and final stage in the process of the analogy's change: Mathilda does not find happiness in her "forbidden" love, and it pushes her to a gloomy death (p. 29). And Emanuel's "forbidden" love becomes an everlasting source of grief which eventually pulls him toward a bleak death (p. 28). Hence, the threads of parallelism between Emanuel and Mathilda, which are gradually exposed in the six stages of the analogy's change, relate to various aspects of their lives: the artistic, the personal, the emotional, and the ideological. In this way, the "conventional-direct" analogy between them becomes as firm as possible. It is a fact of rhetorical importance that this conventional analogy between them is shaped in the light of the previously contrasting analogy between them, a contrast which had seemed so obviously accurate. What is the aesthetic function of such a shift? Any change in the contrasting analogy which belies its first impression runs the risk of loosing the reader's credibility. Hence, this surprising change is made by degrees, through six stages, which soften the drastic nature of the change, enabling the reader to "digest" the new information, without rejecting it as unreliable. The author displays here an impressive capacity for using the dynamic nature of the literary text-based on verbal components which come in a diachronic sequential order-for giving his story an impressive rhetorical-aesthetic character. As already noted, the didactic message is a prominent component of the Haskalah narrative. The story here discussed is no exception. The didactic message of this story is clearly expressed by the rabbi (to whom both Emanuel and Mathilda come and confess their misfortunes). The rabbi complains about young people (represented by both Emanuel and Mathilda) who neglect the Jewish heritage for misleading nonreligious challenges


103

(p. 29). The risk and misfortune which follow those who abandon the traditional, secure Jewish way of life become the basis of the author's didactic message. Here, the author again demonstrates his impressive artistic skills. He escapes the temptation to preach directly. Thus he avoids violating the plot's sequence and damaging its unity. Schulmann chooses an effective way to combine his ideological message with his plot; he blends and assimilates the didactic message into the fictional world of the story, using the device of the dynamic, transformative analogy as an aesthetic vehicle which demonstrates the didactic message. Changing the contrasting analogy between Emanuel and Mathilda into a direct, conventional analogy emphasizes the shared aspect of their fate: they both choose to deny their heritage, and they both reach an unfortunate end as a consequence of their choice. Hence, the surprising transition from contrasting analogy to persuasive parallelism draws sharp attention to the common destiny of Mathilda and Emanuel. Since their bleak fate reflects the major didactic message of the novel, the dynamic character of the analogy in the story becomes a most efficient literary means for revealing the basic ideological stratum of the story. Schulmann here disproves the idea that the artistic and didactic needs of a piece must conflict; a gifted author can find a way to anchor his didactic views in his piece without reducing its aesthetic values. Schulmann, instead of damaging his piece's unity, achieves two unities: he keeps the aesthetic unity of the fictional world, and adds to it the unity between the aesthetic level and the didactic level of the piece. In Schulmann's literary creation, the compositional medium becomes the message.

Order of Presentation in Gottlober's "Kol Rinnah Vishuah be-Ohalei Zaddikim" Gottlober's "Kol Rinnah Vishuah be-Ohalei Zaddikim" ("Voice of Rejoicing and Salvation in the Tents of the Righteous")29 is yet another example of the intentional capacity of the Haskalah short story to effectively use compositional devices in order to serve both aesthetic and ideological levels. The compositional device to be discussed here is based on the dynamic character of the literary text, a verbal sequence in which the 29. In Ha-Shahar [The dawn], 6 (1871): 157-169, 190-206, 254-270.

104

YAIRMAZOR

components are made to relate to each other by manipulation of the order of presentation. Hence, the order in which the fictional information is presented is a source of various aesthetic patterns and literary devices. Every literary text is organized in two principal ways. The Russian formalists titled these two types of presentation the fabula and the sujet.30 The jfbula is the chronological order of the events in the piece. The sujet is the order in which the fictional events are presented in the piece. The differentiation between these two kinds of orders indicates that the order in which th6 fictional events are presented (sujet) is not necessarily congruent to the chronological order in which the fictional events "occurred." Indeed, it is not easy to find a narrative in which the sujet does obey the fabula's order. Starting a piece in medias res is one well-known example of deviation of the sujet from the order dictated by the fabula. Another common device in which the sujet changes thefabula's order is that of postponing information which should be revealed earlier, according to its place in thefabula. The suspension of expositional information is one example of a device which increases the reader's curiosity, and at the same time draws attention to the suspended expositional information. The latter purpose of this device is one of special importance. In itself the expositional information may not be of great interest to the reader, since it is subordinated to the main plot, which is the center of the reader's attention. However, it may contain information necessary to a clear understanding of the background of the story. Thus, when the information is withheld, the rhetorical attraction of the expositional information is increased. The sujet's distortion of the fabula's order can also occur by way of an early delivery of information which belongs much later in the fabula's sequence; for instance, opening the piece with an occasion which ends the chronological evolution of the fictional events. The opening of Nabokov's Lolita with Humbert's testimony in court, which is the very end of the novel's fabula, is one illustration of such a case. The early placement of a piece of fictional information in the story's sequence which, according to the chronological order of the fabula, should come much later, can strongly influence and direct the reader's process of perception. This is the case in Gottlober's "Voice of Rejoicing and Salvation in the Tents of the Righteous. In this story, the deviation of the sujet's order from that of the fabula produces a "too early" exposition of a piece of fictional information; in this 30. See above, n. 22.


105

way, the reader is intentionally misled by the author, who seeks thus to attract the reader's attention to the main "message" of the story. Here again, the compositional poetics of the Haskalah short story is rediscovered as a sophisticated aesthetic efficiently serving the main ideological goal of the piece. This story deals-as do many Haskalah stories-with the misfortune of the Jewish community in Russia. This community is forced to deliver a certain percentage of its youth to the tsar's army. The main figure in the story's plot is Hayyim-Michael, the spiritual leader of the Jewish congregation, who is required by the authorities to select those to be sent for this agonizing service. The story opens with a joyous drinking party given by .Hayyim-Michael for the drinkfor his community. Hayyim-Michael emphasizes the reason has succeeded in a cancellation of the wicked he decree ing party: obtaining of the tsar, and thus has freed his congregation from the painful task of delivering their youth to the tsar's service. appears walking around, toasting exceedingly cheerful at the drinking party: he isH.ayyim-Michael and encouraging the others to drink as much liquor as possible (p. 157). In the fabula, the drinking party is located toward the end of the events' development. This deviation from thefabula's order has a fundamental influence on the reader's response, on his process of comprehension of the story. As the reader follows the story, he is informed in detail of the tsar's restrictive law and the attempt of the Jewish community to escape it. With his knowledge of the cheerful drinking party given by Hayyim-Michael to celebrate the revocation of the threatening law, which opens the story, the reader willingly concludes the following: the cheerful party must be the joyful conclusion of the plot, and therefore, no matter how gloomy and depressing the coming plot's events, a "happy ending" is promised. It is hard to reject the conclusion that the author intentionally distorted thefabula's order in the sujet so as to calm the reader's natural fears about a possible bleak ending, thus enabling him to concentrate on the plot's development. The sujet's manipulation of the fabula also encourages the reader to see Hayyim-Michael in a favorable light. The way he stimulates his people to toast at the drinking party paints him as a father-figure, caring for everyone. Only the plot's later development begins to show how erroneous is the impression, how misleading the optimistic expectation that the reader was encouraged to adopt. Right after the opening of the story, the sujet begins to follow the Jabula's order, and the plot's events are narrated according to the "correct" chronological order. Gradually, the real nature of Hayyim-Michael is

106

YAIRMAZOR

exposed, and the sympathetic first impression is replaced by dislike of his deceitful mask. He is revealed to be a wicked man, using any means for the sake of achieving his own purposes. He cynically uses his community's distress as an endless source for commiting his crimes against them. The climax of this process of tearing off HIayyim-Michael'sdisguise is reached in a second description of the same drinking party. This time, the party is placed in the sujet according to thefabula's order. But that is only the smallest part of the difference. When the reader is again told of the drinking party given by Hayyim-Michael for his community, he cannot escape the suspicion that Hayyim-Michael's intentions are far from proper with and noble. The accumulated information about .Hayyim-Michael, which the reader has become acquainted between the two presentations of the drinking party, strongly encourages him to assume that HayyimMichael has some underhanded reasons for giving the party. And indeed, the text confirms this suspicion. As the drinking party continues, the narrator inserts a conversation between two of HayyimMichael's followers, revealing his evil plan: "all the town's people are exceedingly intoxicated, and many of them are still drinking. Even those whom I trapped are not aware of their misfortune, as they are also heavily drunk, and they are lying unconscious in the dungeon. Tomorrow they will find out what happened to them and their rejoicing will be over. Alas for them, as their fate is bitter!" (p. 194). Now, Hayyim-Michael's vicious plan is completely clear. Required to select some of the congregation's youth for the tsar's military service, he has foreseen enormous difficulties in carrying out his orders. Each family would probably fight back bitterly to prevent its son being taken away. Therefore, Hayyim-Michael chose the easy way, which was evil indeed. He misled the community into believing that the tsar's order was cancelled, and tempted everybody to participate in a party, encouraging the guests to drink as much as possible. As they got drunk, he intended to send his followers to select the needed number of young men and imprison them for later transferral to the tsar's authorities. Now the reader fully comprehends how he has misunderstood the true meaning of the drinking party. Now the reader is fully aware that his optimism has misled him. The reader's acquaintance with the true meaning of the drinking party forces him to turn back to the very beginning of the story, to the first presentation of the drinking party; he drops his erroneously optimistic reading of the party, and replaces it with the true, dark one. W. Iser once described the


107

reading process in this way: "The act of reaction is not a smooth or continuous process, but one which, in its essence, relies on interruptions of the flow to render it efficacious. We look forward, we look back, we change our decisions, we form expectations, we question, we muse, we accept, we reject; this is the dynamic process of reaction."9' In the case discussed, Gottlober demonstrates a remarkable capacity for fully employing the dynamic characteristic of the literary text in order to fulfill both aesthetic and educational goals. By making the sujet's order deviate from that of thefabula, he forces on the reader a gap of information (the true nature of Hayyim-Michael's drinking party), which leads him to adopt erroneous expectations. The surprise, as well as the disappointment which the reader feels as the information gap is filled, sharpens and aggravates his awareness of Hayyim-Michael's crime. In this way, the reader's reaction to Hayyim-Michael's corruption is intensified. The intensity of the reader's reaction also stems from the fact that the delayed understanding creates in the reader the same emotions as IHayyim-Michaelcreates in his victims-both have been betrayed and misled.32This compositional device, which efficiently uses the dynamic nature of the literary text, also serves the aesthetic stratum of the story; it contributes to the text's complexity, and requires a careful and sensitive process of reading. In addition, since Hayyim-Michael represents a social class in the Jewish community in Eastern Europe that insolently ruled its congregations, heartlessly and greedily exploiting them-this compositional device, which strengthens the reader's awareness of this kind of crime, also serves a major ideological purpose of the story: to condemn those sinister figures in Jewish society. The question of the aesthetic value of didacticism in literature is a wellknown debate. On the one hand, such critics as Orwell, Wellek, Warren, and Ingarden do not see an inevitable contradiction between literature and didacticism: it is possible, they maintain, to weave didactic themes into the literary piece without spoiling its aesthetic values.33On the other hand, there are critics who claim that a didactic message destroys the aesthetic texture of the piece, in the spirit of Mallarme's axiomatic statement that "poems are

31. See Iser, "Indeterminancy and the Reader's Response," p. 292. 32. Dr. Betty Diamond, in conversation with this writer. 33. See Roman Ingarden, The Cognition of the Literary Work of Art, trans. R. A. Crowley and K. R. Olson (Evanston, Ill.: Northwestern University Press, 1937), p. 87; George Orwell, Inside the Whaleand Other Essays (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1957), p. 142; Wellek and Warren, Theory of Literature, pp. 122-123.

108

YAIRMAZOR

made of words and not of ideas," or the one by MacLeish: "A poem should not mean, but be." It seems that many Haskalah short stories prove, in this context, that a saying might be well wrought but still be wrong. The way in which the didactic message is rooted in those Haskalah stories provides many examples that didacticism and aesthetics are not necessarily point and counterpoint. And the role played by compositional poetics in all these examples is indeed undeniable.

Evolution of the Poetics of Composition of the Haskalah Short Story: Some Inferential Comments Once acquainted with the compositional accomplishments of the Haskalah short story, especially in the light of the feebleness of the compositional poetics of the Haskalah novel, one cannot escape the question: why is it that the very same authors who produced remarkable compositional patterns in their short stories demonstrated great compositional weaknesses in their novels? The answer to this question is rooted in the different compositional natures of the novel and the short story. Undoubtedly, the compositional demands of writing a novel are much more complicated and challenging than those required to write a short story. The complexity of the novel's plot, the great number of scenes, developmental channels, among other elements which are an unavoidable part of the novel's composition, are much more demanding-from the writer's standpoint-than those which play a parallel role in the composition of the short story. Hence, the compositional organization of the novel places aesthetic obstacles in the author's way that he avoids in composing a short story. A certain compositional device which can function in a short story as a major principle of organization, and can bestow upon the story adequate unity and coherence, may be no more than an isolated compositional phenomenon in a novel. Many of the authors of the realistic narrative of the Hebrew Enlightenment, who took their first hesitant steps in writing prose fiction, were rather gifted indeed. But a lack of experience, and a lack of literary heritage in prose fiction,34placed a stumbling-block before them on their aesthetic way 34. For various historical reasons, which had social, cultural, and aesthetic consequences, there was a lapse in the creation of Hebrew literature-especially prose fiction-in Europe


109

toward artistic accomplishment. They demonstrated considerable skill in the organization of short forms or sections of longer works, but when it came to sustaining the clusters of compositional patterns and devices which must be woven together in the coherent and complicated structure of a novel, they found it a challenge beyond their artistic abilities. Therefore, the very same author who skillfully shaped an impressive piece of compositional poetics in a short story, failed in constructing a novel. Smolenskin, for instance, who established a well-balanced composition in his short story "Nekam Berit" ("Covenant of Vengeance," 1905), failed badly in the composition of his long novel Ha-To'eh be-Darkhei ha-IHayyim ("The Wanderer in Life's Ways," 1876). In addition, the Hebrew Haskalah authors faced another disturbing obstacle as they began to compose novels, rooted in the conventions of writing and publication at that time. It was common for novels to be published serially.35Consequently, the writing of the novel as well became serial in nature, which made the process of composing the novel difficult. Once an author is bound to the serial process, he is required to divide and spread out the plot's climaxes in order to give every chapter of the novel-to be published separately-an ending that will leave the reader in suspense and evoke his interest in reading the chapter to come. This writing technique makes the art of composing a novel complicated indeed, since it requires remarkable skill to establish a consistent, causally connected plot sequence under such conditions. Another compositional difficulty which is part of the serial technique of writing a novel is the fact that the author does not have the opportunity of viewing his completed piece as a coherent whole before its publication.36 Since the novelists of the Haskalah realistic period desired to convey didactic messages through their works, especially messages about the social circumstances of the Jews of Eastern Europe, they filled their novels with as many figures, situations, and channels of plot as possible. They sought to reflect an authentic social reality, in all its shades, in order to condemn its character and encourage change. Hence, the extremely detailed and overloaded nature of their novels' fictional worlds added yet another difficulty.

during the period from the end of the sixteenth century up to the very end of the eighteenth century. 35. See David Patterson, The Hebrew Novel in Czarist Russia (Edinburgh: At the University Press, 1964), pp. 42-43. 36. See Stang, Theory of the Novel in England, pp. 118-119.

110

YAIRMAZOR

In this light, the compositional stumblings of the Haskalah novels were unavoidable. But when it came to the writing of short stories, most of these compositional obstacles were avoided; the relatively modest demands of organization evoked by a short story allowed the Hebrew Haskalah authors to leap over their technical limitations, and to display their literary talents. And so they did, and did it well indeed. Universityof Wisconsin Madison,Wis.

Review: [untitled] Author(s): Baruch Halpern Source: AJS Review, Vol. 10, No. 1 (Spring, 1985), pp. 111-114 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486274 . Accessed: 30/06/2011 01:40 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].



BOOK REVIEWS

Robert G. Boling and G. Ernest Wright. Joshua. Anchor Bible, vol. 6. GardenCity, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1982.xix, 580 pp., with 4 pl. and 11 maps. Becausethey have in theorybeen directedto a wide public,the Anchor Bible commentarieshave sometimesprovedundistinguishedwithoutoffering much assistance to readers unschooled in the ways of professional scholarship.With Joshua, this is not the case. George Ernest Wright's posthumous introduction (he was assigned the volume originally) will immediatelyassume a place in the history of scholarshipas a clarion of Albrightschool orthodoxyon the Israeliteconquestand the compositionof the FormerProphets.It neverthelesslays out the issuesin a form accessible to the uninitiated.And Robert Boling's commentary,with its repeated adversionsto the rhetoricalstructureof the book as a whole, will wear the years better than most volumes in the Anchor series. Boling'scommentaryis most valuablewhen communicatingthe results of archaeologicalinquiry.One segment(pp. 251-254) correlatesarchitecturalphasesat Shechemto sociopoliticalorganization:the abandonmentof the royal chapel in the mid-sixteenthcentury led supposedly to nonmonarchicgovernmentlater in that century,and to a covenantalrelationship with outlying populationsin the fourteenthcentury,when unwalled villages proliferatein Canaan's central ridges. Boling plausibly relates Shechem'sdestructionby Abimelech(Judges9) to Shiloh's risein the later 111

112

BOOKREVIEWS

premonarchicperiod,and Shiloh'sdestruction(ca. 1050)to Gilgal's risein Saul's day. Equallyfruitfulare the excavationand surveyresultshe brings to bear on the conquest narratives(chaps. 10-12, pp. 278-329). These illuminateboth the historyand the historyof the traditionsthat the narratives embody. Throughout,Boling'samply deployedarchaeologicalexpertise provides preciselythe service that this most geographicalof biblical books demands. Bolingis also commendablyconscientiouswith the text. Copiouscritical notes, renderedaccessibleto the interestednonprofessional,make the case for and against every disputable reading Boling adopts by tracing the variants'origins. Refreshingly,Boling throws his hands into the air when the evidencedoes not warrant conviction.The intellectualhonestymarks his archaeologicaldiscussions-evidence inimicalto his own position(such as the absenceof Iron I settlementat Gibeon, p. 262) is neithersuppressed nor cloaked, but flatly stated. Wright(pp. 37-72) and Boling (pp. 132-135) embracethe theoryof a DeuteronomisticHistory(Deuteronomyand the FormerProphets)originating in Josiah's court (Dtr-1) and revisedin exile (Dtr-2). Boling assigns texts to one or the other edition:his Dtr-1 portrayeda lightningconquest, his Dtr-2 a conquestby stages;and Dtr-2 is the fount of those terms(such as edah, nasi) that scholars characterizeas "priestly."This enterprise, however,is not pursuedoverzealously,takinginto its purviewpriorsources or the implicationsof Dtr-2's "priestly"language for the sociology of doctrinein Jerusalem:the endeavoris too treacherous,and it is to Boling's creditthat he does not clutterthe commentarywith extensiveruminations concerningthe authorshipof each text. WithWright,he deniesthe presence of pentateuchalsources and eschews the comprehensivediscussion of composition history (recently, N. K. Gottwald's Tribesof Yahweh,pp. 146-186), best reservedto a separatemonograph. As a document in the history of criticism, the commentary'smost marked feature is the influence of George Mendenhall.Boling echoes Mendenhall'spenchantfor Luwians(pp. 280, 305, etc.);even for Simeon,a normal hypocoristiconfrom some such name as Ishamael:"A Semitic explanationof the nameis uncertain.It has beenprovisionallyrelatedto the Anatolianplace nameSamhuna.Mendenhall,TenGen, 163n. 62" (p. 436). Butit is Mendenhall'stheorythatthe conquestwas a "peasants'revolt"that has had a prodigiousimpact both on Wright(pp. 80-84) and on Boling (pp. 128-132). For Wright especially, formerly a staunch advocate of

BOOK REVIEWS

113

Albright's"lightningconquest"theory, this representsa formidablevolteface.

The "conquest" reconstruction accommodates itself easily to the "revolt."Bolingsees Yahwismas a responseto Late BronzeBaal devotion. He associates the Levites with the Exodus (as though dealing with Alt's "infiltration"hypothesis and figuring which tribes arrived when); they "formed the militant core, and earliestleadership,in the religiousmovement"(pp. 251 f.). And he comments,afterJoshua11, "It was a new day in Galilee, the beginningof a period when ... it would be safe to live in unwalledvillages, until ... tax collectors [againbecame]a common sight, coming this time fromJerusalem"(p. 311). Here, Mendenhall'santimonarchic sentimentssurface,dismissingthe politicaland economicrealitiesthat determinedgovernmentalorganizationas irrelevantto communaljustice (doubly ironic in that Mendenhall'sstandardstoday would demand big government,not anarchism).But apart from this deliberatenaivete (also regardingthe "oppressions"of the "judges"period), neitherWrightnor Boling modifies the old Albrightianconquest theory much in order to incorporateMendenhall'sview. The circumstancethat explains the easy marriageof Albright's"conquest" to Mendenhall's"revolt"has gone largelyunremarked.The revolt hypothesis,though shiftingthe emphasis,still turns on the invasion under Joshua: Mendenhall spotlights Canaan's putative receptivityto Israel's irruption.But the operativeforce for change,the historicallycrucialevent around which the reconstructionultimatelycenters,is still the invasionof Joshua 1-11. Thereare seriousflaws in Mendenhall'sscenario-there is no evidenceof peasant flight to the hills; Mendenhall'sevidenceis valid only for the latifundia,which all scholarsconcedefell last; and the "egalitarianism" that Mendenhallthinks was spawnedby oppressionin hierarchical city-states is thought to have endured the reformationof hill-country community relations, where ideology apparentlyno longer responds to changingeconomic circumstances(that is, the concept of the relationship between ideology and context is somewhat simplistic). But even if all Mendenhall'sdisenfranchisedpeasants did rise to greet the invaders, it remainsthe IsraelenteringfromTransjordanthat introducedYahwismand the covenant into Canaan. The weaknessesof Mendenhall'shypothesisaffectthis commentaryonly marginally.But the hypothesis'presenceindicatesthe extentto whichit has penetratedthe intellectualmarket. Boling's commentarywill prove the

114

BOOKREVIEWS

popular English-languageresourcefor the Book of Joshua for the rest of this decadeand muchof the next. It incidentallydocumentsthe factthat the revolt hypothesis will occupy the pages of scholarly journals for the same

term. The book is furnished with extensive indices. BaruchHalpern York University Toronto, Ont. Alan F. Segal. Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism. Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity 25. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1977. xxiv, 313 pp.

This book, a revision of a dissertationdirected by ProfessorsJudah Goldin and Nils Dahl at Yale University,consists of two distincthalves.' The first (pp. 33-155) is a discussion of the rabbinic texts which oppose, or seem to oppose, a belief in "two divine authorities" (or "powers," shetai reshuyot). The second (pp. 159-258) is a survey of the likely targets of the rabbinic polemic (Philo, Jewish "sectarianism" [including New Testament Christianity], Christianity of the second and third centuries, Marcion, and Gnosticism). The whole is preceded by a long introduction and followed by

a brief conclusion,extensivebibliography,and detailedindices. What is the heresy of "two powers in heaven"? The best brief discussion remains that of George Foot Moore, Judaism in the First Centuries, 1:364. If the leadersof PalestinianJewryhad littlefearof actuallapseinto polytheism and idolatry, they had greater concern about a defectionfrom the strict monotheisticprincipleof a differentkind, the currencyof the beliefthat there are "two authorities."The referencesto this errordo not defineit. A theoryof "two authorities"mightbe entertainedby thinkerswho held that God is the authorof good only, and that for the evil in the worldanothercausemustbe assumed;or by such as in theirthinkingso exaltedGod above the finiteas to find it necessaryto interposebetweenGod and the world an inferiorintermediate power as demiurge; or ... both these motives might occur.

Mooreproceededto note that a beliefin two antagonisticdeitiesis implicitly

1. The dilatorinessof the revieweris only partlyto blamefor the late appearanceof this review.

Review: [untitled] Author(s): Shaye J. D. Cohen Source: AJS Review, Vol. 10, No. 1 (Spring, 1985), pp. 114-117 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486275 . Accessed: 30/06/2011 01:40 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].



114

BOOKREVIEWS

popular English-languageresourcefor the Book of Joshua for the rest of this decadeand muchof the next. It incidentallydocumentsthe factthat the revolt hypothesis will occupy the pages of scholarly journals for the same

term. The book is furnished with extensive indices. BaruchHalpern York University Toronto, Ont. Alan F. Segal. Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism. Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity 25. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1977. xxiv, 313 pp.

This book, a revision of a dissertationdirected by ProfessorsJudah Goldin and Nils Dahl at Yale University,consists of two distincthalves.' The first (pp. 33-155) is a discussion of the rabbinic texts which oppose, or seem to oppose, a belief in "two divine authorities" (or "powers," shetai reshuyot). The second (pp. 159-258) is a survey of the likely targets of the rabbinic polemic (Philo, Jewish "sectarianism" [including New Testament Christianity], Christianity of the second and third centuries, Marcion, and Gnosticism). The whole is preceded by a long introduction and followed by

a brief conclusion,extensivebibliography,and detailedindices. What is the heresy of "two powers in heaven"? The best brief discussion remains that of George Foot Moore, Judaism in the First Centuries, 1:364. If the leadersof PalestinianJewryhad littlefearof actuallapseinto polytheism and idolatry, they had greater concern about a defectionfrom the strict monotheisticprincipleof a differentkind, the currencyof the beliefthat there are "two authorities."The referencesto this errordo not defineit. A theoryof "two authorities"mightbe entertainedby thinkerswho held that God is the authorof good only, and that for the evil in the worldanothercausemustbe assumed;or by such as in theirthinkingso exaltedGod above the finiteas to find it necessaryto interposebetweenGod and the world an inferiorintermediate power as demiurge; or ... both these motives might occur.

Mooreproceededto note that a beliefin two antagonisticdeitiesis implicitly

1. The dilatorinessof the revieweris only partlyto blamefor the late appearanceof this review.

BOOK REVIEWS

115

ascribedto the Essenes by Philo and that a belief in two complementary deities is assumedby both Philo himself and gentile Christianity. TwoPowersin Heavenis an elaborationof Moore'sinsight.Segalargues that the rabbinic polemic against complementarydualism ("binitarianism") is older than the polemic against antagonisticdualism (henceforth simply "dualism").The binitarianheresy which disturbedthe Yavnean sages, notably R. Akiva and R. Ishmael,was based (1) on Daniel 7:9 ff. (Daniel sees two figuresin heaven,the "Ancientof Days" and the "Son of Man"),(2) on variousother verseswhichseemedto suggestthe existenceof an angelicmediatorbetweenmanand God, or (3) on the idea thatthe divine attributesof justice and mercywere independentbeings. Another form of the heresywas that Adam or one of the angelsassistedGod in the creation of the world. R. Nathan, who lived a generationafter R. Akiva and R. Ishmael,is the earliestattestedcombatantof a dualisticheresy,the ideathat the God who createdthe world and gave the Torahis not identicalwith the highest God, because the former is wicked and the latter is good. In the secondpartof the book Segaldevelopsthe conclusionthat manyvarietiesof first-centuryJudaism(includingnascentChristianity)were binitarian,but that dualism,the hallmarkof Gnosticism,is a productof the secondcentury. Segal suggeststhat the rabbisrejectedChristianitypreciselybecauseit was a "two-power"heresy, and that this rejectioncaused within certain segmentsof Christianity(characterizedby the churchfathersas "Gnostics") the shift from binitarianismto dualism.The power responsiblefor evil was identifiedwith the God of the Jews. The book has numerousstrengths,mostly in the second half. Segal has demonstratedthat (some of) the rabbis would have regardednot only Gnosticism but also Philonic Judaism and early Christianityas "twopower"heresies.He has also demonstratedthat the argumentsof the heretics werebasedon scripturalexegesisno less thanthose of the rabbis.Many rabbinicstories have a "philosopher"or a gentile pose a difficultydrawn from Scripture,and Segal'swork shows the realitywhichmight be lurking behind this literaryconvention.The book has numerousfine observations about the connectionsbetweenrabbinicand Christianexegesis(see esp. pp. 119and 220 ff.) and about the natureof Gnostic dualism(Segal showsthat rabbinic-stylepolemic would not have impressedMarcion much, but I wonder whether the rabbis would have known that). Segal's suggestion about the origins of Gnostic dualismhas provoked much discussion(see now van den Broek in Vigiliae Christianae 37 [1983]: 41-71).2 2. I thank ProfessorSegal for this reference.

116

REVIEWS BOOK

I am sorryto reportthatthe negativesideof the ledgeris as fullas the to book the text shouldhave positive.In the transitionfromdissertation furtherrevision.It is overlylong,repetitious, diffuse,difficultto undergone follow(in places),andmarredby numerous andtypographical misspellings errors-Tertullian wouldhavecringedto findthephrasealteriusdeusattributedto him (pp. 239 and 241).The firstpartof the book is thorough, almostexhaustive(althoughthe rabbinicaccountsof the changesintroducedin Scripture deservemorethana footnote[p. 129, by the Septuagint n. 13]),but the secondpartis not, andthe criteriaby whichmaterialwas includedor excludedarenot readilyapparent.Segalpractically ignoresthe contromagicalpapyri(includingSeferha-Razim)and the christological much versiesof the secondto the fourthcentury,andcouldhaveextracted morethanhedoesfromtheNagHammadi texts.Segalalsoomitsthepatristic testimonythatthe Jewsworshipangels. Moreseriousis Segal'sabuseof therabbinicevidence.If pages33-155 arereadbeforepages159-258,thesequencesuggested bythepagenumeraEvenwhen of the rabbinic seems farfetched. texts often tion,Segal'sexegesis aftera readingof the analysisof the nonrabbinic material,his approached Theoldesttextswhichexplicitlyreferto exegesisis not alwaysconvincing. the "two-powers" heresyare (1) MekhiltaShirata4 (discussedon pp. Mekhilta 5 (discussedon pp. 57-59), and(3) Sifre 33-57), (2) Ba-.Hodesh on 379 Deuteronomy (discussed pp. 84-89). Texts(1) and (3) are anonyof R. Nathan.Segaladmitsthat(2) and(3)oppose mous,(2)is a statement but suggeststhat (1) opposesa binitarianism not dualism, binitarianism, on Daniel 7:9 on the two differentnamesof God (YHWHand based ff., Elohim),andon the beliefthatthe divineattributesof justiceandmercy wereindependent beings.Thisexegesisis unlikely,sincethe Mekhiltadoes not knowthat Daniel7:9 ff. is a potentialsourceof error(it quotesthe doesnotreferto the passageas partof therabbinicresponseto theheretics), attributes names and of God's (Segal'slong discussionof the variety andcontrasts doctrineof the attributesof justiceandmercyis irrelevant), one versein whichGodappearsas "awarriordoingbattle"withanotherin whichGod apearsas "an old man full of mercy"-a conceptionwhich seemsmoredualisticthanbinitarian.MekhiltaShirata4 is paralleledby 5, a versionwhich containsR. Nathan'spolemicagainst Ba-.Hodesh not binitarianism. dualism, Segal knows from Philo and first-century thatbinitarian ideaswereshapedbyDaniel7:9ff.(seenowJane Christianity Schaberg, The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit: The Triadic Phrase in

Matthew28:19b[1982])and the doctrinethat God had differentnamesand

BOOKREVIEWS

117

attributes.Segal assumesthat the Mekhiltaknows this too, but his exegesis is forced.To a readernot yet awareof the Philonicand Christianevidence,it seemsfarfetched.3The earliestrabbinictext to referexplicitlyto a binitarian belief in an angelic mediatoris the famous baraitaabout Aber (called R. Aher by Segal on p. 72) in B. Hagigah 15a, whose historicalreliabilityis subjectto debate.In sum, the rabbinicevidenceneithersupportsnor refutes the view that binitarianismprecedesdualism. Segal does not extract this view from the rabbinictexts as much as he imposes it upon them. Segalmakestwo assumptionswhichareimportantfor his casebut which do not commanduniversalassent:(1) the tannaimwereactiveand informed participants in the dialogue with Christianity, and (2) the "JewishChristian"split was provokedby theological,ratherthanhalakhic,division. Tannaitictexts seldom referto minimand evince little interestin defining either hereticalor normativetheology. Althoughthe Mishnahneverrefers to angels, we may assumethat the rabbisof the second century,like their latercontinuators,believedin angels,demons,and spiritsof all sorts.What made the belief in two powers hereticalwas not the belief itself but the consequencesof the belief:the worshipof a powerotherthanGod. Proverbs 8 could inspiresome amoraimto imaginethat God createdthe world with the assistanceof Wisdomor Torah,but this beliefwas not hereticalbecause the rabbisdid not pray to Wisdomor Torah. Belief in angels and angelic powers was not heretical, worshipping them was. Segal ignores this approachand focuses exclusivelyon the theologicaldebate. Furthermore, Segal regularlyrefersto rabbinic"orthodoxy"without definingwhat this mighthave meantin the secondcenturyof our eraand withoutassessingthe theologicaldiversityof rabbinicJudaism. In sum this is a provocativebook which deals with some of the nonmonotheistic forms of ancient Judaism. It is important for students of Gnosticismand "HellenisticJudaism,"but they should not blindly follow Segal'sinterpretationof the rabbinicmaterial.And it raisesmethodological issues which the author does not address. ShayeJ. D. Cohen JewishTheological of Seminary America New York, N.Y. 3. Contrast the exegesis of these Mekhilta passages in Judah Goldin, The Song at the Sea, pp. 126-129.

Review: [untitled] Author(s): Norbert M. Samuelson Source: AJS Review, Vol. 10, No. 1 (Spring, 1985), pp. 118-120 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486276 . Accessed: 30/06/2011 01:40 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].



118

BOOKREVIEWS

Harold M. Schulweis. Evil and the Morality of God. Cincinnati: Hebrew

Union College Press, 1984. vii, 168 pp. On the surfacethis book appearsto be about evil. In fact it is about theology in general.The work is a statementof a singlecomplexargument for what Schulweiscalls "predicatetheology."The book can be summarizedas follows:(1) All traditionalformsof theology,whichSchulweiscalls "subjecttheology,"must solve the problemof theodicy if they are to be internallycoherent.(2) All of them fail to do so. (3) An alternativeto traditional theologyis "predicatetheology."(4) Unlike other formsof theology it entailsno problemof theodicy.Therefore,(5) predicatetheologyis preferable to subjecttheology. "Subjecttheology" is any theology in which God is seen to be some kindof subjectto whompredicatesadhere.In this casethe theologianbegins with a preconceptualdrivethat determineshis ideal of perfection,which,in turn, determineshis idea of God. Schulweisarguesthat all subjecttheologiansare forced,when confrontedwith radicalevil in the ordinaryworld (e.g., the Holocaust),to makeGod beyondmoralcriticism.Theydo this by whichis whatit meansto affirminga deity who is totallyincomprehensible, If that cannot be God has no knowableprediGod's known. say predicates the of evil cannot be accused of not being dissolves. God cates, problem He is because it is assumed that not literally good in any sense of the good, termthat is intelligibleto humanbeings.However,these theologianspay a price for their predicateagnosticism;they abandonany significantsenseof God as a moralagent,and they sacrificeall intimacybetweenGod and man. Schulweisoffers as an alternativewhat he calls "predicatetheology." Whereassubjecttheologyaffirmsan existingsubjectin whom no predicates can be known, predicatetheology makes the divine predicatesthemselves the topic of theology. Its goal is to demonstratethe realityof the divine predicatesratherthan the divinesubject;it offersrationalargumentsfor the faith claim that the set of moral ideals posited by Jewish traditionare in themselvesworthy of adoration,cultivation,and emulation. There are a numberof levels at which criticalcommentscan be raised about Schulweis'sargument.First,the examplesof theologythatSchulweis gives do not fit as neatlyinto his theologicalcategoriesas he wouldlike. For example, Maimonidessays that we may affirm of God predicatesthat express human virtues;to say that God is F means that F is something humanbeingsought to value. Now, given such claims,why is Maimonides any less a predicatetheologianthan he is a subjecttheologian?

BOOK REVIEWS

119

Second, it is by no means settled that subject theology is guilty as charged.For example,it is not the case that in classicalphilosophydivine predicatesare entirelymeaningless.Schulweisfocuses on the most radical example of negative theology, viz., the position of Maimonides. But Rambam'stheory of divine attributesis uniquein its radicalness.Furthermore, Schulweiscannotjustify his choice of Maimonideson the grounds that RambamrepresentsclassicalJewishtheologyat its best.Particularlyon the questionof divineattributes,to considerMaimonides'positionwithout any considerationof Gersonides'far more thoroughtheoryof divine attributes is to ignore the most sophisticatedexpression of classical Jewish theology. Third, while the breadthof Schulweis'sfamiliaritywith philosophical theology is impressive,there are seriousomissionsfrom the book. In terms of classical theology, no considerationis given to the very differentGod concepts of Spinoza and Hegel. Similarly,in termsof contemporarytheology, while Hartshorneis discussed,NormanMalcolmis not;whileBuberis considered.Rosenzweigis not; and while Hick is given considerableattention, not one referenceis made to Fackenheimin a work that claimsto be concernedwith "Jewishperspectives." Fourth, it is unfortunatethat in a book of only 145 pages, Schulweis does not turnto his positivetheologyuntilthe last 30 pages.His explanation of predicatetheologyis in no way as clearlyspelledout as arehis reasonsfor rejectingsubjecttheology.I for one wouldhavepreferredhim to reversehis priorities. As it stands, predicatetheology raises more questions than it presentssolutions. For example,while the term "God" in predicatetheology is not a substantivenoun, it is "a functionalnoun whichcan be understood in terms of its relationto others"(p. 126). But nowheredoes Schulweis spell out what is this function.Furthermore,whereasthe claimedtask of predicatetheologyis to demonstratethe realityof traditionalvirtues,not one moral or aestheticargumentis given in the entirework for any Jewish value. However, I do not want to emphasizein this review my criticisms. Schulweis'sEviland the Moralityof Godis a seriouswork in theology by a seriouscontemporaryJewishthinker.Schulweisclaimsthat the sourceof his predicatetheologyis Feuerbach.He also cites the influenceof suchdiverse philosophers as Hermann Cohen, Bertrand Russell, Gilbert Ryle, and Ludwig Wittgensteinin defense of his positive theology. In addition, althoughthe nameof MordecaiKaplanis mentionedonly once in the entire book, anyone familiar with Kaplan's The Meaning of God in Modern Jewish

120

BOOK REVIEWS

Religion and Judaism WithoutSupernaturalismwill recognize this influence as well. Harold Schulweis is a member of the Conservative rabbinate, and his book was published by a Reform movement press. Still, I am inclined to see this book as the best account of Kaplan's views about God that has yet been published. It is a well-written, carefully reasoned statement of Reconstructionist theology by one of the best minds in the American rabbinate. For this reason alone the book is worthy of the attention of all serious students of contemporary Jewish thought. NorbertM. Samuelson TempleUniversity Philadelphia,Pa. Jonathan D. Sarna. Jacksonian Jew. The Two Worlds of Mordecai Noah. New York: Holmes & Meier, 1981. 233 pp. Jacksonian Jew is a meticulously researched and elegantly written biography of Mordecai Manuel Noah, the Jacksonian era journalist, newspaper editor, politician, and Jewish communal leader who was widely acknowledged to be the most important American Jew of his time. Jonathan D. Sarna's thoughtful new study makes a major contribution to the historical literature on Jacksonian America and to our understanding of the early-nineteenth-century American Jewish experience as well. Born in 1785, Mordecai Noah served at various times as American consul in Tunis, sheriff of New York City, and grand sachem of Tammany Hall, and was actively involved in the preeminent political events of his day. Noah was unquestionably the most influential (as well as the most controversial) Jewish political figure in early-nineteenth-century America, an era during which few Jews actively sought public office and "Jews exercised more power through appointive offices than through elective ones" (p. 43). While Noah's immediate political ambitions were often frustrated, he probably exercised more real political influence than any other American Jewish politician prior to Judah P. Benjamin's election to the United States Senate in the 1850s. During his long political career, Noah, who played some role in every presidential campaign from 1808 to 1848, vindicated the faith in the American political process and the emerging two-party system shared by a growing number of Jews of his era. Indeed, so politically secure were Jews in Jacksonian America that Noah could (during the election of 1824) facetiously suggest himself as a candidate for president, the first

Review: [untitled] Author(s): David G. Dalin Source: AJS Review, Vol. 10, No. 1 (Spring, 1985), pp. 120-124 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486277 . Accessed: 30/06/2011 01:40 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].



120

BOOK REVIEWS

Religion and Judaism WithoutSupernaturalismwill recognize this influence as well. Harold Schulweis is a member of the Conservative rabbinate, and his book was published by a Reform movement press. Still, I am inclined to see this book as the best account of Kaplan's views about God that has yet been published. It is a well-written, carefully reasoned statement of Reconstructionist theology by one of the best minds in the American rabbinate. For this reason alone the book is worthy of the attention of all serious students of contemporary Jewish thought. NorbertM. Samuelson TempleUniversity Philadelphia,Pa. Jonathan D. Sarna. Jacksonian Jew. The Two Worlds of Mordecai Noah. New York: Holmes & Meier, 1981. 233 pp. Jacksonian Jew is a meticulously researched and elegantly written biography of Mordecai Manuel Noah, the Jacksonian era journalist, newspaper editor, politician, and Jewish communal leader who was widely acknowledged to be the most important American Jew of his time. Jonathan D. Sarna's thoughtful new study makes a major contribution to the historical literature on Jacksonian America and to our understanding of the early-nineteenth-century American Jewish experience as well. Born in 1785, Mordecai Noah served at various times as American consul in Tunis, sheriff of New York City, and grand sachem of Tammany Hall, and was actively involved in the preeminent political events of his day. Noah was unquestionably the most influential (as well as the most controversial) Jewish political figure in early-nineteenth-century America, an era during which few Jews actively sought public office and "Jews exercised more power through appointive offices than through elective ones" (p. 43). While Noah's immediate political ambitions were often frustrated, he probably exercised more real political influence than any other American Jewish politician prior to Judah P. Benjamin's election to the United States Senate in the 1850s. During his long political career, Noah, who played some role in every presidential campaign from 1808 to 1848, vindicated the faith in the American political process and the emerging two-party system shared by a growing number of Jews of his era. Indeed, so politically secure were Jews in Jacksonian America that Noah could (during the election of 1824) facetiously suggest himself as a candidate for president, the first

BOOK REVIEWS

121

American Jew to do so. While, as Sarna notes, Noah "did not delude himself into believingthat a Jew could be elected Presidentof the United States," he could argue, nonetheless,that the very possibilityof a Jewish presidentwas "unanswerableproof of the perfectfreedomof our political institutions."Onlyin America,Noah and otherJews"proudlyproclaimed," did a Jew "have the right even to suggesthimself for the nation's highest office" (p. 43). Throughouthis publiccareer,Noah evolved froma liberalJeffersonian and Jacksonianto a conservativeWhig and staunchapologistfor slavery. "Unsurprisingly,"notes Sarna, Noah began his political career with the Democratic-Republicanparty of Thomas Jeffersonand Madison, which, unlike the Federalists,"welcomedJews, and allowed them to rise to high positions within the party" (p. 5). His political preferencefor the Jeffersonians was quite understandable,for while a few influentialJews, such as the Gratz family,did identifyas Federalists,the majorityof Noah's Jewish contemporariesshared the opinion of Philadelphiamerchant Benjamin Nones, who is reportedto have stated:"I am a Jew, and if for no other, for that reason I am a republican."Securing a "significantplace" in the Democratic-Republicanparty, Noah "acted somewhatlike a professional court Jew," appealingto the Jeffersonianparty's hierarchyon behalf of Jewishconcernsand promisingJewishelectoralloyalty to JamesMadison, whom he vigorouslysupportedfor president.As rewardfor his political support, Madison appointed Noah Americanconsul in Tunis, where he served(albeit with little distinction)from 1813to 1815,the first of several patronageappointmentsNoah would receiveduringhis political career. WhileNoah's earlysupportfor liberalJeffersoniandemocracywas thus understandable,his subsequent"conversionto the Whig cause"seems "at first glance to be surprising"(p. 100).Sarna'sanalysisof the "conservative shift in Noah's politics" is both brilliantand provocative.He examinesin detailNoah's involvementwithAndrewJackson'sbattleagainstthe Bankof the United States, the political struggle that "forged" the Jacksonian movement.As Sarnaso well illustrates,the "BankWar"was not only the issue that dividedpoliticiansand led to the creationof the Whig party;it broughtabout "the politicaldownfall"of MordecaiNoah as well. He also discussesNoah's attitudestowardsIrish Catholicimmigrationand his role (in 1835) in establishingthe Native AmericanDemocraticAssociation, a nativist organizationwhich Noah took pains to stresswas "not avowedly anti-Catholic." Significantattentionis given, moreover,to the issue of slavery,which

122

BOOK REVIEWS

Noah both vigorouslydefendedand espoused.Noah's defenseof slavery, argues Sarna, was "unusually strident" even for a "confirmed antiabolitionist."Duringthe 1820sNoah apparentlydevelopeda profoundfear of blacks, and warned against "an excess of indulgenceto the domestic blackof the South."To emancipateslaves,he warned,"wouldbe to jeopardize the safetyof the whole country"(p. 111).Viewingthe abolitionistsas a group of "fanatics"at war with America,Noah supportedmeasuresaimed at restrainingthem.He, moreover,took the ratherextremeposition(shared, to my knowledge,by almost no otherJewishleaderof his era) of invoking -biologyto "prove"that blacks were an "inferiorspecies to the white"(p. L12).Freedom'sJournal,the firstblacknewspaperin America,respondedto Noah's attackby callinghim the blackman's"bitterestenemy,"a pointthat was apparentlymade the most of by those black and abolitionistleaders who "noted with surprise"that Noah was a Jew and proceededto use Noah's Judaismas a weaponof attack.Thus, for example,the abolitionist EdmundQuincywould arguethat if Noah was "a fair specimenof his race, it is no wonderthat they have been an insulted and despisedpeople" (p. 113). This was not, moreover,the only instancein which Noah's Jewishness became an object of public attack. As ProfessorSarna's study so well documents, JacksonianAmerica had its share of anti-Semitism,against which Noah continuouslyhad to contend. DefendingindividualJews "as earnestlyas he defendedJews as a group,"Noah never hesitatedin condemningmanifestationsof anti-Semitism,even when(on occasion)it might have been more politically expedient to remain silent. For, as blatantly opportunisticas Noah could often be in his quest for financialrewardand politicaladvancement(Sarna,it should be noted, examinesthis less attractive aspect of Noah's public careerin thoroughdetail),he neversoughtto downplay his Jewishness,and remained"a conscious, loyal and proud memberof the Jewishcommunity,"who took an increasinglyactiveleadership role within AmericanJewish communallife. Noah's best-knownpublic activitywithin the Jewish arena, his muchpublicizedattempt(in the 1820s)to establisha Jewishagriculturalcolony, whichhe namedArarat,on GrandIslandin the NiagaraRivernearBuffalo, is analyzed by ProfessorSarna in both critical and illuminatingdetail. Ararat,as Noah envisagedit, was to have beena "Cityof Refuge,"a "New Jerusalem,"to which oppressedJews from all over the worldwould immigrate. A tax of three shekelsof silver, proclaimedNoah, was to be levied "uponeachJewthroughoutthe world"to defraythe expensesof the govern-

BOOK REVIEWS

123

ment of Ararat, which was to be concentrated in the hands of Noah, who was to be named "Judge of Israel." While Noah remained convinced "that those Jews who needed an asylum would avail themselves of the advantages which Ararat held forth," American and European Jewry did not flock to Ararat. Noah's proto-Zionist plans for Jewish self-government at Ararat were met with ridicule and criticism in the Jewish press, rather than with widespread support. One Jewish leader of the period doubted that anyone would submit to "the self-constituted 'governor' and 'judge of Israel,'" and observed that most people deemed the entire scheme "visionary," criticisms that were echoed by other American Jews. The Jewish people, Sarna concluded, "neither needed nor wanted an isolated asylum in a faraway land ruled by a self-appointed judge" (p. 74). While much has been written about Noah's proposal for a Jewish colony at Ararat, Sarna's thoughtful analysis provides, I believe, the most balanced and judicious discussion of the episode, and its significance, to be found in recent American Jewish historical scholarship. Professor Sarna's discussion and analysis of the life and public career of Mordecai Noah, his contributions to American diplomacy, politics, and journalism, his vigorous defense of Jewish rights and leadership role in Jewish educational and philanthropic affairs, his controversial views on immigration, slavery, and other public issues of the day, are set against the background of the "two worlds" within which Noah lived. For, as Sarna convincingly argues, Mordecai Noah was both "quintessentially American" as well as "a Jew in a world of Christians" in Jacksonian America. The achievement that "raised him above his contemporaries and transformed him into an historical figure of enduring importance" (p. 159), Sarna correctly posits, was his ability to confront the tensions between these two identities. As Professor Sarna so succinctly puts it: Noah was the first Jew to confront openly ... the challengeof American freedom.He was the firstto demandcontinuousrecognitionas both a devoted Americanand as a devotedJew. He was the firstto exploreseriouslythe profound problemsfacedby Jewsin an Americacomposedlargelyof Christians. He was, in short,the firstJew in Americanhistoryto gain a nationalhearing; the first AmericanJew with sufficientambition, status and talent to be a leader,Americanizer,a spokesmanand a guardianall at once. (pp. 159-160) Jonathan D. Sarna has written a constantly thoughtful and absorbing book that should be read by all serious students of American Jewish history

124

BOOK REVIEWS

and public affairs. Rich in its historical insights, interpretation, and analysis, Jacksonian Jew is American Jewish biography at its best. The definitive work on its subject, it should serve as a model for future biographical studies of American Jewish public figures in years to come. DavidG. Dalin JewishTheologicalSeminaryof America New York, N.Y. Warren Bargad. Ideas in Fiction: The Worksof Hayim Hazaz. Brown Judaic Studies, no. 31. Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1982. xi, 173 pp. The title of this study of Hazaz (1898-1973), Ideas in Fiction, critical method and bias in his appraisal of a encapsulates Warren Bargad's.Hayyim seminal author. Bargad's touchstone is effective fiction, and he accords Hazaz his due in assessing this writer's many artistic successes. At the same time Bargad acknowledges, as every reader must, "Hazaz's long-standing penchant for interjecting all sorts of theories and notions into his narrative." Bargad's grappling with the stylistic problems of this genre of fiction is a leitmotif of his clearly written and engrossing book. Bargad points out that, in Hazaz's early works, his theories and his identification of characters with theories are "utilized mainly to create ironic overtones." The early "characters of ideas," Bargad notes, "usually seem overwhelmed by their own philosophical systems and, at the same time, are depicted in futile attempts to impart their ideas to other-wholly indifferent-characters." In his chapter "The Lonely Exiles" (and throughout the book) Bargad betrays a preference for those stories in which philosophical ideas are not differentiated from their aesthetic role in characterization. He also manifests a critical bias in favor of the early works (such as the first versions of the various "Stories of the Revolution," the novel Be- Yishuvshel Ya-ar, and "Hatan Damim") in which there is a parallel lack of differentiation between expressionistic descriptions of nature and characterization. (Aharon Meged, incidentally, has also singled out the early Hazaz's impact on him.) In a splendid summary statement, Bargad writes: In the storiesof the late twentieshistoryand naturearejoinedtogetheras the underlyingcauses of man's frustration.The characterswho populate the workscontemplatetheirfateat the handsof thesemythicalforces.Messianism

Review: [untitled] Author(s): Stanley Nash Source: AJS Review, Vol. 10, No. 1 (Spring, 1985), pp. 124-127 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486278 . Accessed: 30/06/2011 01:40 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].



124

BOOK REVIEWS

and public affairs. Rich in its historical insights, interpretation, and analysis, Jacksonian Jew is American Jewish biography at its best. The definitive work on its subject, it should serve as a model for future biographical studies of American Jewish public figures in years to come. DavidG. Dalin JewishTheologicalSeminaryof America New York, N.Y. Warren Bargad. Ideas in Fiction: The Worksof Hayim Hazaz. Brown Judaic Studies, no. 31. Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1982. xi, 173 pp. The title of this study of Hazaz (1898-1973), Ideas in Fiction, critical method and bias in his appraisal of a encapsulates Warren Bargad's.Hayyim seminal author. Bargad's touchstone is effective fiction, and he accords Hazaz his due in assessing this writer's many artistic successes. At the same time Bargad acknowledges, as every reader must, "Hazaz's long-standing penchant for interjecting all sorts of theories and notions into his narrative." Bargad's grappling with the stylistic problems of this genre of fiction is a leitmotif of his clearly written and engrossing book. Bargad points out that, in Hazaz's early works, his theories and his identification of characters with theories are "utilized mainly to create ironic overtones." The early "characters of ideas," Bargad notes, "usually seem overwhelmed by their own philosophical systems and, at the same time, are depicted in futile attempts to impart their ideas to other-wholly indifferent-characters." In his chapter "The Lonely Exiles" (and throughout the book) Bargad betrays a preference for those stories in which philosophical ideas are not differentiated from their aesthetic role in characterization. He also manifests a critical bias in favor of the early works (such as the first versions of the various "Stories of the Revolution," the novel Be- Yishuvshel Ya-ar, and "Hatan Damim") in which there is a parallel lack of differentiation between expressionistic descriptions of nature and characterization. (Aharon Meged, incidentally, has also singled out the early Hazaz's impact on him.) In a splendid summary statement, Bargad writes: In the storiesof the late twentieshistoryand naturearejoinedtogetheras the underlyingcauses of man's frustration.The characterswho populate the workscontemplatetheirfateat the handsof thesemythicalforces.Messianism

BOOK REVIEWS

125

is dead; its uprooted,tragicomicfollowers attemptto adjust to the hostile world surroundingthem, but the conflict betweentenaciouslyheld romantic notions or love or redemptionand the realitiesof lonely exile is so great that the characterseitherrevertto a moody reticenceor try in vain to gain acceptance for their fancifultheories. In view of Bargad's correct, if overstated, preference for the early Hazaz, there is a certain tragic irony to the fact that Hazaz kept returning to his earlier plots and paradigms in an effort to improve their dramatic tension. Hazaz expanded the novel Gates of Bronze from an early Revolution short story; he did so once in 1956 and then again, in still longer form, in 1968. Bargad dismisses Hazaz's efforts when he compares the final version to "a soap opera." He prefers the undifferentiated immediacy and tension of the early stories over the labored craftsmanship of the later versions, which suffer from a kind of domesticated remove. Yet I feel that Bargad's assessment and recurrent choice of adjectives such as "trite," "maudlin," and "artificial" are unduly harsh with regard to many later works (such as Be-Kolar Ehad). Several stories to which Bargad assigns low marks I find eminently readable. The irony I referredto is heightened by the fact that Hazaz reiterated in his "Stories of Ideas" (most famously in "Ha-Derashah") his fear that "normalcy" might irrevocably damage the Jewish creative process. It would appear that as Hazaz "normalized" his fiction in an effort to make it more readable, he sacrificed the artistic potential of that tense ambiguity and ambivalence of the Diaspora Jewish intellectual. Whenever Hazaz succeeded in recapturing the Diaspora "night psychology" (see "HaDerashah") of ambivalence-i.e., expectant waiting for redemption coupled with reluctance and fear of redemption's end-products-he was at his best (such as in "Shelulit Genuzah" and parts of Ha- Yoshevet ba-Gannim). Hazaz was himself a victim-artistically speaking-of the Zionist caesura with the past. Having agreed, for the most part, with Bargad's assessment of Hazaz's fiction qua fiction, I must still register a certain disappointment with the small amount of attention Bargad devotes to the drama of (disembodied) ideas within these works. For the sake of his thesis, which Bargad so clearly and consistently develops, he pares down the specifics of ideological exegesis in Hazaz to an unsatisfying minimum. Admittedly, Bargad does not agree-and legitimately so-with Miron's reading of "Ha-Derashah," as but one example. Bargad makes an excellent case for an integrated aesthetic

126

BOOKREVIEWS

evaluationof Yudke's "sermon"as fine theaterin the context of a short story. Nonetheless, there is an aspect of suspensefulideologicaldramain Miron's analysis of the manner in which Hazaz's protagonists,such as Moroshka,Gurland(from"Be-Zilanshel Malkhuyot,"whichBargadbriefly discusses),and Aristotle(from anotheryet-to-be-studiedreworkingof a Revolutionstory), may be placed along with Yudke and othersinto their respectivecamps. Hazaz'scharactersof ideas, Miron proves,eitheraffirm the cyclicalcontinuumof Jewishhistoryor diagnosethe caesuraeffectedby Zionism. Similarly, Shaked's evaluation of the play Be-Ke; ha-Yamin (touched on only obliquely by Bargad) demonstrateshow attention to kabbalisticbackgroundand other historicalmaterialneed not detractfrom aestheticappreciation.And finally,for my taste, Bargadwould have done well to isolate a motif such as Hazaz'srecurrentreferencesto the donkeyas a parody of Jewish messianismand to deal seriouslywith what has been dubbed "The MessianicComedy"of Hazaz'soeuvre. The donkey motif and its like notwithstanding,however, Bargad's contributionto our appreciationof Ha-Yoshevetba-Gannimand all of Hazaz'sYemeniteworksis immenseand impressive.He affordsthe readera beautifullyengaged reading of "Rabamim"and Ha-Yoshevetba-Gannim and a meticulousanalysisof the four volumesof Ya'ish.His chapter"The Yemenite Works" and his lucid, if biased (in the above-statedways), chapter "The Stories of Ideas" are extremelysuccessfuland persuasive. We should note before closing Bargad'silluminatingdiscussionof the Russiansatiricaltechniqueof poshlost(vulgarityor banalityin description) and his helpfulcomparisonof Hazazwith Aldous Huxley.Despitethe criticisms registeredabove, Bargad'sbook is a major event in the study of Hazaz. The book's publication,sadly, was delayed,so that it cannot truly embracethe posthumouslypublishedworks of Hazaz and the largeoutput of criticalstudieswhichhave appearedin suchvolumesas Me'assef.Hayyim Hazaz (1978), Ilayyim Hazaz, Mivhar Ma'amarim al Ye;irato (1978), and (naturallynot) the manyarticleswhichappearedin 1983on the occasionof Hazaz'stenthyahrzeit.'Bargad'sworkjoins with theseotherpublicationsin convincingthe studentof literaturethat muchremainsto be done in Hazaz

1. Bargad's bibliography, however, is scrupulously updated. His several appendices are invaluable tools for scholars.

127

BOOK REVIEWS

thatHazazwasoneof thosewriters studies.Bargad's concluding suggestion "wholive most significantly for theirown age"is probablynot correct. Nash Stanley HebrewUnion College-Jewish Instituteof Religion New York, N.Y.

Collected Studies Source: AJS Review, Vol. 10, No. 1 (Spring, 1985), pp. 129-131 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486279 . Accessed: 30/06/2011 01:40 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].



COLLECTEDSTUDIES William Scott Green, ed. Approaches to Ancient Judaism. Vol. 4. Studies in Liturgy, Exegesis, and Talmudic Narrative. Brown Judaic Studies, no. 27. Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1983. xx, 187 pp. Jakob J. Petuchowski, "The Liturgy of the Synagogue: History, and Contents." Jacob Neusner, "Translating Leviticus Rabbah: Structure, Some New Considerations." Lewis M. Barth, "Reading Rabbinic Bible Exegesis." Martin S. Jaffee, "The 'Midrashic' Proem: Towards the Description of Rabbinic Exegesis." Alan J. Avery-Peck, "Yerushalmi's Commentary to Mishnah Terumot: From Theology to Legal Code." Martin S. Jaffee, "The Mishnah in Talmudic Exegesis: Observations on Tractate Maaserot of the Talmud Yerushalmi." Robert Goldenberg, "History and Ideology in Talmudic Narrative." CONTENTS:

Marc Lee Raphael, ed. Approaches to Modern Judaism. Brown Judaic Studies, no. 49. Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1983. 168 pp. CONTENTS: David Biale, "Love, Marriage and the Modernization of the Jews." Paul R. Mendes-Flohr, "Secular Religiosity: Reflections on PostTraditional Jewish Spirituality and Community." Michael N. Dobkowski, "Judaism and Marxism: On the Necessity of Dialogue." David Ellenson, "Church-Sect Theory, Religious Authority, and Modern Jewish Orthodoxy: A Case Study." Stephen J. Whitfield, "Jews and Southerners: The Prism of Literature." B. Barry Levy, "Artscroll: An Overview." 129

130

COLLECTED STUDIES

Jacques Kornberg, ed. At the Crossroads: Essays on Ahad Ha-Am. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1983. xxvii, 207 pp. CONTENTS:Jacques Kornberg, "At the Crossroads: An Introductory Essay." Alan Mintz, "Ahad Ha-Am and the Essay: The Vicissitudes of Reason." Tudor Parfitt, "Ahad Ha-Am's Role in the Revival and Development of Hebrew." Ali Attia, "Ahad Ha-Am, the Editor of Ha-Shilo'ah." David Patterson, "Ahad Ha-Am and Smolenskin." Arnold J. Band, "The Ahad Ha-Am and Berdyczewski Polarity." Robert Seltzer, "Ahad Ha-Am and Dubnow: Friends and Adversaries." Stanley Nash, "Ahad Ha-Am and 'Ahad Ha-Amism': The Onset of Crisis." David Vital, "The Zionist as Thinker: Ahad Ha-Am and Hibbat Zion." Joseph Salmon, "Ahad Ha-Am and Benei Moshe : An 'Unsuccessful Experiment'?" Jacques Kornberg, "Ahad Ha-Am and Herzl." Evyatar Friesel, "Ahad Ha-Amism in American Zionist Thought." Jehuda Reinharz, 'Ahad Ha-Am, Martin Buber, and German Zionism." Ben Halpern, "The Disciple, Chaim Weizmann." Victor D. Sanua, ed. Fields of Offerings: Studies in Honor of Raphael Patai. Rutherford, N.J.: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1983. xxi, 327 pp. Howard M. Sachar, "Raphael Patai: An Appreciation." Haim CONTENTS: Schwarzbaum, "The Oeuvre of Raphael Patai." Gertrude Hirschler, "Bibliography of the Published Writings of Raphael Patai." Dan BenAmos, "The Idea of Folklore: An Essay." Dov Noy, "The Jewish Theodicy Legend." Robert Gordis, "Mythology, Folklore, and Tradition: Studies in Yiddish Etymology." Alexander Scheiber, "The Moment of Desires." Haim Schwarzbaum, "A Jewish Moses Legend of Islamic Provenance." Aliza Shenhar, "The Woman with the Animal Face: The Emergence of a Jewish Fairy Tale." Moshe Carmilly, "The Magic Bird." Livia Jackson-Bitton, "The Jew as a Literary Hero." Ailon Shiloh, "Anthropology: A Case Study in Holocaust Blindness?" Walter P. Zenner, "Syrian Jews in New York Twenty Years Ago." Jacob M. Landau, "The 'Young Turks' and Zionism." Joseph Nedava, "Herzl's Diaries: A Case of Selectivity in Dealing with Historical Documents." Meir Ben-Horin, "Israel: A View from Lebanon." Simha Kling, "Haim Arlozorov." Joseph Adler, "The Orthodox Bloc of Israel: The Early Years." Victor D. Sanua, "A Jewish Childhood in Cairo." Cyrus H. Gordon, "War and Peace: The Theoretical Structure of Israelite Society." Savina J. Teubal, "Women, the Law, and the Ancient Near East."

STUDIES COLLECTED

131

Dorothy F. Zeligs, "Why Did Moses Strike the Rock? A Psychoanalytic Study." Gedalia Nigal, "Spirit Possession in Eighteenth-Century Italy." Tuvya Preschel, "A Strange Seder Custom and Its Origin."

Books Received Source: AJS Review, Vol. 10, No. 1 (Spring, 1985), pp. 133-139 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486280 . Accessed: 30/06/2011 01:40 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].



BOOKS RECEIVED Angel, Marc D. La America: The Sephardic Experience in the United States.

Philadelphia:Jewish PublicationSociety, 1982. x, 220 pp. Aschheim, Steven E. Brothers and Strangers: The East European Jew in German and German Jewish Consciousness, 1800-1923. Madison:

Universityof WisconsinPress, 1983. xiv, 331 pp. Avni, Haim. Spain, the Jews and Franco.Philadelphia:JewishPublication Society, 1982. xi, 268 pp. Baskin, Judith. Pharaoh's Counsellors: Job, Jethro and Balaam in Rabbinic

Patristic Tradition.Chico, Calif.: ScholarsPress, 1982. viii, 191 pp. Ramat-Gan:Dvir, 1982. Belfer,Ella, ed. •'•,wS n,•1n mrnma,.

Bland, Kalman P. The Epistle on the Possibility of Conjunction with the Active Intellect by Ibn Rushd with the Commentary of Moses Narboni.

New York: Jewish TheologicalSeminary,1982. xiii, 151, 155 pp. Bleich, J. David With Perfect Faith: The Foundations of Jewish Belief New

York: Ktav, 1982. xx, 688 pp. Blinkin, Meir. Stories. Translatedfrom the Yiddish by Max Rosenfeld. Introductionby Ruth Wisse.Albany:SUNY Press, 1984.xviii, 166pp. Bloch, Alice. The Law of Return.Boston: Alyson, 1983. 256 pp. Blumenthal, David R. UnderstandingJewish Mysticism. Vol. 2. New York:

Ktav, 1982. xv, 208 pp. Borowitz, Eugene. Choices in Modern Jewish Thought.New York: Behrman

House, 1983. xi, 305 pp. Brooten, Bernadette J. Women Leaders in the Ancient Synagogue. Brown

Judaic Studies,no. 36. Chico, Calif.:ScholarsPress, 1982.x, 281 pp. Camhi, D. J. ModernHebrew.New York:Oxford UniversityPress, 1983. Carmi, T. At the Stone of Losses. Translatedand with an introductionby Grace Schulman.Philadelphia:Jewish PublicationSociety, 1983. xv, 131 pp. Chiat, Marilyn. Handbook of Synagogue Architecture. Brown Judaic

Studies, no. 29. Chico, Calif.: ScholarsPress, 1982. xii, 404 pp. 133

134

BOOKSRECEIVED

Cohen, Adir. The Educational Philosophy of Martin Buber. Rutherford, N.J.: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1983. 274 pp. Cohen, Sara B. From Hester Street to Hollywood: The Jewish-American Stage and Screen. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1983. viii, 278 pp. Davies, W. D. The TerritorialDimension of Judaism. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1982. xviii, 169 pp. Diamond, James S. Barukh Kurzweiland Modern Hebrew Literature. Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1983. xiii, 218 pp. Dorian, Emil. The Quality of Witness:A Romanian Diary 1937-1944. Introduction by M. Stanislawski. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1983. xxxiii, 350 pp. Eisen, Arnold. The Chosen People in America: A Study in Jewish Religious Ideology. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1983. x, 237 pp. Elazar, Daniel J., ed. Kinshipand Consent: The Jewish Political Traditionand Its Contemporary Uses. Washington, D.C.: University Press of America, 1982. xiii, 396 pp. Eliach, Yaffa. Hasidic Tales of the Holocaust. New York: Oxford University Press, 1982. xxxii, 266 pp. Elwell, Ellen Sue Levi, and Edward R. Levenson, eds. The Jewish Women's Studies Guide. Fresh Meadows, N.Y.: Biblio Press, 1982. 108 pp. Fackenheim, Emil. To Mend the World: Foundations of Future Jewish Thought. New York: Schocken, 1982. 362 pp. Falk, Marcia. Love Lyrics from the Bible: A Translationand Literary Study of the Song of Songs. Sheffield: Almond Press, 1982. 142 pp. Feingold, Henry L. A Midrash on American Jewish History. Albany: SUNY Press, 1982. xv, 241 pp. Fine, Ellen S. The Legacy of Night: The Literary Universe of Elie Wiesel. Albany: SUNY Press, 1982. xv, 200 pp. :wno1o Fruchtman, Maya Agmon. nn~ mtnlm r'rn 5r ni,1'nrp •',rr Tel Aviv: 1982. 189 vii, pp. Papyrus, n~bxw n. Frymer, Beryl. Jewish Horizons. New York: Cornwall Books, 1983. 176 pp. Fuchs, Esther. Encounters with Israeli Authors. Marblehead, Mass.: Micah Publications, 1982, iv, 92 pp. Gelbard, Arye. Der Judische Arbeiter-Bund Russlands im Revolutionsjahr 1917. Linz: L. Boltsmann Institute, University of Linz, 1982. 283 pp. Gerber, Israel. Job on Trial: A Book for Our Time. Gastonia, N.C.: EP Press, 1982. ii, 217 pp. Ginsberg, H. L. The Israelian Heritage of Judaism. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1983. vii, 145 pp.

BOOKSRECEIVED

135

Goldberg, Hillel. Israel Salanter: Text, Structure, Idea. New York: Ktav, 1982. xvi, 358 pp. Goldberg, Judith N. Laughter ThroughTears: The YiddishCinema. Rutherford, N.J.: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1983. 171 pp. Gottlieb, Moshe R. American Anti-Nazi Resistance, 1933-1941: An Historical Analysis. New York: Ktav, 1982. xxi, 426 pp. Greenberg, Moshe, Ezekiel 1-20. Anchor Bible, vol. 22. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1983. i Habermann, Avraham. 1610-1564 io no , na~ xi'Tran. •l r1i'T n•no Lod: Habermann Institute for Literary Research, 1982. 15, 144, 12 pp. Halpern, Moyshe-Leyb. In New York: A Selection. Translated, edited, and with an introduction by Kathryn Hellerstein. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1982. xxv, 166 pp. Handler, Andrew, ed. The Holocaust in Hungary: An Anthology of Jewish Responses. University: University of Alabama Press, 1982. xiii, 162 pp. Harkabi, Yehoshafat. The Bar KokhbaSyndrome:Risk and Realism in International Politics. Translated by Max D. Ticktin. Edited by David Altshuler. Chappaqua, N.Y.: Rossel Books, 1983. xvii, 206 pp. Harlap, Amiram. New Israeli Architecture. Rutherford, N.J.: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1982. 355 pp. Herscher, Uri D., ed. The East European Jewish Experience in America: A Century of Memories, 1882-1982. Cincinnati: American Jewish Archives, 1983. 189 pp. The Jewish Experience in America: A Historical Bibliography. Santa Barbara, Calif.: ABC-Clio, 1983. 190 pp. Joseph, Herbert S., ed. Modern Israeli Drama: An Anthology. Cranbury, N.J.: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1983. 267 pp. Kaganoff, Nathan M., ed. Guide to America-Holy Land Studies 1620-1948. Vol. 1, American Presence. New York: Arno Press, 1980. xvii, 127 pp. Vol. 2, Political Relations and American Zionism. New York: Praeger, 1982. xviii, 214 pp. Katz, David S. Philosemitism and the Readmission of the Jews to England, 1603-1655. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982. viii, 286 pp. Katz, Steven T. Post-Holocaust Dialogues. New York: New York University Press, 1983. xiv, 327 pp. Kellner, Marc. Principles of Faith: Isaac Abravanel's "Rosh Amanah." Rutherford, N.J.: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1982. 271 pp. Klarsfeld, Serge. Memorial to the Jews Deported from France, 1942-1944. New York: B. Klarsfeld Foundation, 1983. xxxix, 663 pp. Knobel, Peter S., ed. Gates of the Seasons (Shaarei Mo-eid): A Guide to the

136

BOOKSRECEIVED

Jewish Year.New York: Central Conference of American Rabbis, 1983. 194 pp. Kol, Moshe. Mentors and Friends. New York: Cornwall Books, 1983. 203 PP. Korn, Yitzhak. Jews at the Crossroads. Cranbury, N.J.: Cornwall Books, 1983, 204 pp. Kosmin, Barry A., and Caren Levy. Jewish Identity in an Anglo-Jewish Community. London: Board of Deputies of British Jews, 1983. 44 pp. - and . Synagogue Membership in the United Kingdom 1983. London: Board of Deputies of British Jews, 1983. 39 pp. Langer, Lawrence L. Versions of Survival: The Holocaust and the Human Spirit. Albany: SUNY Press, 1982. xiii, 300 pp. Liebman, Seymour B. New World Jewry, 1493-1825: Requiem for the Forgotten. New York: Ktav, 1982. xv, 271 pp. Lilker, Shalom. Kibbutz Judaism: A New Tradition in the Making. New York: Cornwall Books, 1982. 264 pp. Tel-Aviv: Alef, 1982. 215 pp. Link, Baruch. I•bot Et~t mn' arS. and Judaism on Trial:Jewish-ChristianDisputaed. trans. Maccoby, Hyam, tions in the Middle Ages. Rutherford, N.J.: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1982. 245 pp. Mandelbaum, Irving. A History of the Mishnaic Law of Agriculture: Kilayim. Brown Judaic Studies, no. 26. Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1982. xxx, 417 pp. Marcus, Joseph. Social and Political History of the Jews in Poland, 1919-1939. Berlin: W. De Gruyter, 1983. Meketa, Jacqueline Dorgan. Louis Felsenthal: Citizen-Soldier of Territorial New Mexico. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1982. xvi, 152 pp. Mendelsohn, Alan. Secular Education in Philo of Alexandria. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1982. Mendelsohn, Alan. Secular Education in Philo of Alexandria. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1982. xxv, 128 pp. Mintz, Ruth Finer. Auguries, Charms, Amulets. Middle Village, N.Y.: Jonathan David, 1983. 93 pp. Morgan, Michael A., trans. Sefer Ha-Razim: The Book of Mysteries. Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1983. 97 pp. Nadich, Judah. Jewish Legends of the Second Commonwealth.Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1983. xxviii, 477 pp. Neiman, Morris. A Century of Modern Hebrew Literary Criticism, 1784-1884. New York: Ktav, 1983. vii, 247 pp.

BOOKS RECEIVED

137

Neusner, Jacob. Formative Judaism: Religious, Historical and Literary Studies. Brown Judaic Studies, no. 37. Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1982. 173 pp. . Formative Judaism: Religious, Historical and Literary Studies, Second Series. Brown Religious Studies, no. 41. Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1983, 190 pp. . Formative Judaism: Religious, Historical and Literary Studies, Third -Series. Brown Religious Studies, no. 46. Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1983. 204 pp. A History of the Mishnaic Law of Appointed Times. Pt. 3. Studies in --. Judaism in Late Antiquity, vol. 34. Leiden: Brill, 1982. xxv, 189 pp. . A History of the Mishnaic Law of Appointed Times. Pt. 4. Leiden: -Brill, 1983. xxv, 262 pp. . Judaism in the American Humanities: Jewish Learning and the New Humanities. Second Series. Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1983. xviii, 161 pp. . Tzedakah: Can Jewish Philanthropy Buy Jewish Survival? Chappaqua, N.Y.: Rossel Books, 1982. 106 pp. . trans. and ed. The Talmudof the Land of Israel. Vol. 34, Horayot and Niddah. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982. Newman, Lewis E. The Sanctity of the Seventh Year: A Study of Mishnah Tractate Shebiit. Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1983. 267 pp. Paper, Lewis J. Brandeis. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1983. Passamaneck, Stephen M. The Traditional Jewish Law of Sale, Hoshen Mishpat, Chapters 189-240. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1983. xiv, 332 pp. Petuchowski, Jakob J. Our Masters Taught. Rabbinic Stories and Sayings. New York: Crossroad Publishers, 1982. xix, 117 pp. Rabinowicz, Harry. Hasidism and the State of Israel. Rutherford, N.J.: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1982. 346 pp. Rabinowitz, Isaac, ed. and trans. "The Book of the Honeycomb's Flow," by Judah Messer Leon. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1983. lxx, 604 pp. Raphael, Marc. UnitedJewish Appeal. Brown Judaic Studies, no. 34. Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1982. 164 pp. Rosenberg, Stuart E. The Real Jewish World: A Rabbi's Second Thoughts. New York: Philosophical Library, 1984, 427 pp. Salbstein, M. C. N. The Emancipationof the Jews in Britain: The Questionof the Admission of the Jews to Parliament, 1828-1860. Rutherford, N.J.: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1982. 76 pp.

138

BOOKSRECEIVED

Saraf, Michal. 1,TDm0•n1in p1'' w irnm 'n. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, 1982. xviii, 132 pp. Schiff, Ellen. From Stereotype to Metaphor: The Jewish Contemporary Drama. Albany: SUNY Press, 1982. xiii, 276 pp. Schiffman, Lawrence. Sectarian Laws in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Courts, Testimony and the Penal Code. Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1983. xv, 278 PP. Shaham, Nathan. The Other Side of the Wall:Three Novellas. Translated from the Hebrew by Leonard Gold. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1983. 281 pp. Shereshevsky, Esra. Rashi: The Man and His World. New York: SepherHermon Press, 1982. xi, 265 pp. Sofer, Eugene F. From Pale to Pampa. New York: Holmes and Meier, 1982. xi, 165 pp. Spero, Shubert. Morality, Halakha and the Jewish Tradition. New York: Ktav and Yeshiva University Press, 1983. Stanislawski, Michael. Tsar Nicholas I and the Jews: The Transformationof Jewish Society in Russia, 1825-1855. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1983. xvi, 246 pp. Steinberg, Aaron. History as Experience: Aspects of Historical ThoughtUniversal and Jewish; Selected Essays and Studies. New York: Ktav, 1983. 486 pp. Strauss, Janine. YehudahLeib Gordon,poete hdbreu:Son oeuvredefabuliste. Paris: Didier, 1983. 411 pp. Telpaz, Gideon. Israeli Childhood Stories of the Sixties. Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1983. 211 pp. Trenchard, Warren C. Ben Sira's Viewof Women.Brown Judaic Studies, no. 38. Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1982. x, 341 pp. Wacholder, Ben Zion. The Dawn of Qumran. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1983. xviii, 310 pp. Walden, Daniel, ed. Studies in American Jewish Literature. Vol. 3, Jewish Women Writersand Womenin Jewish Literature. Albany: SUNY Press, 1983. Waxman, Chaim. America's Jews in Transition. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1983. xxv, 272 pp. Wilson, Stephen. Ideology and Experience: Antisemitism in France at the Time of the Dreyfus Affair. Rutherford, N.J.: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1982. xviii, 812 pp.

BOOKS RECEIVED

139

Wistrich,RobertS. SocialismandtheJews: TheDilemmasof Assimilationin Rutherford,N.J.: FairleighDickinson Germanyand Austria-Hungary. UniversityPress, 1982.435 pp. The Writings-Ketubim:A New Translationof the Holy Scriptures.Philadelphia:Jewish PublicationSociety, 1982. 624 pp. Yahil, Leni. TheRescueof DanishJewry.Translatedfrom the Hebrewby Morris Gradel. Paperbackreissue with new material. Philadelphia: Jewish PublicationSociety, 1983. xx, 538 pp. Yerushalmi,Yosef Hayim. Zakhor: Jewish History and Jewish Memory. Seattle:Universityof WashingtonPress, 1983.xvii, 144 pp.

AJS Review 1985: Spring, No. 1

Ajs Review: Spring, No 1

Ajs Review 1987: Spring, No 1

Ajs Review 1986: Spring, No 1

Ajs Review, Spring 1990

AJS Review 1985: Fall, No 2

AJS Review 17, 1 (Spring, 1992)

AJS Review: Vol. XXI, No. 1, 1996

Ajs Review 1995: Fall, No 1

Ajs Review, 1995 No 2

Ajs Review, 1984 No 2

Ajs Review, 1993, Part 1

Ajs Review 1986: Fall, No 2

AJS REVIEW - VOLUME THREE

Ajs Review, Fall 1990

Ajs Review, Fall 1989, No 2

Ajs Review 1987: Fall, No 2

AJS Review: Vol. XXI, No. 2, 1996

AJS REVIEW The Journal of the Association for Jewish Studies Vol. IX, No. 1 Spring 1984

Ajs Review, 1988: Nos 1 and 2

Ajs Review, Volume Four (1979)

Rand Review Vol 29, No. 1, Spring 2005

RAND Review, Vol. 30, No.1, Spring 2006

Ajs Review, Volume Two, 1977

Ajs Review, 1992, Part 2

October, journal No.1 Spring (1976)

AJSreview AJS Review (1980 Volume 5)

AJS Review Volume Seven-Eight 1982-1983

Искатель. 1985. Выпуск №1

AJS Review (The Journal of the Association for Jewish Studies), Vol 19, No. 1 1994

Annual Review of Immunology Volume 3 1985

AJS Review 1985: Spring, No. 1

Ajs Review: Spring, No 1

Ajs Review 1987: Spring, No 1

Ajs Review 1986: Spring, No 1

Ajs Review, Spring 1990

AJS Review 1985: Fall, No 2

AJS Review 17, 1 (Spring, 1992)

AJS Review: Vol. XXI, No. 1, 1996

Ajs Review 1995: Fall, No 1

Ajs Review, 1995 No 2

Ajs Review, 1984 No 2

Ajs Review, 1993, Part 1

Ajs Review 1986: Fall, No 2

AJS REVIEW - VOLUME THREE

Ajs Review, Fall 1990

Ajs Review, Fall 1989, No 2

Ajs Review 1987: Fall, No 2

AJS Review: Vol. XXI, No. 2, 1996

AJS REVIEW The Journal of the Association for Jewish Studies Vol. IX, No. 1 Spring 1984

Ajs Review, 1988: Nos 1 and 2

Ajs Review, Volume Four (1979)

Rand Review Vol 29, No. 1, Spring 2005

RAND Review, Vol. 30, No.1, Spring 2006

Ajs Review, Volume Two, 1977

Ajs Review, 1992, Part 2

October, journal No.1 Spring (1976)

AJSreview AJS Review (1980 Volume 5)

AJS Review Volume Seven-Eight 1982-1983

Искатель. 1985. Выпуск №1

AJS Review (The Journal of the Association for Jewish Studies), Vol 19, No. 1 1994

Annual Review of Immunology Volume 3 1985

Recommend Documents