Ajs Review 1986: Fall, No 2

Front Matter Source: AJS Review, Vol. 11, No. 2 (Autumn, 1986) Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the...

Author: Robert Chazan

105 downloads 884 Views 13MB 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. 11, No. 2 (Autumn, 1986) Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486243 . Accessed: 30/06/2011 18:20 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.

XI,

NO.

2

FALL1986

t'91A

TheJournalof theAssociation forJewishStudies

('I

REVIE

VolumeXI, Number2, Fall, 1986

ASSOCIATION FOR JEWISH STUDIES CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS

AJS Review EDITOR:

Robert Chazan, QueensCollegeand CUNY GraduateCenter ASSOCIATEEDITORS:

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

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

Michael Stanislawski, ColumbiaUniversity The AJS Review (ISSN 0364-0094) is published twice annually by the Association for Jewish Studies. 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. ? 1986 by the Association for Jewish Studies

MANUFACTURED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

AJSREVIEW THE JOURNALOFTHEASSOCIATIONFORJEWISHSTUDIES VOLUMEXI, NUMBER 2, FALL, 1986

Articles 135

MARTIN S. JAFFEE

Mishnaic Literary History and the History of a Mishnaic Idea: On the Formation of the Mishnah's Theory of Intention, with Special Reference to Tractate Ma'aserot 157

RICHARDKALMIN

The Post-Ray Ashi Amoraim: Transition or Continuity? A Study of the Role of the Final Generations of Amoraim in the Redaction of the Talmud 189

NORMAN ROTH

New Light on the Jews of Mozarabic Toledo 221

GLENDA ABRAMSON

The Love Poetry of Yehuda Amichai 249

Book Reviews Martin Goodman, State and Society in Roman Galilee, A.D. 132-212 STUART S. MILLER

254

Jack N. Lightstone, The Commerce of the Sacred: Mediation of the Divine Among Jews in the Graeco-Roman Diaspora ANTHONY J. SALDARINI

255

Judith R. Baskin, Pharaoh's Counsellors:Job, Jethro, and Balaam in Rabbinic and Patristic Tradition DAVID STERN

257

Stephen M. Passamaneck, The TraditionalJewish Law of Sale: Shulhan Arukh Hoshen Mishpat Chapters 189-240 BARUCH M. BOKSER

259

Robert S. Wistrich, Socialism and the Jews. The Dilemmas of Assimilation in Germany and Austria-Hungary MARSHA L. ROZENBLIT

262

Joshua Blau, The Renaissance of Modern Hebrew and Modern Standard Arabic MENAHEMMANSOOR

267 267

268 268 268 271

Collected Studies Douglas A. Knight and Gene M. Tucker, eds. The Hebrew Bible and Its Modern Interpreters Frederick E. Greenspahn, Earle Hilgert, and Burton L. Mack, eds. Nourished with Peace. Studies in Hellenistic Judaism in Memory of Samuel Sandmel Randolph L. Braham, ed. Jewish Leadership During the Nazi Era: Patterns of Behavior in the Free World Jacob Rader Marcus and Abraham J. Peck, eds. The American Rabbinate: A Century of Continuity and Change Geoffrey Wigoder, ed. Contemporary Jewry: Studies in Honor of Moshe Davis Books Received

Publication of this volume of AJSreview has been made possible by grants from the National Foundation for Jewish Culture, the S. H. and Helen R. Scheuer Family Foundation, the Dorot Foundation and the Joy G. Ungerleider Philanthropic Fund. The Association is grateful for their support and encouragement.

Mishnaic Literary History and the History of a Mishnaic Idea: On the Formation of the Mishnah's Theory of Intention, with Special Reference to Tractate Ma'aserot Author(s): Martin S. Jaffee Source: AJS Review, Vol. 11, No. 2 (Autumn, 1986), pp. 135-155 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486244 . Accessed: 30/06/2011 18:20 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].



MISHNAIC LITERARY HISTORY AND THE HISTORY OF A MISHNAIC IDEA: ON THE FORMATION OF THE MISHNAH'S THEORY OF INTENTION, WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO TRACTATE MA'ASER OT by MARTIN S. JAFFEE

Introduction The Mishnah is preserved in a web of exegetical texts-the Tosefta, the halakhic midrashim, and the Talmuds-which have accompanied it throughout its history of transmission. A common problem in mishnaic textual criticism, therefore, is to clarify the extent to which elements of the I wish to acknowledge the helpful criticism of Professors Alan Avery-Peck (Tulane University), Howard Eilberg-Schwartz (Indiana University), and Robert Goldenberg (SUNY-Stony Brook), all of whom should be held responsible only for what is of value in this paper.

135

136

MARTIN S. JAFFEE

Mishnah's exegetical tradition have become part of the the text itself.' It is for this reason that a question most appropriate to other literary texts is so difficult to answer for the Mishnah: at what point does the history of the text's creation end and the history of its transmission and interpretation begin? In a certain respect, of course, in the mishnaic case this question is conceptually flawed. By posing an absolute distinction between the redactionand transmission-history of the Mishnah, one reifies processes which, in fact, are most difficult to distinguish. Epstein in particular has shown that the text of the Mishnah, in the recension of Rabbi (Judah the Patriarch), remained relatively fluid for some centuries after its promulgation, ca. 200 C.E.Thus, the mishnaic text-types now available are in a very real sense no less the creations of the Mishnah's later students (the amoraim, or "explainers") than they are the work of the Mishnah's authors.2 Be that as it may, continued progress in philological3 and formanalytical4 criticism of the Mishnah and its cognate literature suggests that our question retains its heuristic value. However much the Mishnah's transmitters and preservers may have affected textual details, the basic linguistic 1. The framework within which contemporary discussion of these issues takes place is constituted by the works of J. N. Epstein, Introduction to the Text of the Mishnah [Heb.], 2 vols., 2d ed. (Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, 1964), pp. 946-979 (hereafter cited as Text) and Introductions to Tannaitic Literature [Heb.] (Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, 1957), pp. 227-232 (hereafter cited as Literature). For instructive discussions of major figures in the modern history of mishnaic literary and historical criticism, see the essays collected in J. Neusner, ed., The Modern Study of the Mishnah (Leiden, 1973) (hereafter cited as Study). The bibliography to this volume, complete to 1972, is a most valuable guide to the relevant literature. A helpful recent discussion of the amoraic reception of the Mishnah is that of B. M. Bokser, Post Mishnaic Judaism in Transition (Chico, Calif., 1980), pp. 461-491. 2. See Epstein, Text, 2:706-726 and the discussion of B. M. Bokser, "Jacob Epstein's Introduction to the Text of the Mishnah," in Neusner, Study, pp. 13-36. 3. On the distinctions between the Hebrew employed in the talmudic baraitot and that of the Mishnah itself, see M. Moreshet, "The Hebrew Baraitot in the Babylonian Talmud Are Not MH(1)" [Heb.], in E. Y. Kutscher et al., eds., Henoch Yalon Memorial Volume (Ramat Gan, 1974), pp. 1-40; idem, "New and Revived Verbs in the Baraitot of the Babylonian Talmud" [Heb.], in Y. Kutscher, ed., Archiveof the New Dictionary of Rabbinic Literature, vol. 1 (Ramat Gan, 1972), pp. 117-162; and idem, "Further Studies of the Language of the Hebrew Baraitot in the Babylonian and Palestinian Talmuds" [Heb.], in M. Kaddari, ed,, Archive of the New Dictionary of Rabbinic Literature, vol. 2 (Ramat Gan, 1974), pp. 31-73. 4. The term "form-analysis" can apply to a number of rather different analytical procedures, as observed by B. M. Bokser, "Talmudic Form Criticism," Journal of Jewish Studies 31, no. 1 (1980): 46-48. The present usage is derived from the distinctive contribution of Jacob Neusner, whose most clearly formulated view of the principles and potential of form-analysis may be consulted in A History of the Mishnaic Law of Purities, vol. 21 (Leiden, 1977), hereafter cited as Purities.

MISHNAIC LITERARY HISTORY

137

and formal traits of the text are readily distinguishable from all later amoraic literature-even where, as in certain texts attributed by the Talmuds to mishnaic sages (e.g., baraitot), we find self-conscious attempts to copy mishnaic literary conventions (see n. 3). For any tractate of the Mishnah, therefore, it should be possible to isolate the "work" from the "exegesis," to distinguish-at least in principle--between the literary traits of redaction and those of emendation or criticism. The present essay, then, attempts to discern relationships between the redaction of the Mishnah's text, the inner-textual development of its legal concepts, and the early history of the text's transmission and exegesis. My contribution lies in the simple observation that redaction is itself a thoroughly exegetical act. Accordingly, the history of the Mishnah's exegesis may be said to begin in the final stages of the redaction of its individual tractates. I argue that analysis of such tractates can distinguish between materials formulated prior to the overall plan of the tractate in which they appear (i.e., prior to the decision to organize material on a given topic into a self-contained treatise) and those which presuppose the existence of their present tractates in close to their final form. The latter are of most significance in the present essay, for they illumine the close linkage between redaction and exegesis-tradition and interpretation-which emerges as the distinctive intellectual trait of what later rabbinic circles know as Oral Torah.5 Pseudepigraphyand Exegesis I take as my starting point mishnaic evidence first recognized by Jacob Neusner, but never fully accounted for by him.6 This is the prevalence of pseudepigraphic disputes attributed to the Houses of Shammai and Hillel (ca. 20-70), the dominant proto-rabbinic groups which, in rabbinic memory, helped to preserve and amplify the Oral Torah of Moses. Neusner has observed that many disputes between the Houses first become the subject of comment among authorities affiliated with a second-century circle centered in the town of Usha (ca. 140-170) and address issues hotly debated 5. For an attempt to interpret the redactional traits of rabbinic texts as literary representations of the ideology of Oral Torah, see M. Jaffee, "Oral Torah in Theory and Practice: Aspects of Mishnah-Exegesis in the Palestinian Talmud," Religion, in press for winter, 1986. 6. The points raised in this paragraph have their basis in J. Neusner, Rabbinic Traditions About the Pharisees Before 70 (Leiden, 1971), 1:1-5 and 3:180-300 (hereafter cited as Pharisees).

138

MARTIN S. JAFFEE

only by them. Wherethis is the case, Neusnersurmises,it is possible that Ushan or post-Ushan figureshave ascribedto the Houses disputeswhich were not in fact inheritedfrom antecedentliteraryor oral traditions,but ratherreflectthe legalinitiativesof the latestgenerationsof thinkersresponsible for the Mishnah'sfinal form. Neusner observesthat this pseudepigraphicactivitymay constitutepart of a largereffort to reconstructtraditions lost in the wake of the Bar Kokhba catastrophe(132-135), but he otherwiserefrainsfrom offeringspecific motives for individualcases. The presentessay proposesto enrich Neusner's interpretationof such pseudepigraphaby exploringin detail a single case which appearstwice in the Mishnah(Ma'aserot4:2, Eduyyot4:10). My discussionwill show that this disputeis not an ancient"tradition"stemmingfrom the late Pharisaic or early post-Destructionperiods(ca. 20-90), but ratheris createdspecifically for use in TractateMa'aserotat the very end of the secondcentury, when Ma'aserot was-with the Mishnah as a whole--coming to final literarycompletion.That is, the ideaselaboratedin this dispute-while they are centralto the tractate'ssubjectmatter-do not lie at the foundationof that tractate in any evolutionarysense. Rather, they are first fruits of rabbinic attempts to reflect systematicallyupon TractateMa'aserotas a literarywhole exhibiting a coherent pattern of ideas. I argue, therefore, demarcatesan importantturn that-at least in Ma'aserot-pseiudepigraphy in the historyof rabbinicthought;a turn fromthe creationof texts to their systematicanalysis, from the preservationof ideas to their interpretation and application.Theintellectualandideologicalissuesat stakein this exegetical turn must now be spelled out. The Dispute: Intentionand the Takingof Tithes7

The versions of the dispute preserved in Tractates Ma'aserot and Eduyyotare identical,as follows:8 7. By "tithing" the Mishnah understands the removal of various offerings prescribed in Scripture for the exclusive use of priests, Levites, and the poor. The offerings for the priests and Levites in particular are regarded as sanctified and enjoy the status of "holy things," e.g., Temple property, which may not be put to secular use. On the Mishnah's discussions of these offerings, see M. Jaffee, The Mishnah's Theology of Tithing: A Study of Tractate Maaserot (Chico, Calif., 1981), pp. 1-6 (hereafter, Maaserot); A. Peck, The Priestly Gift in Mishnah: A Study of Tractate Terumot(Chico, Calif., 1981), pp. 1-7; and P. Haas, A History of the Mishnaic Law of Agriculture: Tractate Maaser Sheni (Chico, Calif., 1980), pp. 1-5. 8. All mishnaic translations in this paper follow the text of H. Albeck, The Six Ordersof the


139

A. A SabbathbasketB. the House of Shammaideclaresit exempt, C. but the House of Hillel declaresit liable. The superscription at A supposes that, at some point during the week, a person has gathered produce into a basket and set that basket aside specifically for use in the Sabbath meal. Shared by the Houses (B-C) is the assumption that tithing is forbidden on the Sabbath itself.9 Therefore, the owner must remove the offerings sometime before the onset of the Sabbath so that the food will be permitted him when he needs it. What happens, however, if during the week prior to the Sabbath the owner wishes to take a small snack out of the basket, leaving the rest for use as he originally intended? Need he tithe the produce in the basket prior to the snack, or is he permitted to make random use of it until the latest possible moment prior to the Sabbath meal? This is the question which divides the Houses. The explanation of the disputing views lies in a difference of opinion with regard to the nature of the person's intention to make a meal of the produce. The Shammaites, who declare the produce available for untithed snacks during the week, assume that we take the man's original intention quite literally. He has indicated that he intends to make a meal of the produce on the Sabbath. Accordingly, any random use of the produce prior to that time is of no consequence. Since the time intended for the meal is still far off, we do not infer the existence of the stated intention in any other act. The Hillelites, to the contrary, suppose that once a person indicates that the produce is suitable for mealtime use, whatever he eats of that batch thereafter is regarded as being for the purpose of a meal. Thus, even though the produce in the basket is explicitly designated for Sabbath use, it must be tithed quite early in the week if the owner decides to use it in any way.1'

Mishnah [Heb.] (Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, 1957; 4th printing, 1975). For very minor textual variants in this and other texts, see the relevant portions of N. Sacks, ed., The Mishnah with Variant Readings: Order Zera'im [Heb.] (Jerusalem, 1975), vol. 2. 9. This prohibition finds no precedent in Scripture. The Mishnah, for its part, accepts it without controversy as a fundamental assumption. See, e.g., M. Demai 4:1 and 7:1 + 5, M. Terumot2:3/T. Terumot4:1. M. Shabbat 2:7/T. Shabbat 2:19, M. Begah 5:2/T.Y.T.4:4 as well as M. Ma'aserot 2:3. For discussion of later talmudic explanations of the reasons for this prohibition, see S. Lieberman, Tosefta Ki-fshutah (New York, 1955), 1:337 and 5:1001-1002. 10. This interpretation builds upon those of RaBaD (Eduyyot 4:10), RaS (Ma'aserot 4:2), and Bertinoro (Ma'aserot 4:2), against that of Maimonides (Ma'aserot 4:2/Eduyyot 4:10), who argues that our case refers in particular to a basket gathered from a tree the fruit of which is, as a matter of course, used only for the Sabbath meals (see Y. Ma'aserot 4:2, 51b). Cf. Y. D.

140

MARTIN S. JAFFEE

Clearly, this dispute presupposes a sophisticated body of theory with regard to the laws of the Sabbath and the laws of tithing. It assumes, first of all, that the question of whether tithing is permitted on the Sabbath-a question ignored by Scripture (cf. Y. Ma'aserot 4:1, 49d)-has already been addressed and solved." Secondly, it assumes a theoretical postulate for which Scripture provides no grounds-that there is some critical distinction between making a snack of produce and making a meal of it as far as responsibility for tithing is concerned.12 Finally, and most importantly, we are led to assume that a person's responsibility for removing tithes is in some sense dependent not only on what he does with the produce, but also upon what he intendsto do with it. Here is yet another assumption for which Scripture would leave us unprepared.'

Gilat, "Intention and Action in the Teaching of the Tannaim" [Heb.], Annual of Bar Ilan University4-5 (1967), p. 115. Gilat, too, follows the line of exegesis stemming from RaBaD, but is, in my view, too hasty in denying the Shammaites any recognition that intentions have some role in the imposition of liability. 11. The prohibition against Sabbath tithing is first mentioned by Yavneans, e.g., Joshua (T. Ma'aserot 2:1) and Simeon Shezuri (M. Demai 4:1), although the Houses may allude to it at M. Be;ah 1:6. This latter pericope, however, is attested no earlier than Usha by Judah and Yose (T.Y. T. 1:12-13). 12. The terminological distinction between a formal meal (qb') and a random snack ('r'y) is first attributed in M. Ma'aserot to the Ushans Yose (Ma'aserot 1:8, attesting Ma'aserot 1:5) and Judah (Ma'aserot 2:1-2). If the Eliezer of Ma'aserot 2:4 is ben Hyrcanus, which is unlikely, this would then locate the terminology at the Yavnean stratum, attested in the same pericope by the Ushan Simeon. Neither M. Ma'aserot nor later sources suggest that a characteristic of the "formal" meal vis-A-vistithing law is the inclusion of bread. The issue is directly addressed in Y. Ma'aserot 4:1, 51b, s.v. 'Ahhysb bidh, where the criteria for "formality" include the serving of wine or the posture of leaning. For further discussion of the peculiar notion of "meal" employed in M. Ma'aserot, see Jaffee, Maaserot, pp. 1-6. 13. On the distinction between scriptural and rabbinic perspectives on this issue, see the remarkably compact comment of Rashi, B. Berakhot 31a, s.v. bmwvibh. The notion that liability of produce to tithing is in some sense a function of what the owner intends to do with it has only a doubtful Yavnean attestation (Eliezer, Ma'aserot 4:3; see n. 22 below). It is impossible in the present context to explore the extent to which the theory of intention in the law of tithes intersects with similar theories in other areas of early rabbinic law. The basis for such work remains the study of M. Higger, "Intention in Talmudic Law," reprinted in E. M. Gershfield, ed., Studies in Jewish Jurisprudence(New York, 1971), pp. 234-293. See also the essays of S. Zeitlin now collected in idem, Studies in the Early History ofJudaism: History of Early Talmudic Law, vol. 4 (New York, 1978) (hereafter cited as Studies): "Studies in Tannaitic Jurisprudence: Intention as a Legal Priniciple," "Asmakta or Intention: A Study in Tannaitic Jurisprudence," "Intention as One of the Controversial Points Between Jose and Judah," "A Note on the Principle of Intention in Tannaitic Literature," and "The Semikah Controversy Between the Zugoth." A major new advance in the state of the question is the forthcoming dissertation of H. Eilberg-Schwartz, "The Human Will in Judaism: The Mishnah's Philosophy of Intention"


141

It is not possible in this small space to isolate the probable point at which such assumptions enter into the history of mishnaic law or to determine whether they are plausibly attributed to the "historical" Houses of Hillel and Shammai. The best that can be said, at least on the basis of Neusner's study of the Houses' corpus, is that interest in the laws of the Sabbath and tithing is genuinely to be located in the earliest strata of mishnaic law associated with the Houses.14 The extent, however, to which the distinctive formulation of these issues in the present dispute can be regarded as "early" is quite another question. The basis for reaching a decision on the matter is discussed below. The Dispute in Context The question before us is whether the present dispute existed prior to the conception of Tractate Ma'aserot in its present form or whether, to the contrary, it is formulated with that tractate's general format and concerns in mind. The answer is important, for if the dispute appears to be a source cited by the editors of the Mishnah for their own use, this would support an argument for dating the formation of the dispute to a period prior to the construction of the tractate before us. If, however, the dispute does seem to presuppose issues spelled out within Tractate Ma'aserot in some detail, it is necessary to offer an explanation of its ascription to the Houses rather than to an appropriate Yavnean or Ushan figure. As I have already indicated, the dispute in question does in fact appear at Tractate Eduyyot 4:10. There it is one of a series of Houses disputes in which the Shammaites, contrary to normal convention, are assigned the lenient ruling (Eduyyot 4:1-12 + 5:1-4). Prior to the work of Epstein, this passage, along with Eduyyot as a whole, was regarded as an early Yavnean product, primarily on the strength of historical traditions recorded in T. Eduyyot 1:1 and B. Berakhot 28a.'5 If Eduyyot as a whole represented early (Brown University, 1985: directed by Jacob Neusner). I wish to thank Professor EilbergSchwartz for sharing his work with me prior to its completion. 14. See Neusner, Pharisees 1:291-294. In my view the most likely echo of the "authentic" Houses is the concern for the role of intention in establishing that a substance is subject to laws appropriate to human food. See, for example, M. Uklin 3:6 (attested by the Yavnean, Akiva, ad loc.) and M. Makhshirin 1:2-3 (attested at M. Makhshirin 1:3 by the Yavnean, Joshua). I am indebted to Professor Eilberg-Schwartz for drawing my attention to these passages. 15. See in particular, D. Hoffmann, The First Mishna and the Controversiesof the Tannaim,

142

MARTIN S. JAFFEE

formulations of pre-Yavnean traditions, this would constitute powerful evidence that our dispute as well may be regarded as quite early in origin. Epstein's work, however, proves that Eduyyot, particularly chapter 4, is the creation of late authorities, who collected their materials from other tractates rather than from some Ur-List of unedited Houses disputes.16 It is impossible, then, on the basis of evidence internal to Eduyyot to date any of the disputes it preserves. The tractate, that is, attests its materials to the patriarchal circle of redactors, but does not tell us whether or not their first formulation substantially predates the latest stages of the Misnah's redaction. In light of the difficulty of using the evidence of Eduyyot 4:1-12 for dating our dispute, the only alternative is to turn to Ma'aserot 4:2 itself. There the pericope contributes to a larger literary and rhetorical unit which, while composed of formally diverse materials, single-mindedly explores a specific problem (Ma'aserot 4:1-5).'7 This is to identify acts of foodpreparation which indicate the intention on the part of the owner to use the food in a meal. When such intention is apparent, e.g., when a person cooks or pickles unprocessed produce in the field (Ma'aserot 4:1), removes a batch of produce from its place of processing and makes it palatable (Ma'aserot 4:3-4), or even collects a few hulled kernels of grain in his hand (Ma'aserot 4:5), the produce in question is rendered liable to tithing, and may not be eaten in any manner until tithes are properly removed. In this context, Ma'aserot 4:2 makes the following contribution: A. Childrenwho hid figs away for the Sabbath,but forgot to tithe them [by SabbathEve], shall not eat [the figs] at the end of the Sabbathunlessthey tithe. B. A Sabbath basket-the House of Shammaideclaresit exempt, but the House of Hillel declaresit liable. C. R. Judahsays, "Also('p):one who gathersa basket[of produce]to sendto his fellow shall not eat [of the producehimself]unless he tithes. trans. P. Forchheimer (New York, 1977), pp. 92-95 (n. 9), and H. Albeck, Untersuchungen fiberdie Redaktion der Mischna (Berlin, 1936), pp. 108 ff. Albeck's choleric response to Epstein may be consulted in H. Albeck, Introduction to the Mishnah [Heb.] (Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, 1959), pp. 257-259. 16. In Epstein's view, this is the work of Rabbi, who selected from the prior collections of Judah, Meir, Simeon, and others (Literature, p. 438). I do not, however, share Epstein's certainty that chapter 4 of Eduyyot in particular represents a selection from the "Mishnah" of Meir (ibid., pp. 101-104, 434-438). 17. For details, see Jaffee, Maaserot, pp. 121-123.


143

A fewelementaryobservationswill guideourinterpretationof this pericope. While the three elements, A, B, and C, certainlycombine to form a coherent discussion,it is clear as well that each elementis formulatedat some point priorto the conjoiningof the wholeinto a singleliteraryunit. In the first place, the formal balance of A and C, both of which are simple declarativesentences,is upset by B, a disputewhichis framedin an apocopatedstyle (X-it is A/it is B). Thus the unit as a whole does not appearto exhibitthe traitsof a discreteunit of tradition.Secondly,the contentof each elementis somewhatout of phasewith thatof its immediateneighbors.Both A and B sharethe themeof produceset aside for the Sabbath,but B knows nothing concrete about the case of interest to A. C, for its part, knows nothing about the problemof Sabbathfood.1"Preciselyfor this reason,the linking language of 'p ("also"), which appears in all textual witnesses, suggeststhat an independentrulinghas beenjoined somewhatartificiallyto B.19 Judah'sapparentgloss of B, then, is a redactionalcreationonly, and does not representa commentformulateddirectlyin light of B. The central questionof interpretation,then, must be: what point is made by this artificial effort to link A, B, and C? How does the whole framea thesis which cannot be made by any of the elementsin isolation?

18. Nearly all exegetes, following Y. Ma'aserot 4:2 (51b), s.v. I' 'mr rby yhwdh 'I' klkit ibt, err in reading the issue of the Sabbath into Judah's ruling. Cf. Jaffee, Maaserot, p. 125, where the error is repeated. To my knowledge, the sole exegete to depart from the Yerushalmi's precedent is Ephraim Isaac of Premysla (nineteenth century). See his Mishnah Rishonah, Ma'aserot 4:2. 19. A. Hyman, History of the Tannaimand Amoraim [Heb.] (Jerusalem, 1964), 2:539, lists some twenty-six traditions of Judah which gloss a preceding ruling with 'p. This is a trait not unique to Judah's traditions, but certainly characteristic of a small group of them. Of these, twenty-two are clearly dependent upon the theme, language, and formulaic traits of the rulings to which they are appended. They should, therefore, be regarded as genuine elements of the pericopae in which they appear. Four examples, however, including Ma'aserot 4:2, exhibit marked linguistic and formulaic independence of their present contexts (Shevu'ot 7:4, Ma'aserot 4:2, Eruvin 10:5 and Nedarim 11:10). This suggests that the appearance of 'p in Judah's traditions is a form, a conventional means of transmitting his opinions. In at least one context, Ma'aserot 4:2, I believe that this form has been used to link his name to views which do not derive from his authentic teaching. Only further work on the other three instances mentioned above can judge the extent to which they too depart from principles normally held by Judah. In none of these instances does the ruling attributed to him gloss a dispute between the Houses. There is, to my knowledge, no serious study of the formal characteristics of Judah's traditions which can explain the selection of certain traditions for transmission in the 'p form. See n. 23 for further comments on problems associated with the interpretation of Judah's corpus.

144

MARTIN S. JAFFEE

Let us, then, move step by step throughour threeelements.On its own terms,A raisesan importantproblemgroundedin the familiarassumption that producedesignatedfor the Sabbathcannot be tithedon that day. We know, therefore,thatthe forgetfulchildrenareunableto eat theirfigs on the Sabbath.But whatof the followingday?Sincethe figs wereintendedspecifically for Sabbathuse, shouldwe not expectthat they be permittedfor use at some time otherthanthe day on whichtheywereto be eatenin a meal?One might hold, that is, that the intentionto use the figs in a particularmeal imposesliabilityto tithing onlywhen the time for that meal arrives.If they are not eaten at that time, for whateverreason, they should remainpermittedas a snackuntil they are once againset aside for a specificmeal. A's rejectionof this possibility can be based upon one considerationalone. Namely, the intentionto eat produceat a particularmeal remainsbinding even thoughit is in principleimpossibleto act on thatintention.In light of the children'sintentionto eat the figs on the Sabbath,therefore,we assume thateven afterthe Sabbaththeywill continueto viewthe figs as partof some other meal. Accordingly,the figs must be tithedbeforeany use whateveris made of them. We come now to B, our familiardispute.The readerwill recallthat, in my earlierexegesis,the Hilleliteposition seemedin close harmonywith the reasoningwhich now emergesfrom the ruling at A; i.e., all actions subsequentto a formulationof intentionare interpretedas enactmentsof that intention.In fact, now that we have the benefitof an amplifiedcontext of interpretation,the grounds of the dispute appear more complex than we mighthave imagined.The issue at A is whetheran intentioncan be nullified by the failureto enact it at the appropriatetime.The rulingclaimsthat the obligationto tithe remainsin force even if, at the time designatedfor the meal, the produce cannot be eaten. The issue of B, to the contrary,is whetheran intentionis effectivebeforeit can be enacted.That is, can the intentionto use producein a futuremealdeterminethe statusof the produce prior to the appointedmoment?Both positionspresupposean answerto a prior,unstated,question:is the enactmentof an intentionto use producein a meal a necessaryelementin the impositionof liability? The answer,as far as A and the Hillelitesare concerned,is that once intentionsareclearlyexpressed(e.g., by placingproducein a basketnormally reservedfor Sabbathfood), these alone-apart from any furthercorroborative actions-are sufficient to impose liability. Therefore, as at A, producewhichcannotbe eaten at the intendedSabbathmeal remainsliable


145

to tithing after the Sabbath,while B's Sabbathbasketis renderedliable to tithingeven beforethe Sabbatharrives.In both cases, the mereexistenceof the intentionirrevocablyimposes liabilityforthwith.The Shammaites,for their part, continueto assertthat intentionsrequirecorroborativeactionin orderto have any impacton the statusof untithedproduce.Intentions,that is, are effective only when embodied in concrete actions appropriateto them. Thereis no doubt that A and the Hillelitesat B sharea commonprinciple with regardto the power of intentionalone to impose liability.The criticalquestionfor us is whetherthe rulingof A presupposesthe position takenby the Hilleliteson the caseat B, or whether,to the contrary,the case at B representsa logicaldevelopment of A's ruling.In my view, the latteris the case. The reasonis as follows:if I know (1) that intentionsare effective withoutcorroborativeactionand (2) that they take effectimmediatelyupon the formulationof an intention-as the Hilleliteshold-there is no reason to even raise the questionof A. The producewill becomeliable to tithing whetheror not it is actuallyusedin a meal,regardlessof interveningcircumstances. The fact that the producecould not be tithed on the Sabbathis simplyirrelevantto adjudicatingits subsequentstatus.On the otherhand,if we know only A's claim that an intention continues to be effectiveeven beyond the point at which it can no longer be enacted, the next logical questionis: howsoon does that intentiontake effect-immediately, or only at the moment at which the meal is intended?This, in fact, is what the Houses dispute.Accordingly,the principleof A, if not its actuallanguage, seems presupposedby the formulatorof B. His interestis in exploringthe consequencesof the view that intentionscan work their effects upon the statusof producein a manneressentiallyuntrammeledby behavioralconsiderations.At what point, he now asks, does the powerof an explicitintention firsttake effect-at the momentat whichit is capableof consummation (Shammaites)or evenearlier,whenthe intentionreachesconsciousformulation in the mind of an individual(Hillelites)? As we turnnow to Judah'scontributionat C, we ask wherehe appearsto standon the questionwhichoccupiesA-B. As I have pointedout, his ruling is quite independentof the concrete facts of Sabbath law. In his view, a personwho sends a gift of produceto a friendmust tithe it if he decidesto eat the producehimself.There can be only two plausiblegroundsfor this view. The firstis that Judahrequiresa donor to removetithes,on behalfof the recipient, from all gifts he sends, lest the recipient unwittinglyeat

146

MARTIN S. JAFFEE

untithed produce.20 Accordingly, if the donor changes his mind, and decides to use the produce himself, he is still required to tithe, for the produce is already liable (so Mishnah Rishonah, Ma'aserot 4:2). The flaw in this interpretation is that it provides no grounds for requiring the man to tithe the produce on his own behalf. Tithing the gift, after all, is merely a precaution on behalf of the recipient. There is, therefore, no reason to require the sender himself to tithe once he has changed his mind. He has not as yet indicated his intended disposition of the produce. The second interpretation of Judah's ruling is more plausible. Judah may well believe that one need not tithe produce sent as a gift, for the recipient will tithe on his own behalf as a precaution against laxity on the part of the donor.21 If, however, the man decides to use the produce for his own needs, the issue of his intentions must now be raised as well. He has placed the produce in a basket and indicated, by his decision to offer it as a gift, that it is suitable for use in a meal. Accordingly, even though he has revised his intended disposition of the produce, we can assume that he still regards it as suitable for a meal. Unless he in some way indicates that he has abandoned his conception of the produce as suitable for mealtime use, we require him to remove the tithes before he eats. This latter view of the matter helps us understand why the redactor of Ma'aserot 4:2 deems it a suitable contribution to the dispute between the Shammaites and the Hillelites. Although C has no interest in the question of Sabbath produce, it does reveal a basic harmony with the most simple thesis of A. That is: once we know that an intention to use produce as a meal has been formulated, we interpret any later act of eating as fulfilling this intention. As soon as we know that a person views the produce as suitable for another's meal, we can assume that he so regards it for himself. Accordingly, he must remove all offerings prior to eating. This construction of the meaning of C in the present context has rather 20. See M. Demai 3:3/T. Demai 3:14. The anonymous view of T. conforms to the present interpretation of Judah's assumptions. 21. Ma'aserot 5:1 (s.v. lqt .Isbhlbbrwptwr), assigned to Judah by Y. Ma'aserot (5:1, 51c), is read by the Yerushalmi to make this very point. The view is, as well, logically compatible with the anonymous ruling of M. Demai 2:2 that one who would be "trustworthy" with regard to tithing should tithe whatever he eats, sells, or purchases. Judah there accepts this view and disputes the separate issue of whether trustworthiness includes refusing the hospitality of Jews unfamiliar with rabbinic customs ('ammei ha'ares). Cf. T. Ma'aserot 2:5, in which Simeon b. Gamaliel, in dispute with Rabbi, assumes that rabbinic colleagues (baverim)are unlikely to tithe produce offered to other haverim as a gift.


147

surprisingimplicationsfor the interpretationof our Houses'dispute.Just as we saw the Hilleliteposition amplifyingand buildingupon the rulingat A, so too does it representa logical advancebeyondJudah'stheoryof intention. Judah,with A, will interpretall acts of eating,subsequentto the decision to makeproduceavailablefor a meal, as enactmentsof an intentionto do so. The Hillelites,going one step further,arguethat we need not waitfor any act of eating at all in orderto impose liability.Rather,it exists at the momentin whichthe intentionto use the producein a mealis firstexpressed (i.e., when fruit is placed in a basket normally used to store Sabbath produce). To summarizemattersthus far: the principleof our disputebuilds not only on that of A, but presupposesas well the logic of Judah'srulingat C. As far as the Hillelites in particularare concerned,there is no practical differenceseparatingtheir view from that of Judah.Rather,they introduce an entirelyunanticipatednotion of intentioninto the rulingsof A and C. Intentionis, so to speak,"spiritualized"; transformedfrom a psychological motiveof behaviorinto a principlecapableof alteringthe natureof material items. In the presentcase, an eventin the mindactivatesa processby which the common is transformedinto a bearerof the sacred,i.e., the holy food whichmaybe eatenonly by those whomGod has selectedto receiveit (n. 7). It appears,then, that B's formationeitherpostdatesthat of A and C or, at the veryleast, dependsupon the legalperspectivesembodiedwithinthem. Ourredactor,however,has not arrangedthese materialsin accordwith the inner connectionsof their logic. Rather,his concernis to presentthem in light of an historicalthesis about the developmentof rabbinictradition.In his view, A representsan ancientanonymousrulingupon whichthe Houses join issue. The Hillelitescarryforwardthe perspectiveof A, at whichpoint the most recentauthority,Judah(C), makes his own contribution,in line with the authoritativeprinciplesof the Hillelites. So convincing is this redactionalwork that only the most stubborn(and skeptical)analysiscan move behind it to constructan alternativereadingof the issues at hand.

The Dispute as Exegesis

The obviousquestionat thisjunctureis: whatis at stakein this elaborate redactionalexercise?An answeremergesfrom those passagesof Tractate Ma'aserotin which the role of intentioncomes into explicitdiscussion.Let

148

MARTIN S. JAFFEE

us now trace the development of the tractate's ideas on intention from Yavneh, through Usha, and on to the dispute between the Houses of Hillel and Shammai. The role of intention in the imposition of liability to tithing plays only a small part in the presumably Yavnean stratum of Tractate Ma'aserot. All Yavneans seem to assume Akiva's notion that only produce normally used for food can be regarded as food as far as the liability to the removal of tithes is concerned (Ma'aserot 4:6). Translated into terms of a theory of intention, this means that the intention to use inedible or unripe produce as food is powerless to bring that produce within the scope of the law of tithes (e.g., Ma'aserot 1:1;cf. M. Ukzin 3:1 ff. regarding uncleanness). This negative Yavnean evaluation of the power of intentions to affect produce within the tithing system is rejected by only one conceivably Yavanean authority, Eliezer.22 His conception of the positive role of intentions emerges in Ma'aserot 4:3, which immediately follows our dispute. There we read: A. One who picksolivesout of the softeningbin dips [them]one by one in salt, and eats [withouttithing]. B. If he salted [them]and placed [them]beforehim, he is required[to tithe]. C. R. Eliezersays, "[If he pickedthem]froma bin [of olives whichwerepreparedin a stateof] cleanness,he is required[to tithe].But [if he pickedthem] from a bin [preparedin a state of] uncleanness,he is exempt[fromtithing], because he returnsthe surplus [of the latter batch to the bin of unclean olives]." The pericope defines actions which indicate that a person regards produce removed from its processing place as ready for use in a meal. A-B holds that removal of soaking olives from their bin implies the intention to use them in a meal only if a number of olives are removed at once and then seasoned for consumption. The salted olives are now a batch independent of those in the midst of soaking. Removed from processing, they are regarded as liable to the removal of tithes. Eliezer's contribution refines the foregoing. His point is that the intentions of the owner can be inferred even prior to the 22. J. Neusner, Eliezer b. Hyrcanus: The Traditionand the Man (Leiden, 1973), 2:175, lists this pericope among those which are likely to be authentic reflections of Eliezer's teaching. I have found no discussion of this pericope in Y. D. Gilat, The Teachings of R. Eliezer ben Hyrcanos [Heb.] (Tel Aviv, 1968).


149

act of salting, which indicated the man's desire to eat them. All we need know is that the man is likely to have removed the olives permanently and has no intention to return them to the processing bin. This can be determined in reference to the status vis-a-vis uncleanness of the olives in question. If the olives have been prepared without special precautions against contracting uncleanness, the man can return any leftovers to that bin without fear that the uncleanness of his own hands has contaminated his portion and will, in turn, contaminate the rest of the olives in the bin. Accordingly, such olives do not yet constitute a separate batch and are not rendered liable to the removal of tithes. If, however, the man takes no precautions against contaminating olives removed from a bin prepared in cleanness, we can assume he intends to remove them permanently. For this reason, he is required to tithe whatever he eats. The problem for Eliezer, we see, is to infer from the context of an action the intention likely to inform it. He knows nothing, however, of the issue of interest to the Houses at Ma'aserot 4:2, viz., whether intentions are separable in their effects from the actions which express them. Indeed, if confronted with such a question, Eliezer would probably toe the Shammaite line, for he certainly sees an intrinsic connection between actions and their intentional grounds. Nevertheless, in Ma'aserot, he makes no ruling on this problem. The issue, in fact, is of interest only among Ushans. Consider the following pericope, Ma'aserot 1:8, to which Yose makes a contribution: A. Dried figs [are renderedliable to the removalof tithes] after he presses [theminto a storagejar], and moldedfigs [arerenderedliable]afterhe presses them with a roller. B. [If] he was pressing[them]into ajar or rolling[them]in a mold, [and]the jar broke or the mold cracked,he shall not make of them a randomsnack. C. R. Yose permits[him to make a randomsnack]. Dried figs remain exempt from tithing until they have been pressed in accordance with the owner's wishes (A), for only at that point have they reached the condition in which the owner regards them as ready for use. B explores the matter in a familiar way. Even if the intended pressing, through no fault of the owner, cannot be completed, the figs must be tithed prior to use. The reason is that despite the accident the dried figs are in fact edible, and we know that the owner has expressed an intention to eat them at the cessation of processing. The man's inability to place his original intention

150

MARTIN S. JAFFEE

into effect in its original form is of no account. Yose (C) holds the opposite view, arguing that the produce is free of liability precisely because the man cannot eat them as he originally intended. Since he cannot act upon his original intention, he suffers no liability, and may snack of the produce without tithing, until he eventually completed the pressing. This pericope clearly moves well beyond the rather elementary interests of Eliezer at Ma'aserot 4:3. His interest in the grounds upon which intentions might be inferred has been transformed into a quite different problem, i.e., whether a known intention is effective after the conditions for its enactment no longer exist. B answers affirmatively, Yose negatively. Presumably, Yose would take the same stand against the anonymous ruling of Ma'aserot 4:2A regarding the status of figs which could not be eaten on the Sabbath. In his view, since use of the figs was impossible at the intended time, they should be exempt from liability. The foregoing demonstrates that Ushan problems, rather than those of Yavneh, set the intellectual context of Ma'aserot 4:2A, upon which the Houses' dispute at Ma'aserot 4:2B expands. It remains now to explore the corpus of a particular Ushan, Judah, to understand his position within the Ushan community of scholars. The clearest text for our purposes is Judah's dispute with Meir at Ma'aserot 2:5. This I shall discuss in detail and thereafter allude less fully to further evidence within Judah's rulings in Ma'aserot. In Ma'aserot 2:5 Meir and Judah dispute the point at which purchases of untithed produce are considered to be consummated such that responsibility for tithing rests upon the purchaser. A. "Onewho says to his fellow,'Takethis issar and give me five figs for it,' shall not eat [the figs] unless he tithes"-[these are] the words of R. Meir. B. R. Judahsays, "[If]he eats [thefigs]one by one [fromthe seller'sbin] he is exempt [from tithing]. But if he gathered [them] together [into a single batch

and removedthem from the bin] he is required[to tithe]." We focus first of all on the elementary issue of the dispute, and then move on to the theory of intention operative here. Meir (A) holds that the purchase is consummated when the coin passes from buyer to to seller (so Simeon, M. Bava Me;ia 4:2). Accordingly, as soon as this occurs, the produce is deemed to have been appropriated by the purchaser, and must be tithed. Judah (B), however, holds that it is the transfer of the item from seller


151

to buyer-rather than the paymentitself-which consummatesthe transaction (so the anonymousrulingof M. BavaMe;ia 4:2). This is why Judah rulesthat a man who has paid for the producemay neverthelesseat one fig at a time from the bin withouttithing.Sincehe has not drawninto his possessionthe stipulatedbatch,he is not the ownerof anythinghe eats.Accordingly,he mayeat the figswithouttithing,as if theywerea gift ratherthanhis own property. We are now in a positionto understandhow conceptionsof intentionare woven into the dispute before us. Meir'sview is that as soon as a person initiates commercialactivity he signals his intention to appropriatethe commodity in question. Accordingly,he is responsiblefor the tithing as soon as he handsover his coin, regardlessof whetherthe produceis actually in his hands.Shouldthe erstwhileseller,thatis, beginto eat the figs, it would be the buyer'sresponsibilityto removetithes on his behalf.As at Ma'aserot 1:8B,the simpleintentionto makefinalappropriationof the figs effectsthat appropriationwithoutbenefitof any corroborativeaction.For Judah,as for Yose of Ma'aserot1:8C,intentionsare a factorin the impositionof liability only when they arein fact capableof beingactedupon. Thusa personis not responsiblefor the removalof tithes until he actuallyhas in his possession that whichhe has designatedas his purchase.This view explainswhy Judah permitsan obvious circumventionof the law. By the fiction that the purchaserhas nothingin his possesion,Judahpermitshim to eat what he has paid for withouttithing.Presumably,if the purchasereventuallydid gather *abatch of five figs into his possession,he would then, and only then, be requiredto tithe them. Judah'sposition, to say the least, is most extreme,for no one can doubt that by payingfor figs the manintendsto purchasethem.Despitethis Judah holds that these intentionsare without consequencesuntil they are embodied in an appropriateaction, viz., until the intentionto acquirethe figs is fulfilledby the act whichbringsthem as a batchinto the buyer'spossession. Only thenis the intentionfunctionalin determiningthe man'sresponsibility to removethe tithes from what he has made his own. In orderto point out that Judah'sview is not idiosyncraticallyheld in this case alone, it will be usefulto surveyother rulingsin Ma'aserotin whichhe apparentlyholds the same position. At Ma'aserot2:2, for example,Judahpoints out that a shopkeeperwho accepts untithed figs from a passerbyneed not tithe what he eats unless, while in his shop, "he turns his face away [from the public] or unless he moves from where he is sitting [to a private part of the shop]." Judah

152

MARTIN S. JAFFEE

assumeswith others that, like a man's home and courtyard(cf. Ma'aserot 3:5),his shop functionsas a domainof privacyin whicha mealcan be made. Accordingly,producebroughtinto any of these domainsbecomesliableto the removalof tithes, on the assumptionthat what is availablefor private use will be so used.Judahsimplyaddsthat, in the case of a publicplacelike an open stall in the market,the man must actuallydo somethingto indicate thathe regardsthe placeas affordingprivacy.Accordingly,produceeatenin his stall must be tithed only when the man has createdthe privacywhich makesit possible to make a meal, for only then can he properlyfulfill his originalintention. Again, at Ma'aserot2:8, Judahholds that "one who exchanges[his figs for figs] which are [designated]for [immediate]eating is required[to tithe what he acquires],but [if he exchangedhis figs for figs] which are to be dried,he is exempt[fromtithinguntilhe driesthat whichhe receives]."The exemptionof the figs requiringfurtherdryingis groundedin the factthatthe man's intentionto dry them before eating forestallsthe adventof liability which would normallyfollow the acquisition(Ma'aserot2:5). That is, the intentionto eat the figs in theirdriedstateis only bindingwhenthe mancan actuallydo so, i.e., when they are in fact dried. Enough perhapshas been said to indicate that Ma'aserot 1:8B, Meir (Ma'aserot2:5A), and Ma'aserot4:2A sharethe view that the intentionto eat produce in a meal imposes liabilty to tithing even if it cannot yet be enacted,i.e., even if the processingis interrupted(Ma'aserot1:8B),the man does not yet have the produce(Ma'aserot2:5A), or the Sabbathhas intervenedpriorto tithing(Ma'aserot4:2A). Yose (Ma'aserot1:8C),followedby Judah,argues,to the contrary,that the intentionto enjoythe food as a meal is ineffectiveuntil such time as it is actuallypossibleto do so, i.e., when the intended processingis completed (Ma'aserot 1:8C, 2:8), when the man actuallyhas his purchasebeforehim(Ma'aserot2:5B),or whenhe has established a domain of privacyin his shop (Ma'aserot2:2). The Houses'disputeat Ma'aserot4:2B,we observe,standsin relationto all of these positionspreciselyas it standsin relationto Ma'aserot4:2A. It spells out the ultimateimplicationsof two lines of reasoningwhich are first imposed upon the law of tithes in the Ushan stratumof the tractate.The Hillelites,pressinghome the view of Ma'aserot4:2A, Ma'aserot1:8B,and Meir, hold that intentions are effective prior to any confirmingaction becausethey arein principleindependentof them,imposingliabilityas soon as they are clearly expressed.The Shammaites,representingYose and

153


Judah, insist that intentions do require some confirming act to mobilize their power, and so have no effect until acted upon at the appropriate moment. If this analysis is at all convincing, it demonstrates that the present dispute constitutes a literary forum within which the final editors of Tractate Ma'aserot explore divergent theoretical positions unresolved in their own day. In this context it serves two functions. Read, first of all, against the backround of the tractate as a whole, the dispute explains why two divergent views struggle for dominance among the most recent authorities of the tractate. The reason, we are told, is historical, originating in a fundamental difference of opinion dividing the forefathers of the rabbinic community. Second, read as the foundation of Judah's ruling at Ma'aserot 4:2C, the dispute helps to obscure what appears to be his opposition to Hillelite thought in the tractate as a whole. Here Judah is portrayed, despite his views in Ma'aserot and elsewhere, as a thoroughgoing Hillelite.23 Thus a major Ushan authority is enlisted into the Hillelite camp during the period at which its champions are shaping, in their own image, the legal thought and historical picture of the emerging rabbinic movement.24

Conclusions These observations about the exegetical nature of the present dispute are intended to have implications beyond the context of Tractate Ma'aserot, for they suggest that the appearance of pseudepigraphy in the Mishnah can be 23. Zeitlin, Studies, p. 80, assumes without argument that Judah is a "Shammaite." This view is rejected by most recent scholars in favor of a general affiliation with the Akivan school. See Epstein, Literature, pp. 106-125, and A. Goldberg, "And All of Them Are in Accord with R. Akiva" [Heb.], Tarbiz38, no. 3 (1969): 282-286. Both discussions stress Judah's dependence upon the teaching of Eliezer b. Hyrcanus, who is often describerd as a "Shammaite," but find no firmer evidence linking Judah to Shammaite traditions. For its part, Y. Ma'aserot 3:5, 50d, clearly assumes that Judah is a disciple of Akiva. The results of the present work simply suggest that instances of Judah's corroboration of Hillelite traditions must be scrutinized with great care. 24. The critical role of Ushans in working out a political history of the rabbinic movement rooted in the premise of Hilllelite descent has been identified by Neusner. See Pharisees, 3:282-286 for a summary of the results. For an attempt to reconstruct the actual academic politics of the rabbinic elite during this period, see A. Baumgarten, "The Politics of Reconciliation: The Education of Judah the Prince," in E. P. Sanders et al., eds., Jewish and Christian Self-Definition, vol. 2 (Philadelphia,1981), pp. 213-225. Baumgarten's observations regarding the role of Judah b. Ilai (pp. 224-225) are of special relevance.

154

MARTIN S. JAFFEE

construedas a formalact of exegesis,an inner-mishnaicphenomenonwhich inauguratesas well the historyof the text'sinterpretation.Furtheranalyses of this sort would make a genuinecontributionto the ultimatetask of constructingthe early history of rabbinicideas.

In the presentcase, at least,the internalevidencemarshaledfor my

thesis is supplementedmost compellingly by the witness of Tosefta Ma'aserot.Here a revisionof Ma'aserot4:2 serves two crucialexegetical functions: (1) it resolves the theoretical tension which Ma'aserot 4:2 has sought to preserve in Tractate Ma'aserot, and (2) it frames a more convincing argument for Judah's subscription to Hillelite views. The Tosefta's version of Ma'aserot 4:2 follows:25 A. A Sabbathbasket,etc. (= Ma'aserot4:2B) B. R. Judah says, "Hillel himselfused to forbid it."26 C. One whogathersa basket,etc. (=Ma'aserot4:2C) D. R. Judahsays, "Hillel himselfused to forbid it." E. One who transports[untithed]figs from place to place, and the Sabbath overtookthem [beforethe end of thejourney],at the close of the Sabbath,he shall not eat unless he tithes. F. R. Judahsays, "Hillel himselfused to forbid it." The pericope consists of three rulings (A, C, E), each supplied with an identical gloss in Judah's name (B, D, F). A and C, of course, simply cite Ma'aserot 4:2B-C, while E revises Ma'aserot 2:3 in the spirit of Ma'aserot 4:2A. The contribution of the Tosefta to the Mishnah's discussion lies in Judah's glosses. First of all, Judah lends authority to the Hillelite positions of the

25. I translate the text of S. Lieberman, Tosefta Zera'im (New York, 1955), pp. 237-238. Cf. T. Eduyyot 2:4 in M. S. Zuckermandel, Tosephta (repr., Jerusalem, 1970), p. 457. 35a: hll I'Vmwhyh 'wsr and 26. hll 'vmw hyh 'wsr. So, too, T. Eduyyot 2:4. Cf. B. Be:ah Rashi, ad loc. As Epstein (Literature, p. 102) and Lieberman (Tosefta Ki- fshuta, 2:694-695) point out, the correct reading at B, D, and F is that of the Tosefta. Following Rashi, Lieberman interprets the statement to mean that in Judah's view only Hillel in his generation held to the views which the Mishnah ascribes to the Hillelites. Accordingly, the Tosefta, through Judah, represents the Shammaite view as that of the normative majority. I would find Lieberman's interpretation more convincing had he explained why the Tosefta would represent Judah as denying a position (M. Ma'aserot 4:2C/T. Ma'aserot 3:3D) which, in the Mishnah, is reported in his name. Insofar as the Tosefta inherits the Hillelite bias of the Mishnah, it is difficult to explain why it would deliberately reverse the Mishnah's tendency to link prestigious authorities to the "normative" lineage of Hillel-Akiva-Simeon b. Gamaliel-Rabbi.


155

Mishnah by indicating that these views stem directly from the teaching of Hillel himself. Thus, the Mishnah's willingness to preserve conceptual tension by ascribing it to a fundamental dispute of the disciples of Hillel and Shammai is rejected by the Tosefta. It destroys the tension by arguing that the Hillelites struggled not for the victory of their own independent judgement, but rather for the preservation of their Master's teaching. Secondly, the Tosefta makes an important revision of Ma'aserot 4:2C. The ruling no longer belongs to Judah, as the Mishnah would have it, but rather represents an anonymous "tradition" which, as Judah now indicates, stems from Hillel. Thus the Tosefta accepts and improves upon the Mishnah's attempt to link Judah to Hillelite perspectives on the operation of intention as a factor independent of corroborative actions. From one who proposes rulings harmonious with the Hillelite view (Ma'aserot 4:2C), Judah now becomes a tradent of the Hillelite school, whose own views are not simply congruent with Hillel's, but are rather repetitions of those of the Master. The significance of this Toseftan discussion for the concerns of this paper may be stated most simply. It testifies to a continuity of interests linking the Mishnah's redactors to its earliest self-conscious exegetes. Indeed, Ma'aserot 4:2 and its Toseftan supplement are both interpretations of the central issues worked out in M. Ma'aserot. Their subtle differences indicate only that the biases of the mishnaic redactors against the Shammaite tradition are intensified in Toseftan materials.27In the obscure period between the close of the Mishnah and its reception as an authoritative work, then, we are able to discern not only the end of a process of redaction, but the beginningof an exegetical tradition.28 Universityof Virginia Charlottesville,Va.

27. Cf. T. Eduyyot 2:3: Normative law (hlkh) always accords with the words of the House of Hillel. 28. In a paper entitled "The Power of Intention: The Yerushalmi's Reception of a Mishnaic Idea" (AJS Annual Meeting, December 1984), I have traced the problems raised in M. Ma'aserot into the exegetical pericopae of Yerushalmi Ma'aserot. The result of that study will be published shortly in my introduction to The Talmudof the Land of Israel, vol. 7, Maaserot (Chicago, expected for 1986).

The Post: Rav Ashi Amoraim: Transition or Continuity? A Study of the Role of the Final Generations of Amoraim in the Redaction of the Talmud Author(s): Richard Kalmin Source: AJS Review, Vol. 11, No. 2 (Autumn, 1986), pp. 157-187 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486245 . Accessed: 30/06/2011 18:20 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 POST-RAV ASHI AMORAIM: TRANSITION OR CONTINUITY? A STUDY OF THE ROLE OF THE FINAL GENERATIONS OF AMORAIM IN THE REDACTION OF THE TALMUD by RICHARD KALMIN The problem of the redaction of the Talmud, the final stages of the process by which the document before us assumed its present shape, is one which every student of the Talmud must eventually face. Resolution of this problem is by no means a matter of mere historical curiosity. Knowledge of who the redactors were, at what time period (or time periods) they lived, and how they reworked their sources, is indispensable for full comprehension both of these component sources and of the final product into which they have been combined. However, it was observed long ago that the Talmud maintains a remarkable silence about its process of formation.' Nor do sources external 1. Nahum Brfill, "Die Entstehungsgeschichte der babylonischen Talmuds als Schriftwerk," Jahrbacherfar jaidische Geschichte und Literatur 2 (1876): 4, and Julius Kaplan, The Redaction of the Babylonian Talmud (New York: Bloch, 1933), pp. 1-2.

157

158

KALMIN RICHARD

to the Talmudaid us in this regard.The few relevantworkswerecomposed hundredsof yearsafterthe eventsthey describe,andtheiraccountsareoften obscureand contradictory.2 This is not, however,to say thatwe can knownothingat all aboutredaction. I hope to show in the course of this paper that we can know a great deal. It is only to say that we will be disappointedif we approachour sourcesexpectingclearand explicitstatementson this matter.We mustrely insteadon inferenceand implication,buildingupon the fewglimpseswe are grantedbehindwhat one commentatorhas referredto as "the walls of the closed editorialchambersof the Talmud."3 The pictureI havepresentedof the limitationsinherentin any accountof the final editing of the Talmudwould, I think, be agreed upon by most scholarsworkingin the field today.This consensus,however,is of relatively recent vintage. Priorgenerationsof scholars,even within the presentcentury, were not beset by such doubts.Theseearlierscholars,largelythrough the influenceof Rashi and the Rambam,took for grantedthe idea that Ray Ashi (d. 427 C.E.)4 edited the Talmud.5Several nineteenth- and early2. For example, Seder Tannaim ve-Amoraim, ed. Kalman Kahan (Frankfurt am Main: Hermon, 1935), p. 9, and Iggeret Rav Sherira Gaon, ed. B. Lewin (Haifa, 1921), p. 69, present contradictory accounts of the extent of the saboraic contribution to the Talmud. 3. Kaplan, Redaction of the Babylonian Talmud, p. 104. 4. The dates utilized throughout this study are based on Seder Tannaimve-Amoraim,ed. Kahan, and Iggeret Rav Sherira Gaon, ed. Lewin. (The date we are utilizing for the death of Rav Ashi is found on p. 5 of the former work [see note 104 there], and on p. 94 of the latter work.) The dates provided by post-talmudic sources for the deaths of talmudic rabbis are impossible to verify in their exact details. However, it is possible in most instances to compare the geonic chronology with that reflected by the internal evidence of the Talmud itself and to arrive at reliable conclusions regarding the proper sequence of these amoraim and their relationship to one another. We have utilized the traditional dates, while remaining cognizant of their limitations. 5. This traditional view, it has often been claimed, was expressed even earlier by Rav Sherira in his famous Iggeret. However, already in the nineteenth century, Heinrich Graetz noticed that Rav Sherira nowhere refers to Rav Ashi as the editor of the Talmud. See Graetz's Geschichte der Juden (1853-75; rpt. Leipzig: O. Leiner, 1873-1900), 4:377. See also Briill, "Entstehungsgeschichte der babylonischen Talmuds," p. 25, n. 23, and Abraham Weiss, Hithavvut ha-Talmudbi-Shelemuto (New York: Alexander Kohut Foundation, 1943), pp. 246 ff. For the view of the Rambam, see his introduction to the Perush ha-Mishnah, and his introduction to the Mishneh Torah. For Rashi's view, see his commentary on Bava Megia 86a. Other major medieval proponents of the view that Rav Ashi edited the Talmud include Rav Nissim Gaon in his introduction to Sefer ha-Mafte'ah, Rav Natan Av ha-Yeshiva in his Perush Shishah Sidrei Mishnah, R. Shmuel ha-Nagid in his Mavo ha-Talmud, Rashbam on Bava Batra 130b, Tosafot on Hullin 2b, Sefer ha-Kritut, and Meiri in his introduction to Avot.

THE POST-RAV ASHI AMORAIM

159

twentieth-centuryscholars, notably ZachariasFrankel and Isaac Halevy, went beyondthe traditionaltheoryin positingthe existenceof earlierlayers of amoraicredactionwithinthe Talmud.6Nevertheless,even these scholars argued vigorously on behalf of the traditionalconception of Rav Ashi's uniquerolein the finaleditingof the Talmud.In fact, it is no exaggerationto claim that "the overall picture of the redaction of BT [the Babylonian Talmud]is identicalfrom the eleventhto the twentiethcentury."' Overthe past severaldecades,however,the traditionaltheoryhas come under severe criticism.Julius Kaplanwas the first to deny that Rav Ashi playedthe pivotal role in the final editing of the Talmud,observingthat if Rav Ashi was the critical figure in such an undertaking,then something should uniquelymarkhim out as an editor.8He should not merelyconduct himselfas an amora like any other amora.9 Kaplan demonstratedthat the traditionalconceptionof Rav Ashi as editorof the Talmudis totallywithout foundation, since "thereis nothing to distinguishR. Ashi's contributions [sic]as materialcontributedby an editor."10Kaplan'sconclusionwas independentlycorroboratedby AbrahamWeiss," and is now acceptedby the overwhelmingmajorityof modern scholars. If Rav Ashi did not edit the Talmud,however, then who did? Three major theories have been advancedin answer to this question. The first

Some modern proponents of the view that Rav Ashi edited the Talmud include Solomon Rapoport, Erekh Milin (Prague, 1852), s.v. "Amora"; Zacharias Frankel, "Beitrage zu einer Einleitung in den Talmud," Monatsschrift fuer Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums, 1861, pp. 210-211; Graetz, Geschichteder Juden, pp. 352 ff., Briill, "Entstehungsgeschichte der babylonischen Talmuds," pp. 9 ff.; I. H. Weiss, Dor Dor ve-Dorshav(1871-91; rpt. Jerusalem/ Tel Aviv, 1964), 3:184 ff.; Isaac Halevy, Dorot ha-Rishonim (1897-1939; rpt. Berlin: Benjamin Harz, 1923), 2:522, 562-571; Aaron Hyman, Toledot Tannaim ve-Amoraim (London: HaExpress, 1910), s.v. "Rav Ashi," pp. 243 ff.; B. Lewin, Rabbanan Saborai ve-Talmudam(Jerusalem:Ahiavar, 1937), p. 1; and W. Jawetz, Toledot Yisrael (Tel Aviv: Ha-Po'el ha-Za'ir, 1938), pp. 134 ff. See Jacob Ephrati's survey of the recent literature on this subject in Tekufat ha-Saboraim ve-Sifruta (Petab Tikvah: Agudat B'nai Asher, 1973), pp. 50-62. 6. Frankel, "Beitrige zu einer Einleitung in den Talmud," pp. 191-192; Halevy, Dorot ha-Rishonim, 2:480 and 490. 7. David Goodblatt, "The Babylonian Talmud," in The Study of Ancient Judaism II: The Palestinian and Babylonian Talmuds, ed. Jacob Neusner (New York: Ktav, 1981), p. 311. 8. Kaplan, Redaction of the Babylonian Talmud,pp. 69-70, 79-80, 94, 104-105, and 127. 9. Amora (pl. amoraim) is the name given to the attributed talmudic rabbis who flourished following the redaction of the Mishnah in ca. 200 C.E. until the beginning of the saboraic period, ca. 501 or 520 C.E. See Table 1 for a summary of their characteristics. 10. Kaplan, Redaction of the Babylonian Talmud, p. 104. 11. Weiss, Hithavvut ha-Talmud.

160

RICHARDKALMIN

theory,set forth by Kaplan,attributesthe final redactionof the Talmudto the saboraim,the talmudicauthoritieswho flourishedfollowingthe conclusion of the amoraicperiod."2This theorywill be referredto as the theoryof saboraicredaction(see Table 2).'3 The second theory, whose most recent spokesmanis Albeck, I.anokh the entire redactional amoraic period.14 The activity throughout posits at least anew in or of was redacted Talmud, every generation.No part it, was in this editorial role played by Rav Ashi or any other unique process individualamora."This theorywill be referredto as the theoryof continuous redaction(see Table 2).16 The thirdtheory,set forth by David Halivni,attributesthe redactionof the Talmudto the authoritieswho lived after the death of Rav Ashi in 427 C.E.'7This work continueduntil the beginningof the saboraicperiod, whichHalivnidatesto either501 or 520 C.E.18This theorywill be referredto

12. Kaplan, Redaction of the Babylonian Talmud,pp. 297-308. However, it must be noted that Kaplan is not consistent on this matter. See ibid., pp. 69-70, where he concludes that Rav Ashi played an important role in the creation of the anonymous element of the Talmud. See also n. 21 below. 13. See also Hyman Klein, "Some General Results of the Separation of Gemara from Sebara in the Babylonian Talmud," Jewish Social Studies 3 (1958): 370-371. 14. Hanokh Albeck, Mavo la-Talmudim(Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1969), pp. 576 ff. See also S. M. Rubinstein, Le-Heker Sidur ha-Talmud(Kovno, 1932), who posits at least two levels of redaction during the amoraic period. At times (p. 3) he refers to "a Talmud" that was before the final editors of the Talmud, and at other times (pp. 5 and 14) he refers to "various editions" that were before the final editors of the Talmud. He does not specify, however, when he thinks these amoraic redactions took place. 15. However, in Albeck's earlier work, he accepts the traditional view of Rav Ashi's unique role in the final editing of the Talmud. See Hanokh Albeck, "La-Arikhat ha-Talmud ha-Bavli," Sefer Zikaron la-Asher Gulak u-le-Shmuel Klein (Jerusalem: Hebrew University Press Association, 1942), p. 2. 16. In referringto Albeck's theory as the theory of continuous redaction, we have borrowed the terminology of David Goodblatt, "Babylonian Talmud," p. 313. 17. David Halivni, Mekorot u-Mesorot, introduction to Shabbat (Jerusalem: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1982), pp. 5-18. See also Y. N. Epstein, Mevo'ot le-Sifrut ha-Amoraim (Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1962), p. 12, who asserts that Rav Ashi and Ravina "gathered all of the material that preceded them ... explained it, completed it, and arranged it," and that this activity of explanation, completion, and arrangement continued during the two amoraic generations between the death of Rav Ashi and Ravina and the beginning of the saboraic period. The saboraim, claims Epstein, made only does superficial changes to the Talmud basically completed by the amoraim. Epstein, however, not develop these ideas further, nor does he attempt to supply proof for them. 18. The former (501 C.E.)is the date assigned by Rav Sherira in Iggeret Ray Sherira Gaon, ed. Lewin, p. 95, and Seder Tannaimve-Amoraim,ed. Kahan, p. 6, for the death of the later Ravina, which both geonic sources identify as the point at which hora'ah ended. The latter (520


161

as the theoryof stammaiticredaction,for reasonsthatwill becomeapparent (see Table 2). It should be noted at the outset that thereare two majoraspectsto the problemof the redactionof the Talmud.The firstconcernsthe questionof when the tannaiticand amoraicstatementsthat make up the sugya'sbasic source materialwere arrangedin their presentorder. The arrangementof sourcesin a particularorderis one importantfactordeterminingour understandingof the relationshipbetweenthose sources,andis thereforeeditorial in character.The questionis whetherthis arrangementwas done all at once, late in the talmudic period, or whether it was a process that continued throughoutthe entireamoraicperiod.This aspectof the problemof redaction will not concernus in the presentstudy, however,since our research yieldedno basis upon which to decidethis question,and sincethe arrangementof materialin the sugyais not a majorpoint of contentionbetweenthe three theories outlined above.'9 The basicdifferencebetweenthesetheoriesconcernsthe secondaspectof the problemof the redactionof the Talmud,namely,the questionof when, and by whom, the anonymouslayer of the Talmud,the stam, was composed.20In this anonymouslayer, the amoraicand tannaiticstrataof the

C.E.) appears to be the date assigned by Rav Sherira (accepting the interpretation of Halevy,

Dorot ha-Rishonim, 3:26) for the death of Ray Yose (or Ray Assi), whom he enumerates among the amoraim. (See Iggeret Ray Sherira Gaon, p. 97. Compare p. 70 there, where Ray Sherira refers to Ray Yose as a sabora.) Seder Tannaimve-Amoraimbegins its account of the saboraim immediately after recounting the death of the above-mentioned Ravina, while Rav Sherira begins his account of the saboraim immediately after recounting the death of Ray Yose. It is therefore unclear, based on the geonic sources, exactly when the saboraic period began. Due to the fact that we are almost entirely dependent upon the geonim for our knowledge of this period, we have at present no choice but to treat the approximate date for the beginning of the saboraic period as a matter of doubt. 19. Klein, in "Some General Results of the Separation of Gemara from Sebara," credits Rav Ashi with the first compilation of the amoraic sections of the Talmud in association with the Mishnah. See also Kaplan, Redaction of the Babylonian Talmud,p. 289, according to which Ray Ashi is credited with "perfecting the gemara [the amoraic sections of the Talmud] in substance and extent." Kaplan does not make clear what the exact nature of Ray Ashi's role in perfecting the gemara was, although from his brief description it does not seem to have included the arrangement of material. According to Klein, the Talmud as edited by Rav Ashi consisted entirely of "gemara," i.e., of tersely formulated statements without proof-texts or argumentation. In his earlier work, Klein expressed uncertainty as to the identity of the compilers of gemara, and even in the above-cited source, he offers no proof for his contention, and his conclusion is only tentative. 20. See, for example, Sefer ha-Kritut, who writes that winx ixnl n x xynn tIp x• x•v xi, 1n)pnvx•n t mx,'n ,,nvinx. That is, according to Sefer ha-Kritut, Rav Ashi and Ravina, the

162

RICHARD KALMIN

Talmudare analyzed,explicated,and, when necessary,emendedand completed, all of which is standardeditorialactivity(see Table 1). Consequently, to say that the stamwas authoredby the saboraimis in effectto say that the saboraimedited the Talmud. To say that the stam derives from all amoraicgenerationsis in effectto saythat redactionwas carriedout in every generation.21 Accordingto the view that the Talmudwas edited duringthe editors of the Talmud, are responsible for all objections that are not explicitly attributed to an amora. See also Tosafot on flullin 2b. Among modern scholars, see Halevy, Dorot ha-Rishonim, 2:551, who writes that the consensus among scholars of his day was that all of the stam dates from the time of the final editing (the "sealing") of the Talmud. Even Halevy, who maintains the existence of early stamot, sees these early stamot as evidence of earlier amoraic editings prior to the final "sealing" of the Talmud by Rav Ashi. See note 165 there. See also Meyer Feldblum, "The Impact of the 'Anonymous Sugya' on Halakic Concepts," Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research 37 (1969): 19-28. In discussing the traditional view of the redaction of the Talmud, he writes, "The prevalent Rabbinic view.. . assumes a uniform redaction of the Talmud completed by the close of the fifth century. ... This view is rooted in the Talmudic statement, Rav Ashi and Ravina are the end of Hora'ah, on the basis of which responsibility for the anonymous material is ascribed to Rav Ashi and Ravina." That is, according to Feldblum, in identifying the redactors of the Talmud, we have also identified the authors of the stam. See also Mordechai Tenenblatt, Ha-Talmud ha-Bavli be-Hithavuto ha-Historit (Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1972), pp. 86 and 89, for his discussion of the theories of S. M. Rubinstein. See also Goodblatt, "Babylonian Talmud," pp. 154 ff. ha-Sugya," Perek ha-Isha Rabbah ba-Bavli However, Shama Friedman, "Al Derekh it p. (Jerusalem: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1978), .Heker 20, addendum to n. 9, observes that cannot be claimed that the opinion of Sefer ha-Kritut(see above) is a view held in common by all Rishonim. 21. Mention should also be made of the theory of Abraham Weiss. See the reference to Weiss's work cited in n. 5 above, and see his Ha- Ye;irahshel ha-Saboraim (Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 1953), pp. 1-18. Weiss's later view, expressed in the latter work, is shared by his disciple, Meyer Feldblum. See his "Impact of the 'Anonymous Sugya' on Halakhic Concepts" and also his summary of Weiss's work, "Prof. Avraham Weiss: Ha-Arakhat Darko be-HIeker ha-Talmud ve-Sikum Maskanotav," in Sefer ha-Yovel li-Kevod ha-Rav Dr. Abraham Weiss (New York: Shulsinger Bros., 1964), pp. 34-41, and 50-52. It is difficult to evaluate the impact that our research into the post-Rav Ashi amoraim will have on Weiss's theory. Dr. Michael Chernick, in a telephone conversation that took place on March 1, 1985, informed me that late in Weiss's career, when speaking of the saboraic element in the Talmud, Weiss was referringless to the material produced during a particular time period than to material possessing certain stylistic features that distinguish it from amoraic material. Nevertheless, in his published work, Weiss never retracted the view he expressed in Hithavvut ha-Talmudbi-Shelemuto, pp. 254 ff., according to which the final generations of amoraim lived fifth during a period of persecutions-persecutions which gradually increased in intensity as the this century progressed, bringing about the gradual reduction of amoraic creativity during the of Weiss's sixth of the the expansion elimination its final century. until beginning by period distinction of the traditional the entailed thus term"saboraic" of the blurring usual meaning between the saboraic and geonic contributions to the Talmud. It did not entail a blurring of the


163

post-Rav Ashi amoraicperiod, by contrast,the stam was the work of the sages who lived betweenthe death of Rav Ashi and the beginningof the saboraicperiod.These sages are referredto by Halivnias stammaim,since all of their activitywas carriedout anonymously.Some of the stammaim, however,functionedin a dual capacityas both stammaimand amoraim.In addition to their role in the anonymousediting of the Talmud,they were also activeas namedamoraim.It is theselatter"stammaiticamoraim"that form the major subjectof this paper.22 distinction between the saboraic and late amoraic contributions to the Talmud. That is, when Weiss uses the term "saboraic," it seems legitimate to assume that he does not mean to include material produced before the death of the last amora. In Weiss's early writings, he limited the saboraic contribution to literary polishing, to adding explanatory comments, improving the connecting links between elements within a sugya, between one sugya and another, and the like. Accordingly, most of the stam would have to be considered an amoraic creation, and would not be confined to any one particular generation within the amoraic period. With regard to the date for the composition of the stam, therefore, Weiss's early view closely resembles the view of Hanokh Albeck. Any arguments we make for or against the theory of Albeck therefore apply with basically the same force to the early Weiss. In Weiss's later writings, he attributes a much more extensive role to the saboraim. In addition to attributing to them the literary polishing described above, he claims that they were responsible for the first, and in many cases for the second sugyot in every tractate. Such sugyot are often predominantly anonymous, or at least the framework within which the amoraic and tannaitic material appears is anonymous. He claims further that saboraic sugyot bearing "similar marks of lateness" are found throughout the entire Talmud, even though in most cases it is not possible to definitively prove their saboraic provenance. Although Weiss stops short of claiming that all of the stam is saboraic, his later view is clearly no more than a step removed from the view of Kaplan with regard to the saboraic role in the creation of the stam. Kaplan himself does not think that all that is anonymous in the Talmud is saboraic. At one point (p. 316), he writes that "there is nothing anomalous about the presence of Saboraic passages in the Talmud. They are numerous and varied and make up a goodly portion of the anonymous element in that work" (emphasis added). Any arguments we make for or against Kaplan's theories regarding the stam will apply with basically the same force to the theory of the later Weiss. According to the latter, no less than according to the former, we would not expect the unique characteristics of the post-Rav Ashi amoraim to indicate their role in the anonymous editing of the Talmud, nor would we expect the stam commentary based on these amoraim to be qualitatively different from the stam based on earlier amoraic generations (since in both cases, most of the stam is not contemporary with its sources). In our critique of the various theories regarding redaction, therefore, we have not found it necessary to treat Weiss's theories separately. For our purposes, the differences between Weiss's views and the views of other scholars are of negligible importance. 22. We will see later on that there were a small number of post-Rav Ashi amoraim who acted in several respects as typical amoraim. A full treatment of these amoraim cannot be provided in the context of the present paper, since such a treatment would add inordinately to the length and complexity of our discussion. Suffice it to say that between forty-six and fifty-

164

RICHARD KALMIN

The traditionalconceptionthat Ray Ashi edited the Talmudby and largeobscuredthe viewof the post-Ray Ashi amoraicperiodheldby earlier scholars.23Since such a crucialrole in the completionof the Talmudhad beenassignedto Ray Ashi, the two or moregenerationsfromhis deathuntil the beginningof the saboraicperiodhad to be seenas basicallya postscript, or as the time duringwhichthe finishingtoucheswereput on the editorial projectbegunby Ray Ashi. Evenafterthe theoryof Ray Ashi as editorhad been refuted,the earlierconceptionof the periodfollowinghis deathas an uncreativevoid persisted.24 It is undeniablethat a relativelysmall numberof attributedstatements have survivedfrom this period.25However,I will attemptin this paperto demonstratethat despitethe paucityof attributedmaterialproducedby the post-Ray Ashi amoraim,they are of crucialimportance.I will attemptto show that by evaluatingtheir statements,it is possibleto make significant

four post-Rav Ashi amoraim exhibit several characteristics that set them apart from amoraim in general (see Table 2), and thus fall in the category of "stammaitic amoraim," while only five to seven act as typical amoraim. It is clear that the latter group, such a small minority, cannot be viewed as representative of the period as a whole. Cf. below, n. 26. In addition, see the present writer's doctoral dissertation, The Post-Rav Ashi Amoraim: Transitionor Continuity?A Study of the Role of the Final Generations of Amoraim in the Redaction of the Talmud (Ann Arbor: University Microfilms International, 1985), pp. 259-287, for a fuller discussion of this issue. 23. See, for example, Halevy, Dorot ha-Rishonim, 3:20 ff., who maintains that the amoraim after Rav Ashi added virtually nothing that was independent and original. See also Kaplan, Redaction of the Babylonian Talmud,pp. 3-27, and Herman Blumberg, "Heinrich Graetz and Ze'ev Jawitz," Shamai Kanter, "I. H. Weiss and J. S. Zuri," and David Goodblatt, "Y. I. Halevy," in The Formation of the Babylonian Talmud, pp. 3-47, for outlines of the major nineteenth- and early-twentieth-century theories concerning the redaction of the Talmud. 24. For example, in Benjamin DeVries, Mavo le-Sifrut ha-Talmudit (Tel Aviv: Sinai, 1966), pp. 98-107, the post-Rav Ashi amoraim completely disappear from view. On p. 104, in his account of the editing and arrangement of the Talmud, he passes from the generation of Rav Ashi and his colleagues to the "end of the fifth century," i.e., the beginning of the saboraic period. 25. See Halevy, Dorot ha-Rishonim, 3:21, who notes that the material composed after the death of Rav Ashi amounts to less than one-third of a talmudic tractate. While Halevy's observation is extremely imprecise, his basic insight regarding the sudden dropping-off in amoraic material produced after the death of Rav Ashi is correct. See also Weiss, Hithavvut ha-Talmud bi-Shelemuto, p. 256, and n. 117, and Hyman Klein, "Gemara Quotations in Sebara," Jewish QuarterlyReview 43 (1953): 344-345, n. 8. Halivni, Mekorot u-Mesorot, introduction to Yoma-Hagigah,p. 7, notes that the period between the death of Rav Ashi in 427 and the death of the later Ravina in 501 represents approximately one-third of the total duration of the amoraic period, and claims that the material which can be dated with certainty to this period adds up to less than 5 percent of the total amoraic contribution to the Talmud.


165

progresstoward determiningwhich theory regardingthe redactionof the Talmudis correct. If Halivni is correctthat the post-Rav Ashi amoraim wereamongthe redactorsof the Talmud,thereshouldbe somethingdistinctive and non-amoraicabout them.Thatis, Kaplan'sinsightconcerningRav Ashi's supposed editorial activity should apply with equal force to the post-Ray Ashi amoraim.We know that Rabbi Judahthe Prince(Rabbi) was the editorof the Mishnahbecause(1) sageswho wereRabbi'snearcontemporariessay so, (2) Rabbi and his contemporariesare only veryseldom mentionedin the Mishnah,and (3) sageswho lived afterRabbiare virtually nonexistentin the Mishnah.Thus we find factorswhich clearlyset Rabbi and his generationapart from other generationsof tannaim.If the postRav Ashi amoraimwere, at least in part, the editors of the Talmud,we wouldexpectto find comparablefactorsdistinguishingthemfromamoraim in general. By contrast, accordingto the theory of saboraicredaction,we would expect to find no fundamentaldifferencesbetween the post-Rav Ashi amoraimand previousgenerationsof amoraim.26 Accordingto this theory, any distinctivefeatureswe encounteramong the post-Rav Ashi amoraim shouldbe in line with discernibleamoraictrends.Thatis, we shouldobserve a smooth transitionfrom the generationof Rav Ashi and his contemporariesto the generationof Rav Ashi's studentsand beyond. Similarly,accordingto the theoryof continuousredaction,we wouldnot expectthe activityof the post-Rav Ashi amoraimto be uniquelysuggestive of an editorialrole on theirpart.27If redactionalactivitywas takingplacein everygeneration,then why should the role of the post-Rav Ashi amoraim in this process stand out with any special clarity? In order to determinewhich theoryhas more adequatelypredictedthe

26. See Kaplan, Redaction of the Babylonian Talmud, pp. 146-147. Kaplan evidently believes that statements by Rav Aha and Ravina, which he correctly concludes are typical of amoraic statements in general, are characteristic of the post-Rav Ashi amoraic period as a whole. We have found, however, that the statements of these two amoraim are uncharacteristic of statements by the overwhelming majority of post-Rav Ashi amoraim. See above, n. 21, and the references cited there. 27. Hanokh Albeck, in "Sof ha-Hora'ah ve-Siyyum ha-Talmud," Sinai, Sefer Yovel (Jerusalem: Mosad ha-Rav Kook, 1958), pp. 73-79, argues that the post-Rav Ashi amoraim are unique only in that they appear very infrequently in the Talmud and do not interpret tannaitic sources. (See Kalmin, Post-Ray Ashi Amoraim, pp. 92-98, where I refute Albeck's claim that the post-Rav Ashi amoraim do not interpret tannaitic sources.) Albeck certainly assigns to the post-Rav Ashi amoraim no special editorial role.

166

KALMIN RICHARD

behaviorof the post-Ray Ashi amoraim,I will show in this paperthat the attributionalmaterialthat survivedfrom the post-Ray Ashi period conforms to clearlydefinablepatterns,and that these patternsare atypicalof those exhibitedby previousamoraicgenerations.I will attemptto evaluate whetheror not the distinctivefeaturesof the post-Ray Ashi amoraimare such as would suggest their activity as editors.28 I will also examinethe relationshipbetweenthe post-Ray Ashi amoraim and the anonymous sections of the Talmud. It has convincingly been claimed that several of the characteristicfeatures of the stam vis-a-vis earlieramoraimconfrontthe theoryof continuousredactionwith perhaps its most seriousdifficulty.29 For example,it is highlytypicalfor the stamto interpretearliersourcesin a forcedmanner,and it has been suggestedthat this characteristicis attributablein largepart to the lengthof time separating the stam from its sources. It is reasonableto assume that the level of forced interpretationswould be dramaticallyreducedif the stamwere contemporarywith the amoraimwhose statementsit was explicating.A contemporarywouldbe ableto ask the amorapersonallywhathis meaningwas, and would not be forced to rely on his own independentunderstanding.It follows that if the stamwas composedbetween427 and the beginningof the saboraic period, as Halivni claims, we would expect to find very little evidenceof chronologicaldistancebetweenthe stamand the post-Ray Ashi amoraim,due to the fact that they are contemporaries(see Table 2). According to the theory of saboraic redaction, however, we would expect evidenceof chronologicaldistancebetweenthe stam and the postRay Ashi amoraimto be more prevalent.Whilethe lengthof time separating the stam from the post-Ray Ashi amoraimwould be less accordingto 28. Mention should also be made of Shama Friedman's view of the redaction of the Talmud (see Friedman, "Al Derekh Heker ha-Sugya," pp. 17-18, esp. n. 42). Friedman, who relies heavily on the theories of Hyman Klein, observes that in all of the talmudic material he has analyzed thus far, the stam always postdates the amoraic layer of the sugya. Friedman does not commit himself with regard to the question of whether the stam was composed entirely during the saboraic period, or whether its composition began already during the amoraic period. He points out that Klein himself did not explicitly identify the saboraim as the authors of the stam until the very end of his career. See, for example, "Gemara and Sebara," Jewish Quarterly Review 38 (1947/48): 70, n. 10, where Klein claims that the periods of gemara and sebara overlap. Our research, therefore, will not affect the substance of Friedman's postion but will serve to decide an issue concerning which he expressed uncertainty: the approximate date for the beginning of the composition of the stam. 29. Halivni, Mekorot u-Mesorot, introduction to Shabbat, pp. 12-13.


167

this theory than that separatingthe stam from earlieramoraim,in neither case would they be contemporaries(see Table 1). By examiningthe stam commentaryon statementsby the post-Rav Ashi amoraim, therefore,it might be possible to determinewhether the theoryof saboraicredactionor the theoryof stammaiticredactionhas more accuratelypredictedthe natureof that commentary.It mightbe possibleto determinewhetherthe stam dates from the saboraic period or from the post-Ray Ashi amoraicperiod. BeforeI move on to an analysisof the statementsby the post-Ray Ashi amoraim,and of the stam commentaryon those statements,a few additional introductoryremarksare required.It is importantto note, firstly, how this studydiffersfrompreviousattemptson the samesubject.It differs from them firstof all in that it makesthe post-Ray Ashi amoraicperiodits primaryfocus ratherthan treatingthe periodas one relativelyunimportant aspectof the problemof the formationof the Talmudas a whole.30It differs from them secondly in that it attemptsto be comprehensive.3'Finally, it differsfrom previousstudiesin that it has at its disposalthe methodsand conclusionsof moderncriticaltalmudicscholarship.32 Whilemanyof these methodswerealreadyknownand utilizedsporadically by early medievalcommentatorson the BabylonianTalmud,33they have, over the past severaldecades,been developed,refined,and applied systematicallyby modern scholars. It is by now axiomatic among the majorityof Talmudscholarsthat not everythingthat is presentlyattributed to a particularauthoritywas actuallysaid by him. It can often be demonstratedby meansof moderncriticalanalysisthat later, usuallyunidentified 30. See, however, Avinoam Cohen, Mar bar Rav Ashi and His Literary Contribution(Ann Arbor: University Microfilms International, 1980). Although Cohen's primary interest is in Mar bar Rav Ashi, he attempts in several places to generalize about the period as a whole. He suggests that the statements of Mar bar Rav Ashi might be characteristic of the post-Rav Ashi amoraic period as a whole. However, we found repeatedly that the activity of Mar bar Rav Ashi is atypical of the period as a whole. See Kalmin, Post-Rav Ashi Amoraim, pp. 348-352 and pp. 517-522, for an analysis of Cohen's work. See also below. 31. Albeck, "Sof ha-Hora'ah ve-Siyyum ha-Talmud," pp. 73-79, makes the post-Rav Ashi amoraim its primary focus, but treats only a tiny selection of the available material. 32. Cohen's study (see above, n. 30), which owes much to the thought of Abraham Weiss, is once again an exception to this generalization. Nevertheless, substantial differences exist between the methodology employed in Cohen's work and that employed by Halivni and his students (including the present writer). Analysis of the differences between the methodology of Weiss and Halivni has only recently begun. See Semeia 27 (Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1983). 33. See Friedman, "Al Derekh Heker ha-Sugya," pp. 12 ff.

168

RICHARD KALMIN

authoritieshave addedto a statement,modifyingor even completelyoverturning its original meaning. It follows that at least part of what earlier studiesassumedto havebeen saidby post-Ray Ashi amoraimis in actuality a later superimpositiononto their original statements.It likewise follows that a considerablepart of the task involvedin analyzingthese statements consistsof separatingout the laterlayerof accretionin orderto retrievethe originalcore. It is also importantto note that a substantialnumberof statementsby sages whom we have included within the post-Ray Ashi period were in actualitymadepriorto the deathof Ray Ashi in 427, whilethose sageswere still Ray Ashi's students.Even though such statementsdo not derivefrom the post-Ray Ashi periodper se, theyareneverthelessof crucialimportance for a properevaluationof statementsby post-Ray Ashi amoraimmade afterRay Ashi's death.Theywill thereforefigureprominentlyin our statistics. Finally,it is importantto note that at the centerof this studyis a division of the statementsby post-Ray Ashi amoraiminto apodicticand argumentational categories.The term "apodictic"was first appliedto Jewishsources by AlexanderAlt in the field of biblicallaw.34Alt contrastedapodicticlaw, whichis absoluteand categorical,with casuisticlaw, whichis tied to a particular situation, conditional, and introducedby an "if" clause (protasis), with the legal penalty for the action expressed as the consequence (apodosis). Subsequentstudies in the field of Bible have taken issue with Alt's accountof the originsof these forms of law, and have furtherrefined his theoryby identifyingadditionalcategoriesand subcategoriesof biblical and ancientNear Easternlaw, but his basicformaldivisionhas remainedby andlargeintact.35In BenjaminDeVries'sattemptat applyingtheseconcepts to rabbinicliterature,specificallyto the Mishnah,the samebasic categories are utilized.36 David Halivnihas providedan attemptat applyingAlt's categoriesto talmudicliteratureas a whole.37In Halivni'sterms,however,what Alt and 34. Alexander Alt, "Die Urspriinge des Israelitischen Rechts," in Kleines Schriften (1934; rpt. Munich: C. H. Beck, 1959), 1:278-332. 35. See the annotated bibliography by John H. Hayes, Old TestamentForm Criticism (San Antonio: Trinity University Press, 1974), pp. 103 ff. 36. Benjamin DeVries, "Le-Zurat ha-Halakhot bi-Tekufat ha-Tannaim," Sinai 56 (1965): 212 ff. 37. See Mekorot u-Mesorot on Eruvin32b, pp. 91 ff., and Halivni, "'Whoever Studies Laws


169

his followersdefinedas casuisticis in realitya subdivisionof the apodictic category.Accordingto Halivni, the distinctionbetweenAlt's categoriesis, when appliedto the Talmud,a relativelyminor one. In both apodictically and casuisticallyformulatedstatements,the law is expressedtersely and categorically,and no proof or justificationneed be supplied.Alt's distinction betweenapodicticand casuisticformsof law may be an importantone for biblicalscholars,and might even be indicativeof a differentsource or Sitz im Lebenfor apodicticlegal collectionsversuscollectionsof casuistic law, Halivniwrites,but in regardto the Talmudas a whole, "it [is] more useful to contrastthe apodicticwith the argumentational."38 Apodictic in this sense refersto any terse,categoricallyformulatedstatementthat stands by itself, or could standby itself, and that bearsno necessaryconnectionto any other statementin order to be understood. By the term "argumentation,"Halivni refers to statementsthat are primarilyconcernedwith explicating,and with providingthe logicalprocess that lies at the basis of apodicticstatements.Argumentationalstatements cannot standon theirown, but ratherdependuponothertraditionsin order to be intelligible.Argumentationmost typicallytakesthe form of an objection or questionalong with a response,providedthe questionor objection carries some independentweight and serves to do more than evoke the response.The Talmud'sargumentationalcharacteris primarilywhat distinguishesit froman apodicticcollectionof laws suchas the Mishnah.In the argumentationalmode, conclusionsare formulatedas the final stage in a process of give and take. Whereasin the apodicticmode only the conclusions wereconsideredworthyof preservation,in the argumentationalmode the various steps leading up to the conclusionwere also preserved. For my purposes,this divisionof talmudicliteratureinto the two abovementionedcategorieswill be essentialin establishingcriteriaby which to distinguishbetweenthe post-Rav Ashi amoraimand amoraimfromearlier generations.Severalmodernscholarshave concludedthatthe characteristic form of amoraicexpressionis the terse,categoricallyphrased(in Halivni's Thus my discoverythat the argumentational terms, apodictic)statement.39 .' The Apodictic and Argumentational in the Talmud," in Proceedings of the Rabbinical Assembly 41 (1979): 298 ff. 38. Ibid., p. 302, n. 3. 39. See Kaplan, Redaction of the Babylonian Talmud, pp. 217-234 and 289-308; Klein, "Gemara and Sebara," pp. 67-91; idem, "Gemara Quotations in Sebara," Jewish Quarterly Review 43 (1953): 341-363; idem, "Some General Results of the Separation of Gemara from

170

RICHARD KALMIN

statementsby post-Ray Ashi amoraimoverwhelminglyoutnumbertheir apodictic statementsclearly marks them out as atypical of amoraim in To be specific,between254 and 289 of their410 to 449 statements general.40 are argumentational,while only 52 to 58 are apodictic.That is, between62 and 64 percentof their statementsare argumentational,while only 13 percent are apodictic.The ratio of argumentationalto apodicticstatementsby these amoraimis thereforeapproximately5 to 1.41 Sebara," pp. 363-372; idem, "Some Methods of Sebara," Jewish Quarterly Review 50 (1959): 124-146; Halivni, Mekorot u-Mesorot, introduction to Yoma-lagigah, and introduction to Shabbat; Friedman, "Al Derech Ijeker ha-Sugya," pp. 7-45. 40. Kaplan, Redaction of the Babylonian Talmud, p. 147, noting that "word economy, brevity, and terseness are characteristic features of all Amoraic records," observed that "the peculiar form ... of all the recorded controversies between R. Aha and Rabina ... brief beyond laconicism, abrupt and obscure to the point of a riddle... is found in the records of the very first Amoraim .. ., it is employed by every Amoraic generation, and is quite as much in vogue in the period of the last Amora, Rabina bar R. Huna." Unfortunately, however, Kaplan's focus was far too narrow. He based his characterization of the entire post-Rav Ashi amoraic period on a tiny, and as it turns out unrepresentative, sampling of statements. While the apodictic form, or hora'ah, as Kaplan calls it, was still to be found even among the last amoraim, it was clearly the exception rather than the rule as far as the period as a whole is concerned. 41. We must note, however, that even though the post-Rav Ashi amoraim share the distinctive stammaitic preoccupation with argumentation, the argumentation deriving from the two sources is not identical. Halivni, in the chapter on the stammaitic period in his Midrash, Mishnah, and Gemarah (Cambridge: Havard University Press, 1986), describes the stam as "plush," meaning that stammaitic argumentation is rich and overflowing. In contrast to argumentation by the post-Rav Ashi amoraim, which is almost always concise, the stammaitic variety is prolix. As a rule, argumentation by the post-Rav Ashi amoraim includes only that which is necessary for adequate comprehension. It is reminiscent of the argumentation found in midrash halakhah, where only the bare bones of an argument are preserved. Or, more accurately, argumentation by the post-Rav Ashi amoraim should be placed in between midrash halakhic argumentation at one end of the scale, and stammaitic argumentation at the other end, but a good deal closer to the midrash halakhic extreme. By contrast, the stam often appears to engage in argument for argument's sake, out of sheer delight in dialogue and rhetoricity. To be specific, only about 15 percent of the argumentational statements by the post-Rav Ashi amoraim are multi-tiered, that is, go beyond the initial level of question and answer. In addition, even though there are isolated instances in which this argumentation is exceptionally long and complicated, it is most typically quite brief. Finally, once again in contrast to stammaitic argumentation, argumentation by the post-Rav Ashi amoraim is never rhetorical. The difference between the augumentation deriving from the post-Rav Ashi amoraim and that deriving from the stam seems best explicable in terms of the differing functions that their argumentation fills within the sugya. We will see later on that in their role as attributed amoraim, the post-Rav Ashi amoraim are not integrated into the most important aspects of the sugya. Their primary function is as anonymous editors, and when we encounter them as named amoraim, they appear as outsiders. They are not concerned with questions affecting the


171

In my opinion, the fact that so much argumentationwas producedby the post-Rav Ashi amoraim,which contrastsso sharplywith all that we but which conformswell know about amoraimfrom earliergenerations,42 to the activityof the stam,is best explicableaccordingto the view of David Halivni that the post-Rav Ashi amoraimcomposedpart of the Talmud's anonymouscommentary;that they were, in fact, stammaim. The proponentsof the theory of saboraicredactionmight explainthis phenomenomby suggestingthat the post-Rav Ashi amoraimmerelybegan a trend toward argumentationthat the stam continued throughout the saboraic period. Is there any necessity,they might argue, of saying that anonymousand attributedargumentationalactivitywas carriedout at the same time?The fact is, however,that no matterwhich theoryof redaction we adopt, therewas a suddendecreasein attributedamoraicactivityafter the deathof Rav Ashi.43If we claim that the argumentationalactivityof the post-Rav Ashi amoraimwas merelythe beginningof a trendcontinuedby the stam throughoutthe saboraicperiod, we must posit an extremelyimprobablesequenceof events. We must say that talmudicactivitywas suddenly and dramaticallycurtailed around the time of Rav Ashi's death, continuedin this diminishedstate for close to a century,and thenjust as suddenlyexploded once again with the beginningof the saboraicperiod. totality of the sugya, but with specific issues of limited scope, usually involving some detail of an opinion expressed by an earlier authority. In their role as named amoraim, the task of the post-Rav Ashi amoraim was limited to the glossing of the earlier amoraic or tannaitic core of the sugya, which task was completed when the specific problem to which they addressed themselves had been resolved. As a result, argumentation by the post-Rav Ashi amoraim tends to be brief and single-tiered, adequate for the task these amoraim set for themselves qua amoraim. Argumentation by the stammaim, however, fills an editorial function, and is consequently far more extensive and complex. 42. See David Kraemer, Stylistic Characteristics of Amoraic Literature (Ann Arbor: University Microfilms International, 1985), for a statistical survey of the argumentational and apodictic material produced by amoraim prior to the post-Rav Ashi period. He found that the approximate ratio of apodictic to argumentational statements by Rav and Shmuel was 22 to 1 (p. 57), by Rav Yehuda was 3.3 to 1 (p. 64-see n. 36 there), by Rav Huna was 4 to I (p. 64), by R. Yobanan and Resh Lakish was 12 to 1 (pp 69-70, n. 45), by Rav Sheshet, Rav Hisda, Rav Nahman, Rav Yosef, Rabbah, and R. Zeira was 3.5 to 1 (pp. 80-81), by Rava and Abbaye was 3 to 2 (p. 109), by Rav Papa was 2.4 to 1 (p. 138), and by Rav Ashi was 1.4 to 1 (p. 146). At no time did he find argumentation to be the primary activity engaged in by these amoraim. There is thus a basic lack of correspondence between the activity of these earlier amoraim and the activity of the stam. 43. See n. 25 above.

172

RICHARDKALMIN

The proponentsof this theory have not satisfactorilyaccountedfor this lengthyhiatus.44 44. This hiatus has been accounted for on the basis of Persian persecutions that were directed against the Jewish communities during the post-Ray Ashi amoraic period, in the course of which rabbinical academies were closed and rabbis were put to death. During this period of disruption, the argument goes, Jewish learning was in an extremely precarious state, and it was not until the first part of the sixth century, the beginning of the saboraic period, that order was restored and Jewish learning was allowed to resume unhindered. See Weiss, Hithavvut ha-Talmud bi-Shelemuto, pp. 256-257, and Kaplan, Redaction of the Babylonian Talmud, pp. 293-299. and 315. It does appear that the rabbis suffered some sort of persecution at the hands of the Persians during this period. However, it should be noted that all of the relevant Jewish sources were composed several hundred years after the events they describe. Also, the Jewish sources are extremely laconic in their accounts of these events, making it difficult for us to gauge their exact extent and duration. And see Jacob Neusner, A History of the Jews in Babylonia, 5 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1970): 60-72, who notes that Persian sources, also late, only preserve a record of a local persecution of limited duration. In addition, one who explains the dramatic drop in amoraic creativity during the fifth century as due to persecution cannot account for the fact that the first three decades after the death of Rav Ashi, which according to geonic accounts were free from persecution, are no less empty of amoraic activity than are the next several decades, during which the persecutions were taking place. (See Seder Tannaimve-Amoraim,ed. Kahan, p. 6, and Iggeret Rav Sherira Gaon, ed. Lewin, pp. 94-95, according to which the persecutions did not begin until 455 c.E.). Furthermore, this explanation cannot account for the fact that these persecutions, ostensibly of such momentous impact upon rabbinic learning, left virtually no explicit traces in the Talmud itself. The one exception to the Talmud's total silence on this matter is found on Hullin 62b, where we find a referenceto "the wicked Peroz," in whose reign some of the worst persecutions appear to have been carried out. See also Shabbat Ila. Saul Lieberman, in "On Persecution of the Jewish Religion," Salo WittmayerBaron Jubilee Volume,ed. S. Lieberman and A. Hyman (Jerusalem, 1974), 3:234-235, claims that it is extremely unlikely that the Talmud would have avoided mention of an anti-Jewish persecution had such a persecution made a big impression on the rabbis. A further, even more basic difficulty with explaining this hiatus in terms of persecution is that it has by no means been demonstrated that a persecution such as would have been within the resources of an ancient (or medieval) empire to inflict would have been of sufficient intensity to serve as the impetus for a sudden and dramatic drop in creativity on the part of the victims of that persecution. This point was first suggested to me by Dr. Shaye Cohen in a course entitled "Jews and Judaism in the Ancient World," offered at the Jewish Theological Seminary in the spring of 1976. Dr. Cohen noted that there is a tendency among modern scholars to deny the role of persecution in shaping the extent and nature of literary creativity. For example (the following examples are the responsibility of the present writer, and not of Dr. Cohen), a figure such as the Rambam, who composed one of his classic works, the Perush ha-Mishnah, in the midst of persecution, is incomprehensible according to this explanation. To take a more modern example, Yehuda Bauer, in A History of the Holocaust (New York: Franklin Watts, 1982), p. 179, writes that "following the Nazi entry into Poland, and later the USSR, education in the Jewish Ghettos was forbidden. Newspapers were not permitted and libraries were closed." Even under these circumstances, however, "writers continued to write, and painters to


173

Accordingto the theoryof stammaiticredaction,however,the tremendous creativityof the amoraicperiodgave way to the tremendouscreativity of the stammaiticperiod, with named amoraicactivitycomprisingonly a fractionof what was producedduringthis time. No unaccounted-forhiatus is implied by this latter theory. My researchhas also uncovereda secondfeaturewhichdistinguishesthe post-Ray Ashi amoraimfrom all previousgenerationsof amoraim,and suggeststheiridentityas stammaim.I have foundthat all of the argumentation by the post-Rav Ashi amoraim,consistingof almost 300 statements, was carriedout in the presenceof a tiny group of authoritieswho act in all significantrespectsas typicalamoraim.45 Accordingto the theoriesof continuous and saboraic redaction, it is unclear why the post-Rav Ashi amoraimshouldbe totallyunwillingto ask questions,or to makeobjections and responses,in the presenceof other atypicallate amoraim,or in the presenceof no otheramoraimat all. By contrast,this peculiarpatternseems perfectlyexplicable,in fact seemsnecessary,accordingto the theorythatthe post-Rav Ashi amoraimwere stammaim.If these late amoraimappeared in both the attributionaland anonymousmodes, we would expect some fixed principleto determinewhen they were mentionedin the Talmudby name and when they remainedanonymous.The presentphenomenonprovides us with the key to identifyingthis fixedprinciple.It appearsthat when the post-Rav Ashi amoraimengagedin argumentationin the presenceof no paint, and scientists continued their research. The few archives that survive supply ample evidence of a feverish intellectual activity during the ghetto period." In general, in explaining the formation of the Talmud, or any other rabbinic work, it seems preferable to search first for explanations that arise out of the internal logic of the work itself, rather than for explanations that originate outside the text. It appears that the explanation of the phenomenon before us in terms of persecution is nothing more than one further working out of the "lachrymose conception of Jewish history" on the part of nineteenth- and earlytwentieth-century scholars, decried by Salo Baron in, "New Horizons in Jewish History," Freedom and Reason: Studies in Philosophy and Jewish Culture in Memory of Morris Raphael Cohen, ed. S. W. Baron, E. Nagel, and K. S. Pinson (Glencoe, Ill., 1951), pp. 340-344. See Jeremy Cohen, "Roman Imperial Policy Toward the Jews from Constantine Until the End of the Palestinian Patriarchate (ca. 429)," Byzantine Studies 3 (1976): 1-29, who provides a convincing refutation of the attempt on the part of several Jewish historians to account for the redaction of the Palestinian Talmud in terms of Roman persecution. My thanks to Dr. Shaye Cohen for drawing my attention to this article. 45. See above, n. 22, where I discuss briefly the fact that there were a small number of post-Rav Ashi amoraim who share several characteristics in common with earlier, classical amoraim. I concluded there that these few amoraim cannot be considered representative of the post-Rav Ashi amoraic period in general. See also below.

174

RICHARD KALMIN

other amora, or in the presenceof anotheratypicallate amora,their argumentation was formulatedanonymously,as part of the stam. However, when they engaged in argumentationin the presence of full-fledged amoraim,theirnamesweretransmittedalong with their statements,in conformitywith the amorathey camein contactwith. It was thus the presence or absenceof typicalamoraimthat determinedwhetherargumentationby the post-Rav Ashi amoraimwould be attributedor anonymous. Whenthe post-Rav Ashi amoraimmadeapodicticstatements,however, they wereroutinelymentionedby name even though no typicalamorawas present.Thus the characterof theirstatementswas also importantin determiningwhetherthey would be attributedor anonymous.When the postRav Ashi amoraimmade apodicticstatements,a quintessentiallyamoraic activity,they consistentlyappearedfrombehindtheirveil of anonymityand were mentionedin the Talmudby name.46 We find, therefore,that the attributedstatementsby the post-Rav Ashi amoraim conform to certain peculiar patterns that make it difficult to accept these statementsas the total extent of what these amoraimcontributed to the Talmud.Along the same lines, we find that approximately79 percentof the entire body of activity by the post-RayvAshi amoraimwas carriedout the presenceof just two sages:Rav Ashi and the later Ravina. 46. It might be objected that while it is true that apodictic statements are extremely rare in the anonymous parts of the Talmud, they are nevertheless occasionally found. What determines, therefore, when an apodictic statement was formulated anonymously, and when it was attributed to a particular authority? We can answer this question by pointing out that there was certainly more than one school of stammaim. Some stammaim thought that under no circumstances should they be mentioned in the Talmud by name. Therefore, even their apodictic statements were recorded anonymously. Other stammaim were not so extreme, and thought that their names should be mentioned under certain well-defined circumstances. To the former group no doubt belong the heads of academies who are mentioned by Rav Sherira (Iggeret Rav Sherira Gaon, ed. Lewin, pp. 94-97; see also Shalom Albeck, "Sof ha-Hora'ah va-AIlaronei ha-Amoraim," Sinai, Sefer Yovel [Jerusalem: Mosad ha-Rav Kook, 1958], pp. 68-73) as having lived after the death of Rav Ashi and yet are never mentioned in the Talmud by name. It should also be emphasized that the picture I have presented of a variety of stammaitic schools is a great deal more than mere speculation. Modern critical scholarship has revealed that the anonymous sections of the Talmud are by no means monolithic (see, for example, Weiss, Hithavvutha-Talmudbi-Shelemuto, pp. 254 ff., who concludes that the Talmud did not undergo uniform redaction). We find numerous contradictions between various stammaitic passages which are indicative of opposing schools of thought. See Kalmin, Post-Rav Ashi Amoraim, for my treatment of Bava Me;ia 46b-47a (pp. 394-395), Hullin O1a-b (pp. 459-463), and Niddah 67b-68a (pp. 512-514). See also Halivni, Mekorot u-Mesorot on Eruvin 37a, p. 109, n. 6, and the references cited there. It would be a simple matter to multiply examples.


175

Such extremedependenceupon such a small numberof sagesis completely without precedentin the earlieramoraicperiod. The questionarises as to how the post-Ray Ashi amoraim occupied themselveswhen not in the presenceof these two sages. In addition, we find that objectionsand questions-makeup all but a handfulof the argumentationalstatementsby the post-Ray Ashi amoraim. For typicalamoraim,the proportionof objectionsand questionson the one hand, and resolutionsand responseson the other, is approximatelyequal. This is roughlyequivalentto sayingthat we encountertypicalamoraimas both students and teachers. The stam as well contains vast numbersof responses,certainlyno more infrequentlythan it contains objectionsand questions.Amoraimfromthe post-Ray Ashi period,by contrast,appearto have been studentswho neverwent on to become teachers.The extremely dependentand one-dimensionalcharacterof these late amoraimindicates that somethingis missingin the picturewe form of theiractivityif we confine ourselvesto their attributedstatements.Once again, accordingto the theory of saboraicredactionwe are confrontedwith a perplexinghiatus betweentwo periodsof enormouscreativityand independence.It appears that this anomalyis best explainedby postulatingthat the attributedstatements by the post-Ray Ashi amoraimdo not representthe sum total of what they contributedto the Talmud.A greatdeal more, afterthe deathof Ray Ashi, enteredthe Talmudanonymously. My researchhas uncoveredadditionalrespectsin which the post-Ray Ashi amoraimexhibitdistinctivecharacteristics.47Due to considerationsof space, I will confine myself to an outline of the most importantof these characteristics. We find that attributionalstatementsby post-Ray Ashi amoraim,in contrast to statements by amoraim in general, almost never form an integralpart of the sugya'smain concern.They are almost neverfound as one in a seriesof amoraicstatements.They are almost neverone of several attempts at answeringthe same question, resolving the same objection, statingan originalhalakhicopinionon a particularissue, and so on. Rather, statements by post-Ray Ashi amoraim typically have the characterof glosses on an earlieramoraicor tannaiticcore. This characteristicalso seems best explicableaccordingto the theory 47. For example, see Kalmin, Post-Rav Ashi Amoraim, pp. 110-119, where I discuss the absence of quotations by later post-Rav Ashi amoraim of earlier post-Rav Ashi amoraim.

176

RICHARD KALMIN

that the post-Ray Ashi amoraim are in reality stammaim. In their attributional statements, the post-Ray Ashi amoraim appear to have made a conscious attempt at keeping themselves distinct from amoraim in general. They were aware that as stammaim, creators and preservers of argumentation, their role in the sugya was profoundly different from that of the amoraim. They seem to have viewed their contribution as peripheral to the amoraic core of the sugya, and they therefore avoided fully integrating themselves into that amoraic core. It is interesting to note that the anonymous sections of the Talmud exhibit this same nonintegrative character. By this I mean that the anonymity of the stammaim preserves the distinction between the stam and the amoraim. It serves to maintain the amoraic statements as the core of the sugya, relegating the comments of the stam to the periphery. Thus the nonintegrative character of both the post-Ray Ashi amoraim and the stammaim establishes an additional link between them. In addition, the fact that attributional statements by the post-Ray Ashi amoraim almost never form part of the sugya's main concern can be explained according to the consideration that as stammaim, the major portion of their energy was invested in the anonymous creation of argumentation When we encounter them in their guise as named amoraim, we are not observing them in their natural habitat, as it were. Their attributional statements are atypical of their activity as a whole. It is therefore not at all surprising that they should appear in their present contexts as outsiders, as not fully integrated into the sugya. In my discussion prior to this point, I have examined ways in which the post-Ray Ashi amoraim act in a manner atypical of any previous amoraic generation, and how this atypical activity suggests their identity as stammaim, as participants in the the anonymous editing of the Talmud. In the following pages I will analyze the stam commentary on statements by the post-Ray Ashi amoraim and evaluate whether this commentary supports Halivni's further contention that stammaitic activity came to a halt at the end of the amoraic period, or suggests instead that this activity continued throughout the saboraic period. That is, I will evaluate whether Halivni's theory should be accepted in its entirety, or whether a slightly new theory should be formulated, one which posits stammaitic activity throughout both the post-Ray Ashi amoraic and saboraic periods (see Table 2). Julius Kaplan was the first to investigate the stam based on a post-Ray Ashi amora (the later Ravina) with a view toward evaluating the role of that


177

He cited one casein which Ravina amorain the redactionof the Talmud.48 is quoted by the stam, and one case in which there are two opposingstam interpretationsof a term utilized by Ravina. Kaplan arguedthat Ravina could not havebeenthe editorin eithercontext,and that the finaleditingof the Talmudmust thereforebe pushedeven beyond the time of Ravinaand into the saboraicperiod.49 However,Kaplan'sproofs clearlydo not bear the weight of his thesis. One or even several cases in which Ravina is quoted by the stam hardly establishKaplan'scontentionthat the anonymousediting of the Talmud was the work of the saboraim. In the first place, it is possible that the saboraicperioddid not beginuntil aroundthe year 520 c.E., with the death of Rav Yose (see above and n. 18), in which case thereis no reasonwhy a stam based on the later Ravina, who died about twenty years earlier,is necessarilysaboraic.50In the secondplace,evenif we acceptRavina'sdeath as markingthe beginningof the saboraicperiod,must a stam quotationof Ravina, or other comparableforms of stam commentarybased on this amora, necessarilyderive from the saboraic period?5'Benjamin Lewin

48. Kaplan, Redaction of the Babylonian Talmud, pp. 143-147. 49. Kaplan adduces other proofs for his thesis that the final editing of the Talmud was saboraic. See our discussion of these proofs in note 54 below. 50. In defense of Kaplan, it must be noted that, in common with nearly all modern scholars, he places the beginning of the saboraic period after the death of Ravina b. d'Rav Huna in 501 c.E. Halivni likewise originally held this view (see Mekorot u-Mesorot, introduction to Yoma-ilagigah, p. 7) and only recently revised his opinion. See n. I to his chapter on the stammaim in Midrash, Mishnah, and Gemara. 51. According to Solomon Rapoport, in Kerem Uemed, ed. Samuel Goldenberg (Prague: Landau, 1841), p. 250, all of the stam based on statements by "later" amoraim derives from the saboraic period. Rapoport cited Gittin 60a, where we find an anonymous rejection of a statement by Mar bar Rav Ashi, who died according to geonic accounts in the year 468 c.E., approximately half a century before the beginning of the saboraic period (see Friedman, "Al Derekh Heker ha-Sugya," pp. 10-11, n. 14). Several scholars have taken issue with Rapoport's claim, arguing that in the case he cites, the stam might derive from an anonymous authority who postdated Mar bar Rav Ashi, but who lived prior to the saboraic period. (See, for example, Halevy, Dorot ha-Rishonim, 3:137-138. His argument is repeated by Yebiel Weinberg, Mebkarim be-Talmud [Berlin: Jewish Theological Seminary of Berlin, 1937-38], p. v. However, Weinberg claims that the case cited by Rapoport can be shown on the basis of stylistic considerations to be a saboraic addition. Compare Halivni, Mekorot u-Mesorot, introduction to Yoma-Hagigah, p. 10.) In the opinion of the present writer, the same argument can be directed against the view that stam material based on statements by Ravina b. d'Rav Huna must be saboraic. See our discussion below.

178

RICHARD KALMIN

He points out appearsto have answeredthis questionin the affirmative.52 isolated examplesof anonymouscommentarybased on statementsby the latest amoraim,which in his opinion were thereforesaboraic.Halivnicarries this argumentfurther,claiming that all of the anonymousmaterial basedon the later Ravina,as well as that basedon Ravina'scontemporaries in the final amoraicgeneration,had its origin in the saboraicperiod.53 However,it is the opinion of the presentwriterthat the stamcommentary on even the latest amora does not necessarilydate from the saboraic period. It is quite conceivablethat Ravina could have made a statement severaldecadesbeforehis death,and that a stamliving somewhatlater,but prior to the saboraicperiod, could have commentedupon his statement, utilizedhis statementin an argument,and even interpolatedinto his statement. It is when additionsby the stam revealmisunderstandings about the sourceson whichthey are basedthat we must posit a significantpassageof time betweencommentatorand source,and that such a commentarybased on a post-Rav Ashi amora should very likely be assignedto the saboraic period.54 However, examination of the stam based on the post-Rav Ashi arenot frequent.We findthat amoraimrevealsthat suchmisunderstandings the numberof casesin whichthe stamoffersforcedinterpretationsof statementsby post-Rav Ashi amoraimis extremelysmall.We find that the stam is virtuallynever uncertainas to the correctmeaningof a statementby a 52. B. Lewin, Rabbanan Saborai ve-Talmudam,pp. 15-16, quoting Meshulam Behr, Divre Meshulam (Frankfurt am Main: D. Draller, 1925-26). 53. Halivni, Mekorot u-Mesorot, introduction to Yoma-Hagigah, p. 10, and on Sukkah 18a, pp. 182 ff. 54. Kaplan, Redaction of the Babylonian Talmud,pp. 143-146, also records a few cases in which the attribution of a statement to the later Ravina is uncertain, and a few other cases in which Ravina's statements were taught in alternative versions. Kaplan argues that Ravina could not have been the editor in these instances, which provides further proof for his thesis that the final editing of the Talmud was carried out by the saboraim. However, are the handful of cases cited by Kaplan sufficient to prove his point? Many instances in which there are two traditions regarding the author of a statement, or regarding the actual content of a statement, are traceable to transmissional difficulties that arose during the post-talmudic period (see, for example, Mekorot u-Mesorot on Yoma-Hagigah, p. 101, and p. 389, n. 3). That is, the few cases in which the later Ravina's statement has come down to us in more than one version might involve nothing more than post-talmudic errors in transmission. The same holds true for the other amoraim who lived during the post-Rav Ashi period. That is, the few cases in which the author or the content of a statement by a post-Rav Ashi amora was transmitted in more than one version (I counted six or seven such cases) might be traceable to post-talmudic errors in transmission.


179

post-Ray Ashi amora. We likewise find that it is rare for the stam and the post-Ray Ashi amoraim to be working with opposing versions of the same source. For example, when we can determine which version of a baraita a post-Ray Ashi amora based himself on, it is rare to find the stam based upon an opposing version of the same baraita. The stam and the post-Ray Ashi amoraim thus had before them the same basic corpus of material. We also find that it is rare for the stam not to have received the full text of a statement by a post-Ray Ashi amora, or not to have received the response by a post-Rav Ashi amora to a question or objection, or not to have received the original context of a statement by a post-Rav Ashi amora. To be specific, my investigation revealed that the stam exhibits signs of chronological distance in its commentary in only 6 to 8 percent of the total number of statements by post-Ray Ashi amoraim. One might argue that we should have found more evidence of chronological distance separating the stam from the post-Rav Ashi amoraim according to the theory that the stam continued throughout the saboraic period, which many scholars claim lasted almost two hundred years. However, it is possible to make the opposite argument as well, namely, that we found too much evidence of chronological distance according to the theory that the stam did not continue beyond the amoraic period. Why are there, the argument might go, so many instances of discontinuity between the stam and the post-Ray Ashi amoraim if the two are completely contemporaneous? The fact is that at present we lack the criteria necessary for calculating in any precise mathematical way how chronological distance between redactor and source determines the level of discontinuity between them. We cannot say with any degree of reliability, for example, how much evidence of chronological distance we would expect to find in a stam separated by 10, 50, or 150 years from its sources. Such mathematical precision, if it is attainable at all, will have to wait until we have statistics for the stam based on every amoraic generation. We also find that the stam commentary on statements by post-Rav Ashi amoraim, when it exists at all, is for the most part extremely thin. We never find the stam making statements by post-Rav Ashi amoraim the basis for sugyot of any degree of complexity. Most typically, the stam will consist of no more than a simple objection and response, a brief interpolation, a halakhic decision,55 and the like. 55. Many of these halakhic decisions, even in the absence of explicit proof, can be assumed to be post-talmudic additions to the text. Lewin, Rabbanan Saborai ve-Talmudam,pp. 46 ff,.

180

RICHARD KALMIN

More specifically,we find that between27 and 30 percentof the total numberof statementsby the post-Ray Ashi amoraimhave extremelybrief layers of stam commentarybased on them, only 7 percenthave extensive layers of stam commentarybased on them, and the remaining63 to 66 percenthave no stam commentaryat all.56 At firstglance,the existenceof sucha thinlayerof stamseemsextremely difficult for the view that stammaiticactivity continued throughoutthe saboraic period. If the bulk of the stam were removed from the final amoraimby a generationor more,then why shouldtherebe any significant differencebetweenthe volumeof stamcommentarybasedon theseamoraim and that basedon earliergenerations?We do not find, for example,that an amorasuchas Rav Paparefersto statementsby his immediatepredecessors, Abbayeand Rava,any less frequentlythanhe refersto statementsby earlier amoraim. However,the proponentsof this viewcouldaccountfor this thin layerof stam by pointing out that the saboraim,as editors, were primarilyconcerned with raising and resolvingdifficulties,filling in lacunae, and the like, in the amoraic and tannaiticmaterialthat had been transmittedto them. Sincethe saboraiceditorswererelativelynearin timeto the post-Rav Ashi amoraim,and theythereforereceivedthe statementsby theseamoraim basicallyintact, there was little that requiredtheir editorialconcern.The materialthey receivedfrom thesegenerationsdid not demandmuchin the way of editorialrevision. In addition, the proponentsof this theory could argue that since the post-Rav Ashi amoraimtendedto consignthemselvesto the peripheryof the sugya, with their statementsexhibitingthe characterof glosses on an earlieramoraicor tannaiticcore, the stam tendedto avoid them, concentratinginstead on the major issues raised in the sugya. points out how frequently such halakhic pronouncements are additions to the sugya based on decisions by the geonim. This is not to suggest, however, that all such halakhic pronouncements are post-talmudic additions. Compare Frankel, "Beitrige zu einer Einleitung in den Talmud," p. 269. 56. Stam commentary consisting of three distinct statements of normal length, or four extremely brief statements, has been considered brief. Stam commentary consisting of more than three distinct statements of normal length, or more than four extremely brief statements has been considered extensive. This cut-off point is admittedly somewhat arbitrary, but any point at which we impose such a boundary will inevitably be arbitrary. We have therefore attempted to set the boundary at a point at which all would agree that everything we identified as brief was in fact brief. In doing so, it is quite likely that we have set the boundary too low, and that some portion of what we have characterized as extensive stam should in actuality be described as brief.


181

Supportfor the claim that the post-Ray Ashi amoraim,due to their peripheralcharacter,sufferededitorialneglectat the handsof the saboraim, appearsto be found in the fact that with certainrareexceptions,technical This nearly terminologydoes not introducestatementsby these amoraim.57 total absenceof technicalterminology,that is, of terminologywhich does not form part of an amora'sactualstatement,but which servesto indicate what role the statement fills within the sugya, sets the post-Rav Ashi amoraimapartfromall earliergenerationsof amoraim.Thereis substantial evidencethat this terminology,clearlyeditorialin character,was addedto the Talmudby the saboraim,which meansthat we have explicitproof that the saboraim, in their capacity as editors, ignored the activity of their immediatepredecessorsin the amoraicperiod.58 The proponentsof the theory of continuousredactioncould likewise account for the thin layer of stam based on the post-Rav Ashi amoraim. They could point out that talmudicactivityhad for the most part ceased duringthis laterperiod.We have alreadynotedthat comparativelylittlewas said by the named amoraimwho lived after Ray Ashi, so it should not surpriseus that very little stam was producedduringan even later period. This latest phenomenonis also easilyexplicableaccordingto the theory of stammaiticredaction.In addition to utilizingthe argumentsemployed aboveon behalfof thosewho claimthat redactioncontinuedthroughoutthe saboraicperiod, Halivnicould arguethat it is to be expectedthat the stam would base its commentarymore on amoraicmaterialfrom earliergenerations than on the amoraic materialthat was being producedduring the stammaiticperioditself. He couldarguethatthis tendencyon the partof the stammaim,the editorsof the Talmud,correspondsto the tendencyexhibited 57. The term nnn, a transmissional term (i.e., a term which introduces quotations of earlier statements or sugyot), is found introducing statements by post-Rav Ashi amoraim. (I have at present no explanation for why this term should be consistently exceptional in this regard.) Also, very rarely we find technical terms introducing statements by post-Ray Ashi amoraim made during the lifetime of Rav Ashi. 58. Brfill, "Entstehungsgeschichte der babylonischen Talmuds," pp. 67-68, was the first to attribute certain technical terms to the saboraim. Kaplan, Redaction of the Babylonian Talmud, p. 13, pointed out that the absence of some of these terms in the Yerushalmi no doubt suggested this conclusion to Brfill. Halivni in his Midrash, Mishnah, and Gemara, chap. 6, goes further, crediting the saboraim with the introduction of all of the technical terminology into the Talmud. Halivni was anticipated by Hyman Klein, who in "Gemara and Sebara," pp. 85 ff., and p. 91, argues that technical terms belong to the sebaric interpretation and not to the original text. In his later work, Klein explicitly identifies the saboraim as the authors of sebara. See also the present writer's treatment of Bava Me;ia 80b-81a and Avodah Zarah 22a in The Post-Rav Ashi Amoraim, pp. 400-404 and 433.

182

RICHARD KALMIN

by the editor of another ancient rabbinic source: the Mishnah. It is universally acknowledged that Rabbi Judah the Prince's editorial activity consisted at least in part of compilation, of determining which sources should be included in the Mishnah, and which should be excluded. As I noted above, we find that hardly a trace of Rabbi's entire generation has been preserved in this document. That is to say, Rabbi systematically excluded his own generation when he compiled the Mishnah. Rabbi, the editor of the Mishnah, is comparable to the stammaim, the editors of the Talmud. A crucial part of the editorial activity of the stammaim, according to Halivni, consisted of the elucidation and explication of amoraic material. Here as well, the editors for all intents and purposes ignored the activity of their own contemporaries, commenting on statements by post-Ray Ashi amoraim only briefly and intermittently. It is interesting to speculate that perhaps in general, editors of ancient documents tended not to concern themselves with the activity of their own contemporaries. Our analysis of the stam commentary on statements by the post-Rav Ashi amoraim, therefore, has not enabled us to decide whether the theory of stammaitic redaction should be accepted in its entirety, or whether this theory and the theory of saboraic redaction are both partially correct. That is, we are not yet in a position to determine whether stammaitic activity ceased with the death of the last amora, or whether it continued throughout the saboraic period. Throughout this paper, I have spoken of the post-Ray Ashi amoraic period as if it was by and large monolithic, as if there existed no significant differences between the individual authorities who lived during this time. Before concluding, however, I must make note of the fact that a small number of post-Rav Ashi amoraim did not share several of the characteristics exhibited by the overwhelming majority of their contemporaries. Rather, they acted in varying degrees as typical amoraim. This fact should not surprise us, however. On the contrary, it would be odd if we did not find a small group of sages who even after the death of Ray Ashi carried on the old amoraic ways, since it is not the rule for long-established patterns of behavior and modes of expression to vanish overnight without a trace. Typically, such patterns linger on for a while in a more or less diminished state before they give way at last to newer forms. It will prove illuminating to examine Mar bar Ray Ashi, perhaps the most prominent of these typically amoraic post-Rav Ashi amoraim, in somewhat greater detail. Mar bar Rav Ashi's character as a typical amora,


183

rather than presenting a difficulty for the thesis that the Talmud was edited during the post-Ray Ashi amoraic period, provides us instead with an additional argument against the traditional view that Ray Ashi edited the Talmud. If Ray Ashi was an amora like any other amora, then it makes good sense that Mar bar Ray Ashi should follow the pattern adhered to by his father and likewise act as a typical amora, even if it meant placing himself in opposition to the rest of his generation. However, if Rav Ashi edited the Talmud, and therefore concluded, or attempted to conclude, the amoraic period, then why would his son reopen this period by reverting back to the traditional amoraic ways, as if in total refutation of his father's life work? Mar bar Rav Ashi, typical though he is, exhibits one extremely peculiar characteristic, a characteristic that sets him apart not only from earlier amoraim, but also from all of his contemporaries. Mar bar Ray Ashi, particularly later on in his career, almost never comes into contact with other amoraim for any purpose whatoever. It is quite possible that Mar bar Ray Ashi's nearly total isolation derived in part from a basic inability to get along with other people. However, something besides simple personality conflict seems to be at issue between him and the rest of his generation. Mar bar Rav Ashi seems to have been obstinately opposed to the new stammaitic trends. He and his father preferred the apodictic to the argumentational mode to almost exactly the same degree.59 But what was standard behavior in Ray Ashi's time had by the time of his son come to be perceived as presumptuousness and arrogance. The reason is that the stammaim were of the opinion that amoraic activity in the traditional sense was no longer possible after the death of Ray Ashi. Even Rav Ashi came into regular contact with sages who exhibited marked stammaitic tendencies. Evidently in Rav Ashi's time, amoraic methods were still dominant, and the different preoccupations of the stammaim and the amoraim had not yet widened into full-scale conflict. By the time of Mar bar Rav Ashi, however, the amoraim were clearly in the minority, and it was the stammaitic methods that had gained the ascendancy. The continuation of the old amoraic ways could no longer be taken for granted, but rather had to be fought for.60 59. Mar bar Rav Ashi's ratio of apodictic to argumentational statements is between 1.1 and 1.2 to 1. See Kraemer, Stylistic Characteristics of Amoraic Literature, p. 146, who concludes that Rav Ashi's ratio of apodictic to argumentational statements was approximately 1.4 to 1. 60. It is certainly no coincidence that of the two cases in which Mar bar Rav Ashi comes into contact with atypical amoraim, one takes place while he is still a student (Berakhot 45b),

184

RICHARD KALMIN

It is perhaps on this basis that we can explain the puzzling fact that Mar bar Rav Ashi, who was the logical successor to his father as head of the academy, was not chosen for that position until long after his father's death. And even then, he had to resort to trickery in order to overcome an attempt at appointing another sage to that office.61The opposition to Mar bar Rav Ashi was due to his contemporaries' perception of him as stubbornly unresponsive to the concerns of a new age. Mar bar Rav Ashi's stature as heir to Rav Ashi, his direct link to the amoraic period, was sufficient to overcome that opposition, and he won the appointment. But his influence no doubt remained marginal, even in his capacity as head of the academy. The Talmud bears eloquent testimony to Mar bar Rav Ashi's inability to achieve any long-lasting victory over his stammaitic foes. To reiterate, we found that statements by the great majority of post-Rav Ashi amoraim exhibit several features linking them with the stam, the anonymous editorial layer of the Talmud, and setting them apart from all previous generations of amoraim. We found, for example, that in comformity with the stam, and unlike amoraim in general, argumentational statements by the great majority of post-Rav Ashi amoraim overwhelmingly outnumber their apodictic statements. We also found that statements by these late amoraim tend to have the character of glosses on an earlier amoraic core. The nonintegrative character of their statements established an additional link between the post-Rav Ashi amoraim and the stam, since the stam, by virtue of its anonymity, exhibits this same nonintegrative character. These and other commonalities allowed us to conclude that the great majority of post-Rav Ashi amoraim are stammaim. That is, while the major bulk of the stam was produced by sages whose names have not survived anywhere within the Talmud itself, the great majority of post-Rav Ashi amoraim functioned in a dual capacity as both stammaim and amoraim. Having established the approximate date for the beginning of stammaitic activity, we turned to the question of the date for the conclusion of this activity. Was the stam by and large completed by the end of the amoraic period in 501 or 520 C.E., or did composition of the stam continue beyond that date into the saboraic period? According to the first alternative,

before tensions had fully developed, and the other (Hullin 97b) also involves the later Ravina, who, like Mar bar Rav Ashi, acted for the most part as a typical amora. 61. Bava Batra 12b.

185


the saboraim contributed to the redaction of the Talmud in relatively minor ways, for example by means of the addition of technical terms indicating the role that a statement fills within a sugya, and the arrangement of completed sugyot in their present contexts.62According to the second alternative, the saboraim continued the composition of stammaitic commentary; they continued to analyze, explicate, emend, and complete the tannaitic and amoraic strata of the sugya, such that the saboraic period is a new and distinct era only due to the fact that amoraic activity had finally come to a complete and irrevocable end. We analyzed the stam commentary on the statements by the post-Rav Ashi amoraim in an effort to determine whether or not signs of chronological distance between them can be discerned. Our reasoning was that if such signs were frequent, we would be confronted with a compelling argument on behalf of the theory that composition of the stam continued well into the saboraic period. Conversely, if such signs were virtually nonexistent, we would be justified in deciding in favor of the theory which views stammaitic activity as having ended, for the most part, by the beginning of the saboraic period. We pointed out that only rarely does the layer of stam based on the post-Rav Ashi amoraim exhibit indications of chronological distance separating commentator from source. However, we concluded that at present we lack the criteria necessary for determining the significance of these figures, of determining whether this level of chronological distance precludes, or points toward, a late date for the conclusion of stammaitic activity. Full resolution of this question must wait until the stam commentary on every amoraic generation has been systematically and critically analyzed. JewishTheologicalSeminary New York, N.Y. 62. Such editorial activity is minor in comparison with the editorial activity of the stam. It is undeniable that the addition of a term indicating the role that a particular statement fills within a sugya can have a significant effect on our understanding of the sugya. The words of a sage that might admit of interpretation as a declarative statement will, upon addition of the appropriate technical term, be interpreted as an objection. This will in turn affect our interpretation of the statement that follows, which must now be understood as a response to the objection, and so on until the conclusion of the sugya. Nevertheless, such superficial editorial additions are much less likely to fundamentally alter our understanding of the sugya than are additions by the stam, in which the interpretation of a statement, or of the sugya as a whole, is routinely affected by the addition by the stam.

186

RICHARD KALMIN

Table 1 Characteristics of TalmudicRabbis* Classical Amoraim(flourished prior to the death of Ray Ashi in 427 C.E.) 1. 2. 3. 4.

Strongtendencytowardapodicticformulationof statements Independent;no tendencyto appearin connectionwith a smallnumberof sages Multidimensional;active as both studentsand teachers Integrativeinto the core of the sugya Post-Ravy Ashi Amoraim(427-501 [or 520] C.E.)

1. Strongtendencytowardargumentationalformulationof statements 2. Extremelydependent 3. One-dimensional;active almost entirelyas students 4. Nonintegrativeinto the core of the sugya The Stam (the anonymous sections of the Talmud) 1. Argumentationalformulationof statements 2. Nonintegrativeinto the core of the sugya 3. Statementscharacterizedby extremelength and complexity 4. Tendencyto subjectearlierstatementsto forcedinterpretations,radicalemendations, etc. Saboraim (Post-Amoraic; 501 or 520 C.E.-? ) Littleuniformityamong scholarsas to natureof saboraiccontributionto Talmud. Many creditthem with editorialadditionsof a superficialnature,for examplethe addition of technicalterminology(whichservesto indicatewhat role a statement fills withina sugya),and with the arrangementof completedsugyotin theirpresent order.Some claimtheycontinuedstammaiticredactionalactivity,whileothersdeny this.

* We have omitted referenceto tannaim (the rabbis who flourished prior to the redaction of the Mishnah in ca. 200 C.E.) in this brief list, since they do not figure prominently in our research.


187

Table2 Theories of TalmudicRedaction Amoraic Period*

Saboraic Periodt

Saboraic redaction

no stammaitic redactional activity; dominated by apodictic formulation

stammaitic redaction throughout period (which therefore could also be referred to as stammaitic period); dominated by argumentational formulation

Continuous redaction

stammaitic redaction throughout period; contains both apodictic and argumentational formulation

contributions to Talmud uncertain

Theory

Amoraic Period

Stammaitic Period:

Saboraic Period

no stammaitic redactional activity; dominated by apodictic formulation

stammaitic redaction throughout period; dominated by argumentational formulation

minor editorial additions; arrangement of material, addition of technical terminology, etc.

Stammaitic- no stammaitic redactional activity; dominated by saboraic redaction apodictic formulation

stammaitic redaction throughout period; dominated by argumentational formulation

continuation of stammaitic redaction; still dominated by argumentational formulation

Stammaitic redaction

* From 200 C.E.,publication of Mishnah, to 501 or 520 C.E.

t Begins 501 or 520 C.E.;date of conclusion of period uncertain. $ Continuation of amoraic period, begins with death of Rav Ashi,

427 C.E.

New Light on the Jews of Mozarabic Toledo Author(s): Norman Roth Source: AJS Review, Vol. 11, No. 2 (Autumn, 1986), pp. 189-220 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486246 . Accessed: 30/06/2011 18:20 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].



NEW LIGHT ON THE JEWS OF MOZARABIC TOLEDO by NORMAN ROTH MedievalSpainrepresentsa uniquephenomenonin the historyof Jewish civilization.Not only did the Jews live longer in Spain than in any other land in theirhistory(indeed,almostas long as theyoccupiedtheirhomeland in the land of IsraelfromAbrahamto the Romandestructionof Jerusalem in 70 C.E.),but the Jewishpopulationof medievalSpain was greaterthan that of all otherlandscombined,andthe richachievementsof Jewishculture there were unequaledelsewhere.Of all the cities in Spain which servedas majorcentersof Jewishlife and culture,Toledo perhapsstands out as the most important.Studiesdealingwith Jewishlife in Spainhave recognized this, and the long-awaitedappearanceof a recent two-volumework in Spanishdevotedto the Jewsof Toledohas helpedfocus attentiononce again on the vast archivalmaterialavailable.' This article is an expanded version of a paper presented at the American Catholic Historical Association conference, Dec. 28, 1984. 1. Pilar Le6n Tello, Los judios de Toledo, 2 vols. (Madrid, 1979). The collection of Mozarabic documents, in Arabic and Hebrew, which will be frequently cited here is Angel

189

190

NORMANROTH

However,neitherthatwork(essentiallyonly a synopsisof publishedand unpublishedarchive sources, with a few illustrative texts) nor others (Newman,Baer,and variousSpanishstudies)have sufficientlyor adequately utilizedthe extantpublishedsourcesdealingwith MozarabicToledo and the Jewsin that community.The presentstudy is the first to fully examine these documents,which, since they are in Arabic (and some in Hebrew), could not have been examinedby those who did not understandthe language. The editor of the four volumes of Mozarabicdocumentsprovided briefand oftenincorrectSpanishsummariesof the texts,with manyerrorsin transcriptionof names,etc., fromwhichit is not evenpossibleto distinguish clearlywhichdocumentsdealwithJews.In additionto thesedocuments,the value of which has not been fully realized,thereare also a numberof other sources,Arabic, Latin, and Hebrew,which have neverbeen consultedand which shall be utilizedin this study. As is well known, Baer, for instance, madeonly the most casualand infrequentuse of Hebrewsourcesin general for his history of the Jews in Spain. These sources include chronicles, responsa,poetry, and other material.What resultsfrom an analysisof all the extantsourcesis a new and more completepicturethanany we havehad so far of the Jewish communityof Toledo for the Mozarabicperiod. The term Mozarabic,derivedfrom Arabicmustd'rib(whichmeans "to live like-follow the customsof-Muslims"), refersto non-Muslimsliving in essentiallya Muslimsocietyand adoptingthe Arabiclanguageand many Muslimcustoms. It is a term uniqueto medievalSpain,and covers a very broadperiod,datingalmostfrom the Muslimconquest(711) to at least the end of the thirteenthcenturywhen most of the ChristianReconquestof MuslimSpain had been completed.The phenomenonitself is primarilyof interestwith regardto the Christiancommunitiesof MuslimSpain,chiefly Toledo, wherethe use of Arabicfor both spoken and writtenlanguageby the Christianswas thus unusual,and the impacteven on Christianreligious beliefsand liturgycreatedseriousproblemsof heterodoxyand heresyfor the Church.Jews,of course,utilizedArabicas well as Hebrewfor theirwritings, and as theirspokenlanguage,throughoutthe Muslimworld.Nevertheless, Jews in the Mozarabiccentersof Spain were in close social and business contactwith Christiansand Muslimsand thus sharedin the generalcultural milieu. Linguisticallytoo, even allowing for some undoubtedlyerroneous transcriptionsof the publisheddocuments,it is obviousthat thereexisteda Gonzalez Palencia, ed., Los Mozdrabes de Toledo en los siglos XII y XIII, 4 vols. (Madrid, 1926-30) (hereafter cited as Mozdrabes).

THE JEWS OF MOZARABIC TOLEDO

191

much Arabic(theexistence, branchof Arabic,termedMozarabic dialectical less the natureof which, has not even been imaginedby scholarsof JudeoArabic),which was utilized also by the Jews of Toledo.

We shallfirstexaminethe physicalcharacterof the Jewishquartersin thananyother Toledo,aboutwhichwe havemoredetaileddocumentation whatoursourcesrevealconcerning city.Followingthis,we shallinvestigate someof the importantJewishcourtiersandofficialsof Toledo,andfinally someof the prominentJewishfamilies. In Hebrew,the city was called Toletolah,underthe influenceof Arabic, but ostensibly derived from Isaiah 22:17: "Hinneh YHVH me-tallelkha taltelah gaver" ("Behold, the Lord will thrust you out with a mighty thrust"),whichthe Jews,evereagerto find biblicalallusionsto theirexilein

to Toledo.2 Spain,took to be a reference of theJewsin theVisigothicera(sixth Followingtheseverepersecution centuryto the Muslimconquestin 711), and the forcedconversionof most

werethere wouldhavedeclinedto insignificance of theJews,thepopulation we do not need fromoutsidethecountry.Fortunately, not a replenishment merelyto postulatesuchan influxof migration,for it is confirmedby the usually reliable Muslim historian al-Razi, who, after relatingthe forced

conversionof the Jewsunderthe VisigothickingSisebut(613),continues: "And other Jewsoutsidethe land of Spaincame to settle [theplaces]which

these[Jewsin Spain]had left"becauseof the persecution.3 While we know nothing about the Jewish population of Toledo until

nearlythe middleof the eleventhcentury,judgingfromthe caseof other Jewishsettlersin al-Andalus(MuslimSpain),we may surmisethat they camefromNorthAfricaand Babylon(Iraq)especially. As we haveobservedelsewhere, therewasa strongfeelingof "national2. Abraham Ibn Daud, the first Jewish historian in medieval Spain and himself a resident of Toledo, used this spelling in his chronicle, Sefer ha- Qabbalah, The Book of Tradition,ed. and trans. Gerson D. Cohen (Philadelphia, 1967), text, p. 53, etc. It is also found in the responsa of early rabbis of Muslim Spain, such as Isaac al-Fdsi, Joseph Ibn Megash, Moses b. Maimon (Maimonides), and in numerous other Jewish sources. On the connection with the passage in Isaiah, we have direct evidence only from later authoirities, such as Asher b. Yebiel, rabbi of the community of Toledo in the fourteenth century, and Isaac Abravanel in the fifteenth (see, e.g., his commentary on I Kings 10:22);yet there are hints to it already in a poem of Judah ha-Levy. Neither the commentaries of Abraham Ibn Ezra nor of David Qimbi (who lived in Toledo) on Isaiah offer any comment. Toledo can have no symbolic relation to Hebrew toldot ("generations"), as Le6n Tello, Losjudios, 1:4, suggests, because the Hebrew name for Toledo is spelled with a tet, whereas toldot is spelled with a tav. 3. Abmad ibn Muhammad ibn Mufis al-Razi, Cr6nica del Moro Rasis, ed. Diego Catalhn Pidal et al. (Madrid, 1975), p. 262.

Puerarta dPuel

'ucra d

Alcazar

e

San

Nueva

Martin

A Mariala Blanca Sania de los Judios * Castillo SEl Transito-

CARTOGRAPHIC UNIVERSITY OFWISCO LABORATORY.


193

ist" sentiment,or chauvinisticpride in the superiorityof Spainover other lands, amongthe Muslimsand also the Jews.Just as in Muslimwritingthis often focused as well on the superiorityeven of particularcities in alAndalus,so we find Judahal-Harizi,a Hebrewpoet of the early thirteenth century,writingof Toledothatit is the place"wherethe tribeshavegone up, the tribes of the Lord."This is a direct referenceto Psalm 122:4,which, however,is talking about Jerusalem!4 In a recentbook, it has also been demonstratedthat the famousscholar and laterchiefrabbiof Castile,MeirAbulafia,signedone of his manuscripts with some crypticletters,the abbreviationfor "Godis in hermidst,she shall not be moved, God will help her at the dawn of day" (Psalm 46:6), here meant as a referenceto Toledo.5 Like all Spanishcities, Toledo was divided into barrios,or neighborhoods. It is best to use this term,attestedin our sources,ratherthanjuderia ("Jewishquarter"),for these were not exclusivelyJewishneighborhoodsat any time. Christiansand Muslims,as well as Jews, lived in these neighborhoods, just as Jews also lived in other neighborhoodsof the city. The largestof thesewas the adarvede la Sueca(or Assuica,derivedfrom Arabicsuwayqa,a diminutiveof saq-i.e., a smallmarketplace),whichwas connectedwith the adarveof Ibn Zardal,or Zardiel(not "Abazardiel,"this was a Jewish family of importance)by a passage from the barrioof bab al-yahad("Gate of the Jews" in the wall of Toledo) to the plaza of Santo Tom6.6 Anotherimportantquarterwas the rabadal-yahad,or "Jewishquarter" 4. Tahkemoni,ed. Yehudah Toporovsky (Tel Aviv, 1952), p. 345. See in general the chapter "Maimonides as Spaniard" in Roth, Maimonides: Essays and Texts (Madison, 1986). 5. Bernard Septimus, Hispano-Jewish Culture in Transition: The Career and Controversies of Ramah (Cambridge, Mass., 1982), p. 137, n. 111 (see the critical review of this book in American Historical Review 89 [1984]: 420-421). 6. While most of the papers in the two-volume Simposio Toledojudaico (Madrid, 1972) are disappointing in quality, Julio Porres Martin-Cleto, "Los barrios judios de Toledo" (vol. 1, pp. 45-75), is quite informative. Neither he nor the scholars he cites (p. 47), however, have apparently seen the fundamental study of Leopoldo Torres Balbis, "Plazas, zocos y tiendas de las ciudades hispanomusulmanes," Al-Andalus 12 (1947), especially pp. 461-462. Note also the "tendis de halhanates que sunt in vico Judeorum" mentioned in a document of Alfonso VIII (1183), cited by Gonz1lez Palencia, Mozdrabes, 1:76, n. 1 (this also escaped the notice of Torres). Here, there can be no doubt that this word derives from Arabic hdanat,"stores," i.e., a marketplace. Were it not for the unquestioned authority of Torres, I would venture another etymology for Alcana, however: Arabic al-kann, a place of shelter, or al-kunna, an awning, and thus a marketplace (covered by awnings). For the adarve de la Sueca, see Mozdrabes, 1:75; Torres Balbis, "Plazas, zocas y tiendas," p. 450 (it must be located near the "Puerta de Assuica" on the map in Martin-Cleto, "Los barrios judios," p. 71, no.1).

194

NORMAN ROTH

(meaningthat mostly Jews did live here), and it is this which is called the arrabalin Spanishdocuments.It was the most famous, and probablythe oldest, Jewishneighborhoodof the city. One may still visit the site of this quartertoday. It is boundedon the east by the Barriode San Romdn,on the west by the Barrio de San Tome'.The "upper arrabal" was separated by an

adarve(heremeaninga flat-toppedwall)fromthe Barriode SanRomdn.It is virtuallyidenticalwith the presentBarrionuevo,apparently.'A section in this quarter was known as Acaba, which is obviously Arabic 'aqaba, meaningnot "hill"(as GonzalezPalenciathought),but "steeproad,"which led to the plaza of Ab: SulaymanIbn Sfsan (we shall later discuss this importantfamily),nearwhichwas an adarve(here,"alley"or streetwith no exit, the gates of which could be closed at night for protection)8of the eminental-Barjilfnifamily,whichis mentionedoftenin the documentsand must have originatedin Barcelona. Below the Acabawas thejabal al-ku!bl("mountainof antimony,"kohl; but there was also a Jewish family called Ibn al-Kabal, and it is possible that this is the actual name).9Betweenthese two points, runningfrom the Acaba to Jabal al-kubl, was the adarve of Abgalon.'o

Another Jewishneighborhoodwas that of Bab al-purtiel(Alportielon maps and other Spanishdocuments),nearwhichwas the synagogueof the Almalaqin(so, not "Almaliquim"),which means "from Malaga,"possibly referringto the city of originof the earlymembersof the synagogue.It was built by David b. Solomon Ibn Abf Durham, a famous name in Jewish history (a probable member of the family composed a work on Jewish liturgy), with membersliving all over Spain." The synagoguewas constructedin the late thirteenthcentury,or possibly even earlier.'2 7. Mozdrabes 3, no. 605. See the rather vague discussion in Martin-Cleto, "Los barrios judios," pp. 61-63. 8. Torres Balbis, Ciudades hispanomusulmanas,2 vols. (s.l.s.a. [Madrid, 1971?]), 1:210. 9. Mubammad ibn 'Abd al-Mu'nim al-IHimyari,Kitab al-rawd al-mi'tdr, ed. and trans. E. L6vi- Provenqal, La peninsule ibdriqueau moyen dge Leiden, 1938), reports that a Jabal al-kubl was found near Baza, from which antinomy was extracted (p. 45, text; p. 57, trans.). 10. Mentioned only in 1382; Mozdrabes 4, nos. 1138 and 1139. For the name, cf. Abraham b. Moses Abgalon (1391), ibid., no. 1140. 11. For the Bab al-purtiel, see the eighteenth-century map in Martin-Cleto, "Los barrios judios ," p. 65, on which it is the site marked no. 1, and p. 71, no. 3. The name of the synagogue is given, in Hebrew, in Mozdrabes 4, no. 1144, and frequently in the Arabic documents. The earliest recorded mention is in documents of 1270 (no. 1135) and 1271 (the Hebrew document mentioned). 12. It is mentioned also in the famous eulogy on the pogroms of 1391; for details on this, and other references, see Francisco Cantera Burgos, Sinagogas espafiolas (Madrid, 1955), pp.


195

In the suburbsoutside the Jewish barrio,near the patio or courtyard (qurral)of Alqueria,was anotherbarriocalledMonte Frido,or Ferid,which was Jewish,and fromwhichled a streetthat terminatedin the "newadarve" near the present Barrio nuevo.'3 A document of 1270 refers to the adarve called "Ueld [walid = ben?]

Elazri"on a street connectingwith the Sueca, extendingto the adarvedel Olivo("of the olives"), and in turn with the street from the gate of "our new castle to the gate of the old castle."Jews owned, and lived in, many castles in medievalSpain. Some of these castleswerelarge enough to have houseswithinthe fortifiedwalls,and this was the casewiththe Jewishcastle of Toledo, as can be seen from a documentof 1163.14 As to the houses themselves,the documentsprovideus with no insights. Yet they undoubtedlywere like the typical Muslimhouse in Spain at this period, about whichwe havelearnedmuch, and severalof whichstill stand (as do Jewish houses, but of a slightly later period). A particularlyprominent feature of these houses were what the Muslims called qurrdldt (patios), which has survived in Castilian as corralesor corrals (and in AmericanEnglishwith a slightlydifferentmeaning,of course).All of the known extant Muslimhouses in Spain(some twenty-eightwere known by 1955)have these patios.15Jewishhouses of the later periodalso have them. The house surroundedthe courtyard,and some houses had more than one courtyard(as many as eight in some cases, and one even with fourteen!). Gardenswere grown inside these, and gardensalso separatedthe houses fromeach other.Talladobewallsseparatedthe housesfromthe streets.The houses were usually of two stories;the lower story had a high ceiling to

47-48. Cantera apparently believed that the synagogue might have been built earlier than the thirteenth century, but gave no reason for this. 13. For the location, see Martin-Cleto's map, p. 71, no. 4. 14. Mozdrabes 4, no. 1135 (all documents are Arabic, unless otherwise stated). On the map in Martin-Cleto, "Los barrios judios," p. 71, no. 5, a "Castillo de losjudios" is indicated, but not whether it is the "new" or the "old" castle of the Jews. Apparently it is the latter, since Gonziles Palencia says this was located "over" (near) the Tajo River (Mozdrabes, 1:76). In 1163, a Christian qa'id (military commander) loaned 170 gold coins (mithqdls)to the Jew Isbaq Ibn Abf Yfisuf, the security for which included two houses in the Jewish barrio, some property, and part of another home he owned with his brother in the Jewish castle (ibid., 4, no. 897). I have elsewhere delivered a paper on Jewish castles in Spain, which may yet appear in print. 15. Details on the extant Muslim houses in Al-Andalus 2:380-387, 9:173-190 and 469-475. See generally Torres Balbis, "Algunos aspectos de la casa hispanomusulmana," Al-Andalus 15 (1950): 178-191; "Al-Madina al-Zahira, la ciudad de Almanzor," ibid. 21 (1956): 353-359.

196

NORMANROTH

provide cooling in the hot season, and the upper floor containedwinter sleepingrooms, servants'quarters,etc.16 Thereis one interestingreferenceto housesin a questionaddressedfrom Toledo to the twelfth-centuryrabbi(Spain)JosephIbn Megash.Two men werepartnersin a house(probablyrentingit out for income)whichis saidto have a courtyard30 X 28 "fists,"and the house had one room 68 "fists" long and one smallerroom 18"fists"(about9 feetif we estimate6 inchesfor a "fist," a rabbinicalunit of measure).17 As is generallythe case with medievalSpain, it is extremelydifficultto estimate populationwith any degree of accuracy.With regardto Jewish populationfiguresin Spaingenerally,we can make only educatedguesses. The best estimate for the total population of Toledo at the end of the eleventh century is around 37,000.1s The important, and usually informed,

fifteenth-centuryJewish astronomer and chronicler Abraham Zakut (sometimeswrittenZacuto, incorrectly)cites the testimonyof Abrahamb. Natan of Lunel(d. 1215),who lived in Toledo, that therewere more than 12,000Jews in the city. This seems quite probable.Certainlythe Christian chroniclerJuan Gil de Zamora'sstatement(thirteenthcentury)that there were70,000Jewishtaxpayersin Toledois erroneous(perhapshe meantthe entire province,and not just the city).19 16. In addition to the above, see Rafael Castej6n, "C6rdoba califal," Boletin de la real academia de ciencias, bellas letras y nobles artes de C6rdoba 8 (1920): 269-270; Abu'l-Walid Ismd'il ibn Muhammad al-Shaqundi, Elogio del Islam espaiol, ed. and trans. E. Garcia G6mez (Madrid, 1934). pp. 95, 97, 99. 17. Ibn Megash, "Shemoneh Teshuvot Hadashot," ed. Israel Ta-Shema and Haggai Ben-Shammai, QoveSal Yad 18 (n.s. 8) (1975): 168 (Arabic), 176 (Hebrew). The measurement "fist" (Arabic ddr, Hebrew tefab) is common in the Talmud and later Jewish law. 18. Leopoldo Torres Balbis "Extensi6n y demografia de los ciudades hispanomusulmanas," Studia Islamica 3 (1955): 55-56, reprintedin abridged form in his Ciudadeshispanomusulmanas, 1:106. S. D. Goitein, A MediterraneanSociety, vol. 3, The Family (Berkeley, 1978), gives no satisfactory data or conclusions on population, but leaves the impression that four to six sons in a family were not uncommon, whereas there are insufficient data on daughters to enable any guess (pp. 237-240). This would have to be a corrective to Torres Balbis's estimate of an average of six persons to a (Muslim) family. We must not forget that Jewish families tended to be large. Yitzhak (Fritz) Baer, Toldot ha- Yehudimbi-Sefarad ha-NoSrit, 2d ed. (Tel Aviv, 1965), p. 113; the abridged English translation, A History of the Jews in Christian Spain (Philadelphia, 1966), 1:190 estimated a Jewish population of no more than 350 families in Toledo in the thirteenth century, but his estimates, based largely on incomplete tax records, are not reliable. 19. Abraham Zakut, Sefer Yubasinha-Shalem, ed. Herschell Filipowski (London, 1857; photo rpt., Jerusalem, 1963), fol. 221b (the statement is not in the printed edition of Abraham b. Natan's work, however); Juan Gil de Zamora, "Liber de preconciis hispaniae," ed. Fidel


197

Ashtor estimated, without giving any basis for his figures, that the Jewishpopulationin "MuslimToledo"(he does not say whichcentury)was 3,828;but this estimatecould only be for the main Jewishbarrio,without takinginto accountany of the others.20Again,this appearstoo small,unless we assume that four times that numberlived in the other barrios. Anotherindicationof the relativelylargeJewishpopulationof Toledois the presence of numeroussynagogues.This is alreadyconfirmedin the previouslycited statementof the poet Judahal-Harizi,who, after praising the "PrincelyCity,"concludes:"Whatbeautifulpalacesare in herthat put to shame the luminarieswith the splendorof their beauty and loveliness. And how many synagoguesare in her whose beauty is incomparable."21 How many synagogues, indeed?At least eleven are known to have existed.One of these,the "greatsynagogue,"was destroyedby a firein 1250 (not, let me hasten to add, by Christians!).Of the other ten, only the previously mentionedsynagogueof the Almdlaqinand the "new"synagogue (later convertedinto the famous Churchof Santa Mariala Blanca,now a nationalmonumentand one of the threemost beautifulSpanishsynagogues still standing)can be said definitelyto haveexistedin the thirteenthcentury or before.The others are all mentionedin the sourcesof the fourteenthor fifteenthcentury.22 Still, it is doubtfulthat al-Hariziwouldhave praisedthe "many"synagoguesof the city if therewereonly three.Undoubtedlythere wereotherswhose nameswe do not know, or it may be that some of those known from later sourceswere in fact built earlier. Fita, in Boletin de la real academia de la historia 5 (1884): 138;cf. also Baer (Hebrew ed.), p. 497, n. 2, (English), p. 418, n. 2. 20. Eliahu Ashtor, "Mispar ha-Yehudim be Sefarad ha-Muslamit" [The number of Jews in Muslim Spain], Zion 28 (1963): 40. Ashtor, however, correctly criticizes those, like Baer,who rely on tax lists for population estimates (p. 35). Not only are these figures liable to change significantly from year to year, as he observed, but they are also very incomplete and even inaccurate. Ashtor's own figures should be used with caution. 21. Tabkemoni,as cited in n. 4 above; I use here the generally reliable translation by Victor Reichert (Jerusalem, 1965, 1973), 2:98. 22. Cantera Burgos, Sinagogas espafiolas, pp. 35-55; actually eleven synagogues, including the synagogue of the sofer ("scribe") mentioned on p. 52. Cf. also Le6n Tello, Judios de Toledo, index, s.v. "Sinagoga: de Toledo." Note that she presents documentation of yet another synagogue, that of the barrio of Caleros, not mentioned in Cantera Burgos (it is unfortunate that she made no use of his excellent monograph). On Santa Maria la Blanca, see Cantera Burgos, op. cit., pp. 42-45 and 55-64, with plates and drawings. (Cantera Burgos. Sinagogas de Toledo, Segovia y Cdrdoba [Madrid, 1973] is a reprint of the chapters on those synagogues from the above book, without the notes or bibliography.) There are also some observations and interesting illustrations in Don A. Halperin, The Ancient Synagogues of the Iberian Peninsula (Gainesville, Fla., 1969) (see my review in Judaism 21 [1972]: 122-123).

198

NORMAN ROTH Relations With Christians

Given the significantJewishpopulationof Toledo and theirlong history there,it is not surprisingto findthat theylivedandworkedin harmonywith both the Muslimand Christianpopulations.Indeed,it is puzzlingto findthe legal historianGarcia-Galloclaimingthat even thoughthis is true,the Jews maintainedthemselvesapart "withoutmixing with the rest of society."23 Unless this refersto religiousseparatism-i.e., the Jews maintainedtheir own religiouslaws and observances-it is difficultto explainthe apparent contradictionbetweenthis statementand the facts known to us. Nevertheless,conditionswere not always amicablein Jewish-Christian relations in Toledo. In 1108, on the feast of the Assumption of Mary (August 15), the Anales Toledanosreportbrieflya massacreof the Jews.24 This becamethe basisfor a legend,a miracletale knownas "Toledo,"which was widely circulatedin the Marial tales (miraclesof the Virgin) in the Middle Ages and is found in Spain in the Liber Mariae of Juan Gil de Zamora, the Milagros of Berceo, and the Cantigas de Santa Maria com-

posed by anonymouspoets at the court of Alfonso X of Castile.25 A law of Alfonso VII, in the fuero of Toledo of 1118, states that any Castilianwho wishesto leavethe city andreturnto his ownforum(domain?) 23. Alfonso Garcia-Gallo, "Los fueros de Toledo," Anuario de historia del derecho espafiol 45 (1975): 432. 24. "Mataron A los Judios en Toledo dia de Domingo, Vispera de Santa Maria de Agosto, Era MCXLVI" (Espaiia sagrada, ed. Enrique Fl6rez [Madrid, 1767], 23:386). Fita, in his discussion of Juan Gil de Zamora's tale (see following note), thought the date was in error, for he claimed that August 15 was on a Saturday in 1108, and therefore he suggested 1109, after the death of Alfonso VI. Juan Francisco Rivera Recio, La iglesia de Toledo en el siglo XII (Rome, 1966), 1:57, objected to Fita's conclusions, but he himself mistakenly places the feast on August 14. In fact, it is August 15, which was on a Sunday in 1108, and there is thus no reason to make any changes. Vincent of Beauvais. Speculumhistoriale (Graz, 1965), 8:lxxxi, erroneously gave the date 1080 (his account is totally legendary, one of the "tale" versions). Garcia-Gallo, apparently unaware either of the actual event or of the literary versions or of Rivera Recio's discussion, independently came to the conclusion that the law referred to below in the article had to do with an event in the reign of Alfonso VI; and this is correct (op. cit., p. 357). 25. Juan Gil de Zamora, "Liber Mariae," excerpts ed. Fidel Fita in Boletin de la real academia de la historia 6-7 (1885): 75; Gonzalo de Berceo, Milagros de nuestra seiiora, ed. Antonio G. Solalinde (Madrid, 1968), stanzas 416 ff. (for Spanish literature students, I am aware that there are other editions, but this one is probably the most widely accessible); Cantigas de Santa Maria, ed. Walter Mettman (Coimbra, 1959-64), 1:37-38. I am preparing a complete study of the tales concerning Jews in Berceo and the Cantigas and their sources.


199

may do so, and the king pardonsall sins which resultedfrom the killingof the Jews "and of all their things"(i.e., all cases resultingfrom this, or posIn 1118Alfonso was, of sibly it refersto the robbingof theirpossessions).26

course,a minor,aboutthirteenat the time (duringhis minorityhe was

called al-sulaytin,"little ruler,"in Arabic chronicles,as he was called rex parvusin Latin).27Thus,while he probablydid not directlyinitiatethis law, it certainlywas prejudicialto the Jewsand could haveset a dangerousprecedent. Indeed,in light of this law, it is peculiarto find the Jewishchronicler AbrahamIbn Daud of Toledo, writingin 1160/61, callingAlfonso "a righteous king";perhapsIbn Daud knew that the young rulerwas not actually responsiblefor the law.28Nevertheless,thefuero was confirmedby Alfonso VII again in 1174,when he had certainlyattainedhis majority.In addition to the pardongrantedthose apparentlyinvolvedin the massacre,thefuero

continues: 26. Because of the difficulty of the text, I give here the original Latin text of thefuero and the Spanish translation (in the confirmation by Fernando III in 1222): si aliquis Castellanus ad suum forum ire volverit, vadat, et super hoc totum, exaltet Dominus imperium suum, dimissit illis omnia peccata, que acciderunt de occisione judeorum, et de rebus illorum, et de totis perquisitionibus tam maioribus, quam minoribus. (Latin text in Tomis Mufioz y Romero, ed., Collecidn de fueros municipales y cartas pueblas [Madrid, 1847], p. 366.) Et si algun cristiano quisiere yr d su fuero, que vaya, et sobre todo aquesto ensalze A Dios su imperio, perdono todos los pecados que acaescieron de la muerte de los judios, y de todas los cosas dellos et do todos los pesuisamientos, asi de los mayores como de los menores. (Spanish text in Joaquin Guichot y Parody, Historia de la muy noble, muy leal, muy herdica e' invicta ciudad de Sevilla [Seville, 1896], 1:35, and in Antonio Martin Gomero, Historia de la ciudad de Toledo [Toledo, 1862], p. 1053. The relationship of this fuero to the massacre was already noted by Jos6 Amador de los Rios, Estudios hist6ricos, politicos y literarios sobre los judios de Espatia, 2d ed. (Buenos Aires, 1942), p. 27, and Historia social, politica y religiosa de los judios de Espaiia y Portugal (Madrid, 1875), 1:189. Baer, History of the Jews, 1:51, makes only vague and incorrect observations on all this. 27. Al-Himyari (see above, n. 9), p. 148 (text), 176 (trans.); Ibn 'Idhdri, al-Bayan al-mugrib, nuevosfragmentos, ed. Ambrosio Huici Miranda (Valencia, 1963), pp. 198, 201, and n. 30. 28. Sefer ha-Qabbalah, p. 96 (trans.), and cf. Cohen there, p. 261.

200

NORMAN ROTH

and [since] by obeying the holy Fathers and fulfilling the laws, God will increasethis kingdom, [we order]that no Jew, or one recentlyconverted29 shall have any authority[mandamentum] over any Christianin Toledo or its territory. Furthermore, anyone suspected of killing a Christian, Muslim, or Jew-but without sufficient or reliable witnesses to prove the charge-is to be judged in accord with the Visigothic Fuerojuzgo (Liberjudicum), still in force in medieval Spain. Any Muslim or Jew having a case with a Christian must be subject to a Christian judge "for the honor of the Christians." Thus, there is no doubt that there was tension between Jews and Christians at this time, and these laws reflect some of the harshest attitudes against Jews found in post-Visigothic Spanish legal codes. In a document from the Jewish council of Toledo, dated 1112 (cited in a responsum of Ibn Megash), there is a reference to Joseph b. Moses Ibn Qapsus (or Qapsos), who had been killed, with the formula of benediction added: "May God avenge his blood." This undoubtedly refers to the abovementioned massacre.30 In another responsum of Ibn Megash, there is a reference to some houses taken from their former Jewish owners in Toledo and given to the soldiers of the governor of the city (or perhaps soldiers of the king). "Joseph ha-nasi Cidillah" (Joseph Ibn FerruSiel, about whom more later) had been placed in charge of the property of the goverment (mdl alsultan). One of the houses in question thus came into his possession, and there was debate as to who was the rightful Jewish owner of the house. Ibn 29. On the meaning of this term (nuper renatus; not "super" as in the abridged version in Le6n Tello, Judios de Toledo,2:6, no. 8), see Muhioz'snote to the Latin text, p. 365. The Spanish confirmation (above, n. 26) omits any reference to "recent converts," perhaps because they no longer understood the meaning of the Latin expression mentioned (the text of the Spanish version is, in any case, very inaccurate, as Muhoz already noted). The dates of the confirmations are 1174 (not 1176) and 1222 (not 1226); most of the conversions of Era dates to Aho dates in Mufioz are incorrect. Garcia-Gallo apparently had an erroneous text, according to which Jews and Muslims were allowed to hold public office over Christians! He expressed his surprise at this, which he thought was without precedent (it would be if the text said this); cf. his "Los fueros de Toledo," p. 357. 30. Cited in Moses b. Maimon (Maimonides), Qove Teshuvot,ed. Abraham Lichtenberg (Leipzig, 1859; photo rpt. Farnborough, England, 1969), vol. 1, fol. 46c, no. 237 (Le6n Tello, Judios, 1:30, n. 12, mentions the responsum, derived from some other secondary source, but incorrectly gives the number as 257 and cites the responsa of Ibn Megash, no. 1112, as the source. Not knowing Hebrew, she could not consult the actual sources and thus did not realize that there is no such number in the responsa of Ibn Migash, and that the responsum in fact does not appear in his responsa at all, but only as cited in Maimonides).


201

Ferru$ielgave the house to one of the Jewishlitigants"to lease it out for the tax of the government."3'Thus, the Jewishowner, or at least the one who claimedto be the owner,wouldreceivesome financialbenefitfrom the property.The editorsof thisimportanttext suggestthat the most probabletime for these events was the conquest of Toledo by Alfonso VI in 1085.32 However,this is not likely.The text saysthat thesehousesweretaken,along with other houses of the Jews, at the time of the persecution(al-jaur, "outrage,oppression").We know of no such persecutionat the time of the conquest(about whichwe have considerabledetail),but the termcertainly would fit the massacreof the Jewsin Toledoin 1108.Also, Ibn Megash,the rabbito whom the complicatedquestionis addressed,was only eightyears old in 1085. It is difficultto imagine that he would be asked, many years later, about an event that took place when he was still a child. There are other interestinghistoricaldetails in the questionitself. The litigantwho claimedto be the originalownerof the house says he boughtit from a Jew who boughtit froma Christian,and that he paid the sum of 15 mithqdls(gold dinars)for it. This seemsa verylow price,whenwe consider that a pound of "good quality" floss-silk is said to have cost about 9?3/ mithqdlsin Spain in 1138, and that in the eleventh centuryin Cordoba houses rangedin price from 50 to as high as 280 mithqdls.33 It is also verysignificantthat the questionrefersto the enactmentof the Jewishcommunitythatif someonepurchaseda housefroma Christian,and it is then discoveredit actuallybelongedto a Jew, he must bringproof that he had so purchasedit and then mayreceivethe returnof his purchaseprice

31. "Shemoneh Teshuvot" (see above, n. 17), Arabic text, p. 172; trans., pp. 181-82. Admittedly the phrase la-mirkanfihd ta'am al-sultan is difficult, but I would suggest that the root of the first word is kariya, one of the meanings of which is "lease, rent out," and ta'dm (usually "food") also can mean "tax" in medieval Arabic. The alternative would be to understand it as "preparing food for the government," as the editors tentatively translate, but this does not seem to fit the context (besides, what benefit would there be for the Jewish claimant in this?). 32. Ibid., p. 181, n. 16. (My comments in the next few lines are not meant to criticize the editors, neither of whom is an historian, but to suggest a context which more correctly fits the situation.) 33. See generally Eliahu Ashtor, "Prix et salaires dans l'Espagne musulmane aux Xe et XIe siecles," Annales economies, societes, civilisations 20 (1965): 668-669. The letter, by Isaac Ibn Barukh (not Ibn Baron, as stated there), has been translated in full by S. D. Goitein, Letters of Medieval Jewish Travelers (Princeton, 1973), pp. 260-263. (Goitein, however, gives an incorrect interpretation of the letter, as I shall show in my book on Jewish, Muslim, and Christian relations in Spain.)

202

NORMANROTH

(the houserevertingto the originalJewishowner).Thus,apparently,it was a commonoccurrencethat houseswereseizedfromJewsduringthe massacre. The Mozarabicdocumentsof Toledo editedby Gonzilez Palenciaare a mine of informationon the Jews of Toledo and their relationswith Christians, and yet they have neverbeen properlyexplored.One cannotexamine merelythe Hebrewdocuments,in the volume edited by the great Spanish Hebraist Millis Vallicrosa,nor can one rely on the often incorrectand incompleteSpanishsummariesof the Arabicdocuments.It is impossibleto determinewhetherone of these deals with Jews or not without carefully readingthe textitself,andeventhenone musthavea thoroughacquaintance with Jewishnames(oftenalmostindistinguishablefromArabic)in medieval Spain. What we learn from a carefulexaminationof the documentsin these four massive volumes is that relations between Jews and Christiansin Toledo in the twelfthand thirteenthcenturieswereon the whole extremely cordial (this was true as well elsewherein Spain). They engagedin joint businessventuresand sold propertyto each other. A Christianwidow sold propertyon behalfof herminorchildrento a Jew(1204;2:331[citationswill give the date, then the volumeand page of the document]).Jewsfrequently sold houses in the Jewishquartersto Christians,and even to the cathedral. The wazir ("vizier")Abo Harfin Msfis al-Isra'flf ShabaS(or Shabat; in Spanish,"Abenxaat")and his wife Sitt Bona (a common name for Jewish women,in Arabicsitt means"lady")sold some propertyto the archbishopelect Ruy Jim6nezde Rada),the purchasepricebeing savedby the sellerto cover a debt he owed the deceasedarchbishopPedroMartin(MartinLbpez de Pisuerga,who died sometimelate in 1208or early 1209;our documentis dated October of 1208 [2:373]).Now, these are quite famous figures in medieval Spanish history, yet the existence of these documents (or the identityof the figuresin them) has not hithertobeen noted or suspected. The abbess of the convent of San Clementegave the Jew Ibrahimb. Isma'llal-Balansi("of Valencia")a store which the convent had acquired from anotherJew living in Talavera,in exchangefor anotherstore in that city ownedby the said Ibrahim(1210;4:808).We hearagainof transactions between the archbishopRodrigo Jim6nezde Rada and Jews, as when a member of the renowned al-BarjilOnifamily, Abu'l-IHasanBenjaminb. Abi Ishaq, acted as agent for the archbishopto purchasesome property (1244; 3:564). Nor was Ibn al-ShabaSthe only Jew who dealt with the previousarchbishop,for the wealthyAbu 'Umar (Joseph)Ibn Sfsan sold


203

some farm land and vineyardsin Olias to the archbishopMartin L6pez (1205; 2:344, cf. 335).34

A summaryof a Hebrewdocumentof sale is givenin Arabic,in a transaction betweenJews and Christians(3:648;it is unfortunatethat the editor left out the "varioussignaturesin Hebrew,"but the namesof the Jews are known from the text itself). In 1246, Benjaminal-Barjiluniwas appointed administratorof the houses owned by the cathedralchapter of Toledo (2:572).

A very unusual document apparentlyindicates that a Christiandied without relatives,and his propertywas dividedbetweena Jew who lived in Cordobaand a femaleservantof the deceased!Two slaveshad alreadybeen sold to the brotherof the Jew (4:1003). A Christianin Villade Muelas(Villamuelas,east of Toledo)sold a vineyard to pay a debt to a Jew (3:711,4:888). When a Jew and his wife rented some land and vineyardsfrom the Cathedralof Santa Maria in Toledo in 1217, one of the conditionsof the long-term agreement (five years) was that if an armed troop (Arabic a uniqueterm;cf. also 4:1065,possiblyfromball,as modernArabic mah.alla, juyush mubtalla,"occupationforces") of Christiansor Muslims should attackand destroyover half of the property,the loss was to be borneby the Cathedral(4:910).One can scarcelyimaginesuch a contractanywhereelse in medievalEurope. Loans betweenJews and Christianswere frequent.A wealthyChristian stipulatedin his will thata debtbe repaidto Abil 'UmarIbn Nabmias(1268; 4:1030).The wife of a Christianjudge loaned 50 mithqdlsof gold to the Jew IshlaqIbn al-Jabirand his wife Jamila(1209;4:834).We have alreadynoted that ibn al-Shaha$borrowedmoney from the archbishop,Martin L6pez. Thus, not only was Spain unusualin that Christiansrepaidloans to Jews, but Jews frequentlyborrowedfrom Christians. Not all debtswererepaid,however,and sometimesthe matterhad to be broughtto court, as in a case in 1262wherea respectedChristiannotable representeda Jew in a Christiancourtin claimsagainsta Christianwho had 34. Maurice, archdeacon of Toledo, bought property on behalf of the newly elected archbishop on April 5, 1208 (first recorded mention of him as archdeacon); cf. the Arabic document in Mozdrabes, 2:373. We can trace the acquisition of the property of Ibn Sfisan: ibid., 2:276, 279, 280, 284, and 290, and this is rare documentation of the growing wealth of one Jewish notable.

204

NORMANROTH

not repaid his loans. The Christianjudge found in favor of the Jew, and gave the debtorninedaysto repaythe loans. Thetime passedwithoutrepayment, and it came to court again. Thejudge orderedthe debtor'smovable goods sold to meet the debt, but the amountwas insufficient,and thejudge orderedhis house sold also. Onlyone offerto purchasewas made,by a Jew, for the exact amountof the debt. When the debtorpromisedto producea higheroffer for the house, time was grantedto do so, but when no other buyercould be found, it was sold to the Jewwith the stipulationthat he pay its full value.3"The entireprocedurein this casegoes againstall assumptions concerningthe conditionsof medievalJews. Usually,everyeffortwas voluntarilymadeto repaydebtsto Jews.Thus, the convent of Santo Domingo sold some propertyin orderto pay a debt due to the "JewessMukakasa"(1251;3:580).Spaindifferedin this respect as well, as our documentsand other sourcesattest, in that Jewishwomen werefrequentlyin businesseitheralone or as partnerswith theirhusbands. In anothercase, a Jewwas unableto repayhis loan fromthe daughterof a Christianjudge, and she took possessionof the house which was surety (1209;4:834).One of the most interestingexamplesof a loan by a Christian to a Jew is that of a militarycommander(qd'id,incorrectlyspelled in the text) in the enormousamount of 170 mithqdls,for which the Jew gave as suretytwo well-knownhouses,vineyards,land, etc., and his partof a house that he owned with his brotherin the Jewishcastle (1163;4:897).Another largeloan (3,000mithqdlsof silver)by a Christianjudgeto a Jewfor the purpose of investingin merchandiseis indicativeof typicalpartnerships.Twothirdsof the profit was to go to the Christian(in additionto repaymentof the loan), and in the event that repaymentwas not made after a year, an additional20 mithqdlsa day was to be due. In this case, the Jew did not repayand the case went to court,wherethe Jewwas orderedto sell a house, a store, and its upper dwellingsection (1294;4:965). Here,it is necessaryto explainthat the use of gentilecourtsby Jewswas strictly prohibited, in theory, by rabbinic law.36 Nevertheless,Jews in 35. 4:959; cf. also no. 964. For a similar case, see there no. 960, where in spite of a complicated procedure involving a house kept as surety and finally sold, the Jewish lender never fully recovered his debt. 36. In strictly talmudic law, the use of gentile courts was permitted (cf. M. Gittin 1:5), but medieval authorities nevertheless enacted strong prohibitions against the practice. Obviously, however "universal" these may have been among Ashkenazic Jewry, they were not accepted in Spain. See generally Guido Kisch, "Relations Between Jewish and Christian Courts in the


205

Toledo (and in Spain generally)violated this law frequently.There are severalresponsadiscussingthis. A questionfromToledo,for instance,was addressedto Ibn Megashconcerninga documentwherea widowleft all her propertyto her daughter,includingall debts due her "whetherin Jewish We learn from our docudocumentsor in documentsof the Muslims.""37 ments that Jews were often careful to have importantbills of sale, etc., copiedtwice, once in a Mozarabiccourt and againin a Jewishcourt.38Not all rabbiswereaverseto acceptingthe testimonyof gentilecourtsand documents.The renownedrabbiIsaac al-Fasiwas askedabout a casein whicha Jew had given his field to a Muslimas suretyfor a loan on conditionthatit would become the propertyof the Muslimif the loan was not repaidby a certain date. The Muslim sold the field to anotherJew, and after eleven years "the Christianstook the city," at which time the original owner claimed that he had paid the debt and the field should revert to him. al-Fasi'sreply is that if there is a documentattestedin a Muslimcourt to supportthe rightfulownershipof the Muslim(at the time he sold the field), it belongsto the personwho boughtit; if not, it revertsto the originalJewish arrivedin owner.39This may referto the conquestof Toledoin 1085;al-Fdasi in 1088. Spain Jewish Officials and Courtiers

Not the least of the importantinformationwhichcan be gainedfrom a proper analysisof the Mozarabicdocumentsis a considerableamount of new information on Jewish courtiers and community officials, some of whom are previouslyknown from other sources and some of whom are mentionedonly here. Perhaps of most significanceis Joseph ha-nasi (Hebrew honorific, Middle Ages," Louis GinzbergJubilee Volume(New York, 1945), 1:201-225 (with referencesto other important literature), and note his criticism of David Shohet, Jewish Courtsin the Middle Ages (now reprinted as vol. 3 of Studies in Jewish Jurisprudence[New York, 1974]), in his Jews in Medieval Germany (Chicago, 1949), p. 442, n. 4. There is additional bibliography on the subject, but this is not the place to list it. The subject will be dealt with extensively in my book. 37. Joseph Ibn Megash, Teshuvot(Warsaw,1870), no. 96. 38. See, e.g., Mozdrabes, 3:674 and 4:1147, the donation of houses by Gedaliah Ibn al-Sabi to his sister Dona. It escaped both Gonzalez Palencia and Millis Vallicrosa that the Arabic and the Hebrew documents are the same. This is also true of other documents there. 39. Isaac al-F~si, She'elot u-Teshuvot(Bilgoraj, 1935), no. 167.

206

NORMANROTH

"leader")Ibn Ferrrusiel,known as Cidillahor Cidellus(from Arabic$d, "lord"). He was a counselorand physicianof Alfonso VI, in spite of the prohibitionof GregoryVII againstusingJewishofficialsof any kind,which was directedspecificallyto that king by the pope, and in spiteof Alfonso's own decreeto that effect more than once in 1090.40 Accordingto RodrigoJim6nezde Rada (d. 1247),not only archbishop of Toledobut also a majormedievalSpanishchronicler,Ibn FerruSielgot in troublewith the king for urging,at the insistenceof the nobility, that the widoweddaughterof the king, Urraca,marryCountG6mezof Candespina. The Jew, althoughtrustedby the king for his "industryand knowledgeof medicine,"had presumedtoo much, and was angrilydismissedby the king and told not to reappearin his presence.41 Joseph was uncle of Solomon Ibn FerruSiel,also active in the king's service,in whose honor the famous poet Judah ha-Levywrote one of his most beautiful poems, the magnificent"Ba'alat Keshafim"("Enchanted sorceress").Afterthe openinglove section,the poet has theselines concerning Solomon: The ministerwhomthe governmenthas come upon his shoulder;lo, the earth he causes to serve according to his desire. He journeyed-and the face of the city grew dark after him, as it shines before him, upon his return,on all sides.42

40. For the letter of Pope Gregory VII to Alfonso, see Baer, Die Juden im christlichen Spanien (Berlin, 1936), vol. 2, no. 12; for the orders by Alfonso himself, Baer, Jews in Christian Spain, 1:386 and n. 14d, and the document overlooked by Baer which was published in Espatia sagrada, 72:411-414. For Joseph in our documents, see above at n. 31. 41. De rebus Hispaniae, lib. VI, xxxiii, in PP. Toletanorum... Opera, ed. Cardinal de Lorenzana (Madrid; 1793), vol. 3 (photo rpt. as Rodericus Ximenius de Rada, Opera [Valencia, 1968], pp. 145-146). This must have occurred in 1107, when Ram6n de Bergofio, the husband of Urraca, died, and thus surely before the massacre of the Jews in Toledo in 1108. 42. Judah ha-Levy, Divan, ed. Haim Brody (Berlin, 1894-1930), 1:14-15, no. 13; also in Hayyim (Jefim) Schirmann, ed., Ha-Shirah ha-Ivrit bi-Sefarad u-ve-Provens(Jerusalem, 1954), 1:457-459. There is no translation, but it will appear in an anthology of medieval Hebrew verse in translation which I am preparing. On Judah ha-Levy, see my article in Critical Survey of Poetry: Foreign Language Series, ed. Frank N. Magill (Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1984), 2:776-782 (available in all reference collections).


207

Solomon had gone on a diplomaticmission to Aragon, but he was not, in fact, to returnalive to the city, for he was attackedand murderedby Christians in May of 1108(was this relatedin some way to the massacreof the Jews in August?),and ha-Levy'spoem never reachedhim. The poet then composeda eulogy on the deathof the Jewishleader.Meanwhile,his uncle He left behind Josephhad let Toledo altogetherand gone to Guadalajara.43 him considerablepropertyin and near the city, which after his death was given to the churchby Alfonso VII in 1145.44 Judah ha-Levyalso wrote a poem in honor of Joseph Ibn Ferrugiel,in the styleknownas (strophicpoemin whichthe lastcoupletis in muwashshab. or sometimesa combinationof both). Becauseof the Arabicor Romance, importanceof this poem, and sinceit is short,I giveit herefor the firsttime in an accuratetranslation: The headsof the people,whentheygather, and kings in their assembly, All give thanks to Joseph, for he is the eye of their glory. Eagerto rule by God's power, and so he is a ruler over menThe desire of man, of whom everyonesays: "the only one, the choice one." Governmentis preparedfor the prince;it is a diadem for beauty. All the desire of man, if it is as preciousas the world and its fullness, I said, Behold it is a thing the essence of which is its prince. Joseph to inhabit it was formed;it was not createda void. With him is the heavy burdeneased, for he has been strong and prevailed. 43. See Jose Maria Millhis Vallicrosa, YehuddHa-Levi como poeta y apologista (MadridBarcelona, 1947), p. 62, with a translation of the eulogy on pp. 63-64; cf. Iayyim Schirmann, "Ijayyei Yehudah ha-Levy," Tarbiz 9 (1937-38): 219-220. On the basis of these, and other, poems, Schirmann concluded that ha-Levy then lived in Toledo. 44. Baer, Die Juden, vol. 2, no. 29. Probably also the property given by the king to the monastery of San Servando (Le6n Tello, Judios de Toledo, vol. 2, no. 15).

NORMAN ROTH

208

In a strong tower he has placed, with his fleeing, dozens. A fruitful branch, your bow strong, your deeds skillful. Lo, the goodness of days is from you, and to you they renew rejoicing. You are the sun and rain is poured out-but with advantage over them: In you there rise eternal luminaries, and light shines Upon the earth, and even it testifies that it is aided by you. What is this there? A multitude of people on whom is eased the oppression of Fate Until is removed the thorn of injustice, its brushwood burned in fire. Before the coming of the full glory of God [he] stands among his myrtles. For his roaring has terrified ministers, and he has slung at a hair [cf. Zech. 1:8]. His God has made him unique, a strong fortified fortress. Streams of oil have overflown the stream of stones With the news of the prince who rears the people of God in luxury. Long live the ministers!-say, Amen. Lift up exultations "Until my lord [Cidello] comes-such good news!Like a ray of sun that appears in Guadalajara."45 It is possible that the referenceto the "strong tower" in which he has placed "dozens" at his fleeing (from Toledo) may referto the Jewish castle. Perhaps this was acquired by the community after the massacre, in order to protect themselves. The line "streams of oil have overflown the stream of stones" is an allusion to Guadalajara (the Arabic name Wddf-l--ijdrameans "stream of stones"), and the "stream of oil" is a further allusion to the tidings of blessing with the coming of Joseph to the city. The rhymed couplet is: Desd' cand' [desde cuande] meu Cidello venid tan bona al-bishdra Como rayo de sol exid en Wdt-l--bijdra.46 45. Divan, ed. Brody, 1:157-158. I have here omitted all the textual notes which will appear in my anthology. 46. The italicized words are Arabic, the rest Romance. For the final couplet, see Samuel


209

Finally,it shouldbe mentionedthatJosephis saidto havebeenresponsible for drivingthe hereticalJewishQaraitesect from Spain, althoughthis claimis somewhatof an exaggeration.47It is also possiblethat it is his name which appears as a confirmandof a charter of Queen Urraca in 1110, althoughthis may be unlikelyin light of the wrath of her late father.48 TherewereotherJewishofficialsin Toledoin the twelfthand thirteenth centuries(of course, also in the later period,which is beyondthe scope of this article).49 In the Mozarabicdocuments,the title al-waztr al-bakim(erroneously renderedalguacilalhaquimby GonzalezPalenciaand Le6n Tello)is found, referringapparentlyto a kindofjudge. Gonzalezgivestwo lists of the names of these officials,one of Christiansand one of Jews,who servedfrom 1115 to 1293.50It is interestingto note that there is no correspondencebetween theselists;thatis, in the yearswhena Jewis namedas holdingthe office,no Christianis named, and vice versa. Following are the Jews who held the office (giving the correctspellingfrom the Arabicdocuments),the year of office, and volume and document: AbdiZakariyaYabyaIbn Negro"5(1158) (2:59) M. Stern, Hispano-Arabic Strophic Poetry (Oxford, 1974), pp. 133-134 (originally in French in Al-Andalus 13 [1948]: 299-346). Cantera Burgos suggested the reading "desd' cand"' in Sefarad 9 (1949): 210-211, and I have accepted this as the most likely reading. Stern, of course, had not yet had access to Cantera's article when he published his original French article, but in his "Rationalists and Kabbalists in Medieval Allegory," Journal of Jewish Studies 6 (1955): 73, he appears to have accepted Cantera's reading, though without acknowledgment. (Some corrections need to be made to his remarks there: first, Ibn FerruSielwas not a "rabbi"; secondly, the king was Alfonso VI, not VII; and thirdly, Ibn FerruSieldid not "visit" Guadalajara, but fled there to escape the wrath of the king.) 47. Ibn Daud, Sefer ha-Qabbalah, p. 69 (text), p. 95 (trans.). Cohen argues that the name should be spelled "Ferrizuel" (ibid., p. 144, Supplementary Note 57), but his reasoning is not convincing; as to the form of the Hebrew word in the MS which baffled him, I would suggest it is Arabic al-kabirt, "the great one." 48. Baer, Jews in Christian Spain, 1:51 and p. 387, n. 20. Baer was certain that this was Ibn FerruSiel, but in fact the name in the text is only "Citiello iudeo." The name is not that uncommon in the period; cf. "Cidelo" in Gonzatlez Palencia, Mozdrabes, 1, no. 2, and dofia Maria de Cidiello, ibid., Vol. Preliminar, p. 11, n. 2; also in Manuel Gonzalez Jim6nez and Antonio Gonzilez G6mez, eds., El libro del repartimientode Jirez de la Frontera(Cadiz, 1980), nos. 1930, 1931; also in Burgos in 1270 (document of Alfonso X in Baer, Die Juden, 2:61, no.

80). 49. See, for instance, my "Two Jewish Courtiers of Alfonso X Called Zag (Isaac)," Sefarad 43 (1983): 75-85. 50. Mozdrabes, 1:222-223. The documents, of course, are in Arabic, and thus there was no reason for the editor to "transliterate" these titles into medieval Spanish. Similarly, the transliteration of names is always incorrect. 51. On the meaning of Negro ("black, colorless") as a name in medieval Spanish, see Julio

210

NORMAN ROTH

Aba ZakariyaYabya Ibn Al'azar(1181) (2:151) "Abenziza"(Ibn Zabara)52(1196) (4:905) Ibrahimb. al-hakimAbu Ibrdhimal-Labli53(1229) (3:497) Rabbi Yaqfb al-Barjilhni(1235) (3:530) Abi b. Abf IbrahimIstalja(Estalecha?)(1250-51) (3:579,4:854) Isl.aq al-Ndiif (?) b. al-wazrral-katib Abu'l-.HasanSamuelIbn al-Lawi(ha-Levy)(1251) (3:579) Abu'l-.Hasan Rabbi Alyasaf (Elyosef)(1253) (3:586);(1260) (3:610) Abi 'Umar b. Abi Isbaq al-Barjil0ni(1273) (3:639) Abfi 'Umar b. Abi Ishaq Ibn Nahmias (1278, 1282)(4:862, 865) Ab: Islhaqb. AbfI 'Umar Ibn Nahmias (1282) (4:865) The title al-wazir almushrif (cf. Spanish almojarife) refers to an official

responsiblefor the collectionof taxes, but other duties were also involved (e.g., notarial;in a documentof 1247, 20 mithqdlswere paid to the wastr al-kdtib Abu'l-IJasan Samuel and 8 mithqdls to the wastral-mushrifAbu'l-

Ijasan Meir).Gonzalezgave a list of the namesof those who held this office from 1174to 1180,and of ten names,six are certainlyJews (in additionto those he identified,add also the names of Abfi IbrahimIbn Sisan and Abu'l-HasanMeir Ibn Sfisan,which he overlooked): Yahida Ibn Ezra(1185) (2:175) Abu'l-H.asan Abi 'Umar Ibn Sfsan (1197-1205) (2:276,279, 280, 344) Abu'l-HasanMeir (Mair) (1247) (3:573) Abi "Amarguim"(?) (1247) (3:573) Abi Ibrahim(b. Sadoq?)(before 1274) (3:710) Abu'l-Rabi'b. Abi Ibrahim(son of the above) (3:710) Abif IbrahimIbn Sfsan (1280) (3:668) Abu'l-IHasanMeir Ibn Sfsan (1280) (3:668) Cejador y Frauca, Vocabulariomedievalcastellano (Madrid, 1929), s.v. The Poema del mio Cid, 936, uses it in the sense of desolate, sterile (lands). It also has the meaning of "melancholy, unfortunate." The name appears later in the medieval Spanish Jewish Ibn Yabya family. 52. The only apparent reason that Gonzalez had for including this name was the reference to Abu'l-Rabi' Sulaymdin"son of al-wazir al-bakim Ibn Zabara" (4:905), which he misread as "Abenziza" (cf. 1:142); but the name is clearly Ibn Zabara, the same as that of the well-known Jewish doctor and poet, author of The Book of Delights. trans. Moses Hadas (New York, 1932; 1960). There is also a Jewish bricklayer, Isaac b. El'azar al-Bana Ibn Zabara in the thirteenth century (Mozdrabes, 4, nos. 1142, 1144). 53. Labla is Arabic for Niebla, a town in Spain.


211

Another sort of court official, or lower judge, was the wazrr al-qddf. These seem to have held appointments for short periods, two to three years on the average. The names of two Jews appear with this title: Abfi Harfn Mfisa Ibn al-Shakhath (or possibly Shakha$; in any event, hardly "Axxahats," as the Spanish version has it), and Abu 'Umar b. Abu'l-H;Iasan Ashir (Asher?) al-Barjilini. However, the actual documents concerning these use only the title al-wazfr, and there is no way to prove from this, as Gonzalez surmised, that they were judges. So also he erroneously referredto Abfi Ishaq b. Abfi Ibrahim Istalja (Estalecha?) as "alcade y alhaquim," when, in fact, the document says al-wazfr al-bakfm. which is another office entirely.54 Finally, there is al-wazfr Sdhib al-shurta. This is a problematic and important title, usually explained by modern historians as "chief of police.""55However, this is inadequate and even erroneous, for the title originally was that of a magistrate especially responsible for morality. It passed into Christian terminology in Spain as zavasorda, which often was simply a civiljudge. Apparently, the title even became honorary, for we find several Jews referredto by this title, most notably the renowned scientist and philosopher Abraham b. Hayya (so, not Hiyya), who lived in Barcelona, and also the poet Moses Ibn Ezra, who lived in Granada.56There is one Jew in the Mozarabic documents with this title, Abfi Harfin Ibn al-I.HariS.57

54. Mozdrabes, 1:219-221; documents ibid., 2, nos. 320, 373, and 4:1083; 4, no. 854 (Istalja). See also the document of property sold by "don Mos6 abenxaat" to Archdeacon Maurice (later archbishop of Burgos) on behalf of Rodrigo Jimenez de Rada, in Boletin de la real academia de la historia 11 (1887): 440-441. 55. Often in popular works on Muslim Spain, and in many works on the Jews of Spain; cf., m e.g., Garcia-Gallo, "Los fueros de Toledo," p. 410. 56. Cf. E. Levi-Provenqal, L'Espagne musulmane Xeme sicle (Paris, 1932), p. 69, and especially Ahmad ibn Mubammad al-Maqqari, The History of the Mohammedan Dynasties in Spain, trans. Pascual de Gayangos (London, 1840-83; rpt. New York, 1964), 1:102-104. His main source for government offices was an apparently lost work of Ibn Khaldfin. There is no good modern study of Muslim government and institutions (the most recent, Ann K. S. Lambton, State and Governmentin Medieval Islam [Oxford, 1981] is also unsatisfactory). On this title for Moses Ibn Ezra, see Schirmann, "Ijayyei Yehudah ha-Levy," p. 40; also Abfi 'Umar (Joseph b. Barukh), who accompanied ha-Levy to Egypt on the poet's trip to Palestine (cf. Goitein, "Miktav el Rabbenu [sic] Yehudah ha-Levy," Tarbiz 28 [1959]: 348). 57. Modarabes, 4, no. 1055, dated 1192. He owned property in Olias, as did many Jews of Toledo.

212

NORMAN ROTH FamousJews and ImportantFamilies

Toledo was, along with Seville, the most important center of Jewish population in medieval Spain, and remained so after the Christian reconquest of the city and until the expulsion of the Jews in 1492. It is no surprise, therefore, that many famous and important Jews lived there. We have already mentioned Abraham Ibn Daud, Judah ha-Levy, and Judah alHarizi. Details on the lives of these well-known figures are readily available. However, the Mozarabic documents are rich in details on other notable figures and prominent families, and this also has not been noticed previously by those who have written on the Jews of Spain. In the list of the Jews who held the office of wazir al-mushrif,we find the name (that is, when we consult the actual text of the Arabic document, which has not hitherto been done) of Abu'l-IHasan Yahufid Ibn Ezra (the date 1185 there refers, in fact, to the date of the document in which he is mentioned, and not to the date of his office; this is important, as we shall see). Gonzalez also cited the partition of Azafia (near Illescas, north of Toledo) in 1185, in which Alfonso VIII gave to the cathedral of Toledo "the farms of Fazania [Azaii] which the almoxarife "Avenazara, called Bonvida, possessed."'" There is no doubt that this "Avenazara" is the same as Abu'l-Hasan Yahiddi, whose family name Gonzales misread as "ben Odra." In fact, the Arabic is Ibn 'Idra, which I believe is merely an attempt to render in Arabic script the Hebrew name Ezra.59This can be none other than Judah Ibn Ezra, son of Joseph (who was one of the brothers of the poet Moses Ibn Ezra).60 Judah was appointed almoxarife of Calatrava by Alfonso VIII in 1147, as Ibn Daud relates: 58. Mozarabes, 1: 90-91, n. 1 (hereditatemde Fazania quondamalmoxarifo Avenzaradicto Bonvidanominepossessam). "Bonvida," of course, is merely the equivalent of Abu'l-Hasan, or Judah. 59. Cf. Idris for biblical Ezra, and also the name of a mythical hero in Islam, probably derived from Greek Esdras. See especially Charles Cutler Torrey, The Jewish Foundation of Islam (New York, 1933), p. 72 (I do not understand why this perfectly correct explanation was ignored in the article "Idris" in Shorter Encyclopedia of Islam, in favor of older theories which Torrey disproved). 60. See Baer, Jews in Christian Spain, 1:60 ff. on this family; there is no doubt, of course, that this is the same Judah Ibn Ezra who desired to join Judah ha-Levy on his last journey to Palestine (cf. S. D. Goitein, "Ha-Parshah ha-Abaronah be-Hayyei Rabbenu [sic] Yehudah ha-Levy," Tarbiz24 [1954]: 32 and 35. Goitein was apparently unaware that this Judah was the same as the one mentioned by Ibn Daud, although this was already pointed out by Baer, "Ha-Masav ha-Politiy shel Yehudei Sefarad be-Doro shel R. Yehudah ha-Levy," Zion 1


213

King Alfonso the Emperador[Ar.'imbiralar]appointedour masterandrabbi, R. Judahthe Nasi b. Ezraover Calatrava[andplaced]all royalprovisionsin his charge. . . . he supervised the passage of the [Jewish] refugees [fleeing from the Almohads] ...

At his home and at his verytable,wherethe refugeesfoundrest,he fed the hungry,provideddrinkfor thethirsty,andclothedthe naked.Then,providing animalsfor all the feeble,he had them broughtas far as Toledo in greatdignity. [This he was able to do] by virtue of the awe and respectwhich he commanded among the Christians, who conveyed them [the refugees]. Although but a youth, he had alreadybeen exalted above the people, and lordedit over a companyof spearmen.Sincehe had no regardfor silver,nor did he delightin gold,he did not keepfor himselfanyof his shareof the King's pay.... Nevertheless,he conducteda huge business.... The King sent for him and appointedhimlord of all his householdand rulerover all his possessions .

.61

By "lording it over a company of spearmen" (a somewhat dubious translation at best),62 the editor suggests that Ibn Daud referred to Ibn Ezra's influence with the Order of Calatrava.63He is probably right about this, but the allusion is to be found instead in the phrase "the respect he commanded among the Christians," not in any supposed statement about "lording it over a company of spearmen," which is simply an erroneous translation (the correcttranslationought to be "he inspiredfear [or awe]").64

(1938): 18. None of the authors here mentioned, nor anyone else, has realized that the longavailable Mozarabic documents contain this important information on Judah Ibn Ezra. 61. Sefer ha-Qabbalah, The Book of Tradition, pp. 97-98 (trans.). 62. See Cohen's note there to lines 109-110 for his justification of this translation. However, all that Abraham Ibn Ezra (no relation to Judah or Moses) says in his commentary to Psalm 68:31 (cited by Cohen there) is that qand in Arabic means "spear"; but the word "spear" is not even mentioned in Ibn Daud's text, and at best is only hinted at. 63. Ibid., p. 98, note to lines 109-110. 64. See also Cohen's analysis of Ibn Daud's motives in thus praising Judah, pp. 274-275 and p. 294 (yet it is not true that Ibn Daud claimed "Davidic lineage" for Ibn Ezra, as asserted on p. 275; cf. Cohen's own observation to the contrary on p. 145, n. 99-100). Le6n Tello incorrectly states that Ibn Daud reported that Alfonso gave "all the royal part of Calatrava" to Ibn Ezra (Los judios de Toledo, 1:32; she was probably misled by Americo Castro, Espahiaen su historia [Buenos Aires, 1948], p. 195, who also believed that Judah was made governor of Calatrava). The Hebrew phrase, in Ibn Daud, 'al kol manat ha-melekh could indeed have this meaning (I have not consulted the Spanish translation of Ibn Daud, which Le6n may have used), but it is probably more correctly translated as Cohen has: "to place all the royal provision in his charge." It is hardly likely that he would have been made governor of the region, but he may well have been in charge of provisions for the troops.

214

NORMAN ROTH

The situation must have been desperate indeed during those years, not only in Calatrava itself, but also in Toledo. Alfonso VII remarked in 1147: "How many evils and how many persecutions the city of Toledo has constantly suffered-and the whole Christian people-during the time when Calatrava was in the power of the Muslims, is known to all who live in Spain." Following the death of Alfonso VI (1109) until 1118, the Muslims attacked Toledo almost annually; and again in 1128, 1139, and 1143. The attacks resumed in 1172, 1182, 1185, 1196, and 1197.65 Whatever the truth about Judah Ibn Ezra's service to the crown, it must have been substantial, for Sancho III expressed his gratitude and recognition of the service which Judah had always given to Sancho and to his father, Alfonso VII, by granting to him and his children in perpetuity five yugadas of land in the region of Azafia.66 Remarkably, we now find the document of the sale of exactly this land by Judah's daughters in 1185 to the cathedral of Toledo. Their names were Jamila, Sitt Bona, Amira, and Hadassah (only the last is Hebrew, the rest are Arabic). Strangely, Le6n Tello cites another document whereby some land owned by "Judi el almoxerif" in Azafia was given away by the archbishop of Toledo (who would have been Juan de Gonzales Torres de Navarra) in 1164. This cannot have been the same property, of course, but does indicate that Judah was perhaps already dead in 1164.67

65. Document edited by Fidel Fita in Boletin de la real academia de la historia 3 (1885): 344-346; cf. also L. Torres Balbais, "Ciudades yermas de la Espafia musulmana," ibid. 141 (1957): 87. The data on attacks on Toledo are taken from Reyna Pastor de Togneri, "Los Mozarabes de Tolbde de 1085 a la fin du XIIIe siecle," Annales 25 (1970): 367 (overlooked by her was another attack, during the Christian siege of Cuenca in 1177, when the Muslims undertook a diversionary attack on Toledo and Talavera [Ibn 'Idhiri, al-Bayan al-mugrib, trans. Ambrosio Huici Miranda (Tetuan, 1953-54), 1:28]). 66. Ed. Fidel Fita, "Templarios, Calatravas y Hebreos," Boletin de la real academia de la historia 14 (1890): 264-265, 267; also in Baer, Die Juden, 2, no. 34, and in Julio Gonzalez, El reino de Castillo en la dpoca de Alfonso VIII (Madrid, 1960), 2:70-71, no. 39. None of these references was known to Cohen, Sefer ha-Qabbalah. "Boniuda" in the document is, of course, Judah. Yugadameans a section of land which can be plowed by a yoke of oxen in a day; about 33 hectares. 67. Mozdrabes, 2, no. 175. Judah is described as a "youth" in 1147 by Ibn Daud, but he must have been at least thirty (his father died in 1128, and judging from Moses Ibn Ezra's poem to him-see below-he must have been at least thirteen at that time). The 1164 document was cited by Le6n Tello, Losjudios, 2, no. 23, and edited there, 1:372-373, no. 2, but she appears unaware that this "Judi el almoxerif" was none other than Judah Ibn Ezra, and the same as referredto in the previous document, mentioned in n. 66 above, of which she was also unaware. There exists also a confirmation of the ownership of the property in Alzafia by the cathedral,


215

Knowingthe greatlove which Moses Ibn Ezrahad for his brothers,all of whom died beforehim, and especiallyfor Joseph,it seemedto me possible that the poet might have mentioned his nephew Judah, the son of Joseph.This, indeed,provedto be the case.We findthat he wrotea long and very moving poem to Judah,instructinghim to give himselfto the attainment of wisdomand to study.It seemslikelythatthe occasionfor this poem was, in fact, the death of his fatherJoseph in 1128. In it, he says: Judah,seekthe eminenceof parentsand uncles, although they have gone down to Sheol; They are vanished,but their memoryis like the sun whose praise is never lacking. He advises him: "Little sleep, my son, little slumber/ little laziness, little drinking and eating" (line 15), and concludes the poem with prophetic words that were, indeed, to be fulfilled: Yetyou shallhavethe law of inheritance as your portion, and of redemption; Judah, yet shall your name go forth in the earth and your fame be proclaimedon every road. (lines 49-50)68 The poems of Ibn Ezra provide other names which are worthy of our attention:e.g., the hakimAbu'l-HasanMeirIbn Al'azar,to whom the poet addresseda replyto a letterwhichthe lattersent him. Verylikely he was the signed by Alfonso VIII, but with no mention that it was sold to the cathedral by the daughters of Judah (ed. Fita, "Templarios, Calatravos y Hebreos," pp. 366-367; Gonzalez, Alfonso VIII, 2:757-758, no. 440; this is cited by Leon Tello, Judios, 2, no. 36. Gonzalez, Alfonso VIII, 1:134-135, discusses Judah briefly, but the information that he was in office in Granada is without foundation (taken from Manuel Vallecillo Avila, "Los judios de Castilla en la alta Edad Media," Cuadernos de historia de Espada 14 [1950]: 17-110, which Gonzalez cites frequently merely as "Vallecillo," but omits in his bibliography. This article, while sometimes correct, contains a great deal of faulty information which has misled many scholars). Also, Gonzilez's statement (1:249) that Judah was also almoxarife of Sancho III is without any foundation; true, Sancho refers to the service which Judah performed for his father and for himself, but this is too general to allow the conclusion that he held the office of almoxarife also under Sancho. 68. Moses Ibn Ezra, Shirei ha-Hfol,ed. H. Brody (Berlin, 1935), 1, no. 105 (my translation). The "pain" to which the poet refers in line 45 is probably due to the death of Joseph (Brody gives another explanation). This poem has gone unnoticed by Baer, Cohen, et al.

216

NORMANROTH

father of al-wazFral-hakfm Ab:i Zakariyi Yabya Ibn Al'azar which appears in our list of officials (Mozdrabes, 1:193). Indeed, it is probable that this Meir is the same as the "alfacum nomine Abenlahacer" in a document of Alfonso VIII, in which the king conceded to a loyal military official some houses and considerable property (cum terris, uineis, aldeis, molendinis, piscariis, hortis, pratis et paschuis, etc.) which belonged to the Jew.69 As a result of the unusual amount of documentation which we possess concerning the Jews of Toledo, it is possible to learn a great deal about the community and about its influential Jewish families. One of these was the al-Barjilini family. As the Arabic name indicates, the family originated in Barcelona. The earliest record we have of them in Toledo is 1201-1205, when we find the name of Abfi Yfisuf al-Barjilfini (Mozdrabes, 2:303, 312, 340). We hear no further mention of the family until 1238, when we find a judge (wazir al-hakFm) Ya'qub, whose daughter Dona is mentioned, and Isbaq b. 'Azir al-Barjilfini. Abu'l-Ijasan Benjamin b. Abfi Ishaq is mentioned in 1239, 1244, and 1246. One of these documents (1244) is of great interest, for he acted then as representative of the archbishop, Rodrigo Jim6nez de Rada, for the purchase of some property. His son, Abraham, is mentioned in 1269 and 1273, as is also the judge Abf 'Umar (Joseph?) b. Abf Ishaq, who may be another son, and Abi 'Umar b. Abu'l-Hasan Benjamin, who is certainly the brother of Abraham. There is also al-wazFrAbi 'Umar b. Abu'l-Hasan Asher in 1242, and Abu'l- Hasan Asher b. Abfi Isbaq b. Abu'l-Hasan Asher in 1273. Other members of the family are al-wazFr al-baktm Ya'qfib (1238), Solomon (1254), Ya'qfib b. Asher (1260), and Abi Yfisuf Ya'qfib (1255).70 It is difficult to imagine that a family of such importance (all of whom owned extensive property, and several of whom were officials) could have

69. Gonzalez, Alfonso VIII, 2, no. 93; Baer, Die Juden, 2, no. 35 (a faulty transcription). Baer also recognized that this Abenlahacer was a Jew, but made no further effort to identify him, yet it is obvious that this is another form of the name Ibn Al'azar, and the date of the document (1166), by which time he was deceased, coincides quite well with this official who lived at the time of Moses Ibn Ezra. It is apparent that this family survived to the late fourteenth century, for Le6n Tello cites a document in which the name of "Samuel Abelhazar" appears (perhaps, indeed, an error in transcription, for in the index she gives the name as "Abenlahazar") (Los judios, 2, no. 5). 70. Mozdrabes, 3:530; 4:841; 3:564, 573; 4:913, 960; 3:639, 716, 554, 555, 639; 4:1082, 1143, 1083, 793 (B). Some of these are also cited by Le6n Tello, but by no means all. The document in which Benjamin is an agent for Rodrigo Jimenez de Rada is 3:564, also cited by Leon Tello, Judios, 2, no. 137 (though without making it clear that this is, in fact, de Rada).


217

sprungup in Toledo all of a suddenin 1200with no priorbackgroundin the city. It is possible, although the suggestionmust be made with extreme caution, that this is the same familyas that of the eminentscholarwho has been so often confusedwiththe studentof Maimonides(for whomthe Guide was written),Josephb. Judah Ibn 'Aqnin. Becausehe refersto himselfas in some of his works, it has been assumedthat he lived in "al-Barjiltini" Barcelona.This assumptionis, I believe,withoutwarrant.Everythingin his style of writing,and the factthat he wroteeloquentArabic,indicatesthat he lived instead in Muslim Spain.In one place he gives his full familygenealogy: Joseph b. Judah b. Joseph b. Jacob ha-dayyan(judge) al-Barjilini (Bar;elonyin Hebrew).Whilethesenamesare, of course,verycommon,it is interestingto note how they are repeated in the al-Barjilfni family of Toledo.7'

AbrahamIbn Daud

We have often referredto the importantchronicle of Abraham Ibn Daud. Thereis a persistentreportin Jewishsourcesthat he died a martyr's deathin Toledo.The earliest,andin truththe only reliable,sourceis a letter writtenby Josephb. TodrosAbulafia(earlythirteenthcentury)in whichhe brieflystates that Ibn Daud "was killed for the unity of God." No date is chronicler,who also lived in Toledo, given.72A late-fourteenth-century Isaac Israeli,wrote:"He sanctified[God's]namein public and died for its unityand was buriedin Toledo."He also does not hint at a date. Somewhat later, Joseph Ibn $addik of Arevalo, who usually reliedon Israelifor his information, states: "Abraham ha-Levy b. David [sic], who sanctified himself on the unity of the Name in Toledo .. . [died] in 1180." This is the

firstmentionof a date. In the late fifteenthcentury,AbrahamZakutwrote: 71. The confusion of Ibn 'Aqnin, a contemporary of Maimonides, with Joseph Ibn Shimon of Ceuta, his disciple, has plagued scholars for a century or more, for reasons which are hard to understand. One of the sources of this confusion was the edition of Ibn 'Aqnin's important commentary on Pirkei Avot, entitled Sefer Musar, ed. W. Z. Bacher (Berlin, 1910; photo rpt., Jerusalem, 1967), which the editor erroneously attributed to Joseph b. Judah (Ibn Shimon) of Ceuta (see there, p. viii, n. 3, for the author's genealogy). This important work also seems to show signs of its origin in Muslim, not Christian, Spain, and even precisely in Toledo (I shall deal elsewhere with this). 72. Letter, ed. S. Z. H. Halberstamm in Jeschurun 8 (1872-75); 41; rpt. as Qevusat Miktavim (Bamberg, 1875). p. 25.

218

NORMAN ROTH

"R. Abrahamha-LevyIbn Daudi [sic], who sanctifiedthe Name himself, died for the unityof the Name in Toledo ... in the year 1180."It is obvious that he drew from Ibn Saddikas his source. Finally, Solomon Ibn Verga, one of the generationof the exile from Spain,states:"And this R. Abraham ha-Levywas hung [!] for the sanctificationof the Name; for the king of Spain wanted to compel him to convert, and since he was unable to, he orderedthat he be hung."" Cohen has accepted this least reliable,and latest, account as being correct,and assumedthat Ibn Daud's "messianic message"(in his Sefer ha-Qabbalah)was "discovered"by the Christians, and he was "givenan opportunityto clearhimself"by renouncinghis faith in the Jewish Messiah.74 This is, to say the least, highlyunlikely.In the firstplace,the book was writtenin Hebrew,a languagewhichno Christian(at least in Spain)could yet understand.Secondly,the "messianicmessage,"whichis probablythere but fairlywell concealed,is simplythe traditionalpious attemptto console despairingJews undergoingthe tribulationsof exile. There is nothing blasphemousin this, nor is there anythingin the book that could be construedas an attack on Christianbeliefs(as was the case in the writingsof many other SpanishJewswho werenot forced,or urged,to convert).Most medievalJews held a beliefin the "JewishMessiah,"but this was merelya beliefthat God wouldsendthe promisedMessiahin due time.I am unaware of a singleJew anywherewho was everpersecuted,muchless killed,for this "belief." Furthermore,it is highly unlikelythat Alfonso VIII, who was king of Castile at the time, would have "hung" a Jew for any religious belief. Indeed, Ibn Daud praiseshim excessivelyin his chronicleas a "righteous king,"in very nearlymessianicterms.Not only that, Alfonso was not even in Toledo in 1180 (when Ibn David was supposedlykilled), and did not return to the city until 1181. We may conclude, therefore, that if the accountshave any factualbasis at all, Ibn Daud may have been killed by some overzealousChristianfanaticslivingin Toledo(in additionto Spanish Christians,who rarelypersecutedJews, there were Frenchand other for73. Israeli, Sefer YesodOlam (Berlin, 1777), fol. 86a; ed. B. Goldberg (Berlin, 1846-48), fol. 35c. Ibn $addik, "Qissur Zekher Saddik," in A. Neubauer, ed., Medieval Jewish Chronicles (Oxford, 1887-95), 1:94. Zakut, Sefer Yubasin ha-Shalem (see n. 19 above), fol. 220a. Ibn Verga, Sefer Shevet Yehudah,ed. Israel Shochet and Yitzhak Baer (Jerusalem, 1947), p. 22, line 21. 74. Sefer ha-Qabbalah p. 303, n. 193.


219

eignersliving in the city). On the other hand,it happensthat the tombstone of a probable relative, Moses b. Joseph Ibn Daud of Toledo, has been preserved.He is referredto both as a wealthy man and a government ministerto whom the "Arabkings" (Muslimrulers)gave both honor and political authority(misrah).Unfortunately,part of a criticalline is missing, but what remainsgives us: "he came to Spain [Sefarad,ChristianSpain); then the beneisurahmade themselvesdespicable[?] because of him" and killed him, in 1240 (? or earlier)." The expressionbeneisurahis verypeculiar.I believethe meaningis to be found in the very unusualappearanceof the word in Isaiah49:21,whereit means somethinglike "wanderer,"or one who turns to and fro, but the translationof the AramaicTargumthereis u-me-lallelah,whichis the very word, we recall, which the Jews used for the name of Toledo. Thus, the inscriptionmay be hinting at the fact that the "children[inhabitants]of Toledo" killed this Ibn Daud. In any event, it is clearlystated that he was killed, and in Toledo, ratherclose to the periodwhenAbrahamIbn Daud is said (by late sources)to have been killed. Is this mere coincidence,or is it possiblethat the laterJewishsourceshave confusedthe two Ibn Dauds, and evolveda myth of the typicalmartyr'sdeathof whichsuch chroniclerswere so fond?In any case, Ibn Verga'saccountof the supposedmartyrdomlikely tells us more about conditions in his own day than in that of Ibn Daud. Conclusions The Jews were loyal and valued inhabitantsof Toledo from an early period.Followingthe Christianreconquestof the city from the Muslimsin 1085, there were repeatedattemptsby the Muslimsto win the city back. Jews often proved loyal defendersof the city against these attacks, and except for the one incidentof a massacre(which may, indeed, have been provokedby foreigntroops),we hearof no conflictbetweenChristiansand Jews throughoutthe twelfth and thirteenthcenturies. On the basis of an examination,the first ever undertaken,of all the sources-Arabic, Hebrew,Latin, and Spanish-for the Jews of Mozarabic Toledo, we have seen that this was a thrivingcommunitywith extensive 75. Joseph Almanzi (and S. D. Luzzatto), ed., Avnei Zikaron (Prague, 1841), pp. 50-51, no 49.

220

NORMANROTH

agriculturaland businessholdingsboth withinthe city andin the surrounding territory. Most importantly,perhaps,the variousdocumentsprovideus with rare and detailedinsightinto daily relationsbetweenJews and Christians,and confirmin a preciseway the impression,gainedalso from other sourcesfor medievalSpain,that they lived togetherin harmonyand cooperation.This extended to the Church and its various institutionsand to the highestranking Church officials in the realm (the information which we have uncoveredhere for the first time concerningrelationsbetweensuch major figures of medieval Spain as Rodrigo Jimenezde Rada and Archdeacon Maurice,laterarchbishopof Burgos,and the Jewsought not to be ignored in futurework on these men). Finally, the analysisof the Arabic documents,and a comparisonwith Hebrewsourcematerial,has resultedin importantnew informationabout major Jewish officials and families in Toledo, and has shed new light on such prominentfiguresas JosephIbn 'Aqninand AbrahamIbn Daud. (The in Toledoin samedocumentsrevealthe presenceof two sons of Nal.manides the latterpart of the fourteenthcentury,but thatis beyondthe scope of this study.) Sources properlyapproached,with the necessarylinguistictools and comparativeanalysis, can help to open up a world of Jewish life which played a major part in the Jewishcivilizationof medievalSpain. of Wisconsin University Madison,Wis.

The Love Poetry of Yehuda Amichai Author(s): Glenda Abramson Source: AJS Review, Vol. 11, No. 2 (Autumn, 1986), pp. 221-247 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486247 . Accessed: 30/06/2011 18:20 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 LOVEPOETRY OF YEHUDA AMICHAI by GLENDA ABRAMSON If YehudaAmichaidoes not use as topics for his work all threeof those that Dante consideredfundamentalto poetry, salus, venus,and virtus,the second, venus,appearsas a pervasivetheme, perhapsthe most pervasive throughouthis work, revealinga consistencyof idea whichhas unfailingly moved throughthe structuredverse of the earlyvolumesto the less tersely conceivedpoemsof lateryears.One of the primarytopicsof his poetryis the alterationof love withina varietyof contexts:time, war, youth and maturity, memoryand religion.Loveis the frameworkin whichmost of the events of the poetrytakeplace,andit is itselfcelebratedor mournedin a numberof long lyric cycles, particularlyin the earlybooks, writtenbetween 1948and Amichai's poems have been quoted from the following editions, all published by Schocken Books: Shirim 1948-1962 (1967); Akhshav ba-Ra'ash (hereafter cited as Akhshav) (1968); Ve-Lo al Menat Lizkor (hereafter Ve-Lo) (1971); Me-Aborei Kol Zeh Mistater Osher Gadol (hereafter Me-Ahorei) (1974); Ha-Zeman (1977); Shalvah Gedolah (hereafter Shalvah) (1980); She'at ha-Hesed (hereafter Ha- Hesed) (1982). All translations are the author's own unless otherwise specified.

221

GLENDAABRAMSON

222

1968.This poetryproposesan idealized,perhapsillusorylove whichis not only romanticallyperfectin itself, but which in its perfectionwill serve to replace religious belief and practice no longer of spiritualor emotional benefitin the life of the lyric"I." It describesthe searchfor this perfectlove, which may also serve as a meansof escapingguilt for the abandonmentof God, or of providinga substitutefor the loss of God. "I'vefoundyou,"onesaysin love. Withouthavinglost you. Thepainof loss before Happened Offstage,in another,painlesstime.' Also, the early poetryexploresthe manipulationof love by forces that are beyond the lovers'control even when these forces emanatefrom the lover himself as guilt and conflict. Generallywhat we find in this poetry is the dark side of love: loss, ephemerality,pain, and disappointment.An apocalypticshadowhauntseven the most idyllicof the earlylyrics.The searchfor fulfillment,with a romanticizedand unrealisticillusionas the guide,informs this versewith a restlessand agonizederoticismbornof rememberedexperience or imaginedsexual perfection.Laterpoetry concludesthat this ideal was neverrealized,that love did not in itself contentthe lover or becomea satisfactoryreplacementfor lost spirituality.In the later verse"love"shifts its focus and assumesa paradoxicalcharacter,referringincreasinglyto the mechanicsof sexual intercourse,which have supplantedthe much-sought totality of emotional and sexual fulfillment. In the poetry of the late seventiesand eighties it becomesclear that "love," now furtherdetached fromemotion, is assuminga more abstractquality,akin to a metaphorfor many life experiences. Despite Amichai's reiterationof some early themes in his later love poetry, this should not be seen as mere repetitionbut as a significantcontinuation and developmentof the early work, a progressionof discourse which has moved from the postulationand examinationof an idea to its gradualnegationand ultimaterenunciation.The "lover"is able at last to distinguishbetween his imagination-which has provided him with the

1. "Magati otakh," Me Ahorei, p. 109.

LOVE POETRY OF YEHUDA AMICHAI

223

illusive and elusive ideal of love-and reality. His disappointmentis reflectedin versewhichhas abandonedthe bold lyricismof the earlyyears,in accordancewiththe changedcontextof love, to becomemorerestrainedand reflective.

Poems 1948-1968

In the early poetrythe experienceof love assumesalteredconnotations with its alteredconnections,the most importantbeing religionor, rather, belief symbolizedby religious ritual. Love and religion are virtually inseparablein Amichai'searly verse,almostas if he had taken as a paradigm the peshatand derashof the Song of Songstogetherin an ideologicalunity. This is not entirely foreign to Hebrewpoetry, for some medievalJewish poets utilized the love poem as their metaphorfor the worship of God. Amichaiis similarlynot alonein utilizingthe processof love for the purpose

a mystifying of demystifying area,nor,of course,is he theonlyoneto apply

the truthof sacredsourcesto the modernworld,renderingit appropriatefor art. In the seventeenthcenturythe languagesof love and religionhad much in common.Jon Stallworthytells us that "theSong of Solomonas 'mystically' interpretedprovided the love poets and the spiritual writers with a seeminglyimpeccableprecedentfor elaboratingeitherthemein the language of the other."'2 Throughoverfrequentusagecoupledwith the changein religious attitudes, such linguistic alignments frequently grew empty and stylized. Whetherindeed Amichai's poetry is metaphysicalin the seventeenth-centurysense is open to question. Yet his love poetry bears the stylistic and emotional hallmarksof the metaphysicalverse while resting much more firmlyon the groundof theology and religion.If, for example, John Donne's religiousimageryis indeedno morethantypicalseventeenthcenturyfigurativelanguage,or what someonehas called"wittyblasphemy," Amichai'svery similarimageryis ideologicallydeliberate.For example,his neat "an eye for an eye / your body for [the sake of] mine" (ayin tazhat ayin / gufekh tahat gufi) is more than a clever play on the word tahat ("under,""in placeof') but hasimplicationsregardingspiritualretribution: the lex talionisis invokedin the contextof lovemakingwhilethe Holy Arkis 2. Jon Stallworthy, ed., The Penguin Book of Love Poetry (New York, 1984), p. 23.

224

GLENDAABRAMSON

open.3In otherwords,it is as if Amichaihas taken the particularaesthetics of the metaphysicalpoetry,which,becauseof its highlyrefinedintellectualism, can become ideologicallymisleading,and given the religiousimagery, at least, substantivemeaning;or it may be as if the seventeenth-century imagery with its religious connotations is simply an empty gun which Amichai,in his own time and place, has armed.The ultimateaspirationof Amichai's love poetry, however, differs from that of the SpanishJewish poets as well as the "metaphysical"poets, for it is neitherspiritualnor directlyreligious.Despitethe pervasiveblendingin of religiouselements,his loving is paradoxicallyearthbound,erotic, physical,and fraughtwith pain and anxiety. The last lines of one of his most characteristiclove poems, "Farewell,"set the tone of his verse as a whole and provideits underlying conviction: willnotbe,nohandwrites, Forwhatever And whateverwasnot of the body Willnot be remembered.4 The critic Julian Lovelock makes a clear distinction between great love poems and poems of great love.' Amichai's poems are the latter kind because love itself is their subject,albeit love which is sought, imagined, idealized,or delusory,its "greatness"only potentialor possible.The lyric "I" does not speak to the belovedin the sense of courtshipor flattery-as Dryden put it, "entertaining[her]with the softnessesof love." The female partneris describedthroughextravagantimages, but they serve often to distanceher, as if the hyperboledehumanizesratherthan endearsher. The overt sexualityof manyof these imagesindicatesthat sheis little morethan a means toward some kind of self-realizationon the part of the lover. Rarelyis the womantransmittedto us as an objectof deep affection;more often she is an adversarystrongerthan he, to be overcomeby something

3. ayin tahat ayin gufekh tabat gufi ha-kol patuab ha-aron, sodekh, pi.

An eye for an eye Your body with [for] mine Everything open: The Ark, your mystery My mouth. (Shirim, p. 207.)

4. "Hayi Shalom," Shirim, p. 155. 5. Julian Lovelock, ed., Songs and Sonnets (Casebook Series). p. 23.


225

other than physical love-by the lover's need for an even more exalted experience. More importantly, the poetry seems to be aspiring toward a concept which can be defined as ahavah be-emet, following Amichai's own reference to ha-ohavim be-emet in "God Has Pity on Kindergarten Children." The idea of be-emet in relation to love, "actual," "real," or perhaps "great" love, the nature of which he does not clarify, seems to refer to an emotional transcendence which endows the lovers with the security of a special kind of knowledge or perception that survives the material pressures of their lives: ButperhapsHe will pitythosewho love truly And care for them And shade them Like a tree over the sleeper On the public bench.6 They never attain the higher reality of "real love," however; the love represented in the poetry can be passionate, satisfying, hopeless, disappointing exalted, or ecstatic, but it does not provide unity of souls with the unity of bodies, nor a "marriage of true minds." This projected unity is alluded to in a poem in which the lover describes how e.. Weweresucha good And loving invention. An airplanemade from man and wife. Wings and everything. We hovereda little above the earth. We even flew a little.7 Generally, however, the love described is not purified or endowed with grace, nor does it assure the lovers of immortality. Whatever is meant by ahavah be-emet, the lovers do not achieve it, and what they do possess, according to the poetry, is insufficient. Amichai's love poetry offers not an affirmation of ahavah be-emet, only speculation as to its nature and a consuming need to experience it. 6. "Elohim Merabem al Yaldei ha-Gan," Shirim, p. 247. 7. "A Pity-We Were a Good Invention," in YehudaAmichai: Selected Poems, trans. Assia Gutmann, Penguin Modern European Poets (1971), p. 25.

226

GLENDA ABRAMSON

Without this kind of love, ahavahbe-emet, the union of Amichai's lovers is that of bodies only. Any other view of love apart from the shadowy notion of "real love" approaches the dangerous territory of the spirit and faith. The poet labors to avoid crossing such boundaries, he rejects the possible allegorization of physical love or its transmutation to mysticism, by blurring the distinction between the love of God and sexual love, by demystifying sacred texts, and by clear and constant references to the human body, which becomes the symbol of his choice and the barrier set between spiritual and human love. For example, the object of the liturgical injunction "It is our duty to praise the Master of all" becomes For we shouldpraise The vessel of everything:your breast, the trumpetsound of shoulder That bore you to me on midsummer'snight ...8 The liturgical phrase aleinu le-shabbeabh ("it is our duty to praise") is used to the woman's Sacred words from the prayer which are meant body. glorify for God are spoken during sexual love and directed to the beloved: "Rise up and tremble. For yours is the kingdom." In a love poem bearing similar pronominal ambiguities John Donne declares: "But thou are resolute; Thy will be done," lines appearing in the same Christian prayer, although Amichai's source is the Aleinu.9 Amichai compares the woman to the high priest whom, the poetic "I" admits, his body forgets even on Yom Kippur. In other words, the woman, taking the place of the high priest, is the one remembered by the lover's body. The word guf ("body") is significant, for the subject of the sentence is not the lover but his body, mortified by Yom Kippur, ha-guf ha-mistagef, a nice play on words. The magnificence of the high priest's vestments becomes a metaphor for the great beauty of the woman's body. Her nipples, eyes, and mouth blaze for the lover like the high priest's breastplate of judgment or, in keeping with the purpose of this poetry, rather than the high priest's breastplate. An admonition to praise God is diverted by Amichai by recontextualizing sacred lines: "I love you / With all my might / As long as I live" (Deut. 6:5).10 8. "Aval Aleinu le-Shabbeal," shirim, p. 247. 9. John Donne, "The Bracelet," Elegy 11. 10. Ve-Lo, p. 116. Based on Deuteronomy 6:5. "Massot Binyamin ha-AIlaron miTudelah," Akhshav pp. 97-139 (hereafter "Binyamin").


227

The choice of body and the correlativerejectionof religiousor spiritual love is not easilyto be made,for underlyingit is a senseof sin, of stealingthe exaltationmeantfor God and offeringit to a woman;her body, whichhas assumedthe attributesof an objectof worship,consequentlybecomesalso a symbol of sin. As C. S. Lewissomewhatprovocativelysaid of Donne (with whomAmichaioften showsstrangeaffinities),Amichai's"I" appearsnot to be able to rid himself of a medievalsense of the sinfulnessof sexuality,a problemwhich servesespeciallyto characterizehis love poetry,and which manifests itself through the often surprisingamalgamationof religious imagery.This dislocationof the sacred sources into commentsabout the processof love amountsalmostto a confessionof treacheryto God. Thisis clarifiedin Amichai'sgreat spiritualautobiography,"The Travelsof the Last Benjaminof Tudela,"whose refrainis taken from Deuteronomy6:10: "Whenthou hast eaten and art full, then thou shalt blessthe Lordthy God for the good land whichhe hath given thee."The poet has eaten,"butI am not full and I have not blessed,"signifyingthe lack of acceptanceof principles of faith which are now open to question.Words, phrases,and ideas from the biblicaltext are woven into this verse, setting it squarelyin the contextof religioustradition,yet it is an analysisof spritualbreakdown.The conflict betweenthe ethicalvaluesembodiedin Jewishworshiplearnedas a child and the naturaltransgressionsof childhoodand adolescencecreates the poem's tension and determinesits spokesman'sconsistentattitudeto God. The indictmentof human passion intrudesin the shape of imagery usuallyassociatedwith holy ritual, suggestingthat love for the partnerof the lyric"I" leadsdirectlyto loss of love of God, insteadof the fulfillmentof earthlylove in the perfectlove of God, the aspirationin some of the socalled metaphysicalpoetry of the seventeenthcentury.The deuteronomic leitmotif alters its meaning in varied contexts and becomes especially equivocalwhen placed in the context of human love: Myfatherwasafraid to makean emptyblessing. To blessthe Creatorof the fruitof the tree andnot eat its fruit. To blesswithoutloving.To lovewithoutfulfillment. I have eaten but I have not been satisfied and I have not blessed." 11. Ve-Lo, p. 106.

228

GLENDA ABRAMSON

There is a correlation in this little conundrum between blessing and loving. To the father love means expectations fulfilled, so that his blessing becomes conditional upon them. He is therefore afraid to bless and his son is similarly afraid to love, in both cases because of the disappointment they anticipate at the end of the ritual. While Amichai elsewhere clarifies the father's expectations and describes his disappointment, never does he offer any evidence of what satisfaction in love may mean. Lisboa ("to be fulfilled") can only refer to a kind of metaphysical or transcendent unity, for physical unity alone is obviously not sufficient for his "I." "I have eaten" in this context means "I have loved." The further implication is that I have not been satisfied by love and I have therefore not blessed, because of the premise expressed in the verse that to bless without loving is untenable. Sin is defined in "Benjamin" by human love, which represents a betrayal in turn of the values substantiated in the ritual. It is all owed and should be directed to God, but the lyric "I" has wrested it away, with guilt for the substitution of human love for love of God the result. In "Benjamin" Amichai characteristically twists lines from the Morning Prayer into a soliloquy in which expressions of love mingle with the ancient words of thanksgiving: The prayersyou saidas a child come back and drift down from above Like missilesthat missed Returningto earth after a long time, Unnoticed,harmless. Whenyou're makinglove They come back. "I love you," "You'remine." I give thanksbeforeyou. "You shall love" The Lord your God. "Withall my might ..."12 By a polyphonic interweaving of avowals of love with the prayer Modeh Ani and the Morning Prayer, the possible objects of love can be seen as having become either synthesized or separated. In fact, by judicious use of quotation marks, Amichai has carefully demarcated the planes upon which God and the woman exist for his spokesman, while preserving the sense or intent of the verse. The verse continues: "Stand in awe, sin not and be still. Selah."

12. Ibid., p. 107.


229

In this quotation from Psalm 4, transposed in the liturgy to the prayer said on retiring to bed, Amichai has omitted the middle sentence occurring between "sin not" and "be still": "Commune with your own heart upon your bed." By referringto the same prayer in the next two lines of the verse he offers an explanation for the omission: Shemaon Goingto Bed.On the bed Withoutthe Shema.On the double bed ...13 In a passage in a poem called "We Did It," the radiance of the act of love is likened to that of Ezekiel's vision of wheels and sacred beasts. Amichai consolidates the vision in a muddle of limbs and wings: Likewheelsandholy animals And with the chariot-deedsof prophets We did it six wings And six legs but the sky Was hard above us Like the summerearth beneath.14 The idea of kilayim, "mingling," or the breeding of diverse kinds, is stated first in Leviticus 19:19: "Thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed." It is explicitly referred to in the opening stanza of Amichai's ironic tribute to the High Holy Days, "And This is Your Praise" (ve-hi tehilatekha):"In my great silence and in my small cry / I plough mingled seed." The idea of kilayim also serves to define the poetry in which erotic and spiritual images are joined together or overlap, each infusing the other with the hint of a different kind of ecstasy. Yet ecstasy appears to be out of reach, and the pointedly physical imagery suggests the notion of a substitute for what is truly desired by the poetry's "I," who could not fulfill his father's expectations of him and achieve faith, aptly termed by Donne "this intermitting anguish, pietie." For reasons explored in "Benjamin" he was unable to accept God's will or submit himself to the strictures of Jewish orthodoxy. "Love," the symbol in the early poetry of the alternative, the negative impulse opposing the positive impulse of faith, becomes his only refuge.

13. Ibid. 14. "Asinu et Zeh," Akhshav, p. 88.

230

GLENDAABRAMSON

Throughhis compulsiveuse of religiousimageryin the most specifically physicallove poetry, the poet is indicatingboth the problemand its solution. On the one hand he is recordinghis awarenessof his own transgression.On the other, he is offeringas a solution the defiantattemptto demystify that unreachablespiritual realm by incorporatingit into the world of humanlove, therebychallengingit: for example,the psalmsperform their functionfor him as effectivelyas they do for the religious,but throughlove of a woman,not of God. Koheletretractshis pessimismline by line-due to love, not throughfaith.The holy paraphernalianow servesthe cause of earthlylove, sincethe lover has rejectedand been rejectedby God. The second series of love poems in "Now and in Other Days" (1958), called "Pine Cones in the Tree,"'"containseight briefpoems dividedinto rhymingcouplets,each poem presentinga differentimageof the lovers:they arelike two associationsin one mind-as he is referredto, so is she;theyare like two lightbulbsin a lamp-each one alone too dark,but togetherlighted they are a festivalof light. Sheis the walledpublicgardenof the city, andhe, the roadwhichmovesawayfromher.Theyareliketwo stonesat the bottom of a hill, secludedand alone. They are two numbersstanding alone and combining -or beingsubtracted because,afterall,thesign Sometimes changes. He is like soft waterin a pipe, waitingto be summonedby the turningof a tap and to be receivedby her.The couplets,whichowe somethingto "metaphysical"conceits, affirmthe isolatedperfectionof their love, yet even at theirmost serenethe loversare separateentities,two lightbulbs,two stones, two numbers.The poemsofferan apparentaffirmationof love, yet separateness andisolationareimplicitin them.Ahavahbe-emet,the couplingof both spiritand flesh, is still undiscovered,and it is only for a briefmomentthat the bulbsachieve"a festivalof light,"unboundedunity in each other.Love has proofin continuity,and "reallove" perhapsin eternity,yet the natureof Amichai's conceits confirms only its uncertaintyand brevity. The poet suggestedin "God Has Pity on KindergartenChildren"that only "true"or "real" lovers may be worthy of God's grace;the notion of separateness

15. Shirim, pp. 33-37.


231

offeredby the coupletsin "PineCones,"implyingthatthe lovershavefailed to achieve perfectunity, indicatestheir separationalso from God. Lackof completenessis hintedat in the lyrical"Six Poemsto Tamar,"l6 which,on the surface,areidyllicexpressionsof love framedby the staplesof romanticconvention:rain, sun, spring,flowers,grass, the full moon. The woman'sbody is "full of lizards;they all love sun."Her eyes, breasts,and thighs compose the sensualpictureand complementthe earth-imagesprovidingthe cycle'ssetting.On the surface,peace and tranquilityaccompany unconditionaland perfectlove;yet notesof uneasepenetratethe harmonyof body and nature,the hint of conflict about what is only an act of love, not perfectlove itself: Besidemybedtherustleof a newspaper's wings, Thereareno otherangels. The word malakhimmeans "messengers"as well as "angels,"stressingthe differentnaturesof the heavenlyand earthlymedia;eitherway, the angels, messengersof God, will neverappearas signs of acquiescenceor approval. At times love is able to deflect despair and act even against the realistic cynicismof Kohelet,as if the lover, conditionedby Kohelet'swords,allows love to change his mind: Everydayof our livestogether Kohelet erases a line of his book.

The imagerybecomesincreasinglyerotic,but the cycleendson an enigmatic note: My blood has manyrelatives Who never visit it. Butwhentheydie My blood inherits.

The past again assertsits claim on the actions of the lover. Its representatives are never far away: angels, Kohelet, and the psalms have intervened 16. "Shishah Shirim le-Tamar," ibid., pp. 23-25.

GLENDA ABRAMSON

232

between him and the absolute realization of love, but just as the power of love alters evil in the world, represented by Kohelet's conclusions, it also negates the power of Kohelet the representative of God's wisdom. It is paradoxically both good and bad, therefore, to "erase" Kohelet's words: good in terms of human love, bad in terms of the spiritual tradition. Even the apparently unequivocal statement that "all 150 psalms / roar at once" yields some unease, as does every reference to the sources in the context of human love: the poet uses the term tehillim in its biblical sense of a psalm, and in the poem's context it means no less than that. Yet the biblical psalms are, in addition to being songs of praise, representations of conflict in the psalmist regarding his relationship with God. Amichai's love poetry is never entirely devoid of a similar conflict relating to the object of his own love, but his conclusion is not as positive as that of the psalmist. Human love cannot save the lovers from "the terrible trial" because it is never more than transitory, and even though it may "hasten the salvation of the world," which is an idea Amichai expresses in later poetry, salvation will not be extended to the lovers. Attempts to fix love within a solid and protective frame usually fail. Images of enclosure occur throughout Amichai's love poetry, solid, controlled images which have their place in a defined environment: the public garden is walled, the road is in a city, the water is in a pipe, the numbers occur in their framework of arithmetical sums, the bulbs are part of a lamp. Yet there is nothing here like Donne's compass, an instrument whose two separate arms are centrally joined, with their separate movements interlinked. It is also sufficient to itself and free from external definition or pressure. Amichai's images, rather, echo the phrase from a legal contract, "together and severally," which he transposed to serve as the refrain for one of his early love poems: "both of us together and each alone." His walled garden, Noah's ark, a box, a house all suggest a safe bolt-hole in some guarded space, far away from the attempts of God and man to disturb the lovers. Isolation, enclosure, and secrecy are the necessary ingredients for love, and in "The Cyclamen" the lover admonishes his partner: Don't singout loud, For if someone hears,everythingwill be ended."

17. "Shir ha-Rakefet," ibid., p. 73.


233

The tender and predominantly idyllic mood of "Six Poems to Tamar" gradually disintegrates in the sonnet cycle "We Loved Here," set in the framework of war."8 The first sonnet, one of the most anthologized of Amichai's poems, describes his father's war-"their" war as opposed to "my wars," for which the son must later leave. The end of the cycle indicates the nature of his war from which the father had hoped to protect him. Sandwiched in between, but with the war as intermittent counterpoint, are the love sonnets. Spring, Amichai's abiding symbol for love, gradually becomes "the land of the enemy," while characteristically the lovers lie protected like mummies in a pyramid. A sense of helplessness in the face of encroaching chaos threatens them and leads to the sapping of love: the full and joyous sexual symbolism of the previous cycles changes to images of dry sterility and abandonment. Ourlivesarehardening,ourlives Like slices of yesterday'sbread ... We've left everythingas if it weren'tours Like a room one suddenlyquits ... See,likea streetemptied After a festivecelebration My body emptiestoo and becomesquiet. The cycle draws to an end with the juxtaposition of love and the force that has finally breached the carefully placed walls of the sanctuary. And the middleof the storynow, perhapsthe climax The war .. Behindthe hillsthe troopswaited Not free of their war And never to returnto their houses. However obvious war appears in these and other poems as the destroyer of life and love, it is not the most convincing counter to the fulfillment of love, although in practical terms it penetrates the lovers' security and forces them

18. "Ahavnu Kan," ibid., pp. 42-59.

234

GLENDAABRAMSON

thatis nota apart."Reallove"in thesenseof lovethatsurvivesseparation, breach but, in Donne's words, ". . . an expansion / Like gold to ayery thinnesse beate," is hardly a factor in the experience of the lyric "I." Quite the

contrary;he says: "If we don't stay togetherwe won't stay at all. / Even moreso-we won'tlive."'9 However,the assumptionthatwarwithits implication of separation is perhaps only the "middle" of the story offers a slim

threadof hope. In a laterversehe stateswith convictionthat ultimatelyhe will not be destroyed by war at all, for he ends the poem of gentle eroticism

with the certaintythat "not in wars, I won't ever fall in wars again."So while war is undoubtedly a serious threat to the immediacy of love in time and space, it is not the only threat: "We loved here. Reality was something else." This line introduces another definition of love as a counter to all external reality, as an escape from life, not a part of it. Love gives way to radio and newpaper headlines, something outside summons the lover: a foot is "between the door and the mezuzah," and the lovers's key, in which they trusted, is in "their" hands. Not only war but another, less objectively destructive external force invades the tight framework of love, the "box" whose lid has suddenly been pried open. Amichai's later love poetry, written in the seventies and eighties, usually abandons the context of war, yet the outcome of love is still unsatisfactory. Society, social duty, and identity take on the implicit guise of "them," those that break into love's dwelling, with love consequently unable to survive the social and spiritual environment in which the "I" is placed. The intruding force remains unspecified: it is partly war, partly social duty, but there is more: we are led once again to the notion of "mixture," kilayim, which dominates the love poetry. Eros and the world of faith cannot coexist, human love is unable to resist the onslaught of guilt. To lie in the darknessandhear A voice above the voice Again in the night, and to touch the brow. Afterwardsto fall: Not in wars,I won'tfall in warsagain But here and now, in this land of without, A land without me and withoutyou, A land of gray hills. A land of forever.20 19. "Shel Malkhut She'avrah," Akhshav, p. 87. 20. "Od Pa'am," Shirim, p. 215.


235

The intruding voice makes the lover aware of emptiness in his life despite the uniting power of the act of love. The first line of the poem offers a clue to the reason for this emptiness: "Again be my earthly kingdom beyond the door / whose path does not lead back." Mattah, "below" ("earthly"), is the conceptual contrast to ma'alah, "heavenly." "Fall" in this poem means "to suffer." It does not carry the Christian connotation of sin, in this case "the sinfulness of sexuality," but may refer to the context of sexuality, defined clearly in "Benjamin": Angelsresemblingholy scrolls with velvet robes and white silk skirts, crownedwith silverand silver bells, angels flutteredaroundme, sniffedmy heart and said uh-uh to each other with grownups'smiles. "I'll tell your father."21 If guilt is taken to be part of "them," the intruders and destroyers of love, then "they" symbolizes not only the practical burdens of social duty but also spiritual obligations, God and his deputies, angels and the father, upon all of whom responsiblity for moral vigilance has been placed. Who areyou? A small Jewishboy from the diaspora Skullcapon head. From there. From that time.22 While the lover and his partner are making love, Farfromhere,on anothercontinentof time, the dead rabbisof my childhoodare clearlyseen Holding the gravestones High over their heads. Due to the nature of his loving, Amichai's lyric "I" has betrayed his past, and it is this that prevents his achievement of perfection in love. By its very contrast his attitude brings to mind the reply of Tertan, the enigmatic hero of Lionel Trilling's short story "Of This Time, Of That Place" to the same 21. "Binyamin," Akhshav, p. 121. 22. "Shirei Akhziv," ibid., p. 199.

236

GLENDA ABRAMSON

question, "who are you?" Tertan replies: "I think, therefore I am (cogito, etc.). But who am I? Tertan I am; but what is Tertan? Of this time, of that place, of some parentage, what does it matter?"23 To Amichai's "I" it matters a great deal. An entire novel, coincidentally titled Not of This Time, Not of This Place, explores its hero's search for his lost childhood, for the reconstitution of his past, divided by his having left the country of his birth. As a result of his odyssey he is able to analyze and reconcile at least one of the troubling constituents of his past: the enforced orthodoxy of his childhood. In the poetry, by denying the most essential of the parts that constitute his historical identity, Amichai's lyric "I" loses his grip on that identity and mourns its loss. His parentage, unlike Tertan's, is specific; the composite world of the "dead rabbis" is no less his own, but, unlike them, he has betrayed it. He walks up a street named after a pious old Jew, carrying Yourbedon my backlike a cross but it's difficultto imagine a woman'sbed as the symbol of a new religion.24 He describes how, during a passionate encounter with a woman whom he calls only "a tourist," he shows her the place where he used to keep his phylacteries, while she seduces him.25 In a later poem he indicates how the remembered ritual of worship all but possesses him: when his younger partner is teaching him the dances of her generation to the popular music of the time, he explains: I didn'tknowthem But I made the movementsof the citron and of "holy, holy" And of wrappingmyself in the prayershawl And of windingthe phylacteries And of swayingand bowing.26 23. Lionel Trilling, "Of This Time, Of This Place," in Short Story Study, ed. A. S. Smith and W. Mason (Edward Arnold, 1961). 24. "Bi-Rebov ha-Rav Kook," Akhshav, p. 51. 25. "Tayeret," ibid., p. 193. 26. "Rikkud Abar Hagot," Ve-Lo, p. 25.


237

Poems 1968-1984

The overallconcernof Amichai'slove poetryis the dreadfulinabilityof the individualto prevailunderthe dominatingneed both for humanand spirituallove. It is a long and evolutionarypersonaldramain whichthe lyric "I" seeksto comprehendand certainlyto experiencethe truenatureof love in all its guises.The dramatakesthe formof an interiormonologue,for the lover is, in effect, the only actor:the object of his love rarelyreacts with speech or activity, being very much the passive partner.Her consistent action is to leave whenlove ends. "Theend came bitterand quick / but the time betweenus was slow and sweet."27Many of the poems are elegiacor valedictory,with variationsof the word or idea of "forgetting"(shekhihah) recurringto underlinethe finalityof separation.In none of the later books does Amichai'slove poetry echo the freshnessof approachof his earlier work. His spokesmanhas discoveredthat the love with whichhe is particularlyconcernedis an evolutionaryhumanphenomenonand not a transcendent or metaphysicalstate, such as we find, for example, in Alterman's poetry.It changesas the loverchanges;it does not grow in spirituality,nor does it alter its direction.It diminisheswith age. For all those reasonsthe strivingfor love, the majortopic of the earlyverse,is unsuccessful,and the "greatlove" sought, unrealized.The poetryof this periodis concomitantly less opulentlyfigured:love is seen in relationto the banalityof life, not its promisedand imaginedglory. Thereis, however,a clearconceptualmovement in the later books, from love as a single emotional and physical encounterto love as a sign of lifelongemotionalprogression:accordingto Amichai'sown equation,"to speakof changeis to speaklove";28the poetry in whichhe describesthe alterationof body and spiritdue to physiological causes, such as age, or existentialcauses, such as marriageand family relationships,is the poetryof love. In the seventiesit becamea lamentfor the loss of youth and the attendantloss of the kind of love characterizedby youth. Amichai'slyriclover does not subscribeto the idealisticconsolation that love is not love whichalterswhen it alterationfinds:alteredlove, such as thatembodied,for example,in a marriage,does not arousejoy or provide contentment.It is no longerthe "love"whichmeantexclusivelythe romantic sexualmeetingof youthfullovers, so well exploredin the earlierbooks, boundedby urgency,imperfectyet alwaysidealized.Marriageseemsa small 27. "Mar ve-Nimhar," Akhshav, p. 26. 28. "Le-Daber al Shinuyim Hayah le-Daber Ahavah," Me-Ahorei, p. 95.

238

GLENDA ABRAMSON

recompense for the loss of whatever truth such love supplied: on his wedding anniversary the lyric "I" summarizes his view, or need, of love: I can'tundo The things I've done in my life. A Zionismof two people to return To the homelandof their love Together,no more. My eye is turnedto only one direction, Like an ancient,heavy cannon In an old fortressby the sea, Fixed to its place.29 Love's permutation in middle age provides little satisfaction: Herein this houseI considerhowlove Becomesfriendshipin our lives' chemistry. And how friendshipconsoles us For death to come. And how our lives are like stray threads Withouthope of being rewoven Into anotherfabric.30 In the poetry of the seventies and eighties love is occasionally still viewed as a panacea for the loss of God, a clear and deliberate substitute for religion: Youmadeit possiblefor me to live for a few months without needingreligion or a world-view.31 Generally, however, this poetry no longer sees the spiritual tradition as an adversary to love. Love itself and not religion is its point of departure, and human responses to the conditions of loving, its main concern. The collec-

29. "Yom ibid., p. 59. le-Makom Yafeh," ibid., p. 128. 30. "Tiyul .Hatunah," 31. "Shirei Buenos Aires," Ve-Lo.


239

tion "Not for the Sake of Remembering"(Ve-Loal Menat Lizkor, 1971) reveals an absenceof allusivenessindicatinga developmenttowarda new and almost imagisticstyle of poetry. The removalof his languagefrom a traditionalcontext relinquishesits correspondencewith a delimitedmoral order.The frameworkwhichhad suppliedthe wordswith specialresonance is now disregarded,so that the love poetry assumesa differentguise, with love servingas a metaphorfor aspirationor achievementwithinthe poet's own existentialambit. The languageis able to stand on its own, almost entirelydevoid of metaphorand with less recourseto similethan in earlier volumes. The poetryis confinedmore than previouslyto the poet's immediate outer landscapes, usually Jerusalemand, notably in this volume, Buenos Aires. In the cycle of love poetry "Poems of Buenos Aires" the verse is uncharacteristically sparse,with an innerrhythmreminiscentof Spanish,and, in mood, containingsomethingof what Lorcadefinedas duende,a darkness of soul almost inexpressiblein words. If originallyAmichai's lyric lover hopedfor fulfillmentbeyondthe physical,in this cyclehe has facedthe realization that noneexistsand thatlove is ephemeralandillusory.The poemsof BuenosAires describethe silentjoining of loversin darkrooms with blinds drawnnot againstthe hot southernsunbut againststreamingrain.The gray wetness and heavy skies complementthe claustrophicinteriorsettings in which a dreamlikesequenceof meetings and separationstake place. The poetry'satmosphereof enclosureis intensifiedby the threefoldboundaries of the wet, enclosing weather, the urban area delimited by streets and avenues, and the dark rooms. Beautiful but sad women with exotic names-Sylvia, Susanna,Dolores-flit across the lover's vision, but they speak a languagewhichhe is unableto understand,the lack of communication merelyreinforcingwhat is alreadycertainfailureand frustration.The lack of consummationor completenessin love is emphasizedby the failure of verbalcommunication:"I kissed her mouth which a strangelanguage/ had shaped.""How alone and abandonedthe Spanish language/ in the room. Later,/ Hebrewtoo." The lovers are strangers,their union ratified by a few words spoken before separating."In this room / Two can be strangers/ to each other."The differencesbetweenthemexceedthe linguistic; differenthemisphereseven alter the geographicalcertaintiesof their lives, so that when apartthey are unableto shareseasons or times of day. The entireseriesis loveless,despairing,dry, dark,and impersonal,at times almost detatched.It describesthe passionlesslove of maturity,unsatisfying

240

GLENDA ABRAMSON

and without ideals, the total antithesis of romance and its conventions: springtime, nature, youth, and freedom. The season is a torrid summer with skies "like a layer of gray plaster," the settings are exclusively urban-roads, cafes, hotels, rooms. The lover is middle-aged and weary, bound by memory which demands repetition in life, a need to recapture the past. His gestures are, however, hollow and devoid of significance, for time has robbed his love of substance. So manywordsdroppedalongthe way So much blood spilt, So much laughter, So little remains! Generally this poetry avoids sexuality, but when on one occasion it veers toward eroticism, the religious imagery, hitherto absent, once more reappears. In the case of this poem, which is the only one in the collection containing allusions to Jewish ritual, the allusions do not indicate guilt but mourning, for they are used in the context of the death of love. Words redolent of the liturgy alternate with erotic descriptions of the girl's body: Yourthighsareredwithfire The folds of your dress dark For saying Kaddish.

May I rest in peace, may you, Amen. In some of the poems love is viewed as an attempt to defeat death. Religion and ritual having failed, God having both abandoned the lover and been abandoned by him, love is all that remains: at a funeral the speaker sees a woman wearing a black dress that clings to her thighs. The implied sexuality appears to him as an escape from extinction. The prevailing tone of the cycle is, however, one of regretful sadness, with familiar phrases recurring:"silent weeping," "the laughter of shadow," "water can be wept / not stones," and repeated words, such as "pain," "despair," and "mourning." In this collection Amichai reveals himself to be a poet of what is, not what ought to be. The tone of regret in this poetry is equally existential, forgoing the romantic remedy of supplying the missing element by means of illusion. He simply examines the facts of loss brought about by human


241

error and weakness, and laments the passage of time. By "making war againsttime" he defendshimself from time's depredations.He dwells frequently on the particularability of memory to resurrectthe past as a reproachto the present,so that his crossingof "the riverof memory"is the leitmotif of this poetry, the memory being of the senses, colors, shapes, sounds, and smells. If one wished to apply a comprehensiveadjectiveto qualify the love poetryin "Not for the Sakeof Remembering"and the collectionsfollowing it, notablyHa-Zeman("Time,"1977),"weary"wouldbest serve.Thisis the poetry of acceptance,even submission,the terms of which are those associated with love. Joy in love, even if not the elusive"reallove," belongsto the past, for now "love is preciseand cold like a glass eye";32the memory of joy, although comforting,still dooms the presentlove to failure. The word meduyak,"exact," "accurate,"or "precise,"frequentlyappearsin Amichai's later verse as a pejorativeadjectiveindicatingdetachmentor indifference,an impersonal precision presumablycontrasting with the emotionalchaos of love. It is this chaos that the spokesmanlacks and that representsto him the disorderly,ecstatic elementsof love as opposed to logicalprecision.Languageitself becomesan analogyfor love, for, saysthe poetry's "I," when a man ceases speakinghis own languageregularly,it becomesmore "exact"throughhis intermittentand carefulusageof it. Past lovers recall their love in similarly"exact"and economicalemotionalterminology.The lyric "I," however,cannnotacceptthe precisionof this discourse;for him pain, disruption,disorder,even uncleanness,the emotional antonymsof meduyak,are the only acceptablecomplementsof love. I who remain,I dirty my mouth and lips and tongue. In my words are soul's garbageand desire'srefuse, dust and sweat. And even the water I drink betweenmy cries and the murmuringof desire is, in this dry land, urine many time recycled.33

The spokesman'svisit to the ancientport of Akhziv,whichconcludes"Not 32. "Nisyonot le-Taer Guf," ibid., p. 121. 33. Ha-Zeman, p. 63.

242

GLENDAABRAMSON

for the Sake of Remembering," inspiresa seriesof speculationson the of love,particularly in middleage,whenillusionis natureandmechanism is and the lover no more than a second-handgift, prettily destroyed The but a same harbor an settinghadstimulated wrapped scarcely surprise. earlierseriesof eroticlyricsdevoidof theemotionof lovebutexamining the elementsof sensualexperience, interlacedwithreligiousguilt.34Now the is forcedto takecomfortin blessingsotherthansexualloveand spokesman to acceptthathis submissionto timeis, if nothingelse, heroic. Thematureversein thevolumesfollowing"NotfortheSakeof Remembering"exploresthe attemptto come to termswith the realizationthat The lyric"I" neitherdoes perfectlove existnor can guiltbe eradicated. will the love in the that softenthe to summon of it memory struggles hope as blowsof time,butmemoryfails a palliative. Thepoetryreturnsrepeatedly to the themeof memory,whichit exploreswithsomecontradictoriness andparadox: loveis soughtin orderto stillthepainof memory,butit is the of love thatis beingstilled.Thememoryof love,in anycase,brings memory not consolationbut pain. God, the soul you gaveme Is smoke From the constantburningof love's memories We are born and burn immediately And so until the smoke, like smoke, disappears.35

In factthe conceptof memoryin thispoetrymaybe equatedwithfantasy, for "memory" of loveis asidealizedas theloveoriginally soughtandrarely in found.Memoryitselfis a facetof theimagination. Theabilityto recreate the mindnot onlyeventsbut a vanishedworldis one of the greatestgifts given to man, accordingto the Spanishproverbrecordares vivir-"to is to live."As faras Jewishhistoryis concerned, remember thisfacultyis a by theartisticimaginatwo-edgedsword,butwhenrefinedandstructured tion it canassumea positive,ontologicalpower.However,Amichai'slove poetryof thelateseventiesandtheeightiesportraysno morethantheheroic whois compelledto accepttheperhapsunpalatable definitionof individual himselfseenthroughlove,thatis, to acceptwhatlovehasbecomeforhimin 34. "Sha'ar Akhziv," Akhshav, pp. 194 ff. 35. "Shir Ahavah," Me-ahorei, p. 34.


243

the present,unadornedby transcendentsplendor.He has no choice but to understandthat the passionate beauty of love to which he has always aspiredexists only in the disorderedimaginationof memory,as "silentand or "The full moon traces tiger your body waitedin the season'schange,"36 the line of your cheek / your breasts,the line of mine ...,"37 The later verse is, however, not all doom-laden or weighted with Werther-likedespair.On the contrary,the whimsywhichwas, for the most part, suppressed in "Not for the Sake of Remembering"emerges in Me-Aborei Kol Zeh Mistater Osher Gadol (1974; translated by Ted Hughes

as "Amen").Pain, disappointment,the acute sense of loss, frequentlysurrenderto a wry acceptanceof the situation,a poetic shrugof the shoulders. The lyric "I" has acceptedthe fact that for him "reallove" is a myth and that love itself is a memory.Little remainsof it other than its signs,which rapidly diminish. The failed lover, whose "generationmachine is still sweet /between my legs,"38yet who "createsthe fruit of the end" (a wordplay on the blessing over the wine: ba-butz: borei peri ha-gafen / va-ani: role boreiperiha-soj),39is now ableto fill the objectiveand nonparticipatory

of observerof the mechanicsof love, intercourse,and the lovers'bodies.He notices every action of love, the young men and women, the couples, the physicalpossibilitiesin women,the entireprocessof sex. The lyric"I" is no longer exclusivelythe lover, as in the earlierbooks; he is now watching othersand commentingon them.Generallythis poetryhas becomeincreasingly sexual, as if the act of love, detachedfrom all emotion, is all that remains.Occasionallythe eroticismgives way to a kind of lasciviousness when Amichaiwritesaboutwomen'sunderwear;fortunatelysuchinstances are few and can be excusedby theirhumor-for example,when he drawsa contrastbetweenthe large, blank-facedmilitarywomen of EasternEurope and their delicate underclothing.40 In a switch of mood from sadness to cynicism, serious comment becomes a witticism which does not always entirelymaskthe pain-the notion of failurefor whichcynicismis a defense is never far beneaththe surface.Yet a sense of loss has so frequentlybeen exploredin the poetrythat the "I," who exhibitsa growingwearinesswith

36. 37. 38. 39. 40.

"Bizmani, Bimkomekh," Akhsav, p. 27. "Shishah Shirim le-Tamar,"' Shirim, p. 25. See n. 28. "Hi Amrah Lo la-Vo Od," Me-Ahorei, p. 113. "Shir Politi," Ha-flesed, p. 31.

244

GLENDA ABRAMSON

his own condition, fluctuates between elegiac sadness and sometimes something closely resembling melodrama. The shadow of lovers parting, tears being shed, empty places being revisited is often presented without the substance of profound emotion. I sit at the tableandwrite precisethings. I remember the hopes I had for the first love beforeI met the girl I loved, but hardlyrememberher, like a man who remembershis thirst in the desert,but not the drinkof water. Whatremainsis a patternof the event not its content, the shape of letters, not the meaningof words.41 The spokeman's next visit to Akhziv in She'at ha-Hlesed("The Moment of Grace," 1982) is scarcely an echo of the earlier contemplations of passionate love inspired by that particular landscape. The "I," having forgotten "what is as plentiful as the sand on the seashore"-a frequent biblical similecarries a deckchair onto the beach. Above his head the conflicting forces of wrath and tranquillity do battle while he sits peacefully examining a woman bather whose skin is "tanned and sunburnt for pleasure."42His own life's drama is reduced to "small cries." Elsewhere, in a departure from the almost consecrated modern usage of the akedah as a symbol of suffering, the lyric "I" observes that the victim can be bound to an altar by bonds of love. The angel appears at the wrong moment to admonish the lover and command him not to stretch out his hand, whereupon the youthful "victim" of the binding complains to the angel: "you spoil everything."43In a poem from the 1977 collection "Time," the spokesman tells us that every part of his own body is engaged for some burden, to carry a rifle and ammunition, to bear guilt and the weight of time. Only his penis is "free and happy," useless for war or work, inadequate for carrying or for building.44Whimsy is the tone 41. 42. 43. 44.

"Ani Yoshev le-Yad ha-Shulban," ibid., p. 60. "Akhziv 1973," Me-Aborei, p. 138. "Akedah," ibid. Ha-Zeman, p. 74.


245

of "Air Hostess," a woman who "belongsto the conservativeparty / of those who have only one greatlove in theirlife."45Eventhe title of the 1980 collection, "Great Tranquillity-Questions and Answers,"is ambiguous and paradoxical,typical of this poetry in its presentationof contradictory moods and the ironiccounterpointof concepts.The self-consciousmockery of love, the frequentbluntreferencesto lovemaking,genitalia,andwomen's bodies,do not concealthe themeof the laterpoetryas a whole.Theconstant recallingof emptiness,emptyspaces,emptyhousesreinforcesthe statement that "whenman is abandonedby / his love, an emptyroundspaceexpands insidehim like a cave / for wonderfulstalagmites,slowly."46In none of the later poetry is this emptiness filled, except with dreams and fantasies. Memoryis all that remainsto fill the void, and a blunt sexuality,graphic detailsof nudity,and visualexplorationsof women'sbodies, whichconstitute the spokesman'sdefiantchallengeto the pain of loss and the emptiness of his life, wherein Nowourfeelingsarelikefishes'entrails fowlsthrowninto the market, slaughtered catsandstraydogs.47 food for scavenging A few echoes of the earlierlove poetry remain:poems of tranquilbeauty which extol the woman and which recreatethe almost perfectlove of the spokesman'syouth. Such an echo is providedby a poem entitled "Ideal Love"where,in a ratherpoignantreminderof the earlierfrequencyof such concepts,love is comparedto religion.The equationlacks the old defiance, however,and the consequentguilt: the beginningof ideal love is seen as a ritualceremonyaccompaniedby powerand majesty,the firingof a cannon before Ramadan or the blowing of the shofar. The lover's sinfulnessis obliquelyreferredto by invoking the trumpetblast InElulto banishsin. That'sa religion!That'slove!48 This is reminiscentof the earlierconjugationof love and the sound of the 45. "Air Hostess," trans. with Tudor Parfitt, Great Tranquillity (New York: Harper & Row, 1983), p. 27. 46. "Song," trans. Ted Hughes, Amen (Oxford University Press, 1978), p. 47. 47. "Tekhnikah shel Ahavah," Ha-Iyesed, p. 81. 48. "Ahavah Idialist," Me-Ahorei, p. 144.

GLENDAABRAMSON

246

shofar in "Benjamin."In "Straightfrom Your Prejudice"the woman is dressedand ornamentedas a religiousobject.However,this poem presents a formalizedand quasi-rhetoricalmixing of religious and erotic images, devoid of implicationexcept for the desire "to kiss your thighs / Like a mezuzahat the door,"49againmakingthe act of worshipanalogouswith acts of love. Loveand religionarepsychologicallycoupledin "A Tourist,"where the termsof lust and worshipare ambiguous:"unholy lust in the guise of prayer,""'holydesire.""5Prayerand desireboth designatea statewhose end is ecstasy, but the esctasy sought in this poem is primitiveand equivocal, composed of both holy and ugly impulses.It revealsa coarseningof the methodby whichthe religiousexaltationexperiencedas a childis strivenfor by the adult throughhuman love. The developmentand decline of "love" throughoutAmichai'spoetry runsparallelto that of the lover:froma stateof quest,tenderness,and hope it alters to emptinessand memory. Memory is the leitmotif of the later poetry, but even that is now seen to be futile: fora while Tostopforgetting will not restorethe pastto you onlythe emptypressureof memory like the heavyweight tiedto a hotelkey. willnotreopen Memory thoserooms."5 The statement"and whateverwas not of the body / will not be remembered,"which appearedin a poem of evocative beauty describinglovers parting,now becomesironicand negative,discreditingthe spokesman'sunilateralnotion of love. In the end, devoidas it is ofjoy, love is no morethan a burdento be borne throughoutlife. From man'searliestage it definessin, and then,havingtemptedhim,it remainswith him as an elusivevisionnever to be made actual.Or if it is ever caught,it eitherchangesits form immediately or disingtegrates,leaving the lover eternallydiminished.

49. "Straight from Your Prejudice." trans. with Tudor Parfitt, Great Tranquillity, p. 77. 50. "Tayeret," Akhshav, p. 193. 51. "Bittul ha-Shekhibah le-Zeman Kagar," Ha-lesed, p. 28.


247

Love and loving seem to underlie every action or situation of the lyric "I" and are evoked constantly throughout every phase of his life, in every place and with every activity. Nevertheless it appears at the end that neither loving nor love itself is the focus but the functioning of the man in his entirety: his body, his abilities, his experiences, his spirituality, and his social worth. Love in its ascendance or decline becomes the overall metaphor for the life of the individual in his youth or aging, his vitality or tiredness. The female "you" who accompanies him throughout the verse is a mirror of his own abilities or even a commentary on them. Ultimately love is the rod by which the human processes are measured. The love poetry may, in the final analysis, not be about love at all, but about the problems of youth and maturation, encompassing rebellion and the loss of faith, the death of parents, experiences in war, in relationships, and in society; later it reflects the shock of aging, physical changes, and the shifting of roles in family and society. The soldier becomes a good citizen; the young lover, a responsible husband. The son becomes the father. Thechildrensayto me:whatareyou daydreaming? Like my fathersaid when I was a boy, What are you daydreaming.This is what I've come to, now.52 Love bears the burden of these crises as a projection of the spokesman's life; like an emotional whipping-boy it takes the lashes of experience. OxfordCentrefor HebrewStudies Oxford

52. "Ani Ro'eh Penei Aherim Rabim," ibid., p. 121.

Review: [untitled] Author(s): Stuart S. Miller Source: AJS Review, Vol. 11, No. 2 (Autumn, 1986), pp. 249-254 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486248 . Accessed: 30/06/2011 18:20 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].



Martin Goodman. State and Society in Roman Galilee, A.D. 132-212. Oxford Centre for Postgraduate Hebrew Studies. Totowa, N.J.: Rowman and Allanheld, 1983. xi, 305 pp. Rabbinic literature has always been regarded as a gold mine for the reconstruction of the intellectual and spiritual history of the rabbis and their academies, but the society of which the rabbis were a part has rarely received the attention it deserves. In this work, Martin Goodman uses rabbinic literature to portray Galilean society from the Bar Kokhba Revolt until the edict of Caracalla of 212 C.E., which granted citizenship to all free inhabitants of the Roman Empire. Faced with the problem of utilizing rabbinic sources for historical purposes, Goodman advances his own methodology, which seeks to uncover the assumptions behind the legislation of the rabbis. Goodman is clearly cognizant of the pitfalls of extrapolating seemingly relevant material from rabbinic sources and adopts a somewhat conservative approach to deal with the problem. The author confines his attention to the contemporary, tannaitic evidence and even here excludes from consideration baraitot appearing in later, amoraic collections. The assumption is that the Mishnah, Tosefta, and most tannaitic Midrashim (Goodman is cautious where the Mekhilta of Rabbi Ishmael is concerned) reflect conditions in second- and early-third-century Galilee. As Goodman puts it, "There was no point in inventing homilies and laws about everyday life unless that life was recognizably that of the audience" (p. 7). The stories of the rabbis are given credence when they contain circumstantial details and especially when they are presented in ma'aseh ("It happened that...") form. In the latter case, Goodman argues that the tannaim had no "motive for invention," since theoretical rulings by a sage would have been just as authoritative. When the tannaim do not consider a given subject, and it can 249

250

BOOK REVIEWS

be shown that their silence is not the result of disinterest or lack of concern, it is presumed that the matter is irrelevant to a discussion of Galilean society. Goodman adopts J. Neusner's method of correlating earlier and later attributions when dating is a concern. He also notes the importance of "geographical context" in evaluating attributions and surveys the relevant external, literary, and archeological sources. The earlier part of Goodman's work includes chapters on "Settlement and Population," "Jews and Gentiles in Galilee," "Galilean Village Trade," and "Galilean Village Culture." Goodman is at times innovative; for example, when he cautiously uses information gleaned from sixteenthcentury Turkish tax registers in his discussion of settlement and population patterns. His survey of relations between Jews and Gentiles leads him to the tentative conclusion that "there was close contact with gentiles not within Galilee itself (which the Christian writers deny), but on the borders of Galilee where no clear geographical frontier can be postulated" (p. 43). Goodman's chapter on village culture contains the following noteworthy observations: (1) While the rabbis of Lower Galilee may have used Greek because it was in use among at least part of their audience, the language appears to have constituted "only a thin strand in the linguistic cloth" (p. 68). (2) The mixture of Greek and Oriental elements found in Galilean art and architecture is similar to that found in Syria, suggesting that "historians search in vain for deliberate acceptance or rejection of Hellenism" (p. 70). (3) Though educated Galilean Jews may not have been proficient in Greek philosophy, "they were still quite prepared to act as Greek philosophers did" (p. 74), disputing in the marketplaces and teaching ethics in their midrash. (4) The synagogues of second- and third-century Galilee, which served as houses of worship with a "central liturgical function," evolved out of an earlier institution devoted to public Torah readings and secular purposes. The most interesting section of this work is that devoted to "Government and Law," which includes chapters on "Rabbinic Authority in Galilee," "Local Administration in Galilee," "Roman Administration," and "Conflicts of Jurisdiction." Goodman studies rabbinic case law in order to determine the extent of the rabbis' influence over Galilean society. While the Sabbath, circumcision, sexual purity laws, use of tefillin, and consumption of kosher meat enjoyed widespread observance, the Galilean Jews seem to have been less committed to scrupulous adherence to the minutiae of purity and tithing halakhah. The preoccupation of the tannaim with the

BOOK REVIEWS

251

ammeiha-are; suggeststhat rabbinicauthoritywas ratherlimited during this period. Nor were civil and criminalcases decided by the rabbis but ratherby the local Jewishcourts whosejudges need not have been clergy. Life went on with little interferencefom the rabbis(controlover the calendar being an exception),whom Goodman comparesto the Roman iurisprudentes,who "spenttheirtime codifyingthe law as they saw it, inventing problemsto solve accordingto the principlesthey evolvedfromtheselaws, addinga strongelementof what they would like the laws to be and making the resultsknown to the nonacademicpublic. And like that of the Roman theiradvicewas sometimesfollowedand sometimes,perhaps iurisprudentes, more often, not" (p. 127). Though Roman administrationwas "loosely applied" and the Jews for all intents and purposes managed their own affairs, the potential for conflict betweenthe three existingcourt systems i.e., Roman, polis or village, and rabbinic, existed and, according to Goodman, is assumedby the tannaim. All in all, rabbinicjurisdictiondiminishedafterthe Bar KokhbaRevolt and did not beginto recoveruntilthe end of the tannaiticperiod.Goodman arrivesat this conclusionafter findingthat there are only six cases (out of sixty) of the tannaimexercisingjurisdictionafter the revolt. In one of the most well-arguedparts of his work, he shows how the developmentof the functionsof the nasi paralleledthis situation.Rabbinicinfluenceincreased in the third and forth centuriesprecisely because the rabbis no longer emphasizedpuritylaws and tithingand insteadconcentratedon areasof the halakhahthat the GalileanJewshad formerlybeen committedto (Sabbath, circumcision,dietary laws, etc.). Goodman rejectsthe usual explanation that the economic crisis of the third century demandedthis change in rabbinicemphasesand contendsinstead that Galilean villageculturewas showing signs of prosperityat the time. According to Goodman, "The rabbis . . . wanted to be recognized throughout Galilee as the political and

religious leaders of society. When that society rejected their religious demands they modified those demands until they became what society wanted"(p. 180). Goodmanis to be commendedfor approachinghis topic in a freshway and in pressing his methodology to fruitful conclusions. One could, however,take issue with certainaspects of his approachand some of his conclusions.Surely,Goodmanis rightin questioningthe historicalvalueof relevanttraditionsfoundin latercollections,butit shouldnot be automatically assumed that new readingsor variants found in these versions are

252

BOOK REVIEWS

always lacking in authority. Goodman suggests that his methodology allows one to check the reliability of talmudic baraitot by comparing their sociological assumptions to those underlying the laws found in tannaitic collections. While this may be an interesting exercise (one which Goodman himself might want to undertake), it still may not shed light on the details of later versions; only careful comparisons of the parallel versions and their contexts can determine the reliability of variants and the likelihood that they are not interpolations. Moreover, one could argue that, at the very least, baraitot found in the Palestinian Talmud may be just as authentic and reliable as, say, their parallels in the Tosefta. To be sure, Goodman's approach is safer, yet it should not be assumed that it is problem-free. The argument that dependence on ma'aseh accounts is justified since there was no "motive for invention" is not entirely convincing. While out-and-out fabrication seems unlikely, ma'aseh accounts frequently appear in different versions and contexts within the tannaitic collections themselves, and so incidentals and realia which appear in them must be regarded with extreme caution. Closer attention to textual criticism at least where the major issues were concerned may have resulted in ever more convincing argumentation and conclusions. In particular, the assumption that certain tannaitic passages apply to Galilee needs to be better substantiated. (For example, p. 21, where M. Ta'anit is used as evidence.) Some generalizations and conclusions which could easily be called into question include: (1) The assertion (p. 37) that women "inhabited something of a separate society of their own, excluded from any share in the public life of the community, either secular or religious, and reduced instead to concentration on beauty." This seems harsh and exaggerated. Goodman's conclusions are, he admits, contra S. Safrai's views on women in the synagogue, but the sources he refersto do not necessarilyjustify his conclusion. That the rabbis had certain expectations regarding personal beauty does not mean that women had no important function in society. After all, women can be beautiful and still be integrated into society. (2) On p. 39, Goodman asserts that every village had local poor and "begging continued even on the Sabbath." To prove his point about begging on the Sabbath, Goodman refers the reader to M. Shabbat 1:1, which mentions a "poor man" and a "householder." It seems likely, however, that the Mishnah does not refer to actual circumstances, but rather uses the terms "poor man" and "householder" in order to dramatize its discussion of the transferring of objects from domain to domain on the Sabbath. (Cf. Maimonides, who suggests

BOOK REVIEWS

253

that the termswereused for the sake of brevity.)Assumingthatthis dramatization still reflectsthe Mishnah'sperspectiveof society and is relevantto Galilee (which is not explicitlymentioned),there still is no reasonto infer that the poor man was actively"begging"on the Sabbath.(3) Goodman's is novel, yet its implicationsmust assessmentof the rabbisas iurisprudentes not be overstated.Recognitionof the rabbis'authoritymay not have been all that the sageswouldhavelikedit to be, yet the factthatGalileanJewsdid adhereto certainhalakhot(Sabbath,niddah,etc.) does suggest significant acceptanceof rabbinicjurisdiction.Perhapsthe situationwas not entirely different from that which exists today, with varying emphases existing among "orthodox" Jews but at least tacit and neverthelesswidespread recognitionof rabbinicauthorityamong these same Jews. If this had not been the case, Goodman's contention that the rabbis were regardedas "almostsuperhumanholy men"(p. 108)would makelittle sense.Rabbinic authorityhad to at least be tacitlyrecognizedamongsome Jews, in matters other than merelythe calendar,for this to have been true. (Of course,this perceptionof the rabbis may simply reflect the rabbinic Tendenzof the literatureitself.) Seen fromthis perspectivethe questionof whetherpre-132 C.E.Galileanswere rabbinicJews or not (p. 232 n. 1) may also be too simplistic. (Goodmanclaimsthat the evidencebroughtby A. Oppenheimerin his work The'AmHa-Aretzonly indicatesthat the Galileansveneratedthe Bible, not that they sharedthe interestsof the rabbisin tithingand purity. Oppenheimer,however,tries to prove that the Galileanswere not ammei ha-are;,not that they were rabbinicJews. That is a differentsort of question.) (4) Goodman offers (p. 111) three explanationsfor the loss of the rabbis'authority,as suggestedby the relativelyfewercases broughtbefore them, after the Bar Kokhba Revolt. These are: (a) the lack of a Galilean base for the relocatedJudeanschools,(b) the low statusof rabbiswho were immigrantsand manuallaborersin Galilee, and (c) the lack of sympathy amongGalileansJewsfor "rabbinicextremistpiety."Whileall of thesemay have been contributingfactors,it is just as likelythat the limitedamountof cases for this periodsimplyreflectsthe disinterestof the peoplein halakhic mattersafter the war and theirpreoccupationwith recovery.Surely,life in Galileewas affectedby the influxof refugeesfromJudea,and the Galileans themselves must have been further affected by the social and spiritual upheaval. Goodman'sstudyis a significantcontributionto the increasingliterature on Roman Galilee. His assessmentof the Jews of Galilee complementsS.

254

BOOK REVIEWS

Freyne's observations in Galilee from Alexander the Great to Hadrian, 323

B.C.E. to 135 C.E. and broadens the discussioninitiated in A. Oppenheimer's The 'Am Ha-Aretz. His work should also be read alongside of Neusner's Judaism in Society: The Evidence of the Yerushalmi,which ques-

tions the extentof rabbinicauthorityeven in the amoraicperiod,comingto conclusionssimilarto Goodman'sfor tannaitictimes. Most importantly, StateandSocietyis a seriousattemptto addresssomeof the methodological concernsof the presentgenerationof historiansof the periodand is sureto stimulatemuch discussionamong them. StuartS. Miller of Connecticut University Storrs,Conn.

Mediation of the Divine Jack N. Lightstone. The Commerce of the Sacred. Judaic Studies, no. 59. Brown Among Jews in the Graeco-RomanDiaspora.

Chico, Calif.: ScholarsPress, 1984. xv, 217 pp. This study gathersthe scatteredand sometimesskimpyevidencefor the outlook and practicesof diasporaJudaism,analyzesthem in terms of the shamanistic model of religion, and contrasts diaspora with rabbinic Judaism.Accordingto Lightstone,the deuteronomicand leviticalmodel of religion,which was continuedby mishnaicJudaism,was Templeand land centered,structuredby a systemof purityand communityboundaries,and dependenton the identityand purity of the people and land for survival. Diaspora Jews could not create a closed, concentricsocial and religious system based on the sacredplace, Jerusalem,becausethey had to interact constantly with Gentiles. Rather than draw impermeableboundaries around their community,diasporaJews dependedon a varietyof places, things, and functionariesto mediatethe sacredfor their communityin its non-Jewishsocial world. Holy men, the tombs of dead ancestors,community prayerat propitiousmoments,the sanctityof the Torah scrolls, and other rites, such as fasting,circumcision,and dietarylaws, all combinedto link heavenand earthas well as the communityand the world.This flexible pattern of practice and thought explains how diaspora Judaism could accommodateChristiansand othermembersof the empirewho cameto the synagogue and sought out Jewish holy men for healing. Chrysostom's

Review: [untitled] Author(s): Anthony J. Saldarini Source: AJS Review, Vol. 11, No. 2 (Autumn, 1986), pp. 254-255 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486249 . Accessed: 30/06/2011 18:20 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].



254

BOOK REVIEWS

Freyne's observations in Galilee from Alexander the Great to Hadrian, 323

B.C.E. to 135 C.E. and broadens the discussioninitiated in A. Oppenheimer's The 'Am Ha-Aretz. His work should also be read alongside of Neusner's Judaism in Society: The Evidence of the Yerushalmi,which ques-

tions the extentof rabbinicauthorityeven in the amoraicperiod,comingto conclusionssimilarto Goodman'sfor tannaitictimes. Most importantly, StateandSocietyis a seriousattemptto addresssomeof the methodological concernsof the presentgenerationof historiansof the periodand is sureto stimulatemuch discussionamong them. StuartS. Miller of Connecticut University Storrs,Conn.

Mediation of the Divine Jack N. Lightstone. The Commerce of the Sacred. Judaic Studies, no. 59. Brown Among Jews in the Graeco-RomanDiaspora.

Chico, Calif.: ScholarsPress, 1984. xv, 217 pp. This study gathersthe scatteredand sometimesskimpyevidencefor the outlook and practicesof diasporaJudaism,analyzesthem in terms of the shamanistic model of religion, and contrasts diaspora with rabbinic Judaism.Accordingto Lightstone,the deuteronomicand leviticalmodel of religion,which was continuedby mishnaicJudaism,was Templeand land centered,structuredby a systemof purityand communityboundaries,and dependenton the identityand purity of the people and land for survival. Diaspora Jews could not create a closed, concentricsocial and religious system based on the sacredplace, Jerusalem,becausethey had to interact constantly with Gentiles. Rather than draw impermeableboundaries around their community,diasporaJews dependedon a varietyof places, things, and functionariesto mediatethe sacredfor their communityin its non-Jewishsocial world. Holy men, the tombs of dead ancestors,community prayerat propitiousmoments,the sanctityof the Torah scrolls, and other rites, such as fasting,circumcision,and dietarylaws, all combinedto link heavenand earthas well as the communityand the world.This flexible pattern of practice and thought explains how diaspora Judaism could accommodateChristiansand othermembersof the empirewho cameto the synagogue and sought out Jewish holy men for healing. Chrysostom's

255

BOOK REVIEWS

sermonsagainstthe Jewsshow that Christiansweregoing to the synagogue (withoutbecomingcircumcisedJews)as late as the fourth century.Neither Jewsnor Christiansyet saw theircommunitiesas totallydistinct,and Lightstone's theoreticalmodel for diasporaJudaismhelpsexplainthis important and surprisingphenomenon.In addition, Jews borrowedfrom the world around them, as witnessedby the venerationof the tombs of the dead in Syria(a phenomenonso startlingas to be brandedas "foreignto Judaism" by Bickerman).DiasporaJews were also interestedin exorcism,since the demonic spirits could not be controlledby the orderedsacred space and ritual of the Templeand Israel. Lightstonehas succeededin provingthat diasporaJudaismin the first four centuries, before the ascendancy of talmudic Judaism, lived an interpretationand pattern of Judaismdifferentfrom the later and more familiarrabbinicmodel. His study is fertilebecausehe has explicitlyused sociological and religioustheory to make sense of the scatteredevidence remainingto us. He is properlycautious in many of his interpretations becauseour evidenceis uncertainor slight, but his thesis that the larger social world, the symbolicworld of the community,and the religiouspractices of Jews fit in some coherentfashion is convincinglymade. AnthonyJ. Saldarini BostonCollege ChestnutHill, Mass.

Judith R. Baskin. Pharaoh's Counsellors: Job, Jethro, and Balaam in Rab-

binic and Patristic Tradition.BrownJudaic Studies, no. 47. Chico, Calif.: ScholarsPress, 1983. viii, 191 pp. This book is a studyof the ways in which the biblicalcharactersof Job, Jethro,and Balaamaretreatedin earlyrabbinicand Christianexegesis.The book's title comes from a midrashon Exodus 1:9(Exod. R. 1:9and parallels), which lists these figuresas the threecounsellorsto whom Pharaohin Egypt turned for advice when he first conspired against the Israelites. Accordingto the midrash,each of the three gentiles acted differentlyand was repaidin kind by God. Balaam,who activelyparticipatedin Pharaoh's schemings,consequentlydied a violent death; Job, who was silent, was

Review: [untitled] Author(s): David Stern Source: AJS Review, Vol. 11, No. 2 (Autumn, 1986), pp. 255-257 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486250 . Accessed: 30/06/2011 18:20 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].



255

BOOK REVIEWS

sermonsagainstthe Jewsshow that Christiansweregoing to the synagogue (withoutbecomingcircumcisedJews)as late as the fourth century.Neither Jewsnor Christiansyet saw theircommunitiesas totallydistinct,and Lightstone's theoreticalmodel for diasporaJudaismhelpsexplainthis important and surprisingphenomenon.In addition, Jews borrowedfrom the world around them, as witnessedby the venerationof the tombs of the dead in Syria(a phenomenonso startlingas to be brandedas "foreignto Judaism" by Bickerman).DiasporaJews were also interestedin exorcism,since the demonic spirits could not be controlledby the orderedsacred space and ritual of the Templeand Israel. Lightstonehas succeededin provingthat diasporaJudaismin the first four centuries, before the ascendancy of talmudic Judaism, lived an interpretationand pattern of Judaismdifferentfrom the later and more familiarrabbinicmodel. His study is fertilebecausehe has explicitlyused sociological and religioustheory to make sense of the scatteredevidence remainingto us. He is properlycautious in many of his interpretations becauseour evidenceis uncertainor slight, but his thesis that the larger social world, the symbolicworld of the community,and the religiouspractices of Jews fit in some coherentfashion is convincinglymade. AnthonyJ. Saldarini BostonCollege ChestnutHill, Mass.

Judith R. Baskin. Pharaoh's Counsellors: Job, Jethro, and Balaam in Rab-

binic and Patristic Tradition.BrownJudaic Studies, no. 47. Chico, Calif.: ScholarsPress, 1983. viii, 191 pp. This book is a studyof the ways in which the biblicalcharactersof Job, Jethro,and Balaamaretreatedin earlyrabbinicand Christianexegesis.The book's title comes from a midrashon Exodus 1:9(Exod. R. 1:9and parallels), which lists these figuresas the threecounsellorsto whom Pharaohin Egypt turned for advice when he first conspired against the Israelites. Accordingto the midrash,each of the three gentiles acted differentlyand was repaidin kind by God. Balaam,who activelyparticipatedin Pharaoh's schemings,consequentlydied a violent death; Job, who was silent, was

256

BOOK REVIEWS

made to bear his sufferings; Jethro, who fled rather than cooperate, was alone rewarded by having his descendants sit as members of the Sanhedrin. For Baskin, the midrash's contrasting treatment of the three figures serves as a kind of index or typology of attitudes towards the gentile in Rabbinic Judaism and early Christianity. Jethro, for example, became for the rabbis the exemplar of the convert to Judaism, an identification the rabbis made by identifying Hobab in Numbers 10:29with Jethro. As Baskin notes, this understanding of Jethro was the most positive evaluation a gentile could receive from the rabbis. For Christian exegetes, in contrast, the fact that Jethro had converted to Judaism, along with the other fact that he is never mentioned in the New Testament as a righteous gentile, made him a figure of considerably less interest. Baskin also makes the interesting suggestion that the rabbis' attitude to Jethro, which changes slightly between the tannaitic and amoraic periods, may itself reflect a change in their attitude to conversion. In the earlier period, when the rabbis wished to encourage proselytism, their treatment of Jethro is almost uniformly positive; in the later period, when Jethro is described less positively, the change may be due to less enthusiasm for conversion in general. In contrast to Jethro, Balaam represented the evil gentile. This negative evaluation is already present in the biblical portrait of the character, but the rabbis enlarged upon it by attributing to Balaam nearly every conceivable depravity as well as by emphasizing his single-minded desire to destroy the Israelites. Although the rabbis did not deny the fact that Balaam was a prophet, they made him an example of how God had indeed offered the boon of prophecy to all the nations of the world, who, however, had abused the gift and, like Balaam, had used it solely in order to harm God's chosen people. Baskin follows Urbach and other scholars in not identifying the rabbis' Balaam with the persona of Jesus, and she agrees with Urbach that the rabbinic description of Balaam's prophesying may have been shaped by familiarity with forms of ecstatic prophecy as practiced by contemporary religious sects. In any case, these two sides of Balaam-villain and prophet -are also present in Christian interpretation of the figure, though those treatments are somewhat more positive because Balaam's prophecy in Numbers 24:17, "a star rises from Jacob," was, among Christian exegetes, almost universally interpreted christologically. Baskin also considers the surprisingly sympathetic portrait of Balaam in Josephus, Antiquities, which, she suggests, may derive from an earlier and more positive Jewish tradition untouched by rabbinic-Christian polemics. Between the two opposed types of Jethro and Balaam, the figure of Job holds a mediate, ambiguous position. For the rabbis, Job was generally

257

BOOK REVIEWS

considered a righteous gentile and represented, as Baskin writes, the "belief that one could, in theory, live a life pleasing to God beyond the boundaries of Israel" (p. 116). This belief, however, was itself problematic for the rabbis: for some, the fact that Job was righteous was virtually sufficient proof in itself that Job must have been Jewish; elsewhere, Job qua righteous gentile is compared unfavorably with righteous Israelites (like the patriarchs), and even in the Exodus Rabbah passage from which Baskin borrows her title one may note that Job's silence is hardly treated as a positive feature. For Christian exegetes, Job exemplified the "true Israelite" who lived before the appearance of Jesus; his life was proof that a gentile could be righteous and worthy outside the Law even before the Christian dispensation. It is not surprising that the figure of Job eventually became a biblical type for the suffering Christ of the New Testament. Baskin's study is clearly written and well organized; each of the three main chapters-one for each figure-is divided into separate sections devoted to rabbinic exegesis, nonrabbinic Jewish authors in late antiquity (mainly Philo and Josephus), and patristics (mainly Origin and Augustine). Although the book holds no great surprises, Baskin's analyses are generally persuasive. This monograph is a solid contribution to the growing body of studies of comparative exegesis in late antiquity. One wishes only that Baskin had tried to extend her work somewhat beyond the confines of comparative exegesis, and attempted to integrate her typology into a broader treatment of Jewish attitudes to outsiders. This is a field of great interest for which lack of evidence has always been cited as a reason why it has not been explored more than it has. The wealth of material Baskin has collected in this book would certainly provide her with the basis for such a study. DavidStern Universityof Pennsylvania Philadelphia,Pa.

Stephen M. Passamaneck. The Traditional Jewish Law of Sale: Shulhan Arukh Hoshen Mishpat Chapters 189-240. Monographs of the Hebrew Union College, no. 9. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1983. 332 pp. The notion that "one who wants to be pious should observe the laws of [tractate] Nezikin" (B. Bava Kamma 30a) may explain why Stephen Passa-

Review: [untitled] Author(s): Baruch M. Bokser Source: AJS Review, Vol. 11, No. 2 (Autumn, 1986), pp. 257-259 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486251 . Accessed: 30/06/2011 18:21 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].



257

BOOK REVIEWS

considered a righteous gentile and represented, as Baskin writes, the "belief that one could, in theory, live a life pleasing to God beyond the boundaries of Israel" (p. 116). This belief, however, was itself problematic for the rabbis: for some, the fact that Job was righteous was virtually sufficient proof in itself that Job must have been Jewish; elsewhere, Job qua righteous gentile is compared unfavorably with righteous Israelites (like the patriarchs), and even in the Exodus Rabbah passage from which Baskin borrows her title one may note that Job's silence is hardly treated as a positive feature. For Christian exegetes, Job exemplified the "true Israelite" who lived before the appearance of Jesus; his life was proof that a gentile could be righteous and worthy outside the Law even before the Christian dispensation. It is not surprising that the figure of Job eventually became a biblical type for the suffering Christ of the New Testament. Baskin's study is clearly written and well organized; each of the three main chapters-one for each figure-is divided into separate sections devoted to rabbinic exegesis, nonrabbinic Jewish authors in late antiquity (mainly Philo and Josephus), and patristics (mainly Origin and Augustine). Although the book holds no great surprises, Baskin's analyses are generally persuasive. This monograph is a solid contribution to the growing body of studies of comparative exegesis in late antiquity. One wishes only that Baskin had tried to extend her work somewhat beyond the confines of comparative exegesis, and attempted to integrate her typology into a broader treatment of Jewish attitudes to outsiders. This is a field of great interest for which lack of evidence has always been cited as a reason why it has not been explored more than it has. The wealth of material Baskin has collected in this book would certainly provide her with the basis for such a study. DavidStern Universityof Pennsylvania Philadelphia,Pa.

Stephen M. Passamaneck. The Traditional Jewish Law of Sale: Shulhan Arukh Hoshen Mishpat Chapters 189-240. Monographs of the Hebrew Union College, no. 9. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1983. 332 pp. The notion that "one who wants to be pious should observe the laws of [tractate] Nezikin" (B. Bava Kamma 30a) may explain why Stephen Passa-

258

BOOKREVIEWS

maneckhas translatedthe sectionof the ShulbanArukhtreatingthe laws of sale. Since these laws deal with everydaymattersstill currentin modern society, he believesthat the rabbiniclaws on the subjectare not "obscure and arcane"but providethe readerwith a directexperienceof Judaismas a legal and ethical system. As we shall see, however, while Passamaneck pointsto certainfeaturesof the legalsystem,he lets the text itselfconveythe overallmessage;henceit is to those interestedin that text that the work is most useful. The bulk of the 73-page introductorymaterial is a synopsis of the ShulhanArukh that makes preliminarycomparisons with Roman and medievalcivil and canon laws of sale. The translation,running195 pages, is followed by 49 pages of notes and a 13-pageindex. Passamaneckbases the translation on the Vilna 1871 edition of the ShulhanArukh, and, although not purportingto provide a critical text, annotates where the earliereditionshave a differentreading.Observingthat the ShulbanArukh oftenwas "corrected"to conformto readingsof parallelpassagesin the Tur Shulban Arukh, the Mishneh Torah, and the Babylonian Talmud, he pro-

vides a model of how to assess variantsin the text of the ShulhanArukh.' The translationis faithfulto the original,thoughnot literal,andexcellentin finding proper English equivalents for the Hebrew legal terminology. Parentheticalcommentsadd to the intelligibilityof the rendering.Using the translationwith the original will thereforeaid as well the nonexpertinterestedin becomingfamiliarwith the ShulbanArukh'sstyle. Since Passamaneckis concernedsolely with the Shulbhan Arukh,and his notes at most directthe readerto earlierand parallelsources,the volume does not offer a history of the law of sale. Indeed, even more than other worksin MishpatIvri,it does not relatethe materialto nonlegalissues.The introductorysynopsis does make stimulatingcomparisons,but, as Passamaneckstates,they mustbe furtherpursued.Take,for example,the notion of the effectuationof a sale. In Romanlaw the bareconsent,as in the writing of a contract,effectedacquisition,while in rabbiniclaw consent had to be accompaniedby a formal act, such as the conveyanceof the object. Historians of Judaismmay associatethis position with the view alreadywell attestedin early rabbinicsourcesthat intent must be expressednot merely by mental thoughtsbut in action. 1. Notably, while interested in variants found in medieval works and citations, Passamaneck does not bring into the discussion manuscript readings of the talmudic literature.

BOOK REVIEWS

259

Passamaneck has thus produced a competent though narrowly defined translation of an important medieval Jewish work. Although as a code the Shul#hanArukh levels variations and developments (notwithstanding the glosses of Moses Isserles) and offers a picture of an ideal legal system applying legal principles, it nonetheless played a formative role in many Jewish communities and thus may help illuminate aspects of medieval Jewish civil life. But other research will have to trace the intersection of the legal and social and religious trends. This volume will therefore be useful to those desiring an excellent English rendering of such a code, whether for itself or for research, and to those interested in mastering the Shulban Arukh's Hebrew style or in assessing its textual history. BaruchM. Bokser Dropsie College Merion, Pa.

Robert S. Wistrich. Socialism and the Jews: The Dilemmas of Assimilation in Germany and Austria-Hungary. Rutherford, Madison, and Teaneck, N.J.: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, and London and Toronto: Associated University Presses, 1982. 435 pp. In his 1976 book, RevolutionaryJews from Marx to Trotsky, the British historian Robert Wistrich discussed how ten famous socialist revolutionaries viewed their Jewish origins. In his new volume, Socialism and the Jews. The Dilemmas of Assimilation in Germany and Austria-Hungary, Wistrich goes far beyond an examination of "Jewish" socialists like Rosa Luxemburg or Eduard Bernstein to present a meticulous analysis of the ideologies and the policies of German and Austrian Social Democrats toward the Jews and the Jewish question in the decades before World War I. Wistrich focuses on socialist attitudes toward three issues: Jewish emancipation and assimilation, anti-Semitism, and the rise of Zionism and Jewish nationalism. In each of these areas he wisely places socialist arguments within the context of German and Austrian politics. Thus, he does not treat the reader merely to an exercise in socialist dialectical theorizing, but rather to an understanding of how the socialists realized their ideology in the very real world of politics. In so doing he comes to grips with the significant differences between German and Austrian political realities in

Review: [untitled] Author(s): Marsha L. Rozenblit Source: AJS Review, Vol. 11, No. 2 (Autumn, 1986), pp. 259-262 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486252 . Accessed: 30/06/2011 18:21 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

259

Passamaneck has thus produced a competent though narrowly defined translation of an important medieval Jewish work. Although as a code the Shul#hanArukh levels variations and developments (notwithstanding the glosses of Moses Isserles) and offers a picture of an ideal legal system applying legal principles, it nonetheless played a formative role in many Jewish communities and thus may help illuminate aspects of medieval Jewish civil life. But other research will have to trace the intersection of the legal and social and religious trends. This volume will therefore be useful to those desiring an excellent English rendering of such a code, whether for itself or for research, and to those interested in mastering the Shulban Arukh's Hebrew style or in assessing its textual history. BaruchM. Bokser Dropsie College Merion, Pa.

Robert S. Wistrich. Socialism and the Jews: The Dilemmas of Assimilation in Germany and Austria-Hungary. Rutherford, Madison, and Teaneck, N.J.: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, and London and Toronto: Associated University Presses, 1982. 435 pp. In his 1976 book, RevolutionaryJews from Marx to Trotsky, the British historian Robert Wistrich discussed how ten famous socialist revolutionaries viewed their Jewish origins. In his new volume, Socialism and the Jews. The Dilemmas of Assimilation in Germany and Austria-Hungary, Wistrich goes far beyond an examination of "Jewish" socialists like Rosa Luxemburg or Eduard Bernstein to present a meticulous analysis of the ideologies and the policies of German and Austrian Social Democrats toward the Jews and the Jewish question in the decades before World War I. Wistrich focuses on socialist attitudes toward three issues: Jewish emancipation and assimilation, anti-Semitism, and the rise of Zionism and Jewish nationalism. In each of these areas he wisely places socialist arguments within the context of German and Austrian politics. Thus, he does not treat the reader merely to an exercise in socialist dialectical theorizing, but rather to an understanding of how the socialists realized their ideology in the very real world of politics. In so doing he comes to grips with the significant differences between German and Austrian political realities in

260

BOOK REVIEWS

the nineteenth century. Despite socialism's enormous commitment to ideology, and Wistrich's own interest in the ideas of Karl Marx, Karl Kautsky, Otto Bauer, and others, one is struck by the crucial impact of the political environment on that ideology. German and Austrian Social Democrats shared certain assumptions about the Jews. They supported Jewish emancipation and advocated the total assimilation of the Jews into European society. Indeed, Marxists argued that the Jews only existed as a group because of their economic function in precapitalist society. With the spread and development of capitalism, the basis for Jewish group distinctiveness would disappear and the Jews would cease to exist. Jewish workers should join their class brethren to overthrow the capitalist order and create a classless society without Jews or other ethnic groups. At the end of the nineteenth century this socialist doctrine of assimilation faced the twin challenges posed by political antiSemitism on the one hand and the rise of Zionism on the other. The political environment of Germany and Austria conditioned, Wistrich argues, the response of German and Austrian socialists to these movements. Both socialist parties shared a common ideological position on antiSemitism. German and Austrian spokesmen argued that anti-Semitism represented the reaction of backward-looking classes, especially the lower middle class, to the rise of capitalism. These petty bourgeois merely blamed Jewish capitalists, rather than all capitalists, for their plight. Socialists expected these classes to decline into the proletariat and then participate in the revolution against the bourgeois order. In the 1890s some socialists felt that by attacking capitalist and liberal society, anti-Semitism, the "Socialism of Fools," might actually help prepare the way for the victory of the revolution itself. Despite the fact that they held the same ideological position, the German and Austrian Social Democratic parties adopted different strategies for dealing with anti-Semitism. The German party took a much firmer line against the anti-Semites than did the Austrian party, and in the 1880s the SPD vigorously condemned Stoecker's Berlin movement. Wistrich argues that it did so not because of sympathy for the Jews, but for political reasons. German socialists perceived that the traditional power structure used the anti-Semitic movement as a tool against socialism. Moreover, during the period of official antisocialist pressure, the SPD could not, in good conscience, countenance attacks on other groups. Finally, the German socialists recognized that anti-Semitism would only divert workers from their true class interests. Although the German socialists adopted a somewhat more

BOOK REVIEWS

261

equivocal position in the 1890s, they nonetheless resisted anti-Semitism and immunized German workers against it. Austrian Social Democrats, on the other hand, always advocated a considerably more equivocal position on anti-Semitism than did the German party. Although the Austrian Social Democratic Party attacked the anti-Semitic Christian Social Party, it assumed a so-called neutral position on anti-Semitism and, in Wistrich's words, was "prepared to acquiesce in the temporary triumph of the 'Socialism of Fools'-even if the Jews were to be the first victims of the detour" (p. 248). The Austrian Socialist Party, often with Jewish spokesman in the lead, frequentlyjustified anti-Semitism as a backlash against Jewish economic and political influence and claimed that the violence of the anti-Semitic parties was trivial. More importantly, the SPO itself indulged in vulgar anti-Semitic rhetoric. After the victory of the Christian Social Party in 1897, the socialists attacked it for not fulfilling its anti-Semitic promises and for its reliance on Jewish banks. Austrian socialists, Wistrich insists, indulged in anti-Semitic rhetoric more than their German colleagues because of the greater strength of antiSemitic politics in Austria than in Germany. Austrian socialists had to work hard so as not to appear as a Judenschutztruppe,the defenders of the Jews. The large number of Jews in the ranks of the SPO, moreover, added to the party's desire to disassociate from the Jews themselves. Wistrich even suspects that Austrian socialists exceeded the requirements of the political environment and shared the anti-Semitic convictions of many Austrians. Wistrich also uses the differences in the Austrian and German political scenes to explain the divergent positions of German and Austrian socialists on Zionism and diaspora Jewish nationalism. Both parties sought total Jewish assimilation and viewed Zionism as a regressive, bourgeois phenomenon. But the German socialists, who did not have to contend with a popular Jewish nationalist movement at home, could simply discount the movement as marginal and not concern themselves with it. Austrian socialists, on the other hand, faced vigorous Jewish nationalism, especially in Galicia, and thus opposed it more categorically. Even though the SPO theoretically accepted the legitimacy of nationalism after 1899, it refused to accord the same national minority rights to the Jews that it was willing to grant to the Poles, Czechs, and other Austrian nationalities. Wistrich explains the inconsistency of Austrian Marxists like Karl Renner and Otto Bauer in terms of the political conditions in Galicia. The essentially German-oriented Social Democratic Party of Austria had to placate the Polish Social Democratic Party in Galicia, which vehemently opposed

262

BOOK REVIEWS

granting national minority status to the Jews. Although Wistrich does not blame anti-Semitism per se for SPO opposition to Jewish nationalism, antiSemitism probably could provide a key to understanding this opposition. In his excellent discussion of Otto Bauer, for example, Wistrich implies that Bauer excluded the Jews from his scheme for a nationally-federated Austria and argued that the Jews were a historyless people doomed to disappear because, as a Jew himself, Bauer sought escape from his origins and total assimilation through socialism. Here Wistrich wisely avoids the simplistic term "self-hatred" which dotted his earlier work. Nevertheless, one does get the feeling that socialists of Jewish origin in Austria led the battle against the Jews and Jewish nationalism because of the extremely high levels of antiSemitism in Austrian politics. To conclude, Wistrich has written a well-researched, thoughtful, interesting, and important book which mixes theory and politics with great skill. The reader is struck throughout by the author's disappointment that the socialists failed to uphold a consistent moral position and bowed to political exigencies. The book, however, does suffer from a few flaws. Occasionally Wistrich is much less clear than he might be. Moreover, he neglects all areas of Austria-Hungary outside of Vienna and Galicia. While his focus on SPO leadership might warrant that exclusion, he should have admitted that his interest lay with the party and its main bailiwick, Vienna. Finally, the subtitle of the book is somewhat misleading, since it implies a concern with Jews as socialists and the impact of socialism on the Jews in Germany and Austria. Instead, Wistrich presents only an analysis of important socialists (many of whom were Jewish) and their views on the Jewish question. These criticisms aside, Wistrich's book is important and deserves careful scholarly attention. MarshaL. Rozenblit Universityof Maryland College Park, Md. Joshua Blau. The Renaissance of Modern Hebrew and Modern Standard Arabic. Near Eastern Studies, vol. 18. University of California Press, 1981. 260 pp. This book appears as Volume 18 in the University of California's Near Eastern Studies series. It is subtitled Parallels and Differences in the Revival

Review: [untitled] Author(s): Menahem Mansoor Source: AJS Review, Vol. 11, No. 2 (Autumn, 1986), pp. 262-265 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486253 . Accessed: 30/06/2011 18:21 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].



262

BOOK REVIEWS

granting national minority status to the Jews. Although Wistrich does not blame anti-Semitism per se for SPO opposition to Jewish nationalism, antiSemitism probably could provide a key to understanding this opposition. In his excellent discussion of Otto Bauer, for example, Wistrich implies that Bauer excluded the Jews from his scheme for a nationally-federated Austria and argued that the Jews were a historyless people doomed to disappear because, as a Jew himself, Bauer sought escape from his origins and total assimilation through socialism. Here Wistrich wisely avoids the simplistic term "self-hatred" which dotted his earlier work. Nevertheless, one does get the feeling that socialists of Jewish origin in Austria led the battle against the Jews and Jewish nationalism because of the extremely high levels of antiSemitism in Austrian politics. To conclude, Wistrich has written a well-researched, thoughtful, interesting, and important book which mixes theory and politics with great skill. The reader is struck throughout by the author's disappointment that the socialists failed to uphold a consistent moral position and bowed to political exigencies. The book, however, does suffer from a few flaws. Occasionally Wistrich is much less clear than he might be. Moreover, he neglects all areas of Austria-Hungary outside of Vienna and Galicia. While his focus on SPO leadership might warrant that exclusion, he should have admitted that his interest lay with the party and its main bailiwick, Vienna. Finally, the subtitle of the book is somewhat misleading, since it implies a concern with Jews as socialists and the impact of socialism on the Jews in Germany and Austria. Instead, Wistrich presents only an analysis of important socialists (many of whom were Jewish) and their views on the Jewish question. These criticisms aside, Wistrich's book is important and deserves careful scholarly attention. MarshaL. Rozenblit Universityof Maryland College Park, Md. Joshua Blau. The Renaissance of Modern Hebrew and Modern Standard Arabic. Near Eastern Studies, vol. 18. University of California Press, 1981. 260 pp. This book appears as Volume 18 in the University of California's Near Eastern Studies series. It is subtitled Parallels and Differences in the Revival

BOOK REVIEWS

263

of TwoSemitic Languagesand is based on a lecturedeliveredin 1969. (It must have taken a whole day to deliverthat lecture.) Joshua Blauis a sound and authoritativescholar,and his contributions have made a significantimpacton our discipline.This is a very usefuldiscussion on these two importantSemiticlanguages--Hebrewand Arabicbefore and after their respectiverevivals. The first chapteris a brief history of Arabic and Hebrewbefore their revival.Blau discusseshow both StandardArabicand Hebrewhave undergone a modernrenaissanceafterhavingunexpectedlyexperienceda time of decay (Arabic in the thirteenthto eighteen centuriesand Hebrewin the sixteenthto eighteenthcenturies).The similaritiesin the renaissanceof the two languagesare such that both are to be includedin the generalframework of the adaptationto Westerncultureof languagesoutsidethe Western sphere;both are connectedwith the nationalrenaissancesof both peoples. Blautracesthe historyof both languages,stressingthatStandardArabic emergedin the sixth centuryas a supratriballiterarylanguage,as distinct from the spoken language,which had numerousdialects.Hebrewhas two strainsin its history,BiblicalHebrewand MiddleHebrew.The perpetuation of both StandardArabicand Hebrewwas due to the fact that they werethe languagesof traditionalsocieties,based on religion,in which the religious texts were memorized. The differencesin the historicaldevelopmentof the two languagesare: (1) StandardArabicwas the literarylanguageof the majorityof the population in a continuousterritoryin which the spoken languageswere Arabic dialects.Hebrewwas the languageof the Jews, who were in the minority, dispersedin variouscountrieswherethe spokenlanguageswerethose of the surroundingpeople.(2) StandardArabichas a singlelinguisticdevelopment with uniformityand invariabilityin spelling,morphology,and syntax. In discussingthe revivalof Hebrewversusthe renaissanceof Standard Arabic,Blau notes how both competedwith otherlanguages:Hebrewwith Europeanlanguages,but primarilywith Yiddish,which had becomea cultural language;Arabic with Europeanlanguages,but primarilywith the dialects. The revival of Hebrewwas due to the historicalsituation among the Jewishimmigrantsto Palestine.Hebrewwas the culturallanguagecommon to all, and thus it became the cultural and spoken language. This is in contrastto Arabic,wherethe culturallanguageis StandardArabicbut the vernacularremainedone of the Arabic dialects.

264

BOOK REVIEWS

Both ModernHebrewand ModernStandardArabichave conspicuous differencesin phraseology, vocabulary,and syntax derived from their respectiveclassicallanguagesand thusmustbe regardedas new stagesin the developmentof each language. Blau stresses that the parallel processes affectingthe two languagesare due not to theirinfluenceon eachother,but to the influenceof StandardAverageEuropean.He givesnumerousillustrations of ways in whichthis has occurred,suchas Europeanborrowingfrom the Hebrew and then the Arabic taking it from the European,or from Arabic to Europeanto Hebrew;the use of phrases and concepts in the HebrewBibleand the New Testamentwhichweretakenoverinto European usage and then into Arabic and Hebrew. The influenceof StandardAverage Europeanon vocabulary,phraseology, and syntaxis verysignificantaccordingto our author.Herehe givesa plethoraof examplesshowingthe "semanticextension,"that is, the semantic shift in meaningof wordsand phrasesfromClassicalHebrewand StandardArabicto correspondto the meaningin StandardEuropeanlanguages. He also notes the syntacticalimitation by both modern languagesof the StandardAverageEuropean:usageof continuativerelativeclauses;adverbs of circumstancebeing marked by the accusative;tendency to introduce verbs into nominal clauses;frequentuse of temporalclauses to designate contrast;consecutiveclauses introducedby "so that"; use of the "cleft sentence";use of the passivewhen the agent is marked;two nouns in constructdirectlyfollowed by the nomenretum;use of two contrastedprepositions precedingthe governednoun and the greaterfrequencyof adverbials. Othersimilaritiesto StandardAverageEuropeanincludethe tensestructure of Modern Hebrew,and the use of periods. Blauconcludesthat in orthographyand morphologythe two languages have preservedtheir ancient character,but in other linguisticfields they exhibit new layers of development. In speakingof the differencesbetween Modern Hebrewand Modern StandardArabic, Blau stressesthat:(1) ModernStandardArabicis only a cultural languagewhile Modern Hebrew is used in every sphere of life, including speech; (2) Arabic is tripartite (Modern Standard Arabic/ Classical Arabic/dialects) while Hebrew is binary (Classical/Modern); (3) the Classicalphases differin that StandardArabic has relativeuniformity while in Hebrewthere are two classicallanguages:Biblicaland Postbiblical, whereas Modern Hebrew has amalgamatedelements from both classicalstrains.

BOOKREVIEWS

265

Blauconcludesthislengthy"lecture"by brieflydescribingthe historyof the languageacademiesof both languages,and their areasof interest:both deal with a consonantalscriptand an inconsistentuse of matreslectionis, henceuniformityin spellingis difficultto achieve;variationsin spelling;and coiningof new terms.Underthe latterhe discussesthe techniquesemployed: use of secondaryroots, quadriliteralroots, absorbingforeign words by using homonymousautochthonouswords, and also compoundsand prefixes. The book is very readableand easy to understand,especiallydue to the inclusion of the English translationsof all foreign words and phrases. However,the technicalaspects of the printingleave much to be desired: lettersnot all on sameline level;divisionsof wordsat the endof linesarenot right(see p. 155,"rei-gned");lack of spacesafterperiods;and commasand some words being run together. There is no arrangementof examples, especiallyin Chapter4. Had theybeen systematicallyarrangedaccordingto type, it would be much easierto follow. Sucha significantand usefulbook should have been attractivelyprinted.These flaws are minorand insignificant for those readerswho will doubtlessbe delightedwith the contents. This volume is requiredreadingfor all who are interestedin Hebrewand Arabic.The generallinguistwill also greatlybenefitfrom it. It will prove a valuablesourceof referenceand informationand is highly recommended. Menahem Mansoor Universityof Wisconsin Madison,Wis.

Collected Studies Source: AJS Review, Vol. 11, No. 2 (Autumn, 1986), pp. 267-269 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486254 . Accessed: 30/06/2011 18:21 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 Douglas A. Knight and Gene M. Tucker,eds. The HebrewBible and Its ModernInterpreters.Societyof BiblicalLiteratureCentennialPublications, no. 1. Chico, Calif.: ScholarsPress, 1985.xxvii, 516 pp. Miller, "Israelite History." William G. Dever, and Biblical Archaeology."J. J. M. Roberts, "The "Syro-Palestinian AncientNear EasternEnvironment."Rolf Knierim,"Criticismof Literary Features,Form, Tradition,and Redaction."RobertC. Culley,"Exploring New Directions."PatrickD. Miller,"IsraeliteReligion."GeorgeW. Coats, "Theologyof the HebrewBible."Douglas A. Knight, "The Pentateuch." PeterR. Ackroyd,"TheHistoricalLiterature."Gene M. Tucker,"Prophecy and the PropheticLiterature."James L. Crenshaw,"The Wisdom Literature." ErhardS. Gerstenberger,"The LyricalLiterature."Susan Niditch, "Legendsof Wise Heroes and Heroines."Paul D. Hanson, "Apocalyptic Literature."WalterHarrelson,"The HebrewBible and ModernCulture." CONTENTS: J. Maxwell

Frederick E. Greenspahn, Earle Hilgert, and Burton L. Mack, eds. Nourished with Peace: Studies in Hellenistic Judaism in Memory of Samuel

Sandmel.ScholarsPressHomageSeries,no. 9. Chico,Calif.:ScholarsPress, 1984. xvi, 237 pp. Sandmel:)Michael J. Cook, "On ChristianOrigins: Common Sense, Uncommon Grace." Gerard S. Sloyan, "Ecumenist Scholar." Jonathan Z. Smith, "Man of Largess."Krister Stendahl, "A Friend and His Philo-Connection."(Studies in Hellenistic Judaism:) YehoshuaAmir, "The Transferenceof Greek Allegoriesto BiblicalMotifs in Philo."GerhardDelling, "The 'One Who Sees God' in Philo."Louis H. Feldman, "Abrahamthe General in Josephus."RichardD. Hecht, "The CONTENTS:(Samuel

267

268

COLLECTED STUDIES

ExegeticalContextsof Philo's Interpretationof Circumcision."Burton L. Mack, "Decodingthe Scripture:Philo and the Rules of Rhetoric."Valentin Nikiprowetzky, "'Moyses palpans vel liniens': On Some Explanations of

the Name of Moses in Philo of Alexandria."James R. Royse, "Further Greek Fragmentsof Philo's Quaestiones."Daniel R. Schwartz,"Philo's PriestlyDescent."AbrahamTerian,"A PhilonicFragmenton the Decad." Ben Zion Wacholder,"The Beginningof the SeleucidEra and the Chronology of the Diadochoi.""SamuelSandmel'sCorrespondencewith Valentin Nikiprowetzky."Frederick E. Greenspahn, "The Writings of Samuel Sandmel:A Bibliography." Randolph L. Braham, ed. Jewish Leadership During the Nazi Era: Patterns of Behavior in the Free World.Social Science Monographs and Institute for

Holocaust Studies of the City Universityof New York. East European Monographs,no. 175.New York:ColumbiaUniversityPress,1985.xiv, 154 PP. David S. Wyman, "The American Jewish Leadership and the CONTENTS:

Holocaust."BernardWasserstein,"Patternsof JewishLeadershipin Great Britain During the Nazi Era." Bela Vago, "Some Aspects of the Yishuv Leadership'sActivities During the Holocaust." Gerhart M. Riegner, "Switzerlandand the Leadershipof Its Jewish CommunityDuring the Second WorldWar."Haim Avni, "Patternsof JewishLeadershipin Latin AmericaDuring the Holocaust." JacobRaderMarcusandAbrahamJ. Peck,eds. TheAmericanRabbinate:A Century of Continuity and Change; 1883-1983. Hoboken, N.J.: Ktav Pub-

lishing House, 1985. 261 pp. CONTENTS:Jonathan D. Sarna, "Introduction." Jeffrey S. Gurock,

"Resistersand Accommodators:Varietiesof OrthodoxRabbisin America, 1886-1983." AbrahamJ. Karp, "The ConservativeRabbi-'Dissatisfied But Not Unhappy.'" David Polish,"TheChangingand the Constantin the Reform Rabbinate." Geoffrey Wigoder, ed. ContemporaryJewry: Studies in Honor of Moshe

Davis. New York: Instituteof ContemporaryJewry, 1984. 269, 162 pp.

COLLECTED STUDIES

269

Section) Geoffrey Wigoder, "Moshe Davis and the Study of ContemporaryJewry: An Oral History." Naomi W. Cohen, "Sermonsand the ContemporaryWorld:Two AmericanJewishSources." AbrahamJ. Karp, "'The Makingof Americans':German-RussianJewish Confrontationin the Processof Americanization." RobertT. Handy,"Holy of Two of Christian Land Experiences Pioneers Ecumenism:Schaff and Mott." Shulamit Nardi, "Yiddish as Catalyst in American Zionism." Franklin H. Littell, "The Course of AmericanReligious History: From ProtestantDominationto InterfaithCooperation."Eli Ginzberg,"Agenda for AmericanJews:A Third of a CenturyPerspective."Lloyd P. Gartner, "ContemporaryHistoriansof New York Jewry."Michael Brown, "The Americanizationof CanadianZionism, 1917-1982." Roberto Bachi and Sergio DellaPergola, "Did Characteristicsof Pre-EmancipationItalian Jewry Deviate from a GeneralDemographicParadigmfor Jewish Traditional Communities?"Usiel O. Schmelz, "New Immigrants'Progressin Hebrew:StatisticalData from Israel, 1970-1976."JonathanFrankel,"Ber Borokhovand the RevolutionaryGenerationof 1905."AlfredGottschalk, "From the Kingdom of Night to the Kingdomof God: Jewish-Christian Relations and the Searchfor ReligiousAuthenticityafterthe Holocaust." Emil Fackenheim,"The Study of ContemporaryJewry:Its Place in the AcademicWorld."SimonN. Herman,"Approachesto the SocialPsychological Study of ContemporaryJewry:The Biases of the Social Scientist." Louis Finkelstein,"Note on Rab Pirqoi ben Baboi." (Hebrew Section) Nathan Rotenstreich,"JudaismBetween Nationalism and Humanity:A Chapterin the Debate During the Nineteenthand TwentiethCenturies." MenahemKaufman,"GeorgeAntonius and the United States:The First Contacts BetweenPalestinianArabs and America."MordechaiAltshuler and Ezra Mendelsohn"TheJews of the SovietUnion and PolandBetween the Wars:A ComparativeAnalysis."YehudaBauer,"Testimonyof a Jewish Partisan:MethodologicalProblemsin the Analysisof a TapedTestimony." IsraelGutman,"HolocaustResearch:Problemsand Aspects."Haim Avni, "BetweenBermudaand Santa Rosa: The Allies and the Rescue of Jews During the Holocaust from a Mexican Perspective."Michel Abitbol, "NorthAfricaandthe Rescueof JewishRefugeesin the SecondWorldWar: The Failureof the Fadala Plan."Dov Levin,"The Strugglefor Survivalin SiberianExile." Rivka Demsky, "Bibliographyof the Writingsof Moshe Davis." CONTENTS:(English

Books Received Source: AJS Review, Vol. 11, No. 2 (Autumn, 1986), pp. 271-273 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486255 . Accessed: 30/06/2011 18:21 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].



BOOKSRECEIVED Biale, Rachel. Women and Jewish Law: An Exploration of Women's Issues

in HalakhicSources.New York: SchockenBooks, 1984.x, 293 pp. Blidstein, Gerald. Ekronot Mediniyim be-Mishnat ha-Rambam: Iyunim be-Mishnato ha-Halakhtit. Ramat-Gan; Universitat Bar-Ilan, 1983. 283 pp. Bowman, Steven B. The Jews of Byzantium 1204-1453. University, Ala.:

Universityof Alabama Press, 1985. xviii, 380 pp. Cahan, Abraham. GrandmaNever Lived in America: The New Journalismof

Abraham Cahan. Edited with an introduction by Moses Rischin. Bloomington:Indiana UniversityPress, 1985. xliv, 538 pp. Cohen, Gershon. Hebrew Incunabula: Mendel Gottesman Library of Hebraica-Judaica, Yeshiva University. New York: Yeshiva University

Press, 1984. xiii, 112, 20 pp. (Hebrew) Doron, Pinchas. Be'ur Setumot be-RaSHI. Interpretation of Difficult Passages in Rashi. Part 1: Genesis and Exodus. Hoboken: Ktav, 1985. 274 pp. (Hebrew)

Goetschel, Roland. La Kabbale.Paris: Presses Universitairesde France, 1985. 126 pp. Graff, Gil. Separation of Church and State: Dina de-Malkhuta Dina in

JewishLaw, 1750-1848. University,Ala.: Universityof AlabamaPress, 1985. ix, 223 pp. Kaplan, Mordecai M. Dynamic Judaism: The Essential Writingsof Mordecai

M. Kaplan.Edited and with introductionsby EmanuelS. Goldsmith and Mel Scult. New York: SchockenBooks, 1985. 263 pp. Karp, Abraham J. Haven and Home: A History of the Jews in America. New

York: SchockenBooks, 1985, xiii, 401 pp. Kessler, David. The Falashas: The Forgotten Jews of Ethiopia. New York:

Schocken Books, 1985. xiv, 182 pp. Reprintof 1982 ed. 271

272

BOOKS RECEIVED

Kirschner, Robert S., ed. Rabbinic Responsa of the Holocaust Era. Trans-

lated with introductionsand notes by RobertS. Kirschner.New York: SchockenBooks, 1985. xii, 192 pp. Krinsky, Carol Herselle. Synagogues of Europe: Architecture, History,

Meaning.New York: ArchitecturalHistory Foundation;Cambridge: MIT Press, 1985. x, 457 pp. Kurzweil, Zvi. The Modern Impulse of TraditionalJudaism. Hoboken: Ktav,

1985. xiv, 156 pp. Mahler, Raphael. Hasidism and the Jewish Enlightenment: Their Confrontation in Galicia and Poland in the First Half of the Nineteenth Century.

Translatedfromthe Yiddishby EugeneOrenstein.Translatedfrom the Hebrew by Aaron Klein and Jenny MachlowitzKlein. Philadelphia: Jewish PublicationSociety of America, 1985.xvii, 411 pp. Maimonides, Moses. Crisis and Leadership: Epistles of Maimonides. Texts

translatedand notes by AbrahamHalkin. Discussionsby David Hartman. Philadelphia:JewishPublicationSocietyof America,1985.x, 292 pp. Neusner, Jacob. The Pharisees: Rabbinic Perspectives. Hoboken: Ktav,

1985. ix, 316 pp. Parrinder, Geoffrey, ed. World Religions: From Ancient History to the

Present.New York:Facts on File, 1985. 528 pp. Revisedand updated ed. of 1971 ed. Rogerson,John. TheAtlas of theBible.New York:Facts on File, 1985.237 PP. Rosenwaike, Ira. On the Edge of Greatness:A Portrait of American Jewry in

the EarlyNationalPeriod.Cincinnati:AmericanJewishArchives,1985. xvi, 189 pp. Rosenzweig, Franz. The Star of Redemption.Translatedby William W. Hallo. Notre Dame, Ind.: Notre Dame Press, 1971. xvii, 445 pp. Reprintof 1971 ed. Rotenstreich. Nathan. Jews and German Philosophy: The Polemics of

Emancipation.New York: SchockenBooks, 1984.vii, 266 pp. Sachar, Abram L. Redemptionof the Unwanted:The Liberation of the Death Camps to the Founding of Israel. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1985.

xxvii, 334 pp. Sternberg, Meir. The Poetics of Biblical Narrative:Ideological Literatureand

the Dramaof Reading.Bloomington:Indiana UniversityPress, 1985. xiv, 580 pp.

BOOKS RECEIVED

273

Stow, Kenneth R. "The 1007 Anonymous"and Papal Sovereignty:Jewish Perceptionsof the Papacy and Papal Policy in the High MiddleAges. HebrewUnion College Annual Supplements,no. 4. Cincinnati:Ktav, 1984. 89 pp. Weinberg, Werner. The History of Hebrew Plene Spelling. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1985. ix, 190 pp.

Ajs Review 1986: Fall, No 2

AJS Review 1985: Fall, No 2

Ajs Review, Fall 1989, No 2

Ajs Review 1987: Fall, No 2

Ajs Review 1986: Spring, No 1

Ajs Review, 1995 No 2

Ajs Review, Fall 1990

Ajs Review, 1984 No 2

Ajs Review 1995: Fall, No 1

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

Ajs Review: Spring, No 1

Ajs Review, 1992, Part 2

Ajs Review 1987: Spring, No 1

AJS REVIEW - VOLUME THREE

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

AJS Review 1985: Spring, No. 1

Ajs Review, Spring 1990

Ajs Review, 1988: Nos 1 and 2

Ajs Review, Volume Four (1979)

Ajs Review, 1993, Part 1

Ajs Review, Volume Two, 1977

AJS Review 17, 1 (Spring, 1992)

AJSreview AJS Review (1980 Volume 5)

AJS Review Volume Seven-Eight 1982-1983

Искатель. 1986. Выпуск №2

AJS Review (The Journal of the Association for Jewish Studies), Vol 18, No. 2 1993

AJS Review (The Journal of the Association for Jewish Studies), Vol 19 No. 2 1994

Annual Review of Immunology Volume 4 1986

1986)

Lowell, Elizabeth - Tell Me No Lies (1986)

October journal No.38 Autumn (1986)

Ajs Review 1986: Fall, No 2

AJS Review 1985: Fall, No 2

Ajs Review, Fall 1989, No 2

Ajs Review 1987: Fall, No 2

Ajs Review 1986: Spring, No 1

Ajs Review, 1995 No 2

Ajs Review, Fall 1990

Ajs Review, 1984 No 2

Ajs Review 1995: Fall, No 1

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

Ajs Review: Spring, No 1

Ajs Review, 1992, Part 2

Ajs Review 1987: Spring, No 1

AJS REVIEW - VOLUME THREE

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

AJS Review 1985: Spring, No. 1

Ajs Review, Spring 1990

Ajs Review, 1988: Nos 1 and 2

Ajs Review, Volume Four (1979)

Ajs Review, 1993, Part 1

Ajs Review, Volume Two, 1977

AJS Review 17, 1 (Spring, 1992)

AJSreview AJS Review (1980 Volume 5)

AJS Review Volume Seven-Eight 1982-1983

Искатель. 1986. Выпуск №2

AJS Review (The Journal of the Association for Jewish Studies), Vol 18, No. 2 1993

AJS Review (The Journal of the Association for Jewish Studies), Vol 19 No. 2 1994

Annual Review of Immunology Volume 4 1986

1986)

Lowell, Elizabeth - Tell Me No Lies (1986)

October journal No.38 Autumn (1986)

Recommend Documents