Association for Jewish studies 2003-27(2)

Front Matter Source: AJS Review, Vol. 27, No. 2 (Nov., 2003) Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the A...

Author: Association for Jewish studies

91 downloads 1647 Views 5MB 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. 27, No. 2 (Nov., 2003) Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4131604 . Accessed: 19/07/2011 03:37 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

VOLUME 27, NUMBER 2

RE

NOVEMBER,2003

VIE

W

LAJS

THE

JOURNAL OF

THE

ASSOCIATION

FOR

JEWISH

STUDIES

AJS Review ASSOCIATION WALTHAM,

FOR JEWISH

STUDIES

MASSACHUSETTS EDITOR

Jay M. Harris,HarvardUniversity EDITORS ASSOCIATE NehamaAschkenasy,Universityof Connecticut,Stanford YaakovElman,YeshivaUniversity Rela Geffen, BaltimoreHebrewUniversity SaraHorowitz,YorkUniversity MarshaRozenblit,Universityof Maryland JeffreyRubenstein,New YorkUniversity BOOKREVIEW EDITOR JeffreyRubenstein,New YorkUniversity MANAGING EDITOR

Angela Jaffray The AJS Review (ISSN 0364-0094) is publishedtwice annually by the Association for Jewish Studies Manuscriptsfor considerationshould be sent to Prof. Hillel Kieval, Washington Universityin St. Louis, Busch Hall 106, Box 1062, St. Louis, Mo. 63130 and Prof. MartinS. Jaffee, JacksonSchool of InternationalStudies, Universityof Washington,Box 353650, Seattle,Wa. 98195. Books for review should be sent to Prof. JeffreyRubenstein, New YorkUniversity,53 WashingtonSquareSouth, Room 100, New York,NY 10012. ? 2004 by the Association for Jewish Studies Publishing, Subscription, andAdvertising Offices: CambridgeUniversityPress, 40 West 20th Street,New York,NY 10011. U.S.A.; or CambridgeUniversityPress, The Edinburgh Building, ShaftesburyRoad, CambridgeCB2 2RU, England. Annual subscriptionrates for Volume 28, 2004: Institutionsprint and online ?70/$109; institutionsonline only ?61/$95; institutionsprintonly ?63/$97, payable in advance or on receipt of invoice; institutionalcheck or credit card only. Special rates exist for members of the Association for Jewish Studies; please contact the association for membershipdetails. AJS Review and all other CambridgeJournalscan be found at http://www.journals. cambridge.org/ Postmaster:Send address changes in the U.S.A. Canada, and Mexico to: AJS Review, JournalsDept., CambridgeUniversityPress, 100 BrookHill Drive,WestNyack, NY 109942113. Send addresschanges elsewhere to: AJS Review,JournalsDept., CambridgeUniversity Press, The EdinburghBuilding, ShaftesburyRoad,CambridgeCB2 2RU, England.

A JS

Review

THE JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR JEWISH STUDIES

NOVEMBER2003

VOLUME27, NUMBER2 TABLEOF CONTENTS

ARTICLES

Jonathan Schofer SpiritualExercises in RabbinicCulture ......................................

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

203

Leib Moscovitz "Designationis Significant": An Analysis of the ConceptualSugya in bSan 47b-48b.................................................227 Don Seeman Martyrdom,Emotionand the Workof Ritual in R. MordecaiJoseph Leiner's Mei Ha-Shiloah.....................................................................253 Nancy Sinkoff The Maskil, the Convert,and the 'Agunah:Joseph Perlas a Historianof Jewish Divorce Law ................... ... ............................................281 REVIEW ESSAY

Olga Litvak You CanTakethe HistorianOut of the Pale, But CanYouTakethe Pale Out of the Historian?:New Trendsin the Study of RussianJewry .......................

301

BOOK REVIEWS

David Aaron. BiblicalAmbiguities: Semanticsand Divine Imagery Metaphor, . ..... ................ MARC BRETTLER ...........

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

313

Shelly Matthews. First Converts:Rich Pagan Womenand the Rhetoricof Mission in EarlyJudaismand Christianity RENE S. BLOCH ..................... ........ ...... ... ..........................314 ........................... Shemaryahu Talmon, Jonathon Ben-Dov, and Uwe Glessmer, editors. Qumran Cabe 4. XVI: CalendricalTexts.Discoveries in the JudaeanDesert, XXI Sacha Stern. Calendarand Community:A History of the Jewish Calendar, 2nd CenturyBCE-10th CenturyCE JOSEPH M. BAUMGARTEN .............................................. .....................

16

Menahem Kahana. Sifre ZutaDeuteronomy:Citationsfrom a New TanniaticMidrash .....................319 KULP ....................... JOSHUA . .............................................. Charlotte Elisheva Fonrobert. MenstrualPurity: Rabbinicand Christian Reconstructionsof Biblical Gender GAIL LABOVITZ ................................................322

Christine Hayes. GentileImpuritiesand Jewish Identities JOSHUA KULP ......

...........................................................325

Martin S. Jaffee. Torahin the Mouth: Writingand Oral Traditionin Palestinian Judaism,200 BCE-400 CE W. DAVIDNELSON ....................................... .......................................... Avinoam Cohen. Ravina and ContemporarySages: Studies in the Chronology ofLate BabylonianAmoraim JAYROVNER.............................................................. ...............

327

330

Ephraim Kanarfogel. Peering Throughthe Lattices:Mystical,Magical and Pietist Dimensions in the TosafistPeriod JEFFREY R. WOOLF ......................................................332 Anna Foa. TheJews of Europeafter the Black Death BERNARD Dov COOPERMAN ................................. Haim Beinart. TheExpulsionof the Jewsfrom Spain BENJAMIN R. GAMPEL.....................................................................

....................334

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

335

Eric Lawee. Isaac Abarbanel' Stance TowardTradition:Defence, Dissent, and Dialogue AVRAHAM .....................338 GROSS ....................................................................... Kenneth Stow. TheaterofAcculturation:TheRoman Ghettoin the SixteenthCentury ELLIOT ..... .....................340 HOROWITZ ............................................... Abraham Miguel Cardozo. Selected Writings ....... MATTGOLDISH...................

......................................342

Ken Koltun-Fromm. Moses Hess and ModernJewish Identity MICHAEL A. MEYER ................................................

..............343

Kimmy Caplan. Orthodoxyin the New World:ImmigrantRabbisand Preaching in America (1881-1924) SETHFARBER............................................................. ...............

346

Michael Alexander. JazzAge Jews ROBERT A. ROCKAWAY ..................................

347

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

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

Mikhail Krutikov. YiddishFiction and the Crisis ofModernity, 1905-1914 OLGALITVAK .....................349 ....... ........ ................................ ................... Jeffrey Veidlinger. TheMoscow State YiddishTheater:Jewish Cultureon the Soviet Stage EDNANAHSHON ..........................................351 Daniel J. Elazar and Rela Mintz Geffen. TheConservativeMovementin Judaism: Dilemmas and Opportunities Michael B. Greenbaum. Louis Finkelsteinand the ConservativeMovement: Conflictand Growth Mordecai M. Kaplan. Communingsof the Spirit. TheJournals ofMordecai M. Kaplan. Volume1, 1913-1934 STEVEN M. GLAZER 354 .......................................... Walter P. Zenner. A Global Community:TheJewsfrom Aleppo,Syria MARIANNE SANUA ..............................357

Jeffrey A. Summit. TheLord'sSong in a StrangeLand:Music and Identity in ContemporaryJewish Worship RUTHLANGER .......................360 ..................... ............................... Jerold S. Auerbach. Are WeOne? Jewish Identityin the UnitedStates and Israel. Steven T. Rosenthal. IrreconcilableDifferences?The Waningof theAmericanJewish LoveAffairwith Israel LEONARD FEIN ................................................................

Steven M. Cohen and Arnold M. Eisen. TheJew Within:Self Familyand Communityin America RELAMINTZGEFFEN .......................................................................

362

365

Spiritual Exercises in Rabbinic Culture Author(s): Jonathan Schofer Source: AJS Review, Vol. 27, No. 2 (Nov., 2003), pp. 203-225 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4131605 . Accessed: 19/07/2011 03:37 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].



AJS Review 27:2 (2003), 203-226 SPIRITUAL EXERCISES IN RABBINIC CULTURE

by Jonathan Schofer PierreHadot'sformulationof "spiritualexercise"has had a tremendousinfluence upon the study of philosophy and religion in Late Antiquityand beyond. He arguesthatthe well-knownexercises of Ignatiusof Loyola arepartof an older and broadertraditionthathas its roots in Greco-Romanand Hellenistic schools of philosophy,and that much of ancient and late ancient philosophical speculation should be analyzedas deeply intertwinedwith practicalgoals for self-transformation. His researchcenters upon the Greekaskisis and meleti, which he translates as "spiritualexercise," as well as the Latin exercitiumspirituale. However, his study goes beyond occurrencesof those particularterms, and he aims to develop a categorythat can be used in comparativeand theoreticalreflection.' Hadot is among a number of scholars in recent decades that have drawn attentionto the intensive concern with the self and its formationamong elites of Roman Late Antiquity.This researchhas been framedthrougha numberof categories-including the care of the self, sexual renunciation,andthe constructionof masculinityor manhood-and it has focused upon philosophicalschools and early Christianitybut has had little to say aboutrabbinicJudaism.2In whatways, then, 1. Hadot'sstudies of spiritualexercises run throughhis works, includingPlotinus, or the Simplicity of Vision.Michael Chase, trans.(Chicago:Universityof Chicago Press, 1993);Philosophyas a WayofLife ArnoldDavidson,ed., MichaelChase,trans.(Cambridge,MA: Basil Blackwell, 1995), esp. pp. 81-144; and TheInner Citadel,Michael Chase, trans.(Cambridge,MA: HarvardUniversityPress, 1998). An importantpredecessoris Paul Rabbow,Seelenftihrung:Methodikder Exerzitienin derAntike (Munich:Kbsel-Verlag,1954). 2. The observationthat elites in Late Antiquity were particularlyconcerned with the self or persongoes back at least to MarcelMauss' essay, "ACategoryof the HumanMind:The Notion of Person; the Notion of Self." For a recent translationby W. D. Halls, and valuableessays critically developing Mauss' observation, see Michael Carrithers et al., eds., The Category of the Person: Anthropology,Philosophy,History (Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress, 1985). Michel Foucault has made very strongand controversialstatementsconcerningthe "careof the self" in LateAntiquity. Forhistoricalpurposes,his researchis valuableto the extentthat,as ArnoldDavidsonwrites,"themanner in which Foucaultconceptualizedissues showedclear resonancewith" the work of historianssuch as PaulVeyne, PierreHadot, and Jean-PierreVernant.ForDavidson'sexaminationof Foucaultin relation to these scholars,see "Ethicsas Ascetics,"in J. Goldstein,ed., Foucaultand the WritingofHistory (Cambridge,MA: Basil Blackwell, 1994), pp. 63-80. Foucault'skey writings on the "careof the self' are The Use of Pleasure, Robert Hurley,trans.(New York:RandomHouse, 1985); The Care of the Self RobertHurley,trans.(New York:RandomHouse, 1986), especially pp. 39-68 on the intensification of these dynamics duringLate Antiquity;and LutherMartinet al., eds., Technologiesof the Self (Amherst:University of MassachusettsPress, 1990). Paul Veyne uses the category "care of the self" in a section of his history of privatelife, TheRomanEmpire,ArthurGoldhammer,trans.(Cam-

203

Jonathan Schofer do similarthemes appearin classical rabbinicsources?This paperexploresone dimension of the problem,focusing on "spiritualexercises"in TheFathers and The FathersAccordingto RabbiNathan. THE SOURCES

TheFathers is the only compilationof nonlegal materialto be canonized in the Mishnah.Overthe centuries,this collection of ethicalmaxims came to be part of Jewish liturgy,and it has since become the most commentedupon text in all of rabbinicliterature.As manyhave observed,the large and influentialanthologyentitled TheFathersAccordingto RabbiNathan is ourbest source for understanding how these sayings were employed in the context of the classical rabbinicperiod. This is not to say, though, that R. Nathan presentsthe "original"meanings of the sayings. As we will see, we often find in R. Nathan explicit adaptationor reinterpretationof the materialit commentsupon, especially when it preservesmaterial from before the rabbinicperiod. Strictlyspeaking,R. Nathan is a commentaryto a version of TheFathersthatis shorterand earlierthanthe one that appearsin the Mishnah.The relationbetweenthe texts is quitecomplex, andR. Nathanmay have developed in competitionwith the extantversion of TheFathers.3 Despite the attributionto "RabbiNathan,"TheFathersAccording to Rabbi Nathan is not a single-authoredworkbut, rather,was compiled by anonymouseditors over many centuriesand now appearsin two majorrecensions. One, which has come to be treatedas an extracanonicaltractateto the BabylonianTalmud,is commonly labeledVersionA, and another,found only in manuscripts,is knownas VersionB. My study will focus upon R. NathanA, but I will strive to addressall key sources in TheFathers and the witnesses of R. Nathan.4The problemof hisbridge, MA: HarvardUniversityPress, 1997), pp. 229-232. He places this discussion within a larger section that is provocativelyentitled"Tranquilizers" (pp. 207-233). Also on Romanelites, see Maude Gleason,MakingMen: Sophistsand Self-Presentationin AncientRome(Princeton,NJ: PrincetonUniversityPress, 1995), esp. pp. xi, xxv. On sexual renunciationin earlyChristianity,see PeterBrown, The Body and Society (New York:ColumbiaUniversityPress, 1988); note Brown'scommentabouthis debt to Foucaulton pp. xvii-xviii; David Brakke,AthanasiusandAsceticism(Baltimore:The JohnsHopkins University Press, 1998), who drawsupon Foucaultin pp. 142-200. On the constructionof manhood, see VirginiaBurrus, "Begotten,not Made ": ConceivingManhood in Late Antiquity(Stanford:Stanford University Press, 2000), who very explicitly responds to Brown's research;also the article on "SpiritualDirection"in G. W.Bowersocket al., eds., LateAntiquity:A Guideto the Postclassical World (Cambridge,MA: HarvardUniversity Press, 1999), pp. 704-705 with references.The work of both Foucaultand Brownhas influencedDaniel Boyarin'sstudies of rabbinicJudaism,including CarnalIsrael: ReadingSex in TalmudicCulture(Berkeley,Universityof CaliforniaPress, 1993). MarthaNussbaum's importantresearch addresses similar topics, though she makes strong distinctions between philosophicaland nonphilosophicalmaterialsthat Foucaultdoes not. See TheTherapyofDesire: Theory and Practice in Hellenistic Ethics (Princeton,NJ: PrincetonUniversityPress, 1994), esp. pp. 5-6 and 353-354 on Foucault,Hadot,and Davidson. 3. These points have been explored at length in the scholarly literature.See especially Louis Finkelstein,Introductionto the TreatisesAbot andAbot of RabbiNathan(Hebrew)(New York:Jewish Theological Seminaryof America, 1950); JudahGoldin, Studies in Midrashand Related Literature, BarryEichlerandJeffreyTigay,eds., (Philadelphia:The JewishPublicationSociety, 1988), pp. 3-117. 4. The edition I cite from is Solomon Schechter,Aboth de Rabbi Nathan, Editedfrom Manu-

204

SpiritualExercises in RabbinicCulture toricallycontextualizingthese sources is a thornyone. In brief, they presenta discursive world depictingrabbisof Roman Palestine,primarilyin the first and second centuriesCE, but they were edited over a periodthatextendedfarbeyond that time. It is likely thatR. Nathan, and probablyparts of TheFathers, were still being compiled duringthe Christianizationof the RomanEmpirein the fourthcenturyCE, andthey may have undergonechangesafterthe shift to an Islamiccontext in the seventhcentury,but we find little explicit representationof those contexts.5 Anthony Saldarinihas characterizedR. Nathan as presenting a distinctly "scholastic"world-view,and for the materialdiscussed herein,his argumentshold as well for TheFathers.He writes thatthe text "does not give a complete description of the Rabbisnor does it recounthow they lived, but ratherhow they ought to live as membersof a school."Key featuresof this school or disciple circle include a founderwho is valued for his teachings and behavior;groups of disciples centered upon fellowship, dining, study, and teaching;and some degree of distance from the rest of society. Saldarinicompares this scholastic outlook with that of Greco-Romanphilosophicalschools, andhis workis partof a largerscholarlypicturethatpresentsrabbinicsages as playing on the broaderdiscursivefield of spiritual elites in the easternRoman Empire.Scholasticrabbinismis not an essential and isolated religion, or one pole in a binaryoppositionof Greek/Jewishthought. The very language of the sources reveals a hybrid elite culture, and prominent

scripts with an Introduction,Notes, andAppendices (Hebrew)(Vienna: 1887;reprint,New York:Jewish TheologicalSeminaryofAmerica, 1997). I cite fromSchechter'seditionby "version,chapter,page." Thus, "A1,2"means version A, chapter 1, page 2 of Schechter'sedition. "A6-7, 27-35" means version A, chapters6-7, pages 27-35 of Schechter'sedition. Readersof the printededition can look up citations from version A by chapter.Majortextual studies include Finkelstein,Introductionand "IntroductoryStudyto PirkeAbot,"Journalof Biblical Literature57 (1938): 13-50. A recent and crucial study is MenahemKister,Studies in Abot de-RabbiNathan: Text,Redaction,and Interpretation(Hebrew) (Jerusalem:YadIzhakBen-Tvi, 1998). All translationsof Hebrewand Aramaictexts in this article are my own. Both versions A and B of R. Nathan appearin reliable English translations:Judah Goldin, TheFathersAccordingto RabbiNathan (New Haven:Yale UniversityPress, 1955); Anthony Saldarini,The FathersAccording to Rabbi Nathan (Abot de Rabbi Nathan) VersionB (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1975); Eli Coshdan'Aboth d'RabbiNathan.In AbrahamCohen, ed., TheMinor Tractates(London: Soncino Press, 1984); Jacob Neusner, The FathersAccoralng to Rabbi Nathan:An Analytical Translationand Explanation (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986). Very importantstudies include Judah Goldin, Studies in Midrash,pp. 3-117; Anthony Saldarini,Scholastic Rabbinism:A LiteraryStudyof the FathersAccording to Rabbi Nathan (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1982); Jacob Neusner,Judaism and Story (Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press, 1992). Despite its size and significance, R. Nathan and The Fathers surely do not representall of rabbinicthought.Their creatorswere selective and at times contentious.One way thatI signal thatthese sources representstrandsand not the totalityof rabbinic views is to avoid the use of the definite articlebefore the word"rabbis";I examinewhat (certain) rabbisstate, but not what (all of) "therabbis"believed. 5. The Mishnahwas completed in the early thirdcenturyin Roman Palestine,though TheFathers was likely reworkedand edited over a much longer period. One sign that it is a late additionto the Mishnahis that differentmanuscriptscontain the text in differentpartsof the canon. On the tractate, see M. B. Lerner,"TheTractateAvot,"in ShmuelSafrai,ed., TheLiteratureof the Sages (Philadelphia: FortressPress, 1987), pp. 263-281. For over a century,scholars have discussed the complex editing of R. Nathan;the most thoroughtreatmentof this point is in Kister,Studies.

205

Jonathan Schofer genres in TheFathersand R. Nathan (maxims, genealogical lists, and narratives) have been centerpointsfor comparisonwith Hellenistic thought.6 The probablelate date of the texts' final editingmakesthese points tenuous, even though some scholars have arguedthat the culturaldynamics of Hellenism continuedinto the time of Islamicrule.7Also, we shouldnot take comparisonsbetween philosophical schools and the rabbis who compiled The Fathers and R. Nathan to imply simple or direct lines of influence; such lines may be quite circuitous (or even run in various directions), and the comparisonsultimatelymay have value in generatingtypological ratherthan historicalobservations.In either case, it is crucialto note thatthereare significant differencesbetweenrabbisof the 6. Saldarini'sargumentsfor the scholastic natureof R. NathanrunthroughScholasticRabbinism, but see especially pp. 79-92 and pp. 135-142; I quote from p. 82; also see Michael Swartz, "Scholasticismand the Study of Judaism,"in Jose Ignacio Cabez6ned., Scholasticism:Cross-Cultural and ComparativePerspectives(Albany,NY: StateUniversityof New YorkPress, 1998), pp. 91-114; note that Swartzdrawson Saldarini,Scholastic. On the term"disciplecircle"in contrastwith "school," see David Goodblatt,RabbinicInstructionin Sasanian Babylonia(Leiden:E. J. Brill, 1975), pp. 267285. CatherineHezser, in a summaryof her analysis of whetherthe rabbinicmovementwas institutionalized,writes, "Studyhouses in tannaiticand amoraicPalestinewere not rabbinicacademiesin the sense of schools with a fixed curriculum,appointedofficials, and a succession of teachers.They were convenientplaces where some rabbisand others occasionally went to occupy themselves with Scripture." See The Social Structureof the Rabbinic Movement in Roman Palestine (Tiibingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997), p. 226 and generally pp. 184-227. On education in second century CE Galilee, see MartinGoodman,State and Society in Roman Galilee,AD 132-212 (Totawa,NJ: RowmanandAllanheld, 1983), pp. 71-81. Variousindividualcomparisonsbetween rabbinicand philosophical sources appearin JudahGoldin'sessays on TheFathersand R. Nathan;see his Studies in Midrash.Henry Fischel has arguedthat the stories of Hillel, including those in R. Nathan, have strong resonance with Greektales of sagely virtue (chreia). See H. Fishel, "Storyand History,"in H. Fischel, ed., Essays in Greco-Romanand Related TalmudicLiterature(New York:Ktav PublishingHouse, 1977), pp. 443472. For a comparisonof a maxim in R. Nathan to Stoic rhetoric,see Henry Fischel, RabbinicLiterature and Greco-RomanPhilosophy (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1973), pp. 70-73 and notes. On the genealogical list, see E. Bickerman, "La Chaine de la TraditionPharisienne,"Revue Biblique LX (1952). Reprintedin Studies in Jewish and ChristianHistory,Vol. 2 (Leiden:E. J. Brill, 1980), pp. 256-269. On the trope of the "fence"in Jewish, Greek, and Latin literature,see Siegfried Stein, "The Concept of the 'Fence': Observationson its Originand Development,"in S. Stein and R. Loewe, eds., Studies in Jewish Religious and IntellectualHistory: Presentedto AlexanderAltmannon the Occasion of His SeventiethBirthday(University,AL: Universityof AlabamaPress, 1979), pp. 301-329. On the general issue of Hellenismandthe rabbis,see PeterSchiiferandCatherineHezser,eds., TheTalmudYerushalmi and Graeco-RomanCulture(Tilbingen:MohrSiebeck,2000), esp. vol. 1, pp. 14-16; MartinJaffee, Torahin the Mouth:Writingand Oral Traditionin PalestinianJudaism200 BCE-400 CE (New York: OxfordUniversityPress, 2001), pp. 126-152; and Saul Lieberman,Greekin Jewish Palestine / Hellenism in Jewish Palestine (New York:The JewishTheological Seminaryof America, 1994). On problems in the contemporaryuse of the term "hellenization,"see Seth Schwartz,Imperialismand Jewish Society, 200 BCE to 640 CE (Princeton,NJ: PrincetonUniversity Press, 2001), pp. 22-25. Also, on reading rabbinic literatureas evidence of a multi-lingual context, see Steven D. Fraade,"Rabbinic Views on the Practiceof Targum,and Multilingualismin the Jewish Galilee of the Third-SixthCenturies,"in Lee I. Levine, ed., TheGalilee in LateAntiquity(New Yorkand Jerusalem:The JewishTheological Seminaryof America, 1992), pp. 253-286. 7. G. W. Bowersock, Hellenism in Late Antiquity(Ann Arbor:University of Michigan Press, 1990), pp. 71-82; A recentencyclopedicworkon LateAntiquitysets the endpointat 800 CE; see Bowersock et al., LateAntiquity.

206

Spiritual Exercises in Rabbinic Culture easternEmpireandotherlate ancientRomanelites in termsof role andsocial function. In addition,rabbiswere often quite suspicious of Hellenistic cultureand Roman imperial power. Juxtaposingrabbis with elites of the surroundingculture, then, is best understoodnot as a matterof arguingfor similarities,but of opening up more complex analogicalcontrasts.8 SPIRITUALEXERCISES

Do TheFathers and R. Nathan prescribespiritualexercises as part of their scholasticism?This questionleads us to examine and clarify furtherHadot'scategory of "exercise."Hadot employs "spiritualexercise" in both very general and more particularsenses. At a general level, Hadot writes that the Stoics and other philosopherswould characterizephilosophyitself as an exercise, framingit as centralto an "artof living" or as a "therapeuticof the passions"that encompassesall of life and many differentactivities.9This spiritualexercise may be seen as similar to physical exercise: Justas,bydintofrepeated athletesgivenewformandstrength physicalexercises, to theirbodies,so thephilosopher of soul,modifieshisindevelopshisstrength nerclimate,transforms his visionof theworld,andfinally,hisentirebeing.10 Throughcontemplatingnature,universalreason, or totality,philosophersof various schools identify with some "other"in orderto free themselves from ordinary concerns and desires." Spiritualexercises, then, are central to a vision of selfformationmodeled aftertherapyor medicine:the philosopherheals the soul from false belief as a doctorheals the body from disease.12 Rabbisalso set out scholastic activity-particularly Torahstudy-as an exercise, in the broad sense that the process is not only intellectualbut also central to the transformationof a studentinto a sage.13 TheFathers and R. Nathan differ fromHellenisticsources,though,in the significantrespectthatthe medicalor ther8. See Schwartz,Imperialismand Jewish Society, pp. 162-163; David Stern, "The Captive Woman:Hellenization,Greco-RomanErotic Narrative,and RabbinicLiterature,"Poetics Today 19/1 (1998): pp. 104-105. For an importantapproachto comparativestudy throughanalogy, examining cases with no historicalor geographicalconnection, see Yearley,Mencius andAquinas (Albany,NY: State Universityof New YorkPress, 1990). 9. Hadot,Philosophy as a Wayof Life, pp. 82-83, 107. 10. Ibid., Philosophy as a Wayof Life, p. 102. 11. Ibid., Philosophy as a WayofLife, pp. 83, 99, 183, 211. 12. See Nussbaum, TherapyofDesire, esp. pp. 13-77, 484-510. The topic of medical models and metaphorsin self-formationis relatedto but not the same as the interrelationof ancientmedicine and the care of the self. On medical texts as sources for Greekand Romanethics, see Foucault,Use of Pleasure, pp. 97-139 and Care of the Self, pp. 99-144. 13. Solomon Schechter,who compiledthe first criticaleditionof TheFathersAccording to Rabbi Nathan, has made this point in elegant terms:"Theoccupationwith the Torahwas, accordingto the Rabbis,less calculatedto produceschoolmenandjuriststhan saintsand devoutspirits."See Aspects of Rabbinic Theology: Major Concepts of the Talmud (New York: Schocken Books [1909] 1961), p. 136.

For a full study of this topic in R. Nathan, see JonathanSchofer, TheMaking of a Sage (Ann Arbor, MI: UniversityMicrofims, 2000).

207

Jonathan Schofer apeuticmodel does not appear.There are no parallelsmade between physical and spiritualexercise, and these rabbinictexts prescribeno specific practicesor meditations-elaborated in termsof frequency,timing, location,body position, and so on-that one should do as partof one's self-formation.'4 In additionto his generalaccountof philosophyas a way of life, Hadotdiscusses specific Greco-Romanexercises. For example, drawingupon two lists of Philo of Alexandria,he categorizes Stoic practicesas including: Firstattention, thenmeditations and"remembrances of goodthings,"thenthe moreintellectual and exercises:reading,listening,research, andinvestigation, of duties,and finallythemoreactiveexercises:self-mastery, accomplishment indifference to indifferent things.'5 Hadot also examines a numberof other intellectualpursuitsin the Greco-Roman world as being spiritualexercises, includingphysics, Socraticdialogue, and comportmenttowardsdeath.16 The first form of exercise in the list-attention-is most importantto consider in relationto TheFathers and R. Nathan.'7 Hadot writes that these exercises often are indicatedby the Greekprosochi, which is a "continuousvigilance and presence of mind, self consciousness which never sleeps, and constanttension of the spirit."He also quotes a passage from MarcusAurelius'Meditationsthat centers on attentionto the presentmoment: andat all times,it is up to you to rejoicepiouslyat whatis ocEverywhere curringat the presentmoment,to conductyourselfwithjusticetowardsthe 14. Althoughthereareno parallelsmade betweenphysicalexercise andengagementwith Torah or the commandments,note that a narrativeof Hillel in R. Nathan B cites Gen. 9:6 (which states that God made humansin the divine image) as justification for the claim thatgoing to the Romanbathsfulfills a commandment(B30,66). I discuss this passage as well as other instructionsin R. Nathan concerning the body in my conference paper and article in progress,"The Body and Self-Cultivationin Abot de Rabbi Natan," Upper Midwest Meeting of the Society for Biblical Literature,Minneapolis, 2002. Regardingmedical metaphors,in othersources one well-knownteachingpunningon Deut. 11:8 states that Torahis a "remedy"(sam) for the yeser, or fundamentalinclinations(SiphreDeut. 45 to Deut. 11:18, Louis Finkelstein,ed., Strifeon Deuteronomy(New York:The JewishTheological Seminary of America, 1993); also b. Qid. 30b; b. Sukk.52a; b. B. Bat. 16a); also see JuliusPreuss,Biblical and TalmudicMedicine, FredRosner,trans.(Northvale,NJ: JasonAronsen, 1978), pp. 447-581. Regarding instructionsfor specific practicesto be done at specific times, other ethical collections contain more of these than do The Fathers and R. Nathan. For example, DerekhEretz Zuta, and Derekh EretzRabbahset out guidelines for daily activities such as eating and excretion. 15. Hadot,Philosophy as a Wayof Life, p. 84; and generallypp. 84-86. 16. Ibid., Philosophy as a Wayof Life, pp. 87-88 (on physics); pp. 89-93 (on Socratic dialogue); and pp. 93-101 (on trainingfor death). 17. In addition,whereasR. Nathandoes not containdialogue similarto thatof Socrates,the exegesis of the epigramsoften replicatesa dialogue or classroom discussion in its own way. This is particularlyclear in passages that commentupon a given epigramwith the exegetical opening, "How so? This teaches that.. ."(kesad?melammedshe...). Such a formatechoes a discussion in which a teaching is cited, then someone asks, "How so?" and then an answeris given. See also Goldin, "A Philosophical Session,"in Studies in Midrash,pp. 57-76.

208

SpiritualExercises in RabbinicCulture to peoplewhoarepresenthereandnow,andto applytherulesof discernment so thatnothingslipsin thatis notobjective.8 yourpresentrepresentations, Hadotwrites thatthis "attention"to the presentmomentcan be "equivalentto the continuousexercise of the presenceof God. In the wordsof Plotinus'disciple Porphyry: 'Let God be present as overseer and guardianof every action, deed, and word!'"'19In the rest of this essay, I will examine three differentrabbinicrhetorical forms thatare analogousto these exercises of attention:they are similarin prescribing modes of comportmentand attentionthat the rabbi is to maintainat all times and throughoutall activity,but they are differentin both the object of focus and the states of characterthatthey aim to instill. To clarify how I am and am not drawingupon Hadot'sscholarship:My minimal claim, which I most strongly assert, is that Hadot'sformulationof spiritual exercises providesa valuableheuristictool throughwhich we can examine certain teachings in rabbinicliterature.I arguethat these rabbinicpassages not only present rabbinicbeliefs and concepts as part of instructionto guide a rabbi'saction, but also that they are exercises of attentionin the sense that I have presented.A more maximalset of claims, however,could be developed.The broadyet very importantcharacterizationof rabbinicJudaism as "partof the general 'discursive space' of the Hellenistic culturein Late Antiquity"20opens up the challenge and possibility of specifying the relationswithin that space. Such a projectwould involve a reexaminationof Hadot'sdescriptivework, detailed researchinto the dating of individual rabbinic teachings, and close comparative analysis between specific passages in Greco-Romanphilosophyandrabbinicsources.I will not take on that task in this work, but I do hope to inspire and establishsome groundwork for such inquiry.21 DIRECTING ATTENTION

The most widespreadof these instructionsappearsin two forms: one centeringon the verb histakkel,indicatingobservationor attention,22andthe otheron 18. MarcusAurelius,Meditations,7:54; following the translationin Hadot,Philosophyas a Way

ofLife,pp.84, 132. 19.Hadot,Philosophyas a Wayof Life,p. 132. 20. Schdifer,"Introduction," in Schdiferand Hezser, TheTalmudYerushalmiand Graeco-Roman Culture,16.

21. A differentbutveryimportant to similarissuescanbe seenin thebroadstudyby approach MichaelSatlow,"'Andon theEarthYouShallSleep:'Talmud Journal TorahandRabbinic Asceticim," rabbinicnotionsof talmudtorahin relation of Religion83/2(2002),pp.204-225. He contextualizes to "theasceticmentaliteof thepan-Mediterranean." hashelpedme in refiningthis SaraMcClintock set of points. 22. Themostcommonsenseof le-histakkel butit canhavean intelis seeingor observation, lectualandperhapscontemplative the termas "tolookat, obdimension.MarcusJastrowtranslates as "consider," serve,to reflect,to keepinmind."InthepassagesI focusuponhere,it hasbeenrendered as "attendto...." See MarcusJas"markwell,"and"meditate upon."I will translatetheimperative trow,A Dictionary of the Targumim,The TalmudBabli and Yerushalmi,and the MidrashicLiterature

RabbiNathan (NewYork:TheJudaicaPress,1992),p. 990;Goldin,RabbiNathan,p. 236;Saldarini, TheLoreof theSchoolof B, p. 189;WilliamG. BraudeandIsraelJ.Kapstein,TannaDebeEliyyahu.:

209

JonathanSchofer "giving" something to one's "heart"(or giving one's heart to something).23For both expressions,the object of attentioncan be God,Torah,or the body. Consider the teaching of the first-centuryconservativesage, Aqabyaben Mahalalel,as it is presentedby three sources:24 Aqabya[ben]Mahalalelsays,Anyonewho gives (noten)fourthingsto his heart('el libbo)will sinno more... (A19,69).25 AqabyabenMahalalelsays,Leta personattendto (yistakkel)fourthings,and he will notcomeintothehandsof transgression ... (B32,69).26 threethings,andyou will Aqabyaben Mahalalelsays,Attendto (histakkel) not come into the handsof transgression... (Fathers3:1).27

Both wordings-"attend to" and "give"to one's "heart"-appear in the transmission of this instruction.In all cases, the goal of such attentionis to avoid sin or transgressionthroughan intense focus upon "four"or "three"things. Elijah(Philadelphia:The JewishPublicationSocietyof America,1981),p. 375; JeffreyRubensteintranslates "mistakkel"of m. Hag. 2:1 as "contemplate"and "look into,"in TalmudicStories:NarrativeArt, Composition,and Culture(Baltimore:The JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress, 1999), p. 100.A strangeappearanceof "meditate"as a translationof mistakkelappearsin IsraelAbraham'stranslationof Urbach's discussionof m. Hag. 2:1 in EphraimUrbach,TheSages: TheirConceptsand Beliefs, IsraelAbrahams, trans.(Cambridge,MA: HarvardUniversityPress, 1979), p. 193; 772 n. 37. Urbach'sHebrewtext does not convey this sense. He glosses histakkelutin terms of hitbonnenut(observation,consideration,reflection)andyedi 'ah (knowledge),andthen he cites the use of histakkelin Fathers3:1; see EphraimUrbach, TheSages (Hebrew)(Jerusalem:MagnesPress, 1971),p. 169 andp. 169 nn. 36-37. We havethus come full circle,whereinthe scholarshipcites for clarificationthe very texts we aretryingto understand. Hebrewand EnglishLexicon On biblicalmeanings,see FrancisBrownet al., TheBrown-Driver-Briggs (Peabody,MA: HendriksonPublishers,2000) p. 968 on &.k.l.and Michael Fox, Proverbs1-9: A New TranslationwithIntroductionand Commentary(NewYork:Doubleday,2000), p. 147. In TheFathersand R. Nathan, we find teachingsthat advocatecertainthings or images that one should "attendto" (mistakkel).By contrast,accordingto MishnahHagigah, one shouldnot "attendto" certainforms of theological or metaphysicalspeculation:"whatis above,whatis below,whatis before,whatis after"(m. Hag. 2:1). S. E. Loewenstammhas analyzedthis passageand its variants.He suggests thatin this passage,because of the use of the verb d.rsh. at the opening,mistakkelrefersnot just to reflectionor attention,but also to readingor expositingout loud. S. E. Loewenstamm,"Onan Alleged GnosticElementin Mishna Hagigahii, 1"(Hebrew),in MenahemHaran,ed., Yehezkel KaufmannJubileeVolume(Jerusalem:Magnes Press, 1960), p. 114 n. 3 and generallypp. 112-122. Urbachrejectsthis position (Sages, p. 772 n. 37). 23. The phrasingvaries, but the key elements are the verb "give"(n.t.n.) and the noun "heart" (leb), including:"give ... to one's heart"(noten 'el libbo), "place ... upon one's heart"(noten 'al libbo), and "give one's heartto.. ."(noten libbo le-). The heartis a seat of emotions and impulses, but it also has intellectualdimensionsand can be renderedas "heart/mind." 24. Fora full discussionof all these variants,and speculationsconcerningtheirinfluencesupon each other and from historicalcontext, see Finkelstein,Introduction,pp. 64-70. 25. Goldintranslates,"Hewho takesto heartfourthingswill sin no more.. ."(RabbiNathan,93). 26. Saldarinitranslates,"Markwell four things and you will not fall into the clutches of sin" (RabbiNathanB, p. 189; he lists parallelsin p. 189 n. 15). 27. HerbertDanby translates,"Considerthree things and thou wilt not fall into the hands of transgression.. " HerbertDanby, The Mishnah (London: Oxford University Press, [1933] 1974), p. 449; also quotedin Goldin, RabbiNathan, p. 236.

210

SpiritualExercises in RabbinicCulture These "things"set out a contrastbetween God's power and judgment as a king and judge, and human existence as finite and embodied. According to R. Nathan A:

AqabyabenMahalalelsays,Anyonewhogivesfourthingsto hisheartwillsin no more:fromwherehe comes,to wherehe goes, whatin the futurehe will be, andwhois hisjudge. Fromwherehe comes-from a placeof darkness. Towherehe goes-to a placeof darknessandgloom. Whatin thefuturehe will be-dust andwormandmaggot. Whois hisjudge-the Kingof thekingsof kings,theHolyOne,Blessedbe He (A19,69-70; B32,69; Fathers 3:1).28

The "fourthings"that one must "give"to the heart set out the permanentboundaries of human existence: origin (from where he comes), end (to where he goes and what in the futurehe will be), and divinejudgment.Then, each of the "things" is atomized and glossed to framehumanworldly existence as moving from darkness to darkness,ultimatelyending in nothingbut "dustandworm andmaggot."29 By contrast,God is a judge as well as "the King of the kings of kings."The links between divine sovereigntyandjudgmentappearin stark,concise terms. These tropes intensify the contrastbetween the person and God, setting out 28. This passage has receivedmuch scholarlyattention.The claim thatpeople go "to a place of darknessand gloom" does not appearin TheFathers;on this point and generallyon the textualvariations, see Finkelstein,Introduction,pp. 53-55 and pp. 64-67; in English, Saldarini,RabbiNathanB, p. 189 n. 15. In additionto the appearancesin R. NathanA, R. Nathan B, and TheFathers, the teaching is quotedin Lev.Rab. 18:1 andEccles. Rab. 12:1.A parallelto the materialin A19,69-70 is in Der Er Rab.3, thoughthe maxim is in the name of Ben Azzai. In Kalla Rab. 6, the materialof Der Er Rab. 3 is presentedas a "mishnah,"to which there is a commentary. 29. On "wormand maggot,"see Job 25:6 and Is. 14:11.Aqabyaben Mahalalel'ssaying likely predatesmuch of the othermaterialin R. Nathan. However,in the broaderintertextualcontexts of both R. Nathan and TheFathers,the trope of "wormsand maggots"carriesan extremelystrongresonance of mortality,contingency,and the limits of corporealexistence. For example, the image is used as a reason for humility:"RabbiLevitas of Jamniasays, Be very very humbleof spirit,for the end of man is a worm and of humansa maggot"(B34,74; also Fathers 4:4). "Wormand maggot"also has more negative connotations.In one case, "wormand maggot rule over him"describes one of the curses for Adam'stransgression(B42,116-117). In another,a narrativeaboutthe destructionof Jerusalem,God speaksto TitusafterTitusdesecratesthe Templesanctuary.God insultsTitusby calling him, "Evil one. Stinking secretion. Dust, worm, and maggot"(B7,21). The trope is also used to contrasthumansand God in B40, 111. The image of worm and maggot is often coupled with a focus on semen, excrement, and sweat. See, in additionto the insult to Titus, A 19,70; B42,116. On sweat and excrement as distinctive of humanembodiedness,see B34,74. AlthoughR. Nathancontainsteachings advocatingcare and honor of the body (such as in B30,66), the image of "wormand maggot"consistently invokes the body in body with a negative evaluation,challengingpeople to move out of a concern with embodied existence towarda focus on the greatnessof God. On similarimages in mystical sources, see Michael Swartz,Scholastic Magic: Ritual and Revelationin EarlyJewish Mysticism(Princeton,NJ: Princeton UniversityPress, 1996), pp. 69, 166-170.

211

JonathanSchofer a dualismbetween the embodiedhumanand the all-powerfuldivinejudge.30Human origin and end are lowly, markedby finitude, boundaries,and contingency, whereasGod is infinite, unbounded,andpermanent.God is also a king andajudge, implyingthathumansare subjectto divine rule andjudgment.Aqabyaben Mahalalel's instructioncalls for constantattentionto these predications,which devalue embodied existence except as orientedto divine judgment. God should be at the center of one's consciousness, with all worldlyconcerns reducedto darknessand dust. The aim of this exercise is practical-the person "will sin no more.""31 In the commentaryof R. NathanB to Aqabyaben Mahalalel'sinstruction,as well as in TheFathers,we find a numberof teachingsattributedto R. Yehudahthe Patriarch.One of these employs the same instructionfor attention,but with different theological imagery: Attendto (histakkelbe-) threethings, and you will not come into the handsof

Knowwhatis aboveyou(le-ma'alah):aneyesees,anearhears, transgression. and all of your deeds are writtenin a book (B32,70; Fathers2:1).32 30. Urbach,Sages, pp. 224-225; for a full treatmentof tropes for divinejustice in R. Nathan, see Schofer, Making of a Sage, pp. 232-308. On anthropomorphicand other dualisms in rabbinic thought, see Nissan Rubin, "The Sages' Conceptionof Body and Soul," in S. Fishbaneand J. Lightstone, eds., Essays in the Social Scientific StudyofJudaism and Jewish Society (Montreal:Concordia University, 1990), pp. 47-103. 31. The commentaryin R. NathanA focuses upon Aqabya ben Mahalalel'scharacterizationof human finitude, and we find various answersto the questions of where one comes from, where one goes, and what one will become. Finkelsteinarguesthat the version of Aqabyaben Mahalalel'smaxim in R. NathanA is the earliest form. He holds that the other versions of the maxim (in B32,69 and Fathers 3:1), as well as the commentariesconcerningthe "fourthings,"are attemptsto ensurethat the saying does not conflict with rabbinicviews concerningthe afterlife (Introduction,pp. 64-67). Saul Lieberman argues that one of these interpretationsof the "four things"-that of R. Simeon ben Eleazar-is a response to Gnostic views articulatedin the Gospel of Thomas, 55; see ToseftaKifshutah: A ComprehensiveCommentaryon the Tosefta(Hebrew)(Jerusalem:JewishTheologicalSeminary,[1955] 1992), pp. 1292-1293 to t. Hag. 2:5, 7; in English, Saul Lieberman,"How Much Greek in Jewish Palestine?,"in AlexanderAltman,ed., Biblical and OtherStudies(Cambridge,MA: Harvard UniversityPress, 1963), pp. 136-137. Kisterdisagreeswith Liebermanon this point (Studies, 107). In R. NathanA, after the materialconcerningthe "fourthings,"the commentatorsdevelop the theme of finitude throughaccountsof R. Eliezer ben Hyrcanusupon his deathbed.This scene also teaches that one should attendto God's presence. R. Eliezer's instructionto his studentsconcludes, "At the time when you pray,know before whom you standto pray,for throughthis thing you will merit life in the world to come" (A19,70; in the parallelof Der. Er. Rab. 3, the deathbedscene names R. Eleazarben Azariah,not R. Eliezer ben Hyrcanus).See also the passage in Seder EliyyahuZutathatopens, "Upon threethingsa personmust attend(mistakkel/ yistakkel)every day"(Sed.El. Zut. 3; Finkelstein,p. 176). Here,the focus of attentionis actionsof everydaylife, such as going to the bathroom,drawingblood,and standingoverthe dead;Sed. El. Zut.3; Meir Friedmann,ed., SederEliahuRabbaand SederEliahuZuta and Pseudo-SederEliahuZuta(Jerusalem:WahrmannBooks, 1969),p. 176. BraudeandKapsteintranslate,"Therearethreeoccasionsthata manoughtto meditateuponeveryday"(TannaDebe Eliyyahu,375). 32. SaldarinitranslatesR. Nathan B, "Markwell three things and you will not fall into the clutches of sin .. ."(RabbiNathanB, p. 191-192). Danby translatesTheFathers 2:1, "Considerthree things.. ." (Danby,Mishnah,p. 447; Goldin, RabbiNathan, p. 233). Finkelsteinarguesthat this epigram is a shortenedform of the one attributedto Aqabyaben Mehalalel(Introduction,pp. 66-67); Albeck makes a similar comment;ChanochAlbeck, TheSix Ordersof the Mishnah, vol. 4 (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute,[1958] 1988), p. 495.

212

SpiritualExercises in RabbinicCulture This maxim is strikinggiven thatit is attributedto the redactorof the Mishnah.In MishnahHagigahwe readthattherearefour thingsthatone shouldnot "attendto" (mistakkel),and that one of them is "whatis above"(mah le-macalan)(m. Hag. 2:1).33While the passage in Hagigahproscribescertainforms of mysticalor philosophical speculations, this instructionprescribes attention to anthropomorphic featuresof God's presence on high: an eye and an ear, as well as a book in which human deeds are written.These concrete images imply God's omnipresentperception andrecordingof all actions,providingthe basis for divinejudgment.34Attention to these features of the divine body reinforces an experience of God's hierarchicalobservation:one is seen and heardfrom above by a deity who is not Himself seen. Again, the goal is that one will not transgress.35 Whereasthe above passages call for attentionto God's presence, two epigrams employ similarterminologybut focus upon the "wordsof Torah."Both are attributedto sages who flourishedin the first century CE, and they may be variants of a common original.36The shorterpassage appearsin R. NathanB: 33. See also Gen.Rab. 1:10to Gen. 1:1;J.TheodorandCh.Albeck, eds., MidrashBereshitRabba (Jerusalem:ShalemBooks, 1996), pp. 8-9 and notes. Urbachpoints out that in some cases, ma alah takes the place of the divine epithet'elyon ("Most High")(Sages, 79). 34. Otherpassages describe a "ledger"(A39,116-117) or a hand writing (B44,123; Fathers 3:16). These motifs appearin a numberof places in the Bible. On God'seye and ear,see Ps. 34:7, 94:9; Job 34:21; on the book, Mal. 3:16 and Dan. 7:10; also Albeck, Mishnah,vol. 4, p. 357; Saldarini,Rabbi NathanB, p. 191 n. 24. 35. Laterin the collection of teachingsthatfollow the maxim of Aqabyaben Mahalalel,the editors of R. NathanB place two otherepigramsof R. Yehudahthe Patriarch.Neither of these specifies a distincttheologicalimage:king,judge, or employer.Rather,they set out a correspondencebetweenGod and humansas willing creatures.Both prescribeintense focus on the divine will (rason)such thatall of one's actions are in accordwith God. The first maxim counsels orientationtowardGod's will, "Rabbi Yehudahthe Patriarchsays, Do His will as your will, so that He will do your will as His will. Cancel yourwill beforeHis will so thatHe will cancel the will of othersbeforeyourwill" (B32,70; Fathers2:4; the text is difficult; I follow the suggestions of Schechterin B32,71 and Saldarini,Rabbi Nathan B, p. 193). Such orientation,though, is not the most radicalform of service to God, for it maintainsselfcenteredness.The sage aligns his will with God'swill, buthe is still ableto act accordingto his own will. A more stringentdemandcalls fororientationtowardyet separationfromthe divine will. Whenone does God'swill, recognizingthatone does so only becauseit is God'swill and not one's own, then one attains a trulyGod-centeredconsciousness. Such a position appearsin the next teachingof R. Yehudahthe Patriarch,which begins, "He would say,If you have done His will as yourwill, you have not done His will as His will. If you have done His will not as your will, you have done His will as His will ... (B32,71; again following Schechter'stext; see B32,70 n.26 and Saldarini,RabbiNathan B, p. 193). This statement is the strongestprescriptionin R. Nathanfor a God-centeredconsciousness-the ideal thataction shouldbe centeredupon God, not upon the desires, emotions,and motivationsof the self-centeredsubject. Fishbanewrites that this passage is a strongexample of attemptswithin Judaism"to purify sanctioned actions from self-centeredness... ." See Michael Fishbane,"Actionand Non-Action in Jewish Judaism33/3 (1984): 321. I will examineanotherexampleof such "attemptsto purifysancSpirituality," tioned actions from self-centeredness"at length below, in the maxim of Antigonusof Sokho (A5,2526; B10,25-26; Fathers 1:3). For other passages prescribingthat one do God's will, see A30,89; A41,133; B48,133. Fora contemporarydiscussionof whetherit is a greatervirtueto act well easily (as in "Do His will as yourwill") or throughstruggle(as in, "If you have done His will not as yourwill..."), see RosalindHursthouse,On VirtueEthics (New York:OxfordUniversityPress, 1999), pp. 91-107. 36. See the discussionof the names and sources in Finkelstein,Introduction,pp. 53, 67-70, 73,

213

Jonathan Schofer RabbiNehunyah benHa-Qanah says... Onewhogiveshisheartto (ha-noten libbole-) wordsof Torah37 eliminatesfromit wordsof foolishness.Andone who gives his heart to (ha-noten libbo le-) words of foolishness eliminates

fromit wordsof Torah(B32,68). The sage prescribesthatone directthe heartto the wordsof Torahto keep it filled with appropriatediscourse. In R. NathanA, we find a more developed account: RabbiHananyah, Deputyof the Priests,says,Anyonewhoplacesthewords of Torahupon his heart(kol ha-notendibreytorah'al libbo) cancels (mebattelim) from it desires of a sword(hirhureyhereb),38desires of hunger,desires

of foolishness,desiresof prostitution, desiresof thebadyeseranddesiresof a bad wife,39 desires of meaningless words (debarimbetelim),and desires of

the yokeof flesh andblood.Forthusit is writtenin the bookof Psalmsby David,kingof Israel,"Thepreceptsof theLordareupright,makinghappythe heart.Thecommandment of theLordis pure,enlightening theeyes"(Ps. 19:9) (A20,70).40

This unit develops the instructionthrougha midrashand a list. Let us startwith the midrash.R. Hananyahcites a verse fromthe Psalms:"Thepreceptsof the Lord are upright,making happy the heart.The commandmentof the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes" (Ps. 19:9). The psalm itself states that divine precepts affect the heart.In addition,the previousverse mentionsthe torah("instruction")of the Lord (Ps. 19:8). The midrashicinterpretationdrawsthese images togetherto assert that "the words of Torah"(dibreytorah), if placed upon the heart,will make it "happy"througheliminatingits problematicdesires. The word I translateas "desires"(hirhurim)is clearlydifficult. It can denote desires,thoughts,or anxieties.In this passage, it probablyshouldbe translatedin a number of ways: desires "for"things (prostitution);desires that emerge "from" 122-124; and Saldarini,Rabbi Nathan B, p. 186 n. 39; p, 187 n. 1. See also Fathers 3:5 and Sed. El. Zut. 16 (Friedmann,appendix,2). Schechterquotes otherparallelsources in RabbiNathan, p. 145. 37. Saldarinitranslates,"He who gives his heartto words of Torah"(RabbiNathanB, p. 187). 38. Followingthe printededition and most manuscripts;see A20,70 n. 1; Finkelstein,Introduction, pp. 122-124. Schechter follows Ms. E, which reads "many sinful desires" (hirhurimharbeh) (A20,70 n. 1). Goldin does the same (RabbiNathan, 94). The phrasehirhureyhereb appearsin a parallel source in Sed. El. Zut. 16 (Friedmann,supplement,2-3; Friedmanndiscusses variantsin n. 10). Braude and Kapsteintranslateit as "anxiety about a war's threatto his life" (TannaDebe Eliyyahu, p. 429). Max Kadushintranslates,"thoughts(i.e., fears) of the sword(i.e., government.. .);" Organic Thinking:A Study in Rabbinic Thought(New York:The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1938), p. 71. 39. Or, as Finkelsteinsuggests, "the wife of one's neighbor"('eshetrea'). The pairing of yeser and a wife also appearsin A14,58; see also B29,59 and compareFathers 2:9. For a talmudicexample of this conjunction,see the prayerof Mar son of Ravinain b. 17a. Ber. 40. Mss. N and R attributethis to RabbiNehunyahben Ha-Qanah.A parallelappearsin Seder EliyyahuZuta.It opens: "Yetanotheropinion:R. Simeon ben Yohaisaid,Anyone who gives/places the wordsof Torahupon his heart(kol ha-noten dibreytorah'al libbo) eliminates desires of transgression .." (Sed. El. Zut. 16, Friedmann,Supplement,2). Braudeand Kapsteintranslate,"Hewho takeswords of Torahto heartis relieved of anxiety abouthis transgression.. ."(TannaDebe Eliyyahu,p. 429).

214

SpiritualExercises in RabbinicCulture things(thebadyeser); anxieties(of a sword?);andstates(of foolishness).41 This list of desires is long and implies a particularaudience:Some elements are universal aspects of somatic existence (hunger),othersare specifically male (such as a bad wife), and one is a problem specifically for rabbinicideals of intellectual focus (meaninglesswords).The sage affirms that a man can rid himself of all these distractionsthroughproperattention,sayingthatthe wordsof Torahactually"cancel" (mebattelim)them. If attributionsof rabbinicnameshave any historicalvalue, thenwe may infer that this concern with attentionwas influentialamong sages in the first century CE-Aqabya ben Mahalalel, Rabbi Hananyah,and Rabbi Nehunyah ben HaQanah.Later,it appearsthroughthe voice of R. Yehudahthe Patriarch,of the late second century.Fromthe perspectiveof literarycompositionandjuxtaposition,we can see thatthe expressionswere noted by the compilersof both R. NathanA and B, who in differentways clusteredthem together(A19-20,68-71; B32,68-71).42 INTERNAL SPEECH

Anotherset of instructionscalls upon people to internalizespeech, to "say" particularwordsto themselvesin orderto create,at all times, the experienceof facing God's ultimatejudgment.43In fact, they are to imagine that they standbefore God withoutany merit.The goal is a state of constantanxiety,in which every moment and every action feel momentous.The stakes are high: eternalblessing or punishment.This materialappearsas commentaryin R. NathanA to the maxim of Nittai ha-Arbeli,a sage of the second centuryBCE: Distanceyourselffroman evil neighbor,do notbefriendthewicked,anddo not give up ('altitya'eshmin)[theideaof] retribution (A9,38; (ha-pur'anut) B16,35;Fathers1:7). His maxim is difficult and allusive in a numberof respects, but I focus upon the thirdelement.What does it mean to "give up" retribution?44 41. Goldin translates"preoccupations"(Rabbi Nathan, 94-95). "Jastrowsuggests, 'thought, meditation,heatedimagination,impurefancies' " (Dictionary,366). P.J. Ivanhoehas helpedme on this issue. 42. When I presenteda version of this paperat the Annual Meeting of the Society for Biblical Literature(Toronto,2002), one personraiseda questionconcerningthe relationbetweenhistakkeland noten / leb, suggestingthatnoten / leb may be an attemptto clarify or reworkhistakkel.She observed thatthe passages in TheFathersconsistentlyemploy histakkel,whereasthose in R. NathanA use noten / leb. In R. NathanB we see both formulations.I am not sure thatthis evidencesupportsa claim thateitheris primary,thoughthe questionis certainlyimportantand worthyof furtherinvestigation. 43. Such as the experience that R. Yohananhas when he cries upon his deathbed(A25,79). Adolph Biichlerpoints out that in both this deathbedscene and the maxim of Aqabyaben Mahahalel, the focus is upon God's power more than upon "the method of His judgmentor punishment;"Studies in Sin andAtonementin the RabbinicLiteratureof theFirst Century(NewYork:KtavPublishingHouse, [1927] 1967), p. 46. In the passage to which we now turn,though,this "method"is of centralconcern. 44. This maxim appearsin the name of Nittai ha-Arbeliin A9,38 and Fathers 1:6, and in the name ofYehoshuaben Perahyahin B16,35 (in B, both have the title of Rabbi). On "befriend"(tithabber), note thatthe root of this verb,h.b.r.,is used as a technicalterm for fellowship amongthe students

215

JonathanSchofer The commentaryin R. NathanA interpretsthe "retribution"as divine retributionand"donot give up"in a very strongsense. One mustnot give up the awareness of divine retributionat any moment: Anddo not give up the ideaof divineretribution. Howis this so? It teaches thata person'sheartshouldbe in a stateof anxiety(mitpahed) everyday.He shouldsay,"Woeam I ('oiii), perhapsretribution will comeuponme today, or perhapstomorrow." He is foundto be in a stateof feareveryday,as it is saidof Job,"Ifearedsomethingfearful(pahadpahadti)[andit hasovertaken me.WhatI dreadedhascomeuponme]"(Job3:25)(A9,42). The anonymousteachingbuilds upon a verse fromThe Book of Job.The doubling of the rootp.h.d. ("fear")in Job'sstatementinspiresthe midrashthat one must be anxious (mitpahed)at all times. Then, the text says that one must memorize and speak a distinct phrase to oneself-"Woe am I ('oi ii), perhapsretributionwill come upon me today,or perhapstomorrow."45 The possibility of God'sjudgment is to be the centerof attention,constantly,"everyday." This passage is immediatelyfollowed by a second interpretationof the maxim. In orderto understandthe conceptual and metaphoricunderpinningsof this commentary,however,we have to consider two other passages that appearin R. Nathan. Underlyingthe first is the challenge of theodicy, which in one rabbinic formulationis framed:Why is it thatthe wicked areat ease while the righteoussuffer?A common rabbinicresponse to this problemis thatthe righteoussuffernow but will be rewardedin the worldto come, while the wicked ultimatelywill be punished.46Here, this point appearsthroughmonetarytropes, Thewickedarepaid(meshallemin andtherighteousaregivencredlirsha'im) it (maqqiphin Thewickedarepaidas peoplewho observethe le-saddiqim). Torahwithbadintentionandnothinggoodis everfoundwiththem.Therighteousaregivencreditas peoplewho observetheTorahwithgoodintention andnothingbadis everfoundinthem.47Eachonereceivesa little,andtherest is set asideforthem,multiplying (A39,118;alsoB44,123).48 of the sages. The line may read,"do not make a haberof the wicked."Modem scholarshave translated the thirdelement in a varietyof ways. Examplesinclude"Anddo not lose hope of the final reckoning" (Goldin,RabbiNathan,58), and"Anddo not shrugoff all thoughtof calamity"(Saldarini,RabbiNathan B, 116). Saldarinicollects others(RabbiNathanB, p. 116 n. 1). I follow Jastrow,Dictionary,p. 560. 45. Forother examples of "Woeis me," see A12,48-49; A30,89; A32,93; B24,49-50. 46. Earlierin the same chapter,a shortepigramstates,"Theease of the wicked-its end is bad" (A39,117), anda passagelaterin the chapter,in the nameof EliezerbarTzadoq,expressesthe samepoint usingpuritymotifs(A39,1 19);also see A25,79; B33,73;Fathers4:15. On the topic of theodicyin rabbinic literature,see Urbach,Sages, 511-523. On the formulation,"theease of the wicked,"note Jer.12:1-2. 47. Schechteremends the text, "The wicked are paid as people who observed the Torahwith good intentionand nothing wrong is ever found with them. The righteous are given credit as people who observedthe Torahwith bad intentionand nothinggood is ever found in them"(A39,118 n.5). His emendationis probablycorrect, as the extant text is probablythe result of a euphemisticchange that softens the argument.The issues of intentionalityare complex here-what does it mean,exactly,to observe the Torahwith bad intention? 48. The last line of the passage is difficult. See Schechter'scomments in A39,118 n.5. Kister

216

SpiritualExercises in RabbinicCulture In this case, being "paid"(sh.l.m.) is an immediateevent, whereasreceiving"credit" (n.q.p.) means thatpaymentis deferredto the worldto come.49The wicked receive their payment from God (whateverthey have earned throughgood deeds) immediatelyand in this world.The righteousmay have much largeraccountswith God, but ratherthan receiving the benefits now, they have credit for the world to come. This teachingraises a numberof questions.Whatof the righteouswho prosper? If someone is successful in this world,does it necessarilymean that the person will perish in the world to come? Is it possible that right action before God could be rewardedin this world? A passage that opens the next chapter of R. Nathan A partiallyaddressesthis problem througha distinction between capital and interest: Fourthings,if a persondoesthem,he eatstheirfruits(peyrot)in thisworld, andthecapital(ha-qeren)remainsin theworldto come.Theseare:honorof fatherandmother,deedsof loving-kindness, bringingpeacebetweena person andhis fellow,andthestudyof Torahis as greatas all of them(A40,119;also A40,120).50 The tropeshave complex layersof meaning.Not only is humanexchange a metaphorfor God'spayment,but the monetaryterms are themselves metaphoric. The wordfor "capital"(qeren)is most literallya "horn"or a "handle,"andthe word for "interest"is the plural "fruits"(perot). The underlyingimage seems to be a plantwhose producecan be harvested,but its base remainsandwill generatemore in the future.51The passage employs these tropesto teach thatthereare four ways cites this passage as an example of cases in R. Nathan for which he identifies an originalreadingthat is not found among any of the manuscriptwitnesses (Studies, 42). Parallelsinclude SiphreDeut. 307 (Finkelstein,p. 345); Gen. Rab. 33:1 (Theodore-Albeck,pp. 298-303); Lev.Rab.27:1. 49. In B44,123, the terms are used differently.Receiving "credit"means that the rewardsare loanedin this world,such thatall meritis used up beforeone reachesthe worldto come. In this schema, the wicked receive creditnow, in this world. See also A35,105; B27,54. 50. A parallelappearsin the Mishnah,at the openingof the laws concerningthe cornersof agriculturalfields to be left for the poor. Here, the play betweenagriculturalproduceand the "produce"of one'sactionsis prominent(m.Pe'ah 1:1).GeorgeFootMoorecommentsconcerningthis passage,"Itwill be noted that all the items of this 'capitalin heaven'are things that cannotbe defined or measuredby law-things thatby natureare 'committedto the heart'of the individual;"Judaismin the First Centuries of the ChristianEra,VolumeTwo(Peabody,MA: HendricksonPublishers,[1927] 1997), p. 92. See also Urbach,Sages, pp. 441-442. A more developeddiscussionof this topic appearsin t. Pe 'a 1:1-4. In b. Shabb. 127a-b,an amoraictraditionexpandsfrom this tannaiticmaterialto list six actionswith "fruits" in this worldand "capital"remainingin the next. This passage appearsin the MorningBlessings of the prayerbook;Philip Birnbaum,Daily Prayerbook (New York:Hebrew Publishing Company, 1995), pp. 15-16. An extendedtalmudicexposition, or sugya, citing and developing this materialappearsin b. Qidd. 39b-40a; this unit develops addressesmanyof the same topics as A40,119-120, and includes a parallelto a teachingin A40,120 that states, "Merit(zekhut)has capitaland fruits;"also see Sed. El. Rab. 11/12 (Friedmann,59). For anotherexample of the figurativeuse of qeren, see m. B. Qam. 9:7. 51. Examplesof the figurativeuse of"fruit"as the resultsof one's deed or actions appearin Is. 3:10 and Jer. 17:10; note that Is. 3:10 is cited as a prooftext for the epigram "Merithas capital and fruits"(A40,120).

217

JonathanSchofer of acting for which one is rewardedboth in this world and the next. The righteous person can prosperin this world and still gain life in the world to come. To do so, one must live off the "fruits"in this world, and "the capital remains in the world to come." With these issues and terms in mind, let us turnto the second opinion concerning "do not give up [the idea of] retribution": Anotheropinion.Do notgiveuptheideaof divineretribution. Howis thisso? Whena personsees whatis athis handsucceed,he shouldnot say,"Because I meritedit (zakhiti),TheOmnipresent52 hasgivenme foodanddrinkin this world,andthe capital(qeren)remainsfor the worldto come."Rather,he shouldsay,"WoeamI ('oiii). Perhapsthereremainsto me,beforeHim,only onemerit(zekhut).Hehasgivenme foodanddrinkin thisworld,in orderthat he makeme perishin theworldto come!"(A9,42). The passage presumesthat, if "a person sees what is at his hand succeed,"a question would ariseregardingGod'sjudgmentin the worldto come: does this success mean that all credit is used up in the present?One answerto this question is, "the capital(qeren)remainsfor me in the worldto come."This response,however,could lead to a complacentsense that one has been good enough, or worse, that success necessarilyimplies God'sfavorandfortune.To countersuch conclusions,the commentaryteaches that one must "notgive up"attentionto God'spunishment,especially in times of success. In fact, it is necessaryto presumethe worstpossible case and say internally,"Woeam I."Thatis, this may be my only meritbefore God, and I must striveall the harderfor righteousness.53 According to these two passages commenting on the instruction,"do not give up the idea of divine retribution,"one "shouldsay"specific things to oneself, counteringany sense of complacency or self-righteousness.In the first passage, this focus shouldbe maintained"everyday."The second concernsmomentswhen "a person sees what is at his handsucceed."The internalvoices interpretevents in the world throughdivine accounting.God'sjudgment and power are to be at the forefrontof consciousness, and people should attendto the next world, anxious that they will perish for lack of merit. "BE" A SERVANT BEFORE THE MASTER

So far I have addressedinstructionsfor attentionto God's power andjudgment. What of God's reward?If a deity gives payment,then questions arise concerning ideal humanmotivation.Given promisesof rewardfor rightcharacterand action, what is the normativestatus of desire for that reward?What is the role of 52. Hebrewha-maqom. OnthisepithetforGod,see Urbach,Sages,66-79. Hewritesthatthe is "usedmetonymically andrefersto theGodwhorevealsHimselfin whatever term,literally,"place," placeHe wishes;thisepithetthusexpressesGod'snearness" (p. 72). 53. Therighteous evenif in fact personwouldalwaysassumethathe hasnomeritaccumulated, he might.Hethusmaintains to a "fence"aroundhis actions,insuringthat"capianalogous something tal"remainsfortheworldtocome.Onthetropeof thefence,seeA1-2,3-14; B1-3, 3-14; Fathers1:1.

218

Spiritual Exercises in Rabbinic Culture self-interestin the spiritualpath? Should a person act in orderto benefit through God's payment,whethermaterialor spiritual? These questionsunderliethe maxim attributedto Antigonus of Sokho, who probablylived in the second centuryBCE. The shortestand likely earliestform of his maxim appearsin TheFathers:54 Antigonusof SokhoreceivedfromSimonthe Righteous.He wouldsay,Do notbe like slaves(jabadim)whoservethemasterforthe sakeof receivinga food allowance('al menatleqabbelperas).Rather,be like slaveswho serve the masternot forthe sakeof receivinga foodallowance,andlet the fearof Heaven(mora'shamayim) be uponyou(Fathers1:3). Whattropesare operatinghere?Scholarshave debatedthe translationand imagery. The key term is equivocal:'abadimmay referto "slaves"or to free "servants."The next questionis, what is peras? A common translationis "reward," but Elias Bickermanhas arguedthat it refersto the "dailyfood allowance"thatmasterswere expected to give slaves in the Hellenisticworld.55A problem,then, is that we do not know whetherAntigonusrefersto slaves before a masteror free servantsbefore an employer.The complexitiesmultiplywhen we considerthe tremendousdiversityin the statusand powerof slaves in the Hellenisticperiodand LateAntiquity,and the difficultyinvolvedin reconstructingtheireverydaylife. Generallyspeaking,though, the figure of a slave beforea masterwould implya strongerassertionof both divine powerand humanservitudethanwouldthe free servantbefore an employer.56 The instructionfor attentioncenterson the simple imperative,"Be."Antigonus calls upon othersto "be"like the slave/servant.He does not specify when and where such imitation is to happen, implying that one should do so at all times. Whetherwe follow the strongreadingof a master/slave,or the softer one of master/free servant,the passage commandsthat people not take God's responseto be their motivationfor action. God has the power to provide for humanbeings, and perhapsshould do so, but the individualmust not act in orderto attainthose benefits. Rather,Antigonusinstructs,". .. let the fearof Heaven(mora'shamayim)be upon you."The term mora', from the rootyr.'., denotes a divinely oriented fear, awe, or reverence (not a worldly, self-centered fear). "Heaven"(shamayim) is 54. On Antigonus'name and date, see Elias Bickerman,"TheMaxim of Antigonusof Socho," Harvard Theological Review, 44 (1951): 153-166. Reprintedin Bickerman,Studies in Jewish and ChristianHistory,Vol. Two,pp. 270-289. 55. A furtherissue is whether al menatle- shouldbe rendered"forthe sake of" or "onthe condition of."My translationfollows Bickermanin depicting"slaves"who receive a "food allowance,"but Urbach in the wording"for the sake of." See Bickerman,"Antigonus,"pp. 270-289; Urbach,Sages, pp. 402-404, 861 nn.21-23; also Goldin, RabbiNathan, 39; Saldarini,RabbiNathanB, 85; Biichler, Sin andAtonement,pp. 156-157. 56. Bickermannotes these tensions, writing, "we must rememberthat ebed means not only slave, but also subject,worshipper"("Antigonus,"p. 279). A recentvolume of Semeia, entitled"Slavis devoted entirelyto the topic of slaveryin ancient Rome, particularly ery in Textand Interpretation," in relationto earlyChristianity;Semeia 83/84 (1998). Also on this topic, see J.AlbertHarrill,TheManumission of Slaves in Early Christianity (Tiibingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1995); David J. Williams, Pauls Metaphors: Their Context and Character (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1999), pp. 111-140.

219

Jonathan Schofer often an epithet for God. Forthis Second Templesage, constantreverencetoward and fear of God is the ideal conditionfor appropriateservice. He rejects any form of self-interestedaction.57 This epigramis particularlyvaluablefor identifyingthe interestsof the editorial streamthat developed R. Nathan, for disjunctionbetween the maxim and the commentaryreveals their concerns. The commentarydiffers with Antigonus on two points: the radicalrejectionof self-interest,and the theological tropes of a masterand a slave. The editorsboth preservethe past materialand bring it in line with their outlook, creatinga much more moderateand complex set of ideals for motivation.The simplest and most dramatictransformationappearsin the initial glosses upon the maxim itself: Antigonusof SokhoreceivedfromSimonthe Righteous.He wouldsay,Do notbe likeslaves/servants whoservethemasterforthe sakeof re('abadim) ceiving a food allowance ('al menat leqabbelperas). Rather,be like slaves/

servantswhoservethemasternotforthesakeof receivinga foodallowance, and let the fear of Heaven (mora'shamayim)be upon you, so thatyour payment (sekharkheim) will be doubled in the world to come (A5,25-26;

also

B10,25-26;emphasisadded).58 If we readthis passage as a unit, the maxim, with its unusualreferenceto a peras, is now broughtin line with standardrabbinicterminologyand tropes,particularly the notion of "pay"(sakhar).As the recipientsof this payment,cabadimwould be 57. Here we see an example of what Fishbanecalls "attempts[withinJudaism]to purify sanctioned actions from self-centeredness;""ActionandNon-Action,"pp. 318-329. Bickermaninterprets this passage in terms of theodicy, "you have to serve the Lord,even if he, like a heartless owner, refuses yourperas,yourdaily bread."He also writesthat"fearof Heaven,"historicallyunderstood,means simply "piety"(and only later was interpretedin terms of contrastsbetween fear and love of God) ("Antigonus,"pp. 280-282). I find Bickerman'shistoricalreconstructionpersuasive,but, as I am arguing herein,I do not believe thatthe passage is best interpretedin terms of theodicy.For othercases of "fearof Heaven,"see A27,84-85; B34,76; Urbach,Sages, pp. 66-79. An even strongerdenial of self-interestis present in a variantof the maxim preservedin ancient quotations,a geniza fragment, and B5,25. Antigonus is said to advise: "be like slaves who serve the masterfor the sake of not (al menatshe-lo') receiving a reward."(Kister,Studies, p. 127 n.59, 156 n. 195; Bickerman,"Antigonus," p. 270 n.2). In this case, the person acts before God not only without expectationof divine response, but with active rejectionof the notion that God rewardsright action. Action is purelyand intentionally intrinsic.Bickermanclaims thatthis readingcould not be the originaltext ("Antigonus,"p. 289 n.76), but KisterdisagreesconcerningR. Nathanbased on manuscriptevidence(Studies,p. 156 n. 195). While the dominanttrendin rabbinicexegesis is to soften the maxim, a numberof sourcespreservethis radical ethical ideal into the middle ages and beyond. See for example RabbenuYonahand MidrashShemuel on Fathers 1:3, who weigh the significance of both versions. The strongest statementof the rejectionof self-interestin R. Nathan is a maxim of R. Yehudahthe Patriarch,preservedin R. Nathan B (B32,71), which I discussed in a footnote above. 58. R. NathanB has a more expansiveaddition,which has significanttext difficulties (B 10,2526; see Schechter'scommentsin B 10,26 n.2; Saldarini,RabbiNathanB, 85; Kister,Studies, 128).These passages are not the only cases in which R. Nathan adds "the world to come" to an epigramfound in Fathers. See for example A14,58 in comparisonwith Fathers 2:9 and Goldin, Studies in Midrash, pp. 68-69; andA27,84 in comparisonwith Fathers 2:9 and Kister,Studies, 65.

220

SpiritualExercises in RabbinicCulture free servants,and the fundamentaldichotomy is that of employer/workerrather than master/slave.59The editorialadditionalso modifies Antigonus' rejectionof self-interest.Now the end of the statementis in tension with the beginning: act without concernfor reward,but know that if you do so, you will in fact receive rewardin the worldto come. The new form of the maxim appearsto allow for a deferredself-interest.One can act for the sake of reward,but only for a rewardin the world to come.60 R. Nathan stakes out a middle ground regardingthe role of self-interestin ideal motivation.The editorscall upon the individualto orienttowardsGod not as a masterof slaves but as an employerof servants.They softenAntigonusof Sokho's claim that one should not act for any reward,maintainingthat one should not act based on desirefor rewardin this world,butthey implythatit is acceptableto maintain a limited and deferredself-interest,in which hopes for "pay"are postponed until the next world. In this context, the notion of "theworld to come" is not just a theological image concerningexistence after death, but a motivationalconcept that influences desire.61 Let us now focus on the last element in the maxim, which prescribesa particular emotional or affective orientation towards God: ". . . and let the fear of

Heaven (mora'shamayim)be upon you."According to Antigonus of Sokho, one should not only avoid self-interest,but also striveto cultivatea constantresponse to the deity of fear, reverence,or awe. In R. Nathan and rabbinicliteraturegenerally, the highest forms of comportmenttowardsGod are love ('ahabah)and fear or reverence (usuallyyir'ah, from the same root as mora':y.r.'.). The two terms are paired in a numberof places in both R. NathanA and B. The most common rabbinic assessmentof the two emotions is that love is greaterthan fear.However,as Louis Finkelsteinhas observed, several passages in R. Nathan uphold fear over love.62Antigonus'maxim was probablyformulatedbefore this dualitydeveloped, and it mentions only fear. 59. Bickermanstates, "Antigonusspeaks not of rewardgiven to a free man but of food allocation to a slave."Then he adds in a footnote, "Note that in the paraphrasegiven in Abot R. Nathan free workersare substitutedfor slaves of Antigonus'maxim and that . .. the term ?okar(wages) is substituted forperas" ("Antigonus,"p. 279 and p. 279 n. 38). 60. An additionalshift may be imbeddedin the differencebetween action "for the sake of" a response from God (as in the short form of the maxim), and action that occurs "so that"a divine response will occur. In the first case, one is directlymotivatedby the paymentor food allowance,while in the second,the relationbetween result and motivationis more ambiguous(this point was suggested by a numberof faculty membersat StanfordUniversityand at the Universityof Nebraskaat Omaha, Januaryand February,2000). 61. While the rabbisare not, by any means,proto-Kantians,the distinctionbetweentheoretical andpracticalstandpointsis helpfulhere. Fromthe standpointof a persondescribingthe world,the concept of "the world to come" implies theoreticalclaims about the natureof time and human life. But

fromthestandpoint of a choosingagent,"theworldto come"is a practicalconceptthatshapesdesire and motivation.On the languageof "standpoints,"see ChristineM. Korsgaard,"Moralityas Freedom," in YirmiyahuYovel, ed., Kant'sPractical Philosophy Reconsidered(Boston: KluwarAcademic Publishers, 1989), pp. 23-48. 62. The generalobservationshave been made and elaboratedupon by a numberof scholars,including Schechter,Aspects, p. 72; Biichler, Sin and Atonement,pp. 119-211; and Urbach, Sages,

221

Jonathan Schofer In R. NathanA there is no commentaryto this last element. Forthe compilers of R. NathanB, however,the words "fearof Heaven"inspirea discussion concerning the two poles of ideal human response to God. For the purposes of reference,I divide the passage into four sections and highlightthe varying evaluationsof love andfear.The thirdsection appearsin two significantlydifferentmanuscriptrecensions, and I presentthem in parallel: Toa manwhodoesthewill of (1)A parable.[Towhatcanthisbe compared?] his master,yethisheartis haughtyagainstthewill of hismaster.[Orto a man whodoesthewill of his father]andhisheartis haughtyagainstthewill of his father.63 (2) Onewhoactsfromloveis notlikeonewhoactsfromaweandfear('eymah ve-yir'ah).

(3a)Onewhoactsfromloveinherits (3b)Onewhoactsfromloveinherits life in theworldto come. inheritslife in thisworldanddoes notinheritlife in theworldto come. Onewhoservesin aweandfear inheritslife in thisworldanddoes notinheritlife in theworldto come(Ms.R.)

Onewhoservesin aweandfear inheritslife in thisworldandlife in theworldto come(Ms.H).64

theearlyfathersthattheyservedin aweandfear, (4) Thuswe findregarding andtheyinherited bothlifeinthisworldandlifeintheworldto come.OfAbraham,whatdoes Scripturesay?"Fornow I knowthatyou areone who fears God"(Gen.22:12).Of Joseph,whatdoes it say?"I fearGod"(Gen.42:18). Whatdoesit sayaboutJonah?"IfearGod"(Jonah1:9)65(B10,26;emphasis added). This passage presentsa numberof difficulties. Firstof all, the parablein (1) is not completed,and its relationto the rest of the passage is unclear.Second,our two recensions of (3) differ on the crucial issue-which is greater,love or awe and fear? One asserts that awe and fear are the greater,for they bring life in this world and the world to come (3b). The other states, in contrast,that serving in love will lead to life in the world to come (3a). What do we make of this difference? Scholars pp.400-419. NotealsoBickerman, "Antigonus," pp.281-282. InR.Nathan,loveandfearareparalleledin A37,109;A41,133;andB45,124.See alsoAl,1; A6,27-28;B10,26;B11,28;Kister,Studies, Introduction, pp. 140-142;Finkelstein, pp.29-35. 63. Ontheterm"will"(rason)usedforthewillof God,see theteachingsof R.Yehudah thePatriarchin B32,71andmydiscussionabovein footnote35;alsoA30,89;A41,133;B48,133. 64. Thistextis a seventeenth-century to R.NathanA byYomTovbenMosesTzacommentary halon, who cites from R. Nathan B (Ms. Halberstam:Oxford Bodleian, Neubauer2635). Schechter quotes the passage in A5,26 n.10; see also Finkelstein,Introduction,32-35; Saldarini,RabbiNathan

B, pp.87-88 n.13. 65. Thequotation inR.NathanB differsfromtheMasoretic text,whichreads,"IfeartheLord, Godof theHeavens" (Jonah1:9).

222

Spiritual Exercises in Rabbinic Culture have respondedto this discrepancyin a numberof ways, some saying thatthe primacy of "aweand fear"is late or strange,and some saying that it is early.66 I believe that the wordingof (3b), which upholds awe and fear,best fits the literarycontext.The discussionof the patriarchsandJonah(4) centerson fear.This is particularlystrikinggiven that,often in rabbinicliterature,Abrahamis the great exemplarof serving God in love; he is upheld over Job, who is said to stand in fear.67The statementin (2), "Onewho acts from love is not like one who acts from awe and fear,"appearsto be setting up the evaluationthat fear is greater.One can very well imaginethatthe parablein (1) would finish by sayingthatfearis greater, for a haughtyservantor son would serve out of fear even if not out of love. Finally, since the exegetical context is an epigramthat advocatesmaintaining"fearof Heaven,"we have all the more reasonto thinkthatthe commentatorswould highlight this emotion.68 Studyof manuscriptvariantsis one way to identifytensions thatexisted over the course of the transmissionof the text. The poles of love and awe are given, and their relativevalue is contested.Textual"corruption"can reveal such contention. It is likely that an early version of the passage upheld "aweand fear"over "love." Yet some transmitter,or school of transmission,disagreedwith this position and consciously or unconsciously changed a crucial statementconcerningthe hierarchy of affects. Whatis at stake?The poles of fear and love not only denote the two highest, yet very different,rabbinicmodes of orientingtowardsGod and the commandments;they also indicate, in differenttimes and contexts, distinct strandsof elite Jewishreligiosity.Louis Finkelsteinconnectsthe primacyof fearin R. Nathan with the school of Shammai,the stringentand conservativepole of Pharisaiclegal thought,andfearis also a centraltermfor the earlycharismaticfigures, the hasidim ri'shonim.69The dominantand more moderaterabbinicposition is to upholdlove, which also becomes centralto erotic dimensionsof rabbinicmysticism as well as martyrologicalideals.70 66. Schechtercomments that the passage is "strange"(B10,16-17 n. 11) as does Biichler (Sin and Atonement,p. 159 n. 2). Finkelsteinattributesthe emphasis on fear and awe to early Shammaitic editing of the text (Introduction,pp. 32-35). Urbach, who calls the passage a "Baraita,"writes, "its strangenessis not sufficient ground for assigning to it a late date"(Sages, p. 403, also pp. 861-862 n. 24). 67. Urbach,Sages, pp. 400-419. 68. Also see Mekh.ofR. Simeonb. Yohai20:6;Num.Rab.22. Contrastthe commentaryinSiphre Deut. to Deut. 6:5, "Youshall love the Lord your God ..." (Siphre Deut. 32; Finkelstein, 54). The midrashupon "you shall love" upholds love over fear. 69. ForFinkelstein'sargument,see Introduction,esp. pp. 18-39; also Saldarini,RabbiNathan B, pp. 87-88 and nn.12-14. On the hasidimri'shonim,see for example articlesby Shemuel Safraicollected in In Timesof TempleandMishnah.StudiesinJewishHistory(Hebrew)(Jerusalem:The Magnes Press, 1996), esp. vol. 2, pp. 518-539 [133-154]. He discusses materialfrom R. Nathan in vol. 2, Journal of Jewish Studies pp. 521-523. In English, see "Teachingof Pietists in Mishnaic Literature," 16 (1965): 15-33; and "Jesusand the Hasidim,"JerusalemPerspective42-44 (January/June1994): 1-22; Ony.r.'.in the expression"fearof sin,"see MenahemHirshman,"Towardsa Clarificationof the Term'Fearof Sin'" (Hebrew),in M. Idel et al., eds., A Gift to Sarah.:Studiesin Jewish Philosophyand Kabbalah(Jerusalem:Magnes Press, n.d.), pp. 155-162. 70. See Michael Fishbane, The Kiss of God (Seattle: University of WashingtonPress, 1994).

223

Jonathan Schofer According to the maxim of Antigonus of Sokho and its commentaryin R. Nathan,what is the role of self-interestin the life of religious elites? On one hand, rabbishave a theology that links service of God and self-interestthroughpromises thatthe righteouswill be rewarded.On the otherhand,certainsagely figures reject this self-interest,the most prominentbeing Antigonus of Sokho. He calls for a mode of attentionstructuredin terms of similes: "be like" a slave before God as "master"and serve this masterin fear and reverence,with no expectationof payment or even basic supportfor life. The commentatorssoften the dichotomiesimplicit in the tropes and allow for a deferredself-interest.In addition,in R. Nathan B we see the assertionthatone must serve the employerout of both fearandloveone manuscripttraditionhighlightingfear, anotherlove. We can identify,then, three differentmodes of comportmentbefore a deity that rewardsand punishes:(1) serving God to receive payment(self-interest);(2) serving God to receive paymentnot in this worldbut in the next (deferredself-interest);and (3) serving God throughlove and fear.The text does not arrangethese types as such, but implicit in the materialmay be a hierarchy,moving from selfinterestto deferredself-interestto consciousness whereinmotivationand emotion are centeredon the deity and not on reward. CONCLUSION

I have examinedinstructionsthat directthe aspiringsage to focus attention certain upon images. Throughconstant or regularexercise, God's presence and Torahare alwaysto be in the consciousness, eliminatingcertainimpulses and giving rise to others.These instructionsappearin three variations.The first is most explicitly a form of attention:the call to "attendto" or "place"upon the "heart" particulartropes depicting God and divine involvementin the world.The second is an internalvoicing: the prescriptionto "say"certain statementsto oneself, either all the time or at crucial moments.And the thirdis a form of simulation:one should "be like"a servantbefore God as master.Througha varietyof tropes,these instructionshighlight one's finitude in comparisonto God's power, one's indebtedness and guilt before God'sjudgment,andone's servitudeanddependencein relation to God as a master. The ideal result is that a rabbi would not have a self-interestedorientationcenteredon worldly desire and fear,but, rather,a Godcenteredconsciousnesscharacterizedby humility,spiritualanxiety,reverence,and love. These instructions,like Greco-Romanexercises of attention, address the generalorientationthatone maintainsduringall activity,andthey aim to move the person away from a focus on the self and the day-to-dayto a focus on an external other.Hadot'stheoreticalformulationof spiritualexercises, as well as his research on Hellenistic philosophical schools, thus provides a lens throughwhich we can consider the practicalsignificance of certainwell-known maxims in TheFathers and their commentariesin R. Nathan.At the same time, a full comparisonof rabbinic andphilosophicalexercises would likely lead to an explorationof difference within this similarity.As with other features of The Fathers and R. Nathan (including their maxims, genealogical lists, and narratives),rabbinic forms of ex224

SpiritualExercises in RabbinicCulture pression and underlying concerns have similarities with the writings of philoThese exercises direct atsophical schools, yet the content differs dramatically.71 tentionnot to nature,reason,or the immediatemoment,but to God or Torah.Their goal is generallynot to eliminate passions but (with the possible exception of R. Hananyah'sinstruction)to cultivatecertainemotionalresponses.72 Such exercises of attentionare one element in a broadrabbinicconcernwith the transformationof motivationsand emotions throughthe instructionand models of the sages, the wordsof Torah,and the service of God. Elsewhere,I describe this concern as a form of characterethics, which includes accountsof humanorigin or nature,ideal actions and states, and modes of transformationfrom the given to the ideal-all occurring in a particularcommunity and addressed to an embodied aspiringrabbi.In this intellectualand practicalcontext, rabbinicexercises of attentionmake up a set of subtle and pervasivetechniques,among many, throughwhich an aspiringrabbimay striveto changehis selfish andwaywardtendencies.73 71. Whathistoricalclaims, if any, can be drawnfrom these observations?As noted above, the relationbetweenthe compilersof TheFathersandR. Nathanand Greco-Roman schools appearsnot to be one of dependenceor influence. Rather,as PeterSchifer writes, the rabbiswere "partof the general 'discursive space' of the Hellenstic culture of Palestine in Late Antiquity."See Schfifer,"Introduction,"in Schdiferand Hezser, The TalmudYerushalmiand Graeco-RomanCulture,vol. 1, 14-16 and generally 1-23. Specifically, these sources may give evidence of shareddiscursiveforms but not specific terms or content.Note that most of the instructionsfor attentionthat I have examinedgenerated a complex receptionby the editorialstreamof R. Nathan:the maxim of Antigonus of Sokho for its strongrejectionof self-interest;the maxim of Aqabyaben Mehalalelfor its conceptionof finitude; andperhapsalso the sayings of RabbiNehunyahben Ha-Qanahand RabbiHananyah.Saul Lieberman and Elias Bickermanhave examined some of this materialas evidence for Hellenistic influence upon the rabbis;see Lieberman,ToseftaKi-fshutah,pp. 1292-1293 to t. Hag. 2:5, 7; "How Much Greek," pp. 136-137; Kister disagrees (Studies, 107); Bickerman,"The Maxim of Antigonus of Socho."I am not sure what to make of these observations,but they appearto link these "exercises"with doctrines that came to be on the marginsof rabbinicthoughtand culture. 72. Saul Liebermanmakes a similar point in comparingthe maxim of Aqabyaben Mahalalel with one of Seneca;"HowMuch Greek,"p. 136 n. 13. Urbachcomments,in discussingthe same maxim, "Conceptsderivedfrom foreign sources, and for which there is no Biblical authority,were bounded by the belief in rewardand punishmentand the postulate of free will" (Sages, 224). This contrast also appearsin comparingphilosophic and rabbinicorientationstowardsdeath. Hadot discusses various forms of "trainingfor death,"rangingin time from Socratesto Plotinus,in which one contemplates a universalperspectiveor totality in orderto transcendstates of subjectivityor individuality;Philosophy as a WayofLife, pp. 93-101. Contrastthe rabbinicdeathbedscene of R.Yohananben Zakkaifound in R. Nathan. The sage is overwhelmedwith God's presence as king and as judge, his senses both of the divine and of his subjectivityare greatly intensified,and the result is an intense emotionalexpression: crying. See A25,79; Schofer,Makingof a Sage, pp. 237-240, 325-326; YonahFrdinkel,Studies in theSpiritualWorldof theSages (Hebrew)(TelAviv:HakibbutzHameuchadPublishingHouse, 1981), pp. 52-56. Anotherpoint of potentiallyfruitfulcomparisonis that Hadot quotes exercises aiming for "thetransformationof the will so thatit becomes identified with the divine will" (Philosophyas a Way of Life, p. 136). Compareteachings of R. Yehudahthe Patriarch,discussed above in footnotes: "make His will as your will .. ." (B32,70; Fathers 2:4). 73. See Schofer, TheMakingofa Sage; a new version of this study as a book is in progress.My accountof characterethics builds in partupon the scholarshipof Foucault,who treatsaskisis and,more broadly,"ethicalwork"as one element in a broaderframeworkof ethics as self-cultivation;see Use of Pleasure, pp. 72-77 and generallypp. 25-28, 63-77.

225

"Designation Is Significant": An Analysis of the Conceptual Sugya in bSan 47b-48b Author(s): Leib Moscovitz Source: AJS Review, Vol. 27, No. 2 (Nov., 2003), pp. 227-252 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4131606 . Accessed: 19/07/2011 03:37 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].



AJS Review 27:2 (2003), 227-252 "DESIGNATION IS SIGNIFICANT": An Analysis of the ConceptualSugya in bSan 47b-48b*

by Leib Moscovitz

Explicit rabbiniclegal concepts and principles-notions such as "multiple causationis prohibited/permitted" (zeh ve-zehgoremmuttar/'asur),"retrospective determinationof reality is/is not valid" (yesh/'ein bererah),and the like-occur frequentlyin the BabylonianTalmud(BT), especially in the later strataof that work.' Most concepts and principles of this sort are applied to a case or two, although we sometimes find extended conceptualsugyot in BT that systematically analyze a particularlegal principle. Such passages generally analyze a group of tannaiticsources in light of the specified principle,which is assumedto apply to all the cases cited; these cases may be adducedeither to supportor to refute the relevantprinciple. The cases addressedin conceptualsugyot are often quite diverseboth legally and factually.Consequently,explainingsuch cases in light of a single principle often entails legal, conceptual,textual, and exegetical difficulties, as the relevant rulings can frequentlybe accountedfor more plausiblyon othergrounds-for example, in light of differentprinciples or distinct and localized considerationsof narrowerscope. Nevertheless,attemptingto accountfor multiplecases based on a single principleoften reflects remarkableconceptualcreativity,since the scope of the relevantprinciplesis extended to almost every case imaginable.Indeed,such use of rabbiniclegal principlesas "grandunified theories"reflects rabbinicconceptualizationat its most innovativeand sophisticated,conceptuallyspeaking. In this paper we analyze one such conceptualsugya at some length,2BT's *

My thanks to the Israel Science Foundation(grant #4347) for supportingthe researchon which this paperis based, and to Mr. BinyaminKatzoff for his researchassistance. 1. See generally Leib Moscovitz, TalmudicReasoning: From Casuistics to Conceptualization (Tiibingen:Mohr Siebeck, 2002), especially pp. 292-342, with extensive referencesto earlierliterature. 2. Variousaspects of our sugya and the principles it contains ("designationis/is not significant") have been discussed by Binyamin De-Vries, ToledotHa-HalakhahHa-Talmudit,2d ed. (TelAviv: Avraham Zioni, 1966), pp. 152-153; Ephraim E. Urbach, Ha-Halakhah: Toledoteha Ve-Hitpattehutah (Givatayim:Yad La-Talmud,1984), p. 128; and Louis Jacobs, The TalmudicArgument (Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press, 1984), pp. 122-132. However,none of these studies addressesall of the issues associatedwith this sugya; hence, the presentdiscussion.

227

Leib Moscovitz discussion of the principle that "designation3is/is not significant" (hazmanah [flav]milta, bSan 47b-48b). This passage presentsnumeroustextualand conceptual difficulties, which have not been addressedsatisfactorilyeitherby the classical commentatorsor by modern scholars. Our goals in this paper,therefore,are threefold:(1) to account for these difficulties based on a critical analysis of this passage; (2) to account for the evolution of this sugya; and, above all, (3) to analyze the literary and conceptual characterof this sugya and especially the relationship between them. A properunderstandingof our sugya requiresdue attentionto its Palestinian Talmud(PT) parallels.Accordingly,ouranalysis commenceswith a discussion of relevantaspects of these sugyot.This is followed by a discussionof the BT sugya and,finally,a summaryof the principalconclusionsthatemergefromouranalysis of all these sources.

The sugya in bSan 47b-48b has three partialparallels in PT. Two of these (yMeg 3.1, 73d and yNed 9.2, 41c) are essentially identical;the third,yYom 3.6, 40c, differsin importantrespectsfromthe othertwo. The first two PT sugyot, parts of which have parallelsin the third,are not all that importantfor solving the difficulties in BT, althoughthe thirdis; hence we presentthis passage here, commenting on those aspects of its text, structure,and contentwhich are indispensablefor properlyunderstandingthe BT parallel.4(Importantfeaturesof the other two PT sugyot are consideredbriefly at the end of section IV.) 1. If leatherwas tannedfor use as an amulet, a. one may write a mezuzah on it. b. RabbanSimeon b. Gamalielprohibitsthis. 2. RabbiJose said,Weoriginallythought:Aboutwhatdo they disagreeaboutnon-Templeuse [le-hedyot],but not forTempleuse [le-gavoah]. Fromwhat we have learned:Sacredstones must be hewed in a sacred 3. Thistranslation is notfullyadequate; I use it hereandelsewherein thispaperforlackof a betterterm. 4. Certainpartsof thissugya,especiallythebeginning(2-4), areproblematic bothtextually andexegetically. Sincemuchof ouranalysisof BThingeson thecorrectinterpretation of thePTsugya, we treatthetextualandexegeticalproblemsin PTpericopein thefollowingnotes(criticalaspects of structure andcontentaregenerallydiscussedin thetext);see especiallynn.7, 8, 10, 12,and13.For furtherdiscussion,see theclassicalcommentaries in hisMilhaadloc.;thecommentsof Nahmanides motHashemon bSuk9a (4b in the printededitionsof Alfasi);R. Abraham Hab. Azriel,cAruggat MekizeNirdamim,1947),pp.45-46, 49-50; and E. Urbach(Jerusalem: Bosem,vol. 2, ed. Ephraim R. David Friedmann,She'elatDavid (Pieterkow,1913), OrahHayyim #3, s.v. 'od sham and ve-cattah

mostof theexplanations "assig(pp.3b and4a).Nevertheless, suggestedby thesescholarsarealmost is apparently thatfoundin QorbanHa-'Edah(alcertainlyuntenable,andthe correctinterpretation consider of PTwhererelevant). of alternative thoughweoccasionally possibleramifications explanations

228

"Designationis Significant" place and hewed in sanctity5... and RabbiHananyasaid in the name of R. Yassah:6This is disputed3. This implies that[the scholarscited in la-b] also disagreeaboutTemple use.7 4. It was taught:8"If one made a utensil for sacreduse9 [ha-'osehkeli legavoah], an ordinaryperson may use it before it was subjectedto sacred use; after it was subjectedto sacreduse, an ordinaryperson may not use it." 5. But it was taught [in anotherbaraita]:"If one makes a utensil for sacred use, an ordinaryperson may not use it!"'o... 5. At first sight this expression might seem to be a doublet, althoughthis is unlikely, since a similar formulationappearsin the next sentence (not cited here). Forpossible explanationsof the repetition (which in any case does not bear directlyon the discussion here), see Penei Moshe and Qorban Ha-'Edahad loc. and R. AbrahamIsaiahKarelitz,Hazon Ish, OrahHlayyim,Moed (Jerusalem, 1967), HilkhotTefillin 6:12, s.v. u-va-qodesh,p. 15a. 6. This is almost certainlya differentsage from the R. Jose cited in the beginningof this section; otherwise, it is impossible to understandhow R. Jose disproveshis original suggestion based on the dictumcited here. See the next note. 7. As indicatedby the breakdownof the sugya as presentedhere,the Talmud'sconclusion is apparentlybased on the statementof Rabbi Hananyain the name of R. Yassah in the previous section, while the next partof the sugya constitutesan independentunit (cf. QorbanHa-'Edah).Thus, the Talmud'spoint here is thatjust as the first tanna and R. Simeon b. Gamalieldisagreeas to whetherleather initially tannedfor profaneuse may be used later for a mezuzah, so too they disagree about whether the Templestones andvestmentsmentionedin (2) requireadvancedesignation.Accordingly,the baraita in (2), thoughanonymous,is disputed.See furtherthe following notes. 8. The text here reads di-tenei, "as it was taught,"implying that the baraita that follows continues the previous discussion and supportsthe line of reasoningadvancedthere. However,this interpretationdoes not seem to fit the context, as the materialthat follows seems to introducea new and distinctline of argumentation.Accordingly,I have renderedthe text as if it readstenei, "it was taught," the termordinarilyused to introducean independenttannaiticsource. (Ourtext was emendedthis way by Ze'ev Wolf Rabinovitz,Sha'arei ToratEres Yisra'el[Jerusalem, 1940], p. 250, and cf. R. Jehiel Michel Epstein,MikhalHa-Mayimad loc., s.v. amar R. Yoseh,althoughour readingis confirmed by the citationsin Nahmanides[above,n. 4] and R. Abrahamb. Azriel, AruggatHa-Bosem,2:46, 49.) Indeed,the termdi-tenei is often used in PT to introducetannaiticsourceswhich haveno connectionwith the previousdiscussion, and in some of these passages certainwitnesses read tenei ratherthandi-tenei (in our sugya, this readingmight have resulted from ashgara from an earlierpart of the Yerushalmi where the termdi-tenei appears;see above, line 55 in the editioprinceps). Foradditionaldiscussion of this use of di-tenei, see Leib Moscovitz, "Sugyot MaqbilotU-MasoretNosah Ha-Yerushalmi,"Tarbis 60 (1991): 543-544, and the literaturecited there. 9. The exact meaning of this expressionis not fully clear, althoughit does not directlybearon the discussion here; see furtherSaul Lieberman,ToseftaKi-Fshutah(New York:1955-1988), 5:1154, 1158. 10. The next partof the sugya, which has been omittedhere, discusses a case which seems like the mirrorimage of (4): "If one made a utensil for profaneuse [le-hedyot],the Temple [gavoah] may use it before it was subjectedto profaneuse; afterit was subjectedto profaneuse, the Templemay not use it."However,this statement,like the rest of the materialomittedhere, mightjust be a corruptdoublet (throughashgara) of the previouspartof the discussion, as evidenced by (6), which clearlyrefers

229

Leib Moscovitz 6. R. Huna said in the name of the rabbisfrom there [=Babylonia], this [second baraita]refersto [a utensil] coming from contributionsto the Templetreasury. 7. When do ministeringvessels [kelei sharet] become sanctified-immediatelyor upon use?... 8. If stones were hewed for the sake of a dead person ... 9. If one threwa utensil in frontof the bier of a corpse ... outsideof four cubits, benefit from it is permitted. This sugya containsthreeprincipalparts,all of which deal with designation (except for 9, on which see below). Forthe issue addressedin 1-3 is whetherit is necessary to designate objects for sacred use to renderthem fit for such use (or, perhaps,whetherdesignation for profane use disqualifies certain objects for sacred use)."IThe issue addressedin 4-6 is whetherdesignationfor sacreduse renders an object unfit for secular use-in other words, whether such designation takes effect in the same way as actualuse. The last partof this passage, too, which has parallelsin yMeg and yNed (unlike the otherpartsof this passage), deals with the question of whetherdesignationtakes effect. Now, thereis a criticaldistinctionbetweenthe types of designationdiscussed in 1-3 andthose in 4-8. Forthe issue addressedin 1-3 is whetherdesignationfor sacred use is necessary, whereas the issue addressedin 4-8 is whetherdesignation is effective,that is, whetherdesignationfor ritualuse has the same effect as actual use.12 Logically speaking, these are distinct issues: designation might be to a baraita along the lines of (5). Cf. Qorban Ha-'Edahad loc., s.v. R. Hananyah(and cf. Leib Moscovitz, "LishaneiAharinei Bi-Yerushalmi,"Sidra 8 [1992]: p. 64 n. 8, for similar,though admittedly not identical,textualphenomenain PT). In any event, even if this baraita is not a corruptdoublet of materialappearingearlier,the issue it addressesis alreadyanalyzedin 1. (If this baraitais not a corruptdoubletof (4), the termwhich precedesit in the editioprinceps of PT,di-tenei, shouldpresumably be emended,interpretedas equivalentto tenei [cf. above, n. 8], or deleted;note thatthis term is missing in the body of MS Leiden and was added in the marginsthere secunda manu. Of course, even if this baraitais not a corruptdoubletof earliermaterial,the rest of the passage omittedhere almost certainly is, as suggested by QorbanHa- Edah.) 11. Strictlyspeaking,these issues, which areaddressedin separatestages of the discussion(disqualificationby designationfor profaneuse in (1), and the necessity of designationfor sacreduse in (2)), are distinct and perhapseven logically independent.Thus, it could be arguedthat positive designation for improperuse disqualifies an object for ritualuse, althoughthe absence of properdesignation does not; likewise, proper designation of a sacral object might be necessary, although initial designationfor profaneuse might not disqualifythe object so designated,providedthat properdesignation is performedlater.Nevertheless,the fact thatthe Talmudconflates these issues, as demonstrated by the inference in (2)-(3) (at least accordingto our understandingof these partsof the sugya; see below, n. 12), provesthatthe Talmudholds thata single issue is at stakehere-whether designationfor ritualuse is necessary,at least in certaincases. 12. Accordingto some commentators(so alreadyPenei Moshe), (3) addressesthe same issue as the next partof the sugya-whether designationfor sacreduse is effective, and not whetherdesignation for sacred use is necessary. However,even if this interpretationis accepted--and it is highly problematic(see the previous notes, although a more detailed analysis of this view lies beyond the

230

"Designation is Significant" necessaryto sanctifyan object for ritualuse, althoughthe object in questionmight not assume its sacredstatusuntil it is actuallyused. (Likewise, designationmight take take effect immediatelyif performed,althoughthere might be no obligation to designateobjects for ritualor othersacreduse.) Indeed,althoughinferencesare drawnin differentparts of this sugya, no comparisonsare drawnbetween cases discussed in 1-3 and cases in 4-8,13 presumablybecause the issues addressedin these partsof the sugya are logically independentof one another:these issues are neitherexplicitly claimed nor implicitly assumed (insofar as we are able to determine) by PT to be contingentupon one another. The question accordinglyarises:why were these ostensibly independentissues discussed togetherhere? It might be arguedthatthis is the result of superficial association,possibly throughlate scribaltransfer(a common phenomenonin PT),14 wherebywhat were originallytwo distinctunits, 1-3 and 4-8 (or 4-9; see below), were conflated.However,this suggestionis problematicbecause4-6 does not appearelsewhere in PT, and we thus lack evidence of an alternativecontext from which this part of the sugya might have been transferredto its present context. Accordingly,two otherexplanationsof why these issues were discussed together are possible. There is evidence that superficialthematicassociation of the sort attestedhere, wherebydifferentparts of a single passage addressa common theme, albeitdistinctissues, was practicedby the amoraim.•"(This distinctionbetween theme and issue is essentiallythe differencebetweena concept-here, designation-and an assertion predicated of that concept-for example, that designationtakes effect or is necessary.)Thus, there is nothing anomalousabout assumingthat 1-3 and 4-6 were includedhere as an integraland organicpartof the same discussion, since they addressa common theme, designation.(Of course, this does not preclude the possibility that 7-9, which has parallels in yMeg and yNed, was transferredhere from thatsugya.) Alternatively,PT might have been following the lead providedby the Tosefta (or a similarbaraita),which also juxtaposes diverseissues. (Note thatToseftan baraitotprovidethe context for other PT discussions as well.)16Thus, we read in tMeg 2.13, 16 (ed. Liebermanpp. 351-352):'7

purview of the presentstudy)-it is clear that (2) (q.v.) deals with the necessity and notjust the effectiveness of designation. 13. At least accordingto our understandingof the sugya; see the previousnote. 14. See most recentlyLeib Moscovitz, "TheFormationandCharacterof the JerusalemTalmud," in The CambridgeHistory ofJudaism, vol. 4 (forthcoming),"ParallelSugyot and 'ForeignBodies,"' with referencesto earlierliterature. 15. See YaakovSussmann,"Ve-ShuvLi-YerushalmiNeziqin,"MehqereiTalmud1 (1990): 91, n. 156, and cf. Leib Moscovitz, "SugyotMesutatotBa-Yerushalmi,"Te'udah10 (1996): 43. PAAJR 16. See pro temporeLeib Moscovitz, "'Od 'Al Ha-BaraitotHa-HaserotBi-Yerushalmi," 61 (1996): 4-8 (Hebrew section), and Jeffrey L. Rubenstein,TalmudicStories: NarrativeArt, Composition, and Culture(Baltimoreand London:Johns Hopkins, 1999), pp. 264-265 and p. 369, n. 65, and the referencesthere. 17. Sections 2-3 have a parallelin tMen 9.21 (ed. Zuckermandel,p. 526); see below, n. 17.

231

Leib Moscovitz 1. [13] If one made an ark or wraps for a [Torah]scroll, before they were subjectedto sacreduse an ordinarypersonmay use them;afterthey were subjectedto sacreduse an ordinaryperson may not use them18... 2. [16] Before being used by the Temple, sacred vessels [kelei gavoah]19 may be used by an ordinaryperson;afterbeing used by the Templethey may not be used by an ordinaryperson. 3. Utensils initially made for an ordinarypersonmay not be made [= used] for sacreduse [la-gavoah]. 4. Stones and beams initially hewed for a synagogue20may not be built in the TempleMount. This baraita,like the sugya in PT,addressestwo distinctissues2•--whether designationwithout use is effective in conferringsacred status (1-2; cf. 4-8 in PT), and whetherimproperdesignation(i.e., designationfor profaneuse) disqualifies objects for sacreduse (3-4; cf. 1-3 in PT).22Now, it is clear from the Tosefta thatthese issues arenot governedby a single, sharedprinciple.23Fordesignation to confer sacredstatusdoes not takeeffect immediately;by contrast,improperdesignationimmediatelydisqualifies the relevantobjects for sacreduse in the future. In any event, whetherPT follows the structuralframeworkprovidedby the Tosefta (or a similar baraita) or independentlyassociates the issues it addresses,there is clearlynothinganomalousor conceptuallyobjectionableaboutthejuxtaposition of these issues, since PT drawsno inferences from one to the other. Finally,a few words about 9. This case differs from all of the others in our sugya, since the action consideredhere-throwing objects at a grave-does not seem to entaileitherdesignationor actualuse. The criterionspecified for prohibiting such objectsis proximityto the legally significantitem (here,the grave)-four cubits-rather than functionality.Yet,althoughthis partof the sugya does not addressthe same theme as the rest of the sugya, it is easy to understandwhy this case was discussedhere:it follows associativelyfromthe previouscase, whichdealswith other types of prohibitionsgeneratedthroughcorpse association-hewing stones for use in a cemetary.As we shall see below,this association-basedstructureof our passage is crucialnot just for PT,but also for a properunderstandingof BT. 18. MS Erfurtand the editio princeps include an additionalsentence here which is very simi-

larto (2) (seebelow),butwhichmightreferto Templevesselsratherthanto ordinary religiousitems; see Lieberman, 5:1153-1154.However, thissentenceis missingin MSSVienna ToseftaKi-Fshutah, andLondon;therefore we do notciteit here. 19. The parallelin tMen 9.21 (ed. Zuckermandel,p. 526) readskelei sharet ("ministeringves-

5:1158. sels");see Lieberman, ToseftaKi-Fshutah, 20. Otherwitnesses read "fornon-sacreduse" (le-hedyot), althoughthis readingdoes not significantly affect the argumenthere; see Lieberman,ToseftaKi-Fshutah,5:1160.

21. Eventhoughotherlawsintervenebetweensections1 and2 of theTosefta,sections2 and 3-4 of theTosefta,whichaddressdifferenttypesof designation, arecontiguous. 22. Note, though, thatthe Tosefta,unlike PT (see above, n. 11), does not explicitly addressthe issueof whetheranundesignated forsaforsacreduse,i.e., whetherdesignation objectis acceptable creduse is necessary. 23. Assuming, of course, that the Tosefta reflects a single, consistent viewpoint and was not

generated throughtheconflationof conflictingliterarysources.

232

"Designationis Significant" III We now turnto the BT sugya, beginningwith a translationof this passage24 (considerablyabbreviatedbecause of its length)and followed by commentson significant aspects of this sugya. These comments focus primarilyon difficulties in the sugya, especially difficulties stemming from the Talmud'sgenerally implicit assumption25thatthe variousprooftextscited shouldbe interpretedin light of the principlesthat "designationis/is not significant."(The numerationof these comments follows that of the text.) The next section attemptsto solve the difficulties noted below, and a summaryand broaderconclusions appearin the final section of this paper. 1. It was stated: If one wove a shroud for a corpse, Abbaye says: [The shroud]is forbidden,and Rava says: It is permitted. a. Abbayesays: [The shroud]is forbidden-designation is significant [hazmanahmilta]. b. Rava says: It is permitted-designation is not significant. 2. Whatis Abbaye'sreason?He drew a verbalanalogy [gamar] ... from [the case of] a heifer whose neck is broken26[ceglah 'arufah,Deut. 21:1-9]: just as a heifer whose neck is broken is prohibitedthrough designation,27so too [a shroud]... 3. And what of Rava?He drew a verbal analogy ... from idolatry:just as idolatry ['avodahzarah] is not prohibitedthroughdesignation, so too here [the shroud]... 4. Why didn't Ravadrawan analogy from ceglahcarufah?He would say to you: We infer appurtenancesfrom appurtenances,which excludes ceglahcarufah,which is intrinsicallysacred... 5. An objection was raised:28"If a head covering was ritually impure 24. The translationfollows the standardprintededitions; significant variantsare discussed in the notes, althoughtherearehardlyany such variantsin ourpassage. (My thanksto Dr. MordecaiSabato for allowing me to consult his synopsis of text-witnessesto bSan.) 25. The fact that this principle is not explicitly invoked in most of the discussion is of no significance for our purposes,as it is clear thatthis notion underliesthe entirediscussion. Indeed,failure to explicitly invoke a legal principlesubjectedto multipleapplicationsin the course of a talmudicsugya is not uncommonin BT, and does not necessarilyreflect anythingaboutthe conceptualcharacterof the discussion. Cf. Moscovitz, TalmudicReasoning, p. 324, n. 128. 26. Accordingto She'iltotde-RavAhai,Shelah,? 143 (ed. Mirsky,5:38) andHuqqat,? 150 (ibid. 5:72), Abbaye'sinferencemight have been drawnfrom the laws of sacrifices (qodashim),suggesting thatthe authorof thatworkmight have had a differentreadingin the Talmudictext here. (Note R. Naftali Zvi YehudahBerlin's discussion ad loc., and cf. YadRamah on our sugya, p. 46d, s.v. 'ittemar.) However,there is no evidence of such a readingin any of the extantMSS. 27. Thatis, before it is killed, once it entersthe valley where it is supposedto be executed;see ySot 9.6, 24a and bQid 57a. 28. The source cited here seems quite similarto mKel 28.5. However,the readingnetanattule(see below, n. 30) is not found in any of the major witnesses to the text of this Mishnah;cf. Yaakov Nahum Ha-Levi Epstein, Mavo Le-NosahHa-Mishnah,3d ed. (Jerusalem:Magnes;Tel-Aviv:Devir, 2000), p. 549 (althoughsome of Epstein'sremarkshere are unclear).These witnesses readnetano ~al, lit. "placedit upon,"which seems to suggest use ratherthandesignation.The readingnetanattu/netano

233

Leib Moscovitz ... and one placed it for29 [netanattule-,30 i.e., designated]a scroll, it is pure .. ." [implyingthat designationis significant]!6. Say [=emend]: "If one placed [=designated] it and wrappedit." 7. Why are both designation and wrapping necessary? In accordance with Rav Hisda. ForRav Hisda said:If a cloth hadbeen designatedfor wrappingphylacteriesand one wrappedphylacterieswith it, one may not wrap coins with it. If one designated[the cloth] and did not wrap [phylacteries]with it, or if one wrapped[phylacteries]with it and did not designate it, one may wrap coins with it. 8. And accordingto Abbaye,who holds [de-'amar]:3'Designationis significanta. if one designatedit, even thoughone did not wrapwith it, [it is forbidden]; b. if one wrapped[phylacteries]with it, if one designatedit, it is [forbidden, but] if one did not designateit, it is not ... 10. Come, hear [mSheq2.5]: "The surplusof a collection for the dead32

'al- (ratherthan le-) in the Mishnahis also confirmed indirectlyby some Mishnahcommentators,who attributethe latterreadingto BT, implyingthatthis readingwas not found in the Mishnah;see R. Samson of Sens' commentaryad loc., and cf. Melekhet Shelomoh. (Melekhet Shelomoh might just have followed R. Samson of Sens, althoughit is noteworthythat the formercites no other evidence of the reading netanattule- in the Mishnah.) In any event, it is clear from the content of the sugya and not just from the readingof the MSS that BT readnetanattule- here; see below. Accordingly,it seems more likely that the source cited here is a baraitathatclosely resembles the Mishnahbut is not identicalto it. See R. GershonHanokhLeiner,SidreiTaharot,MassekhetKelim (1873; reprinted. with additions,New York:1961), 255a, s.v. kippahand especially ibid., s.v. 'al hasefer and 255b-256a, s.v. kippah.Cf. also Epstein, ibid., who notes anotherdifference between the Mishnah and the source cited in BT (in part of the text not cited here). Interestingly,a very similar baraita thatreadsnetanuhule-, ratherthan'al, is found in tKel BB 6.10 (ed. Zuckermandelp. 596); cf. Epstein,ibid. However,even accordingto the Talmud'sreading(netanattule-), interpretingthe root ntn as "designate"ratherthan "place"is problematic;see below. 29. I intentionallytranslatethis literally,to convey the problematiccharacterof the original;see below. 30. So all witnesses here except MS Munich,which reads'al ("on") instead of le- ("to");this readingmight have been influencedby mKel 28.5, which also reads'al (see above,n. 28), or by stylistic considerations,as the expressionntn le- sounds awkward;see below. (The reading'al is also found in MS Karlsruhebefore correction,althoughthis reading was subsequentlychanged to le-, as in the other witnesses.) 31. Lit. "who said,"althoughthis is not a verbatimcitation of Abbaye'sruling (see 1 above). Here the Talmudpresentsthe viewpoint attributed(apparentlyby the anonymousstratum)to Abbaye; see our commentson la-b below. For such use of the term (de-)amarin rabbinicliterature,see Sacha Stern,"AttributionandAuthorshipin the BabylonianTalmud,"JJS 45 (1994): 37-38; Yaakov(Jeffrey) Rubenstein,"R. Peloni Le-Ta'ameh,"Sidra 10 (1994): 111, n. 1, and the literaturecited there; ShammaYehudahFriedman,Talmud'Arukh,PereqHa-Sokher'EtHa-'Ummanin:Ha-Nosah(New Yorkand Jerusalem:The Jewish Theological Seminary, 1997), p. 437, and the literaturecited there; Leib Moscovitz, "DoubleReadings in the Yerushalmi,"in TheTalmudYerushalmiand Graeco-RomanCulture, vol. 1, ed. Peter Schifer (Tiibingen:Mohr Siebeck, 1998), p. 106. 32. Preciselywhattype of collection is meanthere is not fully clear.An explanatorybaraitacited later on in the Talmud(not translatedhere) states:"How so? If they collected [gavu] for dead peo-

234

"Designation is Significant" is for [otherdead people]; the surplus [of a collection] for a [particular] dead person is for his heirs,"[implying that designationis not significant;otherwise,the heirs shouldnot be allowedto use the surplus]! ... 11. Come, hear:"If one's motherand fatherwere throwinggarments33at [a grave], others should save the [garments,"implying that designation is not significant, for if it were, it wouldbe forbiddento save the garments]!12. There [they are throwingthe garments]out of theirgrief, [butthis is not considereddesignation]. 13. If so, how [shall we] explainwhatwas taughtin connectionwith this: "RabbanSimeonben Gamalielsaid:When is this so? When [thegarments] did not touch the bier. But if they touchedthe bier, they they are forbidden"![If the clothing was thrown out of grief, it should make no differencewhetherit touched the bier or not.] ... 14. This [the statusof designation]is [the subjectof] a tannaiticdispute, as was taught: a. If one overlaid [phylacteries]... with the leatherof a clean animal, they are acceptable,even if [the leather]had not been tanned for this purpose [li-shemah]. b. RabbanSimeonben Gamalielsays:Even the leatherof a clean animal is unfit unless it was tannedfor this purpose. 15. Ravina said to Rava: Is there any place where a corpse lies and a shroudis woven [afterwards]for the corpse? He said to him, Yes, as with the corpses of Harpania.34 1: Rava'sandAbbaye'srulingshere are formulatedcasuistically;35these rulings discuss weaving shroudsand not the legal statusof designation.By contrast, the Talmud'sexplanationsof these rulings, which are formulatedin Aramaicand appearafterrepetitionof the originalcasuistic rulings in (1)a, were apparentlynot formulatedby amoraim,but by the anonymousstratumof the Talmud.36Interestingly, the only otherpartof this sugya (15) in which amoraimparticipatedirectly ple in general ... ," suggesting thatthe Mishnahrefersto the collection of money (the usual object of "collection"in tannaiticHebrew), althoughthis argumentis not conclusive, as the object of "collection" in at least one tannaiticpassage is food; see t'Er2.15 (ed. Lieberman,p. 97, accordingto MS Vienna;the strangereadingof MSS Erfurtand London in this passage,gibbu, might reflect some sort of attemptto deal with this linguistic anomaly).See our comments on this section below. 33. Lit. "utensils"(kelim), although the context (see especially below, 15) suggests this term should be rendered"garments"(cf. Rashi). 34. This partof the sugya is followed by a disputeaboutwhetherAbbaye'sor Rava'sview is accepted. However,we do not cite this partof the discussion here, as it does not seem to contributeanything to our understandingof the literaryor conceptualcharacterof oursugya. 35. Here and throughoutthis paper,I use the term casuistic to referto case law. For this use of the term see Moscovitz, TalmudicReasoning, pp. 1-3. 36. Cf. Jacobs, TheTalmudicArgument,pp. 122-123. (Forthe shift of languageand the use of resumptiverepetitionas criteria for identifying post-amoraicmaterial in BT, see ShammaYehudah

235

Leib Moscovitz in the discussion (as opposed to merely glossing tannaiticsources;however,such glosses might not have originatedin the course of the present discussion)37also deals with weaving shrouds,and not with the legal status of designation.38Thus, almost this entiresugya is anonymousand probablypostamoraic.39Nevertheless, for the sake of brevity we shall generallyrefer to the principlesthat "designation is/is not significant"as Abbaye'sand Rava'sviewpoints,ratherthan as viewpoints attributedto these scholarsby the Talmud. 2: The "sourcecase" of eglah 'arufahproposedto supportAbbaye'sviewis point problematicin variousways, althoughnone of these considerations,individually or collectively,demonstratesthatthis case is an invalidprooftext.(Recall that significant disparitiesbetween analogueand inferendumare not uncommon in analogies, Bible-based or other, in rabbinicliterature.)First, the Talmud'sassumption that a heifer is prohibitedthrough designation-actually, through entranceinto an unsownwadi-is disputed.40Thus, Rav rules elsewhere(bKar24b) that such a heifer is prohibitedonly after its neck is broken,implying that designationis not effective, althoughRav Hamnunadisagrees(ibid.). Accordingly,this case can hardly prove that designation is significant, although Abbaye (or the anonymousauthorswho suggestedthis case as a source or prooftextfor his viewpoint)presumablyadoptedRav Hamnuna'sviewpoint(or a similarnotion). Indeed, it is noteworthythat no explicit literarysource, tannaiticor amoraic, is adduced here to provethat a heifer is prohibitedeven before its neck is broken,althoughit is possible that some tannaiticsources indirectlysupportthis view.41 Likewise,thereis an importantdifferencebetweenthe designationof a heifer and the types of designationdiscussed in the beginning of our passage and elseFriedman,"PereqHa-IshahRabbahBa-Bavli,"in MehqarimU-Meqorot,vol. 1, ed. H. Z. Dimitrovsky [New York:Jewish Theological Seminary], pp. 301-303.) Interestingly,while amoraic discussions aboutvarioustypes of designationappearelsewhere in BT (see e.g. bBer 26b and parallelsand bShab 50a), these passages do not explicitly mentionthe principlethat"designationis significant."This principle is mentionedin three other BT sugyot (bBer 23b, bMeg 26b, and bMen 34b), althoughit is not explicitly attributedto amoraimin any of these passages. 37. Forexample, Ulla's comment on 13 (not cited here) might not be a response to the anonymous objectionin the previous stage of the discussion, but an attemptto accountfor the "logical"difficulty which R. Shimonb. Gamaliel'sdistinctionraises, namely,whatdifferencedoes it make whether the garmentstouchedthe grave or not. 38. The attributed-and casuistic--sections of the sugya, (1) and (15), form a sort of inclusio, althoughthis might be sheer coincidence, ratherthanthe resultof intentionalliterarydevice. 39. Following the general, though admittedly not universal, scholarly consensus about the chronologicalprovenanceof most of the anonymousmaterialin BT. See Friedman,"PereqHa-Ishah Rabbah,"pp. 283-300, and the literaturecited there;the introductionsto David Halivni, Meqorot UMasorot,Shabbat(Jerusalem:The JewishTheological Seminary,1982), pp. 5-27, and idem, Meqorot U-Masorot,Bava Qamma(Jerusalem:Magnes, 1993), pp. 7-21; Sussmann,"Ve-Shuv,"pp. 108-109, n. 204, and the literaturecited there;and especially Friedman,TalmudcArukh, pp. 16-18, 22-23, and the referencesthere.For a contraryview see RobertBrody, TheGeonimofBabylonia and the Shaping ofMedieval Jewish Culture(New Haven:Yale UniversityPress, 1998), p. 6, n. 12. 40. This point was alreadynoted by the medieval commentators;see e.g. Tosafot ad loc., s.v. mai ta ama. 41. See mQid 2.9 and especially mHul 5.3, and cf. the talmudicdiscussions of these mishnayot. Forpost-tannaiticsupportfor this viewpoint, see n. 42.

236

"Designation is Significant" where in this sugya. Abbayeand Ravadiscuss designationperformedby manufacturinga certainobject (shrouds)for a particularpurpose.Designationof a heifer, however,is performedby having an existing object, the animal, enteran unsown wadi.42And althoughit might be arguedthatthis distinctionis insignificant,since it is clearthata heifer is forbiddenwithoutactualuse, implyingthatdesignationis significant,it is noteworthythatmere purchaseof a heifer for use as an ceglahCarufahdoes not seem to renderit prohibitedaccordingto any of the extantsources.43 Thus, even if we assumethatthe law of ceglahearufahis basedon or otherwiseparadigmaticallyreflectsa generalprincipleaboutthe legal statusof designation,rather than local (exegetical?)44considerations,this case cannot prove that all sorts of designationare halakhicallysignificant.At best, it suggests that certaintypes of designationare significant.45Needless to say,adoptingsuch a viewpointwould effectively neutralizemany and perhapsmost of the objectionsraised in our sugya. 3: The source case adducedhere to supportRava'sviewpoint is also problematic (although,once again, the difficulties do not warrantautomaticdismissal of this case). Here as in the previouspartof the sugya, no explicit literarysource is adducedto supportthe Talmud'sassumptionthatidols (or appurtenancesof idol worship;see below) arenot forbiddenthroughdesignation.Indeed,examiningpossible sources suggests thatall of these sources are objectionable.One such source, a baraitafound in the Toseftaand cited elsewhere in the Talmud,46was suggested

by Rashi:47 hassaidnoththiscupis foridolatry" Onewhosays"Thishouseis foridolatry, ing, for there is no consecration for idolatry [ein heqdesh la-'avodah zarah].

However,furtherscrutinysuggests thatthis passage does not necessarilyimply thatdesignationfor idolatroususe is insignificant.Thus,variousothertannaitic sources indicatethatdesignationfor idolatroususe is halakhicallysignificant. For example, m'AZ 3.7: Therearethree[typesof] houses:a houseoriginallybuiltforidolatryis prohibited... Therearethree[typesof] stones:a stoneoriginallyhewed[toserve ... as] a pedestal[bimos]is prohibited 42. See ySot 9.6, 24a and bQid 57a and parallels. 43. This is implied fairly clearlyby all of the talmudicsources which state thatthe heifer'sentranceinto the wadi prohibitsit (see the previousnote), and it is statedexplicitly in bQid 57a. 44. See ySot 9.6, 24a, the only extant source that explains why a heifer is prohibitedafter entering the wadi. 45. The idea that only certaintypes of designationare effective-and, more specifically, that designation at too early a stage is ineffective-seems to be adopted later on in the sugya ("is there anyone who holds that spinning yarn for weaving [is forbidden],"not cited above); cf. R. Abraham Bornstein, She'elot U-TeshuvotAvnei Nezer, OrahHavyim (reprinted., New York, 1954), ?493:15, pp. 124a-b. 46. See bIAZ44b, and cf. t'AZ 5.10 (ed. Zuckermandel,p. 469) = tTem 5.3 (ed. Zuckermandel, p. 555); here I translatethe baraita from BT. 47. This source was alreadysuggested in two passages in She'iltotde-RavAhai; see the references above, n. 26.

237

Leib Moscovitz And similarlyin t`AZ6.2 (ed. Zuckermandel,p. 469): If onedesignates[meyahed] his houseforidolatry,theentire[house]renders is effective]. peopleunclean[implyingthatdesignation Moreover,numeroustannaiticsourcesindicatethatan animaldesignatedfor idol worship(muqseh)but not yet worshippedis prohibitedin the same way as an animalwhich had actuallybeen worshipped(ne'evad).48Accordingly,it seems that the principleunderlyingthe baraitacited by Rashi (assuming, of course, that this baraitadoes not contradictor disagree with the other sources)49is not that designation for idolatroususe is not significant, but that one particularkind of idolatrous designation is insignificant-designating an existing object for idolatrous use ("consecrationfor idolatry").By contrast,othertypes of designationfor idolatroususe-for example, manufacturingobjects for idolatroususe, which resembles weaving shrouds much more closely than the case discussed in the baraita adducedby Rashi-presumably would be consideredsignificant and rendersuch objectsprohibited.50 And while it might be arguedthatthis baraitaprovesthatcertain types of idolatrous designation are not significant, adopting this approach wouldpose seriousproblemsto whatseems to be the thrustof the sugya as a whole, namely,that designationper se, no matterhow and on what it is performed,is not significant accordingto Rava. An alternativesource for the Talmud'sassumptionhere that idolatrousdesignation is ineffective might be found in m'AZ 4.4 (accordingto the Palestinian readingin this Mishnah),althoughfurtherscrutinyreveals thatthis source,too, is problematic.51The Mishnahstates: Theidolof a non-Jewis prohibited andthatof a Jew[only]afimmediately, terit wasworshipped.

48. See e.g. mZev 8.1, mTem6.1, and very frequently.While the Tosefta(tiAZ 5.9 [ed. Zuckermandel,p. 469]) statesthatan object is consideredmuqsehonly if it is subjectedto some sortof physical action or change (mere verbal declarationdoes not suffice), actual idolatrous worship is not necessaryto prohibitthe animal.Forfurtherdiscussion of these rulings,many of which seem to reflect contemporaryrealia, see Saul Lieberman,Hellenism in Jewish Palestine (New York:JewishTheological Seminaryof America, 1962), pp. 147-152. 49. Significantly,the Talmudexplains lateron (in part of the passage not translatedhere) that Abbaye would reject Rava'sargumentbecause "we derive [the law concerning]somethingcustomary from something customary,excluding idolatry,which is not customary,"and not because Abbaye relies on alternativeand conflicting prooftexts. 50. Note that the baraita cited by Rashi refers to verbal designation of an existing object, in contrast to the case discussed in the beginning of the sugya--manufacturing clothing to serve as shrouds.Cf. R. Jacob Ettlinger,cArukhLa-Ner (Warsaw,1873), 30b, s.v. be-hazmanah. 51. To the best of my knowledge, no commentatorexplicitly maintainsthat our sugya alludes to this source. Note, however,the interestingobservationsof R. Akiba Eiger, TeshuvotRabbiAkiba Eiger (Warsaw,1834), MahadurahQamma,#3, s.v. ve-nir'eh(3b). See also the interestingsuggestion of R. Shlomo Ganzfried,Qeset Ha-Sofer,LishkatHa-Sofer (reprinted., Benei Braq, 1961), 48c, note gimmel.

238

"Designationis Significant" The parallel Toseftanpassage (t'AZ 5.3 [ed. Zuckermandel,p. 468]) preserves a conflicting tradition: If a Jewmadean idol,it is forbiddeneventhoughit wasnotworshipped ... If a non-Jewmadean idol,it is permitted untilit wasworshipped. Without entering a detailed discussion of these passages, their text-traditions, and parallels,52one thing is clear:the legal statusof an idol which was designated but not yet worshipped depends upon who made the idol, a Jew or a non-Jew,and not just on whetherthe idol was merely designatedor actually worshipped.53Indeed,all of the tannaiticsources seem to agree thatundercertaincircumstances, manufactureof an object for idolatrous use renders it prohibited. Thus, this source, too, can hardlyprovethatdesignation,even idolatrousdesignation, is insignificant. A thirdpossibility, which seems at least at first sight to be somewhat less problematicthan the othertwo, is suggested by the next part of the sugya (4), according to which Rava's source case deals with appurtenancesfor idol worship ratherthanactualidols. Accordingto this interpretation,the term'avodahzarah in (3) should not be interpretedas "idol"(assuming, of course, that (3) and (4) are the handiworkof the same authoror reflect the same approach),54as suggestedby the plain sense of this term,55but as "idolatry,"and hence, by extension, as referring to appurtenancesfor idol worship. However,this suggestion is also problematic.First,its clear implicationthat 52. See David Rosenthal, "Mishnah 'AvodahZarah: MahadurahBiqqortit Be-seruf Mavo," Ph.D. thesis (Jerusalem, 1981), pp. 175-178, and ChristineElizabethHayes,Between the Babylonian and Palestinian Talmuds(New Yorkand Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress, 1997), pp. 35-42. 53. Some rabbinicpassages base this distinction on biblical exegesis; see y'AZ 4.4, 43d and b'AZ 52a. The view that idols manufacturedby gentiles are prohibitedimmediately,even before they were used,can also be accountedfor on logical grounds:gentiles mightbe assumedto seriouslyrespect the idols they manufacture,and hence such idols are prohibitedimmediately.By contrast,Jews might have been assumedto treatsuch objects as devoid of value or even with contemptuntil proven otherwise, viz., by actualworship.(A variationon this possibility-gentiles, unlike Jews, presumablyworship idols immediately after manufacturingthem-is highly implausible for various reasons; see alreadythe objection of R. Jose in y'AZ 4.4, 43d, and see furtherEphraimE. Urbach,"Hilkhot'Avodah ZarahVe-Ha-Mesi'utHa-ArcheologitVe-Ha-HistoritBa-Me'ah Ha-SheniyyahU-Va-Me'ahHaShelishit,"Eres Israel 5 [1958]: 193 and n. 39 = idem, Me-'OlamamShel Hakhamim[Jerusalem: Magnes, 1988], pp. 137-138 and n. 39, and GeraldBlidstein, "Nullification of Idolatryin Rabbinic Law,"PAAJR41-42 [1973-1974]: 15-16 and n. 44.) However,it is difficult to find any logical explanationfor the opposite view, accordingto which idols manufacturedby Jews are prohibitedimmediately afterthey manufacturedand before they are used. 54. It is no by means clear that this is the case, even thoughboth partsof the sugya are anonymous. For similar possibilities in connection with other BT sugyot, see Friedman,TalmudcArukh, p. 419, s.v. ba'al gemara sheni. See also our commentson (4) for evidence thatthe argumenttherewas not acceptedby the author(s)of otherpartsof our sugya. 55. See also RabbenuHananelad loc.: "Rava... drew a verbal analogy from avodah zarah: just as eavodah zarah is not prohibitedthroughdesignationuntil it is worshipped...," implying that "avodahzarah refers to the idol ratherthan to an appurtenance.However,this might be an expanded paraphraseof the Talmudratherthan a verbatimcitation;note that no such readingis found in any of the extantwitnesses to the text.

239

Leib Moscovitz only the designationof appurtenancesis insignificant accordingto Rava'sviewpoint, but not the designationof objectswith intrinsiclegal status,seems to be contradicted by other parts of the sugya.56 Moreover, although two anonymous passages in BT state thatthe designationof appurtenancesfor idol worshipis not effective," this notion is contradictedby the plain sense of at least one tannaitic ruling.58Thus, the stone mentionedin m`AZ3.7 and claimed thereto be prohibited through designation (see above) is described as a bimos59-ostensibly, a pedestal for the idol, and hence an appurtenanceratherthan an object which is itself worshipped!60Likewise, it is clear fromPT'sdiscussionof this Mishnah(yCAZ 3.10, 43b) that such a stone is considered an appurtenance.61To be sure, some sages in PT (the matteris disputedthere)62apparentlymaintainthat designation of appurtenancesfor idol worshipis ineffective, and hence these sages had to explain away the relevantmishnaic rulings, althoughthese explanationsclearly do not reflect the plain sense of the relevanttannaiticsources. 4: As indicatedabove and noted by variouscommentators,63the discussion here implies that, accordingto Rava'sviewpoint, only the designationof appurtenances is insignificant, and not the designationof objects with intrinsiclegal status.64Now, most of the designatedobjects discussed in our sugya are apparently 56. See our commentson (4). 57. See b'AZ 19b and 52b. This is also the overwhelmingconsensus of the medievalcommentators,who, not surprisingly,adoptthe approachespoused by all of the relevantBT passages; see the sources cited in Moshe Goldstein, ed., HiddusheiHa-Ritba,'AvodahZarah (Jerusalem:Mossad Harav Kook, 1978), cols. 220-221, n. 249. For a contraryview see R. Abrahamben David, Perush cAl Massekhet?AvodahZarah,ed. AbrahamSofer (New York, 1960), p. 114 (and cf. n. 47, ibid.). 58. The MishnaicandToseftanpassagescited aboveaboutdesignationof houses (m'AZ3.7 and parallels) also seem to imply that designation of appurtenancesis effective, althoughthese passages could be explained with difficulty as referringto houses which are themselves worshipped;see e.g. y'AZ 3.9, 43b and parallels. 59. So all directwitnesses to the Mishnah'stext here (with trivialorthographicvariants,which need not concern us here); see Rosenthal,"Mishnah'AvodahZarah"(text), p. 48. Some indirectwitnesses apparentlyreadla-'avod ("toworship")-see Meiri, AvodahZarah,p. 169 and n. 11 there-althoughthis readingseems secondary,andwas presumablymotivatedby the desire to bringthe Mishnah into conformancewith BT's view that appurtenancesfor idol worship are only prohibitedafter they were used (see above, and cf. the next note). 60. The contraryinterpretationof variousmedievals (see e.g. Tosafot on b'AZ 47b, s.v. bayit) is extremely forced. Note that this suggestion is not based on any sort of textual or philological evidence, but on the desire to bring the ruling of the Mishnahinto conformancewith the Talmud'saforementionedposition about designation. 61. See e.g. Mar'ehHa-Panimad loc., s.v. ha-mattikh. 62. See the aforementionedPT sugya, and note the remarksof R. Eleazar cited in y'AZ 3.9, 43b, which seem to imply that a house is an "appurtenance"(a place for storing idols). 63. See e.g. the sourcesanddiscussion in BerurHalakhah,in TalmudBavlicImHalakhahBerurah... MassekhetSanhedrin(Jerusalem:MakhonHalakhahBerurahU-VerurHalakhah,1991), p. 147, ?2 (the list there is incomplete), and see furtheribid., ?3. 64. Interestingly,PT does not seem to distinguishbetween the designation of appurtenances (e.g., an ark for a Torahscroll) and of objects with intrinsicsanctity (e.g., ministeringvessels): these cases are discussed in proximityin yMeg and yNed, albeit without drawinginferences from one case to another.On the otherhand,PT does drawinferencesfromthe designationof an arkfor a Torahscroll (appurtenances)to designationof an area for use as a synagogue (see the beginning of the aforemen-

240

"Designationis Significant" appurtenances(shroudsfor the dead,gravesfor burial,etc.), but the last case (14ab) almost certainlyrefers to objects with intrinsicsanctity:leatheror parchment for phylacteries.65Thus, this last case seems to contradictthe upshotof the sugya here.66 5: This prooftext,which deals with the puritylaws, is particularlyproblematic. First,it is surprisingthatthis source-the only one cited here that deals with the puritylaws-was adducedinsteadof other,clearerand more explicit passages dealing with these laws.67 Thus, mKel 25.9, the locus classicus about this issue, states: All utensils descend [=become susceptible]to ritual impuritythrough to] ritualimpuritythrough thought,buttheyonlyascendfrom[susceptibility physicalchange. This Mishnahis muchmore explicit aboutthe statusof designationandutensil impuritythanthe source cited in our sugya, and also drawsan importantdistinction which is overlookedby oursugya: thatdesignationthroughthoughtis effective for renderingutensils susceptibleto impurity,althoughsuch designationis not effective for renderingutensils insusceptibleto impurity. Even more problematicis the assumptionunderlyingthe Talmud'sobjection also (cf. 6-7) that the case discussed here entails designation and not use. Presumably,this interpretationwas promptedby the odd phraseology of the baraita-netanattu le-, lit. "placed/gave for,"and hence (presumably)"designated." However,this interpretationof the phraseseems untenable,68as this usage of ntn tioned PT sugyot), and a synagogue was apparentlydeemed by at least some rabbisto possess intrinsic sanctity,althoughthis point requiresfurtheranalysis. See generally Steven Fine, ThisHoly Place: On the Sanctityof the SynagogueDuring the Greco-RomanPeriod (Notre Dame: Universityof Notre Dame Press, 1997), andthe summaryof previousscholarshipin Lee I. Levine, TheAncientSynagogue: The First ThousandYears(New Haven & London:Yale University Press, 2000), pp. 185-188, 220221 (and see now the interestingobservationsof Seth Schwartz,Imperialismand Jewish Society, 200 B.C.E. to 650 C.E. [Princetonand Oxford:PrincetonUniversityPress, 2001], pp. 236-237). 65. It is not fully clear whetherthe baraita refers to the phylacteryparchments(parashiyyot), straps,or leatherboxes (cf. YadRamah, s.v. ta shema amar, 47c). However,accordingto all of these possibilities the leather is presumablyintrinsicallysacred and not just an appurtenance(against Yad Ramah, ibid.; see furtherBerurHalakhah,p. 148). 66. Interestingly,some commentatorsmaintainthat Ravahimself might not have distinguished betweenappurtenancesand objectswith intrinsicsanctity(or othertypes of intrinsiclegal status).Thus, Nahmanides(above,n. 4) suggests thatonly wherethe biblical text uses the wordsham, as in the cases discussed in 2-3, does Rava maintainthat designationof objects with intrinsichalakhicstatus is effective. See also R. NaftaliZvi YehudahBerlin,Ha'ameqShe'alah(reprinted.; Jerusalem:Mossad Harav Kook, 1967), Huqqat, ?133, nn. 7 (3:116a-b) and 9 (118b), and cf. ibid., Vayyaqhel,?67, n. 28 (1:444b) and Shelah ?126, n. 8 (3:52b), and the comments on Rashi of R. Shlomo Ganzfried,Qeset Ha-Sofer, 48c, note gimmel. 67. For designationand utensil impurity,see e.g. mKel 20.4 and 26.5-9. For other aspects of designationand the puritylaws, see e.g. the tannaiticdiscussions of designationof a door for taking a corpse out of a room (m'Ahil7.3, etc.), disqualificationoflustral water(mPar9.4), andrenderingfoodstuffs susceptibleor insusceptibleto impurity(mToh8.6, etc.). 68. This difficulty might be resolved by assumingthata differentline of argumentation,which

241

Leib Moscovitz le- is linguisticallyawkwardand all but unattestedin tannaiticliterature(ordinarily this expressionmeans "give to," as suggested by a literalinterpretationof this phrase).69 6: The Talmud'sattemptedresolution of the objection from the baraita in (5) is problematicfor two reasons. First, accordingto the suggested emendation the baraitarequires both designation and use, and thus seems to disagree with both Abbaye'sand Rava'sviewpoints! Second, the objection raised in the previous part of the sugya could have been resolved by a much simpler, less radical, and almost self-evident emendationfrom le- to Cal,alteringthe presumedmeaning of this text from "designatedfor" to "placed on." Why then did the Talmud suggest such an extremeand seemingly unnecessaryreconstructionof the baraita in 5? 8: Part(b) of this statement,accordingto which Abbayeholds thatuse without prior designation has no effect, is problematic:why should we assume that Abbaye holds this? Abbaye'soriginalruling aboutshroudsproves only that designation is effective,but not thatdesignationis necessary to confer a particularlegal status, and there is no need to adopt such a position to resolve difficulties occurring anywhereelse in the sugya. 10: Precisely what sort of collection is meant here is not fully clear.70If the Mishnah refers to money for funeral expenses (which seems to be the plain sense of our passage), then this source seems to contradictthe Talmud'searlier assertion (not cited above) that "spinning yarn for weaving" is not forbidden, i.e., that designation at too preliminary a stage is insignificant according to all opinions.71 Moreover,the plain sense of the Mishnah(as reflected,interalia, by the context in which this Mishnahappears;see mSheq 2.3-5) suggests thatthis ruling is not based on some sort of principle about the legal status of designation,but on ideas abouthow money allocatedby a donor for charityor other expenses should be disbursed-in otherwords,abouthow the donor'sintentionsshouldbe assessed and honored.72This interpretationof our Mishnahis supportedby the relationship was somehow corruptedin the process of transmission,originally appearedin the talmudic text: the Talmudmight have adducedthe baraitato prove that designationis insufficient,as only actualuse of the veil (i.e., placing it on the scroll, following the readingof all witnesses to the text of mKel 28.5, netano cal)purifies it. If this reconstructionis correct,however,we are left with a very severe and seemingly insoluble problem:how and why did our currentversion of the Talmud,which clearly interprets this baraita differently(as provenby the following discussion), originate? 69. See e.g. mMS 4.7, mYom4.3, mBQ 8.1, andfrequently.However,ntn le- in the passivevoice (not used in our source) sometimesmeans "[be] designated/setapart";see especially mShevi 6.10, and see furthermShevi 8.2 and mMS 2.1, althougheven passive forms of ntn le- frequentlymean "be given to." 70. See n. 32. 71. See the medievals ad loc., some of whom attemptto distinguish between designation of money in this case and "spinningyarn for weaving"mentioned above. However,their proposed distinctions are not very convincing. 72. Cf. HiddusheiHa-Ranon bSan48a, s.v. motar(althoughhe suggests this interpretationonly with regardto motarha-metim,not motarha-met),and R. AbrahamIsaiahKarelitz,HazonIsh, Tohorot (Benei Beraq, 1974), Ohalot 22:31, s.v. sanhedrin,pp. 94-95.

242

"Designation is Significant" between the two clauses of this passage. The first clause states that leftover money designatedfor the dead must be used for other deadpeople, implying that designation is significant73(assuming,of course, thatthe issue underlyingthis ruling is the legal statusof designation);otherwise,one would presumablybe allowedto use the money as one wishes. By contrast,the second clause seems to imply that designationis not significant,for herethe surplusmaybe used by the heirs. In light of this apparentcontradiction(which our sugya totally disregards),it seems that the issue underlyingour Mishnahis not the status of designation,but a different problem:how to honorthe donor'swishes when his contribution(or partof it) turns out to be unnecessary. This partof the sugya presentsyet anotherdifficulty.A baraita74in the next of part the sugya (not cited here) presentsviews thatdisagreewith the view of the anonymousfirst tanna cited here, which ostensiblyassumes (if interpretedin light of the sugya's assumptionthatthe issue at stakehere is whetherdesignationis significant) thatdesignationis significant!Accordingly,the questionarises:why did the Talmudraise an objectionfromourMishnahanddispose of it throughan oqimta (again, not cited above), when there are ostensibly no groundsfor objection in the first place-Rava's and Abbaye'sviewpoints correspondto the views of the differenttannaimin the baraita! Further,should it be arguedthat the sugya preferred to explain each amoraicview accordingto all tannaiticprecedents,as the Talmuddoes indeedsuggest furtheron, this suggestiontoo is problematic.The Talmud ultimately(14) seems75to explainthatthe disputebetweenAbbayeand Rava correspondsto an earliertannaiticdispute,albeit one thataccountsonly with great difficulty for the post-tannaiticdispute about the status of designation.76Therefore, if the Talmudwas willing to assume that the debate between Rava and Abbaye had tannaitic antecedents, why not find such antecedents in a more appropriatepassage, mSheq 2.5?77 11:As noted in our commentson the PT parallels,throwingutensils or garments at a grave does not seem to entail either designationor use; the issue here seems to be whetheror what sort of proximityto a grave rendersutensils prohibited. This interpretationseems to be supportedby R. Simeon b. Gamaliel'scomment in (13) about clothing touching the bier (although the legal basis of this comment is explaineddifferentlyfurtheron by oursugya): if the criterionfor prohibiting such clothing is designation, it should make no difference whether the clothingtouchedthe bier or not; in both cases the garmentswere designated!Likewise, it is difficult to construemere contactwith the bier as use, suggesting, once 73. Cf. HiddusheiHa-Ran, ibid., althoughhis attemptto distinguishbetween the first and second clauses here is unconvincing. 74. While this source is quite similar to the continuationof the Mishnah cited here, it is not identical to the Mishnah (see Epstein, Mavo, pp. 832, 857, 952), althoughthe exact identity of this source is not critical for purposesof the presentdiscussion. 75. I phrasemattersthis way in light of Nahmanides'interpretationof this passage; see text at n. 82. 76. See our comments on (14a-b). 77. I am not claiming, of course, thatthe basis of the disputein mSheq 2.5 is whetherdesignation is halakhicallysignificant;my point is simply thatthe disputein mSheq 2.5 accountsfor the posttannaiticdisputeaboutdesignationmuch betterthan the debate in (14a-b).

243

Leib Moscovitz again, thatthe issue underlyingthe tannaiticrulingshere is the legal statusof contact or proximity,and not designationversus use. 14: This is probably the most problematic part of the sugya, and indeed the medieval commentariesdisagree about which tannaiticview supportswhich amoraicview.Accordingto Rashi andothers,78 the first tannaof ourbaraitamaintains that intentionis not necessary when tanningleatherfor phylacteries(at least de facto) because designation is insignificant.According to this view, the intention mentionedhere (li-shemah) is a form of designation,and "designationis insignificant"heremeans thatdesignationis unnecessary,in contrastto the meaning of this principleelsewhere in our sugya, thatdesignationis ineffective. RabbenuTam79and other medievals, however,maintainthat R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, like Rava, holds that designationis insignificant.According to this interpretation,properintentionfor tanning(li-shemah)and designation(hazmanah) are distinct concepts. Precisely how and why the insignificance of "designation" necessitates properintentionaccordingto this view is not fully clear, althoughit has been suggestedthatboth of the views in the baraitawould agree with Rav Hisda in 7 thatboth designationand use are necessary,andthatthe leathermentioned here was somehow designatedfor sacreduse (but not throughproperintentionfor tanning), even though no mention of such designation is made here.s80Thus, the anonymousfirst tanna (14a) holds that designationis significant, and hence furtherintentionis unnecessary,whereasRabbanSimeonben Gamalielmaintainsthat the initial unmentioneddesignationwas ineffective, renderingsubsequentintention for tanningnecessary.Of course, this interpretationis extremelyproblematic, for if designationis ineffective, it is extremelydifficult to understandhow intention can substitutefor it. Likewise, while Rav Hisda maintainsthat designationis ineffective on its own, he agrees thatit is effective in conjunctionwith action;why then should designationcum action be differentin our case?8' A thirdexplanationof this partof the sugya is offeredby Nahmanides.82He suggests that both views in the baraita can be explained accordingto either the viewpoint that designationis significant or that it is insignificant.Thus, the Talmud'sassertionin (14) that"thisis the subjectof a tannaiticdispute"does not mean 78. This interpretationwas already adopted in a geonic responsum (apparentlyby Rav Hai Gaon, citing Rav Moshe Gaon); see Osar Ha-Ge'onim,Shabbat,ed. B. M. Lewin (Jerusalem, 1930), p. 77 (Responsa), ?250. (See also ibid., p. 75, althoughthe readingof the text thereis somewhatproblematic;see nn. 4 and 5 ad loc.) 79. Cited in Tosafot on bSan 48b, s.v. af 'al pi, and subsequentlyin other medieval commentaries.This view seems to have been acceptedby RabbenuHananelin his commentaryad loc., which states that Rava'sview correspondsto RabbanSimeon b. Gamaliel's,althoughRabbenuHananeldoes not explain explain how or why these views correspond.Significantly,the advocatesof this interpretation did not base it on logical difficulties with Rashi'sexplanation(see below), but on the contradiction between Rava's viewpoint, which was assumed to be halakhicallybinding (see bQid 52a and parallels),and anothertalmudicsugya, which seems to rule in accordancewith R. Simeon b. Gamaliel. 80. This interpretationof RabbenuTam'sexplanationis found in YadRamahad loc. (47c), s.v. ta shema 'amar. 81. These difficulties were alreadynoted by YadRamah,ibid. (althoughhis attemptto resolve them is quite forced);cf. R. Abrahamb. Azriel, cAruggatHa-Bosem, 2:45. 82. MilhamotHashem on bSuk 9a, 4b in the printededitions ofAlfasi.

244

"Designation is Significant" that Rava follows one tanna and Abbaye the other,but that the objection to Abbaye'sview raisedfrom a baraita in the previouspartof the sugya (not cited here) can be solved by assuming that Abbaye accepts the view of Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel in 14b, who presumablydisagrees with the baraita cited in the previous partof the discussion.Accordingto this interpretation,Abbayewould hold thatR. Simeon b. Gamalielrequiresproperintentionwhen tanningleatherfor phylacteries because designation is significant. Thus, Nahmanides' interpretationof Abbaye'sposition is essentiallyequivalentto Rashi'sinterpretationof the sugya.83By contrast,Rava would maintainthat our baraita proves nothing about the significance or insignificance of designation: even according to Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel, the need for properintentionwhen tanning leatherreflects a different principle,namely,thatintentionis necessarywhenpreparingritualobjects.84However, thereis no connectionbetween this principleand the issue of the legal status of designationas discussed elsewhere in our sugya, that is, that designationconfers ritualstatuson an object which has not yet been used. Nahmanides'interpretationdrawsour attentionto a critical and seemingly insolubleproblemwith this partof the sugya, a problemthat, in the final analysis, arises accordingto all interpretationsof our sugya. The issue in 14a-b is whether intention/designationis necessary, in contrastto the issue addressedin the rest of this sugya-whether designationis effective,that is, whetherit confers the same status as use. Thus, both of the views in this baraita, and certainlyR. Simeon b. Gamaliel'sview (accordingto Nahmanides'interpretationof Abbaye),seem totally irrelevantto the originaldebateaboutwhetherdesignationis significant!85(Significantly, another sugya that discusses our baraita, bMen 42b, explains this baraita in light of the notion thatproperintention[li-shemah]is necessary,without even alludingto the questionof whetherdesignationis significant.)86This difficulty is compoundedby the fact that of all the sources adducedin our passage, this baraitawas chosen to conclude the argumentationin oursugya andtherebyto resolve the questionof whetherdesignationis significant, even thoughthis baraita is the only source in this entire passage which does not addressthe issue analyzed in the rest of the sugya: is designationeffective or not.

IV The variousdifficulties in our sugya can be accountedfor by a combination of conceptualand literaryfactors.The role of conceptualconsiderationsis obvi83. Nahmanideshimself suggests thateven the first tanna in (14a) could agree thatdesignation is significant.Thus,the first tannamight disagreewith RabbanSimeon b. Gamalielbecausethis scholar holds thatthe necessary intention(li-shemah)can be suppliedeven afterthe leatheris tanned.However, the conceptual basis of the first tanna's ruling is of secondary importancefor purposes of the present discussion, and hence we do not consider this issue at greaterlength here. 84. See also R. Abrahamb. David,KatuvSham (Jerusalem:MakhonLe-HeqerKitvei Yad'Al Shem MaranHa-HatamSofer Zatzal, 1990), on bSuk 9a, pp. 76-77. 85. Cf. Friedmann,She'elat David, s.v. u-ve-vo'enu,p. 3b, and R. Chaim Soloveitchik, Hiddushei RabbenuChaimHa-Levi 'AlHa-Rambam(Brisk, 1936), HilkhotTefillin 1:11, 3d, s.v. ve-hinneh. Note also Nahmanides'sinterpretationof R. Simeon b. Gamaliel'sview (see text at n. 83). 86. Friedmann,She'elat David, s.v. od sham, p. 3b, commentingon the discrepancybetween these passages, apparentlyholds that they disagree.

245

Leib Moscovitz ous: here, as elsewherein BT, legal principlesare assumedto applyto variedlegal rulings from differentand seemingly unrelatedlegal domains,even if such rulings can be explainedjust as well, if not more convincinglyon othergrounds.The creators of such sugyot, with their "grandunified theory"approachto conceptualization(whateverthe reasonsfor adoptingit may havebeen) thuspreferredto lump as many cases as possible undera single heading,ratherthan distinguishingsuch cases from one anotherand explainingthem on the basis of narrower,essentially localized considerations. Nevertheless, this proclivity for broad-based,wide-rangingconceptualization cannot account for all of the problematicaspects of the sugya, such as the problematicsource abouthead-coveringsin (5) and the equallyproblematictreatment of this case; the location and analysisof mSheq 2.5; and especiallythe baraita in (14)a-b. These aspects of the sugya are better accounted for by literary considerations. Two possible explanations of why the baraita in (5) was discussed may be considered. This baraita might have been chosen precisely because it was one of the most problematic, least explicit, and "out of the way" sources available. In other words, this source might have been adduced to display intellectual virtuosity for its own sake, a phenomenon frequently encountered in BT, as noted both by classical commentators and modern scholars, who termed this phenomenon "magnifyingand aggrandizingthe Torah"(le-hagdil torah u-le-ha'adirah).87 However,anotherfactor might have played a role in the Talmud'sdecision to cite this source.The artificialityof both the objectionfrom this baraitaand the emendationproposedto solve it suggest that the objection might have been dictated by the answerratherthan vice versa.Thus, the Talmudmight have sought a tannaiticantecedentfor Rav Hisda'sruling, which is ostensibly at odds with both Abbaye'sandRava'sviewpoints"8andunsupportedby any othertannaiticruling.89 Such an antecedentwas found-or, perhapsmore accurately,created-through 87. See generallyDavid Rosenthal,"PirqaDe-Abbaye,"Tarbis47 (1977): p. 100 n. 13; Friedman, "PereqHa-IshahRabbah,"pp. 327-329; David Halivni, Midrash,Mishnah,and Gemara(Cambridge,Mass., and London:HarvardUniversityPress, 1986), pp. 87-89; ShammaYehudahFriedman, Talmud4Arukh, Pereq Ha-SokherEt Ha-Ummanin:Ha-Perush (Jerusalem:The Jewish Theological Seminary, 1990), p. 2, nn. 4, 6; Sussmann,"Ve-Shuv,"p. 99 n. 184; and the literaturecited in all of these works.Note also the suggestive observationsof AbrahamGoldberg,"HitpattehutHa-SugyaBaTalmudHa-BavliU-Meqoroteha,"Tarbis32 (1963): 144. 88. A similardifficulty was noted by R. Meir Ha-LeviAbulafia, YadRamahon bSan 48a, s.v. u-mefareqinan(46d-47a in the standardeditions of this work;cf. also ibid. 47a, s.v. ta shema qever). Even though the designationof idols (or idolatrousappurtenances)without use is ineffective according to Rava, idolatrousworshipwithout designationis effective; on what basis, then, should a combinationof designationanduse be requiredby Rav Hisdawhen dealingwith othertypes of objects?(The solution to this question suggested by Abulafia himself is unconvincing.) 89. It has been suggested thattMeg 2.13 (ed. Lieberman,p. 351), line 41, might providea tannaitic antecedentfor Rav Hisda'sruling; see ToseftaKi-Fshutahad loc., p. 1154. However,this interpretationof the Toseftais uncertain(since the "use"mentionedtherewas presumablynot intendedto sanctify the wrapping).Moreover,BT seems to been unawareof this baraita,which is not cited in our sugya.

246

"Designationis Significant" the contrivedreconstructionof the baraitain (5). In otherwords,the bona fide textual difficulties in this passage-the strangecombinationof ntn and le-, whether based on a differentreading in the Mishnah, a baraita, or some sort of pseudobaraitaspecially composed for the occasion (perhapsthroughauthorialor redactional reworkingof existing sources)90-provided a springboardfor the exegetical pyrotechnicswhich eventuallyyielded (pseudo)tannaiticsupportfor Rav Hisda's ruling.91So construed,the Talmud'sdecision to cite this baraitaand to analyze it as done here should not be taken as evidence of textual, exegetical, or legal incompetence,but, on the contrary,of legal and exegetical-actually, eisegeticalvirtuosity.92 As for the discussion of surpluscollection in 10 ff., while the decision to analyze mSheq 2.5 can be readilyaccountedfor by conceptualconsiderationsof the sort discussed earlier, such considerationscannot explain why the Talmudultimately dismissed this source as irrelevant,preferringto conclude the dialectical core of the sugya with an even more problematicsource. Once again, though,this might reflect the artificial literarycharacterof our passage, and especially the authors'/editors' desire to display intellectual virtuosity:93these scholars did not want to bring the discussion to a close too quickly!They were willing to dismiss mSheq 2.5 as irrelevantto resolutionof the debate in (1), therebyartificiallyprolonging the sugya and ultimately-and intentionally-resolving the dispute in (1)a-b94 by presentingwhat is probablythe most conceptuallyproblematiccase in the entiresugya.95 We now consider the two remainingproblematiccases, (11), throwinggarments at a grave;and (14a-b), intentionwhen tanningleatherfor phylacteries.The issue addressedin (11) might have been treatedhere because it was considereda variationor extension of the issue addressedin the beginningof the sugya, name90. For the possible existence of such phenomena in BT, see Rubenstein, TalmudicStories, pp. 261-262, and ShammaFriedman,"UncoveringLiteraryDependencies in the TalmudicCorpus," in TheSynopticProblem in RabbinicLiterature,ed. Shaye J. D. Cohen (Providence,RI: Brown University Press, 2000): 43 and n. 34 and the literaturecited there. 91. Why Rav Hisda'sviewpoint had to be mentionedat this early stage of the discussion is not fully clear.Perhapsthis is a literarytechnique-a kindof foreshadowing-whereby the Talmudsought to providetannaiticsupportfor Rav Hisda'sruling at the earliestpossible opportunity,since Rav Hisda's ruling seems to conflict with all the other views in our passage. 92. A slight variationon this explanationis also possible: the baraita here might not have been adducedto foreshadowRav Hisda'sview, but to display legal, literary,and exegetical virtuosityfor its own sake. This might also account for the Talmud'suse of a somewhat esoteric source from Seder Tohorot. 93. Alternatively,this source might have been includedhere underthe influence of the Tosefta or a similar baraita (see n. 97); note that related,though admittedlynot identical,materialabout the designationof certaintypes of money is found in tMeg 2.15 (ed. Lieberman,p. 352), in the same context as the Tosefta'sdiscussion of ritualdesignation(see text at n. 17 and following). 94. Even if (14a-b) was not meant to provide tannaiticantecedents for both of the amoraic views in 1, but only to rebut the objection to Abbaye in the previous section, as suggested by Nahmanides, the fact remainsthat this could have been accomplishedjust as convincingly and probably more so by citing the view of RabbiNathanin mSheq 2.5. 95. See furtherthe interestingobservationsof Jacobs, TheTalmudicArgument,p. 132, on the orderof the sources in our sugya.

247

Leib Moscovitz However,this explaly, does an action that falls short of actualuse take effect?"96 nation cannot account for the case in (14a-b), since the issue addressedthere is whether designation is necessary and not whether designation is effective. Accordingly,two otherexplanationsof theTalmud'streatmentof (14a-b) maybe considered,both of which reflect literaryratherthanconceptualconcerns.This sugya might have evolved throughredactionalreformulationof a pericope similarto that preservedin yYom (or, perhaps,underthe influence of the Toseftadiscussed earlier or a similarbaraita).97As noted above, the PT sugya juxtaposes rulings dealing with the issues of whetherdesignationis necessary andwhetherdesignationis effective, althoughit does not attemptto drawinferencesfromone issue to the other, since these issues are conceptuallydistinct.BT's editorsor authorsmight have been familiar with a sugya fairly similar to the extant PT parallels, which they transformedfrom a collection of essentially independentand unrelatedcases98or, perhapsmore accurately,of thematicallyrelatedbut legally and conceptually distinct cases which address diverse issues-into a dialectical discussion, all of whose componentsfunctioninferentially.This transformationof a collection of individualrulingsinto a dialecticalpericopepresumablystems fromthe commonBT predilectionfor "give and take,"which, in turn,was ostensiblymotivatedby literary ratherthanconceptualconsiderations.99This assumedtransformationradically alterednot only the literarycharacterof the putativePalestiniansource sugya, but also its conceptualcharacter,as the cases discussed were now expected to instantiatea wide-ranging,common legal principle. However,this imposition of a dialectical literaryframeworkon the earlier collocational and largely inferencefree frameworkattested by the PT parallels came with a heavy price-forced reconceptualizationof certainpartsof the sugya, especially (14a-b). This suggestion, which assumes that PT (or, more likely, a similar,though non-extant,Palestiniansugya) served here as a source for the BT sugya,'00 might 96. For an alternativeexplanationof why this issue was addressedhere, see text at n. 101 and following. 97. Forthe possibility that the Toseftaor a similarcollection of baraitotmight providethe implicit contextualbackgroundfor BT sugyot, see pro temporeLeib Moscovitz, "'Od 'Al Ha-Baraitot," p. 4 n. 19, and Rubenstein,TalmudicStories, pp. 264-265 and p. 369 n. 65, and the referencesthere. 98. Note thatwhile the extantPT sugyot do containsome inferences,all of these inferencesare drawnbetween similarcases. By contrast,no comparisonsare drawnbetweencases that clearlyreflect differentviews about the effectiveness of designation-presumably, because PT assumed that these rulingswere issued casuistically,on the basis of localized considerations,and not on the basis of broad, general principles about the legal statusof designation.Thus, the sugyot in yMeg and yNed indicate thatdesignationof a courtyardfor a synagogueand arksor wrapsfor Torahscrolls has no effect before these objects are used, althoughdesignationof stones for use as gravestonesrendersthem prohibited immediately,while two possibilities are consideredregardingthe designationof ministeringvessels. 99. Cf. Moscovitz, TalmudicReasoning, p. 234 n. 23. 100. A comprehensivediscussion of the natureand scope of BT's familiaritywith PT,whether the extantversion of PT or some otherform of the work, lies beyond the purview of the presentstudy. See protemporeDavid Rosenthal,"'Lo ItpareshLanMai Ba'ei Hakha,'" Bar-Ilan 18-19 (1981): 159160 n. 48, and the literaturecited there; Friedman,Talmud 'Arukh,pp. 9-16; Rubenstein,Talmudic Stories, pp. 25-26 and the accompanyingnotes (pp. 310-312) and the literaturecited there; David Rosenthal,"MasorotEres-Yisre'eliyyotVe-DarkanLe-Bavel,"Cathedra92 (1999): 7-48.

248

"Designationis Significant" also accountfor otherdifficulties in the BT passage,101most notablythe inclusion of the discussion of throwingclothing at graves (11). As notedabove, 02inclusion of this case in PT (basedon associativeeditorialconsiderations)is understandable, whereasthe use of this case in BT, to determinewhetheror not designationis significant, is not. Alternatively,but less likely in my opinion,'03 the Talmudmight have originally cited a differentbaraitahere, which was subsequentlyreplacedby a similar but ultimatelyincorrectbaraita-presumably,becausecopyists or otherearlytransmitters'04of the text unwittingly substitutedthe other baraita,with which they were more familiar,for the original baraita.(Such citations of incorrectbaraitot are apparentlyattestedin bothTalmudim.)o05 Specifically, the Talmudmight have cited a baraitadealing with the effectiveness of designationfor profaneuse, rather than a baraitastatingthatproperintention(li-shemah) is necessary when tanning leather.'06Indeed, such a baraitaappearsin la-b in the sugya in yYom:'07"If leatherwas tannedfor use as an amulet ... RabbanSimeon b. Gamaliel prohibits [writing a mezuzah on it]."Thus, the Talmudmight have interpretedthis baraita as implying that designation for profane use is effective, since such designation confers a special profane status on the object so designated, thereby disqualifying this object from sacred use in the future (perhapsbecause it was considered disrespectful to use what was originally a profane object for sacred purposes).1'8 101. For an excellent example of how BT reliance on an earlier Palestiniansugya generated serious difficulties in BT, see bSan 5b and the discussion of this pericope(with referencesto earlierliterature) in Rosenthal, "Lo Itparesh,"pp. 158-160, and Menahem Kister, "MasorotAggadah VeGilguleihen,"Tarbis60 (1991): 220. 102. See the end of section II. 103. Althoughthereis no positive evidence supportingthis suggestion,I considerit and its possible implicationshere, since it is the only othera prioripossibility thatcan accountfor the difficulties in (14) (as noted earlier,the interpretationsof the classical commentatorshere are untenable). 104. If this suggestion is correct, substitutionof the incorrectbaraita must have occurredat a fairly early stage of transmission,since the baraitain our texts is attestedby all of the extanttext-witnesses. 105. See most recentlyLeib Moscovitz,"KulhoSeviraLeho,"SeferHa-ZikkaronLe-TirzahLifschitz (forthcoming),nn. 38-41 and the literaturecited there. 106. For a similarexplanationsee Friedmann,She'elat David, s.v. od sham, p. 3b. (To be sure, Friedmanndid not claim thatthe wrong baraitaappearsin our text of BT; rather,he attemptsto explain the baraita there the same way as the baraita cited below.) However,Friedmann'ssuggestion as currentlyformulatedis extremelydifficult to accept, since his interpretationof the BT baraitadoes not fit the plain sense of this baraita. 107. See also tMeg 2.16 (text at n. 17ff.) and the beginningand end of yMeg and yNed, where the Talmudconsiders the possibility that certainobjects originally designatedfor profaneuse cannot be consecratedlater(althoughthis possibility is ultimatelyrejected).Note also the baraitafound in our texts of yYom3.6, 40c, line 62 ("if one made a utensil for profaneuse, the Templemay not use it"), althoughthis baraita(and the conflicting baraitacited ibid., lines 60-61) might have arisenthroughtextual corruption;see n. 10. 108. Cf. Louis Ginzberg,GinzeiSchechter,2 (New York:JewishTheological Seminary,1929), p. 531. Ginzbergstresses the differencebetweenthe PT baraita,which discusses disqualificationof an object designatedfor profaneuse, and the BT baraita,which deals with the requirementof properintention (li-shemah)when preparingcertaintypes of religious objects.

249

Leib Moscovitz As indicated,this explanationis conjectural.However,its implications, if correct,are far reaching,as it reflects a highly innovativeperspectiveon designation, conceptuallyspeaking.Thereis no reasonto assume thatthe effectiveness of designationfor sacreduse must depend upon the effectiveness of designationfor profaneuse andvice versa,especially if the rationalefor prohibitingthe sacreduse of objects initially designatedfor profaneuse is disrespectfor sancta,as suggested earlier.Indeed,the Tosefta distinguishesbetween these issues,109maintaining that designationfor profaneuse is effective, at least in certain cases,110whereas designationfor sacreduse is not. Therefore,if this explanationis correct-and it must be stressed,again, thatthis explanationis strictlyconjectural-the Talmud's decision to concludethe dialecticalpartof oursugya as it did might have stemmed from the desire to conclude the sugya in as conceptuallyinnovativea fashion as possible.'I We may now consider the relationshipbetween our sugya and its PT parallels.112 The BT and PT passages"13discuss many similarcases (e.g., grave-preparation,throwinggarmentsat a grave,and properintentionwhen preparingvarious types of ritualobjects), althoughthe exact literarysources discussed in each sugya differ.Othercases discussed in BT, however,are unique to that work, viz., the sourcecases in 2-3 about eglah carufahanddesignationfor idolatry,andthe cases of impureveils and surplus collection for the dead.114 Significantly,all of these cases are conceptuallyremote from the case discussed in the beginningof the BT sugya-weaving shrouds.Thus, the cases uniqueto BT are apparentlythose cases 109. See text at n. 23. 110. A slightly differentapproachis takenby yMeg andyNed, which maintainthatdesignation of an area for profaneuse does not disqualifythis area for subsequentuse as a synagogue. 111. In concludingthis discussion of the difficulties in our sugya, two otherdifficulties should be briefly considered.The problematic"sourcecases" in 2-3, neitherof which seems to providenecessary or even valid instantiationof generalprinciplesthatdesignationis or is not significant,were apparently adduced because these were the only clear-cut biblical precedents indicating whether designationis significant, at least in certaincases. (Strictlyspeaking,these precedentsare not biblical, as neitherof the cases alludedto in 2-3 is explicitly discussed in the Bible. Nevertheless,I deem these cases biblical precedentsbecause the relevantlegal institutions,idolatry and eglah 'arufah, are discussed in the Bible, enablingthe Talmudto adducea gezerah shavah from these cases.) A second difficulty is the inconsistentapproachesthatthe sugya seems to adoptconcerningthe designationof intrinsicallysacreditems and the statusof excessively preliminarydesignation(see our comments on (4) and (10)). These inconsistenciescould be explainedon source-criticalgroundsif we assumethatthe relevantpartsof the sugya arethe handiworkof differentauthors.(The fact thatthe entire sugya is anonymousdoes not provethat it is the work of a single author;cf. above, n. 54.) However, there is no need to adopt this suggestion, as the authors/redactorsmight have wanted to analyze every literarysource on its own terms and from its own perspective,without takingexegetical or conceptualpossibilities raised elsewhere in the sugya into consideration. 112. To the best of my knowledge, this is the only extended BT conceptualsugya with close parallels in PT. 113. Here I referto all the PT parallels,not just the passage fromyYom. 114. R. David Friedmann(She'elat David, s.v. codsham, p. 3b; q.v.) attempts,ratherunconvincingly,to explain why the case of the head-coveringin (5) was not discussed in PT.Note that while PT contains gemaraon MishnahSheqalim, in contrastto BT, the legal basis of mSheq 2.5 is not discussed in thatTalmud.

250

"Designation is Significant" that entail forced and problematicextension of the principles about the significance of designation. Such cases might have been included because the authors and/or redactorswantedto include as much materialfrom as wide a variety of legal domains as possible. In addition,they might have wantedto display their intellectual virtuosityby citing prooftextsthat are particularlyfar-fetched,thereby "magnifying and aggrandizing the Torah."Alternatively,the authors/redactors might have wantedto analyze a fixed, formulaicnumberof sources.115This suggestion might be supportedby the fact that the selection of cases here is not exhaustive" 16 (even though the cases and literarysources discussed in this passage do address a wide variety of legal domains): some ostensibly relevanttannaitic sources, including but not limited to the legal domains addressedin the various parts of the BT sugya,117 are not cited here. V We may now summarize.The tannaiticsources adduced in the BT sugya, like those discussed in its parallels in PT, deal with legally and factuallydiverse cases of designation. Neither the tannaitic sources nor PT's treatmentof them seems to be based on broadgeneral principlesabout the legal status of designation; the issue at stake in all of these sources seems to be what types of designation are legally significant, with the answer depending upon the particularcase addressed'18-in short,on localized considerationsof limited scope.119It is noteworthy,too, that while the theme of designationimplicitly underliesmost of the discussion in PT and the tannaitic sources, nowhere do these sources explicitly mentionthis notion,'20althoughit mightbe arguedthatthe absence of such a term reflects literaryor linguistic considerations-the lack of appropriateterminology-rather than conceptualconsiderations. Matterschange significantly in BT.This Talmudattemptsto subsumeall of 115. Forsuch phenomenain BT, see Friedman,"PereqHa-IshahRabbah,"pp. 316-319. However, it is difficult to determinehow the sources should be counted here, since it is not clear whether or not the sourcecases shouldbe counted,whetherdifferentclauses of a single sourceshould be counted separately,etc. 116. Note, though, that the collection of sources dealing with corpse designation (not cited here), the issue thatmost closely resemblesthat discussed in the beginningof the sugya, is fairly comprehensive. 117. See our comments on the relevantparts of the sugya. For other potentially relevanttannaitic sources, see e.g. mMa'as4.2 and mBes 1.3, 4.7. 118. See furtherR. Meir SimhahHa-Kohenof Dvinsk, OrSameah (Riga, 1926), HilkhotTefillin 4:9, s.v. hinneh talei. 119. In some of the cases discussed in these passages, the relevantlaws are inferredin other passages throughbiblical exegesis, although it could be counteredthat such exegesis is based on or could at least serve as the basis for broaderprinciples(cf. Moscovitz, TalmudicReasoning,pp. 37-38). See the discussion of 'eglah 'arufah in ySot 9.6, 24a; the sources cited by Lieberman, ToseftaKiFshutah, 5:1158 (on lines 53-54), which indicatethatTempleappurtenancesmust be preparedin sanctity; and the biblical verses cited in bSuk 9a to prove that properintention(li-shemah) is necessary in connectionwith certainreligious precepts. 120. Indeed, terminology denoting abstract concepts is generally not found in PT; cf. Moscovitz, TalmudicReasoning, p. 292 and n. 1.

251

Leib Moscovitz the diverse cases consideredunder a single, common principle of exceptionally broad scope. This approachaccords with BT's general proclivity for "grandunified theories,"even though the cases so explained often differ significantly from one another.In addition,our analysis of the BT sugya suggests that literaryconsiderationsaccount for certain features of this passage. The selection, arrangement, and treatmentof certaincases in this sugya were apparentlymotivatedby the desire to displayintellectualvirtuosity,to artificiallyfill out the sugya, andby dependenceon an earlierPalestiniandiscussion of relevantlaws. However,in contrastto this putativePalestiniansource andthe extantPT parallels,the BT authors/ editors imposed an inferentialframeworkon the collocational PT sugya, thereby creatinga discussion repletewith legal and conceptualdifficulties, since this pericope compared rulings which, though superficially similar, are ultimately not comparable(andwhich were thereforenot comparedby the parallelsin PT). Thus, the sugya should not be considered a comprehensive,hermeneuticallyand conceptuallyrigorousanalysisof designation,since the characterof this pericopewas determinedby literaryartifice no less than by the adoption of a particularconceptual approach.Nevertheless, this combinationof literaryand conceptual factors ultimately produced a literary and conceptual tour de force that reflects rabbinicconceptualthoughtand BT compositionaland redactionaltechniquesat theirmost sophisticated.It remainsto be determinedhow many extendedBT conceptual sugyot originatedunder similar circumstances;hopefully,this study will stimulatefurtherinvestigationof this importantissue.

252

Martyrdom, Emotion and the Work of Ritual in R. Mordecai Joseph Leiner'S Mei Ha-Shiloah Author(s): Don Seeman Source: AJS Review, Vol. 27, No. 2 (Nov., 2003), pp. 253-279 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4131607 . Accessed: 19/07/2011 03:37 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].



AJS Review 27:2 (2003), 253-280

MARTYRDOM,EMOTIONANDTHEWORK OF RITUAL IN R. MORDECAIJOSEPH LEINER'SMEI HA-SHILOAH

by Don Seeman Rabbi Mordecai Joseph Leiner of Izbica (1800-1853) has been described as "the most radical of the Jewish mystics" and as a religious anarchist.' Some scholars have wonderedhow he managedto resist the antinomianpull of his own doctrine,and to "sufferthe chaotic without perishingwithin it."2Yet this characterizationbearswitness to a profoundtendency in much of the academic scholarship on Hasidism-and on religionin general-to privilegedoctrineoverpractice, or to framethe object of study in theological and philosophicalratherthan ritual andhermeneuticterms.3It neglects, for instance,the fact thatHasidictexts are often devoted to the elaborationof ritual cosmologies, and that ritual "work"(includingthe managementof emotionaldispositions)almostalwaystakesplace over time. As the anthropologistVictor Turnerhas shown, this means that ritualsymbols can take on differentor even contradictorysets of meanings depending on where in an ongoing ritualprocess they are deployed.4When R. MordecaiJoseph This article is dedicated with special thanks to my teachers and study partnersin Mei haShiloah:David Lester,Debra S. Seeman, and,above all, R. MordecaiGafni. I would also like to thank my studentsat the Ma'ayanInitiativein Boston and at the PardesInstitute,Jerusalem. 1. JosephWeiss, "A Late Jewish Utopia of Religious Freedom,"in David Goldstein, ed., Studies in EasternEuropeanJewishMysticism(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress, 1985), p. 211. Along similar lines, see Rivka Schatz, "Autonomyof the Spirit and the Law of Moses" (Hebrew),Molad 21 (1973-1974), pp. 554-561 and Rachel Elior,"The Innovationsin Polish Hasidism"(Hebrew), Tarbiz 62 (1993), pp. 381- 432. This position has alreadybeen moderatedto some extent in MorrisM. Faierstein, All is in the Hands of Heaven: The Teachingsof RabbiMordecaiJoseph Leinerof Izbica (New York:Ktav, 1989). Otherworks on R. MordecaiJoseph include JeromeGellman,Fear and Trembling, and the Fire (Alabama:University of Alabama Press, 1994) and Shaul Magid, "Hasidismand Existentialism?A Review Essay,"ModernJudaism 15 (1995) pp. 279-294. 2. Weiss, A Late Jewish Utopia, p. 245. 3. SeeTalalAsad, GenealogiesofReligion (Baltimore:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress, 1993) and ByronJ. Good,Medicine,Rationalityand Experience(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress, 1994), each of which treatsthe difficultyassociatedwith "belief'"as an analyticcategoryin the study of culture andreligion.Moshe Idel'sHasidismBetweenEcstasyand Magic (Albany:StateUniversityof New York Press, 1995) providesa welcome correctionto the doctrinalfocus in Hasidicstudies,butthe specific ritual models he describes(i.e. ecstasy and magic) are inadequateto R. MordecaiJoseph'soeuvre. 4. VictorTurner,TheForestofSymbols (Ithaca,New York:CornellUniversityPress, 1967). An influentialstatementon the role of ritualin promotingreligious dispositions can be found in Clifford Geertz,"Religionas a CulturalSystem,"TheInterpretationof Cultures(New York:Basic Books, 1973). For a critiqueof Geertzwith special referenceto Hasidic sources, see Don Seeman, "Ritual,Emotion and 'Useless Suffering'in the WarsawGhetto"(in press).

253

Don Seeman makes seemingly contradictorystatementsabout the existence of free will or the place of anger in religious experiencetherefore,it is in ritualprocess ratherthan anarchyor inconsistencythat an explanationshould be sought. He was moved by a distinctiveunderstandingof divine glory (kabodshamayim)to reevaluateritual strategies that promoted ecstasy, emotionalism, and self-annihilationor martyrdom as religious ideals in Hasidism, and to suggest new forms of ritualwork in their stead. In short,R. MordecaiJoseph sought to reconcile divine glory with divine law, and to do so at the level of the individualhumanwill. "TheEarth is the Lord's":Anger and Lust in the Hasidic school oflzbica Deuteronomy17:15 warnsthe childrenof Israelagainstchoosing a foreigner to rule over them as king. R. MordecaiJoseph notes tersely that"This refers to a personwho possesses the quality of anger(ka'as),because angerhas no portion in Israel."sFaiersteincites this passage as an example of the apparentrejectionof anger that runs throughoutR. Mordecai Joseph's two-volume corpus Mei HaShiloah, and concludes thatangeris "anemotion thathas no place in R. Mordecai Joseph'sworld."6Citing Heschel furthermore,Faiersteinattributesthis outlook to R. MordecaiJoseph'sambivalentrelationshipwith his one-time teacherand colleague, R. MenahemMendl of Kotzk (Kock), with whom he broke in 1839.7 Yet while the Kotzker'sfearsomereputationin Hasidic legend certainlylends colorful supportto this view, I will arguethat it constitutesan unwarrantedreduction.8R. MordecaiJoseph'steaching on anger needs to be set within a broadercontext of debateaboutthe role of emotion,ecstasy,and self-annihilationin Hasidicpractice, where his views show strongcontinuitywith those of Kotzk as well as Przysucha (wherehe studiedwith R. SimhaBunem).Nowhereis this clearerthanin the deep skepticism evinced in both Kotzk and Izbica towardsemotionalismand martyrdom as religious ideals. Anger, accordingto R. MordecaiJoseph, is rooted in our failure to recognize that"theearthis the Lord'sand all thatis in it" (Psalms 24:1). His son, R. Jacob of Radzin, taughtin his father'sname that anger stems from a false sense of humanownershipand masteryof the world. "Like a person who thinks that he is the masterof the house, and becomes angry when things are not accordingto his 5. Mei ha-ShiloahI, Shoftim,61b (p. 187). Also MH I, Shelah Lekha,50a (p. 153). Folio page numbersrefer to M. J. Lainer's1973 reprintof the 1860 Vienna edition of vol. 1 and the 1922 Lublin edition of vol. 2. Parentheticalnumbersreferto the two-volume 1995 edition, publishedby Goldhaber and Spiegleman. 6. Faierstein,All is in the Hands of Heaven, pp. 69-75. Also see Elior, "Innovationsin Polish Hasidism,"p. 408 n. 51. 7. A. J. Heschel, Kotsk:In Gerangelfar Emisdikeit2 volumes (Tel Aviv, 1973) 2: 625-27. 8. On R. MenahemMendl'sreputationfor anger,see Elior, "Innovationsin Polish Hasidism," pp. 404-406. The authenticityof sayings attributedto R. MenahemMendl is, however,discussed by YaakovLevinger,"TheAuthenticSayings of RabbiMenahemMendl of Kotzk"(Hebrew), Tarbis56:1 (1986), pp. 109-135 and "TheTeachingsof the KotzkerRebbeAccordingto his GrandsonR. Samuel Bernsteinof Sochotchow"(Hebrew), Tarbis55:4 (1986), pp. 414-431.

254

Martyrdom, Emotion and the Work of Ritual intent ... but does not become angry when he is in a friend'shouse."9R. Shneur Zalmanof Liadi makes a similarpoint in the twenty-fifthchapterof 'IggeretHaQodesh, in which he arguesthat "werea person to believe that what happenedto him is the Lord's doing, he would not become angry at all."'0 But, whereas R. ShneurZalmanis careful precisely in this context to defend the principleof free will and accountability,the school of Izbica-Radzin founded by R. Mordecai Josephtakes this teaching in a far more radicaldirection: Theessenceof angerstemsfromthefactthata personfailsto recognizethat Godhas ownershipof the world.... Butif a personcouldnullifyhis anger thiswouldindicateconstantrecognition that"theearthis theLord's [entirely], andallthatit holds,"andthatGodis owneroverthewholeworld,whichwould render human service fabodah] completely irrelevant. God desires, as it were,

theserviceof Israelin thisworld,andthatis whyMosesdidnotcrosstheriver Jordan,butGodonlyshowedhimtheLandof Israel ." .... When R. MordecaiJoseph or membersof his school describe the recognitionof God'sownershipof the world,therefore,they arereferringto somethingotherthan the prosaic religious claim that God is masterand should thereforebe served. On the contrary,they are arguingthat full recognitionof God's masterywould strike at the root of divine service or ritualwork,because service is premised(like anger) on the necessary illusion of a free and sovereignhumanwill.12 "Theearthis the Lord's"in R. MordecaiJoseph'steaching,therefore,means that even free will is limited or illusory,"like the shell of a garlic clove."13Or, as he indicatesin anotherpassage, "'The earthis the Lord'sand all thatis in it' means that [human]action is also from God."'14Humanbeings should be awarethat not only the prayerson their lips but also the will to pray-and sometimes the inability to pray-are grantedfromheaven.'5 "All is in the handsof heaven."'6However,because God paradoxicallydesireshumanservice in this world(for reasonsthat have yet to be consideredhere), humanbeings are requiredto act as if they were partly sovereign,independentbeings. That is why, in the language of the parable, Moses is granteda glimpse of the PromisedLandfrom across the riverbut is prevented from crossing. 9. Bet Yacaqob(Warsaw,1909) Noah no. 19, 34a. See also his great-grandson'sbook, Tif'eret Yosef(Warsaw,1935), 7a, 8a and 34b (pp. 19, 22 and 99). Parentheticalpage numbersrefer to Goldhaberand Spiegelman's1997 edition.Also see MH II, Nisabim,40a (p. 128). 10. R. ShneurZalman of Liadi, 'Iggeretha-qodesh (138b). Translationfrom Liqutei amarim tanya (Brooklyn:Kehot Publishers,1981) p. 535. R. ShneurZalmaninsists that althoughthe damage causedby a violent personor by a thief has been decreedby heaven,the aggressoris nevertheless"guilty accordingto the laws of man and the laws of Heaven for having chosen evil." 11. Tif'eretYosef Vayelekh,7a (pp.18-19), emphasisadded.Also see LiquteiMH I, lb (p. 208). 12. Maimonidesalso suggests, in the fourthchapterof Shemonehperaqim,thatMoses was kept from the PromisedLandbecause of anger.CompareMH I Ki Tissa30a (p. 94) on the angerof the saddiq. 13. MHI, Qorah, 50b (p.154), Vayelekh, 65a (p. 198), Liqutei MH II, 59b (p. 192). Each of these

passages also cites the verse "Theearthis the Lord'sand all that is in it." 14. MH II, Nisabim,40a (p. 128). 15. MH I, Shelah, 49b (p. 151). Also see MH I, Miqes, 16a(p. 51).

255

Don Seeman On the otherhand,it is clear fromthis and otherpassages in Mei Ha-Shiloah thatthe telos of divinehistorydoes eventuallyrequirethe childrenof Israelto cross that river, and that both anger and 'abodahwill ultimatelybe annulled." These themes are closely related.In severalpassages, the telos of the commandmentsis alludedto as "theland of Israel,"as opposed to "thewilderness,"where the struggle of apparentfree-willed action is still required.A Talmudicdictum states that "a personwho lives in the land of Israelis like a personwho has a God,"to which R. MordecaiJoseph adds that "this is because it is clear in the land of Israel that God is presentin every detail, even in the things of this world . .. which is why Moses lusted to enterthe land."18 In a passage on the commandmentof first fruits (biqurim),similarly,this perfected state is describedas maqomha-miqdashor "the cite of the sanctuary," in which the importanceof serving God according to the commandmentsis simultaneouslyaffirmed and transcended.Accordingto Deuteronomy26, a person who brings first fruitsto the Templemust first make a declarationto the officiating priest:"I profess this day to the Lordyour God that I have come into the land which the Lord swore to our fathersto give to us" (Deuteronomy26:3). According to Rabbi MordecaiJoseph, this declarationconstitutesa rebukeof the priesthood by lay-Israeliteswho have come to recognize the boundariesand limitations implied by priestly'abodah: Thisimpliesharshwordsto thepriest.It alludesto the factthateventhough thepriestservesinthesanctuary andthefarmerservesin thefield,everytime a soulfromIsraelarrivesatthesanctuary to bringfirstfruitshe therebyclarifies thathe wasjustas muchensconcedin holinesselsewhereas thepriestis at service['abodah].19 This is the whole paradoxicalunderstandingof the commandmentsin IzbicaRadzin:One must bring the first fruitsto the sanctuaryin orderto clarify that the sanctuaryhas no more holiness than any other place in God's world. Having reached "the land of Israel"throughtoil and discipline, one realizes that God is and has always been presentin all places without limit. Such knowledge is inimical to anger,and its attainmentis relatedto the process of berur, or clarification of the divine will. This is also the case with regardto the appointmentof a king, which leads 16. This phraseappearsfrequentlyin Mei ha-Shiloah,sometimesin the form "all is in the hands of heaven includingthefear of heaven,"which seems to contradictthe Talmudicview (Berachot33b). These views are reconciled in MH I, Yayera,8a (p. 27). 17. On the temporaryor illusory quality of anger in the world,see MH I, Ki Tisa, 30a (p.94), LiquteiMH II, 58a-58b (pp. 186-187). Furtherelaborationof this idea is undertakenby R. Mordecai Joseph's student, R. Sadoq Ha-Cohen of Lublin, Taqanatha-shavin (Pietrikov, 1926) 49b, chapter 10:39. On the futureannulmentof the commandmentssee MH I, Ki Tisa, 30b (p. 96), and Weiss, "A Late Jewish Utopia." 18. MH II, Va-ethanan,34b (p. 111). Also see MH I, Naso 46b (p.143), Masei 56a (p. 170), MH II, Matot, 33b (pp. 107-108). On Moses' lust to enterthe land, see Debarim Rabbah,Va-ethanan2:2. 19. MHI, Ki Tavo,63a (p. 192).

256

Martyrdom, Emotion and the Work of Ritual R. MordecaiJosephto emphasizethata "foreigner"cannotbe appointed,because "angerhas no place in Israel."Like the bringingof the first fruits,the commandment to appointa king is dependenton entry into the "landof Israel,"and it represents a realignmentof humanconsciousness (by means of abodah) towardsthe unmediatedwill of God: tothepoint Theessentialqualityof a kingof Israelis greatassurance (tequfot), thatanythingwhichis inhishearthewilldo,becauseanythingthatcomesinto his heartis certainlythewill of God.Thisis a veryhighlevelthatdoesnotrequireanystratagem (esah)fromanyprophet... becausewhatevercomesout of theking'smoutharethewordsof God... 20 I will arguebelow that"stratagems"are alwaysassociatedin Mei Ha-Shiloahwith cabodahor ritualwork that is preparatoryto God's "personalillumination"of the spiritualadept. "Stratagems"relate to the typology of the prophet,who reveals "generalwords of Torah,"but the king supersedesprophecybecause he speaks in God's own voice. An analogousdistinctionbetweenpriests and scholarsindicates that whereas priests may pray constantly for divine salvation, "the essence of a scholar is to realize that a humanbeing has no power of his own but that which comes from God .... Which is to say thateverythingis in heaven'shands."21 Termslike "king"and "prophet"in these passages need to be understoodas typologies of divine service and not as concrete historicalinstitutions.R. Mordecai Joseph interpretsthe commandmentto choose a king in Deuteronomy17 as a statementthat"Israelitesseek the ability to expand(lehitpashet)into every desire of their hearts, with no need for boundariesor excessive limits."22The biblical stricturethat a king must be appointed"fromamong your brethren"corresponds to the prohibitionagainstthe appointmentof an angry,foreign king. It refers to a typology of service, in which Israelwill learn to look to God, "whereuponit will be permissible for them to expand into all the pleasures of this world,as long as all is done in holiness."23"Kings"and "scholars"sharethis attainmentto varying degrees, but "priests"and "prophets"are necessarily excluded.24That is why "kings"must be free of anger to an extraordinarydegree, but anger can be tolerated in a common person, reflecting the temporarylegitimacy accordedto anger fromour limitedperspective.Not even "asaddiq or a personwho serves God"will be saved,however,if they "heapup anger"in theirheartsor make angerinto a permanent charactertrait.It is only "angerlike this,"says R. MordecaiJoseph, that truly "hasno portion in Israelat all,"because it is a directcontradictionof the te20. MH II, Tesaveh,18b (p. 60). 21. Ibid. On prayeras a form of humanactivism, see MH I, Beshalah, 23b (p. 75). 22. MH I, Shoftim,61a (p. 187). 23. Ibid. 24. The hierarchicalrelationshipbetween these typologies of humanservice is statedexplicitly in MH I, Shoftim,60a (p. 184). "A scholarprecedesa king, even thoughthe king is greater,because a king is initially appointedonly by the Sanhedrin[i.e. council of scholars] ... But once a king has been appointedhe precedes a scholar,because everythingthatcomes from his mouthare the words of God. "

257

Don Seeman los representedby the figure of the king, throughwhom the incompatibilityof faith and angermust ultimatelybe revealed.25 WhateverR. MordecaiJoseph'sfeelings about R. MenahemMendl , therefore, his stance on anger is closely related to his mentor'sevaluationof cabodah for "kings,""scholars"and all "those who serve God" in a graduatedspiritualhierarchy.The paradoxis that cabodahis necessary to the attainmentof a state in which 'abodahwill be superseded,andthis requiresa temporaryillusion of human agency, which includes anger.This is not an ontological rejectionof all anger,as Faiersteinargues,but it does signal that the king is an ideal type who bears witness to the telos of humanityas a whole. Inthe short-term,some self-directedanger is both toleratedand necessary,because of its operationalor strategicusefulness in drivingthe projectof spiritual"clarification"forward. A personwho is overcomeby forbiddendesire, for example, is counseled in Mei ha-Shiloahto arouse the quality of anger in opposition.26This is a message that post-deluvialNoah had still to learn: "Andhe sentfortha raventhatwentto andfro,etc."Theword"raven" alludes to anger,sinceNoahdesiredthatthequality[oremotion]of angernotexistin theworld.ThentheHolyBlessedOneshowedhimthatfornowthereis stilla needforthisqualityintheworld,becausesometimeswhena personis gripped by somenegativelust,he cansavehimselfby enteringa stateof anger.Thisis the meaningof the words,"thatwentto and fro untilthe watersreceded," whichis to say,"untilnegativedesiresrecedefromtheworld,"becausethen angerwill alsobe nullified,sincewatermeans"desire."27 Moses cannotcross the Jordanany more thanNoah can dismiss angerprematurely from the world afterthe flood. Anger is importantbecause it helps to mask the realitythat"all is in the handsof heaven,"and so allows for humaneffort, but this is also equivalentto saying thatangeris requiredso thatlust can be restrained,because lust is associated precisely with knowledge that "the earth is the Lord's." Moses, too, "lusts"to enter the land of Israel, where human attainmentwill no longer be required.28The relationshipbetween angerand lust is one of asymmetrical opposition,because angerwill ultimatelyvanish as an illusionjust at the moment when lust is redeemed.Can any createdthing-or any desire-be thought irredeemablyevil in God's good world? This is a question that R. Mordecai Joseph treats in the context of restrictions on the consumptionof non-sacralmeat in Deuteronomy12: "Whenthe Lordyour God will enlargeyour as he has promisedyou, border, and you say, 'I will eat meat,'because you lust to eat meat,you may eat meat 25. MH II, Mishpatim,17a (p. 55). Also see MH II, Ki Tissa, 20a-20b (p. 65). 26. MH I, Noah, 5b(p 19), Beha'alotkhah,48b (p. 149). 27. Ibid. Formore on "water"or "ocean"as a representationof boundlessdesire, see MH I, Ni sabim, 64b (p. 195). Also see R. GershonHanokh'sintroductionto his father'sBet Ya'aqob,19b-20a (p. 133). 28. See Debarim Rabbah, Va'ethanan2:2, where Moses' lust to enterthe land is cancelled by his anger.

258

Martyrdom,Emotionand the Workof Ritual to your heart's desire (Deut. 12:20)." The verse does not say that they will

leavetheirborders,butthattheirborderswill be extended.Forin truth,acnameof God(whichis to sayblessedGodwhochose cordingto thefour-letter intoall to expand[lehitpashet] Israel)thereareno borders,andit is permitted the good [i.e. pleasurable] It the name is Y, O.N.A. things. onlythrough A.D. whichis to sayhumanrecognition of humanunderstandandtheboundaries ing, thatlimitshavebeenderived:thatup to thispointit is permittedto exThus,accordingto the strengthof abodah pandandfromhereon forbidden. thatis foundin a person,so is thatperson'sability[orpermission]to expand himselfintogood[orpleasurable] things.29 The desire to eat meat is treatedhere as a worldly pleasure, in which a spiritual adept is permittedto indulge accordingto the level of cabodahor ritualwork previously attained.The spatialsymbolism of this passage (expandingboundariesof the permissible) is central to R. Mordecai Joseph's whole conception, in which greater"contraction"(simsum)paves the way for greater"extension"(hitpashtut) and hence enjoymentof worldlypleasures: Thisis themeaningof "whenGodexpandsyourboundaries," becauseat the it is forhim when a forbidden enters into service beginning, person ('abodah), to extendhimself,becausetoo muchextensionwill leadto loss of fear.But whenthestrengthof his serviceandfearhaveincreased, it is thenpermissible to extendbeyondthatservice.Thisis themeaningof "whenGodexpandsyour whichis to saythatGodgivesyousuchpowerof servicethatthe boundaries," fall awayandareremovedfromyou,untilyoucaneveneatmeat boundaries withoutextendingpastyourboundary.30 It is importantto emphasize in this passage thatthe permissibilityof hitpashtutis stronglycorrelatedwith a person'spropensityfor abodah,andis in fact limited by it. R. MordecaiJoseph does not embrace "the autonomyof the human spirit"in the anarchicsense that Shatz suggests, except to the extentthat the spirithas been rituallypurified and trainedto dependenceon the will of God.31 R. MordecaiJoseph'semphasis on the concept of hitpashtutcan hardlybe overestimated,and shouldbe considereda centralfocus of his whole ritualsystem. The most popularuse of this term in Hasidic literature,going back to R. Dov Baer of Mezhirech("theGreatMaggid"),is hitpashtutha-gashmiut("sheddingof corporeality")throughascetic discipline andecstatic worshipin which a person"kills himself for wordsof Torah."32 Hitpashtutin this sense is relatedto the ideal of bitul or self-annihilation,and to the demand for ascetic practices that can "draw down"vitality into the phenomenalworld.However,R. MordecaiJosephdrawsal29. MHI, Re'eh,59b-60a(pp.182-183). 30. Ibid. 31. RivkaSchatz,"TheAutonomyof theSpiritandtheLawof Moses." 32. RivkaSchatz-Uffenheimer, ed., Maggiddevaravle-Ya'aqob MagnesPress, (Jerusalem: 153.Thelatterpassage 205.Also see pp.204-209, paragraph [1781]1990),pp.329-331, paragraph of thekingwithhitpashtut. mayalsopresageR. MordecaiJoseph'sspecificidentification

259

Don Seeman most exclusively on a secondaryuse of the term in early Hasidic literature,which is the "extension"(hitpashtut)of divine presenceor glory (kabod)into all created things. "Everythingcontainsthe hitpashtutof the blessed Creator,"writes R. Dov Baer, "His glory fills the world."33This may be why Schatz arguesthat that Mei ha-Shiloahmakeslittle or no use of traditionalHasidicterminology,andwhy Faierstein goes so far as to claim that R. MordecaiJoseph "negatesthe cosmic myth centralto LurianicKabbalahand Hasidism,"both of which would seem to be overstatements.34R. MordecaiJosephdoes occasionallydescribethe "drawingdown" of divine blessing or the "unification"of the cosmos, as do his disciples.35Yet it seems fair to say that he downplaysthe peregrinationof divine vitality implied by "repair"(tiqun), which was so importantto other Hasidic writers,because of his profoundcommitmentto the principlethatthe earthis the Lord'salready.36 Ritual work in Mei ha-Shiloahcan, in other words, be seen to help prepare humanbeings for the power of divine revelation,so thatthey can feel themselves to have "earned"the divine gifts that are in any case (from God's point of view) freely given. Only 'abodahcan transformdivine blessing into "the fruitof your labor,"accordingto R. MordecaiJoseph, which means that the same divine blessings thatwere once knownby the name of their Giver can become "knownby the name of theirrecipients,"as well.37This terminologyprobablyalludes to the biblical episode in 2 Samuel 12, in which David'sgeneralJoabwarnsDavid to appear in person at the battlefield, "lest I capturethe city myself and my name will be called upon it."The king's participationin this battle is of a largelyritualnature, since the city has alreadybeen rendereddefenseless, but royal glory demandsthat David play an active role. This is a powerfulmodel of ritualwork, in which all is earnedyet all is given. 4Abodahis vital in this context notjust for allowing human beings to overcometheirresistanceto the propositionthat"theearthis the Lord's," but also for allowing them to shareby right (as well as by grace) in the hitpashtut of divine glory. The dialectic betweensimsum(contraction)and hitpashtut(expansion)on a cosmological level is mirroredfor R. MordecaiJosephin the dialectic of angerand lust describedabove.Anger is the "lower"of the two expressions,andis even identified in some Izbica-Radzinwritings with the root of idolatry(literally "strange worship"or cabodahzarah) because it narrowlyidentifies divinity with the sphere of humanaccomplishment('abodah)alone.38Ultimately,the "contraction"of the 33. Ibid., pp. 43-44, paragraph26. Schatz-Uffenheimerarguesthat this usage does not appear in earlierLurianicwritings. 34. Schatz, "Autonomyof the Spirit,"p. 555; Faierstein,All is in the Hands of Heaven, p. 41. 35. See LiquteiMH II, 49a (p. 188) and 60a-60b (p. 193). CompareR. GershonHanokh'sdiscussion of ritualefficacy in his introductionto Bet Yacaqob,2 lb-22a (pp. 144-146). 36. Fora strikingexpressionof this theme, see MH I, Vayigash,16a-b(pp. 55-56), whereinthe exile itself is describedas illusory.Also see MH II, Re'eh,36a (p.115), whereinthe biblical "abominations" are describedas treasuresbelonging to God. 37. See MH I, Tazria,35a-35b (p. 110); MH II, LekhLekha,5b (pp. 17-18); and MH II, Va-cet hanan, 35a (p.1 12). Also see MH II, LekhLekha,5b (p. 17-18); andLiquteiMH, II, 44a, 44b, 59b-60a (pp. 141, 143, 191). A similarformulais used in the Talmud('AbodahZarah 19a) with respectto Torah study,but withoutthe broadimplicationsof R. MordecaiJoseph'susage. 38. See MH I, Va-'era,21a (p. 67) and Bet Ya'aqob,Noah, 34a, respectively.

260

Martyrdom, Emotion and the Work of Ritual human personality through restrictionsand anger must give way to a sense of greaterhitpashtutandpermissivenesssince "theearthis the Lord's,"butthis is entirely compatiblewith an ethic of stringencyand self-doubt in the here and now. "Since the forbiddenfoods were prohibited,"writes R. MordecaiJoseph, "it follows that simsum is sometimes requiredwith regardto the permitted foods as well."39Therefore,ratherthanquestioningwhetherR. MordecaiJosephis "for"or "against"angerin some abstractdoctrinalsense, we ought to questionthe specific uses and dangersof angerin relationto the demandsof a ritualsystem in which 'abodahor "workingthrough"is accomplishedslowly,overtime. The teachingson angerare a key entrypoint for any attemptto understandthis system. Yishubha-Da'atand the Workof Ritual: A Hasidic Polemic against Ecstasy Anger and lust are not, of course, the only two emotional qualitiesthatMei ha-Shiloahtreats.But as Claude Levi-Strausshas argued,the power of symbolic thinkinglies precisely in its ability to expandcontinuallyupon a given but limited set of initialconceptualdistinctions.40All of the primaryemotionalandritualqualities thatR. MordecaiJosephdescribesin Mei ha-Shiloahcan be assimilatedto the basic, asymmetricaldichotomy between anger and lust outlined above. Sadness, or whatwe wouldprobablycall depression,is clearlylinkedto angerfor R. Mordecai Joseph, because it, too, derives from an inabilityto appreciatethat "the earth is the Lord's."A person may become so outragedand saddenedby the sins of the communitythathe seeks to leave the worldbehind. "Aperson should not become so angry at those who violate [God's] will," writes R. MordecaiJoseph, "thathe comes to despise life, as we have found with regardsto Elijah ... who said [to God] 'takemy soul,' and also Jonahwho despised his own life ... ."41"Greatpeople" are especially susceptibleto this kind of anger,because "theyderiveno pleasure from the good things of this world"and judge themselves as well as others unremittingly.The only antidoteis tovat Cayin,or generosityof spirit.42 Joy,by contrast,is relatedto lust, since both emotions involve hitpashtutor extension of the self into externalpleasure."Winemakes the heartglad,"but too much wine (or enjoymentwhich has not yet been "clarified")is identified as lust or drunkenness,which a Jew must workto resist.43Althoughbothjoy and lust are relatedto the world of hitpashtuttherefore,they are differentlyvalued, since lust is an extreme or prematureexpressionof hitpashtutthat calls for discipline. This kind of dialecticbetweencategoriesand,indeed,within categoriesis entirelycharacteristicof R. MordecaiJoseph'sapproach,in which emotionaloppositesarejux39. MH II, Bereshit, 5a (p.15), also see MH I, Mattot, 55a (p. 167). 40. Claude Levi-Strauss,TheSavage Mind (Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press, 1973). 41. MH II, Shoftim,36b-37a (p. 118). 42. MHI, Tazria,35b (p.111). Also see LiquteiMH II, 49a (p.1 47), on the relationshipbetween "a good eye" and the principleof divine glory. 43. On wine or drunkennessas a metaphorfor lust, see MH I, Noah 5a (p. 18); LekhLekha 7a (p. 24); and Vayeshev,14b (p. 47). As joy and hitpashtut,see LiquteiMHI, 1la, (p. 236); MHII, Eqev, 35b (p. 114); and LiquteiMH II, 50b and 57b-58a (pp. 162 and 185). Finally,on drunkennessas prematurehitpashtut,see MH I, Shemini,33b (p. 106) and II Shemini23b-24a (pp. 76-77).

261

Don Seeman taposedandbalancedthroughritualforms.Fear(yircah)is dividedbetweenthe fear of God associatedwith the commandmentsand the prosaic fear of earthlypower, but both are expressions of self-contraction(simsum), from which anger also springs.44Both types of fear are contrastedwith love (ahavah) as well as with "faith" (bitahon or emunah), and especially with "assurance"(tequfot), all of which are emotions of hitpashtut.45A primary axis of R. Mordecai Joseph's thought is the dialectic between doubt (safeq) and assurance(tequfot) in human experience,which follows the same centripetal-centrifugal pattern.46"Assurance" is the telos of humanexistence, but doubt and simsumare unavoidableaspects of the humancondition to which the commandmentsof the Torahare primarilyaddressed (see Figure 1). Each of the Mei ha-Shiloah'sbinarypairs is worthyof careful and separate study for the emotionaland spiritualvalues they intimate.Althoughthey all share a commonsemanticframeworkandsome structuralfeatures,they arenot reducible to one another,and theirmeaningcan shift significantlyfrom one passage or context to the next. Each binary pair is furthermorelinked to one or more practical commandments,through which they are mediated and balanced. Fringes (sisit) teach about the fear of God, but phylacteries(tefillin) allude to the quality of assurance(tequfot)or communion(devequt),which transcendsthat fear.47 Each ritual practice can be furthersubdividedinto elements that are relatedto assurance and to fear respectively,so thatthe individualcommandmentturnsout to be a microcosmof the ritualsystem as a whole. Whenhis grandsonGershonHanokhcame of age, R. MordecaiJoseph taughthim to recite the blessing over the tefillin that are worn on the head with an exceptionallysweet melody, because they allude to the qualityof assuranceandcommunionwith God.The tefillinof the hand,by contrast,bespeak a necessary illusion of divine service in this world.48With respect to the commandmentof sisit, R. MordecaiJoseph finds a distinctionbetween the "threadof blue"describedin Numbers 15:39,which representscaution"notto step a hair's breadth outside the words of Torah,"and the "fringes" described in Deuteronomy 21:12, which represent assurance of God's loving illumination. "Thatis why there is a 'thread'as well as a 'fringe' in the commandmentof sisit, to show that a person needs to use both of these qualities accordingto the illumination he receives from the will of God."49 44. See MH I Beshalah,22b-23a (pp. 72-73). On the relationshipof these two forms of fear to anger,also see R. Sadoq Ha-Cohen,Pri Sadiq on Hannukah,paragraph17 (vol. 1; Lublin: 1901), 84b. 45. See for instanceMH I, Vayese,12a (p. 40); Beshalah, 22b-23a (pp. 72-73). 46. See for instance MH I, Toledot,10a (pp. 33-34); MH I, Beshalah, 22b-23a (pp. 72-73); and MH II, Behuqotei,27a-27b (pp. 87-88). A good restatementof the teaching on "assurance"can also be foundin R. Issac Hutner'seighthessay for Rosh Hashanah,Pa hadYishaq(NewYork:GurAryeh Institute, 1990), pp. 72-82. A comprehensivestudy of the use and reworkingof Izbica teachings by R. Hutnerremains a desideratum.See Steven S. Schwarzschild,"An Introductionto the Thought of R. Isaac Hutner,"ModernJudaism5:3 (1985), pp. 235-277. 47. See MH I, Ah arei, 36b-37a (p.114), Vayelekh,64b- 65a (p.197). With regardsto tefillin, also see MH I, Ki Tisa, 31la (p. 94), MH II, Vayehi,13b (p. 44). 48. R. GershonHanokhHenich describesthis memory in cAynTekhelet(Warsaw,1909), which is cited in LiquteiMH II, Va-'ethanan, p.244 of the new edition. 49. MH II, Shela, 30a (p. 98).

262

Martyrdom,Emotionand the Workof Ritual

State of Contraction (simsum)

Lust

Anger Fear

Workof Ritual ('abodah)

State of Expansion (hitpashtut)

Love Assurance

Doubt

Figure 1. Among the Jewishfestivals,similarly,R. MordecaiJosephsingles out Sukkot for its emphasis on assurance,but he also distinguishesbetween dwelling in the sukkahitself, which is an embodimentof assurance,and the waving of the palm branch,which is an expressionof fear.50 These distinctionsare rooted in an even more essential Lurianicsymbolism of igulim (circles) andyosher (straightlines), which representthe unmediatedand reflectedor emanateddivine light, respectively.51As with lust andanger, igulimandyosher areheld in asymmetricalbalanceby Jewish ritual;whereasboth are required,it is ultimatelythe reflectionof assurance in the aspect of igulim towardswhich humanitystrives. R. MordecaiJoseph frequentlyrepeatsthe Talmudicteaching that "in the futureGod will make a circle dance for the righteous,"which he readsas a promisethatthe realmof igulimwill emergedominantin humanexperience.In a circle dancehe writes, cabodahis transcended,because "all are equallydistantfrom the center,none is more distantthan another."52igulim is relatedto the notion of zechut 'avot,or meritof the ancestors, because all Jews sharethis meritequallywhatevertheirlevel of individualservice. When the binaryschema of igulim andyosher is mappedonto the emotional coordinatesof oppositionslike those betweenassuranceand fearor betweenlust and anger,a clear link is forgedbetweenthe ritual,emotionaland cosmological di50. LiquteiMH II, 60a (p. 193). Also see MH II, Shoftim,36b (p. 117) and MH I, Emor, 41a (p. 127). 51. See Mordecai Pachter,"Circles and StraightLines: The History of an Idea" (Hebrew), Da'at 18 (1987): pp. 60-90. 52. Ta'anit31la. See MH I, Vayigash,17a (p. 57), Qorah,50b (p. 155), Vi-zotha-berakhah,66a66b (p.202); MH II, Vi-zotha-berakhah,41a (p. 132); LiquteiMH II, 60a-60b (p. 193). CompareNehemiah Polen,"Miriam'sDance: Radical Egalitarianismin Hasidic Thought."Modern Judaism 12 (1992) pp. 1-21.

263

Don Seeman mensions of humanexistence.WheneverR. MordecaiJosephrefersto one of these dimensions, therefore,associations with the other two are immediate.Every action, dispositionor commandmentcan be locatedalong a continuumof circles and lines, contractionand expansion,with a minimumof effort (see Figure2), but it is characteristicthat no one of them is ever allowed to dominatehumanexperience to the exclusion of others.53They are balanced througha shifting arrayof practices and commandments,referredto as "counsels"or "stratagems"('esot) in an apparentallusion to Maimonides,who arguedthat"mostof the rules of the Torah are none other than counsels (esot) from of old (Isaiah 25:1),"whose purpose is "to correct our dispositions (decot)and straightenall our actions."54Elsewhere Maimonidesspecifies thatthe "straightpath"is the one that leads to "themean in each group of human dispositions; namely that disposition which is equidistant from the two extremes, not nearerto the one than to the other."55Although their cosmological referents were very different, R. Mordecai Joseph shared Maimonides' view of the law as a set of stratagems"concernedwith the intricacyand instabilityof the humantemperament,"and devotedto its training.56 Both Kotzk and Izbica-Radzinemphasizedthe study of Maimonides, and this is reflected in R. MordecaiJoseph'sfrequentuse of the term cesotto describe the role of the commandments(or "generalwords of Torah")that precede divine illumination.57He cites the ZoharratherthanMaimonides:"Wehave been taught thatthe Holy One, Blessed be He, gave six hundredandthirteencounsels [or stratagems] unto man, in orderthathe might be perfect in attachmentto his Lord,"but the Zoharicderivationseems only partial.58While it has been much cited in Hasidic tradition,this passage lacks the specific focus on trainingandmoderationof the dispositionsthat Maimonidesand Mei ha-Shiloahshare,and it shouldbe noted that there is a tendency in Izbica-Radzinto emphasize citation of esoteric authoritiesat Maimonides'expense.59For R. MordecaiJoseph,the commandments of the Torahare "stratagemsto teach the childrenof Israelgood dispositions[mid53. See the explicit statementto this effect in LiquteiMH II, 54a (p. 173). 54. MishnehTorah,HilkhotTemurah4:13. 55. MishnehTorah,HilkhotDe'ot 1:4. On Maimonides'"straightpath,"see IsadoreTwersky,Introductionto the Code ofMaimonides (New Haven:Yale UniversityPress, 1980), pp. 459-464. 56. The quote is fromTwersky,Introductionto the Code of Maimonides,p. 416. 57. See IsraelYa'aqobDienstag, "The Guide for the Perplexedand the Book of Knowledge in Hasidic Literature"(Hebrew),in SamuelBelkin editor,TheAbrahamWeissJubilee Volume(New York: ShulsingerBrothers, 1964); RaphaelMahler,"Hasidismand the Jewish Enlightenment,"in Gershon David Hunderteditor, Essential Papers on Hasidism (New York:New YorkUniversity Press, 1991) pp. 468-472; and Faierstein,"PersonalRedemptionin Hasidism."R. GershonHanokhargues in his introductionto Bet Yacaqob(7a [p.48]) that Maimonidesenjoyed a degree of prophecysimilarto that of Abraham,and second only to Moses. 58. MH I, 40b (p. 125), LiquteiMH II, 58a (p. 187). Also see the introductionto Bet Yahaqob, vol. I, PetahHa-Sha'ar23a (p. 155).The quoteis fromZoharII 82b, translatedby HarrySperling,Maurice Simon, and Paul P. Levertoff,TheZohar vol. 3 (New York:Soncino Press, 1984) p. 249. 59. See LiquteiMH II, 65a (p. 208), whereinMaimonides'concept of the mean is cited obliquely from "books,"but R. Isaac Luriais mentionedby name. Despite his extensive focus on Maimonides in the introductionto Bet Ya'aqob(7a [p. 50]), even R. GershonHanohproteststhat he does not identify with Maimonidesovermuch.See Dienstag, "TheGuide for the Perplexedand the Book of Knowledge in Hasidic Literature."

264

Martyrdom,Emotion and the Workof Ritual Stateof Contraction (simsum)

RitualExpression

Emotional Expression

Cosmological Expression

1. tefillinof the hand 2. Fringeof blue (tekhelet) 3. Palmbranch(lulav) 4. Fast of Atonement (yomhaqippurim) 5. Prayer

Stateof Expansion (hitpashtut) 1. lefillinof the head 2. Prayershawl (tallil)

3. Ritualbooth(sukkah)

4. Feast of Booths (sukkot) 5. Studyof Torah

1. Fear/Doubt

1. Love/Assurance

2. Senseof Lack

2. Senseof Completeness

3. Self Restriction 4. Anger

3. Self Expansion 4. Desire/Joy

PervadingLight '(osher)

SurroundingLight ('igulim)

"StraightLines,"Finitude.

"Circles,"Infinity.

Figure 2. dot],"and also to "fix truthin the heart."60A person at the beginning of service must "multiplystratagemseach time throughwordsof Torah"until this trainingis complete.61 More strikingstill is Mei ha-Shiloah'sdirect appropriationof Maimonides' "middlepath"for Hasidic cosmology: "She [Wisdom]takes her stand at the topmostheights, by the wayside, at the crossroads"[Proverbs8:2]. This verse can be explainedthroughwhatis found in books [sic] that a person who wants to fix his dispositions [middot]must reverse himself from one disposition to its opposite. For instance, someone

whois accustomed to miserlinessshouldleaninthedirectionof extravagance, even thoughextravaganceis also an imperfectdispositionbecause it is not the mean. If a person accustomshimself to extravagance,he may acquirethe disposition of generosity,which is the mean.62

This is a close paraphraseof Maimonides'teachingon generosity fromthe fourth chapterof ShemonahPeraqim,and it drawson the language of Ibn Tibbon'sHebrew translation.But R. Mordecai Joseph continues by translatingthis teaching into the languageof sephiroticKabbalah: This is the meaningof "She [Wisdom]takes her standat the topmostheights" (Proverbs8:1), that throughlabor a person can change his disposition [middah] from one extreme to the next, and will then arrive at a place which is 60. Fortheformer,seeMHI,Emor,40b(p. 125).Forthelatter,seeMHII,KiTavo,38b(p. 124). 61. MHI, Mishpatim, 27a(p. 75). 62. LiquteiMHII,51a(p. 164).

265

Don Seeman abovethe powerof thatdisposition.He will thenbe "bythe wayside,at the crossroads" (Proverbs 8:1),whichis to saythathis intellectwill directhisdiswhichis to saytheplace positions. . . sincehe will standat thecrossroads, fromwhichall roadsextend,to determineall of his behavioron his own. The termmiddah(literally"measure"),which in its Maimonideancontextreferred to a given dispositionor emotionalquality,is here given a sephiroticconnotation. In this symbolism, the various middot, or dispositions (hesed, gevurah, etc.) are defined by theirbranchingout to the right or the left from the centralbody of the sephirotictree (representedby da'at- tif'eret). R. MordecaiJoseph here suggests that the middotof emotional experienceneed to be broughtback to the source of theirdivergence(da'at),fromwhich they can be redirectedor indeed transformed. Emotionalextremes are almost always destructivefor R. MordecaiJoseph, because "Everything that can be considereda middah (i.e., a deviation from the mean) implies its opposite also."63He likens the choice of a path throughlife to the navigation of a ship throughrough seas of desire, in which only stratagems ('esot) will yield a middlepath.But it is the meritof this effort(cabodah)thatleads God finally to send "salvationby the middle channel,"which is to say the channel of darat,the king's highway, from which all of the emotional dispositions emanate.64This means that no one disposition (e.g., anger,joy, lust) should ever be allowed to overpowerany other, and that the goal of human personality is the attainmentof cognitive and emotionalequanimityoryishub ha-da'at,which is another centralvalue of Maimonideanpsychology.Attentionto the radicalimplications of R. MordecaiJoseph'stheology has distractedscholarsfromthe essentially conservativeimplicationsof yishub ha-da'at,which is the subjectof no less than forty separatehomilies in the two volumes of Mei ha-Shiloah.Termslike hitlahavut(fervor)thatplayed such a centralrole in the teachingsof R. Levi-Yishaqof Berdichev,or hitpa'alut(ecstasy) that preoccupiedthe Habad school, are correspondinglyabsent. ForMaimonides,yishub ha-da'atis a scholars'virtue;it appearsin a variety of differentcontexts as the mental composureand concentrationthat are required for study or prayer."A person who finds that his mind is confused and his heart troubledis forbiddento prayuntil his mind becomes composed (ad she-tityasheb darato)."'65This usage is closely relatedto Maimonides'advocacy of the middle path, since it requiresa state of tranquilitythat is devoid of overwhelmingemotions like fear, anger or desire.66A pregnantwoman with cravings for forbidden foods is fed just enough so that"hermind becomes composed,"accordingto Maimonides, anda teacherwho is requiredto simulateangerfor some educationalpurpose is counseled nevertheless to "remaintranquil"(dacatomeyushevet)within 63. LiquteiMH II, 55a (p. 176). The ideal of the hasid who deviatesfrom the mean seems to be disallowedin this passage. See howeverLiquteiMH II, 53b-54a (p. 172). 64. MH II, Ki Tavo,38a (p.121). 65. MishnehTorah,HilkhotTefillah4:15. Also see Ibid.,Hilkhotqeriyatshema 4:7. On the importanceofyishub ha-da 'at for Torahstudy and intellectualattainment,see HilkhotTalmudTorah1:2 and 4:6. 66. Ibid., HilkhotSanhedrin 13:1.

266

Martyrdom, Emotion and the Work of Ritual himself.67R. MordecaiJoseph'steachingcan accommodatethe concept ofyishub ha-da'at in all of these contexts, but it also transformsthe term by importing a sense of da'at as the "middlechannel"between contractionand expansion,or between the fear of God and the assurancethat "all is in heaven'shands."The result of this confluence is an ethos of emotionalrestraintthat would have been foreign to most Hasidic schools of the time, but that sits well with what we know of R. Mordecai Joseph's immediate predecessors in Kotzk and Przysucha. Mendel Piekarzhas describedthe anti-emotionalismof these two schools at length.68Of the Kotzker,GershomScholem writes simply,"He hates emotionalism!"69 In his commentaryon the biblical prohibitionagainst destroyingfruit trees in time of war (Deuteronomy20:19) R. Mordecai Joseph identifies yishub hadacatwith the transcendenceof destructiveanger: "Whenin yourwaragainsta city youhaveto besiegeit a longtimein order to captureit, you mustnot destroyits trees"... . Thiswarningteachesthat evenin a timeof agitationandanger,a personshouldfindyishubha-da'at not to ruina thingthatcanprovideevena littlepleasure.Thatis whyit is written, "Whenyoubesiegeetc.,to makewaragainstit,"nevertheless do notdestroy its trees.Thisis a qualitywhichIsraelpossess,thatevenin theirtimeof anger ha-da"at... sinceGodwillclarifythatIsraelwantsnoththeymaintainyishub ingbutthepointof goodwhichis foundin everything.... 70 Stating that Israelitesmaintainyishub ha- da'at even in a "time of anger"really means thatthey maintainknowledge that "the earthis the Lord'sand all that is in it" even when they are engaged in the realmof partialblindnesswe know as cabodah. Faiersteinpoints out that"tranquilityis the ideal one shouldstriveto cultivate in anger'splace,"butyishub ha- dacatmediates lust as well.71 In his commentary on Exodus 15:1, R. Mordecai Joseph makes the overall cosmological and ritual setting of yishub ha- dacat explicit: "Horseandhis riderHe has hurledinto the sea.""Horse"alludesto haste andto expansion[hitpashtut]. "Hisrider"alludestoyishubha- da[mehirut] catwhichlimits[misamsem] thehorseso thathecannotrun.Whentheybehold 67. Ibid.,HilkhotMa'akhalot'Asurot,14:14andHilkhotDecot2:3 respectively.Also see Hilkhot De'ot 4:2, 4:17 and 5:4, where the termyishub ha-nefesh is applied. 68. See Mendel Piekarz,TheHasidic Leadership[Hebrew](Jerusalem:Bialik Institute,1999) pp. 283-292, andIdeological Trendsof Hasidim in Poland During the InterwarPeriod and the Holocaust [Hebrew](Jerusalem:Bialik Institute, 1990), pp. 157-160. In the latter,Piekarzdescribes the polemic on emotion in Kotzk within the context of a debate on the natureof Hasidic leadershipbetween the successors of Przysucha (including R. Menahem Mendl) and the extravagantschool of Ruzhin. 69. Gershom G. Scholem, Major Trendsin Jewish Mysticism (New York: Schoken, 1961), p. 345. 70. MH II, Shoftim,37a (p. 119). Also see LiquteiMH II, 43a (p. 169). 71. Faierstein,All is in the Hands of Heaven, p. 70. Passages in whichyishub ha-da'atappears as a correctiveto lust includeMHI, Shemini,34a (p. 106), Qedoshim,37b (p. 116), Behaalotekha,48a48b (p. 148), and LiquteiMH II, 49b (p.158).

267

Don Seeman thepleasuresof thisworld,the [Gentile]nationsdo nothavethepowerto limit themselves,butexpandforthin all the lustsof theirheart.Thatis whythe versefirstsays,"horse," andonlythen,"hisrider." They[thenationsof the andthentheydesist.72 world]fill alltheirlustuntiltheyhavenomorestrength, Expansion or hitpashtutis associated with lust at the level of human emotion, whereasyishub ha- da at is in this case a form of contraction,or simsum.The cosmological dramaof creationplays itself out throughevery new balanceof lust and restraint,but "the nations"are described as those who have no balance because they know no restraint. This does not, however,meanthatdesireis rejected."WhenGod gives goodness to Israel,"reads the continuationof the above passage, "He first contractsit, so thata personcannottake it without seeing the Giver.Afterwardshe can indulge accordingto his heart'sdesire."Seeing the giver or seeing God "face to face" is an expressionof "clarification"or berurin the worksof Izbica-Radzin.The failureto perform'abodahin preparationfor receiving God's goodness, by contrastis tantamountto "turningone's back"on the giver.73 Yishubha-da'atis invokedbecause extremeasceticismwould be just as misleadingas libertinism,both of which deny the telos of humanspiritualwork."Apersonwho tends to be hasty [becauseof desire] ... does not know anything,"accordingto R. MordecaiJoseph, "buta person who does not desire anythingis like a beast."74"Thereis a great difference between a scholarwho indulges himself in pleasuresand an ignoramus,because a scholar'sactions arecoveredin grace andbeauty(i.e., tif'eret,the middle channel), since he does everythingwithyishub ha-da'at... for heaven'sglory."75Of the patriarchs,only Jacob (who is associatedwith dacat-tif'eret'smiddle path) is said to have achievedpermanentdivine illumination.76 Ultimately,yishub ha-da'at is a proteanvirtue.It mediatesa shiftingbalance betweeneach of the categoriesupon which R. MordecaiJoseph'steachingis based, includingnotjust angerandlust but also fearand assurance,contractionandexpansion.77 The need to evaluateevery emotionalexperienceor desirefor its properbalance means that spontaneityor "haste"are necessarily devalued, and this has wide-rangingimplicationsfor R. MordecaiJoseph'swhole spiritualmethod.Haste (renderedas mehirut)andconfusion(behalah)arethe resultof lust or of otherstrong emotions,whichcause a personto act-or even to indulgea given sentiment-withoutsufficientvettingforGod'swill. WhenJacobdiscoveredthatJosephwas still alive in Egypt,accordingto R. MordecaiJoseph,he had to test his joy throughfoursepa72. MH I, Beshalah, 24a (pp. 75-76). 73. Liqutei MH I, 5b (p. 220). Compare Schatz-Uffenheimer,Maggid Devarav Le-Yacaqob, pp. 328-329 (para.204). 74. LiquteiMH II, 56b-57a (p. 180). 75. LiquteiMH II, 51a (p. 163). Also see R. Sadoq Ha-Cohen'sshortessay on the mystical significance of eating,"Quntres'EytHa-Okhel."Publishedin Pri Sadiq (Jerusalem,1972 [Lublin,1901]), 118a-120b.I am gratefulto David Lester for bringingthis source to my attention. 76. MHI, Va-yese, 12a (p. 40), Vayehi,17a, 17b (pp.58, 59). See Weiss,"ALateJewishUtopia" p. 216. 77. See for instanceMHI, Beshalah, 22b-23a (pp. 72-73); Shemini,34b-35a (p. 108); Mesora, 36b (p. 113); MH II, Re'eh, 36a (p. 116).

268

Martyrdom, Emotion and the Work of Ritual rate stratagemsbefore he could rest assuredthat God had actuallysent this joy to him.7"He (1) "arousedhis good inclination,"(2) studiedTorah,(3) recitedthe "Hear O Israel"doxology, and (4) meditatedon the day of death.Only when his joy remainedstrongafterall of thesestratagemshadfailedwas Jacobpermittedto indulge. Spontaneityis suspect in the not-yet-perfectedhumanpersonalitybecause it may not conform to yishub ha-da'at, which is the state in which one asks, "will lasting existence and vitality derive from this act?"79This is a questionwhose answerrequiresbothcognitiveandritualattention,becauseonly ritualstratagemscan distinguishbetween counterfeitdesires rooted in spiritualcarelessness and those that representan honest humanreflection of divine hitapashtutin all things. The implicationsof this approachmay appearantinomianfromthe perspectiveof Jewish law ("generalwords of Torah"),but they are far from "anarchistic,"and point less to the autonomyof the human spirit than to its ritual constraintand dependency on the divine will. This is actuallya kind of "mysticalempiricism,"through which the adeptstrugglesto distinguishbetween subjectiveemotionalphenomena by systematicallyresisting them in a ritual field.80 It is a far cry from the turbulence of emotionalextremesthat characterizesmost Hasidic teachings, including those for whom ecstatic emotion is only a way stationon the pathto self-annihilation (bitul casmi),as in Habad.81The ethos of yishub ha-dacat resists ecstasy and bitul alike, and this is crucial for an understandingof R. Mordecai Joseph's restrainedteaching on martyrdom,to which we now turn. Martyrdom,Anger and the Expansionof Heaven's Glory. An essay by R. Dov Baer of Lubavitchentitled "ConcerningProstration the Gravesof saddiqim"was publishedfor the first time around1814.82 R. upon Dov Baer arguesthat althoughvisiting cemeteries is always beneficial for inspiring broken-heartednessand thoughtsof repentance,actualprostrationupon a saddiq's grave leads to spiritualattainmentsthat exceed the level of normal human understanding.Prostrationimplies bitul, the annihilationof self-awareness,"in great submissionand literalgiving up of one's life" (mesirutnefesh mamash),and it leads to communionwith the soul of the saddiq who is in paradise.83The Cave 78. MH I, Vayigash,16b-17a (pp. 56-57). 79. MH I, Beha 'alotekha,48a (p. 148). Accordingto MH I, Qedoshim,38a-38b (p. 118), even ostensiblypropheticutterancesare subjectto this ritualvetting or "clarification"before they can be accepted. 80. Compare this statement from an importanthistorian of science: "The research worker gropes but everythingrecedes, and nowhereis therea firm support.Everythingseems to be an artificial effect inspiredby his own personalwill. Every formulationmelts away at the next test. He looks for that resistance and thoughtconstraintin theface of which he couldfeel passive." Ludwig Fleck, Origin and Genesis of a Scientific Fact (Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press, [1935] 1979), p. 94, emphasis added. 81. See Louis Jacobs, Tracton Ecstasy (London, 1963). Rachel Elior ("Innovationsin Polish Hasidism")suggests thatan emphasison emotionalismled R. MordecaiJoseph'searlyteacher,the Seer of Lublin,to portrayyishub ha-da"atas the opposite of Hasidic spirituality. 82. 7Inyanha-hishtathut,in Ma'amareiadmor ha-emsai, Quntresim(New York:Kehot, 1991), pp. 17-36. 83. Also see R. ShneurZalman'sLiquteiamarimtanya, chapters29 and 42.

269

Don Seeman of the Patriarchsin Hebronis invokedas an especially efficacious site for prostration because of the saddiqimwho are buriedthere, and also because of its traditional proximityto "the gate of paradise."These teachings are entirelyin keeping with the spirit of R. Dov Baer's other essays, and indeed with those of the whole Habadschool, for whom mesirutnefeshandbitulareprimarymotifs.84But Piekarz notes thatR. SimhaBunem of Przysuchalacked"that(verbal)drunkennessof annihilatingreality [bitulha-mesiut]and divestmentof the corporeal[hitpashtuthagashmiut],"which were characteristicof earlier Hasidic leaders, and Levinger concludes that bitul was foreign to the ideology of Kotzk.85 R. MordecaiJoseph'sterse commentaryon Leviticus 26:1 takes on special significance in this context: "Youshall not have a workoffigured stone in your land, to prostrateupon it."

Figured[i.e., imagined]whichis to say thata personwouldabandonhis da'atandintellectandgiveuphis lifeto Godoneveryoccasion,whichis prohibited.As it has been written,"Eventhough[this formof service]was belovedto me inthetimeof thepatriarchs." A persondoesnotneedto giveup his life [i.e.be martyred] for three except things,andonlyin theTemple[miqto abandonhis da'atbeforeGod.86 dash]is he permitted R. MordecaiJosephagrees with R. Dov Baerthatprostrationis a ritualexpression of mesirutnefesh (giving up one's life to God) and thatthis is relatedto the abandonmentor transcendenceof intellect (da'at),but his evaluationof these actions is quite different.Aside from the questionof martyrdomto which it relates, it is importantto note that R. MordecaiJoseph considers prostrationitself to be suspect "outsideof the Temple"because of its ecstatic implications.Along similarlines, it is worth noting that R. MenahemMendl of Kotzk bluntly rejectedthe custom of visiting the graves of saddiqim,includingthat of his own teacher.On the first anniversaryof R. Simha Bunem of Przysucha'sdeath,R. MenahemMendl is said to have encounteredR. Isaac of Worke at the latter'sgrave, and to have told him, "Isaac,I have not come for the hillula. I am not a grave-Jew(ich bin nisht kein kevarosyud). It is only you I have come to see.""87 84. Foran excellent overview,see Naftali Loewenthal,Communicatingthe Infinite:TheEmergence of the Habad School (Chicago:Universityof Chicago Press, 1990). Also Rachel Elior,"HaBaD: The ContemplativeAscent to God,"in ArthurGreen,ed., Jewish Spirituality:from the Sixteenth-CenturyRevivalto the Present (New York:Crossroad,1987); RomanA. Foxbrunner,Habad: TheHasidism ofR. ShneurZalmanofLiadi (NorthvaleNew Jersey:JasonAronson, 1992) p. 114. 85. Pierkarz,TheHasidic Leadership,p. 288, my translation;Levinger,"TheTeachingsof the KotzkerRebbe,"pp. 422-423. Wherethe term bitul does appearin sayings attributedto R. Menahem Mendl, it usually signifies obedience to the commandmentsratherthan mystical self-abnegation. 86. MH I, Behar, 43b (p. 135). Also MH I, Ki Tissa, 29b (p. 92). The phrase "abandonhis da'atbefore God"probablyalludesto the discussion of zealotryin Berakhot19b-20a,andto the proof text cited there from Proverbs21, "Thereis no wisdom [hokhmah],nor understanding[tevunah],nor stratagem['esah]before the Lord."R. MordecaiJosephhere reads"stratagem"as a synonym for da'at in the sephiroticprogression.The identity of the two terms is statedmore or less explicitly in Liqutei MH I, 21a (pp. 263-264). 87. Emet Ve-Emunah,p. 25. Anotherversion of this story has R. MenahemMendltell R. Isaac,

270

Martyrdom, Emotion and the Work of Ritual R. MordecaiJosephdoes not relate specifically to the custom of prostration on graves,but he does cautionmore generallyagainst"fallingupon one's face" in prayerand supplication.88Biblical texts depictboth Moses andAaronfalling upon their faces in prayer,but R. MordecaiJoseph warns that this was only permitted them because "they were certain that by this means God would answer their prayers."Prostrationduringprayeris a ritualenactmentof self-extinction,according to R. MordecaiJoseph, and this is usually in opposition to God's will, since "the life of an Israelite is exceedingly precious to God."Again, this stands in contrastto the approachof R. ShneurZalman, for whom Roman A. Foxbrunner asserts that "martyrdomactively desired but not actively pursued,"was an axiological priority.89Nor was R. ShneurZalman alone. R. Mordecai Joseph's contemporary,R. Shelomo of Radomsk(1803-1866), cites "fallingupon the face" as "the essence of the service of every saddiq of the generation,to be in a state of self-sacrifice [mesirutnefesh] for the community of Israel."90In Izbica by contrast,extreme mesirutnefesh is rejectedas a religious model except in those few cases where it can be clearly shown to be in accordancewith God'swill. The contemplationof martyrdomduringprayer,which plays such an importantrole elsewhere in the Hasidic world, is strikingly absent from Izbica-Radzin, where hitpashtutratherthan bitul is promotedas the profoundlywished consummation of religious life.91 Like anger, to which it is related,martyrdomin the wrong context is portrayedas nothing short of idolatryin Mei ha-Shiloah: "Youshall noterecta stonepillar"(Deuteronomy 16:22).Thismeansthata theservice['abodah]of should not be stubborn even about person anything, God.As Rashicomments,"eventhoughit wasbelovedby me in thedaysof the patriarchs."92 Thepatriarchs werestrongandusedto give up theirlives evenfora smallthing.Thisis becauseGod'skingshipwasnotyetmanifestin the world,andso thisact was necessary.Butnow it is forbiddento give up one'slife exceptfor threewell-knownexceptions.Thisversealso alludesto thefactthatnopersonshouldbe stubborn towardsanother,forcinghimto accepthisopinion[da'ato], eventhoughhe believesthatjusticeis onhis side.93 This teaching is repeatedseveral times in Mei ha-Shiloahwith only slight variations. Ritualwork-of which martyrdomis only an extremeexample-takes place in a world in which God's kingship has not yet been made wholly manifest. R. "Youknow me, that I am not one to travelaboutin orderto cry upon the graves [of sadiqim],but I have come to see you ... "(Ibid., p. 121). 88. MH II, Behar, 27a (p. 87). 89. Foxbrunner,Habad, p. 114. 90. R. Shelomoh of Radomsk, Tif'eret Shelomoh vol. 1, Qorah (Jerusalem: 1992 [1869]),

edition.It is worthnotingthatR. Shelomohwascountedamong p. 274, or95a in the 1973Jerusalem the opponentsof R. MenahemMendl of Kotzk. See Piekarz,The Hasidic Leadership,pp. 264-280. 91. On the contemplationof martyrdomas a spiritualexercise, see Michael Fishbane,TheExegetical Imagination(Cambridge:HarvardUniversityPress, 1998), pp. 136-150. 92. See Sifre to Deuteronomy18:22 and Hilkhot'abodahzarah 6:6 of Maimonides.

93. MHI, Shoftim,61a(p. 186).

271

Don Seeman MordecaiJoseph'sinnovationis to insist that martyrdombecomes less necessary (and thereforeless permissible)to the extentthatGod's glory has alreadybeen revealed in the world. Once the Torahhas been given, martyrdomis circumscribed to the "threewell-knownexceptions"that are clearly enumeratedin Jewish law. The well-known exceptions to which R. Mordecai Joseph alludes involve any circumstancein which a Jew is forcedon pain of deathto commitmurder,idolatry,or forbiddensexual relations.In each of these three cases, the Talmudicdictum"lethim be killed ratherthantransgress"is applied.The sole dilemmato which R. MordecaiJoseph'steachingpertainsis thereforethe questionof voluntarymartyrdomas an act of special piety underothercircumstances.Maimonidesruled faThe mously thatvoluntarymartyrdomis reallya form of prohibitedself-murder.94 vast majorityof Ashkenaziauthorities(and some importantSephardicauthorities) disputedthis view, and it is strikingthat R. MordecaiJoseph makes no apparent allowancefor their opinion.95He does not cite Maimonidesby name, but he does state clearlythatmartyrdomoutside of the "threewell-knownexceptions"is a result of spiritualstubbornness,or of the inabilityto recognize God'sprogressiveexpansion of glory in the created world.96Martyrdomwas appropriateto earlier generationsmuch in the same way that strong 'abodah is appropriateto an individual at the beginning of his spiritualpath,but it is a type of service which must ultimatelybe transcendedlest God's expandingplan for humanitysuffer. Like all othervalues in Mei ha-Shiloah,martyrdomis presentedas one element in a binaryyet asymmetricalbalance,in this case between sanctification[qedushah]and glory [kabod],which arerelatedin ritualcosmology to the categories of contractionand expansionrespectively: of God'sname[qidEvenwhena persongivesuphislife forthesanctification dushhashem],whichseemsto theeye as if nothingcouldbe cleareras a fulwhetherheaven's fillmentof God'swill, stillin truthhe requiresclarification will derivefromthisact.Davidsaid,"Mysoulis in glory[kabodshamayim] (Psalms119:109)."My myhandalways,andyourTorahI havenotforgotten" soul is in myhandalways,"meansthatI amalwaysreadyto give my life for meansthatmydesire qiddushhashem.But"yourTorahI havenotforgotten" forlife is alsoheaven'sglory,becausethroughmy life thegloryof Torahexandthegloryof heavenis magnified.97 pands[mitpashet] Sanctificationand glory are mediatedby yishub ha-da'at or "moderation"(met94. MishnehTorah,Hilkhotyesode ha-torah5:1. 95. Because he describesMaimonides'argumentas simply "thestandardtheologicalposition," Faierstein("PersonalRedemptionin Hasidism,"p. 220) probablyunderestimatesthe novelty of R. Mordecai Joseph's appropriation.See H. Soloveitchik, "Religious Law and Change: The Medieval Ashkenazic Example,"AJS Review, XII (1987) pp. 205-221 ; YishaqTwersky,"Qiddushha-shem viqiddushha- hayyim,"In Isaiah M. Gafni and Aviezer Ravitsky,eds., Sanctityof Life and Martyrdom: Studies in MemoryofAmir Yekutiel(Jerusalem:ZalmanShazar,1992), pp. 167-190. 96. Also see LiquteiMH II, 49a (p. 157) on Psalms 72. This set of associationsis even more explicit in Tif'eretYosef,Bereshit24a (p. 69) and Ilagigah 91a (pp. 263-264). 97. LiquteiMHI, 21a (pp. 263-264). However,for a rareexamplein which Mei ha-Shiloahdeploys kabodshamayimin the context of self-affliction, see LiquteiMH II, 49a (p. 188).

272

Martyrdom,Emotion and the Workof Ritual

Telos

Martyrdom hashem) (qiddush

of

the

Law

RitualWork ('abodah)

DivineGlory shamayim)

Yishub(kabod

Ha-Da'at

Self-annihilation (bitul)

-

-

Self-indulgence (hitpashtut)

Haste,Confusion

Figure 3. inut), whereasmartyrdomis often relatedto "haste"or mehirut[see Figure3]. Of course, haste is also sometimesGod'swill, as in the earliergenerationswhen martyrdom was encouraged,but R. Mordecai Joseph is adamantthat metinut and yeshuv ha-da'atare the rule for contemporarycabodah.98 These teachings are all the more strikingbecause they constitutea reversal of widespreadHasidic terminology,in which kabodshamayimis associated with submissionandannihilation(bitul)beforethe will of God. R. Shelomohof Radomsk's Tif'eretShelomoprovidesa good exampleof the more common Hasidic view, in which "heaven'sglory" is dependenton radical submission and self-sacrifice (mesirutnefesh): There are saddiqimwho are called "zealous for God" because they spend all theirdays in mesirutnefeshfor the sake of God'sglory [kabod],may His name

be magnifiedandsanctified,andthatis whytheyarezealouswithrespectto the wickedwho violateGod'swill. Thusit is writtenwithregardto Pinhas (Numbers25:11),that"heexercisedmyzealousnessamongthem,"andthisis also true of Isaac our father.... These two saddiqimdespised the life of this

worldbecauseof thepainof theshekhinah's exile... andthisis alsotruewith regardto Elijahwhoasked[God]to endhislife ... [saying],"Ihavebeenzealous fortheLordof hosts."99 98. LiquteiMHII, (p.177-178).Forlimitations to theprincipleof yishubha-daat, see MHI Qedoshim,38a (pp. 117-118), LiquteiMH I, 3a (pp. 212-213), MH II Re'eh(p. 116), and LiquteiMH

II,50b-51a(p. 162-163). writ99. TiferetShelomoh, Vol.I, Miqes,37a(p. 107).Thisis a majorthemein R. Shelomoh's Seeforinstance thatJewishlawdoesnotmandate suchself-sacrifice. ing,althoughhenotesfrequently Pinhas,103b(p.299).R.DovBaerof Lubavitch alsodescribesElijahasa positiveexampleof mesirut

273

Don Seeman Zealousness, angertowardthe wicked, and mesirutnefesh unto death constitutea positive and mutuallyreinforcingset of values in this passage, whose validity is never questioned.Yet, an analogousteaching in Mei ha-Shiloahreads like a direct rebuttalof these claims: "Do not sacrifice to the Lord an ox or a sheep in which there is a blemish."

Thisversewarnsagainstbecomingso angryat thosewhoviolateGod'swill thatyou despise[orseekto bringan endto] life, as we find withElijah... andalsowithJonah,whodespisedhis life ... 100 The will to deathor to martyrdom,which masqueradesas an act of religious faith par excellence, can sometimes derive from a "blemished"view of the world, accordingto R. MordecaiJoseph.Ourhaste to give up everythingto God can express a paradoxicaland implicit denial that everythingbelongs to God already,in the precise technical sense that "the earthis the Lord's." These issues go to the very heartof what it means to be a Jew accordingto R. MordecaiJoseph, and set him systematicallyat odds with otherimportantHasidic movements.R. ShneurZalmanof Liadi,for instance,arguedin his Tanyathat every Jew inheritsfromthe Patriarchsa hiddenpropensityfor martyrdomthatgoes beyond humanunderstanding: "SobrutishamI, andignorant: I amas a beastbeforeThee;yet I amcontinuwith Thee,... [Psalms73:22]"meaningthat"BecauseI ambrutishand ally as a beast,I amcontinually withThee."Thereforeeventhemostworthlessof worthlessandthetransgressors of theIsraelites,in themajorityof casessacrificetheirlivesforthesanctityof God'sNameandsufferharshtorturerather thandenytheone God,althoughtheybe boorsandilliterateandignorantof God'sgreatness.... Rather[dotheysuffermartyrdom] withoutanyknowledgeandreflection,butasif itwereabsolutelyimpossibleto renouncetheOne God.'o0 This propensityis literally"aboveda'at";the soul of an Israeliteis "like the flame of the candle whose natureit is always to scintillate upwards,"evoking a strong connotationof ecstatic compulsion, or like the light of the sun within the orb of the sun itself, signifying bitul.102 In Mei ha-Shiloah,by contrast,we find thatthe characteristiccapacityrooted in every Israelitesoul is preciselyyishub ha-da'at,or the measuredresponseto specific spiritualneeds. In a biblical passage that requiresa person who has been stricken with leprosy to be brought before a priest, R. Mordecai Joseph reads "priest"as a symbol for the yishub ha-dacat presentin every Jew: nefeshin Ma'amarei'admorha-emsa'i, DerusheiHatunah(Brooklyn,KehotPublicationSociety, 1988) pp. 112-114. 100. MH II, Shoftim,36b-37a (p. 118). 101. Translationfrom Liquteiamarimtanya (23a), pp. 76-77. 102. See for instanceLiquteiamarimtanya 24a (pp.77-78), 78a (pp. 293-294).

274

Martyrdom,Emotion and the Workof Ritual He will be broughtto thepriest .... [This]alludesto fear,as it is written [Malachi2:5], "I will putmy fearuponthemandthey will fearme."This meansthathe [thepriest]hasyishubha-da'atin everythingsmallorgreat[to know] if its is God'swill. Thispoint [nequdah] isfound in each and everyIsraelite,butonlysometimes,whentheyareengagedin'abodah, in somemat-

terrelatingto a commandment . .. whichis whentheycanbe calledby the name"priest."'103 In the continuationof this passage we are told thata person"mustadoptthe quality of the 'priest,'which is to say 'abodahandyishub ha-da'at,and contracthimself accordingto his need as he begins to heal."Otherwriters are more likely to invoke the priest as a model of zealousness and haste, in which the whole concept of yishub hada 'at seems out of place.'04 Unlike the flame in R. ShneurZalman'smetaphor,furthermore,R. Mordecai Josephemphasizesthata candle retainsits own individuallight,just as acts of the saddiq retain their individual significance before God. R. Jacob of Radzin taughtin his father'sname thatsaddiqimare likened to candles in the presence of a torch for just this reason: Whyare the saddiqimbefore the shekhinahlikened to candles beforea torch

[TalmudPesahim8a]? I heardfrommy honoredfatherandteacher... that theydidnotsay"acandlebeforethesun"because... its lightis nullifiedin thelightof thesun,whichis thesourceof light.Buta candlebeforea torchis notnullified... andits separatelightcanbe seen.... Evenwhentheclarity of God'slightis revealedandit becomesknownthatchoiceand'abodahhave no reality,theactsof thesaddiqimwill stillcontinueto shedlightbecauseof all thattheyweariedthemselvesandsufferedin thetimeof [God's]hiding,so thattheirabodahwouldbe calledby theirname.o05 Ratherthan a hidden propensityfor martyrdom,R. MordecaiJoseph insists that Israelitesinherityishub ha-da'at andthe powerto speakGod'spraiseson theirown accord.The goal of religious life is not annihilationbut hitpashtut,or "seeing God face to face,"as maturespiritualbeings who do not look away.'06 Fromwhat we know of his contemporaries,R. MordecaiJoseph'sreticence regardingboth bitul and martyrdommay also have had more immediatepolitical ramifications.Startingin 1846, Hasidic leaders in Polandbegan to mobilize opposition to an edict that compelled Jews to abandontheir separatemode of dress. 103. MH I, Me sora, 36b (p. 113), emphasis added.Also see MH II, Shoftim,37a (p. 119). 104. See for instanceR. MenahemMendl of Lubavitch,Derekhmisvotekha(New York:Kehot, 1991 [1911]), p. 112: "Thismatterof "haste"(mehirut)alludes to the priesthood... throughwhom all the revelationand drawingdown of lights from above to below occurs." 105. This teaching is cited in several passages in Bet Ya'aqob,including Noah, 26b-27a, 34a (sections 3 and 19), and is includedby Goldhaberand Spiegelman in their edition of LiquteiMH II, p. 265. Also see MH I, Ve-zotha-berakhah,66a-66b (p. 202) and MH II, Ve-zotha-berakhah,41a (p. 132), where a similartheme is at stake. For earlieruse of the candle metaphor,see Schatz-Uffenheimer,Maggid devaravle-Y aqob, p. 97 (par.61). 106. MH I Ha'azinu,65b (p. 200).

275

Don Seeman R. Isaac Meir of Warsawand R. Isaac of Warka-both associates of R. Menahem Mendl of Kotzk-attempted to intercedewith the governmentagainstthe decree, butwhen all else failed,some leadersresortedto moreextrememeasures.R. Menahem Mendl was reportedly"agitatedto the very depthsof his being"when he was told that R. Abrahamof Ciechanow and R. Isaac Meir of Warsawhad ruled that Jews were obligatedto give their lives in opposition to the new governmentpolicy.'07 His reactionwas characteristic: Ourmastertookholdof theendof his beardandcrieda greatcry."Thusthey havedecidedthelaw!Theylookedintothatsugya[Talmudic discussion],and foundthisruling?I havealsoperuseda bookonoccasion,andI alsoknowthe smallletters.I haveneverfoundthisruling,thata personshouldratherallow himselfto bekilled[ina caselikethis]thantotransgress. Howtheyarecheapening the blood of Israel ... !o10

There is no writtenrecordof R. MordecaiJoseph'sinvolvementin the case, but it is clear from his general approachto martyrdomthat he would have sided in this matterwith R. MenahemMendl.It was R. MenahemMendl,afterall, who declared that "A moderateperson [matun]is someone who acts with yishub ha-da'at,and does not hasten to do anything."'09R. MordecaiJoseph echoes this sentimentin the specific contextof martyrdomwhen he teachesthat"theearlygenerationspossessed a quality of haste which is very precious in its appropriatetime,"but that contemporaryJews should exercise moderation,because that is what yishub hadacat demands.110 Thereis only one exceptionto this rule, but it is an importantone because it to helps situatemartyrdommore broadlywithin R. MordecaiJoseph'sritualcosmology. Accordingto R. MordecaiJoseph,only a perfectedsoul is obliged-and thereforeonly a perfectedsoul is permitted-to choose martyrdomin contextsbeyond those specifically requiredby Jewish law. This is the esoteric meaning of a biblicaltext in Deuteronomythatrequiresa personto "sendawaythe motherbird" when taking eggs from a nest: "Mother"refers to the general principles of the Torah....

A person should

actin accordwithgeneralprinciplesof Torahin everything, andtheseprincithata personis notobligedto giveuphis life exceptforthree ples determine well-knowncases[i.e.idolatry,incestandmurder].Butthecommandment of sendingforththemotherbirdteachesthatin a casewherea personknowsthat a certaincommandment is linkedtotherootof hissoul,inthatcaseheis obliged to givehis life evenfora minorcommandment. Thereis anallusionto this 107. Mahler,Hasidism and the Jewish Enlightenment,pp. 476-477. 108. Emet ve-Emunah,p. 39. See also p. 26. 109. Ibid., p. 12. Also recordedby R. Samuel of Sochatchowin Shem mi-Shemuel,Debarim, 28b. Fora lengthydiscussion of moderationandyishub ha-da'atas Hasidic virtues, see the 1917 essay in Shem mi-Shemuel,Vayigash,pp. 295a-298a. 110. MH I, Mishpatim, 27a (pp. 85-86). Other passages on martyrdom or mesirut nefesh include MHI, cEmor, 41a (p.127); Va-cEthanan, 57b-58a (p. 177); Shoftim, 61a (p.186); Ki Te se, 62b-

63a (p.189); LiquteiMHI, 21a (p. 263); LiquteiMH II, 55a-55b (pp. 177-178).

276

Martyrdom,Emotionand the Workof Ritual teachingin the sendingawayof themotherbird,whichmeansthata person should"sendaway"thegeneralprinciplesof Torahandpayno heedto them, butrathergiveuphis life.I•' "Generalwords of Torah"are associatedwith the "mother"in Mei ha-Shiloahbecause they are formulatedwith a mother'sassumed concern to protect her child from stumbling,whereasthe "father"representsa mode of service based on lived experienceand painful trial.Elsewhere,these two modes of service are identified with talmudicand biblical Judaismrespectively."12 Even in this context, however,it is importantto note that the expandedapplication of martyrdombeyondJewish legal requirementsapplies only to the elite who are capableof recognizingthe specific commandmentin which their soul is rooted.1"3This is far from the generalizedethos of martyrdomthat characterizes R. Shelomo of Radomsk.What is more, this extralegalmesirutnefesh is presented not as a form of annihilationon God'sbehalf, but as a special leniency granted by God to the righteous,so that they will not have to give up the spiritualbenefit for which they have worked.In a characteristicreversal,R. MordecaiJoseph describesthe periodbefore clarification(i.e., when permissionfor martyrdomis limited) as the period when "a person needs to be willing to give his life up to God even in the world to come (i.e., the afterlife).""14 A person shows true willingness to sacrifice for God,thatis, by renouncingmartyrdom,and the spiritualmeritwith which martyrdomis generallyassociated. Only later,when clarificationhas been achieved, can the will to martyrdomin specific extralegalcontexts be indulged. The powerfulrhythmofsimsum. andhitpashtutthatinformsR. MordecaiJoseph's whole ritualmodel is thus transposedto the afterlife, from which perspectivethe withholding of martyrdomin this life is a paradoxicalform of simsum.on God's behalf.' '5 We have now come full circle. We saw at the beginning of this section that Israelitesarenot permittedto prostratethemselvesupona "workof figuredstone." R. MordecaiJoseph takes this to mean that a person is not permittedto abandon da 'at and be martyredfor every small matter.Only "in the Temple"can da'at be abandoned,and this refers to a state of human clarification or berur attained through'abodah.In the meantime,prostrationis a kind of ritualized"littledeath," a dangerouspracticewhich can bring real extinction in its wake. This is the context in which R. MordecaiJoseph cites an enigmaticTalmudicrulingthat "an importantperson is not permittedto fall upon his face [in prayer]unless he knows thathe will be answeredlike Joshuabin Nun.""116 The Talmudiccontextof this passage seems to imply that the warningagainst prostrationis meant to protect im111. MH I, Ki Tese, 62b-63a (p. 189). 112. See MHI, Naso, 47b (p. 145).Also LiquteiMH II, 56b-57a (p. 182), andMishnahBerakhot 9: 7. 113. See Faierstein,"PersonalRedemptionin Hasidism,"pp. 219-220. 114. MHI, Va-'Ethanan, 55a (p. 177). 115. Piekarz,Between Ideology and Reality, p. 130, describes a similar transpositionof martyrdomon the partof an earlierwriter,R. Neta of Chelm (d. 1812). 116. MH II, Behar, 27a (p. 87). The Talmudicquote is from Megillah 22b.

277

Don Seeman portantpersonagesfrom ridiculein case theirferventprayersare left unanswered. But commentatorshave puzzled over the Talmud'sspecific choice of Joshuaas a model for this teaching. For R. MordecaiJoseph, there is no dilemma.As Moses' successor, and as the personwho broughtthe childrenof Israelfinally to the PromisedLand,Joshua representsa qualitythatno otherbiblical actorcan adequatelyconvey,which is the transcendenceof angerand'abodah.Accordingto the biblical text, Joshuaparted the waters of the River Jordanso that the Israelites could enter the land,just as Moses partedthe sea for them when they left Egypt.These two crossingsmarkthe beginningand end of ritualwork.But unlike Moses, Joshuacommandsthe priests who are carryingthe Ark of the Covenant(i.e., the Torah)to standin the midst of the dry riverbeduntil the rest of the Israelites have crossed. For R. Mordecai Joseph, this is a sign that some form of cabodah(and hence anger) remainseven at the moment of crossing: TheriverJordanin theworldcorresponds to theliverin a humanbeing,which alludesto anger... andtheRedSeain theworldcorresponds to thespinein a humanbeing,whichalludesto lust."'•OurteacherMoses,peacebeonhim,split theRedSea,whichmeansthatIsraelwouldalwaysbeabletoriseaboveandconwhichcorqueranylust,andcrossuponthedryland.JoshuasplittheJordan, respondsto anger,so thatallof Israelwouldbe ableto conquertheiranger.But thepriests"passedthrough allthewatersof theJordan" [Joshua4:18],whichis to saythatthepriestservesGod[i.e.,conducts'abodah],andhis angeris "the whichis goodon all sides."18 outrageof scholars" de-rabbanan] [rutahah Moses gave the children of Israel cabodahand anger as an antidote to lust, but Joshuacompletedthe task of clarificationby takingthem into the PromisedLand, beyond anger'sreach.When the Israelitesfinally cross the Jordan,accordingto R. MordecaiJoseph,it is because they have come to know throughthe powerof their own cabodahthat "the earthis the Lord'sand all that is in it."The only surpriseis that they bring their "priests"(i.e., their power of abodah and "outrageof scholars")along with them. Why not leave cabodahand angerdecisively behind? It is only through"priests"that the children of Israel are able to attainthe "landof Israel,"in which ritualwork is attainedand transcended.Yetritualattainments arerarelyonce and for all. R. MordecaiJosephmoves tirelesslyin his teachings betweenthe final telos of humanhitpashtutandthe mundaneworldof simsum and yishub ha-da'at in which cabodahtakes place. Thus, althoughthere are typologies of freedom from the law in Mei ha-Shiloah (the king, the scholar,etc.), there are no social categories of persons who are consistentlyfree from the law in practice.Like Moses, some servantsof God are left standingon the far side of the Jordan,able to glimpse but not to enter the PromisedLand. Othersdo cross that 117. Also see LiquteiMH II, 43a (pp. 138-139). 118. LiquteiMH I, lb (p. 208). Fora close paralleltext, see R. GershonHanoch'sSodyesharim (New York,1971) Debarim,pp. 280-281. On the relationshipbetween scholarshipand outrage,see b. Taanit 4a, "Rabafurthersaid 'If a young scholarbecomes outragedit is because the Torahenflames him.... "

278

Martyrdom, Emotion and the Work of Ritual river,but only in the companyof priests, who representa qualityof clarified cabodah and anger-the outrageof scholars-that is necessary for them even here.119 These typologies may be thought of as successive moments in a fluid ritualhermeneuticfield, so thatevery personmust sometimes strivefor Moses' conquest of lust and sometimes for Joshua'sconquest of anger,dependingon their level of clarification and the needs of the hour. It is, as I have said, fundamentallymisleading to transposethis teaching into a set of static doctrinesabout the meaning of angeror 'abodah in Mei ha-Shiloah. Even an individualwho has alreadyattainedsome degree of clarificationin a given context must continue coming to terms with abodah in practice,according to R. MordecaiJoseph,if only to avoid leading the rest of the people who still requirethat'abodah astray.120The same practicetakes on differentmeanings depending on the humancontext in which it is performed.In otherwords, all things have their place in R. Mordecai Joseph'sworld, even martyrdomand anger, but these latterare stronglycircumscribedby the cosmology of hitpashtutand by the deep knowledge that God seeks to encounterhumanbeings primarilynot through prostrationor self-extinction(bitul),but "face to face,"in the clarified ritualspace where divine glory and humandesire meet.

119. The distinctionbetween "outrageof scholars"(either rutahahor rugza de-rabanan)and "angerwhich descends to Sheol" is "exceedingly thin,"according to R. MordecaiJoseph, therefore only God can testify which is manifest.The sin of Qorah in Numbers 16 was relatedprecisely to his inabilityto make this distinctionbecause of his insufficient regardfor divine glory (kabodshamayim). Also see MH I, Ve-zotha-berakhah,66a (p. 201), and LiquteiMH II, 43a (pp. 138-139). 120. "Thisis the difference,"teaches R. MordecaiJoseph,"between'fearof God ('Elohim)'and 'fear of the Lord (YHWH).''Fearof God' means thata person contractshimself in some way because of the lack (hisaron)thathe has in his heart,which has not yet been purified. 'Fearof the Lord'teaches that a person must contracthimself for the sake of the communityof Israel, even though he has no lack in this matter."MH I, Mishpatim,27a-27b (p. 86). See also MH I Vayera,9a (p. 29).

279

The Maskil, the Convert, and the 'Agunah: Joseph Perl as a Historian of Jewish Divorce Law Author(s): Nancy Sinkoff Source: AJS Review, Vol. 27, No. 2 (Nov., 2003), pp. 281-299 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4131608 . Accessed: 19/07/2011 03:37 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].



AJS Review 27:2 (2003), 281-300

THE MASKIL,THE CONVERT,ANDTHE cAGUNAH: JOSEPH PERL AS A HISTORIAN OF JEWISH DIVORCELAW'

by Nancy Sinkoff RabbiElazarben Azariahsays: "Now wheneverthe gentiles were to judge accordingto the laws of Israel, I might thinkthattheirdecisions are valid."But Scripturesays [to Moses]: 'These are the lawsyou are to set before them.'You [Israel]mayjudge their cases, but they may not judge your cases. On the basis of this interpretationthe sages say, "a bill of divorce given by force, if by Israelit is valid, if by the authorityof the [gentile] nations, it is not valid. It is howevervalid if the gentiles compel the husbandand say to him, 'do as the Israelite authoritiessay.'" Mekhiltade-RabbiIshmael-Nezikin 1, "These are the Laws"(Ex. 21:1)2

I

Some time in the third decade of the nineteenth century, the maskil (enlightened Jew) Joseph Perl (1773-1839) appealedto the provincialauthoritiesin Lemberg,AustrianGalicia to supportthose in the Jewish communitywho strove to find a solution to the rabbinicrequirementthat a male convert to Christianity grant his Jewish wife a writ of divorce (get).3 Perl'streatise, with the bold title, 1. Versionsof this article were given as talks at The Association of Jewish Studies, December 1999; the Second InternationalConferenceon the History of the Jewish Enlightenment,April 2000; and the Association for the Advancementof Slavic Studies, November2001. I am gratefulfor all the commentsand questionsgeneratedat those conferencesand for the commentsof the anonymousreaders of the AJS Review. Ulrich Groetschwas generouswith his native German. 2. Cf. Rashi on Ex. 21:1, "[Theseare the laws you are to set] before them, and not before gentiles; even if you know of one law that they ajudicateas we do, don't bring it before their courts, for one who brings a law to a gentile court blasphemesthe Divine, and appearsto do idolatrythere, as it is written,(Deut. 32:31): "for their Rock is not as our Rock, even our enemies themselves arejudges [overus]; [bringinga case to a gentile court] implies that theirjustice is superiorto ours." 3. Contested divorces where the husband had converted to Christianitywere particularly poignantfor AshkenazicJewry living in medievaland early modernwestern Christendombecause of the paradoxinherentin the halakhicrequirementfor a male Jewish apostateto granthis wife a Jewish divorce.The apostatewas viewed as both immutablyJewish, always a potentialba'al teshuvah,to the Jewish community,and immutablyChristianto the Churchbecause the watersof baptismwere indelible. Jewishjurists, well awareof theircommunity'ssusceptibilityto conversionarypressures,struggled

281

Nancy Sinkoff Oberdie Modifikationder MosaischenGesetze(RegardingtheModificationofMosaic Laws),4did not urge the abandonmentof rabbiniclaw or authority.Rather,he arguedthata historicalinvestigationof Jewishdivorcelaw provedthatminimizing the possibility of 'aginut ("grasswidowhood")had alwaysbeen a priorityof a responsible rabbinicleadership.Werethe Austriansable to empoweran upstanding contemporaryrabbinatesensitive to women'sneeds, Perlreasoned,a rabbinicallysanctionedhalakhic solution to the problemof an 'agunah marriedto a convert could be found.Althoughthe Austriancensor rejectedthe publicationof Uber die Modifikationder Mosaischen Gesetze, the manuscriptis illustrativeof the ideological concerns of moderatemaskilimin Centraland EasternEuropewho wanted to participatefully in civil society while retainingthe authorityof Jewish law.5 The predicamentof the 'agunahmarriedto a convert,Perl claimed, spurred him to write the treatise,6which includedan analysisof threeothersubjectson his maskilic agenda:the permissibilityof shavingthe male beard,the questionof the legality of Jews' extendingcreditto Jews and Christians,and the obligationto release debts in the SabbaticalYear.Perl'sfocus on Jewish divorce and conversion, costume, and economic behaviorare symbols of the areas of premodernJewish life maskilimfelt challengedthe integrationof the massive Polish Jewish population into the modernAustrianEmpire.'Takentogether,the issues Perlhistoricized in his treatiserepresentedthe culturalinsularitythat was an impedimentto Galician Jewry'smodernization,productsof what David Sorkinhas called the "baroqueness"of earlymodernAshkenazicJewishculture.8The Polish Jews now living underthe Austrianstate valorizedthe exclusive study of the Talmudand its commentators,disregardedthe grammarand philology of the Hebrew language, disbetween keeping the doors of repentanceopen and making an example of the convert by meting out harshpunishmentsagainsthim. See Rashi'sfamous responsumregardingthe maritalstatusof women whose husbandshad been forcibly convertedduringthe Crusades,cited in Jacob RaderMarcus, The Jew in the MedievalWorld(Atheneum,1938), pp. 301-302; andthe discussion in JacobKatz, "Though He Has Sinned,He Remains an Israelite,"Tarbiz27 (1958): pp. 203-217. For the early modernperiod, see Elisheva Carlebach,Divided Souls: Convertsfrom Judaism in Germany,1500-1750 (New Haven, CT:Yale UniversityPress, 2001), pp. 25, 138-139. 4. Joseph Perl Archive, folder 144, JNULA. Writtenprimarilyin Gothic German,with occasional use of Latin charactersand Hebrewcitations, the manuscriptis 83 pages with an introduction. The only mention I have found of the text is by AvrahamRubinstein,who noted that the manuscript was indicatedin Philip Koffler'sappendixto the Perl archive. See [Joseph Perl] Oberdas Wesender SekteChassidim,AvrahamRubinstein,ed. (Jerusalem,1977), p. 4, n. 17. See, too, JosephPerlArchive, folder 131, "Commentsor correctionsto the book dealing with Jewish Law,"and folder 38.7075. 5. The censor rejectedthe manuscripton February17, 1831. See number6 in the list of manuscripts compiled as an appendixto Perl'sArchives by Philip Koffler of Tarnopolduringthe interwar years, JosephPerlArchive, JNULA, appendix. 6. Perl,unpaginatedintroduction. 7. Scholarsestimatethat as a resultof the first and thirdpartitionsof Poland,roughly225,000 Jewish souls were absorbedinto the Empire,comprisingbetween nine and ten percent of the population. See Horst Glassl, Das OsterreichischeEinrichtungswerkin Galizien (1772-1790) (Wiesbaden: In Kommissionbei Otto Harrassowitz,1975), p. 191 and Piotr Wr6bel, "The Jews of Galicia Under Austrian-Polish Rule, 1869-1918," AustrianHistory YearbookXXV (1994), p. 99. 8. On the term "baroqueness,"see David Sorkin,"FromContextto Comparison:The German Haskalahand Reform Catholicism,"TelAviverJahrbuchflirdeutscheGeschichte,XX (1991), 23-58.

282

The Maskil, the Convert,and the ?Agunah trustednon-Jewishsources of knowledge, and earnedtheir livelihoods primarily throughpetty tradeand leasing.9I have chosen to focus this articleon Perl'streatment of divorce law because, as Perl knew, the unilateralnatureof the halakhah on divorce made it, alone of the issues he historicized in his treatise,impervious to the secularizingaims of the absolutiststate, which endeavoredto bring Jewish law underits aegis. Uber die Modifikationthereforeprovidesa lens into the dualistic consciousness of the moderatemaskilim,who simultaneouslysought to liberate the Jewish individualfrom the stricturesof the rabbinatethat they deemed unreasonablewhile retainingand defendingthe principlesof rabbinicauthority.'0 Despite the putative" gentile audienceof the treatiseand in contrastto earlier vernacularapologetic works on Jewish law and custom, Perl'stractwas not a response to gentile provocationor denunciation.12 Uber die Modifikationwas a 9. Perl decriedwhat he believed to be the narroweconomic profile of Polish Jewry.He argued thateconomic pressuresovertime, both restrictionson the partof gentile society andthe decision sanctioned in the BabylonianTalmud(BTKetubot105a) thatpermittedteachersof Torahto be compensated not for teaching, but for their loss of time, encouragedthe rabbinateto withdrawfrom the world. This retreatfrom society's economic demands led, in time, to Polish Jewry'sdevotion to Talmud,in greatpartbecause they were incapableof being gainfully employeddoing anythingelse. Perl,pp. 6975. On the aestheticelement of the Haskalah'srejectionof certainaspects of early modernAshkenazic culture, see Dan Miron, A TravelerDisguised (New York, 1973) and Mordecai Levin, cArkheihahevrahve-ha-kalkalahbe-idiologiyahshel tekufatha-haskalah(Jerusalem, 1975). 10. On the dualismof the Haskalah,see Shmuel Feiner,"Towarda HistoricalDefinition of the Haskalah,"New Perspectives on the Haskalah, Shmuel Feiner and David Sorkin, eds. (London:The LittmanLibraryof Jewish Civilization,2001), pp. 184-219. 11. I use the word"putative"because any worktreatinga Jewish subjectwould have to pass inspection by the censor of Hebrewbooks, most of whom were Jews or formerJews, individualscapable of reading some of Perl's footnotes, which were penned entirely in Hebrew.While Count Joseph Sedlnitzkyranthe Empire's"SupremePolice and CensorshipOffice" from 1817-1848, the Lemberg censor was Peter(n6 Joseph)Tarler,a teacherof the maskil Isaac Erterbefore his conversion;the Viennese censor was JosephBerger,who became Gabrielupon his conversion.See RaphaelMahler,Hasidism and the Jewish Enlightenment:Their Confrontationin Galicia and Poland in the First Half of theNineteenthCentury(PhiladelphiaandNew York:The JewishPublicationSociety ofAmerica, 1985): pp. 97, 364 n. 107, and 357 n. 112. The Jewish origin of the clerks in the Imperialcensorshipoffice raises a host of complicatedissues regardingthe way in which convertsin AustrianGalicia shapedthe image of Jews andJudaismproducedin vernacularworks,a topic which is beyondthe scope of this article. For a discussion of these issues in early modernGermany,see Carlebach,op. cit. 12. Withits attendantdescriptionand discussion of severalpoints of Jewish legal behaviorand custom, Oiberdie Modifikationevokes the seventeenth-centuryapologetic tractsof Menasseh ben Israel, SimoneLuzzatto,and Leone da Modena,as well as MendelLefin's late eighteenth-centuryFrench essay to the Polish Sejm in defense of the Talmud,and perhapsthe most famous eighteenth-centuryexample, Moses Mendelssohn'srejoinderto JohannCarperLavaterandAugust Crantzin Jerusalem.On Menassehben Israel'sVindicae,see JonathanIsrael,EuropeanJewryin theAge ofMercantilism15501750 (Oxford, 1985); on Simone Luzzatto,see "A Discourse on the Statusof the Jews, and in Particular of those Living in the IllustriousCity of Venice,"cited in BenjaminRavid, Toleranceand Economics in Venice;on Leone Modena, see MarkCohen, "Leone da Modena'sRiti:A SeventeenthCentury Plea for Social Tolerationof the Jews," in Essential Papers on Jewish Culturein Renaissance and BaroqueItaly, David Ruderman,ed. (New York,1992): 429-479; on Lefin, see Nancy Sinkoff, "Strategy and Ruse in the Haskalahof Mendel Lefin of Satan6w(1749-1826)," in New Perspectiveson the Haskalah, Shmuel Feiner and David Sorkin, eds. (London: LittmanLibraryof Jewish Civilization, 2001): pp. 86-102; on Mendelssohn, see Jerusalem, trans.Allan Arkush(University,AL: 1973) and AlexanderAltmann,Moses Mendelssohn:A BiographicalStudy(London: 1973).

283

Nancy Sinkoff voluntaryproposalwrittenby a maskilas partof his struggleto refashionAshkenazic Jewishlife, a pro-activepamphletfocused on the internaldialectic of Jewish legal culture.Perlbelieved thatif he could successfullyprovethatJews had adapted andmodified theirreligiousbehaviorbasedon time andcircumstances(Zeitund Omstande)and that much of what was currentlypracticedwas due to customary and not revealedlaw, then contemporaryGalicianJews, without impugningtheir commitmentto rabbinic authorityand law, could modify certain contemporary practices.Perl'seffort to leave intactthe foundationof rabbiniclaw while removing what he believed to be pietist additionsillustratesthathe defined himself as a defenderof rabbinictradition,his vehemence against its supererogationnotwithstanding."3 He claimed that he wrote the treatisenot as a means to obliteratethe rabbinateand its authority,but to renderit more flexible, to make it more attuned to the challenges of contemporarylife: "The purpose of the presentwork is only to prove thatJewish laws-particularly the ceremonial-always underwentmodification, andthatthe teachersin the past alwaysmade a consistenteffort to adjust them to the spirit of the times (Zeitgeist)."'4 HistoricizingJewish law, Perl urged its modification, yet simultaneouslydefended rabbinicprerogative.Perl'sreluctanceto subordinateall of Jewishlaw underthe tutelageof the Habsburgabsolutist state underscoresthe necessity of examining, region by region, the Jewish "response to modernity,"for both his treatiseand its rejectionfor publicationilluminate the distinctivenessof the Galician-Jewishencounterwith the modem state. II Knownprimarilyas the authorof the brilliantanti-Hasidicsatire,Megalleh Temirim(RevealerofSecrets) (1819), an epistolarynovel aimed at exposing what the maskilimbelieved was the stupidityof Galicia'sHasidim,JosephPerlwas also one of the most articulatespokesmenof the cause of Jewish modernityin Austrian Galicia in the early nineteenthcentury.15 Like other maskilimin Galicia, Perl saw his campaignagainstthe Hasidimas partof an effortto remakeand revitalize the Jewishcommunity.He foundedanddirected,mostly at his own expense, a modern Jewish school thateducatedboth boys and girls, a "reformed"synagogue,a library,and an archive.16 He wrote numerousmemorandato both the central au13. Among maskilimin the provincetherewas a broadspectrumof attitudestowardJewishlaw, rangingfrom NachmanKrochmal'sappropriationof Hegelian idealism to defend rabbinictraditionto Joshua Heschel Schorr'sarticulatecommitment to Reform Judaism. See Jay M. Harris,Nachman Krochmal:Guiding the Perplexed of the ModernAge (New York:New YorkUniversityPress, 1991) and Ezra Spicehandler,"JoshuaHeschel Schorr:Maskil and East EuropeanReformist,"HUCAAnnual, 31 (1960): 181-222; 40-41 (1969-70): 503-528. 14. Perl,p. 82. Emphasisis mine. All translationsof Perl'sGermanand Hebreware mine. 15. Biographicalmaterialon Perl can be found in N. M. Gelber, "The History of the Jews of Tarnopol,"(Hebrew), 'Ensiklopediyahshel Galuyot (Tarnopol),Phillip Krongruen,ed. (Jerusalem, 1955): 21-108; on Perl'santi-Hasidism,see Mahler,Hasidism and the Jewish Enlightenment,op. cit.; AvrahamRubinstein,"Haskalahand Hasidism:JosephPerl'sActivities,"in Bar-Ilan, 12, (1974): 167178; Shmuel Werses,"Hasidismin the Perspectiveof HaskalahLiterature:Fromthe Polemic of Galician Maskilim"(Hebrew),in Megamotve-surotbe-Sifrutha-Haskalah(Jerusalem, 1990): 91-109. 16. On his activities as an educator,see Philip Friedman,"JosephPerl as an EducationalActivist and His School in Tarnopol"(Yiddish), YIVObleter, 31-32 (1948): 131-190.

284

The Maskil, the Convert,and the ?Agunah thoritiesin Vienna and the provincialgovernmentin Lembergto enlist the state in his mission to transformGalicianJewrythroughthe modernizationof Jewisheducation, standardizationof the rabbinate,and state supervisionof kosher slaughtering.'7In Oberdie Modifikation,Perltook a differenttack:he engagedhis readers in a lengthy discussion of the historicityof Jewish law, with a particularfocus on the legislation surroundinga Jewish divorce. In his desire to "modify Mosaic Law,"'8Perlnot only articulatedthe struggleof maskilimin the Austrianpartition of Polandto make traditionalJudaismcompatiblewith the modernizingabsolutist state, but demonstratedthe centralrole of historicalconsciousness in that effort. Most scholarly assessments of the emergence of historical consciousness among modernizingEuropeanJews have emphasizedthe essential differencebetween East EuropeanHokhmatYisra'eland PrussianWissenschaftdes Judentums, characterizingthe former as a traditionalmovement of Haskalah-orientedautodidacts who directed their traditionalistworks solely towardsa Jewish audience because they were uninterestedin the quest for civic integration.19The historical method in Ober die Modifikationappearsto supportthis distinction. In contrast to Isaac MarkusJost and Leopold Zunz, and to other exponents of Wissenschaft des Judentums,Perl'streatiserelied exclusively on Jewish sources. Like Solomon JudahRapoport(SHIR), Perl'sGalician compatriotand personalcandidateto fill the position of the head of the rabbinicalcourt in Tarnopolin the late 1830s, Perl felt no need to consult sources not penned in Hebrew.20Citationsfrom the Bible, the Talmuds, Maimonides's Mishneh Torah,Sefer Hinukh ha-Misvah, and the 17. Raphael Mahler published many of these memorandain the original Yiddish version of Haskole un hsides: der kampftsvishn haskole un hsides in galitsye in der ershter helffun nayntsnt yorhundert(New York:Yivo Institute, 1942), but they have been neglected by most of the historiography on East CentralEuropeanJewry.See, too, RaphaelMahler,"JosephPerl'sMemo to the Authorities Regardingthe System of AppointingRabbis,RitualSlaughterersand Circumcisers,"Seferha-yovel mugash likhvodDr. N. M. Gelber le-regel yovelo ha-shiv'im,RaphaelMahler,Dov Sadan,and Israel Klausner,eds. (Tel Aviv: Olameinu, 1963): pp. 85-104. 18. Perl'suse of the term"Mosaic"to connoteJudaismdid not imply an essentialistbiblicistrejection of the Talmudor rabbinictradition,as shall be demonstratedin this paper.Michael Brennerhas arguedthat maskilim,early reformers,and practitionersof Wissenschaftdes Judentumswriting early in the nineteenth century used the terms "Jews,"Israelites,"and "Mosaites" interchangeably.See Michael A. Brenner,"Between Haskalahand Kabbalah:PeterBeer's History of Jewish Sects,"Jewish History and Jewish Memory:Essays in Honor ofYosefHayim Yerushalmi,John Efron, Elisheva Carlebach, and David Myers, eds. (Hanoverand London:BrandeisUniversityPress, 1998), p. 403, n. 25. 19. Ismar Schorsch,From Textto Context:The Turnto History in ModernJudaism (Hanover and London:UP of New England, 1994) and David Myers, Re-Inventingthe Jewish Past: European Jewish Intellectuals and the Zionist Return to History (New York:Oxford University Press, 1995), p. 25-29. Shmuel Feiner distinguishesbetween historicalconsciousness and modem historiography and arguesfor the constitutiverole historicalconsciousness played in the formationof the ideology of the Jewish Enlightenment.See Shmuel Feiner,Haskalah ve-historiyah:toldotav shel hakarat-'ever yehudit modernit(Jerusalem:MercazZalmanShazar,1998), particularlychapterone. 20. See GersonD. Cohen'sassessmentof the historicalmethodof SolomonYehudahRapoport (SHIR), Perl'scontemporary,in "TheReconstructionof Gaonic History,"introductionto Jacob Mann, Textsand Studies in Jewish History and Literature,I (KTAV,New York, 1972), pp. xiii-xcvi. See also Isaac Barzilay,Shlomo YehudahRapoport[SHIR] (1790-1867) and His Contemporaries(Jerusalem: The AmericanAcademy for Jewish Research, 1969) and Simon Bernfeld, ToldotSHIR[R. Shelomoh YehudahRapoport](Berlin:Zevi HirschbarYizhak Izkowski, 1898). See also the collection of SHIR's

285

Nancy Sinkoff ShulhancArukh supplythe footnoteapparatus-a signatureof Perl'sliterarystyleat the bottom of the treatise'spages. Although the treatise is not daringmethodologically and strives to make its case for the dynamic mutabilityof Jewish law from within the internalsources of Jewish tradition,Uber die Modifikation,like all of Perl'sother writings to Habsburgofficials, was spurredby his politics: the overarchingdesire to make the Jews unexceptionalsubjects of the HabsburgEmpire.21Protestingat the end of the treatisethat it was not the place to specify exactly how this should be done, Perl nonetheless urgedthe governmentto appoint a group of Jews, selected by the Jewish community itself, who could advise the governmenton religious mattersin orderto show that therewere no halakhicobstacles to modifying Jewish law where it appearedto be an impedimentto the integration of the Jewish community into the life of the state.22"In this manner," Perlsuggested,"theJews could become useful membersof the stateandeven happier" ("niitzlicheGlieder des Staates und eben dadurchgliicklicher werdenk6nnten").23Ober die Modifikationreveals Perl'sdesire to promote the civic emancipation of Galician Jewry,which he felt was only possible if it went through a process of self-reform not unlike the quid pro quo that characterizedthe German-Jewish engagement with the emancipatorystruggle.24Like the founding fathersof Wissenschaftdes Judentumsin Prussia,Perladducedhistory in his commitmentto reformingJudaism,modifying Jewish law, and transformingGalician Jewish society. Perl had alreadydemonstratedhis maskilic interestin disseminatinghistorical knowledge in Luah ha-Lev(The Heart's Calendar),the second section of the almanacs,Zir Ne'eman(FaithfulMessenger), which he publishedbetween 18141816.25One sectionof the calendarswas entitledZikhronYemotcOlam("History"), rabbinicbiographiespenned between 1829-1832 and republishedin Toledot(Warsaw,1913). On Hebrew creativityin the Habsburglands from the 1820s onward,see BernhardWachstein,Die hebraische Publizistikin Wien(Vienna, 1930), pp. 26-31. 21. On the politics of the maskilim,see David Biale, Powerand Powerlessnessin Jewish History (1986), particularlychapterfour; Shmuel Feiner,"'The Rebellion of the French'and 'The Freedom of the Jews'-the FrenchRevolutionin the Image of the Past of the East EuropeanJewish Enlightenment" (Hebrew), Ha-mahpekhahha-sarfatit ve-rishumah, Richard Cohen, ed. (Jerusalem, 1991), pp. 215-247; Eli Lederhendler,TheRoad to ModernJewish Politics: Political Traditionand Political Reconstructionin theJewish Communityof TsaristRussia (New York:OxfordUniversityPress, 1989). 22. Perl,p. 80. 23. Perl,unpaginatedintroduction. 24. On the quid pro quo implicit in the emancipatorystruggle in Prussian lands, see David Sorkin, TheTransformation of GermanJewry, 1780-1840 (New York:OxfordUniversityPress, 1987) and Steven M. Lowenstein,TheBerlinJewish Community:Enlightenment,Family,and Crisis, 17701830 (New York:OxfordUniversityPress, 1994). Whereaspolitical emancipationoccurredunilaterally in France(if aftermanymonthsof debate),most of EuropeanJewrytraverseda slow, sometimestortuous, path to political emancipation,in which the separationof Jewish law into private and public realms was hardlyclear. See PierreBirnbaumand IraKatznelson,eds., Paths ofEmancipation:Jews, States, and Citizenship(Princeton,NJ: PrincetonUniversityPress, 1995). 25. Perl'sdidactic commitmentto impartingsecular knowledge in his calendarsillustrateshis embraceofNaftali HerzWessely'schallenge to modernizingJews to expandthe traditionalcurriculum of Ashkenazic Jewry.Wessely's famous maskilic pamphlet,Divre shalom ve-'emet,asserted that the

286

The Maskil, the Convert,and the iAgunah and includedarticles on general history,includingthe foundingof Rome and Vienna, and the discovery and inventionof gunpowder,the cannon,paper,printing, and lighteningrods.26Perl'snext work, Oberdas Wesender Sekte Chassidim(Regarding the Essence of the Hasidic Sect) (1816), was far more ambitiousand exhibited his interestin the historicityof Jewish law.27It sought to expose the fallacies of the new pietiststhroughan examinationof theirown texts andby outlining a theory of universalreligious developmentthatcould be appliedto Judaism.The first stage representedthe innocentconsolidationof the faith;the second stage saw the penetrationof mythologicalbeliefs and the subsequentdebasementof the religion; purificationof the religion from mythology and mysticism was attainedin curriculumof earlymodernAshkenazicJewry,with its exclusive focus on Jewishtexts, particularlythe Talmud,was incomplete without a groundingin secular knowledge, such as grammar,mathematics, geography,and history.Religious education(what he called toratha-'elohim)was insufficient,Wessely argued,withouttoratha-'adam("secularknowledge");worse, traditionalAshkenazicJewisheducation that lacked a secularfoundationmade Jewish childrenincapableof comprehendingtheirown textual tradition.Naftali Herz Wessely,Divre shalom ve-'emet(Berlin, 1782). 26. Mahler,Hasidism and the Jewish Enlightenment,pp. 149-167. 27. Perlsharedhis manuscripton the Hasidimwith PeterBeer (1758-1838), a Bohemianmaskil who laterpublishedHistory,Doctrine, and Beliefs ofAll Once-Existingand Still Existing Religious Sects of the Jews and of the Secret Teachingsor Kabbalah(1822-1823), and with Isaac MarcusJost, whose Historyof the Israelites(Berlin, 9 volumes, 1820-1829), in turn,informedthe work of Leopold Zunz and later,HeinrichGraetz. See Brenner,op. cit. Perl'streatiseillustratesthe penetrationof historical consciousness and reformisttendencies in eastern Europesimultaneouswith the development of Wissenschaftdes Judentumsin Prussia.Although unpublished,Perl'streatmentof Hasidism influenced subsequentanalyses of Jewish "sectarianism,"pietism, and Judaism'shistorical development. Perl apparentlysought the advice of his formerstudent,Bezalel Stern,on his manuscripttreating Jewish law, as he had with his Germananti-Hasidictreatise.Writtenat roughlythe same time, or even before, the work of Beer, Jost, and Zunz, Oberdie Modifikationaffirms Michael Meyer'scriteria of defining reform in the early nineteenthcentury not as a crystallized movement with a doctrinal essence, but as a purposefulcommitmentto reformingJudaism,renderingit more flexible, and granting prideof place to individualconscience as emblematicof the spiritof the new age. Perl'streatisealso anticipatesthe writings of Michael Creizenach,Joshua Heschel Schorr,Leopold L6w, and Abraham Geiger.IsaacMarcusJost'sGeschichteder Israeliten,9 volumes, appearedin Berlin in 1820-1829 and Leopold Zunz published Die gottesdienstilichen Vortriigeder Juden in 1832. Creizenach'swork, ShulchanAruchoder encyclopddischeDarstellungdes Mosaischen Gesetze,appearedbetween 18331840; L6w preachedhis sermon,"Die Reformdes rabbinischenRitus auf rabbinischemStandpunkte," in1838. It is collected in his GesammelteSchriften,ImmanuelL6w, ed., Band I (Hildesheim,New York: 1979), pp. 16-19. On Sternandhis editorialhelp, see Oberdas Wesen,see op. cit., p. 6; Michael Stanislawski, TsarNicholas I and the Jews (Philadelphiaand New York:The Jewish PublicationSociety of America, 1983), pp. 58, 78, 93-94; Steven J. Zipperstein,TheJews of Odessa: A CulturalHistory, 1794-1881 (Stanford,CA: StanfordUniversityPress, 1985); N. M. Gelber,Encyclopediaof the Jewish Diaspora: TheHistoryofthe Jews ofTarnopol(Hebrew),PhillipKrongruen,ed., (Jerusalem,1955), p. 91; Philip Friedman,"TheFirstBattles Between the Haskalahand Hasidism(Yiddish),"Fun noentn ovar (Fromthe RecentPast) IV (1937), pp. 259-73. On Jost, Zunz, et al., see IsmarSchorsch,"From Wolfenbiittelto Wissenschaft:The DivergentPathsof IsaakMarcusJost and Leopold Zunz,"in From Textto Context:The Turnto History in ModernJudaism,ed., IsmarSchorsch(Hanoverand London: BrandeisUniversityPress, 1994), pp. 233-54; and Schorsch,"Scholarshipin the Service of Reform," op. cit., pp. 303-333. Perl'scorrespondencewith Jost is mentionedin his letterto JudahLeib Mieses, May 5, 1828, in Phillip Friedman,"The First Battles,"pp. 272-273. See also Michael A. Meyer,Response to Modernity:A History of the ReformMovement(New York:OxfordUniversityPress, 1988).

287

Nancy Sinkoff the thirdphase.28For Perl, IsaacAlfasi (the RIF), Maimonides,and Joseph Karo personified the historicalfigures within Judaismwho, in their works of codification, had cleansed earlierJudaismof its mystical accretions;laterrabbinicwriters expandedon these earliercodes and "adaptedthem to the spirit of the times, esThe phrase"spiritof the times" is pecially with regardto civil circumstances."29 the critical markerof Perl'shistorical consciousness and a leitmotif in Uber die Modifikationder Mosaischen Gesetze. III "Thespiritof the times"thatinformedPerl'sworldviewandtreatiseon Jewish law was the cameralistethos of the centralizingHabsburgstate embodied by Joseph II's Empire-wide Toleranzpatenten(Bohemia: October 18, 1781; Silesia: December 15, 1781; LowerAustria:January2, 1782; Moravia:February3, 1782; Hungary:March31, 1783; Galicia:May 7, 1789) thathe initiatedafterbecoming sole regentin 1780. Committedto a programof reformingabsolutism,Joseph II's statecraftwas indebted to cameralisttheory, which advocated rationalizingand professionalizingthe state'sbureaucracy,creatinga secular civil realm, and subjugating the clergy to its authority.30JosephII soughtto integratethe Jewishcommunity into the Empireby subsumingJewish law underthe civil law of the state; redirectingthe economic behaviorof the Jews away from lease-holdingand trade and towardsagricultureand artisanship;and broadeningthe educationalprogram in Jewish schools. Jewish schools were requiredto use German,now the official state language,and to provide instructionin secular subjectmatter,such as arithmetic and geography,which was necessary for participationin civil society.31 The edicts embodiedJosephII'sactivistpolitics, which soughtto strengthenand modernize the state by dissolving all priormedieval corporateprivileges and institutions in orderto make the peoples of his empire "useful"and loyal subjects.Although the majorityof the edicts were issued within a two-year period between 1781-1783, the Emperordelayedpromulgationof the patent for Galicia because of the unusualdemographicsof the province,which was home to a larger,poorer, andmoretraditionalJewishpopulationthanall the otherHabsburgterritoriescombined. Moreover,the provincialauthorities,embodiedby the GalicianCourtChancellory that representednoble interests,resisted Joseph II's effort to equalize the 28. Feiner,Haskalah Ve-historiyah,p. 135. 29. Joseph Perl, Oberdas Wesender Sekte Chassidim,p. 65. Emphasisis mine. For Perl, Hasidic pietism representeda regressionin Judaism'shistoricaldevelopment. 30. See AdamZ61atowski,BorderofEurope:A Studyof the Polish EasternProvinces(London: Hollis & Carter,1950), p. 71; Roy Porter,The Enlightenment(London: Macmillan EducationLtd., 1990), p. 29; JoachimWhaley,"TheProtestantEnlightenmentin Germany,"in Roy PorterandMikuldi Teich, eds., TheEnlightenmentin National Context(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress, 1981), p. 223; RobertA. Kann,A Historyof the HabsburgEmpire,1526-1918 (Berkeley,CA: Universityof CaliforniaPress, 1974), p. 173-177. 31. ArturEisenbach, TheEmancipationof the Jews in Poland, 1780-1870, Antony Polonsky, ed., JaninaDorosz, trans.(London:Basil Blackwell in associationwith the Institutefor Polish-Jewish Studies, 1991), p. 55; Mahler,Hasidism and the Jewish Enlightenment,pp. 3-6; and RaphaelMahler, Divre yeme Yisra'el,I:4 (Rehavia:Worker'sLibrary,1956), pp. 69-71.

288

The Maskil, the Convert,and the ?Agunah privileges and duties of the Jews.32Notwithstandingthe obstructionof the provincial Chancellory,the final version of the patent reflected Joseph II's enlightened principles.33Its preamblestressedparitybetween the state'streatmentof Jew and Christian,and emphasizedthe goal to renounce ...

the difference (Unterschied) that the legislator has observed between

ChristianandJewishsubjectsandto bestowupontheJewslivingin Galicia all of thebenefitsandprivilegesthatourothersubjectshaveto enjoy.Ingeneral,GalicianJewry,whichhasnowalsocomeof age in its rightsandduties, shouldfromnowon be regarded in thesamewayas othersubjects;thisholds especiallytrueforregulations religiouspractices,education,comregarding andthedumunaladministration, thepoliticalandlegalauthority, population, ties towardsthe state (Pflichtengegen den Staat).34

Thepatentfor Galiciadid not innovatein the realmsof marriageanddivorce, but, rather,built on earlierlegislation informedby the state'sdrivetowardcentralization. On January16, 1783, Vienna issued a new Ehepatent(MarriageEdict), which produceda hybridlaw for the performanceand dissolutionof marriage.The statewas to controlmarriage,which was defined as civil, but was buttressedby religious ceremonies, functionaries,and recordkeepers,a blurry compromise between cameralismand tradition.Ratherthanclarifyingthe law, the Ehepatentcreated a gray area between private and public in the Habsburg Empire and is illustrativeof its incompletestate-building.35Among otherprovisionsof the 1783 patent was halving the marriagetax for Jews workingon the land.36On May 27, 1785, a provisionalgeneralpatent for Galiciawas issued,with a moreprogressive, less oneroustax burden,includingthe eliminationof the marriagetax for Jews living on the land.The provisionalpatent abolishedEmpressMariaTheresa'sJewish Directorateas the state endeavoredto subject the rabbinateand its scribes and courts to state control.37Marriagecontracts,and divorce proceedings,too, were 32. Polish noble landlords in Galicia resented and opposed Austrian centralization that threatenedtheir economic power, and strove to retain control over the peasants and Jewish administrators living on their lands. See Glassl, op. cit. and N. M. Gelber, "The History of the Jews of Tarnopol,"in Ensiklopediyah shel galuyot. Tarnopol, Phillip Krongruen, ed., vol. 3 (Jerusalem, 1955), p. 41. 33. Samuel T. Myovich, "Josephismat Its Boundaries:Nobles, Peasants,Priests and Jews in Galicia, 1772-1790" and Joseph Karniel, "Das ToleranzpatentKaiser Joseph II. Fuirdie Juden Galiziens und Lodomeriens,"Jahrbuchdes Institutsfurdeutsche GeschichteXI (1982), pp. 55-91. 34. Publishedin Karniel,p. 75. 35. Lois C. Dubin, "Les Liaisons Dangereuses.MariageJuifet EtatModerneaTriesteau XVIIIe Siecle,"Annales:Histoire,Sciences Sociales 49.5 (Septembre-Octobre1994): 1139-1170 andalso Dubin's ThePort Jews of HabsburgTrieste:AbsolutistPolitics and EnlightenmentCulture(Stanford, CA: StanfordUniversityPress, 1999), pp. 174-197. 36. Mahler,Hasidism and the Jewish Enlightenment,pp. 262-268. 37. EmpressMariaTheresahad promulgatedthe Galician Jewish Ordinancein 1776 in order to begin formal rule of her realm'snew subjects,but she had little real interestin the Jews, except to ensure that they remainan importantsource of tax revenueand settled in the easternpartof the partitioned territory.Her Ordinancereaffirmedmedieval Jewish privileges, for example, self-government and communalautonomy,and introduceda greatermeasureof governmentsupervisionof the Jewish

289

Nancy Sinkoff to become a mattersolely for the civil courts.The problemwith this bureaucratic effortat standardization was not merelythe practicaldifficultiesof centralizingand codifying a new legal system in Galiciaunderthe authorityof Vienna,but the formidableobstaclespresentedby Jewish law to the very bifurcationinto strictlyreligious andcivil spheresthatthe Habsburgshopedto effect-a conundrumthroughout Europe publicly articulatedduring the meetings of the Paris Sanhedrinin 1808.38Moreover,there was disagreementbetween the central and regional authoritiesas to whetheror not the provisionsof the 1776 Ordinancehad been effective. The provincialauthoritiesarguedthata separationbetweencivil andreligious had occurred.Viennademurred,anddecidedto let the rabbiniccourtsremainopen, apparentlywaitingfor Moses Mendelssohnto completea massive codificationproject of Jewish law.39The 1789patent did not alterthe Ehepatentsignificantly,but removedall levies on Jewishmarriages.The requirementthatmarriedcouples pass a Germanexam in orderto be registeredcivilly remainedon the books.40 Whereasthe traditionalJewish community in Galicia regardedJoseph II's efforts as an attackon their way of life, and responded,when they could, by noncompliancewith the edicts,41 the Emperorfound allies within the Jewishcommunity among the small, but important,group of self-consciously modernizingJewish intelligenti,the maskilim.Pennedlong afterJosephII'sdeathin 1790, Uber die Modifikationder Mosaischen Gesetze illuminateshow Perl'spolitics were indelibly shapedby the optimisticalliance formedbetweenthe reformingabsolutiststate and the maskilimin the late eighteenthcentury. Perl'streatise on Mosaic Law tried to locate, throughhistoricizing Jewish the law, source of GalicianJewry'saversionto the cameralistprogramof the state. Althoughthe most conspicuousopponentsof acculturationin Perl'sview were the Hasidim, Uber die Modifikationder Mosaischen Gesetze was not explicitly dicommunitythanwas presentunderPolishrule, includingthe creationof a JewishDirectoratecontrolled by the rabbinateand supervisedby governmentofficials. Taxeson koshermeat,candles, marriage,and tolerationwere levied. Nonetheless, therewas little significant change in the lives of the Jews of Galicia under MariaTheresa'srule. See Arnold Springer,"EnlightenedAbsolutism and Jewish Reform: Prussia,Austria,and Russia,"in CaliforniaSlavic Studies XI (1980), pp. 237-267 and Glassl, op. cit. The provisionalpatent is reprintedin Karniel,pp. 72-74. 38. The first three questions posed to the notables gatheredto give a Jewish imprimaturto Napoleon'sand the Frenchstate'sdelimiting of Jewish law to the privaterealm includeda specific inquiry into Jewish family law. On the questions of exogamy and divorce,the notablesof the Sanhedrin dissimulated.They assuredNapoleon thatMosaic Law did not proscribeintermarriageand thata Jewish divorce was only valid if affirmed by the state'scivil law. See M. Diogene Tama,trans., Transactions of the Parisian Sanhedrim,or Acts of the Assemblyof Israelitish Deputies of France and Italy (London[NewYork]:UniversityPressofAmerica, 1807),pp. 150-156; 197-207; and Simon Schwarzfuchs, Napoleon, the Jews and the Sanhedrin(London, 1979), pp. 69, 203 n. 22. 39. Myovich, p. 275. No other EuropeanJew in the eighteenth century had the stature as philosopherandflawless Germanstylist, as well as intercessorfor the Jewishcommunity,as did Moses Mendelssohn. See Altmann, op. cit., pp. 288-295, for Mendelssohn'swell-known mediation of the "burialcontroversy"for the Jews of Mecklenburg-Schwerin. 40. See paragraph13 of the patent, reprintedin Karniel,p. 77. 41. Few Jewishparentsallowedtheirchildrento attendthe new Jewishschools foundedin 1788 by the enlightenedPrussianJew, Herz Homberg,and the schools were subsequentlyclosed in 1806.

290

The Maskil, the Convert,and the ?Agunah rectedat Hasidiccustom.42Rather,it was devotedto exposingthe generaltendency withinAshkenazicjurisprudence-the legal traditionof northernFrenchand German Jews that was the inheritance of Polish and Galician Jews-of viewing custom as tantamountto halakhah.Perl'stext surveysand analyzesthe pietist penchant indigenousto medievalAshkenazicJewish culturewell before the efflorescence of Hasidismin the mid-eighteenthcentury.43Explainingwhy he had undertaken a long treatise on the modification of Jewish law in order to address the dilemma of a male convert'sobligationto granthis formerwife a get,44 Perl emphasized his effort to separatethe chaff of "variable"custom from the wheat of 42. Perl,andothersin his circle, such as IsaacMichaelMonies (d. 1844) andJudahLeib Mieses (d. 1831), had long been alarmedby the seemingly endless creationand performanceof new religious customs among GalicianHasidim.Monies, the first Talmudteacherin Perl'sschool in Tarnopol,wrote a maskilic responsumin 1825 critical of the contemporaryHasidic custom of lighting candles on Lag ba- omer in memory of R. Shimon barYoai, and JudahLeib Mieses devoted Kinat ha-'emet(Truth's Zeal) entirelyto the issue of customarylaw. See Isaac Michael Monies, "Responsumon LightingCandles on Lag ba-'omer in Memory of R. Shimon barYohai,"Yerushalayim(Z6lakiew,1844), pp. 9-21 and JudahLeib Mieses, Kinat-ha-'emet(Vienna, 1828). On Mieses, see Feiner,Haskalahve-historiyah, pp. 137-144. Perl himself waged a battle from 1822 forwardsagainstthe custom of collecting money in the name of R. Meir Ba'al ha-Nes, a second-centuryrabbinicfigure whose grave is believed to be on the shores of the Kinneret.Perl viewed the proliferationof collection boxes as evidence of the relenting debasementof GalicianJewryby Hasidicsaddikim(rebbes),the new charismaticleadersof the Jewish community,and wrotea pamphletto the Austrianauthorities,Katitla-malor(Beaten Oilfor the EternalLight),againstthe practice.Because the collection boxes were ultimatelyremoved,Perlfelt that his campaign against superstitiousminhag (custom), abetted by the Austrian government,was successful. See AvrahamRubinstein, "Joseph Perl's Pamphlet,Katit la-ma'or,"?Aleisefer, 3 (1977), pp. 140-157. On collection boxes for R. Meir Ba'al ha-Nes among the Jews of eighteenth-centuryMorocco, see Moshe Idel, "The Kabbalahin Morocco,"in Morocco. Jews and Art in a Muslim Land, Vivian Mann, ed. (New York,2000), p. 150, catalog number45. Dr. Vivian Mann graciously sharedthis reference with me. 43. For a fuller discussion of the relationshipbetween life, custom and law in medievalAshkenaz, see ElimelechWestreich,"TheBan on Polygamyin Polish RabbinicThought,"Polin: TheJews in EarlyModernPoland, Vol.10, GershonDavidHundert,ed. [London:The LittmanLibraryof JewishCivilization, 1997], p. 68; Haym Soloveitchik,"ReligiousLaw and Change:The MedievalAshkenazicExample,"AJSReviewXII.2 (Fall, 1987), pp. 205-221; andAvrahamGrossmanandIsraelTa-Shma,"Law, CustomandTraditionamongAshkenazicJews in the EleventhandTwelfthCenturies,"Sidra 3, (1987), pp. 85-161, in which they arguethat ancestralcustom was the decisive componentin determiningbehaviorfor AshkenazicJews alreadyin the medievalperiod.Ta-Shmawrites that the Jews of Ashkenaz believed "Ourancestralcustom is Torah."Fora discussionof customaryvs. codified law in earlymodern Italy,see TalyaFishman,Shakingthe Pillars ofExile: 'Voiceofa Fool,'anEarlyModernJewish Critique ofRabbinic Culture(Stanford,CA: StanfordUniversityPress, 1997),particularlyp. 196 n. 58. 44. Perl evidently saved a "Responsumover a governmentalquestion whetherthere is a solution to the problemof a convertwho has divorcedhis Jewish wife or a Jew who has divorcedhis nonJewish wife without being bound by the customs that have governed divorce law up until now,"by Solomon JudahRapoport,in his archive. See the appendixby Phillip Koffler of Tarnopol,item number 37, JNULA. An examinationof SHIR'sfather-in-law'sresponsa, to which SHIR contributed,did not reveal such a responsum.The Avnei Milu'imwas asked by Joshua Heschel, the head of the rabbinical court in Tarnopol,to help with the problemof a husbandwhose identitywas uncleardue to a precipitousdeath,thus puttinghis wife in the position of being an 'agunah.See Aryeh Leib ben Joseph Heller, "AvneiMilu'im(Lemberg, 1815), "be-'esekcagunah."

291

Nancy Sinkoff "essential"law. As he wrote: "I, alas, am not afraidto admit-and every honest man amongmy co-religionistswill agree-that the most insignificantcustomthat gets the opportunityto sneak in, will take root so quickly and deeply thatit cannot even be imaginedto be uprooted."45 The penchantwithinmedievaland earlymodernAshkenazicJewishcultureto considercustomas bindingas writtenlaw,its tendency towardssupererogation,had createdits "baroqueness."

IV Perl addressedthe historicaldevelopmentof the ceremoniesrequiredto effect a Jewish divorce in his day as proof of Ashkenazic Jewry'sattachmentto its own insularity.Given that the HabsburgEhepatentlegislated state supervisionof Jewish marriages,Perl reasonedthat the authoritieswould be sympatheticto his argumentaboutJewish divorce. But subsumingdivorceproceedingsundera civil code of law remainedmore complex than doing the same for marriagelaw, given the singularproblemwithin Jewishlaw thata womanseeking to remarrymust still obtain a religious writ of divorce from her convertedhusband,and the concomitantproblemsof mamzerut(bastardization)and 'aginut. Perl'sdesire to free a convert from obeying a rabbiniccourt, in the process enablinghis formerJewish wife to remarry,stumbledagainstnot only the unilateral-and patriarchal-nature of halakhah, but also Habsburgdivorce law. The AllgemeinesBiirgerlicheGesetzbuchof 1811 (ABGB)allowed for denominational differenceand empoweredministersof respectivedenominationsto enforce the praxis of theirrespectivefaiths with regardto marriageand divorce,which meant that Catholics could not divorce,but Protestantsand Jews could.46Jews wishing to divorcestill had to conformto traditionalrabbinicrequirements.Uberdie Modifikation der Mosaischen Gesetze reflects Perl's frustrationat the state's retreat from creatinga civil sphereindependentof confessional considerationsin which individualsin the Jewish communitywho wished to divorce or remarryin cases that were forbiddenby Jewish law could plead their cases, if they so desired.His treatisestroveto elucidatethe historicalreasonsfor the developmentof the corpus 45. Perl, unpaginatedintroduction. 46. SubsumingRoman Catholic interpretationsof canon law under a secular civil code presented its own singularproblem. Marriage,a sacramentas permanentas baptism,can never be dissolved, thus renderingdivorceand membershipin the Churchimpossible.AlthoughpermittingProtestants to divorce,the ABGB blocked couples in which one memberhad convertedfrom Catholicismto Protestantismafterthe marriagefrom severingtheir maritalvows because it viewed the marriage,following Catholicdogma, as indissoluble.Two decrees,passed in 1814 and 1835 respectively,expanded the Catholicview of divorceto all Christians:Protestantscould still divorce,but their maritalsundering was consideredinvalidby the state. If a Protestantfrom a failed union chose to remarry,he or she could only do so with a non-CatholicChristian.In 1855, the Catholicdoctrineof the indissolubilityof marriagebecame the definitive influence on the civil code, markingthe complete subordinationof the state'slegal jurisdictionto the Catholic Church.While the concordatwith the Churchwas overturned in 1868, Habsburgmarriage and divorce law continued to reflect the denominationalnature of the Josephinianmarriagepatent andthe ABGB until 1938, when conditionsof absolutecivil marriageand intermarriageenteredinto law. See Ulrike Hermat,"Divorceand Remarriagein Austria-Hungary:The Second Marriageof FranzConradvon Hdtzendorf,"AustrianHistoryYearbookXXXII (2001), pp. 69104.

292

The Maskil, the Convert, and the 'Agunah of law surroundingJewish divorce that placed maritaldisunion in the hands of a rabbiniccourt.In so doing, Perl demonstratedan acute sensitivityto the gendered experienceof matrimonyandto the relativepowerlessnessof Jewishwomen in determiningtheir maritalstatus.47 In Oberdie Modifikationder Mosaischen Gesetze, Perl surveyedthe history of divorce, beginning with biblical times, and compared it to the ritual of halisah, the ceremonyreleasing a man (the levir) from the obligationof marrying his deceased brother'swidow. Perl concludedthatthe goals of both ceremoniesin the biblical period were not simply to sever the maritalbond between a man and a woman, but to enable the woman to remarry."Nonetheless,"he wrote, "one finds in the [case of the] writ of divorce that mattersare left to the couple-particularly to the man;in contrast,halisah is subjectedto the interventionof a court."48Perl sought to emphasizethe originalbiblical distinctionbetween the privatenatureof divorce and the public natureof dissolving the obligationto performleviratemarriage in his quest to free contemporaryconvertsfromthe authorityof the rabbinic court.Divorce, his reasoningimplied,was a privatematter,but had developedhistorically to become public, requiringthe interventionof a court. Given the biblical record,arguedPerl: Itfollowsthatthereis nobasisextantinMosaicLawto makedivorcethebusiness of the court,give it anykindof publicity,or makeit important through one is amazedif one witnesseda contemanykindof ceremony.Justifiably, andto see thenumberof ceremoniesthat poraryIsraelitedivorceprocedure areperformed witha mostunbelievable scrupulousness.49An unbiasedperson wouldscarcelywantto believethatthispeopleat one time-devoted to the samereligion-used to considerits marriages dissolvedonlythroughthe removalof thewomanfromthehouseandthehandingoverof a simplewrit of divorce,respectively.50 How could the evolution of divorceproceedingsfrom a simple writing and delivery of a writ of divorce by the man to his wife to a complicated system involving a rabbinicalcourtbe explained?ForPerl,"timeandcircumstance"explain the seeming contradictions,as did the inverse relationshipbetween the status of women in a given society and period and the ability to divorce. In the age of the 47. Perl'shistoricalsurveycompareswell with severalmodernstudies. See Ze'ev W.Falk,Jewish MatrimonialLaw in theMiddleAges(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress, 1966);JudithRomneyWegner, Chattel or Person? The Status of Womenin the Mishnah (New York:Oxford University Press, 1988); JudithHauptman,Rereadingthe Rabbis:A Woman'sVoice(Boulder,CO:Westview,1998); John D. Rayner,"GenderIssues in Jewish Divorce,"Gender Issues in Jewish Law: Essays and Responsa, WalterJacob and Moshe Zemer,eds. (New Yorkand Oxford:BerghahnBooks, 2001), pp. 33-57. 48. Perl,p. 10. 49. Perl'sfootnote reads:"Die Ehescheidungs-Ordenungdie im WerkeSchulchonAruchAben Hueser zu Ende unterdem Titel Seder Haget vorkommt,enthaltin allem 250 Beobachtungs-Regeln, von dernbei jeder Scheidungfiber220 zu beobachtensind ("Thebody of divorce laws, which appears in the final section of the ShulhanQArukh, 'Even ha-1Ezer,underthe title, Seder ha-Get, includes 250 rules of observance,of which over 220 are observed for each divorce").Perl,p. I16. 50. Ibid. Emphasisis Perl's.

293

Nancy Sinkoff Patriarchs,"beforeMoses established law in Israel,"'' when polygamy was the norm of society, and a man "consideredhis wife like his furniture,"he could easily rid himself of her and it would not be such a disasterfor the woman.52Another man'sharemcould easily absorbher. Few obstacles to divorceexisted,both because women'sstatuswas so low andbecause remainingwithinthe first husband's haremwould be tragic. [Inthetimeof Moses],as soonas one of his wiveslost [herhusband's] good favor,it was easyforhimto withdrawfromher;amongthe manywomenin his harem,it was not difficultfor himto spareone. He triedto compensate himselfwiththeremaining[wives].These,as we know,didnot live among themselvesin thebestharmony53 andunitedto harmone outof theirmidst, andtypicallymusteredupall theireffortto debasethewomanwhohadfallen out of favorin the eyes of the manevenmore.Disfavoris thentransformed veryquicklyintohate.Thewoman,whoin thebeginningwasonlyneglected, thenbecamehated,reviled,andabused.Hernaturaldriveswerenotsatisfied. Shecouldnottakepartin anyof thepleasuresof humanlife.Theharembecomesthemostpainfulprisonto herandthe dissolutionof sucha marriage musttrulyhavebeena heavenlyblessingforthisunhappywife.54 Perl concludedthatthe ritualsinvolvedwith Jewish divorcehad emergedas protectionfor women, implicitly arguingthat such considerationsshould inform Habsburgpolicy in his day.In circumstanceswhere divorcewould be disadvantageous for women, such as if her husbandhadbesmirchedher virtuewithoutproof, or if she had been raped,the rabbisforbadedivorce in perpetuity.55In the Talmudic period,Perlreasoned,when it became more difficult for women to remarry,the Sages made divorcemore difficult by addingnumerousconditionsto the writing of the get. Nonetheless, divorcewas still possible. The writ could be in foul condition and writtenin any languageand alphabetto ensurethat a woman could remarry.The Sages, argued Perl, took time and circumstancesinto consideration when devising the conditionsrenderinga get acceptable.This consideredrabbinic posturewas evident,too, in more recenttimes. In the medievalperiodthe rabbinic leadershipstroveto make divorcemore difficult in those partsof Europe-Ashkenaz, and particularlyFrance-where women "weregiven more rights. How many 51. Perl, p. 10. Emphasisis Perl's. 52. Perl,p. 17. JohnD. Raynerpoints out thatbiblical Israelwas a polygynous society,in which a man could have several wives, not a polygamous one. It was forbiddenfor a woman to have several husbands(polyandry).See Rayner,p. 33. 53. Emphasesare Perl's.He cited Leviticus 18:18, "Andyou shall not take a woman to her sister, to be a rivalto her, andto uncoverher nakedness,beside the otherin her lifetime, and I Samuel 1:6, "Andher rival vexed her sore to make her fret, because the Lord had shut her womb,"as prooftexts. Perl,p. 18. 54. Perl, p. 19. Here we can hear the grumblingsof the concubines in Montesquieu'sPersian Letters,a work that had an importantinfluence on Perl'sown Megalleh Temirin.On Perl'sdebt to the Persian Letters,see Shmuel Werses,"Regardingthe Lost Pamphlet,MahkimatPeti,"in Werses,Megamot ve-surotbe-sifrutha-haskalah(Jerusalem:The Magnes Press, 1990), pp. 326-327. 55. Perl,pp. 20-22.

294

The Maskil, the Convert,and the 'Agunah lines the writ of divorce had to contain,how the parchmenthad to be cut, in what mannerthe woman had to hold her handswhen receivingthe writ, etc., was determined.""56 Moreover,Perl cited the edict attributedto R. Gershom (960-1028), "Light of the Diaspora,"which banned those who divorced their wives without their consent, indicatingan elevationof women's status.57 The vast culturaldivide between the worlds of Ashkenazic and Sephardic Jewryand the statusof women within those societies provedPerl'spoint aboutthe mutabilityof customarylaw.Perl'sanalysisillustratedthatAshkenaziccustomhad developedhistoricallyto be more stringentthanhad Sephardiccustom. In the case of divorce, he contrastedthe opinions of the two great legal thinkersof the sixteenth century that appearappendedto one another in the authoritativeJewish code, the ?Arukh(Set Table).58Perlwrote: Shulh.an We see, for example,thatRabbiJosephKaro,59in his Commentaryon the Tur, 'Even ha-cEzer,123 (Beit Joseph), states: 'One should not permitthe man to

writethewritwithhisownhands.'Intheaforementioned work,theSetTable, in contrast-which the same rabbiestablishedas a norm for Israel-this way of makingdivorcemoredifficult is not included.60RabbiMosesIsserles, how-

restriction ever,gavethisparticular [of divorce]a respectedplacein his commentson the aforementioned Set Table.It appearsthatKaro,as an Eastern ban Rabbi,in whosecountrypolygamystillruled,despitetheaforementioned by RabbiGershom,didnotwantto establisha restrictionso contraryto the Pentateuch'sexpression

61 as a norm in his work.62Rabbi Isserles,

in contrast,wholivedin the samecentury,butin Krak6w,wheremonogamy hadbeenestablished alreadysincethe11thcenturybyRabbiGershom,granted a placeto thisrestriction[ondivorce]in his additionsto theSet Tablebe-

56. Perl cited the Tosafot,"one who brings a divorce,"Gittin2a; "to exclude this,"Gittin21b; and "one who brings a divorce,"Gittin 78b as prooftexts.Perl,p. 26. 57. Perl, p. 26. Both the ban on polygamy among Ashkenazic Jews and the prohibitionon divorcing a woman against her will have conventionallybeen ascribedto R. Gershomsince the twelfth century,butZe'ev Falkhas shownthatthe ban on polygamywas decreedlater.Monogamybecame standardmaritalpracticein Ashkenazby the twelfth century,but may have evolved slowly and not through a unilaterallegal decree. See Falk,pp. 1-14 and 115-119. 58. On the Shulan•Arukh,see IsadoreTwersky,"The Shulhan'Aruk:EnduringCode of Jewish Law,"in TheJewish Expression,JudahGoldin, ed., (New York, 1970), pp. 322-342. 59. In the originalGermantreatise,Perlwrote Karo'sname as Karu,divulginghis Galicianorigin, where the Hebrew vowel kamaz ("ah")was pronouncedlike a shuruk("ooh"),informingthe articulation of both Hebrew and Yiddish. See D. Dombrovska,AbrahamWein, and AharonVais, eds., Pinkas ha-kehillot.Polin: 'ensiklopediyahshel ha-yishuvimha-yehudiyimle-min hivasdam ve-cadle 'ahar sho'at milhemetha-olam ha-sheniyah,galisyah ha-mizrahit(Jerusalem:YadVa-Shem, 1980), p. 15. MordkheSchaechter,a Yiddishlinguist, confirmedthis dialectalversion of the pronunciationof the kamas. 60. The ShulhanArukhis actuallya digest of Karo'svoluminousBeit Yosef 61. Perl kept the originalbiblical Hebrewphrasewithin the Germanprose. 62. The culturally-constructeddiversityof Jewish maritalpracticeswas acknowledgedby the notables of the Napoleonic Sanhedrinin 1806 when pressed to answerthe question, "Is it lawful for Jews to marrymore than one wife." See Tama,p. 151.

295

Nancy Sinkoff causeit tookawaythe rightof an irasciblemanto movehis wife outof the houseforno reason.63 AshkenazicJewish legal cultureerredon excessive pietism and the creationof innumerableritualsthat were not part of the original intent of Mosaic Law, argued Perl.He noted,however,thateven in Ashkenazthe value of preventingagunot took precedenceoverceremonialprecision:"Itis remarkablethatin cases wherethe authenticity of the writ of divorce was in doubt, and cancellationof the writ places the woman in dangerof remaininghusbandlessfor her entire life, this Rabbi [Isserles] was almost always well-disposed to dispense with several ceremonies, which he otherwise stronglyrecommended."64Even within the darkpenchantof medievalAshkenazic supererogation,reasonablenesshad flickered.The implication, of course,was thatreasonablenessshouldprevailin Perl'stime as well, meaning, that a woman should be able to obtain a divorce privately,withoutthe supervision of a Jewish court. V The Austriancensor'srejectionof Perl'streatisehighlights the generalconservatismof the Habsburgstate and its reluctanceto interferein the confessional lives of its subjectsafterthe Congressof Vienna.The state'seffortsto separatecivil law from religious law for the Jews in the areaof marriageand divorce failed in the late eighteenthcentury,and its conservativepolitics afterJosephII'sdeathbolstered the traditionalismof its Galician Jewish subjects. Until WorldWar I, the Jews of Galicia generally avoided civil marriages,marriedreligiously, and gave their childrentheir mothers'surnames.65Perl'streatisethus illustratesthe degree to which the ideology of Jewish intelligenti outpaced both the community they wantedto serve, andthe governmentthey hopedwouldprovidethe muscle fortheir community'stransformation. While Perl'spreeminentconcern in Uber die Modifikationder Mosaischen Gesetze was to obviate the need for a male apostateto Christianityto submitto a rabbiniccourt, he was sensitive to women's statuswithin Jewish law, particularly to the plight of an cagunahin cases of conversion.66Because earliergenerationsof 63. Perl,pp. 28-29. Polish Jewry'sadherenceto customarylaw is illustratedby Isserles'sdecision to prohibitpolygamy based on custom, not on R. Gershom'sban, which, he argued,had expired: "Therefore,even though in practicethe edicts of the Gaon [R. Gershom]are still followed, nevertheless the edict itself has expiredand henceforthonly has the custom in which the practiceis to be strict, and one is not entitledto relax it for them."Cited in Westreich,p. 70. 64. Perl,p. 28. 65. A. Y. Brawer,Galisyah vi-hudeihah:mehkarimbe-toledot Galisyah be-me'ahha-shemonah-'esreh (Jerusalem:Mossad Bialik, 1965), pp. 149, 202, 280. Galician Jews, either because they failed to pass or did not take the requiredGermanexam to be registeredas marriedby the state, married traditionallyand the state recordedtheirunions undertheir mothers'family names.The Toleranzpatent of 1789 had stipulatedthat "each Jewish householderbear a particular[sur]name."See paragraph29 of thepatent, reprintedin Karniel,p. 81. 66. The sections of Ober die Modifikationdealing with divorce affirm Perl as an early advocate of Jewish women; his petitionto the AustriansantecedesJudahLeib Gordon'sjustifiably famous poem, "TheTip of theYud,"which decries the plight of the Jewishgrass widow andwas publishedfirst

296

The Maskil, the Convert,and the cAgunah Jews treateddivorce law in inverserelationshipto the statusof women in theirrespective societies, makingit moredifficult wherewomen'sstatuswas high and creating alleviationswhere women's statuswas low, Perl'scompassion for women in the modernperiod compelled him to try to find a way to make divorce easier. In Uberdie Modifikationder Mosaischen Gesetze,he arguedthatcustomarylaw,not halakhah, stood in the way of the 'agunah'spredicament.But his argumentation, no matterhow well intentioned,was rejectedby the censor,who undoubtedlyknew the Jewish law of divorce. Regardlessof the myriadcustoms associated with the writing and delivery of the get, which Perl justly described as having evolved throughtime and circumstance,divorceremainsunilateralin Jewish law, denying women's agency. Although Perl'sdiscussion of divorce law displays concern for the "grasswidow,"his efforts to unchainthe wife of a convert from the bonds of Jewish law were due to his overarchinggoal of making Judaismand Jewish law compatiblewith the aims of the centralizingstate.Perldeliberatelyblurredthe distinctionbetweenhalakhahandminhagbecause of his desireto encouragethe state to supportmodificationof Jewishdivorcelaw if change derivedfromthe rabbinate itself. I believethatI havesufficientlysupplied[evidence]in thetextthattheceremoniesof divorcehaveonlybeenproducedthroughtimeandcircumstances; thatthe teachersof the adoption[of the ceremonies]of divorcehavealways lookedatthespiritof thetimes;thatJewishlawgenerallyandparticularly the ceremoniallaw-except severalcentralpoints-were subjectedto change fromtimeimmemorial; thatthe ancientcommunalteachersactuallyusedto and that modify[thelaw]; disregardforthe spiritof thetimesonly firstoccurredwithlaterrabbis,whilethese[rabbis]-excepta few-succumbedto withoutconsidering whetherornotthepeoplecouldbeartheburstringency, in 1875. Perl was unusual in other regardsas well. He gave his own daughter,Sheindel, an education beyond the limited confines of a traditionallypious East EuropeanJewish woman. Marriedto the Tarnopolprinter,NachmanPineles, Sheindelwas educatedin non-Jewishlanguages;maintaineda correspondenceaboutliterarymatterswith a fellow maskil,Moses Inliinder,and a friendshipwith the venerable Mendel Lefin in his lateryears; and was called an isha maskeletby many of Perl'scorrespondents. Sheindel's"enlightenment"was not the rule for Polish-Jewish women in the early nineteenth century,for the Haskalahwas deeply gendered.See Shmuel Feiner,"TheModernJewishWoman:Test Case in the RelationshipBetween the Haskalahand Modernity,"Zion 58.4 (1993), pp. 453-499. The female Hebraist,MiriamMarkel-Mosessohn(1839-1920), who correspondedwith major figures of the mid- and late-nineteenth-centuryRussian-Jewish Haskalah, was also exceptional. See Carole Balin, 'ToReveal Our Hearts': Russian-JewishWomenWritersin Imperial Russia (Cincinnati,OH: HebrewUnion College Press, 2001), pp. 13-50. However,the existence of an educatedJewish woman literate in the traditionalsources and languages so beloved by the maskilimfound literaryexpression in Bohen saddik. See Perl, Bohen saddik, p. 26. On Gordon'spoem, see Michael Stanislawski,For WhomDo I Toil?:Judah Leib Gordonand the Crisis of RussianJewry (New York:OxfordUniversity Press, 1988), pp. 125-128. Forreferencesto SheindelPineles, see the letterfromBenjaminha-Cohen Reich to Mendel Lefin, undated,folder 70, and that of Hayim Malaga to Mendel Lefin, 1821, folder 135a, both in the Joseph Perl Archive, JNULA. On Sheindel'scorrespondencewith Moses Inlinder, see the unpublishedmaster'sessay by TamarSchechter,Bar-IlanUniversity,and N. M. Gelber, "The History of the Jews ofTarnopol,"'Ensiklopediyahshel galuyot:Tarnopol,Phillip Krongruen,ed., vol. 3 (Jerusalem:1955), p. 41.

297

Nancy Sinkoff denorwhetherornottheywouldhaveto succumbto thesame.... [Ifamcorrect],thenI will havetherightto mostsubmissively request-in thenameof my distressedcoreligionists-theacceptanceof my proposal,andthe governmentwouldthenno longerfindanyobstaclesto introducing sucha beneficialmeans[of makingdivorceeasier]andto allowit to workefficiently,for thestateand,all themoreso, forits subjectsof Mosaicreligion.67 Perl'sself-conscious desire to harmonizeJewish law with the cameralistaims of the Habsburgstate is both a sign of his modernityand a classic expressionof the 6tatistpolitics of the maskilimliving underabsolutism.68 Perl'sappealto the Austrianauthoritieson behalf of a male convertto Christianityto be able to divorcehis Jewish wife without going to a rabbiniccourtalso illustratesa new position, if unarticulated,on the meaning of conversion among the maskilim.Perldisplaysnone of the angstexhibitedby medievaland earlymodern Jewish communal leaders who worried about not consideringthe convert to Christianitya Jew, and as such not requiredto granthis wife a get, lest he be lost to the Jewish community.For a maskil like Perl, althoughhe neitherfully admitted nor realized it, Jewishness(what is now called "Jewishidentity"),was evolving from being determinedby a state-sanctionedcommunalauthorityempowered to adjudicateJewish law to a matterof individualconscience and choice. If a male convert'srefusal to granthis formerJewish wife a get made her an eagunah,then it was the duty of a responsible and reasonablerabbinate,supportedby an enlightened state, to modify the customs within Jewish divorce law that kept her chained.Perlexpressedno concernaboutthe fate, existentialor social, of the male Jew who exited the community,even at the expense of closing the gates of repentance to the converthimself. Perl saw no contradictionbetweenhis supportfor the priorityandprivacyof individualconscience and his commitmentto upholdingthe authorityof rabbinic law. In his turnto historicizingJewish law and urging its modification, Perlpositioned himself as a legitimatesuccessor to internaltraditionsof rabbiniccritique. He wantedto make a principledcommitmentto the ability of contemporaryrabbinic authoritiesto fine tune Jewish law in the spiritof the age and within the cultureof the Jewishcommunity,and was criticalof his predecessorHerz Homberg's zeal in imposing radical reform measures upon Galician Jewry.69He sought to transformGalicianJewryby combatingits supererogationfromwithinthe sources 67. See Perl,unpaginatedintroduction.Perlanticipatedmuch of the modern(andpost-modem) debate on the status of women within Jewish law and its relationshipto minhag. See Elliot N. Dorff, "CustomDrives Jewish Law on Women,"GenderIssues in Jewish Law: Essays and Responsa,Walter Jacoband Moshe Zemer,eds. (New Yorkand Oxford:BerghahnBooks, 2001), pp. 82-106. 68. On the self-consciousnessappropriationof the past as a hallmarkof modernity,see Michael A. Meyer'scomments in JackWertheimer,ed., The Uses of Tradition:Jewish Continuityin the Modern Age (Cambridge,MA: HarvardUniversityPress, 1992), p. 463. 69. In a memo to the Russianauthorities,who controlledTarnopolbefore the Congress of Vienna, Perl describedHerz Homberg'sschools as doing great harmby throwingout the kernel [of rabbinic tradition]with the husk [pietistadditions]."They [Homberg'scronies] areusually uneducatedor have a skewededucation.. . .They aresuperficiallyenlightenedandmore benightedthanwere theirfathers."Cited in Friedman,p. 137.

298

The Maskil, the Convert, and the ?Agunah of rabbinicJudaismand from within the culture of premodernPolish Jewry.He did so as a moderatemaskil-in contrastto his characteristicimmoderationregardingHasidism-never explicitlychallengingthe authorityof the OralLaw,but, rather,focusing on the culturalinsularitythatAshkenazic Jewry'sfidelity to custom had created,which in turn producedresistance to their integrationinto the Habsburgstate. Yet, despite his efforts, Perl failed to historicize rabbinicdivorce law systematicallyand to locate the moment when Polish rabbinicculturebecame resistant to change. Nor did he fully engage halakhicargumentationon its own, wellestablishedterms, for, in the end, Perlwas neitherhistoriannor halakhist.He was an activist.A sentence of the treatise,poignantfor its incompleteness,illuminates Perl'squandary:"[thesanctificationof custom] seems to have originatedin the centuryand in the following way,"but Perl did not (could not?) fill in the date.70 This gap in his treatisesuggests thatthe very flexibility and centralityof customary law in Judaism,itself a responseto a lived social reality and notjust to a legal ideal, createda paradoxboth for halakhistsacting in an official capacitywithin the Jewishcommunityand for social critics,like the maskilim.Indeed,minhagwas kehalakhah("consideredas binding as law")and even more so. The cultureof Jewish life (in all its diversity),andthe law thatreflectsthatculture,would only change when new social forces requiredit to change, and not throughthe promulgationof legal dicta or maskilic excurses.7' The legal requirementfor a convertedJew to granthis Jewish wife a divorce in a Jewish court could only fall out of custom in the modern world, when the incrementalevolution of the modern state together with the powerto enforce a distinctcivil sphereand legal code would renderJewish law voluntaryand,as such, obligatoryonly for thatpartof the Jewish community that wantedto be obligatedby it.72Despite Perl'shope that the Austrianauthorities would respond favorably to what he believed was a reasoned and reasonableargumentabout the historical developmentof Jewish divorce law, as one who had arguedthat "the spiritof the times" had always shapedhalakhah,he should have known better.The conservativeZeitgeist of 1830s RestorationAustria,which had long supersededthe interventionistand optimisticcameralistethos of the 1780s, recoiled from tamperingwith age-old law and custom.

70. Perl,p. 69. 71. EdwardFram,Ideals Face Reality:JewishLaw and Life in Poland, 1550-1655 (Cincinnati, OH: HebrewUnion College Press, 1997) andJacobKatz,"'Alterationsin the Time of the Evening Service': An Exampleof the RelationshipBetween Religious Custom,Law and Society,"Zion 35 (1970): 35. 72. Russian-Jewish women increasinglyappealedto the state'scourts to resolve their marital conflicts in the course of the nineteenthcentury.See ChaeRanFreeze,Jewish Marriage and Divorce in ImperialRussia (Hanoverand London:BrandeisUniversityPress, 2002), pp. 69, 123, 241. On religious obligationin the modernperiod,see PeterL. Berger, TheSacred Canopy:Elements ofa Sociological Theoryof Religion (New York:Doubleday& Company,Inc., 1969).

299

Review: You Can Take the Historian out of the Pale, but Can You Take the Pale out of the Historian?: New Trends in the Study of Russian Jewry Author(s): Olga Litvak Source: AJS Review, Vol. 27, No. 2 (Nov., 2003), pp. 301-311 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4131609 . Accessed: 19/07/2011 03:37 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].



AJS Review 27:2 (2003), 301-312

REVIEW ESSAY

You CAN TAKETHEHISTORIANOUT OF THE PALE, BUT CAN YOU TAKE THE PALE OUT OF THE HISTORIAN? New Trends in the Study of Russian Jewry

by Olga Litvak Carole B. Balin. ToReveal Our Hearts: Jewish WomenWritersin TsaristRussia. Monographsof the HebrewUnion College. Cincinnati:HUC Press, 2000. x, 269 pp. MordechaiZalkin. A New Dawn: TheJewish Enlightenmentin the Russian Empire, SocialAspects [Hebrew].Jerusalem:HebrewUniversityMagnesPress, 2000. 352 pp. Benjamin Nathans. Beyond the Pale. The Jewish Encounter with Late Imperial Russia. Studieson the Historyof Society and Culture.Berkeley,Los Angeles and London:Universityof CaliforniaPress, 2002. xvii, 403 pp. ChaeRanY. Freeze.Jewish Marriage and Divorce in ImperialRussia. TauberInstitute for the Study of EuropeanJewry Series. Hanoverand London: Brandeis UniversityPress/UniversityPress of New England,2002. xv, 399 pp. Informedby a common commitmentto takingthe reader"beyondthe Pale," new historiesof RussianJewrystrikeat the complex of images encapsulatedin the single most importantsignifier of the Russian-Jewish condition. Between the partitionsof Polandin the last quarterof the eighteenthcenturyandthe FirstWorld War,tsaristlaw restrictedJewish residence almost exclusively to the Pale of Jewish Settlement,an administrativeunit that encompassedthe Westernborderlands of the empire.In Jewishmemory,this confinementwas not merelygeographicbut culturaland social; referenceto the Pale evokes a sense of isolation from Russia properinflicted from the outside by effective legal discriminationand buttressed from within by the force of tradition.The only way for Jews to leave the Pale presumablyinvolvedeitheremigratingor opting out of Judaismaltogether.Forsome, conversionto Christianityrelieved all of the burdensof communalauthorityand juridicaldisabilityassociatedwith thePale.Forothers,theturnto the universalfaiths of the nineteenthcentury-Enlightenment, socialism, Marxism-constituted an 301

Olga Litvak analogous act of departure.The reductionof the Russian-Jewish experience to simple contrastsmay be attributed,at least in part, to the fact that until a decade ago historianswere forced to rely on anecdotalliteraryevidence; archivalmaterials remainedhiddenbehindthe ironcurtain.Fourrecentstudies attributetheirown historiographicdeparturefromthe pale directlyto the availabilityof documentary sources thatbringto light a varietyof possibilities for defying the internaland externalconstraintsof the Pale without abandoningone's Jewishnessin the process. This essay examines some of the ways in which new sources have inspired new argumentsthatmakeroom for a rangeof Russian-Jewish experienceandexpressionfarbroaderthanthe limited set of radicalchoices betweenpiety and apostasy, political quietism and revolutionaryzeal. Each of the authors locates the Archimedeanpoint of Russian-Jewish historyneitherin nor out of the Pale but at differentpoints of contact between individual,state, and society; between Russianness and Jewishness. In Mordechai Zalkin's social history of the Russian Haskalah,the learnedelite representa criticalnexusbetweencontinuityandchange, an instrumentalforce in the domesticationof enlightenment.Chae Ran Freeze, in her groundbreakingstudyof Jewishmaritalbreakdownin late imperialRussia, argues that for Russian-Jewish men and women the strugglewith modernitytook place not only in the public spaces of synagogue,schoolhouse,andmarketplacebut also in the privacyof the bedroomand in the civic arenaof divorcecourt.Drawing his subjectinto the orbitof imperialhistoriography,BenjaminNathansfocuses his powerfulanalyticallens on Russia'snortherncapitol, the site that occasioned and shapedthe encounterbetween Russia and its Jews in the drawingrooms of Jewish merchantnotables,at the Russianbar,and in the university.CaroleBalin uncovers a body of workby Jewishwomenwritersfor whom literatureprovideda crucialavenue of escape from the regime of sexual disciplinethat extendedthe psychological reachof the Pale fromthe Russianmap into the Jewishmind. Zalkin'ssubject, the origins of the Jewish Enlightenmentin the prereform periodand its impacton the life of the "ordinaryperson"(p. 9), anticipateschronologically and thematicallysome of the centralissues in the making of late imperial Russian-Jewish life that Nathans and Freeze flesh out more fully. Zalkin discusses the relationshipbetweenthe state and Jewish communalauthorities;the importanceof local andregionalloyalties;the role of the family;and the interplay between ideas and social life; factorswhich, he argues,informedthe development of the Haskalahto a far greaterextent than a common ideology or a sharedinterest in neoclassical Hebrew. Moving away from conventional depictions of the Haskalahas a literarymovement,Zalkin considers the Russian-Jewish enlightenment as an incrementalshift in the mannersand mores of a much greaterproportion of people than the small numberof writers and poets usually associated with the literaryturnin EasternEuropeanculture.In light of this premise, Zalkin reconsidersthe questionof chronology,focusing on the first half of the nineteenth century ratherthan on the literary efflorescence of the 1860s. Echoing Stanislawski's Tsar Nicholas I and the Jews (Philadelphia:Jewish PublicationSociety, 1983), Zalkinlocates the formativeera of enlightenmentin the 1820s throughthe 1840s, the period identified with maskilic institution-buildingand the ongoing process of social, economic, and culturaldifferentiationof RussianJewry. 302

New Trends in the Study of Russian Jewry Zalkin describes this gradualturnas a "silent enlightenment"(pp. 23-42); in his view, the privateabsorptionof values associatedwith the Haskalahlaid the groundworkfor the self-conscious articulationof enlightenmentideas, drivenby a post-1860s radical agenda of the Russian-Jewish intelligentsia.According to Zalkin, this silent enlightenmentwas a far broaderand more conservativemovement that replicated,ratherthan undermined,the constitutionof Jewish communal life and the attendantdivisions between rich and poor, as well as the regional differencesand culturalgaps. Zalkinposits a dialecticallink betweentraditionand modernity,expressedin the preservationof stablesocial structuresnewly endowed with a moderatelyreformist,practicalsensibility at odds with the utopian vision promotedin enlightenmentcriticism,autobiography,and belles-lettres.Forexample, marriageconnectionsand regionalties among Jewish learnedelites served as an effective filter of enlightenedideas and cementedthe social hierarchy;this, despite the programmaticliteraryemphasis on romanticlove and the alienation of the enlightened individual from Jewish society. Similarly, the idea of productivization failed to inspire an economic revolutionin Jewish life even among the enlightenersthemselves;theiroccupationalprofile remainedlargelyrooted in traditional commercialpursuits.Most significantly,for all the emphasis on the creation of parallel educationalinstitutionsand the echo of similar sentiments,the Russian Haskalahnever coalesced into a distinct movement that advocated the liberationof the individualfrom the sway of money, status, and education.Moderated by the process of accommodationwith traditionalsociety, the Jewish enlightenment in Russia did not produce an alternative community, a Hebrew republicof letters,until enlightenmentvalues were comfortablyensconced in the well-appointedparlorsof the rich and pious. Like revisionisthistoriesof Hasidism,which similarlyemphasizeits conservative character,Zalkin'snew history of the Haskalahoverstatessocial continuity at the expense of ideological innovation.Zalkin'sfunctionalanalysis is so focused on enlightenmentas a process thathe misses Enlightenmentas a milestone in the history of ideas; howeverindirector dialectical, the relationshipbetween the former and the lattergoes beyond the merely instrumental.The insufficiency of ZaIkin's model to account for the way ideas shape reality manifests itself with particularurgency in his treatmentof the book, a singularlyuseful markerof the indissolubletie between matterand spirit. Zalkin surveys the eclectic content of maskilic librariesand asserts that books occupied a prominentplace in the world of enlightenmentbut says nothing abouttheir contentand their increasingimportance as culturalartifacts,much less aboutenlightenerseitheras readersor as writers. Wreathedin the smokescreenof generalities,Zalkin'sview of books leave the reader wanting more than the following uninspiredand unsubstantiatedclaim: "Fromeverythingstated above, the centralplace of the book in the world of the EasternEuropeanenlightenerclearlyemerges. In manycases, this was the youth's startof the road towardenlightenment,and in later stages, became an important means of expressing one's religious, social and culturalworldview ... .The variety of books that occupied many bookshelves--prose, poetry, exegetical commentary,scholarship,translations,historiography,and so forth-testifies to the wide varietyof readersof a wide varietyof social, intellectualand culturalorien303

Olga Litvak tations"(pp. 254-255). Here, Zalkinmight have takena page directlyfrom the increasingly sophisticatedreassessmentsof Hasidism as an ideological revolution reified and domesticatedin socially conservativeterms;Zev Gries'workon books as a criticalnexus between the explosive impact of Hasidic ideas and their social accommodationcomes immediatelyto mind. Zalkin'smodel of silent enlightenmentmost clearly serves his discussion of Vilna, wherethe Haskalahneverlost its vital connectionwith the studyhouse.Vilna enlightenersremainedsolidly rooted in local society, especially at the level of the yeshivah elite, where marriageties strengthenedthe connectionsbetween the former and the latter.Vilna's enlightened notables always occupied positions of power on the governingboardof the communityand at times of famine and epidemic closed rankswith theirmore traditionalcounterparts.In this atmosphereof intramuralco-operation,ideological conflicts took on the characterof a family squabblethatpreservedthe Vilna ecosystem fromthe incursionsof secularismand apostasy,on the one hand,and the powerfulattractionof Hasidism, on the other. Vilna establishedan active precedentfor the naturalizationof enlightenment,and lent its imprimaturto the dominantcultural style of the formative years of the Haskalah.Ironically,the most effective challenge to the sway of this Lithuanian "Jerusalem"arose out of the logic of enlightenmentitself. The emphasis on economic restructuring,social respectability,and intellectualachievementhelped to lead substantialnumbersof young Jewish men away from provincialmaskiliccircles to Russianuniversities.By the 1860s, the scene changeddramaticallywith the gradualemergence of the diplomaedintelligentsia;Vilna gave way to St. Petersburgas the locus of Jewish aspirationstowardmodernity.Here, Nathanspicks up the story precisely where Zalkin leaves off. In his elegant and meticulously documentedaccount, resting upon a solid foundationof archivaland publishedsources, Nathans arguesthat the RussianJewish encounteris best viewed from "beyondthe pale,"that is, from St. Petersburg;closed to Jewishresidencethroughoutthe imperialperiod,the northerncapitol containeda Jewish community composed entirely of individual"exceptions" distinguishedby the state for their educational,commercial,or military achievements. For Nathans, such exceptions effectively prove the rule that governedthe making of Russian-Jewish experience in the late imperialperiod. Nathans' St. Petersburgrepresentsthe imperialfishbowl, where Jewish emancipationas policy and Jewish emancipationas process most visibly converged. In both instances, emancipationremainedpartialor selective. Whereasthe policy privilegedpersonal accomplishmentat the expense of collective discipline,the process fosterednot the total displacementof Jewish identityby Russian loyalty but the articulationof a highly acute individualJewish consciousness. Informedby a fundamentaltension betweenthe legal categorizationof Jews as an estate and a confession, the selective emancipation of individual Russian Jews promoted specific ways of identifying with a variety of imperial subcultures:professional or civic arenas where Jews and non-Jews met on a more or less equal footing. Unlike the act of emancipationinto a nation-state, partialemancipationdid not serve the creation of a single Russian Jewry but, rather,exacerbatedthe stratifyingeffects of economic dislocation and culturalchange that began to transformJewish society in 304

New Trends in the Study of Russian Jewry the first half of the nineteenthcentury.In fact, as Nathans amply demonstrates, partialemancipationwas a productof cooperationbetweenthe governmentof the reformingtsarand St. Petersburg'snewly mintedJewishnotables,joined in the attempt to controlthe floodtide of social change withoutrelinquishingthe potential economic and culturalbenefits of modernization. Nathans turns to St. Petersburgas "a laboratoryof selective integration" (p. 83), in which the Russian-Jewish encounteranticipatedand intensified the ambiguouseffects of the unserfment(Rus. raskreposhchenie)of Russian society uponJewishlives throughoutthe empire.St. Petersburg'sJews exhibitedan intense interestin seculareducationand a prodigiousdegree of literacyin Russian,as well as an acute sense of class conflict, communal dissonance, and intergenerational tension. Manyenteredprofessionalranksand many engaged in criminalbehavior. Indeed, St. PetersburgJews were like their counterpartswithin the Pale, only, it seems, more so. Formedby governmentfiat and highly self-conscious of its own visibility, the Jewry of St. Petersburgexemplified Dostoevsky's contemporary characterizationof the city by being the most "deliberate"Jewryin theworld.Most of the foundersof the St. PetersburgJewish communityimmigratedto the capitol and spent their lives strugglingto shed the culturalvestiges of their provinciality. In the period coveredby Nathans,the city saw the passing of the fathers-the patriarchsof the community-and the rise of the sons, increasinglyat home beyond the Pale. This shift illuminatesthe transitionto the second partof the book, where the experienceof the second generationof St. PetersburgJews, graduatesof Russianuniversitiesandmembersof the Russianbar,becomes paradigmaticof the culturaladvanceof the Russian-Jewish intelligentsia(p. 232). The bar and the universityconstitutedhighly privileged sites of interethnic contact,whereinthe policy of selective integrationproducedits most dramaticresults. Like St. Petersburgitself, such sites owed theirexistence directlyto the government's active commitment to the modernization of the empire and to the ambivalencetowardsthe costs of personalemancipationthat this drive helped to unleash.Nathanslooks closely at the ways in which this ambivalenceexpresseditself in limits upon Jewish integrationand analyzes its effect on the evolution of Russian-Jewish consciousness. The sense of incomplete merger producednot alienatedJewish Russiansbut, rather,RussianJews who articulatedtheir specifically Jewishgrievances,concerns,and interestsin a Russianidiom. The most successful beneficiaries of the attemptfrom above to transformimperialRussia into a modernRechtsstaat,Jewishlawyersplayeda disproportionatelylargepartin creating the political vocabularyand the culturalethos of modernRussianJewry.Legal discourse laid the foundationfor Russian-Jewish historiography,shapedthe Jewish strugglefor collective emancipation,and providedan ideological basis for Jewish citizenship in Russia. In these ways, Russian-Jewish lawyersboth lived and articulateda new kind of Jewishness,enabledand constitutedby the state. Nathans'seamless narrativeeffectively substitutesthe partfor the whole. St. Petersburgacts as a stand-infor other imperialcities, Jewish studentsfor Jewish youth culture, and Jewish lawyers for other Jewish professionals. Implicitly,the paradigmdrawnbeyond the Pale informs a radicalrevision of the Pale itself. But quite as much as Zalkin in his view of Vilna as exemplaryof the maskilic experi305

Olga Litvak ence, Nathans overtaxesthe metonymic approachto history.There are, at every point of Nathans'story,a varietyof possibilities for the constructionof RussianJewish identity and for an understandingof the Russian-Jewish encounter.It is true that aspects of life in Jewish St. Petersburgalso characterizedJewish life in other urbancentersboth in and out of the Pale; but unlike WesternEuropeannation-states,imperialRussiahadmorethanone capitol, all of which madetheirown distinctiveclaims on Jewish leadershipand on Jewish culture.Odessa was no less cosmopolitan than St. Petersburg,and Moscow no less Russian, yet both cities were defined precisely by their distance from Russia's northernmetropolis. It is equally truethatuniversitystudentsembodiedthe aspirationsof a new generation of Jewishyouthto move beyond the Pale, but what aboutculturalalternativesthat competed with the secular bourgeois ambitions of the diplomaed intelligentsia? Jewishnationalismand Jewishtraditionalismexemplified otherforms of the Russian-Jewish encounter,rooted in the realities of Jewish provinciallife. Lawyers did play a disproportionatepart in asserting the political and culturalclaims of Russian-Jewish selfhood, but there were other intellectualfigures who were no less articulate:Jewishauthors,for instance,wrotetheirway beyondthe Pale.Their imaginativerevisions of Jewishpast and presentchallengedthe juridicalperspective on Russian-Jewish history and on the meaning of the Russian-Jewish encounter.Arguably,the fictions of Sholem-aleichemand S. J.Abramovichinformed the searchfor Russian-Jewish selfhood no less thanthe legal treatisesof Ilia Orshanskii.Ultimately,the move beyond the Pale was not a direct,one-way trip. On the one hand,Jewish nostalgiacontinuallydemandedthe recreationof the Pale in art, literature,and history.On the otherhand,the railroad,the newspaper,and the telegraph renderedthe boundaries of the Pale increasingly permeable, despite juridical restrictionson Jewish residence. The missing links in Nathans' study felicitously demonstratethat the royal historiographicalroad towarda more nuanced history of Russian Jewry runs not only through St. Petersburgbut also throughmore sophisticatedhistories of the provinces.This is the salient methodological point of Freeze'spioneeringwork on Jewish marriageand divorce in imperial Russia. Freeze effectively uses the tools of social history to analyzethe role of Jewish and Russian law in the making and unmakingof the Jewish family in the late imperialperiod.Relying on the sociological model developedby JacobKatz, conventional treatmentsof this subject drew on prescriptiveliteratureand idealized fictional representationsto depict the family as the preserve of Jewish affective and communalties againstthe incursionsof modernity,the locus of traditionin a world shaken by crisis. Freeze marshals an entirely different set of sources to demonstratethat Jewish family practicesdefy such simplistic ideological distinctions. The imbricationof public andprivatein the way Jewishmen andwomen tied anduntiedthe knotsthatboundthemto one anotherrevealsthatwhatwent on within the Pale was in every way tied to what went on in Russian courts and chancelleries. At the same time, the developmentof Russian administrativeandjuridical practicewith regardto the Jews was thoroughlyinformedby the importanceof Halakhahnot as an antisemiticcaricatureof Jewish pettifoggery,but as living letter. Freeze has mined the archivesto bring to light the intimatelife of Russian 306

New Trends in the Study of Russian Jewry Jewryin all of its provincialparticularity.She ushersthe state into the Pale not as a political abstractionor an unrelentingforce ofjudeophobiabut, rather,as an active participantin the lives of ordinarypeople. In many instances,the state,embodiedin concreteencountersbetweenJewishpersonsand Russianjudges, lawyers,and bureaucrats,could be mobilizedas a sourceof individualempowermentagainstcommunal discipline.Still more paradoxically,Jewishpetitionersoften presentedtheir cases in waysthatcompelledthe stateto act in defense of Jewishpiety.This scenario makes it refreshinglydifficultto tell wherethe Pale endedand Russiabegan. Freezebegins with the propositionthatthe state'sattemptto bringorderinto traditionalmaritalpracticesrequiredthe systematic"disordering"of existing communalnormsin the name of greatersocial homogeneity.This goal grew ever more elusive as the administrationsupporteda variety of new ways of justifying disobedience in the name of reform, underminingthose very same communal authorities-rabbis and lay leaders-upon whom the state relied for maintaining social discipline. The state's solution to this problem of insufficient and contradictorygovernancewas to introducean alternativerabbinichierarchymeantto act as the exclusive agent of state authorityon the ground.Characteristically,its most importantduties concerned the regulationof Jewish family life, the seedbed of chaos that,accordingto both governmentreportsandto Jewishreformers,plagued Russian-Jewish society. As Freeze demonstrates,however,the dual role of the crown rabbis as both the "supervisorsand interpretersof Jews law" and as state servitors (p. 95) deepened the contradictionimplicit in the state's interventionist policy. How were crownrabbisto exercisetheirdual functionwhen Jewishlaw and custom violatedthe administrativeandideologicaldemandsof theirposition as executorsof Russianlaw, especially when the universaljuridicalauthorityof the latter vitiated the effective local exercise of the former?In the fissures between the two legal systems, Jewishmen andwomen foundan unexpectedsourceof personal freedom from all social norms, to constructa kind of rogue view of Jewish personhood beyond the pale of both communal control and the limits of the state's ability to police its vast heterogeneouspopulation.The conflict producedrabbinic like the notoriouscrown rabbiKaganof Nikolaev, skilled at ma"entrepreneurs" the dual administrationof marriageand divorce in orderto emancipate nipulating his clients-male and female-from the system of collective responsibility,religious obligation,andresidentialrestrictionthatdefined Jewishlife withinthe Pale of Settlement.Such peculiar freedomboth empoweredthe Jewish individualand left him or her-especially her-vulnerable to the element of arbitrarinessendemic to the system. Seeking redressagainstthe potentialand actualcorruptionof Jewishauthority,an increasingnumberof ordinaryRussianJewsturnedto the state to effect theirown emancipationfrom Jewish society in the name of Jewish piety. Formany,this move beyond the Pale involveda turntowarda more acute sense of theirown Jewishself-consciousness;they appealedto the statein the name of Jewish principlesthatthey only now articulatedclearly.Forwomen petitioners,in particular,the embrace of Jewish traditiondivorced from the power of Jewish men produceda moreradicalsense of detachmentfrommale Jewishauthority,bothrabbinic and enlightened,and provideda new set of ideological tools with which to express their increasinglypersonalcommitmentto Judaism. 307

Olga Litvak For Freeze, the divorce, custody,and settlementpetitions of Jewish women to state agencies and to provincialRussian courts serve as a grammarof Jewish experience under the tsars. They not only shed light on the lives of Jewish husbands, wives, parents,and childrenbut also offer a key to the terms that defined Jewishidentityboth inside andoutsideof the Pale. Like Nathans,Freezemaintains that it is impossible to understandthe emergence of this vocabularywithout understandingthe role of the state in its formation;at the same time, she finds evidence of the Russian-Jewish encounterin the world of halakhicobservanceand behind the closed doors of the Jewish kitchen and the Jewish bedroom, places where it has been least visible. Indeed, in Freeze's eminently capable hands, the history of the modernJewish family serves as a window into the privatelife of the Russian state.As Freeze'sengaging narrativedrawsto a close, the fate of the former and the latterseem inextricablyintertwined.Attemptingto explain the fluctuations in the Jewish divorce rate, Freeze uncovers a signal link between the increasingprominenceof Jewish traditionalismand the growing conservatismof the Russianadministration,evidence of a disastrousalliance thatwould eventually discreditthe reformingRomanovsamong its progressivesupporters. Freeze's conclusion demonstratesthe subtlety of her approachto the complicated relationshipbetween tradition and modernity; she points out that the markeddecline of divorce rates among Jews in the last decade of tsaristrule was not a throwbackto an earlier,stable model of family life but an effect of distinctly contemporaryideological, social, and economic pressures.This analyticalsophistication does not, unfortunately,extend to her initial premise (ratherthan argument)regardingthe existence of a traditionalJewishfamily,supposedlytransformedin the courseof stateinterventionin the eraof the GreatReforms.Herunreflective use of published material-memoirs in particularbut also prescriptive legal sources and literarytexts-contrasts with her critical approachto archival sources. Freeze relies upon the former to constructa stable model of traditional Jewish family against which change, as evidenced in archivaldocuments,can be plotted. But what is the basis for concluding that there was ever anythinglike a stable, traditionalJewish family when the publishedsources are, in fact, contemporarywith the archivalmaterialthatFreeze employs to make the opposite point? One might argue that patriarchalauthority is always already vulnerable to the threatof individual desire. One might even go so far as to say that the struggle over the modernJewish family presentsan especially strikinginstanceof the ageold Jewish practice of mobilizing externalpower as a mechanismof coercion, a source of supportfor internalauthority.The factor that distinguishesnineteenthcentury Russia from, say, thirteenth-centuryCastile was the self-appointedmission of the reformingstate, to which an individualmight appeal in orderto thwart the alliance between conservativeson both sides of the Russian-Jewish divide. The resulting realignmentin social power producedan increasingly shrill public rhetoric, reflected in literary, autobiographical,and rabbinic pronouncements againstrecalcitrantJewish youth and rebellious Jewish women; this discourse relied on the pointedcontrastbetweenpast stabilityandan ever-presentsense of "crisis."Thus,the rabbinicandthe reformedintelligentsiaalike construedany form of resistanceto adultmale authorityas dangerouslynew, a symptomof generational 308

New Trends in the Study of Russian Jewry decline from the days when childrenobeyed theirparentsand wives obeyed their husbands.In fact, Balin's study of five Jewish women writersshows thatthe nostalgic view of the obedient wife and daughterwas hardlyconsistent with the experience of women who appropriatedaspects of the same traditionto transform theirlives andto claim a place within modernJewishculture.Balin'swomen move throughthe Pale as residentstrangersand contest it from within not as a juridical fact or as a set of political and social boundariesbut as a deeply rooted cultural paradigmthat defined and delimitedRussian-Jewish selfhood. Balin sees the pale in terms of entrenchedgenderconventions;for her,writout of the Pale involves the revision of stereotypesembeddedin populariming of Russian-Jewish women as faithfulkeepersof tradition,on the one hand, ages and as lady radicals,on the other.Instead,Balin attemptsto integratewomen into the story of the creationof modern Jewish culture,particularlyinto the world of HebrewandRussianlanguages,the literarycommandof which serves not only the enlightenmentof Jews but of Judaism.Balin arguesthatRussian-Jewish women were the producers,and not merely the consumers, of modernJewish culture. In the very act of writing they transcendedthe gender divide that recreatedthe pale in the minds of male intellectualswho had left its confines in pursuitof European culture. Balin's subjects mirror the socioeconomic profile of their male counterparts-like the men who engaged in the project of enlightenment,they were predominantlyof urban,middle-classbackground,upwardlymobile andmulti-lingual-however, these women approachedtheirwritingas a personalquest and not as a social project.Thus, Balin's study moves uneasily between a group portrait and five eccentricpathstowardsthe aestheticrealizationof feminineselfhood. Unlike male enlighteners,enlightenedwomen (the distinctionbetween noun and adjective is critical)operatedoutside of the conventionsthatdefined the Haskalahas a radical literarymovementand (after Zalkin) a social trendthat emerged out of the study house. They were, to paraphrasethe words of the literaryscholar Dan Miron, loners who never came together. The distinctly feminine embraceof art led to the common rejectionof embourgeoisement,the socially conservativeaim of Jewish enlightenment.Although Balin's women shared little in terms of literaryaspirations,they all rejected the bourgeoisstandardof docile Jewish domesticitythatreducedfemale ambitionsto the sphereof marriageand motherhood.For scholarsof Jewish modernity,this is a criticalpoint, first, because it evinces the culturalimplicationsof the Haskalah's social conservatism,which was at odds with its rhetoricalcommitmentto personal liberation from communal discipline and political disability. Second, Balin's women demonstratethat it was possible to be enlightenedwithoutEnlightenment. Whereaswomen'sexperienceas readersanticipatedmany aspects of the self-conscious turn towardthe modern in Jewish society-see, for instance, the recent book by Iris Parush,Reading Women:The Benefit of Marginalityin NineteenthCenturyEasternEuropeanJewishSociety (TelAviv:Am Oved,2001)-their work as writers remainedprofoundlyat odds with the social ethos of the Jewish Enlightenment.Jewish women writersfound their intellectualpassions and personal autonomyseverely compromisedby the persistenceof the pale in the genderhierarchyaffirmedby the male proponentsof the Haskalah.In theirpublic lives, they 309

Olga Litvak performedthe tension between the idea of an autonomous,articulateJewish personhood and the romanticconstructionof bourgeoisfemininity;a tension that animated the nineteenth-centurydistinction between private and public, between mind and heart,between reason and nature,between masculinityand femininity. The self-consciouslyprivatelanguagesof longing cultivatedby the five authorsin Balin's study formedthe basis for a postureof resistanceto this logic of gendered freedom, embodied most famously in J. L. Gordon'sexhortationto the maskil to "be a man in the streetand a Jew at home." Balin's study highlights the difficulties of extricatingoneself from the hold of the pale even when one's avowed purpose is to do just that; her women defy every possible assumptionthat informs the currentversion of Russian-Jewish history,but in her re-telling, their emergence into the light of historical accountability does not serve the correctionof the standardnarrativeShe plots their experience along the conventional trajectoryof Russian-Jewish historiography, from the Pale into the world beyond, as if it were possible to revise one aspect of the story without consideringits implicationsfor the whole. Balin's subjects are far more revolutionarythan she is; they appropriatedand defied male versions of themselves, while she explains and therebyimplicitly dismisses theirworkby reference to psychological inadequacy:a failure to cope with the conflict between personaldesire and social expectationwhich made up for a lack of talentthen and excuses a lack of historicalinterestnow. The most profoundlimitationsof the pale do not stem from an absence of evidence; historiansare drawnto its pieties even when their own sources point to radicalacts of transgression.This is most obviously true of Balin; her analysis derives from the premise-entirely in concert with the gendered norm that she explicitly rejects-that whereas intellectualwomen are idiosyncratic,the desire for motherhoodand family are a naturalattributeof femininity.But the pale persists even in the other three studies, far more consistent in their attemptto move Russian-Jewish history beyond the boundariesof cliche, particularlyin the way Zalkin,Nathans,and Freezeall take for grantedthe documentaryimportof the depictions of Jewish life in literarysources,not only in fiction but also in lettersand autobiographies.Such sources engage with reality in a far more complicatedway than their slight ethnographicvalue would suggest. Yet,traces of the Pale surface in the form of facile faulty literaryreadings,even in the methodologicallysophisticated and rigorouslyempiricalapproachesto the investigationof Jewish modernity undertakenby Freeze and Nathans. Zalkin's work exemplifies the other extreme; overstatingthe gap between maskilic literatureand the history of the Haskalah,he simply dismisses the former as a foil for his sociological model of the latter.Not one of the authorstakes up the epistemological implicationsof the tension between text and context, or sees fit to ask why previous generationsof historiansmight have been so investedin a history of RussianJewryboundby the conceptualstraitjacketof the pale and why our own generationcontinuesto reify the fictional commonplaces of Russian-Jewish history even as scholarship strives to underminetheir hold with the applicationof harddata drawnfrom the archives. Sensitive to the stultifyingeffects of Jewish memory on theirparticular historicalprojects,Zalkin,Nathans,Balin, and Freezeboldly stakeout new claims 310

New Trends in the Study of Russian Jewry for the field. Now thatthey have done so, the study of the Russian-Jewish imagination will surelybe subjectto the same critical standardthat informs their own explorationof the unchartedterritorybeyond the pale. Olga Litvak PrincetonUniversity Princeton,New Jersey

311

Review: [untitled] Author(s): Marc Brettler Source: AJS Review, Vol. 27, No. 2 (Nov., 2003), pp. 313-314 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4131610 . Accessed: 19/07/2011 03:37 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].



AJS Review 27:2 (2003), 313-368

BOOK REVIEWS DavidAaron.BiblicalAmbiguities.Metaphor,Semanticsand Divine Imagery.The Brill Reference Libraryof Ancient Judaism.Leiden:Brill, 2001. ix, 221 pp. This is an interesting,well-writtenandimportantstudy,relevantto anyoneinterestedin betterunderstandingmetaphorin the Bible, figurativelanguage,or idolatry.DavidAaron,Professorof Bible at HebrewUnion College-Jewish Institute of Religion in Cincinnati,was trainedin rabbinicsand linguisticsat BrandeisUniversity; this trainingoffers him a certain sensitivity to how language, especially what many would consider figurative language, functions.Thus, the book really deals with the importanceof understandingsemanticsfor interpretation. The core claim of the book is thatmost statementsthatbiblical scholarsconsiderto be metaphoricalarenot metaphorical.Aarondepictsthis first by critiquing a common "binary"view of language,which views all utterancesas either literal or metaphorical,and assumes that words'meaningsare determinedby "ontological identity,"that is, necessary and sufficient featuresthat adhereto the word itself. Instead,following the Brandeis University linguist Ray Jackendorff,Aaron speaks of "typicalityconditions"(p. 77), noting that indeterminacyand fuzziness are partof humanlanguage(p. 76). Thoughcertainwordsmay be clearlydefined, e.g. scientific wordsby the scientific community,most wordsfromthe generalperspective are like "dog"-"We know a 'dog' when we see one" (p. 74). Not all linguists agreewith this notion of semantics.However,as Aaroncorrectly notes, this notion has an importantimplication:it suggests that there is not a binaryoppositionbetween literaland metaphoricallanguage,but, rather,a gradient. Thus, most scholarsincorrectlyoverextendthe concept of metaphor,ignoring naturalsemantic fields of words (p. 110). Biblical images like "God is king" belong in this gradient,and should not be consideredmetaphorical,because they do not requirewhatJamesFernandezsuggests metaphorsrequire:"a stretchof the imagination"(p. 61). Accordingto Aaron,"'metaphor'shouldbe saved for a more distinctive rhetoricalstrategy,one that involves a process or decoding and mapping" (p. 111). He also develops a criterionfor suggesting when we have a true metaphor(pp. 101-123), and makes it quite clear that scholars have exaggerated the extentof metaphoricalGod-talkin the Bible for severalreasons,includingmisunderstandingthe natureof metaphor,having anachronisticbiases aboutthe biblical text; and treatingthe Bible too much as a unity.The latterpoints are certainly correct; the former will depend on whether the linguistic perspective of Jackendorffis compelling. The concluding chaptersdeal predominantlywith idolatry,aniconism, and the ark as an icon. He correctlyobserves that too many scholars accept DeuteroIsaiah'sdepictionof idolatryas normativefor the entireBible. He suggests thatthe arkoriginallyhad an iconic status in early Israel, and that groups in Israeltreated (an)iconism in particularways not for theological reasons, as most scholars suggest, but for a combinationof social andpolitical reasons,mostly relatedto the as313

Book Reviews sumptionof Aaronidepriests to power and their control of which icons were permitted (pp. 185-192). This suggestion has some merit, but may be criticized as one of a groupof suggestionsheardnow in biblical studiesthatviews religious developments as purelypolitical. (For example, centralizationof worshipas depicted in Deuteronomy12 is seen by some as only an attemptby the royal powersto consolidatepowerin Jerusalem.)The importanceof politics in religion shouldnot be minimized,but it seems foolish to understandall significant religious developments such that"Itprobablyall comes down to politics and control"(p. 192). It is odd thatAaron is so attractedto this position, since elsewherehe eschews widely held modernnotions such as the indeterminacyof textualmeaning (pp. 4-7). The majorcontributionof the book is the suggestionthatscholarshave overstatedsignificantlythe extent of metaphoricalGod-talkin the Bible. How correct Aaron is dependson whetherhis/Jackendorff'stheory of language is correct.His notion of a "gradient"is attractive;andhis observationthat". .. gods differedfrom humans... not in absoluteterms,but in degrees"(p. 193) is well argued.It would have been helpful, however,to see whetherthis generaltheoryresultedin a different or betterunderstandingof certainutterancessuch as "God is king" or "God is father,"which othershave analyzedas metaphorical. Given the highly technical linguistic issues that are presented,the book is quite clear.It is unfortunate,however,that it took over five years to bringto press, so it is not up to date bibliographically.It also ignores some earlier,basic works (e.g., pp. 160-162, whereina discussion of lyla meaning"gods"does not referto the same conclusionsin the Koehler-Baumgartner HebrewandAramaicLexiconof the Old Testament).Thereare a fair numberof typographicalerrorsin the Hebrew andin otherforeignlanguages (e.g., p. 58, which has n-n'for the Tetragrammaton), (e.g., 173 n. 48, wherethe "d,"the determinativefor deities in Akkadian,shouldappear as a superscript).In some cases the bibliographyand the notes do not match (e.g., p. 62 refersto Levenson 1993a, but in the bibliography,there is only a Levenson 1993). These are relativelyminor concerns, however,and do not interfere with the clear and often witty prose used to outlinethis importantproblem. MarcBrettler BrandeisUniversity Waltham,Massachusetts

Shelly Matthews.First Converts:Rich Pagan Womenand the Rhetoricof Mission in Early Judaism and Christianity.Contraversions:Jews and Other Differences. Stanford:StanfordUniversityPress, 2001. x, 164 pp. In this very balancedand thought-provokingbook, Shelly Matthewsstudies a series of GreekandRomantexts concerningGentilewomenof high standingwho were attractedto JudaismandChristianity.These texts, in particularJosephus'novelistic conversionand expulsionstory in Antiquities18.65-84, arewell knownand often discussed,but they haverarelybeen set into a widerframework.Matthewsar314

Review: [untitled] Author(s): René S. Bloch Source: AJS Review, Vol. 27, No. 2 (Nov., 2003), pp. 314-316 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4131611 . Accessed: 19/07/2011 03:37 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 sumptionof Aaronidepriests to power and their control of which icons were permitted (pp. 185-192). This suggestion has some merit, but may be criticized as one of a groupof suggestionsheardnow in biblical studiesthatviews religious developments as purelypolitical. (For example, centralizationof worshipas depicted in Deuteronomy12 is seen by some as only an attemptby the royal powersto consolidatepowerin Jerusalem.)The importanceof politics in religion shouldnot be minimized,but it seems foolish to understandall significant religious developments such that"Itprobablyall comes down to politics and control"(p. 192). It is odd thatAaron is so attractedto this position, since elsewherehe eschews widely held modernnotions such as the indeterminacyof textualmeaning (pp. 4-7). The majorcontributionof the book is the suggestionthatscholarshave overstatedsignificantlythe extent of metaphoricalGod-talkin the Bible. How correct Aaron is dependson whetherhis/Jackendorff'stheory of language is correct.His notion of a "gradient"is attractive;andhis observationthat". .. gods differedfrom humans... not in absoluteterms,but in degrees"(p. 193) is well argued.It would have been helpful, however,to see whetherthis generaltheoryresultedin a different or betterunderstandingof certainutterancessuch as "God is king" or "God is father,"which othershave analyzedas metaphorical. Given the highly technical linguistic issues that are presented,the book is quite clear.It is unfortunate,however,that it took over five years to bringto press, so it is not up to date bibliographically.It also ignores some earlier,basic works (e.g., pp. 160-162, whereina discussion of lyla meaning"gods"does not referto the same conclusionsin the Koehler-Baumgartner HebrewandAramaicLexiconof the Old Testament).Thereare a fair numberof typographicalerrorsin the Hebrew andin otherforeignlanguages (e.g., p. 58, which has n-n'for the Tetragrammaton), (e.g., 173 n. 48, wherethe "d,"the determinativefor deities in Akkadian,shouldappear as a superscript).In some cases the bibliographyand the notes do not match (e.g., p. 62 refersto Levenson 1993a, but in the bibliography,there is only a Levenson 1993). These are relativelyminor concerns, however,and do not interfere with the clear and often witty prose used to outlinethis importantproblem. MarcBrettler BrandeisUniversity Waltham,Massachusetts

Shelly Matthews.First Converts:Rich Pagan Womenand the Rhetoricof Mission in Early Judaism and Christianity.Contraversions:Jews and Other Differences. Stanford:StanfordUniversityPress, 2001. x, 164 pp. In this very balancedand thought-provokingbook, Shelly Matthewsstudies a series of GreekandRomantexts concerningGentilewomenof high standingwho were attractedto JudaismandChristianity.These texts, in particularJosephus'novelistic conversionand expulsionstory in Antiquities18.65-84, arewell knownand often discussed,but they haverarelybeen set into a widerframework.Matthewsar314

Book Reviews gues thatJosephus,Luke, "andotherreligious apologists,"in recountingepisodes of upper-classwomen'sassociationswith theircommunities,followed a rhetorical strategy.These authorswereanxiousto depicttheirrespectivecommunitiesas compatiblewith Greco-Romanculture.The existence of paganupper-classwomen supportingthe Jewishcause could demonstratesuch a compatibility.Matthewsis well aware of the numerous derogatorystatements by such authors as Tacitus and Plutarch,who criticize women's involvementin politics and religion. Jewish and Christianuse of the sympatheticGentilewomanas an apologeticfigure, one might think,could havea boomerangeffect. Matthewstriesto solve this problemby pointing out that women in Greco-Romanantiquityoften played an active role in religious performancesandthatthis rolewas often accepted.The narrativesof Josephus and Luke thus reflect a historicalphenomenon. The book begins with a somewhatoddly placed passage from Juvenal(Sat. 6.542-47). In his famously misogynous sixth satire,Juvenaldepicts an old Jewish woman, whom he describes as an interpreterof the laws of Jerusalem,who "tells you dreamsof any kind you please for the smallest of coins."ForMatthews this old woman is not a mendicant,but a professionalmissionaryand thus a good example of ancientJewishproselytism.Althoughthe sketchyliteraryevidence regardingJewishproselytismoften allows for controversialinterpretations,Juvenal's Jewish woman hardlyprovidesa good argumentin favorof a Jewish mission. In the first chapter,"Crimesof Passion:Religion, Sex and State Subversion in Antiquities18:65-84," Matthewsprovidesa thoroughreadingof Josephus'saccount of the expulsion of Isis worshippersand Jews from Rome in 19 CE. In both cases of expulsion it is a highbornwomanwho is the sourceof the troublefor both the Jews and the Isis community.Comparingthis text with accounts of the same events in Tacitusand Suetonius,Matthewsconvincingly shows how Josephusdeflects accusationsof sexual misconductconcerningthe Jews by specifically referencing the sexual misconduct among the Isis practitioners.Josephus reacts to a patternin Roman literaturethat tends to fuse subversivereligious and sexual activity. Moreover,Matthewsargues,these texts suggest elite Roman anxiety about the missionaryinfluenceof foreignreligions in Rome. One may very well disagree on the last point. Erich Gruen in Diaspora (Berkeley 2002, published after Matthews'book) questionssuch an anxiety on the Romanside. NeitherTacitusnor Suetonius call the Jews who were expelled proselytes, let alone mention proselytism as the cause of this action. In Chapter2, "Ladies'Aid: Gentile Noblewomen as Saviors and Benefactors in the Antiquities,"Matthewsdescribes how Josephusportraysa large number of Gentile upper-classwomen as advocatingJewish causes (e.g., Nero's wife PoppaeaSabina;Augustus'wife Livia;Helena,the QueenofAdiabene;andAgrippina the Younger).Matthewscorrectlynotes thatJosephus'presentationof politically active and influential Gentile women clashes with his reading of biblical matriarchsand the women of the Hasmoneanand Herodiandynasties in the Antiquitiesand the Jewish War.Therewomen'spolitical freedomis as little endorsed as, say,in Tacitus.This raises the above-mentionedquestionof whetherJosephus's portrayalof Gentile women who acted on behalf of the Jews might not be at variance with the goals of Jewish apologetics. Matthewsis well awareof this tension. 315

Book Reviews She solves it-hesitantly, though-by pointing to evidence of the existence of such influentialnoblewomen,for example,an inscriptionfromAphrodisiasthatrecountsthe influenceof Livia'sadvocacyon behalf of the Samians.In the end,Josephus's apologetic strategymay be more than wishful thinking.Even more typical and for Matthews'purpose more importantis the case of Plotina, Trajan'swife, who-at least accordingto the Acts of the Pagan Martyrs-supported the Jews (Plotina is discussed in Chapter3). Chapter3, "'Morethan a few GreekWomenof High Standing':'God-Fearing' Noblewomenin Acts,"discusses the role of prominentGentile women, whom Paul encountersat severalinstancesin his missionaryjourneys (Acts 13:50; 17:4; 17:12). Matthewsincludes here an unnecessarilylengthy discussion of the term "God-fearer," only to conclude(rightlyso) thatthe term is not a fiction of Luke(as Kraabelhad argued),but actuallyexisted in history.Matthewsshows that Luke's presentationof prominentwomenfollows the samepatternas in Josephus.Lukeunderscoresthe role of upper-classGentile women, while limiting the sphereof action of women in other contexts. As in the case of Josephus,Matthewswonders aboutthe efficacy of such apologetics.Given the resentmentof the Greco-Roman literati towardpolitically active women, why would an apologetic authordepict Gentile women who patronize,and sometimesaffiliate with his community?As in the precedingchapter,Matthewssuggests thata partialexplanationmight lie in the fact thatthe phenomenonof elite women'sbenefactionwas not just a fancy. Who then would endorsereligiously active women as they are presentedin JosephusandLuke?The fourthandlast chapterof this shortbook, "FirstConverts: Acts 16 and the LegitimatingFunction of High-StandingWomen in Missionary Propaganda,"providesan answerto this question.Screeninga wide rangeof texts (from Euripides'Bacchae to Philo's Therapeutae),Matthewsidentifies a line of argumentin Greco-Romantexts concerningthe special functionof women in missionary religions. In fact, women's religious function in the Greco-Romanworld was often viewed as properand virtuous.The potentialaudience of Josephusand Luke, one might add,was thereforeas divided with regardto the religious role of women as these two authorswere themselves.This relatesto a furtherquestion,often raisedin recentyears in Josephusstudies:is "apologetics"reallythe rightterm for Josephusand Luke? Rene S. Bloch TrinityCollege Hartford,Connecticut

ShemaryahuTalmon, JonathanBen-Dov, and Uwe Glessmer, editors. Qumran Cave 4. XVI: CalendricalTexts.Discoveries in the Judaean Desert, XXI. Oxford: ClarendonPress. xii, 263 pp., 13 plates. Sacha Stern, Calendar and Community:A History of the Jewish Calendar,2nd CenturyBCE-10th CenturyCE. OxfordUniversityPress, 2001. xvi, 306 pp. 316

Review: [untitled] Author(s): Joseph M. Baumgarten Source: AJS Review, Vol. 27, No. 2 (Nov., 2003), pp. 316-319 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4131612 . Accessed: 19/07/2011 03:38 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 She solves it-hesitantly, though-by pointing to evidence of the existence of such influentialnoblewomen,for example,an inscriptionfromAphrodisiasthatrecountsthe influenceof Livia'sadvocacyon behalf of the Samians.In the end,Josephus's apologetic strategymay be more than wishful thinking.Even more typical and for Matthews'purpose more importantis the case of Plotina, Trajan'swife, who-at least accordingto the Acts of the Pagan Martyrs-supported the Jews (Plotina is discussed in Chapter3). Chapter3, "'Morethan a few GreekWomenof High Standing':'God-Fearing' Noblewomenin Acts,"discusses the role of prominentGentile women, whom Paul encountersat severalinstancesin his missionaryjourneys (Acts 13:50; 17:4; 17:12). Matthewsincludes here an unnecessarilylengthy discussion of the term "God-fearer," only to conclude(rightlyso) thatthe term is not a fiction of Luke(as Kraabelhad argued),but actuallyexisted in history.Matthewsshows that Luke's presentationof prominentwomenfollows the samepatternas in Josephus.Lukeunderscoresthe role of upper-classGentile women, while limiting the sphereof action of women in other contexts. As in the case of Josephus,Matthewswonders aboutthe efficacy of such apologetics.Given the resentmentof the Greco-Roman literati towardpolitically active women, why would an apologetic authordepict Gentile women who patronize,and sometimesaffiliate with his community?As in the precedingchapter,Matthewssuggests thata partialexplanationmight lie in the fact thatthe phenomenonof elite women'sbenefactionwas not just a fancy. Who then would endorsereligiously active women as they are presentedin JosephusandLuke?The fourthandlast chapterof this shortbook, "FirstConverts: Acts 16 and the LegitimatingFunction of High-StandingWomen in Missionary Propaganda,"providesan answerto this question.Screeninga wide rangeof texts (from Euripides'Bacchae to Philo's Therapeutae),Matthewsidentifies a line of argumentin Greco-Romantexts concerningthe special functionof women in missionary religions. In fact, women's religious function in the Greco-Romanworld was often viewed as properand virtuous.The potentialaudience of Josephusand Luke, one might add,was thereforeas divided with regardto the religious role of women as these two authorswere themselves.This relatesto a furtherquestion,often raisedin recentyears in Josephusstudies:is "apologetics"reallythe rightterm for Josephusand Luke? Rene S. Bloch TrinityCollege Hartford,Connecticut

ShemaryahuTalmon, JonathanBen-Dov, and Uwe Glessmer, editors. Qumran Cave 4. XVI: CalendricalTexts.Discoveries in the Judaean Desert, XXI. Oxford: ClarendonPress. xii, 263 pp., 13 plates. Sacha Stern, Calendar and Community:A History of the Jewish Calendar,2nd CenturyBCE-10th CenturyCE. OxfordUniversityPress, 2001. xvi, 306 pp. 316

Book Reviews Since the publicationof the first Qumranscrolls more than half a century the schematic 364 day solar year of Jubilees has been posited as a majorisago, sue in the schism of the Qumrancommunity from mainstreamJudaism. ShemaryahuTalmonwas among the pioneers in assessing the impactof this calendar upon the life of the Qumrancommunity,as best illustratedby theYomKippurconfrontationwith the Wicked Priest who came to suppressthe sect's observanceof the fast on a date in conflict with the prevalentlunarcalendar.Talmon'sthesis is that the sect, like the authorof Jubilees, viewed the observationof the moon as leading to corruptionof the ideal 364 day calendarin which the holidays and all dates were perpetuallyfixed to particulardays of the week. Whetherand how the sect made correction for the annual deficit of one and one quarterdays is not known, but presumablythey had only disdain for the arbitrarymethods of lunar intercalation. With the publicationof Qumrancalendricaltexts now nearingcompletion, it is naturalto ask how this thesis holds up in the light of new Cave 4 fragments. Fortunately,we have two recent Oxford volumes which are relevantto this question. One is the official publicationof calendricaltexts fromCave4 as volume XXI in the Discoveries in the JudaeanDesert (DJD) series. The other is a broadhistory of the Jewishcalendarfromthe second centuryBCE to medievaltimes by Sacha Stern. As to the first volume, it is gratifyingto note thatTalmon,assistedby J. BenDov, is its primaryeditor, thus testifying to his continued active contributionto Scroll scholarship.Here he publishes seventeenfragmentarycalendardocuments, almost all of the mishmarottype, that is, using the rotationsof the twenty-four priestly courses listed in Chroniclesfor dating festivals and other events in a sixyear cycle of the Qumrancalendar.Uwe Glessmer edits fragmentsof a schedule of daily prayersto be recited sequentiallyduringa month.This schedule, as noted by Glessmer,may have importantbearingon the rabbinicliturgy.Ben-Dov is the editor of a fragmentof a longer cycle of 294 years-6 jubilees of 49 years-in which every period of three years is identified by its sign, the name of the priestly course serving duringthe first week of the period. In his general introductionto the volume, Talmonrestateshis premise that the Qumrancalendarsharedthe antilunarposition of the book of Jubilees. The Damascus Document, one of the foundationalworks of the community,does indeed make referenceto the chronologicalsystem of the Book of Jubilees, and as Talmon demonstratedlong ago, the mishmarotlists of annual festivals on fixed days of the week presupposethe schematic364-day solarcalendar.However,as illustratedby the early astronomicalBook of Enoch, not all proponentsof the 364day year were oblivious to the need for synchronizationwith the lunarcalendar.In fact, in this volume, Talmon, himself, publishes 4Q320, which "is intended to achieve a concordance of the divergent 354-day lunar year with this 'ideal' ephemeris"(p. 33). 4Q321 designates two days in each solar month, one around the middle of the lunarmonth with the obscure designationduqah, and the other not named (Talmondesignates it X), aroundthe end of the month.The natureof these two days is still the subject of much conjectureamong scholars. Michael Wise deduces from anotherQumrantext thatduqahrefersto the full moon, while 317

Book Reviews the X day was probablythe day of its last visibility.Talmonand IsraelKnohl have suggestedthatduqahwas the night afterthe full moon when it begins to wane, and thatX was the last day of the lunarmonth. In his opinion the purposeof recording these days inclining towardlunardarknesswas to warn the members of the sect aboutthe sinisterinfluence of the moon. This baleful lunarhypothesiscontrastssharplywith 4Q503, a Qumranliturgical text which sets forthprayersto be reciteddaily in accordancewith the varying portions of light and darknessin the moon, a method of measuringlunation also describedin Enoch.As I had occasion to point out in 1986, 4Q503 shows that lunarobservationor calculationwas used for liturgicalpurposes at Qumran,despite the antilunarpolemics of Jubilees. In his learnedbut noncommittalevaluation of the evidence (The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years,pp. 213-278), Uwe Glessmermaintainedthatthe moon and "lots of darkness"occur only in passages reconstructedby the editor.This is not quite accurate,as one can verify by looking at the phrase puin rn•bu visible on plate XLI frg. 39 of M. Baillet's edition. Thus, with regardto 4Q321, it seems more plausibleto supposethatthe two days designatedeach monthwere intendedfor synchronizationwith the lunarcalendarratherthan as a warningagainst it. This option appearsto be recognizedby Talmon(p. 36) as at least a possibility once a comprehensivestudy of the entire Qumrancalendricalcorpus is completed. The theme of Stern'schallenginghistory of the Jewish calendaris that Jewish calendarreckoningin antiquitywas characterizedby its diversity.Using modem astronomicaltables for the visibility of the new moon in differentparts of the ancient world, Stern analyzes specific Jewish dates recordedin various sources from the late Roman period. Froma ketubahfrom Egypt in 417 CE, datedto the 20th of Kislev,it is inferablethatPassover,14 Nisan startedon March 17.The vernal equinox that year was on March 19, but Sternnotes that contemporaryreckonings of the equinox were all later than March 19 or 20. So it appearsthat this Passoverwas not in accordwith the rabbinicrule thatthe 15thof Nisan cannotprecede the tequfah(b. Rosh ha-Shanah21a). Stern suggests that the Jews in Egypt made their own calendricaldeterminations,as did other Diaspora communities. But even in southernPalestine,the fifth-centurytombstoneinscriptionsfromZoar seem to indicatethatthe rabbinicrule of the equinoxwas not followed. Moreover, Stern is of the opinion thatwhereasvariousAmoraiccalendricalrules were gradually formulated,the present-dayform of the fixed rabbiniccalendaremergedonly in the Geonic period. The medieval traditionthat Hillel the Patriarchinstitutedit in the 4th centuryis not supportedby any talmudicevidence. Based on his thesis that festivals could be observedeven in late antiquityon totally differentdates from one Jewish communityto the next, it is interestingto see how this affects Stern'sevaluationof the effortsby communalauthoritiesto instituteuniformityin earlierperiods.With regardto the Qumransolar calendar,he tends to cast doubt on its significance as a cause of sectarianschism. He speculates thatit might have been intendedonly as an idealisticmodel andnot reallyput into practice.The polemics in communaltexts againstthose who go astraywith regard to the festivals, he argues,may refer not to their dates, but to the mannerof celebratingthem. He admits that the Yom Kippurconfrontationdescribed in the 318

Book Reviews Habakukpesherand highlightedby Talmon(see above) gets close to evidence for solar sectarianism,but even here he points to other interpretations,more congenial to his theme of coexistent diversity:"If the Teacherof Righteousnessand the Wicked Priestwere both observing, for instance,a calendarbased on sightings of the new moon, then on this occasion they may simply have sighted the new moon on differentdays"(p. 17). This speculativesuggestion sounds very much like a retrojectionof the famous confrontationbetween R. Gamliel, the Nasi, and R. Joshua over the new moon and the properdate for Yom Kippur,recordedin MishnahRosh ha-Shanah. AlthoughI have arguedpreviouslythatthe schematicsolarcalendar,so laboriously tabulatedat Qumran,does not precludelunarsynchronization,Stem's interpretation strikesme as a dubiouseffort to turnthe plate upside down. Generalreaders,who often shy awayfromthe technicalitiesof calendarreckoning, should be assuredthat Stern'svolume is not only very clearly written;it is a challenging and exciting foray into the links between the measurementof time and a millenniumof Jewish social history. Joseph M. Baumgarten BaltimoreHebrewUniversity Baltimore,Maryland

Menahem Kahana. Sifre Zuta Deuteronomy. Citationsfrom a New Tannaitic Midrash.Jerusalem:Magnes Press, 2002. 476 pp. (Hebrew) In 1989, afterthe fall of the IronCurtainin the formerSoviet Union, Menahem Kahanaof the HebrewUniversityin Jerusalemwas the first Israelischolarto searchthe St. Petersburgand Moscow librariesfor manuscriptsof rabbinictexts, and especially for lost halakhicmidrashim.During his second visit, Kahananoticed that in a commentaryon Deuteronomywrittenby a tenth-centuryKaraite sage namedYeshuaben Yehudafrom Jerusalem,therewere derashotto Deuteronomy that are unknownfrom any other rabbinicsource.At first, he tentativelyassumed that these quotations were from lost sections of the Mekhilta on Deuteronomy.However,the more Kahanaculled quotationsfrom the 30 (!) manuscriptsofYeshua'scommentary,the more he realizedthatthe terminologicaldifferences between these derashotand Mekhiltaon Deuteronomy,coupled with the absence of these sources fromMidrashHagadol, which was familiarwith Mekhilta on Deuteronomy,precludedsuch identification. In 1993, Kahanalectured on these derashot and identified them as belonging to a third tannaiticmidrashon Deuteronomy(Sifreon Deuteronomybeing the first), which he entitledSifreZuta Deuteronomy(SZD)based on its similaritiesto the alreadyknownSifreZutaNumbers (SZN). Kahanacompletely rejects the possibility that these derashot are fakes or paraphrases.This denial is based on several proofs. First,Yeshua'squotationsof numerousotherknownrabbinicsources are accurate.Second,the quotationsfrom 319

Review: [untitled] Author(s): Joshua Kulp Source: AJS Review, Vol. 27, No. 2 (Nov., 2003), pp. 319-322 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4131613 . Accessed: 19/07/2011 03:38 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 Habakukpesherand highlightedby Talmon(see above) gets close to evidence for solar sectarianism,but even here he points to other interpretations,more congenial to his theme of coexistent diversity:"If the Teacherof Righteousnessand the Wicked Priestwere both observing, for instance,a calendarbased on sightings of the new moon, then on this occasion they may simply have sighted the new moon on differentdays"(p. 17). This speculativesuggestion sounds very much like a retrojectionof the famous confrontationbetween R. Gamliel, the Nasi, and R. Joshua over the new moon and the properdate for Yom Kippur,recordedin MishnahRosh ha-Shanah. AlthoughI have arguedpreviouslythatthe schematicsolarcalendar,so laboriously tabulatedat Qumran,does not precludelunarsynchronization,Stem's interpretation strikesme as a dubiouseffort to turnthe plate upside down. Generalreaders,who often shy awayfromthe technicalitiesof calendarreckoning, should be assuredthat Stern'svolume is not only very clearly written;it is a challenging and exciting foray into the links between the measurementof time and a millenniumof Jewish social history. Joseph M. Baumgarten BaltimoreHebrewUniversity Baltimore,Maryland

Menahem Kahana. Sifre Zuta Deuteronomy. Citationsfrom a New Tannaitic Midrash.Jerusalem:Magnes Press, 2002. 476 pp. (Hebrew) In 1989, afterthe fall of the IronCurtainin the formerSoviet Union, Menahem Kahanaof the HebrewUniversityin Jerusalemwas the first Israelischolarto searchthe St. Petersburgand Moscow librariesfor manuscriptsof rabbinictexts, and especially for lost halakhicmidrashim.During his second visit, Kahananoticed that in a commentaryon Deuteronomywrittenby a tenth-centuryKaraite sage namedYeshuaben Yehudafrom Jerusalem,therewere derashotto Deuteronomy that are unknownfrom any other rabbinicsource.At first, he tentativelyassumed that these quotations were from lost sections of the Mekhilta on Deuteronomy.However,the more Kahanaculled quotationsfrom the 30 (!) manuscriptsofYeshua'scommentary,the more he realizedthatthe terminologicaldifferences between these derashotand Mekhiltaon Deuteronomy,coupled with the absence of these sources fromMidrashHagadol, which was familiarwith Mekhilta on Deuteronomy,precludedsuch identification. In 1993, Kahanalectured on these derashot and identified them as belonging to a third tannaiticmidrashon Deuteronomy(Sifreon Deuteronomybeing the first), which he entitledSifreZuta Deuteronomy(SZD)based on its similaritiesto the alreadyknownSifreZutaNumbers (SZN). Kahanacompletely rejects the possibility that these derashot are fakes or paraphrases.This denial is based on several proofs. First,Yeshua'squotationsof numerousotherknownrabbinicsources are accurate.Second,the quotationsfrom 319

Book Reviews SZD containmidrashicterminologyunknownfrom any other source except SZN, with which Yeshuawas not familiar.These, along with otherrarephrases,unusual usage of rabbinicHebrew,anduncommonGreekwords,make it impossiblethat Yeshuainventedthese sources. Finally,some of these derashot are found in two othermedievalsources:SeferPitron Torahpublishedby E. E. UrbachandMidrash Hadash on the Torah,publishedby JacobMann.These independentcorroborations of Yeshua'squotationsprovesthatthey were not his invention. Kahana'sedition of SZD is dividedinto two sections: (1) an introductionand (2) a critical edition and commentary.The first section of the introductiondeals with the three sources in which Kahanahas identified derashottaken from SZD. In the chapteron the aforementionedYeshuaben Yehudah,Kahanaconcentrates on a technical description of Yeshua's commentary on Deuteronomy and his method in quotingfrom SZD. SeferPitron Torah,the second source in which Kahana found quotationsfrom SZD, was published by E. E. Urbach in 1978. According to Urbach, this collection of midrashimand biblical commentarywas composed in Babylonia in the late ninth or early tenth century.MidrashHadash on the Torah,the thirdsource for SZD, was partiallypublishedby Jacob Mann in 1940 in his book, TheBible as Read and Preached in the Old Synagogue.The remainderof the work was publishedin 1966 by Hebrew Union College. Whereas the work'scompilerand exact place of origin remainunknown,based on the compiler'sfamiliaritywith the Palestiniantriennialcycle of TorahreadingsMannproposed that its origins were in Jewish centers in the east. The second section of the introductionexamines the connection between SZD and SZN. The close connection between these two works is based on three factors: (1) the sharedterminology,(2) the individualderashot common to both worksandnot commonto othertannaiticsources,and (3) the namedsages in these two works, comparedwith the named sages in othertannaiticsources. In this section and the following it becomes clear that Kahana'sresearchinto the halakhic midrashimis based on their classification into two corpora,"of the School of R. Ishmael"(Mekhiltaof RabbiIshmael;portionsof the Sifra;Sifreon Numbers;and Mekhiltaon Deuteronomy)and "of the School of R. Akiva" (Mekhiltaof Rabbi Shimonben-Yochai;most of the Sifra;SZN;Sifreon Deuteronomy;andSZD).This classification was originallyproposed by David Zvi Hoffman and furtherdeveloped by subsequentscholars,first and foremostJ.N. Epstein.Althoughsome have recently criticizedthis classification, Kahana'sargumentsfor its general correctness are so convincing as to make them practicallyunassailable.Kahana'sarguments in favorof such classification are based on philological groundsand not on proposed theological/philosophicaldifferences or on differences in methods of biblical interpretation.It is only once the philological differenceshave been well documentedthat these other differences between the two schools may be documented.Kahanahas arguedfor this classificationfor decades andwe can hope that his summarydiscussion of the halakhic midrashim,due to appearin the second volume of Literatureof the Sages (FortressPress), will appearin printsoon. Having establishedthe connectionbetween SZD and SZN, Kahananext describes SZD itself. He discusses such issues as: the languageof SZD, the relationship of SZDto the Mishnah,the place of the editingof SZD, andreflectionsof SZD 320

Book Reviews in latertalmudicliterature.At the end of this section he includes a brief summary on the differentschools of the halakhicmidrashim. Kahana'sintroductionto SZD is rich in technical discussions of the material. The examplesthat Kahanaprovidesare valuablenot only for their detaileddescription of SZD, but also for the insights they provide into the other halakhic midrashimin particularand into tannaiticliteraturein general. For example, Kahanaprovidesa long list of passages thatHorowitzincludedin his edition of SZN that, accordingto Kahana,are not partof SZN and come from otherworks. Until a new criticaledition of SZN is produced,this list is an invaluabletool in its study. As a furtherexample, Kahanadescribesthe uniqueuse of the term "bethashekhinah" in SZD and SZN as referringto the Temple. Otherrabbinicworks use such terms as "bet hamikdash" and "bet habehirah." Kahana proposes that "bet hashekhinah"is an earliertermandthatthe latertermsaremeantto temperthe descriptionof the Templeas a place of God's presence. The remainderof the book is a criticalcommentaryon the 138 derashotthat were part of the original, much larger midrash. In each section Kahanahas includedthe introductoryArabicwordswhichYeshuaused,followedby the derashah itself. In cases where there were more than one textualwitness for the derashah, Kahanacreatesan eclectic text. Below the derashahappearsa clear apparatuslisting manuscriptdifferences, and full, well-organizedlists of parallels in rabbinic sources. Kahana comments on each derashah separately,explaining both the derashah itself, and, when applicable,the content of the derashah and its relationship to the parallels in other rabbinicsources. In these discussions one can find commentsthatwill affect researchinto all of the differentbranchesof the studyof rabbinicliterature,as well as importantnotes on otherfields such as languageand history.I will offerjust two examples: SZD'smidrashon Deut 24:1 (pp. 346-359) deals at length with two interrelatedissues: (1) can a woman force her husbandto divorceher by claiming that she is somehow forbiddento him; and (2) do certaintypes of immodestbehavior obligatea husbandto divorcehis wife. The fact thatthis derashahis parallelto other sources from the Mishnahand the Toseftaand yet differs in wording, context, and halakhahmakes for rich comparisonsthat can yield interestingresults in the study of the redactionof tannaitichalakhah.Kahana'sdiscussion of the derashah is in essence a detailed article on the differingtannaiticviews on divorce and the natureof marriage,as well as a brief comparisonof these views to those ascribed to Jesus. (Kahanareturnsto this subject later in the book when discussing a derashah concerningrelativeswho are disqualified from testimony). Futurediscussions of earlyrabbinicattitudestowardsdivorcecannotaffordto ignorethis source. The second example is a derashahon Deut 16:18 which contains information on the functionand appointmentof courts of threeand twenty-three.According to Kahana,this derashahis the only talmudicsource to assume that courts of three are appointedand not chosen by the litigants,as is statedin mSan 3:1. Furthermore,the derashah claims that one of the jobs of the judges is "to expound upon the Torahand the Writings(ketuvim)."Kahanaraises the possibility thatthis is the earliestknownreferenceto the latercustom of publicexpositionof the Torah 321

Book Reviews on the Sabbath.If he is correct,this derashahmay prove an invaluablesource in the discussion of the early rabbiniclegal system, its appointmentof judges, and their function. The largerimpactof the discoveryof SZD on talmudicresearchmust not be underestimated.The otherrecentlyrediscoveredhalakhicmidrashim(Mekhiltaof RabbiShimonb. Yohai,SZN,andMekhiltaon Deuteronomy)wereknown,to a lesser or greaterdegree,by some medievalrabbis.In contrast,SZD seems to have been relativelyunknownalreadyto the amoraim,both in Palestineand Babylonia,and was almost completely unknownto medieval rabbis. Its discovery increases the possibility that other ancientrabbinictexts may be discoveredin the future.Until now, an assumptioncould be made that for each book of the Pentateuchthere existed two halakhicmidrashim,one from the Ishmaelianschool and one from the Akivanschool; the appearanceof a thirdmidrashon Deuteronomyprovesthatthis assumptionis wrong. Kahanais himself optimistic aboutthe futurediscovery of other lost texts. The greaterthe possibility of futurediscoveriesexists, the greater caution the talmudicresearchermust exhibit in evaluatingexisting literatureand especially in evaluatingparallel sources. Is a derashah found in the Babylonian Talmudan editorialrevision of one found in the Sifre on Deuteronomy,or might it be from a section of SZD that has not yet been located? Is a baraita which appears in one of the Talmudima revision of a parallelsource in the Tosefta,or is it from a collection of baraitotor midrashimthat did not survive?These questions are frequentlyaskedby scholars;Kahana'swork shouldhave an impacton the answers. Kahana'sbook sets a high standardfor critical editions of midrashim.In comparison,all othercriticaleditionsof halakhicmidrashimpale, both in theircritical apparatusand in the depth of their commentary.The publicationof SZD has createdthe strangesituationwherebythe midrashthat was least known throughout historynow exists in the best edition, whereasmost of the Sifra,the longest of the halakhicmidrashim,has not meritedanycriticaledition.Afterseveralcenturies of searchingfor lost midrashim,a searchwhich has yielded impressiveresults,one hopes thatwe have not "lost"the main midrashim,and that scholarswill increasingly turntheirattentiontowardspublishingand commentingon these monumentally importantworks. JoshuaKulp The ConservativeYeshivah Jerusalem,Israel

CharlotteElisheva Fonrobert.MenstrualPurity: Rabbinic and ChristianReconstructionsof Biblical Gender.Contraversions:Jews and OtherDifferences. Stanford: StanfordUniversityPress. ix, 326 pp. This book is presentedas "first a study of the classic rabbinicdiscourse on menstruationand of the range of meanings that talmudic literatureaccords to 322

Review: [untitled] Author(s): Gail Labovitz Source: AJS Review, Vol. 27, No. 2 (Nov., 2003), pp. 322-325 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4131614 . Accessed: 19/07/2011 03:38 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 on the Sabbath.If he is correct,this derashahmay prove an invaluablesource in the discussion of the early rabbiniclegal system, its appointmentof judges, and their function. The largerimpactof the discoveryof SZD on talmudicresearchmust not be underestimated.The otherrecentlyrediscoveredhalakhicmidrashim(Mekhiltaof RabbiShimonb. Yohai,SZN,andMekhiltaon Deuteronomy)wereknown,to a lesser or greaterdegree,by some medievalrabbis.In contrast,SZD seems to have been relativelyunknownalreadyto the amoraim,both in Palestineand Babylonia,and was almost completely unknownto medieval rabbis. Its discovery increases the possibility that other ancientrabbinictexts may be discoveredin the future.Until now, an assumptioncould be made that for each book of the Pentateuchthere existed two halakhicmidrashim,one from the Ishmaelianschool and one from the Akivanschool; the appearanceof a thirdmidrashon Deuteronomyprovesthatthis assumptionis wrong. Kahanais himself optimistic aboutthe futurediscovery of other lost texts. The greaterthe possibility of futurediscoveriesexists, the greater caution the talmudicresearchermust exhibit in evaluatingexisting literatureand especially in evaluatingparallel sources. Is a derashah found in the Babylonian Talmudan editorialrevision of one found in the Sifre on Deuteronomy,or might it be from a section of SZD that has not yet been located? Is a baraita which appears in one of the Talmudima revision of a parallelsource in the Tosefta,or is it from a collection of baraitotor midrashimthat did not survive?These questions are frequentlyaskedby scholars;Kahana'swork shouldhave an impacton the answers. Kahana'sbook sets a high standardfor critical editions of midrashim.In comparison,all othercriticaleditionsof halakhicmidrashimpale, both in theircritical apparatusand in the depth of their commentary.The publicationof SZD has createdthe strangesituationwherebythe midrashthat was least known throughout historynow exists in the best edition, whereasmost of the Sifra,the longest of the halakhicmidrashim,has not meritedanycriticaledition.Afterseveralcenturies of searchingfor lost midrashim,a searchwhich has yielded impressiveresults,one hopes thatwe have not "lost"the main midrashim,and that scholarswill increasingly turntheirattentiontowardspublishingand commentingon these monumentally importantworks. JoshuaKulp The ConservativeYeshivah Jerusalem,Israel

CharlotteElisheva Fonrobert.MenstrualPurity: Rabbinic and ChristianReconstructionsof Biblical Gender.Contraversions:Jews and OtherDifferences. Stanford: StanfordUniversityPress. ix, 326 pp. This book is presentedas "first a study of the classic rabbinicdiscourse on menstruationand of the range of meanings that talmudic literatureaccords to 322

Book Reviews women's bodies in its discourse on Niddah"(p. 1). As the presence of the word "Christian"in the subtitlewould suggest, however,the actualcontentsof the book are somewhatbroader.The range of materialscovered are all worthyof scholarly examinationand analysis,which Fonrobertably and engaginglyprovides.Yet,the wide reach of this book contributesto both its strengthsand its weaknesses. In Chapters1-4, Fonrobertreadstexts fromthe tractateNiddahin the Mishnah and the BabylonianTalmud(and to a lesser extent the Toseftaand the PalestinianTalmud).She seeks both to elucidatethe "dominantdiscourse"in these texts as they constructwomen and women'sbodies, and also to locate the "moment[s] of disturbancein the dominantdiscourse"(p. 104). Broadly,Fonrobert'sthesis is thatrabbinictexts constructthe female body,particularlysexual organsandthe reproductivetract,througharchitecturalmetaphors,by which women and women's bodies may become the objects of androcentricdiscourse.A similar effect occurs in rabbinicdiscourseaboutthe examinationof blood stains;male rabbisare positioned as authoritiesover female blood, which is furtherremovedfrom the (bodies of) women who actually experience menstruationor other genital flows. But Fonrobertalso cogentlyreadsfor the momentswhen this dominantdiscourseis undermined,when the texts themselves admit/confront"theconceptualizationof the female body as a sentient being, as already 'inhabited'by the feeling subject" (p. 69), as, for example, in her analysis of a story in bNid 20b, in which Yaltaengineers a rabbinicruling abouther blood sample that is to her liking. The lattertwo chaptersmove outwardfrom eithermenstruation(Chapter5) or rabbinicsources (Chapter6). Chapter5 is an attemptto "thinkmore . .. about the possibility of women's space within the discursiveuniverseof the rabbis,particularly with reference to women's bodies," that is, to seek "culturalspaces in which women relatedirectlyto women and can establishrelationshipsthatare not underthe immediatecontrol of male authority.. ." (p. 129). TractateNiddah is a fruitful site for this work in that it "considersvarious other situations in which women'sbodies areexamined"(p. 130), includingexaminationsperformedby other women. Similarly,Fonrobert'sturnin these chaptersto early Christianworksnotably the Didascalia Apostolorumof the thirdcentury CE-and to Greco-Roman medical writing contextualizesrabbinicmenstrualdiscoursein a way not often seen in scholarshipon the subject.On the otherhand,these moves also become opportunitiesfor digressions that make the book as a whole feel somewhatdisjointed. Chapter5 concludes by asking "whetherit is possible to trace the existence of women healers"(p. 151). This is a worthy question, but Fonrobertdoes not make clear its connectionto her subjectsof menstruationandthe construction of the female body; indeed,she seeks an answerin an extendedcorpus,outside of tractateNiddah (bShab. 133b-134a), of medical information-attributed by the amoraAbaye to his mother-particularly regardingthe care of infants.The chapter on the Didascalia and otherChristiansources includes a discussion of the uses of rabbinicmenstruallaws in a particularkind of anti-Jewishfeminist New Testament scholarship;ten pages are then dedicatedto analyzinga New Testamentstory and its relationship,or lack thereof, to rabbinicmenstruallaws and discourse. This book engages several importantand ongoing methodologicaldebates in the field(s) of rabbinicand feminist studies, and evaluationsof its effectiveness 323

Book Reviews may well be influencedby the reader'spersonalpositioningregardingthese questions. First, Fonrobertdoes not discuss very much the extensive literatureas to whetherrabbinicmidrashis best understoodas a responseto internal,hermeneutical considerationsof the biblical text or external,socioculturaland historicalissues (or some mix of the two). Yet, despite her historicizingmoves in the latter chapters,Fonrobert'sself-positioning on the hermeneuticalside of the debate in this instanceis evident.A majorpremise of her analysis of the rabbinicdiscourse on women'sbodies begins with a pair of verses, Leviticus 15:2 and 19, in which a man'sgenital dischargeis describedas being "mibisaro,""fromhis flesh,"whereas a woman's is "bivsara,""in her flesh." Fonrobertsuggests that the rabbis' hermeneuticalattentionto this difference in prepositionsled them to "construct the interiorof the woman'sbody, while not admittingthe possibility of thinking the interiorof the male body" (p. 49), resultingin the architecturalmetaphorsalready discussed. She writes, "The rabbinicunderstandingof corporealpractices andthe body'srole in the constitutionof the Jewishcommunityareproductsof the rabbis'biblical hermeneuticsas much as the otherway around"(p. 40). I find the rabbinic attention to the biblical prepositions intriguing, but insufficiently explanatoryof the turnto architecturalmetaphorsin particular. Fonrobertseems to share a common desire of feminist scholarsto recover women's lost or marginalizedvoices. She demonstratesquite well the various ways, rhetoricalandotherwise,thatstatementsattributedto women in rabbinicand early Christianliteratureare indeed marginalizedboth by the texts she examines and in laterexegetical traditions(includingmodernscholarship).Thus, for example, in her analysisofAbaye's mother'smedicaladvice, Fonrobertsuggeststhatthe distinctiveform of citation used for these statementscan be read as reducingthe authoritativeweight of the female voice; she furtherdemonstrateshow laterscholars often disregardedthese materialsor furtherdiminishedtheir significance. Her work becomes more problematic, though, when she takes up the question of whetherit is indeed possible to retrievea "uniquelyauthoritativewoman'svoice" even if one is able "to reverse the continuous process of. . . marginalization" (p. 153). Fonrobertis awareof the likelihood thatin otherancientworks feminine figures (for example, Diotima in Plato's Symposium)exist as "literaryconstruction[s]" and creations of a male author,ratherthan as "representation"(p.158). However, she argues against reading the sayings of Abaye's mother in this way, based on the natureof the Talmudas "collective"and "citationalliterature";"Even thoughthe overwhelmingmajorityof speakingparticipantsaremen, we shouldnot single out the one woman'svoice as the only one not 'quoted'but the mere product of male speech"(p. 159). The obvious difficulty here is that the currenttrend in rabbinicscholarshiphas been against naively assuming that materials(quotes or biographicalstories)attributedto male figures in rabbinicliteraturemaybe read as unproblematicallyrepresentational,ratherthan as constructionsdeveloped in the process of textualtransmissionand redaction. Moreover,this recourseto the supposedlydistinctivenatureof rabbinicliteraturewould seem not to be availablewhen Fonrobertturnsto the Didascalia. She does beginby recognizingthat"we do not havethe voices of the womenthemselves in the form of independenttexts,"yet here too the desire to assertthe presence of 324

Book Reviews women'svoices creeps back in over the course of the chapter.The Didascalia text is structuredas directdiscourseto women in the author'scommunitywho arepracticing some form of menstrualseparation,and presentsseveralrationalesthat the women might give for their actions (each followed by a rebuttal).Fonrobertsuggests that"Itseems likely thatthis reasoningis not merelythoughtup by the author, but is indeed one thatthe women put forward"(p. 175). This conjecturebecomes, rhetorically,all the more certain as the chapterprogresses, so that as Fonrobert moves throughthe Didascalia, she can write, "Now the author... turnsto the other argumentthatthe women advance"(p. 179) and "Thethirdand final argument ... is not a responseto a specific claim made by the women themselves"(p. 186). Fonrobertadvises her fellow scholars that "It is our task as readersof talmudic literaturenot to succumbto constructinguniformitywhere there is doubt, contradiction,ambiguity,and difference"(p. 67). Despite the concerns I have expressed above, I believe Fonroberthas provideda worthymodel of how to achieve the goal she advocates. Her work is nuanced,erudite, and never simplistic. Her readers,whetherin rabbinics,gender studies, or both, would do well to follow her example. Gail Labovitz Jewish Theological Seminary New York,New York

ChristineHayes. Gentile Impuritiesand Jewish Identities. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. 309 pp. JonathanKlawansrecentlyarguedthatthere are two distincttypes of purity in the Bible: ritual and moral. In biblical texts, the impurityof Gentiles is not ritual,but moral (the exception being corpse impurity,to which Gentiles are susceptible). Moral impurityis not contagious and is not subjectto rites of purification. In the first section of her recently published work on Gentile impurities, ChristineHayes furthercategorizes impurityby introducingtwo types of purity consideredto be intrinsicto Gentiles by some second temple groups:genealogical and carnal. Genealogicalimpurityis an impurityintrinsicto a nationality/raceand cannot be cleansed throughconversionor assimilation.The idea that Gentiles are intrinsicallyprofaneis introducedinto Israeliteideology by Ezra,who conceives of all of Israel as a holy seed, a concept ascribed only to priests in the Torahand Ezekiel. The idea is furtherdeveloped in Jubilees and 4QMMT which, in Hayes's reading,prohibitand polemicize against intermarriageand are intolerantof any form of conversion. Paultheorizesa new form of impurity,which Hayes dubs "carnalimpurity." This type of impurityis contagious,and is passed from the flesh of a nonbeliever to a believer throughsexual union. While Paul obviously believes in conversion, 325

Review: [untitled] Author(s): Joshua Kulp Source: AJS Review, Vol. 27, No. 2 (Nov., 2003), pp. 325-327 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4131615 . Accessed: 19/07/2011 03:38 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 women'svoices creeps back in over the course of the chapter.The Didascalia text is structuredas directdiscourseto women in the author'scommunitywho arepracticing some form of menstrualseparation,and presentsseveralrationalesthat the women might give for their actions (each followed by a rebuttal).Fonrobertsuggests that"Itseems likely thatthis reasoningis not merelythoughtup by the author, but is indeed one thatthe women put forward"(p. 175). This conjecturebecomes, rhetorically,all the more certain as the chapterprogresses, so that as Fonrobert moves throughthe Didascalia, she can write, "Now the author... turnsto the other argumentthatthe women advance"(p. 179) and "Thethirdand final argument ... is not a responseto a specific claim made by the women themselves"(p. 186). Fonrobertadvises her fellow scholars that "It is our task as readersof talmudic literaturenot to succumbto constructinguniformitywhere there is doubt, contradiction,ambiguity,and difference"(p. 67). Despite the concerns I have expressed above, I believe Fonroberthas provideda worthymodel of how to achieve the goal she advocates. Her work is nuanced,erudite, and never simplistic. Her readers,whetherin rabbinics,gender studies, or both, would do well to follow her example. Gail Labovitz Jewish Theological Seminary New York,New York

ChristineHayes. Gentile Impuritiesand Jewish Identities. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. 309 pp. JonathanKlawansrecentlyarguedthatthere are two distincttypes of purity in the Bible: ritual and moral. In biblical texts, the impurityof Gentiles is not ritual,but moral (the exception being corpse impurity,to which Gentiles are susceptible). Moral impurityis not contagious and is not subjectto rites of purification. In the first section of her recently published work on Gentile impurities, ChristineHayes furthercategorizes impurityby introducingtwo types of purity consideredto be intrinsicto Gentiles by some second temple groups:genealogical and carnal. Genealogicalimpurityis an impurityintrinsicto a nationality/raceand cannot be cleansed throughconversionor assimilation.The idea that Gentiles are intrinsicallyprofaneis introducedinto Israeliteideology by Ezra,who conceives of all of Israel as a holy seed, a concept ascribed only to priests in the Torahand Ezekiel. The idea is furtherdeveloped in Jubilees and 4QMMT which, in Hayes's reading,prohibitand polemicize against intermarriageand are intolerantof any form of conversion. Paultheorizesa new form of impurity,which Hayes dubs "carnalimpurity." This type of impurityis contagious,and is passed from the flesh of a nonbeliever to a believer throughsexual union. While Paul obviously believes in conversion, 325

Book Reviews he does not envision the possibility of intermarriagebetween the holy flesh of the believer, and the defiled flesh of the nonbeliever.In such a manner,Paul adopts the Ezranidea of holy seed, and transformsit to meet his concept of the holy flesh (flesh which is imbuedwith the holy spirit). After documentingpre-rabbinicconcepts of Gentile impurities,Hayesturns her attentionto a contextualdescriptionof rabbinicattitudestowardthese impurities. In these chapters,Hayes disputesGedalyahuAlon's theorythat as Gentile ritual impuritywas actuallybiblical (with its basis in the ritually-defilingpower of idols), when the rabbisdeclarethat Gentile ritualimpurityis of rabbinicorigin it is an attemptto soften the impactof the ancient law. In contrastto Alon, Hayes demonstratesthatthe rabbisunderstoodwell that Gentiles were excluded fromthe ritualpuritylaws of Leviticus 12-15, and that althoughtherewas some debateon corpse impurity,the rabbisdid not include Gentiles in their torahiticpurity laws. WhereasAlon posited three differenttypes of Gentile impurityin rabbinictexts (sherets,zav, and corpse) correspondingto three types of idol impurity,Hayes shows that only zav impurityis rabbinicallyattributed to Gentiles. ForHayes, the impurityof Gentiles in rabbinictexts is clearly of rabbinic origin. In all of these points, Hayes's argumentsare persuasive. In my opinion, her argumentthat the rabbisconsideredidols to be only rabbinicallyritually impuredemandsfurtherconsideration.Unlike Gentile impurity,which is explicitly attributedto rabbinicdecree, the impurityof idols is learnedexegetically, from verses such as "Youshall cast them away [idols] as a menstruousthing"(Isa 30:22) or "You must utterly abominate them [shaqqets teshaqqetsu]it [i.e. an idol]" (Dt 7:26). Modern scholarsmay not understandthese verses as comparing the ritualimpurityof idols with the ritualimpurityof the niddah or sheqqets, but at least some rabbis may have interpretedthem so. While the ritual impurityof idols may be of rabbinicorigin historically,it remainsto be provedthatthe rabbis themselves conceived of it as such. The final two chaptersof Hayes'sbook turnto two issues relatedto the impurityof Gentiles:intermarriageand conversion.The rabbisrejectthe "holy seed" concept of Israel,and erect permeablebarriersbetween Jews and Gentiles, barriers open to conversion.Sexualrelationswith Gentiles,while forbidden,do not carnally defile (as they do for Paul). In general, Palestinianrabbis preach against intermarriagein subtle tones. Hayes puts to rest the idea that Gentile ritualimpurity impededintermarriagebetweenJews and Gentiles. She suggests the opposite: by constructingthe principle of Gentile impuritythe rabbis "signaled their disagreementwith alternativecharacterizationsof Gentiles and the consequencesof interethnicsexual relations."In her conclusion she goes even furtherand claims, "the decree of Gentile ritualimpuritywas less a strategyfor eliminatingthe evil of miscegenation than a volley in the internalculturalwars of first-centuryJudaism."However,there is little evidence to back these speculativestatements.In the end,havingportrayedthe rabbisas lenienton the differentforms of Gentile impurity,it is difficult for Hayes to explain why they did, after all, declare them to bear some form of impurity. In the final chapter,Hayes tracesa progressiveleniency in allowing descendents of convertsto marryinto the priesthoodand forbiddingthem frommarrying 326

Book Reviews mamzers.The reason for such progressionlies in a furtherdistancing from the Ezran/Jubilees/4QMMTapplicationof holy seed ideology to all of Israel. Palestinian rabbis curtailed the application of this ideology even with regardto the priesthood,almost againstLeviticus itself, which does prohibitthe profanationof priestlyseed. Hayes locates a potentialcause for this shift in the supremevalue of Torahlearningin rabbiniccircles; as position in the bet midrashrose as a determining factorin status,genealogical descent correspondinglydropped.It is interesting to note thatwhile Hayes detectsa decline in the importofyius in the rabbinic period,Michael Satlow recently came to an opposite conclusion:the rabbisactually createdmaritalcastes. Such differing conclusions might be attributedto the highlightingof differentstrandsof the rabbinictradition,a traditionwhich cannot easily be typified. They also remindus thatinterpretationis often a functionof the choice of a startingpoint. Whateverthe case, Hayes'sexhaustivelyresearchedand articulatelyargued work on Gentile impuritywill surely be the startingpoint for all futureinquiries into the subject.Hayes has deeply enrichedour knowledgeof how the impurityof Gentiles functionedin the formationof identity by Jewish sects in antiquity.The fact that one may question some of her conclusions and supplementothers does not in any way detractfrom the brillianceof her work. JoshuaKulp The ConservativeYeshiva Jerusalem,Israel

MartinS. Jaffee. Torahin the Mouth:Writingand OralTraditionin PalestinianJudaism, 200 BCE-400 CE. New York:Oxford UniversityPress, 2001. xi, 239 pp. In recent decades, an arrayof scholarshas investigatedthe oral and written (re)creationandtransmissionof earlyJewishandRabbinictradition.MartinS. Jaffee stands at the forefrontof this field of research,devoting much of his recent scholarly effort to the topic. In a series of journal articles and chaptersin edited volumes over the past ten years, Jaffee has offered diverse insights from a variety of researchforays into the literarytraitsof early Judaism.Torahin the Mouth is Jaffee'sinitial monographon the subject, in which he builds extensively and impressively on his priorwork, augmentingit in breadth,depth, and theoreticalsophistication. The work is divided into two parts.The first consists of threechapters,each devoted to a distinctivePalestinianJewish social groupof the SecondTempleperiod (in order:scribes; the Yahad;and the Pharisees).Throughhis selection and analysisof the appropriateliteraryevidence for each group,Jaffeediscernsa range of intriguingfacets of the oral-literary,oral-performativeand text-interpretiveelements of Second TempleJewish literarycircles. For example, Jaffee arguesthat a primarycharacteristicof SecondTemplescriballiteracywas its exclusive privileging of only the oral, "original"dictationof a textualtraditionto a scribe. Sub327

Review: [untitled] Author(s): W. David Nelson Source: AJS Review, Vol. 27, No. 2 (Nov., 2003), pp. 327-329 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4131616 . Accessed: 19/07/2011 03:38 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 mamzers.The reason for such progressionlies in a furtherdistancing from the Ezran/Jubilees/4QMMTapplicationof holy seed ideology to all of Israel. Palestinian rabbis curtailed the application of this ideology even with regardto the priesthood,almost againstLeviticus itself, which does prohibitthe profanationof priestlyseed. Hayes locates a potentialcause for this shift in the supremevalue of Torahlearningin rabbiniccircles; as position in the bet midrashrose as a determining factorin status,genealogical descent correspondinglydropped.It is interesting to note thatwhile Hayes detectsa decline in the importofyius in the rabbinic period,Michael Satlow recently came to an opposite conclusion:the rabbisactually createdmaritalcastes. Such differing conclusions might be attributedto the highlightingof differentstrandsof the rabbinictradition,a traditionwhich cannot easily be typified. They also remindus thatinterpretationis often a functionof the choice of a startingpoint. Whateverthe case, Hayes'sexhaustivelyresearchedand articulatelyargued work on Gentile impuritywill surely be the startingpoint for all futureinquiries into the subject.Hayes has deeply enrichedour knowledgeof how the impurityof Gentiles functionedin the formationof identity by Jewish sects in antiquity.The fact that one may question some of her conclusions and supplementothers does not in any way detractfrom the brillianceof her work. JoshuaKulp The ConservativeYeshiva Jerusalem,Israel

MartinS. Jaffee. Torahin the Mouth:Writingand OralTraditionin PalestinianJudaism, 200 BCE-400 CE. New York:Oxford UniversityPress, 2001. xi, 239 pp. In recent decades, an arrayof scholarshas investigatedthe oral and written (re)creationandtransmissionof earlyJewishandRabbinictradition.MartinS. Jaffee stands at the forefrontof this field of research,devoting much of his recent scholarly effort to the topic. In a series of journal articles and chaptersin edited volumes over the past ten years, Jaffee has offered diverse insights from a variety of researchforays into the literarytraitsof early Judaism.Torahin the Mouth is Jaffee'sinitial monographon the subject, in which he builds extensively and impressively on his priorwork, augmentingit in breadth,depth, and theoreticalsophistication. The work is divided into two parts.The first consists of threechapters,each devoted to a distinctivePalestinianJewish social groupof the SecondTempleperiod (in order:scribes; the Yahad;and the Pharisees).Throughhis selection and analysisof the appropriateliteraryevidence for each group,Jaffeediscernsa range of intriguingfacets of the oral-literary,oral-performativeand text-interpretiveelements of Second TempleJewish literarycircles. For example, Jaffee arguesthat a primarycharacteristicof SecondTemplescriballiteracywas its exclusive privileging of only the oral, "original"dictationof a textualtraditionto a scribe. Sub327

Book Reviews sequent,oral presentationsof the same text were accordedno ideological significance. Concerningthe Yahad,Jaffeeproposesthatthe communityendowedits mutually oral and written text-interpretive process with prophetic authority. Particularlymeritoriousis Jaffee'sprecise refutationof scholarlyattemptsto discern clear lines of continuitybetween the text-interpretivetraditionof Pharisaism (about which we know virtuallynothing), and the text-interpretivetraditionpreserved in early Rabbinicliterature. Takenas a whole, the first partof the book serves to introduceJaffee'soverarchingtheoreticalclaim in the monograph,namely,that Second TempleJudaism lacked "any articulateideological formations of oral-literarytraditionas a distinctive Judaicculturalpossession" (p. 11). Or, stateddifferently,Second Temple Judaismdid not possess an ideologically distinct conceptualizationor privileged constructionof an "oral tradition"that was perceived to be intrinsicallydistinct from its written textual tradition.Again, in Jaffee's words, "Second Temple Judaism ... was virtuallyinnocentof self-consciousnessregardingthe oralityof tradition. Oraltraditionexisted, but it wasn't much thoughtabout"(p. 7). The second part of the book consists of four chaptersand an epilogue. Jaffee follows the same patternas in the first, advancinghis overarchingtheoretical proposalintroducedin PartOne throughthe simultaneousexplorationof various, discrete aspects of early Rabbinictextualityin each chapter.Jaffee proposes that, in contrastto Second TempleJudaism,it was the Amoraimwho developed for the first time an ideological conception of a distinct corpus of "oral"tradition.They did so by shifting the consciousness of orality from the text (as describedin the first threechapters)to the rabbinictraditionof interpretingandperformingthe text (as describedin the final four chapters). Thus, Rabbinismdid not createex nihilo the notion or contentof Jewishoral tradition.Rather,the earlyrabbisinheritedan indeterminatemass of traditionfrom the spectrumof Second Temple Judaism,adaptedit to suit their needs, and ultimately buttressedthese adaptationsby bestowing upon them an oral provenance ". .. thatas a matterof ideological principle,came to deny thatthe writtensources of its oral-performativetraditionexist" (p. 12). By the time of the earlyAmoraim, rabbisarenot only thinkingabouttheiroraltradition,but alsoprivileging it through the constructionof the elaboratemyth of its purportedpristine,oral transmission from Sinai to the present-"Torah in the Mouth." In the final chapterof the work, Jaffee offers an explanationaboutnot only why earlyRabbinismcreatedsuch an ideological understandingof its oral-literary, performative,and interpretivetradition,but also how it was applied to its daily religious endeavors.Jaffeeinquireswhy theAmoraimbased theirpedagogicalsystem upon this ideology to the extentthat Rabbinictraditionwas regardedas validly engaged andtransmittedonly by meansof oralprocesses, detachedfromwritten sources-even when faced with an entirelydifferentreality.It is clear thatwritten sources were utilized for all aspects of Rabbinic learning; nonetheless, the Amoraimconsistently privileged and promoted only the oral, spontaneous,engagementof tradition. Drawingfrom models of Greco-Romanand early Christianrhetoricaleducation, Jaffee argues that the impetus for the developmentand applicationof the 328

Book Reviews ideology of "Torahin the Mouth"comes from the master-disciple relationship that served as the foundationof Amoraicpedagogy.Rabbinicsages formed close, personal, and intimaterelationshipswith their disciples, believing that revelation could only be accessed in this way. Forthese sages, "Torahin the Mouth"was an ongoingprocess, linkednot to wordson the parchmentpage, but, rather,to the embodimentof the sages' lives, actions, and words. Talmudtorah-the engagement and activationof the revelatorypower of "Torahin the Mouth"-was not an option to the disciple who encounteredtraditionfrom the writtentext in isolation. Rather,it was realized in the encounterbetween sage and student involving the spontaneous,declaimed performanceof tradition.In Jaffee's own words: "[The Amoraim]link[ed] the idea of Torahin the Mouthfirmly to the pedagogicalreality of discipleshiptraining.They elevatedto a new level the primacyof the Sage as mediatorof a transformingbody of knowledge in which his own presence was the principalmode of mediation"(p. 152). It should be noted that, at times, the dense mass of ideas in the final four chapterssometimes obfuscatesthe lineardevelopmentof Jaffee'soverarchingargument, making it somewhatdifficult to discern. Jaffee's diverse ideas, valuable as they may be, do distractsomewhatfrom the overallcontinuityof his argument. Incorporatingand augmentingover a decade of thoughtinto a single effort clearly is not an easy endeavor.Nonetheless, cohesion exists for the industriousreader, and Jaffee'soverarchingargumentis both forwardedandsupportedthroughoutthe monograph. Moreover,the price is worthpaying.Jaffee'sinsights are unique, daringand challenging, and are certainto engendermuch rigorousscholarlydebate.Particularlynoteworthyin this respectis ChapterFour,whereinJaffee advocatesan innovative understandingof the term halakhah, routinely conveyed as "law."Jaffee proposes thatthe term be understoodmore precisely as " . .. an orallytransmitted report concerned with normative behavior in a particularsphere of activity" (p. 75). Halakhahrefersnot simply to legal tradition,but to " ... traditionsubject to change and fluctuationin its specific implementation... because it is grounded in the personalauthorityof humanbeings" (p. 82). The academyawaitseagerly the rigorousdeliberationthat ideas such as this are certainto promote. As mentionedabove, Torahin the Mouthis the culminationof Jaffee'sgradual, persistentconsiderationof the oral and writtenliteraryprocesses of early Judaism. As such, it is presentlyone of the most articulate,disciplined,and precise monographson this subjectto appearin quite some time. It is also a testimonyto the value of a measuredagenda of scholarlyinquiry,built upon the steady accretion of ideas over time. One can only hope that this work does not representJaffee's magnumopus on the topic, and thathe will continueto contributeactively to the dialogue in the years to come. W. David Nelson Texas ChristianUniversity-Brite Divinity School FortWorth,Texas

329

Review: [untitled] Author(s): Jay Rovner Source: AJS Review, Vol. 27, No. 2 (Nov., 2003), pp. 330-332 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4131617 . Accessed: 19/07/2011 03:38 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 AvinoamCohen. Ravina and ContemporarySages: Studies in the Chronologyof Late Babylonian Amoraim. Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan University Press, 2001. 323 pp. (Hebrew,English precis) Talmudicchronologyis an uncertainscience. Aside from straydatahere or there in the Talmud,there are only two sources:Seder Tanna'imve-'Amoraimand 'IgeretRavSheriraGaon.Both areGeonic, separatedby centuriesfromtheAmoraic period. Moreover,they deal mainly with heads of yeshivot (or perhapsmasterdisciple circles), not with individualAmoraim.AvinoamCohen's revision of the dating of the sages named Ravina and of a few other BabylonianAmoraimwho functionedduringRav Ashi's time (d. 427) and afterwardsis a closely reasoned study and, as such, a paradigmaticwork of talmudic historiography.Through painstakingreadings of Talmudicpassages and medieval commentators,Cohen takes issue with the regnantdating of those Amoraimand,in arguingfor his revisions, explains how to identify historicallyrelevantinformationin talmudicsugyot and how to utilize it. The traditionalview is thatone Ravinawas extremelylong lived. He studied underRava(d. 352) and againunderRavAshi, as an older talmid-haver(disciplecolleague). This Ravinawould have had to live anotherseventy years beyond his age at Rava'sdeath(352-before 427). It would standto reasonthathe predeceased Rav Ashi, and a line in the version of Seder Tanna'imve-'Amoraimin MahzorVitry as well as a passage in RabbenuHananel'scommentaryon Mo'ed Katan25a-b supportthatnotion.Cohenclaims thatRava'sdisciple andthatof RavAshi aretwo, and he demonstratesthe errorsof the aforementionedsources. Cohen thus adds a second Ravina,a young studentof Rav Ashi who died afterthe latter. This revision contributesto the solution of anotherconundrum,namely,the identificationof Ravina,the Amorawho, along with RavAshi, concludedthe centralAmoraicTalmudicprocess: hora'ah(TB Bava Metsia 86a). Previoustheories had held thatthe final Ravina(barRav Huna),a sage who lived afterRavAshi and died between 475 and 501, was the one who broughthora'ahto a close. This led to confusion and made problematicthe identityof RavAshi. Cohen'ssecond Ravina as a young talmid-haverto Rav Ashi makes good chronologicalsense as Rav Ashi's partnerin closing hora'ah,and still leaves room for the final Ravina. Cohen'sdemonstrationis cumulative,carefullybuilt up over severalpainstakinganalyses.Thus,he shows thatsugyot in which Ravinaapparentlycontradicts himself make sense if two Ravinas are understood. He calls attention to the achronologicalpresentationof sages in sugyot, a phenomenonhe had noted elsewhere.1This allows him to establish consistency in the representationof the two Ravinas,takinginto accountthe exigencies of logical presentationon the ideational level. Social datademonstratethe unlikelihoodof the latterbeing Rava'sRavina, for example, the fact that Rav Ashi accords respect to Amoraim older than himself, includingthose youngerthanthe Ravinawho studiedwith Rava,whereashe 1. "'Al ha-mikum ha-bilti khronologi shel divre Mar bar RavAshi be-sugyot ha-Bavli ve-hash-

lakhotav,"Sidra 2 (1985/1986), 49-66.

330

Book Reviews did not relate thusly to his own studentRavina.Moreover,Cohen shows that Ravina Rava'sstudentlived in a town nearMehoza (whereRavataught),andengaged exclusively in agriculturalpursuits,whereasRavinaRavAshi's disciple lived near the latter'shome (Mata Mehasya), and trafficked in wine, money, and loans, as well as agriculture.They were two differentpeople. PrevioushypothesesregardingRavinaaffectedthe datingof otherAmoraim. He is also associatedwith RavAha. When it was thoughtthatthe final Ravinawas the only one alive after Rav Ashi, Rav Aha was dated late. Now Rav Aha can be seen as relatingto the second Ravina.Furthermore,it was unclearwhethera Rav Aha (without a patronymic)can be identified with Rav Aha bar Rav or Rav Aha bereh de-Rava,and whetherthe two with such similarpatronymicsare identical. Cohen noticed that one is always mentionedbefore Ravina,whereasthe other always comes after him in sequences of names. Viewing this consistency of representationin terms of the rule that the elder Amora (or the one who died first) is always enumerated before the younger one (cited simply as yaduda-"wellknown"-on p. 173) allowed Cohen, having taken into account textual variants and parallels,to differentiatebetween the lattertwo Amoraim(Chapter6). Thereare some areas in which one may disagreewith Cohen'sassumptions or reasoning.For example, his appealto achronologicalpresentationof Amoraim in discussion as supportfor his identificationand differentiationof the two Ravinas might strikea readeras circularreasoning.His acceptanceof Talmudicdata, for example, descriptionsof dialogueas a maga'hai (living interaction)may seem naive. However,the argumentsare cogent even if the text as formulateddoes not reproduceunmediatedthe ipsissima verba of the interaction.Moreover,intensive examinationsof textualevidence such as this counterthe contemporarynotionthat most attributionsin the Talmudare suspect, whetheras pseudepigraphsor due to the vagariesof tradentaland scribalerror.On the otherhand,Cohen'sacceptance of a citation formulationlike 'amar leh (he said to him), as opposed to 'amar (he said), at face value as clear evidence of a maga'hai (living interaction),is problematic because of confusion in the manuscripts. This workcould be a first stage, a methodologicalprolegomenonthatserves as foundationfor an intellectualhistory of the late Amoraic period. Differentiating furtherbetweenthe variousRavinasandthe threeRavAhas, Cohen could produce intellectual-halakhicbiographies that enrich our understanding of the attitudes,ideas, andmethodologiescurrentamongthe lateAmoraimin all theirdiversity.Moreover,throughhis interestin the relationsbetween teachers,students, and colleagues Cohen may be in a position to make a contributionto the current debateaboutthe natureof the academicsettingin the latergenerationsof the Babylonian Amoraic period, despite the fact that of the 900 citations of Ravina in the Talmud,only those thatcontextualizedRavinain dialoguewith anotherAmoraaided in dating and differentiatingthe collocutors. But perhapsCohen can build on his presentfindings to develop methodsto furtherdistinguishbetweenthe authors of more of those other statements. Clearly thought through and formulated,this book merits (and requires) carefulreadingandconsideration:chaptersend with appendices,andfootnotes are

331

Book Reviews full of informationandjudicious analysis.In additionto passage,topical,andname indexes, Cohen supplies a useful index of Talmudicterms and phrases. Jay Rovner JewishTheological Seminary New York,New York

EphraimKanarfogel.Peering Throughthe Lattices:Mystical,Magical and Pietist Dimensions in the TosafistPeriod. Detroit:Wayne State University Press, 2000. 274 pp. Medieval Ashkenazic culture often appears monochromatic, especially when contrastedwith the dizzying arrayof culturaland intellectualdisciplinesthat were cultivatedby the Jews in Spain andProvence.The typicalperceptionof Franco-GermanJewryis thatof a self-containedminoritydevotingitself to traditional intellectual pursuits(Bible, Talmud,Halakhah etc.), while addressingthe externally imposedneed to respondto the increasinglyaggressivemissionaryactivities of the CatholicChurch.Its spirituallife (with the prominentexceptionof the German pietists) is typically portrayedas profoundbut uncomplicated. With the presentvolume, EphraimKanarfogelhas made an importantcontributionto our appreciationof Jewish spiritualityand intellectuallife in Ashkenaz in the Central and High Middle Ages (c. 1100-1300 CE). Based upon an impressive survey and analysis of the relevantliterature,primaryand secondary, including a large number of hitherto unknown manuscripts,the authordemonstratesthatthe spiritualand intellectuallife of broadsections of the rabbinicelite of Ashkenaz in the Centraland High Middle Ages was broaderand more varied than hithertosuspected.It was especially markedby the cultivationof pietist and ascetic behavior(perishut),as well as the study of mystical texts and the practice of sacredmagic. Kanarfogelbegins by providingthe readerwith a backgroundsurvey of evidence for pietism, mystical study, and prayeramong eleventh-centuryscholars, especially in the Rhineland.This discussion is valuablebothper se and as an accessible presentationof the spiritualworldof pre-CrusadeAshkenazicJewry.Following this, he proceedsto examineandevaluatethe spiritualworldof theTosafists in both Franceand Germany.By carefullyexamining the writings and traditions associating various scholars with pietism andjudiciously testing their reliablilty, Kanarfogelshows that amidstthe rationalist,dialecticalrevolutionwroughtby R. Tam,many of the latter'sstudentsand followers in the twelfth and thirteenthcenturies adopted pietist and/or mystical spiritual postures. He then consistently makes an effort to correlatethese reportswith parallelbehavioramong the German pietists. One highlight of these discussions is his nuancedtreatmentof the points of similarity and contrast between the worlds of the Tosafists and the pietists.

332

Review: [untitled] Author(s): Jeffrey R. Woolf Source: AJS Review, Vol. 27, No. 2 (Nov., 2003), pp. 332-333 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4131618 . Accessed: 19/07/2011 03:38 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 full of informationandjudicious analysis.In additionto passage,topical,andname indexes, Cohen supplies a useful index of Talmudicterms and phrases. Jay Rovner JewishTheological Seminary New York,New York

EphraimKanarfogel.Peering Throughthe Lattices:Mystical,Magical and Pietist Dimensions in the TosafistPeriod. Detroit:Wayne State University Press, 2000. 274 pp. Medieval Ashkenazic culture often appears monochromatic, especially when contrastedwith the dizzying arrayof culturaland intellectualdisciplinesthat were cultivatedby the Jews in Spain andProvence.The typicalperceptionof Franco-GermanJewryis thatof a self-containedminoritydevotingitself to traditional intellectual pursuits(Bible, Talmud,Halakhah etc.), while addressingthe externally imposedneed to respondto the increasinglyaggressivemissionaryactivities of the CatholicChurch.Its spirituallife (with the prominentexceptionof the German pietists) is typically portrayedas profoundbut uncomplicated. With the presentvolume, EphraimKanarfogelhas made an importantcontributionto our appreciationof Jewish spiritualityand intellectuallife in Ashkenaz in the Central and High Middle Ages (c. 1100-1300 CE). Based upon an impressive survey and analysis of the relevantliterature,primaryand secondary, including a large number of hitherto unknown manuscripts,the authordemonstratesthatthe spiritualand intellectuallife of broadsections of the rabbinicelite of Ashkenaz in the Centraland High Middle Ages was broaderand more varied than hithertosuspected.It was especially markedby the cultivationof pietist and ascetic behavior(perishut),as well as the study of mystical texts and the practice of sacredmagic. Kanarfogelbegins by providingthe readerwith a backgroundsurvey of evidence for pietism, mystical study, and prayeramong eleventh-centuryscholars, especially in the Rhineland.This discussion is valuablebothper se and as an accessible presentationof the spiritualworldof pre-CrusadeAshkenazicJewry.Following this, he proceedsto examineandevaluatethe spiritualworldof theTosafists in both Franceand Germany.By carefullyexamining the writings and traditions associating various scholars with pietism andjudiciously testing their reliablilty, Kanarfogelshows that amidstthe rationalist,dialecticalrevolutionwroughtby R. Tam,many of the latter'sstudentsand followers in the twelfth and thirteenthcenturies adopted pietist and/or mystical spiritual postures. He then consistently makes an effort to correlatethese reportswith parallelbehavioramong the German pietists. One highlight of these discussions is his nuancedtreatmentof the points of similarity and contrast between the worlds of the Tosafists and the pietists.

332

Book Reviews This is an importantwork thatwill spurmuch furtherresearchand serve as a point of first referencefor studentsof the period. It could hardlybe otherwise, consideringthe fact that the text, and especially the extensive footnotes, addresses a wide range of issues relatingto Jewish intellectualhistory in medieval Franco-Germany.Kanarfogeladopts clear positions on hundredsof bibliographical, philological, and historiographicalquestions, many of which are still considered moot. In the book'sintroductionandafterword,the authorlightly touchesupontwo lines of inquiry,which, in my opinion, deserve furtherattention: First,Kanarfogel'sfindings apply to both the Frenchand the Germancomponents of this community.As noted above, the widespreadtendencyamong historiansis to attributeany andall pietistand/ormysticalactivityin Ashkenazalmost solely to the director indirectinfluenceof GermanPietism,a position to which the authorfaithfullyadheres.Kanarfogel'sfindings, however,reinforcethe likelihood thatmanyof the practiceshithertoidentifiedexclusively with GermanPietism and its influencewere in fact independentlyderivedfromthe religiousandculturalsubstratumsharedby Jews on both banks of the Rhine.Thus, the cultivationof perishut among many Ashkenazic (and especially French) Jews may well have developed independentlyof GermanPietism or, at most, been adumbratedthereby. Recognizingthis would have freedthe authorfromthe need to seek at all times literaryor personalconnectionswith HasideAshkenazto explainthe behaviorand the spiritualpursuitsof the many figures that he discusses. The second point regardsthe significance of Ashkenazicpietistic and mystical practices within the broaderEuropeanChristiancontext. The author,at the startof the book, rejectsthe possibility of Christianinfluence upon the phenomena that he describes.This may very well be the case. However,scholarshave long knownthatmanyAshkenazicrabbiswerekeenly awareof intellectualand spiritual developmentsin their Christiansurroundings.One might then ask what function (if any) pietism and mysticalprayerand magic played in Jewish self-definition, as a contrato the fermentthattypified Europe(andespecially France)duringthe socalled Twelfth-CenturyRenaissance.This was an era markedby Cistercianpiety and reform,by the rise of medieval individualism,and by extensive mystical tension andcreativity.So, althoughI agreewith the authorthatthe thingshe describes were essentially indigenousin origin, nevertheless,the encounterwith the outside world certainlyadded dimensions and context to the developmentsdescribed in the book thatgo far beyond the narrowquestionof "influence." Be that as it may,the authoris to be congratulatedfor a significant addition to a frequentlyrecalcitrantfield. One looks forwardwith anticipationto his future contributions. JeffreyR. Woolf Bar-IlanUniversity RamatGan, Israel

333

Review: [untitled] Author(s): Bernard Dov Cooperman Source: AJS Review, Vol. 27, No. 2 (Nov., 2003), pp. 334-335 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4131619 . Accessed: 19/07/2011 03:38 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 AnnaFoa. TheJews ofEurope after the BlackDeath. Translatedby AndreaGrover. Berkeley:Universityof CaliforniaPress, 2000, 288 pp. Writing a survey history is not easy. Every basic decision-periodization, geographiclimits, thematicfocus-is fraughtwith the linked dangersof overgeneralizationand oversimplification.There are always experts looking over the author's shoulder,ready to cry foul if their areas or contributionsare not accorded sufficient attention.And if the authoris a good historian,she will realizehow much she has had to omit, how tendentiousshe has had to be. Anna Foa is a good historian, and she is thereforeespecially to be congratulatedfor havingtakenon the arduous task of producing this highly readable survey, now in its third, updated Italianedition and at last availablein an unfortunatelyflawed English translation. The book was clearlypreparedwith Italianuniversitystudentsand lay readers in mind;despite its pan-Europeantitle, the book is primarilystructuredaround the ItalianJewish experience. Foa begins her account with the Black Death even thoughit meantomittingthe main featuresof Ashkenazicand Sephardicmedieval growth and cultural accomplishment.The brief "Afterwordon Modern Times" notwithstanding,Foa ends her book with the complex story of EuropeanJewries' emancipationin the nineteenth century, omitting any serious treatmentof the Shoah or Zionism. But such idiosyncraticperiodizationmakesperfect sense when we realize that Foa has focused her book on those centuriesin which the role of ItalianJews is especially significant and well known. She has, furthermore,structured her book along the usual lines of Italianhistory which begins the Renaissance in the fourteenthcenturyand ends l'etd modernain the nineteenth. Foa'sbook is of a sort more common in Europethanin America:a surveyof the stateof the field thattries to maintaina narrativeline while acknowledgingthe positions andcontributionsof varioushistorians.The end resultis, in a sense, closer to a team effortthana scholarlymonograph.The role of the authoris subtle and complex: she is coach, editor,and commentatoras she molds the historiographical approachesinto a readablestory without overwhelmingthe individualcontributionsof her sources.The best of these books make wonderfulteachingtools: the details of history are given meaningful context and students come away with a sense of how scholarscollaborateto constructa pictureof an era. (Incidentally,this may explain why most textbooks for Jewish history don't work in the classroom: they lack that sense of historiographicaldebate and process.) To appreciatehow Foa has approachedher task, let my try to outline one of her chapters.In Chapter6, Foa organizesher discussion of the sixteenthand seventeenthcenturiesunderthe title "TheAge of the Ghettos."She gives useful terminological, legal, and historical overviews of the ghetto especially in Italy, evaluatesits demographicimpact,and assesses the factorsthat led to Jewishpopulation growth and oppressiveovercrowding.She also opens up many of the thematic issues involved in the study of the period by structuringher presentation aroundwhat she calls the "paradoxicality"of the ghetto-a form of simultaneous confinement and protectionfor the Jews. Though it is, in her view, an expression of Christianconversionaryideology, the ghetto is also the home of a Jewish society with its own long-standingnorms and values. Although ghettoizationhelped 334

Book Reviews to strengthencertaininward-turningtendenciesin Jewish culture,it also led to increased borrowingsfrom the outside society. Indeed,even the rise of kabbalistically inspiredconfraternitiesand nighttimereligious ceremonies are shown to be linked to behavioraland culturalpatternsfound in the outside world. In otherwords, Foa has produceda social-culturalhistory of the sort that is widely readand taughttoday,and has exposed her readersto a strongsamplingof currentapproachesto the field. She has made the subjectaccessible even to readers and studentswithoutdetailedknowledge of terms,genres, ideologies, geographies, or other specifics. But she has also challenged the readerto delve deeper, by pointingout broaderissues andprovidingbibliographicalreferencesto the work of each scholarwhose views she has summarized.(AlthoughI find the APA style of in-text citation-author and date in parentheses-unappealing on aesthetic grounds,it has become the norm in Europeanpublicationsand it does work well here.) What could have been a useful work, however,is sadly marredby uneven translationand sloppy editing. Andrea Grover mistakenly assumes that Italian wordsthat sound like English also mean the same thing as theirEnglish parallels. She is repeatedlytrappedinto imitatingthe convolutedstructuresof Italianacademic prose, producingEnglish that simply doesn't mean anything.And on more thanone occasion, she misses Foa'spoint and thereforemisrepresentsthe original even though she is being faithfulto the literalmeaning of each individualword. Equallydistressingis the sloppy editing of the bibliographicalreferences.In the brief chaptersummarizedabove,this reviewerfoundeight mistakes:references to the wrong, or to nonexistent,items in the bibliography,incorrectpage numbers, and so forth. (There were similar mistakes in the Italianoriginal; some of these have been corrected,but othersseem newly inventedfor English readers.)The effect of poor quality-controlis compoundedby the unfortunatedecision to omit one of the most useful parts of the originalwork:a 40-page discussion of the state of the field and guide to furtherreading. Many scholars and no fewer than ten charitablefoundations and donors worked with the University of CaliforniaPress to make this English translation possible. It would be wonderfulif this collaborationbetween philanthropistsand an academicpress could serve as a model for futurepublicationof an entireseries of textbooksaimed more specifically at the Americanreader. BernardDov Cooperman Universityof Maryland College Park,Maryland

Haim Beinart. TheExpulsion of the Jewsfrom Spain. Oxford and Portland,Oregon: The LittmanLibraryof Jewish Civilization,2002. xvii, 591 pp. Since the 1965 publicationof his Hebrewbook, Conversoson Trial,Haim Beinartjustifiablyhas been hailed as the foremosthistorianof medieval Sepharad. 335

Review: [untitled] Author(s): Benjamin R. Gampel Source: AJS Review, Vol. 27, No. 2 (Nov., 2003), pp. 335-338 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4131620 . Accessed: 19/07/2011 03:38 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 to strengthencertaininward-turningtendenciesin Jewish culture,it also led to increased borrowingsfrom the outside society. Indeed,even the rise of kabbalistically inspiredconfraternitiesand nighttimereligious ceremonies are shown to be linked to behavioraland culturalpatternsfound in the outside world. In otherwords, Foa has produceda social-culturalhistory of the sort that is widely readand taughttoday,and has exposed her readersto a strongsamplingof currentapproachesto the field. She has made the subjectaccessible even to readers and studentswithoutdetailedknowledge of terms,genres, ideologies, geographies, or other specifics. But she has also challenged the readerto delve deeper, by pointingout broaderissues andprovidingbibliographicalreferencesto the work of each scholarwhose views she has summarized.(AlthoughI find the APA style of in-text citation-author and date in parentheses-unappealing on aesthetic grounds,it has become the norm in Europeanpublicationsand it does work well here.) What could have been a useful work, however,is sadly marredby uneven translationand sloppy editing. Andrea Grover mistakenly assumes that Italian wordsthat sound like English also mean the same thing as theirEnglish parallels. She is repeatedlytrappedinto imitatingthe convolutedstructuresof Italianacademic prose, producingEnglish that simply doesn't mean anything.And on more thanone occasion, she misses Foa'spoint and thereforemisrepresentsthe original even though she is being faithfulto the literalmeaning of each individualword. Equallydistressingis the sloppy editing of the bibliographicalreferences.In the brief chaptersummarizedabove,this reviewerfoundeight mistakes:references to the wrong, or to nonexistent,items in the bibliography,incorrectpage numbers, and so forth. (There were similar mistakes in the Italianoriginal; some of these have been corrected,but othersseem newly inventedfor English readers.)The effect of poor quality-controlis compoundedby the unfortunatedecision to omit one of the most useful parts of the originalwork:a 40-page discussion of the state of the field and guide to furtherreading. Many scholars and no fewer than ten charitablefoundations and donors worked with the University of CaliforniaPress to make this English translation possible. It would be wonderfulif this collaborationbetween philanthropistsand an academicpress could serve as a model for futurepublicationof an entireseries of textbooksaimed more specifically at the Americanreader. BernardDov Cooperman Universityof Maryland College Park,Maryland

Haim Beinart. TheExpulsion of the Jewsfrom Spain. Oxford and Portland,Oregon: The LittmanLibraryof Jewish Civilization,2002. xvii, 591 pp. Since the 1965 publicationof his Hebrewbook, Conversoson Trial,Haim Beinartjustifiablyhas been hailed as the foremosthistorianof medieval Sepharad. 335

Book Reviews Overthe next threedecades, in numerousarticlesand books, Beinartcontinuedto examinethe last years of Jewishlife in the Iberianpeninsula.It was thereforewith greatanticipationthatHaim Beinart'smagisterialoverview of the expulsionof the Jews from Castile and Aragon was received when it was published in 1994 in Jerusalem.Now, eight years later,the LittmanLibraryhas presentedan English translationof this imposing work. Beinartlikens his effort in assemblingmore than one thousanddocuments as the "constructionof a mosaic, stone by stone, to display the pictureof the last days of the Jews on Spanishsoil." He sees his work as "the story of those heroic Jews who withstood extremetrials and retainedtheir faith, when they took up the vessels of exile and followed Him who put them to that test" (p. xi). Readerswho have followed Haim Beinart'swritings over the years will find these and otherfamiliar tropes.As we have come to expect, he exults with the Jews who chose exile and is embarrassedand defensive aboutthose who remainedwith their family and propertyon Spanishsoil. But such ideological assertions,which reflect intense engagementwith the material,are few and farbetween. Instead,we encounteran authorencumberedby the documentsand unableto providea convincing frameworkwithin which to understandhis data. The ten loosely-connected chapterswhich comprise this work are based overwhelminglyon documents from the Registro General del Sello, mined previouslyby Luis SuairezFernandezandjudiciously presentedin his Documentosacerca de la expulsidnde losjudios, publishedin 1964. As a resultof this documentarybias, CastilianJewryis narrowlythe focus of this work.The sections on Jewish communities within the Crown of Aragon are presented as an afterthoughtand are based on secondarymaterials. After initial chapterson Ferdinandand Isabella'sattitudetowardthe Jews and an analysis of the edict of expulsion, Beinartdevotes many pages to the fate of communallyand privately-ownedpropertyand credit. Informationis arranged by towns (maps would have been welcome) and his descriptionsreflect the legal entanglementsinvolvedin the resolutionof debtsandproperty.Beinartfollows the disposition of communalabbattoirsand baking ovens many years afterthe expulsion, even when the propertyceased to have any connectionto the expulsion or to the Jews and their descendants. Beinartseems to be propelledby the desireto uncoveranythingwhich might have belonged to the Jews and to trace its ultimatefate. In an introductionto the fate of Jewish cemeteriesand their stones, Beinartwrites thatwith the disposition of this property,"every remnantand memory of SpanishJewry was to be eradicated"(p. 111). Perhapswhen he recountsthe details of the lawsuitsregardingthis property,Beinart imagines that medieval Sephardiclife can therebybe retrieved and life can be returnedto these forgottenstones. In wadingthroughcase aftercase of Jewishloans, also assortedby town, the readeris left overwhelmedby the atomized data and emerges with neitheran appreciationof the Jewishrole withinthe generaleconomynor a recognitionof a patternof behaviorexhibitedby Ferdinandand Isabellaandtheirofficials. As Beinart writes in a desultorysummarizingmode, "Thisis the pictureof Jewishlife ... we

336

Book Reviews learn of arbitraryactions takenby Christiancreditorson the one hand,and on the otherof mutualefforts to avoid paying debts.This is no innovationwith respectto humanbehavior.As noted, these documentsrepresentonly a tiny fractionof the extantcredit.Hence it would be a distortionof the truthwere one simply to add up the sums mentioned in these documents" (p. 206). So what indeed have we learned? Beinart'sprose throughoutthe work is comprisedessentially of translations of archivalmaterial.The originalwordingof the texts is preservedin his notes. If we view this effort then as a documentarycompilation,we can praise our author for having successfully providedthe raw data that his successors can use in their own research.Benefits will accrueto historianswho fine-comb his chapterson the implementationof the edict, on smuggling, and on the returnand conversion of some exiled Jews, even thoughthe writingis weighed down with all the names and officials mentionedin the sources. One of the casualties of this plethoraof detail is the translatorwho, seemingly exhausted,resorts to clumsy and overly literal translations.The translator,JeffreyGreene,appearsto emulatethe historianwho, in turn,reproducesthe documents. Unfortunately,Beinart is not as punctilious when it comes to recognizing how some of his peershavecontributedto his narrative.Forexample,while Beinart footnotes much of the work of Miguel Angel Motis Dolader,he does not cite Motis' importanttwo-volumeLa expulsi6nde losjudios de la CoronadeArag6npublished in 1990, a work which would rivalwhat he is attemptingto do in this 1994 volume. Beinartfurnishesfascinatingmaterialon AbrahamSenior-chief collector of taxes of the kingdom of Castile, rab de la corte, and suprememagistrateof the Jews-who, togetherwith some members of his family, convertedto Christianityin the wakeof the edict. But he avoidsacknowledginghow EleazarGutwirth advancedour understandingof AbrahamSenior in an article he publishedover a decade ago. Beinart'schapteron Don YitzhakAbravanelcontainsnew materialon his financialactivities.Happily,we note citationsto Benzion Netanyahu'sbiographyof Abravanel,after having read throughhundredsof pages without any referenceto Netanyahu'sother works. Netanyahu, who sparredwith Beinart over the years aboutthe Jewish natureof the convertedJews, had made sure to cite just one article of Beinart-a 1961 essay on judaizing within the HieronymiteOrder,in his 1300 plus pages on The Origins of the Inquisition. Succeeding generations of scholarsin medieval SephardicJewrywould do well to avoid the kind of behavior displayedby their teachers. In Beinart'sbrief concluding chapterentitled "ContemporariesDescribe the Expulsion,"he assembles some interestinginformation fromJewishand Christianchroniclers,butthereis no attemptto integratethis material with the findings of Yosef Hacker,among others. Admittedly,it is difficult for an archivalhistorianwho is literallyswamped by hundredsof texts to decide what data are worthyof retelling and therebylose much of the datahe or she has painstakinglyuncovered.It is indeed a furtherchallenge, as it is for all historians,to situatethe resultswithin a syntheticframework, let alone an overarchingview of the historicalpast. Even in the absence of such at-

337

Book Reviews tempts,the datauncoveredby Haim Beinartwill remaina source for many future generationsof historiansof the Jews of medieval Iberia.Forthat alone, we are indebtedto this monumentalcontribution. BenjaminR. Gampel JewishTheological Seminary New York,New York

EricLawee.IsaacAbarbanel'sStance TowardTradition:Defence, Dissent, and Dialogue. Albany: State Universityof New YorkPress, 2000. xiii, 320 pp. Responsible studentsof IsaacAbarbanelface a complicatedtask. This towering figure was more thana "statesmanandphilosopher."He was one of the most prolific writers in the Middle Ages and Early Modem periods, both in terms of quantityand variety of genres. As a Jewish leader,his writings reflect the turbulent age of SpanishJewry after the expulsion from Spain and the spiritualneeds of the refugees. Living in a milieu exposed to renaissanceculture,one must be attentive to its influence on Abarbanel'sworld. But the most importantfact one must keep in mind is that he was saturated with the long classical medieval intellectuallegacy, not only the philosophicaltradition, but no less the exegetical one. Moreover,the bulk of Abarbanel'sliterary efforts belonged to the genre of biblical exegesis. The fact that scholars,by and large, did not pay enough attentionto these writings, save for their specific limited studies of his thought, can be attributedto their voluminousnatureand to the difficult task of analyzingthem in the broadcontext of medievalbiblical exegesis from Rashi onward.Lawee's study,though using as a startingpoint the two treatises AteretZeqenimand Yeshu'otMeshihofor detailed analysis, incorporatesthe entire corpus of Abarbanel'swritings.Anything less than that would be a serious flaw in attemptingto synthesizeAbarbanel's"stancetowardtradition,"and many previous studies of Abarbaneltestify to that. The multi-layeredplatformof "contexts"for the study is dealt with by the authorprimarilyin two introductorychapters("Life and Contexts"and "Works and Traditions"),in which an updatedsurvey of Abarbanel'slife and intellectual biographyis given. This includeshis formativePortugueseperiod(about40 years), his ten years in Spain,andhis Italiancareer,as well as the majorfigures and trends that played a role in his world.A clear survey of the orderof his works completes this long but essential introduction. A study of Abarbanel'sattitudeto tradition,be it in biblical exegesis, theology, or messianism, all of which are discussed in this volume, must reflect his references to the Midrash,Medieval philosophy,kaballah-indeed to everyone who claimed to be the true heir of Jewish religious truth.Lawee begins his investigation with Abarbanel'sfirst work: Ateret Zeqenim (Lisbon, late 1460s). This exegetical work, concentratingon the enigmatic story of the "noblesof the children of Israel"(Ex. 24:9-11) is also a startingpoint for Abarbanel,who reveals his at338

Review: [untitled] Author(s): Avraham Gross Source: AJS Review, Vol. 27, No. 2 (Nov., 2003), pp. 338-340 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4131621 . Accessed: 19/07/2011 03:38 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 tempts,the datauncoveredby Haim Beinartwill remaina source for many future generationsof historiansof the Jews of medieval Iberia.Forthat alone, we are indebtedto this monumentalcontribution. BenjaminR. Gampel JewishTheological Seminary New York,New York

EricLawee.IsaacAbarbanel'sStance TowardTradition:Defence, Dissent, and Dialogue. Albany: State Universityof New YorkPress, 2000. xiii, 320 pp. Responsible studentsof IsaacAbarbanelface a complicatedtask. This towering figure was more thana "statesmanandphilosopher."He was one of the most prolific writers in the Middle Ages and Early Modem periods, both in terms of quantityand variety of genres. As a Jewish leader,his writings reflect the turbulent age of SpanishJewry after the expulsion from Spain and the spiritualneeds of the refugees. Living in a milieu exposed to renaissanceculture,one must be attentive to its influence on Abarbanel'sworld. But the most importantfact one must keep in mind is that he was saturated with the long classical medieval intellectuallegacy, not only the philosophicaltradition, but no less the exegetical one. Moreover,the bulk of Abarbanel'sliterary efforts belonged to the genre of biblical exegesis. The fact that scholars,by and large, did not pay enough attentionto these writings, save for their specific limited studies of his thought, can be attributedto their voluminousnatureand to the difficult task of analyzingthem in the broadcontext of medievalbiblical exegesis from Rashi onward.Lawee's study,though using as a startingpoint the two treatises AteretZeqenimand Yeshu'otMeshihofor detailed analysis, incorporatesthe entire corpus of Abarbanel'swritings.Anything less than that would be a serious flaw in attemptingto synthesizeAbarbanel's"stancetowardtradition,"and many previous studies of Abarbaneltestify to that. The multi-layeredplatformof "contexts"for the study is dealt with by the authorprimarilyin two introductorychapters("Life and Contexts"and "Works and Traditions"),in which an updatedsurvey of Abarbanel'slife and intellectual biographyis given. This includeshis formativePortugueseperiod(about40 years), his ten years in Spain,andhis Italiancareer,as well as the majorfigures and trends that played a role in his world.A clear survey of the orderof his works completes this long but essential introduction. A study of Abarbanel'sattitudeto tradition,be it in biblical exegesis, theology, or messianism, all of which are discussed in this volume, must reflect his references to the Midrash,Medieval philosophy,kaballah-indeed to everyone who claimed to be the true heir of Jewish religious truth.Lawee begins his investigation with Abarbanel'sfirst work: Ateret Zeqenim (Lisbon, late 1460s). This exegetical work, concentratingon the enigmatic story of the "noblesof the children of Israel"(Ex. 24:9-11) is also a startingpoint for Abarbanel,who reveals his at338

Book Reviews titude to the "time-honored rabbinic interpretationsand the main medieval claimants to the mantle of Jewish tradition, the philosophers and kabbalists" (pp. 59-60), and uses it as a springboardto deal with majortopic which will central to his thoughtin his works throughouthis literaryactivity. How does one do justice in a shortreview to a study whose most conspicuous contributionslie in "nuancing"of views and endless qualifications of wellestablished and long standinggeneralizationsand clich6s? Abarbanel's"conservatism" is well known, especially in his dialogue with the rationalistic-Maimonideantradition.But Lawee succeeds in paintingin detail this generalpicture, only after dissecting each relevantreferencein the most patient,meticulous, rigorous, cautious, and sensitive manner.The closing sentence of this chaptercharacterizes the conclusions on other scores throughoutthis volume: "conservatism on the one hand;occasionallybold independencefromtraditionallyreceivedopinion on the other"(p. 82). Nothing aboutAbarbanelis ever simple. This is evident especially in Abarbanel'sstance to the Midrash.First,facing the biblical text as a exegete committedto peshat (and Abarbanelsaw himself as such) demands a critical attitude to midrashic interpretations.As a rationalist thinker,Abarbanelhad to deal with theologically problematicdicta of Hazal and with medievaltensions,both internal(rivalspiritualtrends)andexternal(polemics with Christianity).On the one hand,we may find him rejectingwhat Lawee terms the "renunciationist"position of Nahmanidesand the Andalucianschool, which rejected any binding authorityof the Midrashin nonlegal matters.On the other, when hard-pressedby Christian polemics, Abarbanel holds just such a view (p. 164), while still claiming in generalthatHazal's messianic traditionsare not to be taken lightly. Often the readeris left with the impressionthat the only consistency by Abarbanelis his lack of it. Or better,the only consistency is that Abarbanel's attitudeis adjustedin accordancewith his needs as a theologian or as a Jewish leader. In the end of the long process of dealingwith the details, Laweeis able to do awaywith some accepted"truths"concerningAbarbaneland his works. Looking at them from this study'sprism of midrashicexegesis, his messianic trilogy cannot be seen as a mere attemptat defusing christologicalinterpretations,or reduce it to concise reference manuals for Jewish preachersin their efforts to fend off Christianattacks(p. 167). One of the most importantcontributionsof this study lies in the last chapter, which deals with Abarbanel'shistorical thinking.Abarbanelstood in an importanthistoricaljunction between the Middle Ages and Renaissance(alreadyin Iberia),between Jewish traditionalnon-historicalthinkingand revolutionarycritical thinkingof figures such as Azariahde' Rossi in the second half of the sixteenth century.Was there a significent Renaissancementalityto be found in his historical thinking?Did Abarbanel'scritical stance towardclassical text play any role in the transitionto the "modern"bold independenceexpressed in de' Rossi's rejection of Jewish nonlegal traditionsthat conflict with reliable non-Jewishsources? Lawee detects traces of Renaissancehistoricalthinkingin Abarbanel'sbiblical exegesis, as in his critical view concerningthe authorshipof biblical books, relying on non-Jewishsources, and interestin chronologicalproblems.As always, 339

Book Reviews his conservatismis the barrierbetween his innovativeimpulses and extremeconclusions that follow from his attitude.Abarbanelwould not dare applyto the Pentateuch the critical tools used in analyzing the Prophets.(Lawee points out that facing "modernity'sonslaught"on Scriptures,traditionalistslike Malbim criticized Abarbanelfor his bold critical statements.Takinghis conservativesensibility into account one might guess that, facing the world of Haskalahand biblical criticism, Abarbanelhimself would have recoiled from his conclusions.) For as systematic a person as Abarbanelwas, this approachsuggests that he found himself in the difficult position of knowing the truthand yet feeling the need to deny its consequences. In comparison,Azariahhad no problemrejectingJewish traditional chronology.In the polemical context of his historicalanalysis/criticismof the developmentof Christianity,Abarbanelrepresentsthe missing link between ProfaytDuran(end of fourteenthcentury)andLeone de Modena(seventeenthcentury). This chapteris a refutationof B. Z. Netanyahu'sfailure to see Abarbanel's historicallycritical attitudein evaluatingthe veracity of ancientholy texts. Lawee'sstudy is a rich and valuableone in all respects. It is sound methodologically, and will, I hope, set a new standardof scholarshipin Abarbanelstudies. AvrahamGross Ben-GurionUniversityof the Negev Beer-Sheva,Israel

KennethStow. TheaterofAcculturation:TheRoman Ghettoin the SixteenthCentury. Seattle:Universityof WashingtonPress, 2001. x, 246 pp. "RomanJewry in the mid-sixteenthcentury,"notes KennethStow in the introductionto this stimulatingvolume, "offersan excellent venue for seeking to answer the theoreticalquestionof how a distinctand distinctiveminoritycreatedthe culturaltools to cope with a difficult, ambivalent,and sometimes hostile environment" (p. 5). Stow's reference to "culturaltools" reflects the implicit "Cultural Studies"orientationof his book, an orientationalreadyindicatedin the book's title as well as in its opening sentence,which declaresthat"thisstudyis aboutstrategies of culturalsurvival."Yet unlike many other works of a similar orientation, Stow'sis based on years of archivalresearch,primarilyamongthe notarialrecords of the Roman Jewish community. Some two thousand documents from these recordshave been ably registeredand summarizedby Stow in the two volumes of his TheJews in Rome (Leiden, 1995-1997) to which the currentvolume (based on the Kennedylectures deliveredat Smith College in 1996), serves as an attractive companion. Stow'sreferenceto the Roman Ghettoas a "theater"in his title may remind some readersof CliffordGeertz'snow classic Negara: TheTheatreState in Nineteenth-CenturyBali (Princeton, 1980), a work which does indeed appearin his (quite extensive) bibliography. But Stow's theater is one of "social drama" 340

Review: [untitled] Author(s): Elliot Horowitz Source: AJS Review, Vol. 27, No. 2 (Nov., 2003), pp. 340-342 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4131622 . Accessed: 19/07/2011 03:38 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 his conservatismis the barrierbetween his innovativeimpulses and extremeconclusions that follow from his attitude.Abarbanelwould not dare applyto the Pentateuch the critical tools used in analyzing the Prophets.(Lawee points out that facing "modernity'sonslaught"on Scriptures,traditionalistslike Malbim criticized Abarbanelfor his bold critical statements.Takinghis conservativesensibility into account one might guess that, facing the world of Haskalahand biblical criticism, Abarbanelhimself would have recoiled from his conclusions.) For as systematic a person as Abarbanelwas, this approachsuggests that he found himself in the difficult position of knowing the truthand yet feeling the need to deny its consequences. In comparison,Azariahhad no problemrejectingJewish traditional chronology.In the polemical context of his historicalanalysis/criticismof the developmentof Christianity,Abarbanelrepresentsthe missing link between ProfaytDuran(end of fourteenthcentury)andLeone de Modena(seventeenthcentury). This chapteris a refutationof B. Z. Netanyahu'sfailure to see Abarbanel's historicallycritical attitudein evaluatingthe veracity of ancientholy texts. Lawee'sstudy is a rich and valuableone in all respects. It is sound methodologically, and will, I hope, set a new standardof scholarshipin Abarbanelstudies. AvrahamGross Ben-GurionUniversityof the Negev Beer-Sheva,Israel

KennethStow. TheaterofAcculturation:TheRoman Ghettoin the SixteenthCentury. Seattle:Universityof WashingtonPress, 2001. x, 246 pp. "RomanJewry in the mid-sixteenthcentury,"notes KennethStow in the introductionto this stimulatingvolume, "offersan excellent venue for seeking to answer the theoreticalquestionof how a distinctand distinctiveminoritycreatedthe culturaltools to cope with a difficult, ambivalent,and sometimes hostile environment" (p. 5). Stow's reference to "culturaltools" reflects the implicit "Cultural Studies"orientationof his book, an orientationalreadyindicatedin the book's title as well as in its opening sentence,which declaresthat"thisstudyis aboutstrategies of culturalsurvival."Yet unlike many other works of a similar orientation, Stow'sis based on years of archivalresearch,primarilyamongthe notarialrecords of the Roman Jewish community. Some two thousand documents from these recordshave been ably registeredand summarizedby Stow in the two volumes of his TheJews in Rome (Leiden, 1995-1997) to which the currentvolume (based on the Kennedylectures deliveredat Smith College in 1996), serves as an attractive companion. Stow'sreferenceto the Roman Ghettoas a "theater"in his title may remind some readersof CliffordGeertz'snow classic Negara: TheTheatreState in Nineteenth-CenturyBali (Princeton, 1980), a work which does indeed appearin his (quite extensive) bibliography. But Stow's theater is one of "social drama" 340

Book Reviews (p. 32ff), especially in cases of litigation(of which his notarialsourcescontain860 cases), whereasGeertz soughtto presentBali's state ceremoniesas "metaphysical theater-theater, designed to express a view of the ultimatenatureof reality and, at the same time, to shape the existing conditionsof life to be consonantwith that reality" (p. 104). This sort of theatricalitywas more characteristicof the papal courtthanthe RomanGhetto,and Stow,in fact, takesa special interestin the "subculturecreatedby Roman Jews,"which, he claims, challengedthe dominantculture of Rome "as much as it was imitatingit" (p. 96). It must be admitted,however,that he presentsconsiderablymore evidence of imitationthan of challenge.Thus, we are told (somewhatbreezily) that Rome's threeto fourthousandJews "lookedandfor the mostpart talked,dressed,andlived like any otherRomans"(p. 45), and (on the very same page) thatJews and Christians often met in taverns"wherethey drank,gambled,and sometimesate together" (emphasesadded).Stow'sostensiblycautioushedging in the latterpartof both statementsonly underlinesthe bold implicationsof theiropeningwords-that Roman Jews always looked like otherRomans,and thatthey always (or, at least usually) drankand gambledwith Christiansin the city's taverns.Indeed,alreadyin his introductionStow stresses "how Jews and Christianswere always much alike but never truly the same" (p. 8). On this point he seems, in contrastto such scholars as Ariel Toaff (who has stressed sameness) and Robert Bonfil (who has stressed difference),to want to have his pizza and eat it too. Although Stow is greatly interestedin the "subculture"createdby Roman Jews, he does not describeit greatdetail.We are told thatthey had "theirown special concept of space," focussing on the spatial sanctity of the ghetto (a subject Stow has treatedbefore),butwhen it comes to such mattersof everydaylife as time and soundhe hedges again.AlthoughJews and Christianshad theirrespectiveholidays and days of rest, Stow insists thatRomanJews "werenot tied exclusively to the Jewish calendar"and that they lived "comfortablywithin the two systems of time" (p. 51). He also sees them as havingbeen no less "comfortable"with Christian music, "especiallyCatholic sacredchant,which consciously or unconsciously they adopted"(p. 51). How then did Jewish sounds constitutepartof a separate Jewish subculture?For Stow, the main difference seems to have been the sounding of the shofar on the New Year! "Subcultures,"accordingto J. E Shortin his eponymousentryin TheSocial Science Encyclopedia(1996), "denotesharedsystems of norms, values, interests, or behaviors"that distinguish individualsor groups from the larger societies in which they also participate.Furthermore,he notes thatresearchhas found "social separation"to be a majorcontributorto the formationof subcultures,tending to produce "culturaldifferentiation."In the context of sixteenth-centuryItalianhistory,this would suggest thatthe social separationimposedby the ghettos (Rome's was establishedin 1555) would tendto promotea greaterdegree of culturaldifferentiation.Yet Stow repeatedlyinsists that "no matterhow much the Ghettophysically separatedthe Jews fromChristians,psychologicallythe Jews neverperceived it as hermeticallysealing off the outside"(p. 93). Rather,with their enclosure of RomanJews in theirghetto, "thestage was set,"in his view, "fora dramain which Jews could blur,or sometimeseven ignore,the differencesbetweenthem andtheir 341

Book Reviews non-Jewishneighbors,yet recognize that as Jews ... they must punctiliouslyfoster their own, Jewish ways" (pp. 93-94). AlthoughRoman(and otherItalian)Jews certainlyfosteredtheirown ways, they did not alwaysdo so punctiliously.Stow himself stressesthe degree to which they were notoriously lax about the prohibition of imbibing non-Jewish wine (pp. 45-46). In this matterand relatedones they may, in fact, perhapsbe seen as constituting a subculture within the Jewish world-neither Askenazic nor Sephardic.Stow's stimulatingand well-writtenbook, togetherwith the two previously publishedvolumes of documents,will providescholarswith useful tools for examiningboth the relationshipof RomanJewry to its Catholicenvironmentand the degreeto which the Romanexperiencewas differentfromthatof communities to the northin Tuscany,Lombardy,and the Veneto. Elliot Horowitz Bar-IlanUniversity Ramat-Gan,Israel

AbrahamMiguel Cardozo.Selected Writings.Translatedand Introducedby David J. Halperin.Classics of WesternSpirituality.New York:Paulist Press, 2001. xxi, 411 pp. AbrahamMiguel Cardozois one of the most unusualand complex figures in the history of Jewish thought,but his identificationwith the Sabbateanscaused him to be largely excluded from the study of that history,in his time and in ours. He had no impactto speak of on the largerdevelopmentof Jewish ideas; yet, his biographyand thought shed much light on the peculiaritiesof late-seventeenthcenturyJewish identity.Cardozowas born to a New Christian(converso) family in Spain in 1626, and, after fleeing the IberianPeninsulawith his older brother, Isaac (who was the subjectof a well-knownbiographyby Yosef HayimYerushalmi), revertedto Judaismin Italy in 1648. He had already completed university studies by this time, and his fine Iberiantrainingin philosophy and theology left its markon all his writings. Cardozobecame deeply caught up in messianic fervor surroundingthe advent of ShabbataiZvi in 1665-1666, and for the rest of his life his thoughtcentered on the struggle to understandthe significance of Shabbatai'sappearance. After Shabbataiconvertedto Islam, Cardozobecame one of the most important theologians of the movement, opposing the views of Nathan of Gaza. Later he would contendwith the relationshipbetweenShabbatai'smission andhis own very strongmessianic identity.In Cardozowe find the coexistence of the skeptic,mystic, prophet,and philosopher. David Halperin'stranslationof works by Cardozo,with a preface by Elliot R. Wolfsonandan extensiveintroductionandnotes, appearsin the excellent"Classics of WesternSpirituality"series fromthe PaulistPress,which has given the English reader exposure to an impressive array of medieval, early modern, and 342

Review: [untitled] Author(s): Matt Goldish Source: AJS Review, Vol. 27, No. 2 (Nov., 2003), pp. 342-343 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4131623 . Accessed: 19/07/2011 03:38 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 non-Jewishneighbors,yet recognize that as Jews ... they must punctiliouslyfoster their own, Jewish ways" (pp. 93-94). AlthoughRoman(and otherItalian)Jews certainlyfosteredtheirown ways, they did not alwaysdo so punctiliously.Stow himself stressesthe degree to which they were notoriously lax about the prohibition of imbibing non-Jewish wine (pp. 45-46). In this matterand relatedones they may, in fact, perhapsbe seen as constituting a subculture within the Jewish world-neither Askenazic nor Sephardic.Stow's stimulatingand well-writtenbook, togetherwith the two previously publishedvolumes of documents,will providescholarswith useful tools for examiningboth the relationshipof RomanJewry to its Catholicenvironmentand the degreeto which the Romanexperiencewas differentfromthatof communities to the northin Tuscany,Lombardy,and the Veneto. Elliot Horowitz Bar-IlanUniversity Ramat-Gan,Israel

AbrahamMiguel Cardozo.Selected Writings.Translatedand Introducedby David J. Halperin.Classics of WesternSpirituality.New York:Paulist Press, 2001. xxi, 411 pp. AbrahamMiguel Cardozois one of the most unusualand complex figures in the history of Jewish thought,but his identificationwith the Sabbateanscaused him to be largely excluded from the study of that history,in his time and in ours. He had no impactto speak of on the largerdevelopmentof Jewish ideas; yet, his biographyand thought shed much light on the peculiaritiesof late-seventeenthcenturyJewish identity.Cardozowas born to a New Christian(converso) family in Spain in 1626, and, after fleeing the IberianPeninsulawith his older brother, Isaac (who was the subjectof a well-knownbiographyby Yosef HayimYerushalmi), revertedto Judaismin Italy in 1648. He had already completed university studies by this time, and his fine Iberiantrainingin philosophy and theology left its markon all his writings. Cardozobecame deeply caught up in messianic fervor surroundingthe advent of ShabbataiZvi in 1665-1666, and for the rest of his life his thoughtcentered on the struggle to understandthe significance of Shabbatai'sappearance. After Shabbataiconvertedto Islam, Cardozobecame one of the most important theologians of the movement, opposing the views of Nathan of Gaza. Later he would contendwith the relationshipbetweenShabbatai'smission andhis own very strongmessianic identity.In Cardozowe find the coexistence of the skeptic,mystic, prophet,and philosopher. David Halperin'stranslationof works by Cardozo,with a preface by Elliot R. Wolfsonandan extensiveintroductionandnotes, appearsin the excellent"Classics of WesternSpirituality"series fromthe PaulistPress,which has given the English reader exposure to an impressive array of medieval, early modern, and 342

Book Reviews modern Jewish mystical texts. Cardozo may seem an odd characterfor this series-he is hardlya leading light of seventeenth-centuryJewish spiritualitybut Halperin'sundertakingis highly useful for both scholar and student.Specialists will continueto consultthe voluminoustexts of Cardozoin manuscriptand the few in print,but for those with a more generalinterestin conversoideas, Sabbatean thought, and the late-seventeenth-centurySephardicontext, this English volume supplies a great deal of material. The volume opens with Elliot Wolfson'slearneddiscussion aboutCardozo's complex identity,formedin the nexus of ChristianandJewishlives. Wolfsonpoints out how this backgroundaffected Cardozo'sKaballahand Sabbateanthought in particular. The rest of the book is dividedroughlythus:one-half texts from Cardozoin translation,one-fourthHalperin'sintroduction,and one-fourthnotes. The extensive introductionand notes are absolutely critical for the non-specialist first encounteringthis difficult thinker;but even expertswill find novel approacheshere. The introduction,called "The Man and His Universe,"considers Cardozo'sidenkaballist,messiah-bearer,theologian,magus, andwanderer.In tity as a "marrano," the last section Halperinattemptsto put together all this analysis, to answerthe question,"Whowas this man?"He concludesthatCardozowas a figure out of step with his time, the eternaloutsiderwhose unusualperspectivewas valuablein ways his contemporariescould not yet fathom. Halperin'stranslationis fun to read because it is as much literaryas literal. He is faithfulto the text insofar as it is comprehensiblethrougha straightforward rendering,but he bringsacross the complexities when they arise. His prose is colorful and engrossing.The overalleffect of the introductionand texts togetheris to create an image of Cardozoin the reader'smind thatis appropriatelyvivid and intricate.Most of the selections are fromprintedtexts, thoughHalperinhas checked some of them againstthe manuscriptsto enhanceaccuracy.They include autobiographicalfragments, Sabbateantheology, polemics, and prophecies.Among the other features,backgroundtexts help the readerfollow Cardozo'sintent. I would highly recommendthis volume for anyone studying early modern Jewish life and ideas. It is lively and useful, and both a primaryand a secondary source. MattGoldish The Ohio State University Columbus,Ohio

Ken Koltun-Fromm.Moses Hess and ModernJewish Identity.Jewish Literature and CultureSeries. Bloomington& Indianapolis:IndianaUniversityPress, 2001. x, 180 pp. The complex and intriguingfigure of Moses Hess (1812-1875) has received attentionas a socialist anda Zionist.His RomeandJerusalem(1862) has been seen 343

Review: [untitled] Author(s): Michael A. Meyer Source: AJS Review, Vol. 27, No. 2 (Nov., 2003), pp. 343-345 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4131624 . Accessed: 19/07/2011 03:38 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 modern Jewish mystical texts. Cardozo may seem an odd characterfor this series-he is hardlya leading light of seventeenth-centuryJewish spiritualitybut Halperin'sundertakingis highly useful for both scholar and student.Specialists will continueto consultthe voluminoustexts of Cardozoin manuscriptand the few in print,but for those with a more generalinterestin conversoideas, Sabbatean thought, and the late-seventeenth-centurySephardicontext, this English volume supplies a great deal of material. The volume opens with Elliot Wolfson'slearneddiscussion aboutCardozo's complex identity,formedin the nexus of ChristianandJewishlives. Wolfsonpoints out how this backgroundaffected Cardozo'sKaballahand Sabbateanthought in particular. The rest of the book is dividedroughlythus:one-half texts from Cardozoin translation,one-fourthHalperin'sintroduction,and one-fourthnotes. The extensive introductionand notes are absolutely critical for the non-specialist first encounteringthis difficult thinker;but even expertswill find novel approacheshere. The introduction,called "The Man and His Universe,"considers Cardozo'sidenkaballist,messiah-bearer,theologian,magus, andwanderer.In tity as a "marrano," the last section Halperinattemptsto put together all this analysis, to answerthe question,"Whowas this man?"He concludesthatCardozowas a figure out of step with his time, the eternaloutsiderwhose unusualperspectivewas valuablein ways his contemporariescould not yet fathom. Halperin'stranslationis fun to read because it is as much literaryas literal. He is faithfulto the text insofar as it is comprehensiblethrougha straightforward rendering,but he bringsacross the complexities when they arise. His prose is colorful and engrossing.The overalleffect of the introductionand texts togetheris to create an image of Cardozoin the reader'smind thatis appropriatelyvivid and intricate.Most of the selections are fromprintedtexts, thoughHalperinhas checked some of them againstthe manuscriptsto enhanceaccuracy.They include autobiographicalfragments, Sabbateantheology, polemics, and prophecies.Among the other features,backgroundtexts help the readerfollow Cardozo'sintent. I would highly recommendthis volume for anyone studying early modern Jewish life and ideas. It is lively and useful, and both a primaryand a secondary source. MattGoldish The Ohio State University Columbus,Ohio

Ken Koltun-Fromm.Moses Hess and ModernJewish Identity.Jewish Literature and CultureSeries. Bloomington& Indianapolis:IndianaUniversityPress, 2001. x, 180 pp. The complex and intriguingfigure of Moses Hess (1812-1875) has received attentionas a socialist anda Zionist.His RomeandJerusalem(1862) has been seen 343

Book Reviews as a brilliant,if stylisticallyflawed,documentthatgives remarkablyearlyevidence of the racial basis of antisemitismand strikingtestimony of a socialist intellectual's returnto his Jewish roots. Despite the relatively large literatureon Hess, no one had heretoforereadHess with a predominantinterestin his fracturedreligious identity.This is the task thatKen Koltun-Frommhas set for himself in this highly novel, closely argued,and challengingwork. Not only does the authorlook at aspects of Hess thathave remainedlargely unexplored,but he does so with tools not hithertoappliedto the subject. KoltunFrommdraws(critically)upon conceptions developed by contemporarytheoreticians, especially the moral philosopher Charles Taylor,that enable him to dig beneaththe surface of Hess's writing to reveal unresolvedtensions which earlier writerson Hess had not discovered.Koltun-Fromm'sHess emerges fromthis reading as paradigmaticfor the modern Jew, who likewise seems unable to integrate fully the divergentstrandsof Jewish identity.Hess deserves renewedattentionbecause his confusionsandconflicts, Koltun-Frommargues,arecharacteristicfor the Jewish condition in modernity. A passage from Rome and Jerusalem, cited three times, provides KoltunFrommwith the key for his strong readingof the text. In referenceto sacrificial worshipin Judaism,Hess writes:"Thescaron the face of my beloved not only does not detractfrom my love, it is just as precious to me-who knows, perhapseven more precious?-than her beautifuleyes, which one can also find in otherbeautiful women, whereas just this scar is characteristicof the individuality of my beloved."In Koltun-Fromm'sinterpretation,this passagerevealsmoreclearlythan any other Hess's "ambivalence"towardhis Jewish heritage in which sacrificial worshiphas not only to be acknowledgedbut also affirmed,while at the same time he could neitherfully justify it morallynor envisage it in the messianic futureof a restoredZion. Koltun-Frommexamines Hess's relationshipto his Jewishnessin his earlier works, but the three centralchaptersof this revised dissertationfocus on the pivotal Rome and Jerusalem. Drawing upon Taylor,he sees Hess embarkedupon a "narrativequest,"which seeks to integrateexperience, but it is a quest at which Hess ultimatelyfails, leaving his identity fragmentedand torn.Yet Hess does create a "necessaryframework"for continuity,which lies in his understandingof Jewish identity as essentially racial, or national,in character.Given the contradiction between Hess's relationshipto Judaismin real life (non-practicing,marriedto a FrenchCatholic woman) and his call for Jewish observance-which contemporariestermedhypocrisy-it is not surprisingthatthe Jewishrace,to which all Jews belong regardlessof belief or practice,should serve as the basis for Jewish continuity andunity.Once againwith the aid of a Taylorconcept, Hess is also portrayed as a "strongevaluator":his assessmentof Judaismplaces it objectivelyabovecompeting culturesandreligions. He is also willing to polemicize stronglyagainstboth ReformJudaismand JewishNeo-Orthodoxy,as representedby two unrelatedrabbis named Hirsch:the radicalSamuel Hirsch,whom Hess accuses of extinguishing Judaismthrough"fusion"and the traditionalistSamson RaphaelHirsch,who is guilty of rigidity.

344

Book Reviews Koltun-Fromm'sanalysis forced me to rereadRome and Jerusalemwith his frameworkof understandingin mind. Would my own newly informed rereading supporthis interpretation?My conclusion:yes and no. To be sure,thereare cracks here:Hess'smisreadingof his idol Spinoza,his seeming inabilityto deal absolutely with the issue of animal sacrifice, the tensions within his narrativequest. But I must admit that the overall impressionwas less thatof inner fragmentation-despite the fragmentationof the book itself-than of polemics and apologetics.Hess has discovered-or rediscovered-that antisemitism,rooted in race, strikes the culturedJew no less than the uncultured,that the Jewish Kultus(a difficult term thatKoltun-Frommrendersas "tradition,"but which embracescontemporaryJewish life as well as legacy) is superiorto any other, and that the answer to antisemitism is a Jewish state. There is no ambivalenceor ambiguitywith regardto these centralideas. They are advocatedwith a whole heart.To be sure, Rome and Jerusalem,cast in the form of lettersto JosephineHirsch, is also a highly personal work, with referencesto self and family,but identity is not the principalissue, at least not explicitly.Koltun-Fromm'sargumentrestson whathe digs out frombeneaththe surface. As I read Koltun-Frommand then Hess, my conviction grew that KoltunFromm'sparadigmof the ambivalentmodernJew better fits Hess's friend Heinrich Heine than it does himself. Heine (whom Koltun-Frommdiscusses briefly) had amazinglymuch in common with Hess: both were marriedto gentiles, both lived in Frenchexile from Germany,both sufferedextendedillness duringthe last years of their lives, both were drawnto Utopian socialism, both were influenced by the DamascusAffair, and both "returned"to Judaism.But unlike Heine, who remained deeply ambivalentabout Judaism even in the late poems of his Romanzero,Hess of Rome and Jerusalemis a prouddefenderof the Jewish race and its Nationalkultus,with none of the ironic, even mildly self-hating passages that markHeine's work. I find Hess's ambivalencemuch more directedtowardEuropean culturethan towardJudaism.On the one hand it has, especially in Germany (Hess is remarkablyuncriticalof France),producedracialhatred.On the other,he notes that tolerancehas become a widespreadarticle of faith and markshis own age as nothing less than messianic. It is of the natureof a sharply focused lens that it enables us to see what a broadly focused one will miss. But it is also true that it leaves out of clear view what lies outside the focus. Hess's writing has lent itself to multiple foci, each of which is legitimateand helpful in creatinga fuller understandingof the man and his work. Koltun-Fromm'snew and highly interestingfocus has revealedneglected aspectsthatmakeHess freshlyrelevantfor contemporaryJews. His work,therefore, deserves our attention. MichaelA. Meyer HebrewUnion College Cincinnati,Ohio

345

Review: [untitled] Author(s): Seth Farber Source: AJS Review, Vol. 27, No. 2 (Nov., 2003), pp. 346-347 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4131625 . Accessed: 19/07/2011 03:38 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 Kimmy Caplan.Orthodoxyin the New World:ImmigrantRabbisand Preaching in America (1881-1924). Jerusalem:ZalmanShazarCenterfor JewishHistory,2002. 395 pp. (Hebrew) In the concludingpages of Kimmy Caplan'sbook, the authorasks his ultimate question: "Did the Immigrantrabbis and preacherssucceed?" (p. 312) To achieve success, in the eyes of Caplan,is to stimulatean emotionallychargedresponse or to generatea change in perspectiveor action. Historians,as modernhistoriographyhas made clear,arenarydifferentfrom preachers.Caplan'sexceptionallywell-researchedbook might not meet the standardshe sets for his preachers,but it is definitely an outstandingwork of American Jewish scholarshipand the most comprehensivetreatmentof the American immigrantOrthodoxrabbinateto date. The presentwork is a revision of Caplan'sdoctoraldissertation,completed at the HebrewUniversityunderthe tutelageof Joseph Dan. Caplan'sbook begins with a full discussion of the history and historiographyof AmericanOrthodoxy, relying heavily on social historianJeffreyGurock.Intellectualintegritydemands that the authorraise some of the serious methodologicalconcerns relatedto writing a history of the AmericanOrthodoxderashah(sermon), and he does this deftly. His use of Saperstein'sand Blondheim'swritingsgraduallydelineatesthe locus of his discussion: the meeting point of the classical EasternEuropeanOrthodox derashahand the modernJewishAmericanexperience. Admittedly,Caplancannotprovideparallelsto the Americanimmigrantderashah, primarilybecause the historicalevents of 1904-1905 and the outbreakof the first world war uprootedOrthodoxlife in EasternEurope.Instead,Caplanattempts to analyze, at least briefly in the last chapter,the connection between the Protestantand non-Orthodoxsermonsin America and the Orthodoxones. The first chaptersketchesthe transformationof rabbisfromthe old worldto the new. Caplanadmirablytracesthe conflict and challengesof the immigrantrabbi and even attemptsto comparethe experience of the immigrantrabbito that of other immigrants.Unfortunately,there is no summarythat analyzes the extent to which immigrantrabbiswere sui generis in the context of the mass immigration to America.Further,althoughCaplanhas a relativelylong discussion of the return of immigrantrabbisto EasternEurope,he does not cite JonathanSarna'sclassic essay "TheMyth of No Return,"which suggestedthatbetween five and eight percent of all immigrantsretracedtheir steps. Caplancontinueswith a discussionof the historicalcontextof these preachers and their sermons. It is within this context that the readerfeels that "more is less." Caplanhas chosen to focus on seven preachers(who are given partialbiographies in an appendixto the book), but the twenty-plusdifferentrabbis discussed throughoutthe book are difficult to track, primarilybecause so much informationis providedabout each one and because incidentalanecdotespermeate almost every discussion. In one paragraph,for example, we learn that Rabbi ZalmanYakovFriedermanis buriednext to RabbiAbrahamIsaac ha-KohenKook on Mount Scopus in Jerusalem;that RabbiIsraelLevinthalwas almost killed in a terroristactionin 1936; andthatRabbiGedaliaSilvestronwas on a boat with Rab346

Book Reviews bi Levinthalwhen they traveledto Israel(p. 82). None of these facts is critical to the centralnarrative.In addition,rules of organizationaresometimesnot followed. For example, though the authorgenerally lists the years of each individualrabbi when that rabbiis introduced,the years of Aaron Gorowitz(1870-1958) only appear the fourthtime he is mentionedin the book (p. 203). A furthercomplicationis providedby the illustrationsprovidedin one of the appendices.Ten photographsof rabbisappear,but it is wholly unclearwhy some of the less-discussed rabbis (such as Rabbi Hayyim Hirschenson) are included while others are neglected. Still, these are minor points, and they do not detract from the wide-rangingand superbportrayalsthatthis book has to offer. ChaptersThree and Fourmove from the contextualto the textualas Caplan describes the formulas and sources used by immigrant Orthodox preachers. Whereasmost of this section is very descriptive,a few portions are merely suggestive. The authormakes clear thatthe sources that were accessible to American Orthodoximmigrantswere limited, but it is left for the readerto surmise why at least two rabbisquotedextensively fromthe KuzariofYehudaHalevi, one surreptitiously! (p. 166). Orthodoxyin the New Worldconcludes with a discussion of the transformation of theAmericanderashahfromthe old worldto the new.ForCaplan,this sheds significant light on the history of American Orthodoxy,but as Caplan himself notes, this is only one piece of the puzzle of the developmentof AmericanOrthodoxy. Caplan'sdiscussion neglects the evolution of an Americanhalakha, so critical to the self-definition of Orthodoxy.This lacunacannotgo unmentioned,yet it is hardlynoticeable in this excellent portrayalof the popularreligious cultureof AmericanimmigrantOrthodoxrabbis. Seth Farber Raanana,Israel

Michael Alexander.Jazz Age Jews. Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress, 2001. viii, 239 pp. The 1920s witnessed great changes in the American Jewish community. Jews moved out of their areasof first settlementand became increasinglyassimilated into mainstreamAmerican life, and many became prominentfigures in the world of popularmusic, film, the law, and organizedcrime. Paradoxically,as they strove to be fully integratedinto Americansociety, they also desired to maintain their separate Jewish identity. The tension this created has remained a central theme of the AmericanJewish experience. MichaelAlexanderhas constructedan elegantly writtenand compelling interpretationof how that second generationof AmericanJews soughtto resolve this conflict. In so doing, he offers fresh insights into the sources of AmericanJewish liberalism. Briefly stated,his thesis is as follows: Even as the childrenof EasternEuropean immigrantsmoved up in the social and economic spheres, they identified 347

Review: [untitled] Author(s): Robert A. Rockaway Source: AJS Review, Vol. 27, No. 2 (Nov., 2003), pp. 347-349 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4131626 . Accessed: 19/07/2011 03:38 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 bi Levinthalwhen they traveledto Israel(p. 82). None of these facts is critical to the centralnarrative.In addition,rules of organizationaresometimesnot followed. For example, though the authorgenerally lists the years of each individualrabbi when that rabbiis introduced,the years of Aaron Gorowitz(1870-1958) only appear the fourthtime he is mentionedin the book (p. 203). A furthercomplicationis providedby the illustrationsprovidedin one of the appendices.Ten photographsof rabbisappear,but it is wholly unclearwhy some of the less-discussed rabbis (such as Rabbi Hayyim Hirschenson) are included while others are neglected. Still, these are minor points, and they do not detract from the wide-rangingand superbportrayalsthatthis book has to offer. ChaptersThree and Fourmove from the contextualto the textualas Caplan describes the formulas and sources used by immigrant Orthodox preachers. Whereasmost of this section is very descriptive,a few portions are merely suggestive. The authormakes clear thatthe sources that were accessible to American Orthodoximmigrantswere limited, but it is left for the readerto surmise why at least two rabbisquotedextensively fromthe KuzariofYehudaHalevi, one surreptitiously! (p. 166). Orthodoxyin the New Worldconcludes with a discussion of the transformation of theAmericanderashahfromthe old worldto the new.ForCaplan,this sheds significant light on the history of American Orthodoxy,but as Caplan himself notes, this is only one piece of the puzzle of the developmentof AmericanOrthodoxy. Caplan'sdiscussion neglects the evolution of an Americanhalakha, so critical to the self-definition of Orthodoxy.This lacunacannotgo unmentioned,yet it is hardlynoticeable in this excellent portrayalof the popularreligious cultureof AmericanimmigrantOrthodoxrabbis. Seth Farber Raanana,Israel

Michael Alexander.Jazz Age Jews. Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress, 2001. viii, 239 pp. The 1920s witnessed great changes in the American Jewish community. Jews moved out of their areasof first settlementand became increasinglyassimilated into mainstreamAmerican life, and many became prominentfigures in the world of popularmusic, film, the law, and organizedcrime. Paradoxically,as they strove to be fully integratedinto Americansociety, they also desired to maintain their separate Jewish identity. The tension this created has remained a central theme of the AmericanJewish experience. MichaelAlexanderhas constructedan elegantly writtenand compelling interpretationof how that second generationof AmericanJews soughtto resolve this conflict. In so doing, he offers fresh insights into the sources of AmericanJewish liberalism. Briefly stated,his thesis is as follows: Even as the childrenof EasternEuropean immigrantsmoved up in the social and economic spheres, they identified 347

Book Reviews "down"with the outsiders,with marginalizedAmericans,and with less fortunate individualsandgroups.Alexanderarguesthatthe experienceof EasternEuropean Jews as membersof an exiled and oppressedgroup made their statusas outsiders a centralcharacteristicof their Jewish identity.The religious toleration,freedom, and democracyin the United States threatenedthis featureof their Jewish identity. In orderto keep alive theirself-identity,manyJews intentionallyimpairedtheir economic, political, and culturalrelationswith gentiles. They did so by marking themselves off from Americansociety by imitating,defending, and even participatingin the grouplife of marginalizedAmericans.This activity servedas a means by which second generationJews could maintainsome sense of theirJewish identity in free and open America. To validatehis thesis, Alexanderfocuses on the lives of threeprominentJewish personalitiesof that era:Arnold Rothstein,gamblerand underworldkingpin; Felix Frankfurter,Harvardprofessorand legal scholar;andAl Jolson, the greatest entertainerof that time. All three men were born in the 1880s, grew up in Jewish ghettos, marriedgentile women, rose to nationalfame and, accordingto Alexander,became heroesto the Jewishcommunitybecause of theirassociationwith certain key events of that decade. To wit, Rothsteinallegedly fixed the 1919 World Series; Frankfurterchampionedthe anarchistsSacco and Vanzetti;and Al Jolson regularlyimpersonatedAfricanAmericansin blackface and appearedin the first talkingfilm, TheJazz Singer.Alexandertells the story of these men and illustrates how otherJews perceivedthem and their role as outsidersand, in the process, defined themselves as Jews. The book is divided into three sections. The first deals with Arnold Rothstein and explains how he achieved success in the criminaleconomy.The second section recountshow Frankfurterchallengedthe Massachusettspolitical and legal establishmentsby creatinga groundswellof publicopinionin supportof Sacco and Vanzetti.The final section surveys Jolson'scareerand describeshow the application of burntcork to his face allowed him to identify with black culture.Alexander arguesthat althoughall threemen enteredmainstreamAmerica,they fostered a sense of marginality.This, in turn,gave them approvaland statuswithin the Jewish community.Alexander buttresses his insights and conclusions by utilizing archival sources, governmentpublications,the Yiddish press, and relevant secondarysources. Despite the author'sthoroughresearch and convincingly argued case, the book containsa few misconceptions.The gangsterLegs Diamondwas not Jewish; he was Irish.And despitewhatthe AmericanJewishpress supposed,CharlieChaplin was also not Jewish. I also questiona numberof the author'sassertions.While admittingthatonly aboutnine percentof the Yiddishpress readershipwas born in America,Alexanderaversthatthe reactionof the second generationof American Jews "is found predominantlyin Yiddish newspaper coverage of the described events" (p.185, n. 3). I find his reasoning for this unconvincing.The children of the EasternEuropeanimmigrantsattendedpublic schools, where the language of instructionwas English. Englishbecame theirprimarylanguage.Alexanderoffers no firm evidence to show that the second generationlearnedto read,could read, or wantedto readYiddish.The authoralso declares thatArnold Rothstein"never 348

Book Reviews shied from his ethnic identity and never lost group feeling" (p. 39). But he offers no evidence to supportthis. To the contrary,Rothstein's"groupfeeling" did not preventhim from sending gangstersto beat up Jewish strikers.Rothstein'scareer showed that making money supersededany group or ethnic loyalty he may have had. These points nonetheless do not detractfrom the importanceof this imaginative and splendidly written study of AmericanJewry duringthe Jazz Age. All futurestudies investigatingthe origins of AmericanJewish liberalismor exploring AmericanJewish identitywill have to takeAlexander'sstudy into account. RobertA. Rockaway Tel-AvivUniversity Ramat-Aviv,Israel

Mikhail Krutikov.YiddishFiction and the Crisis of Modernity,1905-1914. Stanford Studies in Jewish History and Culture.Stanford:StanfordUniversityPress, 2001. viii, 248 pp. A feast for the imagination, Krutikov'sYiddishFiction and the Crisis of Modernityis best begun with dessert;the last chapterof this richlyobserved,original study of the modernistturn in Yiddish prose fiction repays with interestthe reader'sdiligent investmentin the first three-quartersof the book. Here, Krutikov not only offers the most concise and compelling version of his argumentbut also resolves some of the questionsthatbedevil his attemptto determinethe role of literaturein history.The problem is, of course, not his alone but of paramountimportance for every student of Eastern European Jewish culture. Krutikov's diachronicreadingof a single historicalmomentthroughthe prism of fiction thus offers an immediatepoint of entry into the gap betweenthe reality of Jewish lives in history and the constructionof Jewish life in literature. Krutikovargues that the floodtide of cataclysmicchanges-violence, economic dislocation, immigration,radicalpolitics-that overwhelmedJewish society in the wake of the 1905 revolutionalteredthe course of Yiddishwriting.While the so-called classics of modernYiddish letters-the works of Sholem-aleichem, Sh. J. Abramovich(known by the name of his fictional persona, Mendele the Bookpeddler)and I. L. Peretz-achieved almost canonical status, a younger cohortof writersboth in both RussiaandAmericastrovetowardthe creationof a new narrativeparadigm.All three, accordingto Krutikov,based their Jewish fictions on the principleduse of repetitionin the nameof desireto returnto a mythicalpoint of origins; overwhelmed by events, they constructed (in the words of David Roskies, invokedby Krutikov)an enduringJewish "mythologyof the mundane" as a way of mitigating catastrophichistory.By contrast,Weissenberg,Opatoshu and,most characteristically,Bergelson adopteda more linear,historicistapproach to plot and characterization,as well as a style thatprivilegedtransformationover stasis, psychology overtype, universalityoverJewishparticularity,andnatureover 349

Review: [untitled] Author(s): Olga Litvak Source: AJS Review, Vol. 27, No. 2 (Nov., 2003), pp. 349-351 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4131627 . Accessed: 19/07/2011 03:38 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 shied from his ethnic identity and never lost group feeling" (p. 39). But he offers no evidence to supportthis. To the contrary,Rothstein's"groupfeeling" did not preventhim from sending gangstersto beat up Jewish strikers.Rothstein'scareer showed that making money supersededany group or ethnic loyalty he may have had. These points nonetheless do not detractfrom the importanceof this imaginative and splendidly written study of AmericanJewry duringthe Jazz Age. All futurestudies investigatingthe origins of AmericanJewish liberalismor exploring AmericanJewish identitywill have to takeAlexander'sstudy into account. RobertA. Rockaway Tel-AvivUniversity Ramat-Aviv,Israel

Mikhail Krutikov.YiddishFiction and the Crisis of Modernity,1905-1914. Stanford Studies in Jewish History and Culture.Stanford:StanfordUniversityPress, 2001. viii, 248 pp. A feast for the imagination, Krutikov'sYiddishFiction and the Crisis of Modernityis best begun with dessert;the last chapterof this richlyobserved,original study of the modernistturn in Yiddish prose fiction repays with interestthe reader'sdiligent investmentin the first three-quartersof the book. Here, Krutikov not only offers the most concise and compelling version of his argumentbut also resolves some of the questionsthatbedevil his attemptto determinethe role of literaturein history.The problem is, of course, not his alone but of paramountimportance for every student of Eastern European Jewish culture. Krutikov's diachronicreadingof a single historicalmomentthroughthe prism of fiction thus offers an immediatepoint of entry into the gap betweenthe reality of Jewish lives in history and the constructionof Jewish life in literature. Krutikovargues that the floodtide of cataclysmicchanges-violence, economic dislocation, immigration,radicalpolitics-that overwhelmedJewish society in the wake of the 1905 revolutionalteredthe course of Yiddishwriting.While the so-called classics of modernYiddish letters-the works of Sholem-aleichem, Sh. J. Abramovich(known by the name of his fictional persona, Mendele the Bookpeddler)and I. L. Peretz-achieved almost canonical status, a younger cohortof writersboth in both RussiaandAmericastrovetowardthe creationof a new narrativeparadigm.All three, accordingto Krutikov,based their Jewish fictions on the principleduse of repetitionin the nameof desireto returnto a mythicalpoint of origins; overwhelmed by events, they constructed (in the words of David Roskies, invokedby Krutikov)an enduringJewish "mythologyof the mundane" as a way of mitigating catastrophichistory.By contrast,Weissenberg,Opatoshu and,most characteristically,Bergelson adopteda more linear,historicistapproach to plot and characterization,as well as a style thatprivilegedtransformationover stasis, psychology overtype, universalityoverJewishparticularity,andnatureover 349

Book Reviews culture.Insteadof Yiddish novels, which renderedJewish languageas the expressive means of Jewish content-ethical, ritualor textual-they experimentedwith genericallyindeterminateforms to describetheYiddish-speakingJews who occupied the same unboundedhistorical space as their gentile neighbors.Their own commitmentto Yiddish derivednot from a vision of ecstatic union with their audience but from a subtle appreciationof the linguistic--phonetic and semanticpotentialitiesof the colloquial idiom. Unmooredfrom Jewish scriptureand Jewish community,the language of Yiddish modernismbecame more closely linked with the revolutionarycourse of the Europeanavant-garde,a movement equally obsessed by its own anxieties of influence. In orderto demonstratethe all-importantlink between modernityand modernism, Krutikovconstructsa taxonomyof motifs-the shift from an agrarianto an industrialand commercial economy, the spreadof revolutionarypolitics, immigration,and the rise of the "new woman"-that appearas a series of "crises" within Jewish society, refractedthroughthe lens of contemporaryYiddish fiction. While Krutikovexplicitly acknowledgeshis debt to his Soviet predecessorsin his emphasis on literatureas a faithful registerof social reality,he is at his best precisely when he straysfrom the well-troddenpath of Marxisthistoricism.The first threechaptersfocus on the aestheticrepresentationof social mobility;this is a tale simply told and expertlyput together.The final chapter,"Love and Destiny: The Crisis of Youth"is, in its own modest way, a gem of historicalinsight into the way literaturemakes a difference. Linking the expression "crisis"of early-twentiethcenturyYiddishliteraturewith an increasinginterestin psychological realismthat seemed beyond the capacityof its conventions,Krutikovrelatesthe literaryquest for subjectivityto the radicaltransvaluationof gender categories. Krutikovcontrasts the tentative embrace of subversive female interiority in the work of Opatoshu,Asch, and Bergelsonwith the defense of male authorshipin the autobiographies of Sholem-aleichemand Peretz.The latterrecuperatesJewishness for the modernJew by promotingthe reconciliationbetweenpersonaldesire and collective responsibility;the formerforecloses any possibility of a qualified returnto Jewish society and Jewish tradition.The nationalmythology of the prodigal son gives way to the incurablydiasporicreality of the errantdaughter. Krutikovis amonga distinguishedminorityof contemporaryYiddishistsfulat home not only in the Jewishvernacularbut in the imperiallingua franca.His ly cosmopolitanismis impressivelyevident in his command of Russian theoretical literaturebut not sufficiently so in his reluctanceto departthe imaginaryconfines of Yiddishlandfor the actualplaces whereYiddish literaturedeveloped alongside its Russian,Polish, andAmericancounterparts.Strainedcomparisonswith British modernismserve only to heightenthe absenceof local texts andcontexts.Was the sense of crisis thatKrutikovattributesto Yiddishliteraturegenerallysymptomatic? After all, the events which occasioned it affectedgentiles no less than Jews, not to mention Jews who wrote in languages other thanYiddish. More attentionto the comparativeculturalmanifestationsof the forces that engaged the attention of Yiddish authorsmight have led Krutikovto the propositionthatthe creationof the "Yiddish literary system" (p. 6) depended-then as now-on the constant reassertionof crisis as a paradigmaticJewishcondition.In theirmove towardthe sin350

Book Reviews gular and the idiosyncratic,Krutikov'sYiddish modernists implicitly defied the limits of such historical parochialism.Writing in Yiddish served their efforts to leaveYiddishlandbehind;Krutikov'sfine work leaves one wishing thatmoreYiddishists would follow suit. Olga Litvak PrincetonUniversity Princeton,New Jersey

JeffreyVeidlinger.TheMoscow State YiddishTheater.Jewish Cultureon the Soviet Stage. Bloomington:IndianaUniversityPress, 2000. ix, 356 pp. The OctoberRevolutionfosteredthe rise to prominenceof two of the greatest Jewisharttheatresof the twentiethcentury:the Hebrew-languageHabimaand theYiddish-languageMoscow StateYiddishTheater,the lattercommonlyreferred to by its Russianacronym,Goset. The impetusfor theircreationpredatedthe Revolution, with roots, respectively,in Bialystok and Petrograd;but it was only after they establishedthemselves in Moscow that they spreadtheir wings and attained artisticheights thatwould ensurea place in the annalsof worldtheatre.Both were importantparticipantsin the greatfloweringof the Russianstage duringthe 1920s, a period that seethed with revolutionaryfervor,as Moscow took the vanguardas the incubatorfor theatricalexperimentation.It was here thatthe theoriesand artistic silhouette of the modern stage were examined,reshaped,and reinventedwith an unwaveringconviction that theatrematters,that it has the power to transform society. Goset andHabimaimmersedthemselvesin the vibranttheatricalculturecreated by such theatricalgreats as KonstantinStanislavsky,Vsevolod Meyerhold, AleksandrTairov,andYevgenyVakhtangov,directorswhose teachingsstill nurture the world'stheater.Eventually,the two companies, benefiting from the state'sofficial recognitionand support(as problematicas it may have been), refashioned the Jewish stage with such avant-gardeproductions as Habima's The Dybbuk (1922) and Goset's TheSorceress (1922), 200,000 (1923), andA Night in the Old Market(1925). Though Habimaand Goset representedtwo antagonisticpolitical campsZionism and Communism-both were children of the revolutionaryquest for modernisticJewish artisticexpression.Theirstories, however,unfoldedalong disparatepaths. Habimaleft Moscow in 1926, settled permanentlyin Palestine, and became Israel'snationaltheatre.Goset remained,maneuveringits way throughthe gauntletof Soviet political and artisticpolicies, only to be brutallyliquidatedby Stalin'shenchmen.Solomon Mikhoels, the company'sdirectorand staractor,was murderedin an "accident"in Minsk on January12, 1948, and the company was disbandedthe next year; BenjaminZuskin, his longtime acting partner,was tried on trumped-upchargesand executedon August 12, 1952, togetherwith otherleading RussianJewish artistsand intellectuals. 351

Review: [untitled] Author(s): Edna Nahshon Source: AJS Review, Vol. 27, No. 2 (Nov., 2003), pp. 351-354 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4131628 . Accessed: 19/07/2011 03:38 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 gular and the idiosyncratic,Krutikov'sYiddish modernists implicitly defied the limits of such historical parochialism.Writing in Yiddish served their efforts to leaveYiddishlandbehind;Krutikov'sfine work leaves one wishing thatmoreYiddishists would follow suit. Olga Litvak PrincetonUniversity Princeton,New Jersey

JeffreyVeidlinger.TheMoscow State YiddishTheater.Jewish Cultureon the Soviet Stage. Bloomington:IndianaUniversityPress, 2000. ix, 356 pp. The OctoberRevolutionfosteredthe rise to prominenceof two of the greatest Jewisharttheatresof the twentiethcentury:the Hebrew-languageHabimaand theYiddish-languageMoscow StateYiddishTheater,the lattercommonlyreferred to by its Russianacronym,Goset. The impetusfor theircreationpredatedthe Revolution, with roots, respectively,in Bialystok and Petrograd;but it was only after they establishedthemselves in Moscow that they spreadtheir wings and attained artisticheights thatwould ensurea place in the annalsof worldtheatre.Both were importantparticipantsin the greatfloweringof the Russianstage duringthe 1920s, a period that seethed with revolutionaryfervor,as Moscow took the vanguardas the incubatorfor theatricalexperimentation.It was here thatthe theoriesand artistic silhouette of the modern stage were examined,reshaped,and reinventedwith an unwaveringconviction that theatrematters,that it has the power to transform society. Goset andHabimaimmersedthemselvesin the vibranttheatricalculturecreated by such theatricalgreats as KonstantinStanislavsky,Vsevolod Meyerhold, AleksandrTairov,andYevgenyVakhtangov,directorswhose teachingsstill nurture the world'stheater.Eventually,the two companies, benefiting from the state'sofficial recognitionand support(as problematicas it may have been), refashioned the Jewish stage with such avant-gardeproductions as Habima's The Dybbuk (1922) and Goset's TheSorceress (1922), 200,000 (1923), andA Night in the Old Market(1925). Though Habimaand Goset representedtwo antagonisticpolitical campsZionism and Communism-both were children of the revolutionaryquest for modernisticJewish artisticexpression.Theirstories, however,unfoldedalong disparatepaths. Habimaleft Moscow in 1926, settled permanentlyin Palestine, and became Israel'snationaltheatre.Goset remained,maneuveringits way throughthe gauntletof Soviet political and artisticpolicies, only to be brutallyliquidatedby Stalin'shenchmen.Solomon Mikhoels, the company'sdirectorand staractor,was murderedin an "accident"in Minsk on January12, 1948, and the company was disbandedthe next year; BenjaminZuskin, his longtime acting partner,was tried on trumped-upchargesand executedon August 12, 1952, togetherwith otherleading RussianJewish artistsand intellectuals. 351

Book Reviews Since the 1920s, Goset has capturedthe attentionof Yiddishists,historians, andtheatrescholars,who haveovertime generateda richliteraturein Russian,Yiddish, French,German,and Hebrew,with books thatvary in tone andpurpose.Jeffrey Veidlinger has made an important contribution to this predominantly non-English body of literature.His carefully researchedvolume is the first English-languagemonographon Goset and the first comprehensiveaccount of the theatre'shistory from its earlybeginningsto its liquidation.Exploringhis topic in the aftermathof the collapse of the USSR, the authorprofitedfromnewly released original materials.Though not sensationalin their revelations,these documents, ablyused by the author,contributeto a deeperand more detailedunderstandingof the relationshipbetween the state and Goset in their exposition of the minutiaeof backstagepolitics and intrigues. Veidlinger'shistoricalnarrativeconsists of seven chronologicallyarranged chapters,strungtogetheralong the centraltheme of the Goset's shifting relationship with the regime. The first chapteris devoted to the early days, with an emphasis on its ur-historyas the Jewish TheatricalSociety establishedin Petrograd in 1916. This prerevolutionaryphase is a near-forgottenperiod that the author highlights in orderto correctwhat he considersto be two self-serving accountsof the company'sformation,one by AlexanderGranovsky,its artisticdirectorin the 1920s, and the otherby Soviet historiansbent on glorifying the role of the Soviet government.The following two chaptersare devotedto the 1920s and the theatre's renownedstylized adaptationsof Jewish classics. They are informedby newly released materialsthat document nasty shenanigans,some of them not altogether shockingto one familiarwith the backstagepolitics of theatresdependenton state funding.This section of the book concludes with Goset's 1928 Europeantour and the defection of Granovsky,who had shapedits artisticlanguageand persona. Veidlinger'smost importantcontributionlies in the ensuing chapters,which are devotedto the lacklusterandtightlycontrolled1930s, an unsungdecade in theatre history,but a time of great interestto studentsof Soviet Jewry.In the aftermath of Granovsky'sdeparture,it was left to Goset's actor Solomon Mikhoels, its new director,to navigate the company throughthe increasinglydifficult path of Soviet culturaland ethnic politics and to remoldJewish nationalismin conformity with the ideologicaltwists andturnsof newly proclaimeddogmas,includingsocialist realismandculturalnationalism.VeidlingertracesGoset'seffortsto reorient its style andmessage so as to adjustto the hardeningpoliticalrealitiesof the 1930s by presentingplays in the social-realist vein. The last partof the book is devoted to the waryearsand Mikhoels' involvementin the JewishAnti-FascistCommittee. It concludes with the terminalpostwarhistoryof the company,hurledinto institutional and personaldestructionby intensified official anti-Jewishpolicies. The book's self-declaredpurpose is to demonstratehow Goset championed Jewish nationalculture.The authorclarifies its centraltheme in the introduction: "while sharing many aspects of the state's educational ideals and class-based worldview,the Yiddish theatersuccessfully resisted all attemptsto turn its stage into just anotherplatformof Soviet propaganda"(p. 3). The tenacious natureof this thesis is manifest in the portrayalof the theatricalenterprise,and particularly its leader, Solomon Mikhoels, as a steadfastforce carefully navigatingturbulent 352

Book Reviews Soviet waters.The result of this heroic interpretationis that the theatre'sshifting repertoireand productionstyles are seen as largelyreactive,the result of the impact of external forces and hardlythe productof creativematuration.Veidlinger posits thatmany of the theatre'sproductionsincludeda nationalistJewish subtext thateludedthe censorbutwas calculatedto evoke deep nationalsentimentsin Jewish audiences, who were able to read between the lines. Although this subversive interpretationmay be valid in some cases, the authordoes not factuallysubstantiate the thesis and occasionally stretcheshis argumentbeyond logical and historical credibility.Forexample,he suggests thatthe collective suicide of the besieged Vilna Soviet delegates at the end of M. Daniel's civil war play Four Days would remindthe audienceof the heroismof the Zionist Masadamyth.However,thereis no evidence thatthe Masadastory was a partof the culturalconsciousness of Russian Jewish spectatorsby 1931. Similarly,the authorattachesmuch importanceto Mikhoels' thoughtfulattentionto handgestures,particularlyas relatedto playing the lead in Bergelson'sTheDeaf and interpretsthis interestas relatedto the Zionist commitmentexpressedin Psalm 137:"If I forgetthee, O Jerusalem,let my right hand lose its cunning ... ." Such undocumentedspeculations detractfrom the strengthof the overall argument. Although Goset'sjourney is chronicledin great detail by the author,who is well groundedin the vicissitudes of Soviet Jewish political and culturallife, the intense focus on the politics of Jewish nationalculture,for which the authoruses the theatreas an example, leads to a certainflatteningof the artisticlandscape.By the book's end, the readeris left hesitantregardingthe significance of Goset as a theatrical institution. How noteworthy were its artistic achievements? Where would one position it within the overalltheatricalmap of the period?Was it in the same league as Tairov'sor Vakhtangov'stheatres,or was its role more ethnic than artistic? ExtantJewish and Russian materialswould have helped to clarify some of these questions.Eyewitnesshistoriesof the Russianstage offer ratherobjectiveanswers by virtue of the attentionthey grantGoset. KonstantinRudnitsky'sRussian and Soviet Theater 1905-1932, for example, discusses the extraordinaryacting skills of Mikhoels and Zuskin and emphasizestheir creativeinteraction.This collaborationreachedits artisticzenith in Goset'srenownedproductionof King Lear, when they captivatedMoscow in the roles of King and Fool. The origins of Lear's bold directorialconcept are shroudedin mystery.VeidlingercreditsSergei Radlov as the director,yet Rudnitsky'shistory rejects this official credit. He argues that Radlov was a tame director,by then not capable of the creative spiritmanifest in the production.He suggests thatthe directorialconceptwas developedby Les Kurbas, an innovativeUkrainiandirectorwho, like Granovsky,had been a studentof Max Reinhardt.Kurbas,whose unique directorialstyle was characterizedby a sharp graphic quality and a dynamic rhythmthat earnedhim the nickname "the UkrainianMeyerhold,"was imprisonedbefore the completion of Lear. So it was left to Radlov,the lesser director,to finish and "sign"the production.True, Rudnitsky offers no proof for his version of events, but his narrativeis presentedwith much confidence that demandseitherconfirmationor denial. Anotherissue thatrequiresdiscussion is Granovsky'sartisticimpact.Washe 353

Book Reviews a greatdirector?A merely competentone? By all accountshe was intellectualand pedantic,the sortof directorwho used a metronomein his workwith actors.Again, it may be instructiveto look at Russiantheatresources thatprecedehis defection. Huntly Carter,a British scholar who saw many of the Soviet productionsof the 1920s and discussedthem in detail in his ground-breakingbook TheNew Spiritin the Russian Theatre1917-1928, paid considerableattentionto Granovsky'swork. In a subchapterdevotedto the persons he identifies as the "PracticalBuilders"of the new Russian theatre,Carteroffers a list of "the big five," consisting of Granovsky, Lunacharski,and the path-breakingdirectors Meyerhold, Tairov,and Stanislavsky.WasCartercorrectin this assessment?Did he reflectthe professional theatricalviews of the time? A discussion of such theatricalissues would have enrichedthe largelypolitical tapestrywoven by Veidlinger.In addition,given the large numberof productions covered,it is unfortunatethat the book does not include an appendixwith a chronologicallist, offering such basic informationas playwright,translator,director, designer,choreographer,and composer.These names are includedin the body of the text, but a list of productions-a standardfeaturein theatrehistorybookswould have provideda clear roadmap and serve readersinterestedin specific aspects of the theatre'sartistichistory. These commentsshouldnot detractfromVeidlinger'simmensecontribution. His meticulous researchpresents a richly detailed and cohesive picture. It is instrumentalin introducingEnglish-languagereadersto a storiedchapterin the history of modernJewishcreativityand will undoubtedlytriggerfuturestudyinto the various aspects of the Moscow StateYiddishTheatre. EdnaNahshon JewishTheological Seminaryof America New York,New York

Daniel J. Elazarand Rela Mintz Geffen. TheConservativeMovementin Judaism: Dilemmas and Opportunities.SUNY Series in American Jewish Society in the 1990s. Albany: SUNY Press, 2000. xiv, 238 pp. Michael B. Greenbaum.Louis Finkelsteinand the ConservativeMovement:Conflict and Growth.Academic Studies in the History of Judaism.Binghamton,NY: Global Studies, 2001. xv, 308 pp. MordecaiM. Kaplan.Communingsof the Spirit:TheJournalsofMordecai M. Kaplan. Volume1, 1913-1934. Edited by Mel Scult. AmericanJewish Civilization Series. Detroit: Wayne State University Press and the ReconstructionistPress, 2001. 558 pp. Much has been, and continuesto be, writtenaboutthe Conservativemovement and its impact upon both AmericanJudaismand world Jewry. Such works 354

Review: [untitled] Author(s): Steven M. Glazer Source: AJS Review, Vol. 27, No. 2 (Nov., 2003), pp. 354-357 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4131629 . Accessed: 19/07/2011 03:38 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 a greatdirector?A merely competentone? By all accountshe was intellectualand pedantic,the sortof directorwho used a metronomein his workwith actors.Again, it may be instructiveto look at Russiantheatresources thatprecedehis defection. Huntly Carter,a British scholar who saw many of the Soviet productionsof the 1920s and discussedthem in detail in his ground-breakingbook TheNew Spiritin the Russian Theatre1917-1928, paid considerableattentionto Granovsky'swork. In a subchapterdevotedto the persons he identifies as the "PracticalBuilders"of the new Russian theatre,Carteroffers a list of "the big five," consisting of Granovsky, Lunacharski,and the path-breakingdirectors Meyerhold, Tairov,and Stanislavsky.WasCartercorrectin this assessment?Did he reflectthe professional theatricalviews of the time? A discussion of such theatricalissues would have enrichedthe largelypolitical tapestrywoven by Veidlinger.In addition,given the large numberof productions covered,it is unfortunatethat the book does not include an appendixwith a chronologicallist, offering such basic informationas playwright,translator,director, designer,choreographer,and composer.These names are includedin the body of the text, but a list of productions-a standardfeaturein theatrehistorybookswould have provideda clear roadmap and serve readersinterestedin specific aspects of the theatre'sartistichistory. These commentsshouldnot detractfromVeidlinger'simmensecontribution. His meticulous researchpresents a richly detailed and cohesive picture. It is instrumentalin introducingEnglish-languagereadersto a storiedchapterin the history of modernJewishcreativityand will undoubtedlytriggerfuturestudyinto the various aspects of the Moscow StateYiddishTheatre. EdnaNahshon JewishTheological Seminaryof America New York,New York

Daniel J. Elazarand Rela Mintz Geffen. TheConservativeMovementin Judaism: Dilemmas and Opportunities.SUNY Series in American Jewish Society in the 1990s. Albany: SUNY Press, 2000. xiv, 238 pp. Michael B. Greenbaum.Louis Finkelsteinand the ConservativeMovement:Conflict and Growth.Academic Studies in the History of Judaism.Binghamton,NY: Global Studies, 2001. xv, 308 pp. MordecaiM. Kaplan.Communingsof the Spirit:TheJournalsofMordecai M. Kaplan. Volume1, 1913-1934. Edited by Mel Scult. AmericanJewish Civilization Series. Detroit: Wayne State University Press and the ReconstructionistPress, 2001. 558 pp. Much has been, and continuesto be, writtenaboutthe Conservativemovement and its impact upon both AmericanJudaismand world Jewry. Such works 354

Book Reviews differ widely in scope and emphasis.The three recentlypublishedvolumes under review serve to exemplify such diversity.One examines the movementin its entirety,concentratingon the present,primarilyfrom a sociological perspective;the othersfocus more on history,illuminatingin differentways the roles of two of the most influentialfigures in ConservativeJudaismin the past. Withthe publicationof TheConservativeMovementin Judaism:Dilemmas and Opportunities,Rela Geffen and the late Daniel Elazarhave produceda concise yet comprehensive analysis of the Conservative movement's relative strengths and weaknesses. The authors summarizethe movement's origins and history,and examine its constituentinstitutionsand organizations.They describe the growthand impactof Havurot,the RamahCampsand Solomon SchechterDay Schools, andalso point out the often articulatedshortcomingsof Conservatismproblemsrelating to "turf,"ideology, defections (on both the left and the right), and the like. In gatheringtheir data, Elazarand Geffen have surveyedConservativerabbis, intervieweda large numberof movement leaders, and made use of existing studies on religious observanceand affiliation. They identify eight "dimensions" of the movement, for example, demographics,and examine each using the following model: 1. A statementof theproblem,its dimensionsandbackground; 2. A reviewof existingdataandliterature bearingon theproblem; theproblem; 3. Thegeneration of newdataas necessaryto understand 4. An outlineof plausiblepolicyalternatives to addressthatproblem; 5. A discussionof themeritsandpotentialdangersassociatedwitheachpolicy option; 6. Ideasforadditionalinformation gathering,whichwouldfurtherassistthe process(p. 8). policy-making But ElazarandGeffen arenot content,however,merelyto describethe "state of the movement."In PartII of their work, entitled "Next Steps,"they offer suggestions as to how the Conservativemovementshouldaddressits problems.Much of their advice, such as broadeningthe institutionalbase of the movementto include constituencies beyond congregations, and adopting the name "Masorti" worldwide,is sound;the leadersof Conservatismwouldbe well advised to reflect seriously on this thoughtfulvolume and to implementmany of the authors'recommendations. Louis Finkelstein,who servedas presidentand chancellorof the JewishTheological Seminaryof America from 1940-1972, was a major figure in shaping ConservativeJudaism.Although a good deal has been written about him, Louis Finkelsteinand the ConservativeMovement:Conflictand Growthis the firstbooklengthtreatment.An expandedversion of Michael Greenbaum'sdoctoraldissertation, the work is an in-depth study of Finkelstein'sfirst fifteen years in office. Greenbaumis uniquelypositioned to authorsuch a volume, having spent his entire careerat the Seminary,where he currentlyserves as vice-chancellorand chief administrativeofficer. Whereas one might assume that his Seminaryconnection 355

Book Reviews might blur Greenbaum'sobjectivity,happily,such is not the case. He offers a balanced,criticalanalysis of Finkelstein'sformativeyears. Framinghis study aroundthe "Mission/IdentityConflict"inherentin all religiously affiliated academic institutions,Greenbaum'sinitial chaptersdeal with Finkelstein'spredecessorsat the Seminary,Solomon Schechter(1902-1915) and CyrusAdler (1915-1940), for it was theirvision that Finkelsteinadoptedand expanded.Each presidentwas firmly committedto the idea thatthe school's impact be broadand far-reaching,and each was reluctantto define the Seminarynarrowly as a Conservativeinstitution.This fact was a major source of ongoing tension between Finkelsteinand the leaders of the other two arms of the movement,the Rabbinical Assembly and the United Synagogue. Both organizations felt that Finkelstein,in particular,and the Seminary,in general, shouldprimarilyserve the movement,whereasFinkelsteinwas firmly committedto a broaderagenda.He believed that the Seminary should serve the entire Jewish, as well as non-Jewish, world; accordingly,he devoted much of his time and energy to creating and expandingprogramsand institutionssuch as the weekly radio "The EternalLight," the Jewish Museum,and the Institutefor Religious and Social Studies. To his credit,Greenbaumuses many primarysources to documentcomprehensively and accurately the positions of both Finkelstein and his critics, and demonstratesthe strengthsand weaknesses in each. A concludingobservation:Forthis reader,too many financial details vis-a"vis Seminarycampaignsand budgets are included. However,this is understandable, given the fact thatGreenbaum'sportfolioincludesoversightof the Seminary's finances. Anyone interestedin Mordecai Kaplan is familiar with the works of Mel Scult, who has authoredand edited a numberof books and articles dealing with Kaplan'slife andthought.Most recently,Sculthas focused on Kaplan'sjournaland has editedVolume 1, which covers the years 1913-1934. Kaplan,it turnsout, was not only an originalthinker,prolific author,and pragmaticinnovator,but also one of the world'spremierdiarists.His journal,which begins in 1913 and extendswell into the '70s and consists of approximately10,000 pages occupying 27 volumes, is one of the most extensive personaldiariesextant. Scult had unprecedentedaccess to the journal and has judiciously chosen and titled each entry.The selections reflect Kaplan'sbroadrange of interestsand activities,andalso includecandidopinionsof the manyprominentindividualswith whom he interacted.The readercatches glimpses of Kaplan grapplingwith his evolving theology, strugglingwith his unappreciativelaity and bickeringwith his intolerantcolleagues. The journaldoes not include much detail aboutKaplan'sfamily,but it does offer fascinating insights into his sense of self, apprehensions,self-doubts, and solitude. Sadly,Kaplanhad many,many admirers,but few close friends.He consideredhis journal one, as his poignantentry on July 3, 1929 tells us: "As on previous occasions, I shall resort again to this diary as though it were an intelligent friend... "(p. 341). Scult is to be commendedfor undertakingthe task of makingKaplan'sjour356

Book Reviews nal availableto the public. It is rivetingand offers unique insights into the mind and thoughtsof one of the "giants"of AmericanJudaism.The publicationof Volume 2 is anxiously anticipated. Steven M. Glazer George WashingtonUniversity Washington,Districtof Columbia

WalterP. Zenner.A Global Community.:The Jews from Aleppo, Syria. Detroit, Michigan:WayneState UniversityPress, 2000. 233 pp. The authorof this review was once invited to give a historical lecture at a venerableNew YorkCity Jewish institution.The subject of antisemitismfigured prominentlyin the talk. "Whydo they hate us so?" wailed one memberof the audience amongthe crowdthatgatheredafterward."Canyou tell me?"As she walked with me to my subwaystop, pouringout her despair,I patientlytriedto explain to her why perceptionsof Jews might have developed as they had. Suddenly a Duane-Reade drugstore appeared in our path. Instantly the woman'smannerchanged. She whisperedin a conspiratorialvoice, "Do you see that store?It's owned by SyrianJews. They'rerich. They exploit their employees. They are sharpbusinessmen.And they'reincrediblyclannish-they won't marry among anyone but themselves!""Oh, really?"I replied. "Isn't that terrible."On she went, spoutingthe alleged qualitiesof the SyrianJewish communityin terms almost identicalto the general anti-JewishstereotypesI had been speakingabout only a half hour before. "By the way,"I interruptedher as the appearanceof my subwaystop forcedan end to the conversation,"I'mhalf Syrian."Hereyes widened with shock. I did not wait to hearher subsequentsputtersof apology as I took my leave and descendedthe steps into the subway. Encounterssuchas these areall the morereasonto cherishthe workof the late WalterP Zenner,a distinguishedprofessorof anthropologyandJewishstudiesat the Universityat Albany,who madethe studyof SyrianJews his life's calling.A Global Community.TheJewsfromAleppo,Syriaincludesa peerlessbibliographyandeleven chapterscoveringhistory,culture,rabbinicaltraditions,geography,cuisine, music, photographs,andcomparativescientificanthropological insights.MusicologistMark of Hebrew Union the distinctiveSyrianJewish an on Kligman College, authority liturgyandpizmoneem,makesa valuablecontributionin one co-authoredchapter. The ancient city of Aleppo in northernSyria was at the peak of its importance as a commercialcenterfromthe OttomanConquestin 1517 to the beginning of the nineteenthcentury.One of the oldest Jewish communitiesin the world, it had been enrichedby an influx of Spanishexiles and other EuropeanJews in the fifteenthandsixteenthcenturies,and Spanishfamilynamesandloanwordsarepart of the communitydown to the presentday. Silk, cotton, and othergoods were exported from the Middle East and Aleppo was a main tradingcenter between Iran and Iraqand Europe.SyrianJews, thoughhandicappedby theirstatusas dhimmis, 357

Review: [untitled] Author(s): Marianne Sanua Source: AJS Review, Vol. 27, No. 2 (Nov., 2003), pp. 357-359 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4131630 . Accessed: 19/07/2011 03:39 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].



Book Reviews nal availableto the public. It is rivetingand offers unique insights into the mind and thoughtsof one of the "giants"of AmericanJudaism.The publicationof Volume 2 is anxiously anticipated. Steven M. Glazer George WashingtonUniversity Washington,Districtof Columbia

WalterP. Zenner.A Global Community.:The Jews from Aleppo, Syria. Detroit, Michigan:WayneState UniversityPress, 2000. 233 pp. The authorof this review was once invited to give a historical lecture at a venerableNew YorkCity Jewish institution.The subject of antisemitismfigured prominentlyin the talk. "Whydo they hate us so?" wailed one memberof the audience amongthe crowdthatgatheredafterward."Canyou tell me?"As she walked with me to my subwaystop, pouringout her despair,I patientlytriedto explain to her why perceptionsof Jews might have developed as they had. Suddenly a Duane-Reade drugstore appeared in our path. Instantly the woman'smannerchanged. She whisperedin a conspiratorialvoice, "Do you see that store?It's owned by SyrianJews. They'rerich. They exploit their employees. They are sharpbusinessmen.And they'reincrediblyclannish-they won't marry among anyone but themselves!""Oh, really?"I replied. "Isn't that terrible."On she went, spoutingthe alleged qualitiesof the SyrianJewish communityin terms almost identicalto the general anti-JewishstereotypesI had been speakingabout only a half hour before. "By the way,"I interruptedher as the appearanceof my subwaystop forcedan end to the conversation,"I'mhalf Syrian."Hereyes widened with shock. I did not wait to hearher subsequentsputtersof apology as I took my leave and descendedthe steps into the subway. Encounterssuchas these areall the morereasonto cherishthe workof the late WalterP Zenner,a distinguishedprofessorof anthropologyandJewishstudiesat the Universityat Albany,who madethe studyof SyrianJews his life's calling.A Global Community.TheJewsfromAleppo,Syriaincludesa peerlessbibliographyandeleven chapterscoveringhistory,culture,rabbinicaltraditions,geography,cuisine, music, photographs,andcomparativescientificanthropological insights.MusicologistMark of Hebrew Union the distinctiveSyrianJewish an on Kligman College, authority liturgyandpizmoneem,makesa valuablecontributionin one co-authoredchapter. The ancient city of Aleppo in northernSyria was at the peak of its importance as a commercialcenterfromthe OttomanConquestin 1517 to the beginning of the nineteenthcentury.One of the oldest Jewish communitiesin the world, it had been enrichedby an influx of Spanishexiles and other EuropeanJews in the fifteenthandsixteenthcenturies,and Spanishfamilynamesandloanwordsarepart of the communitydown to the presentday. Silk, cotton, and othergoods were exported from the Middle East and Aleppo was a main tradingcenter between Iran and Iraqand Europe.SyrianJews, thoughhandicappedby theirstatusas dhimmis, 357

Book Reviews neverthelessplayed an extensive role in this trade, and developed techniques for setting up family membersin foreign lands as a way of advancingthe business. Aleppo's prominencecame to an end, however,with the IndustrialRevolution, which reversedthe flow of tradefrom the Middle East. Now, cheap factorymanufacturedtextiles and otherproductsfrom Europewere flooding the market. The opening of the Suez Canalbroughtcaravantradingto an end. The disintegration of the OttomanEmpire,the "YoungTurk"revolution,wars,the prospectof enforced militaryservice for dhimmis,and the economic depressionin generalbuilt up pressuresto emigrate. From their start on the Lower East Side along with other immigrants,the SyrianJewishandallied communitiesin Americahave grownto the pointthatthey may numberas manyas 50,000 or more. SyrianJewishinsidersreferto themselves as "SY";Ashkenazimare "Iddshy"and "Iddshiyeh,"or "Jay-Dubs"(as in JW for "Jewish").ThoroughlyAmericanized(with the possible exceptionof thousandsof newcomers who arrivedin the early 1990s) they are flourishing in their United States home bases of Ocean Parkway,Brooklyn;Deal, New Jersey; and Hallandale andTurnberry,Florida.Althoughof late more men and women have been entering the professions, mercantilepursuitsare still encouraged. The Community(often pronouncedby SY's as if it were writtenwith a capital "C") is characterizedon the whole by early and opulent weddings, a higherthan-average number of children, and a unique combination of American acculturationcoupled with intense piety and conservatism.For example, in an instance that Zennerdescribes, at one point tennis lessons were becoming increasingly popularat SyrianJewish countryclubs. Rumorsbegan to surfacethat some communitywomen were having affairs with their coaches. The rabbisthereupon issued an edict banningthe women fromtakinglessons frommale tennis coaches, and thatban has been obeyed. The communityis also markedby distinctivefamily names, which are often based on occupations,physical descriptions,or towns of origin. Zenner initiates readersinto some of these. They include a dealerin fragrances(Attar);a dealerin cotton (Kattan);slaughterer(Dabbah);soldier (Jindi or Gindi); blacksmith(Haddad); greengrocer(Hadary);butcher(Kassab);soapmaker(Sabban);watercarrier (Sakkah);candlemaker(Shamah);and olive dealer (Zetun).Also common are Beyda (white),Tawil(tall), Safdieh(from Safed), Dweck, Esses, Kassin, Labaton, Matalon,Schwecky,Suttonor Setton, and,oddly enough, Ashkenazi. Some of Zenner'smost interestingencountersare with alienatedintellectuals who "left"the communityto pursuealternatepaths.These includethe poet and authorJack Marshall,professorof English and literarycritic Stanley Sultan,and the actorDan Hedaya,who spurnedhis family's import-export business in order to follow his chosen career.In general,however,the communityplaces strongemphasis on keeping the childrenclose to home. If higher educationis pursued,it is preferablydone at BrooklynCollege, New YorkUniversity,or other schools nearby. Communityrabbisdo theirbest to see to it thatcourse subjectsare chosen with care and thatthose who live in dormitoriesreturnto the parentalabodes for Sabbaths and holidays.

358

Book Reviews Centralto understandingthe Syrian Jews is their communal ban on intermarriage.Meticulouslyworded,signed by thirty-fiverabbisand communalleaders, and elaboratelyletteredin calligraphy,the ban is displayedin the lobbies of SyrianJewish synagoguesand communitycenters.Any memberof the community, male or female, who marriesa non-Jew,as well as any childrenthat might result from such a marriage,are excommunicatedfrom the group. Conversionsto Judaismfor the purpose of marriageare simply not recognized. Papercopies of the ban are easily availableand, as Zennernotes, are known to have been sent in the mail to SyrianJewish men reportedto be datingnon-Jewishwomen. Such arroganceand protectiveinsularityis felt to be justified by an ancient and holy communitywhose ancestors,as memberstake for granted,have walked in the shadowof King Davidhimself.As every child in theAleppan-sponsoredMagen DavidYeshivain Brooklynknows, in Biblical times King David and his general Joab ben Zeruiahconqueredthe land northof Israelall the way up to city of Aram Zoba, as "Halab"was known in the Hebrew Bible (2 Samuel 8, 1 Chronicles 18, andPsalm60). The name "Halab,"meaning"milk"in bothArabicandHebrew,stems fromthe traditionthatAbrahamstoppedto milk his flocks therebefore continuingto the Holy Land. Residents and descendantsfrom the area were and are known as "Halabi"and "Halabiyyeh."(Damasceneswere knownas "Shami.") Italiantraderson the caravanand sea routes from Europerenderedthe name Halab as "Aleppo." Significantly,the Hebrew initials of Aram Zoba happen to be aleph-reshtzaddi, or "Eretz";and it is this Hebrew abbreviationthat identifies most of the community'sprayerbooks and rabbinicdocuments.There was no international borderbetweenthe two areasuntil afterWorldWarI, when Syriaand Lebanonbecame FrenchMandatesandPalestinewent to the British.In Ottomandays they had been part of the same province.Indeed,Syria as a whole was consideredto be an extension of the Holy Landitself, with portionsof the halakhahapplicableto Eretz Yisraelalso applyingthere. "Whatdo you mean, return?"sniffed one community mother,upon hearingher graduatestudentdaughterwax enthusiasticon the glories of modernJewishhistoryandthe Returnto Zion. "Asfar as Grandmawas concerned,she never left." Zenneradmitsat the end of his book thatthe example of the SyrianJews is of limitedpracticaluse to the rest of the AmericanJewishcommunity.As he points out, "aheavypricemust be paid for insulation."Nevertheless,this communityrepresents at the very least a magnificent opportunityfor research.Their unbroken line permitsthe observerto see what all Jewish communitiesmust have been like at the dawn of their existence. There is much work thatcan yet be done, and Walter P.Zennerhas blazed the trail. MarianneSanua FloridaAtlanticUniversity Boca Raton,Florida

359

Review: [untitled] Author(s): Ruth Langer Source: AJS Review, Vol. 27, No. 2 (Nov., 2003), pp. 360-361 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4131631 . Accessed: 19/07/2011 03:39 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].



Book Reviews JeffreyA. Summit.TheLord'sSong in a StrangeLand:Music and Identityin ContemporaryJewish Worship.AmericanMusicspheres.New York:OxfordUniversity Press, 2000. xiii, 203 pp. With few exceptions, classical study of Jewish liturgy has focused on the wordsof the prayers,largelyignoringthe less tangibleelementsof setting,gesture, halakhicguidance,and music. When scholarslike EricWernerandA. Z. Idelsohn wrote aboutliturgicalmusic, they,too, consideredit a text. In recentyears, and influenced by trendsin the largeracademy,the field has become more interdisciplinary,open to the insights of otherscholarlymethodologies,resultingin important studieson the archaeologicalhistoryof the synagogueitself, prayergestures,liturgical halakhah,and mystical approachesto prayer.Into this context, we can welcome warmly Jeffrey Summit's The Lord's Song in a Strange Land and its ethnographicstudy of the musical dimension of contemporaryAmericanJewish liturgy. Scholarsgenerallyhavebeen slow to studyJewishreligiouspracticethrough anthropologicallenses, applyingthe interpretativemethods offeredby ritualstudies sporadicallyat best andrarelyaddressingthe nonverbalaspectsof liturgy.Summit thus entersnew territory,and his study necessarily focuses on generatingthe "thickdescriptions,"that is, the primarydata necessary for more complex analysis. This book, a revision of his dissertation,is a narrowethnomusicologicalexaminationof five differentAshkenazi congregationsin the Boston area, focusing on theirkabbalatShabbatservices. These include a New Age havurah,a largeReform congregationstill in the process of abandoningits classical Reformpractice, the Conservativeminyanat the Hillel where Summitis rabbi,a modernorthodox congregation, and the Hasidic congregation of the Bostoner Rebbe. Summit is awareof the pitfalls of applyingparticipant-observermethodologiesto communities in which he is an insider(pp. 8-9); he successfully balancessympatheticdescriptionand scholarlyanalysis in his portrayalof each community. Following a methodological introductionand a brief overview of Jewish liturgy,Summit'sbook consists of three studies. In these, he explores the practice of each community,combiningobservationsof the actualservices with the results of extensive and often fascinatinginterviewsof membersand leadersof the congregations.Manymusical illustrationsappearin notationin the text and on the accompanyingCD. His findings are individuallyoften not astounding,but the very exercise of placing them side by side is enlightening.In many cases, the comparisons highlightthe complexityof the AmericanJewishculturalmatrix.As Summit points out, the musical choices of these communitiesdo not generatea continuum consistentwith the standardspectrumof New Age/Reform to Orthodox.The New Age congregation,halakhicallyvery liberal, and the Hasidic congregation,halakhicallyvery strict,were most similarin theirunderstandingsof the role of liturgical music and in their types of musical choices (103-104). Summit'sprimarytheoreticalgoal here is to discernhow music functionsto construct help identity for communitiesof AmericanJews. He suggests that individual congregationsplace themselves in relationto each other and in relationto theirown (perceivedif not actual)historyby the choices thatthey make regarding 360

Book Reviews such issues as congregationalparticipationversus formal professional performance of the liturgy;reliance on known tunes versus introductionof new ones; freedom of innovationand musical style versus (sometimes perceived) traditionalism; and/or using music as a vehicle of transcendenceversus a reliance on the verbaldimensionof the prayers.The first studyinvestigatesthe meaningof melodic choice in each setting, with a primarybut not exclusive focus on Lekhahdodi. The second exploresthe communities'perceptionsof nusah,the traditionalchants for performanceof the liturgy.'The thirdstudy broadensthe perspectivebeyond kabbalatShabbatto examinethe codes embeddedin melody choice in Jewishworship more generally. In the first two studies, Summittravelsfrom communityto community,following an arc from the less to the more traditionalsettings, describingtheirpractices. The third study, however,breaks from the ethnographicmodel to explore more theoreticallyhow liturgicalmusic functionsas a communicativecode in Judaism. Here, where applicationof the theory to the familiar communitieswould most stronglydemonstratehis point, Summitdiscusses directlyonly the Hillel and New Age communities,bringing additionalexamples from common knowledge and a sixth congregation.His proofs also operateon differentplanes. The use of Lamentationstropin Estheris quitea differentsort of code-switchingthanthe New Age employmentof a Buddhist melody or the Hillel negotiationbetween nusah and song. The lattertwo speak to communalidentity;the first does not. Summit'sconclusion attemptsbriefly to place the Boston Jewish communities within the largersetting of Americanreligion. While important,this exercise would be more convincing had he alreadymore deeply situatedhis five communities within the largerspectrumof AmericanJudaism.Summit studied familiar and welcoming local congregations;this only increases his obligationto contextualize them and establishhow they representtheirlargermovements.In addition, whereas includinga ConservativeHillel minyanaddeda young adultcommunity, omittingthe voice of the traditionallytrainedcantorfound in a largeConservative congregationcreateda lacuna, one exacerbatedby the presence of only one (Reform) cantorin the study.Indeed,a wider study,as Summithimself acknowledges (p. 14), is necessaryto demonstratethe validityof his own theoreticalclaims. Nevertheless, Summit'sbook provides an importantfoundationfor furtherresearch into the role of Jewish liturgicalmusic. Ruth Langer Boston College ChestnutHill, Massachusetts

1. Summit'sonly egregious errorconcludes this chapter,wherein he dates the Mazor Vitryto two centuriesbefore Rashi instead of to the generationafter, and where his bibliographicreference, strangely,lists its authorby his patronymic.

361

Review: [untitled] Author(s): Leonard Fein Source: AJS Review, Vol. 27, No. 2 (Nov., 2003), pp. 362-365 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4131632 . Accessed: 19/07/2011 03:39 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].



Book Reviews JeroldS. Auerbach.Are WeOne? Jewish Identityin the UnitedStates and Israel. New Brunswick:RutgersUniversityPress, 2001. vii, 248 pp. StevenT. Rosenthal.IrreconcilableDifferences?The Waningof theAmericanJewish LoveAffairwithIsrael. Hanover,New Hampshire:UniversityPressof New England for BrandeisUniversityPress, 2001. xxii, 231 pp. Perhapsit should be thought good luck if you've written a deeply flawed book that is overtakenand renderedvery nearly useless by events. Saved by the bell, as it were, your bad book may not be noticed. (Or is it better to be embarrassedthan ignored?) Now come two books thatdeal with Israel-Diasporarelations,thatareboth ill-timed:writtenbefore, but publishedafter,the currentintifada,and able to deal with these latest events with only polite acknowledgementratherthan as a serious challenge to their arguments. But althoughboth are ill-timed, and must be held blameless for that, only one is also ill-tempered.ProfessorJeroldAuerbach,who early on "dreamedof a white Christmas"and "huntedfor Easter eggs," came upon Israel and Zionism some three decades ago, near his fortiethbirthday.With all the zeal of a convert, he now wields his faith like a hammer,and his is more screed than book, largely indifferentto facts thatstandin the way of his pre-Zionistanalysis.Yes,"pre-Zionist,"perhapseven more simply anti-Zionist.Auerbachis furious with Zionism in general,with secularZionism in particular.He thinkshimself a defenderof Israel, but the Israelhe defends never was and never will be. On one hand,he criticizes all those liberal Zionists who have from time to time expressed disappointment with Israel'sdeparturefrom liberalnorms;on the other,he castigatesZionism for its departurefromAuerbach'sown norms. He comes not to praiseZionism, but to buryit. (His praiseis reservedfor the settlersandtheirsettlements.)Forin his view, the choice thatIsrael-and Jews more generally-must make is the fateful choice betweenZionismandJudaism,andAuerbachis relentlesslyon the side of Judaism. "[T]hereis," he tells us, "a fundamental,perhapsirreconcilabletension between Zionism, a revolutionarypolitical movementin pursuitof normalization,and Judaism, the distinctivefaith traditionof the Jewish people-a people, accordingto the biblical text ... destinedto dwell alone, set apartfromthe othernations of the world"(pp. 113-114). "Thejourney of the modernJews,"as he sees it, "is from emancipationthroughZionism to assimilation"(p. 220). Period,end of story Now, although Auerbach invariablymisses the nail despite his relentless hammering-and one has the sense that he gets carriedaway into a kind of manic hammeringbecause he is desperatefor contact-he does have one solid underlying point. It is the same point that has been made by virtuallyevery thoughtful analystof Jewishlife since the Emancipation,for the Emancipationis still the great challenge to Jewish life. What,in fact, can and should it mean to be a Jew in a free society, a society in which the individualis encouragedto make his or her own choices? And what are the prospectsof the Jews in such an environment? To that standardquestion,Auerbach'sansweris fealty to Torah-which "is hardlythe foundingtext for freedomof choice and liberalpolitics."Whetherfeal362

Book Reviews ty to Torahmeans more to him than hostility to liberalismis hardto say; he apparentlydoes not see muchdifferencebetweenthe two. Othersamongus may think the haredi(ultra-Orthodox)communityan offense not only againstZionism,which they explicitly choose to be, but also against Judaism,which they preserve in its purest cultic aspects, but for Auerbachthey are "in the end a living reminderof everythingJewish that Zionists assumed they had defeated in their struggle with the rabbisfor Jewishculturalsupremacyin the modem era"(p. 204). Not forAuerbach pastels, much less shades of gray;his truthsare loud and bitter,even garish. As if to add insult to injury,he breathlesslyfills his argumentwith unattributed, unfootnotedquotations.Thus, for example, he faultsAmericanJews who move to Israelfor bringingvestiges of theirAmericannesswith them, whetherin the form of a penchant for softball or a commitmentto civil liberties, "characteristically Americanin its Jewish shallowness"(p. 70). Indeed, he goes on for some pages in an effort to portray(the erstwhile) Americanfascinationwith the kibbutzas derivingfromthe consonanceof the kibbutz with the American historical experience. "Whenhalutz (pioneering)values were taught to American youngsters, their sources in Europeansocialist theory were convenientlyoverlooked.Instead,the kibbutzbecame the embryonicexpression of (American)democracy,justice, and equality"(pp. 66-67). Perhapsthat is so. The relevantpassages are dottedwith quotationmarks,and it is hardto imagine thatAuerbachhas manufacturedthe quotes.But alas, the book lacks any notes, so we are left in the darkas to the source of the quoted material.His notion that American youngsters were taught about the kibbutz by reference to the Green MountainBoys is a "fact"entirely unfamiliarto me, and at sharp odds with my own experiencein preciselythe socialist ZionistyouthmovementAuerbachchooses to discuss and lambaste.We of Habonimwere neveras rigorousin our socialist studies (or practice) as our colleagues in HashomerHatzacir,but we were sharp criticsof Americansociety, and smartenoughto knowthe differencebetweensoftball and Joe McCarthy.The kibbutz,as we encounteredit, came to us from Isaiah, A.D. Gordon,andYosef Baratz,not fromThoreauand much less fromthe several Americanutopianexperiments. The productof all this mishmashis a collection of factoids and errorsin service of a pristinetheorythathas aboutas much relevanceto the life of the Jews as does the politics of Micronesia. So, Auerbachdepicts the AmericanJewish communityas cravenlyseeking to be takenas full-fledgedAmericans,hence caving in wheneveran Americanadministrationchooses to oppose, pressure,or in any other way be critical of Israel.This is essential to his critiqueof AmericanJewry as fundamentallyassimilationist. He tells us, for example, that President George Bush (the elder) and Secretaryof StateJamesBakersuccessfully "allbutbattered" the AmericanJewish community"intosilent submission"(p. 109). He therebyignores-one must assume willfully, since even the casual observercould not have been deaf to it-the chorus of proteststhe Bush-Bakerteam consistentlyelicited from that"batteredinto submission"community.Again and again,the behaviorof theAmericanJewishcommunityis thus eithermisreportedor caricatured,for nothing must standin the way of the theory. WhatAuerbachjust doesn'tget is thatthose with whom he disagreesarenot 363

Book Reviews necessarily self-hating Jews blindedby their liberalism,and that his own "logic" can easily, perhapseven must easily, lead to places even he himself finds noxious. So, for example,he faultsthe historianBenny Morrisfor suggestingthatIsraelwas bornin the originalsin of the "willful dispossessionof PalestinianArabsfromtheir land"(p. 178). Nonsense, saysAuerbach;only tiny groupson the right-wingfringe of Israelipolitics have ever,then or now, supportedthe "transfer"of Israel'sArabs. In truth,he contends, it is only the Zionists of the left who endorse"transfer,"in this case the transferof the Jews from West Bank settlements.Auerbachis inventive, so perhapsif he were writing today,he would find a creativeway to explain awaythatthe transferof Arabsis the explicit policy of Effie Eitam,headof the National Religious Partyanda memberof the currentIsraelicabinet.It may well have passed Auerbach'snotice, but endorsementof transferis no longer regardedas a proposalof the fringe; it is, in fact, a perfectly logical implicationof the Judaism iiber alles logic that Auerbachhimself advances-a logic based on a most tendentiousreadingof Judaism'ssacredtexts. Oh yes, and peace. Peace? Forgetit. A "delusion,"since the "tribalanimosity" between Moslems and Jews is "ineradicable"(p. 214). Steven Rosenthalis a Zionist of a very differentcolor, most especially one who does not feel compelled,as does Auerbach,to caricaturethose with whom he disagrees.Unfortunately,he shareswith Auerbachone irritatinglapse; thoughhis book is duly footnoted,very many of his quotationsarenot.They areleft dangling, without source. His errors-and there are very, very many of them-are not for the most partmajorerrorsof interpretation,but the kindsof small factualmistakes thatinevitablyraisequestionsregardingthe author'scredibility.It is not the "Council of Presidents"but the Conferenceof Presidents,and it is either the American Zionist Movementor the Zionist Organizationof America,but not the "American Zionist Organization"and there is none. It is not the "AmericanFriendsCommittee,"but the AmericanFriendsService Committee;NormanPodhoretz'soffice at Commentarywas not on ParkAvenue,it was on 56th Street;PeaceNow was founded not "shortlyafterthe conclusion of the 1973 war"but five years later;the Jewish Council on Public Affairs (then the National Jewish CommunityRelations Advisory Council) was determinedlynot "a pro-Pollardgroup;"thereis no newspapercalled the Boston Star;Al Vorspanis not now and neverwas "Rabbi"Albert Vorspan;Momentmagazine'sfirst considerationof the desirabilityof a Palestinian statewas publishedin 1975, not in 1988; SeymourReich was (and is) a prominent Jewish lay leader,but never was "thechief executive of the AmericanJewish Committee;"the "arrival"of AmericanJews is markednot by "six United States senatorsand 15 congressmen,"but by ten senators(sometimes nine) and 35 or so (dependingon which Congress)congressmen.And so forth. As to interpretation,Rosenthal'sis a bit too sunny.He writes as Oslo seems ripe for full implementation,and so positions the AmericanJewish communityas much more coherentlyopposed to the Begin/Shamirpolicies than was in fact the case. He cites, for example,the Levin-MetzenbaumlettertoYitzhakShamir(1988) on the eve of a Shamirmeeting with PresidentReagan as evidence of the awareness of Americanpoliticians that AmericanJewish supportfor Shamir'spolicies 364

Book Reviews had fallen, and ignoresthe furiousbacklashthe letterprovoked,a backlashthathas echoed throughthe yearsas an inhibitionagainstCongressionalcriticismof Israel. From the standpointof Israel-Diasporarelations,thatparticularShamirtrip was in fact a triumph. More generally,one wonderswhat Rosenthalcan have had in mind in referring to the "liberalpolicies of Ben Gurionand Eban"(pp. 180-181), since whatever the reasonsto honorAbba Eban-and thereare many-affecting the policies of Israel'sgovernmentis assuredlynot among them. Whatwe havehereis a well-intentionedbook, a book thatalso andinevitably takes up the question of the Jewishness of the Jewish state-though it comes to rest in a very differentplace from Auerbach'sbook-but that cannot, for all its good intentions,be takenas definitive. The real questionis whetherit can even be taken seriously,since the road it travelsis so rutted,so filled with potholes, large and small. It is hardto see the forest when so many of the trees are missing. Fearnot, however:Next season, therewill be two or four or eight or perhaps sixteen more books on the subject.They,too, will, whetherexplicitly or implicitly, take the Emancipationas their startingpoint;they, too, will try to characterize the fractiousAmerican Jewish communitywith a few sweeping generalizations; they,too, will be outdatedby the time they appear;they,too, will stumbleover the difficulties of deciding whetherthey are writingaboutthe Jewish organizationsof the Diasporaand their leadersor aboutamcha, the Jewish people. The sometimes stormy,sometimes happy,alwayscomplicatedrelationshipbetween Israeland the Diasporawill doubtless survive them all. LeonardFein Massachusetts Boston,

Steven M. Cohen and Arnold M. Eisen. TheJew Within:Self, Family and Communityin America.Bloomington:IndianaUniversityPress, 2000. x, 242 pp. Demographicstudies and their findings have dominatedresearchin to the American Jewish community since the first National Jewish PopulationSurvey (NJPS) of 1970. When it comes to Jewish identity,both nationaland communitybased demographicstudieshavebeen criticizedfor providingonly superficialportraits of the characterof American Jewish institutionallife and being even less revelatoryof the inner life of AmericanJews. Yet, few fiscal resourcesand little public notice have been given to those who soughtto describeAmericanJews and their Judaism in depth throughthe use of qualitativeresearchmethods. It took Steven M. Cohen and Arnold M. Eisen, professors of sociology and religion respectively to risk the developmentof a theory of Jewish identityfor more than 50 percentof America'sadultJewishpopulationbased on 45 in-depthinterviewsand two focus groups.To be sure,the authors,both highly respectedandprolific scholars, set theirfindings againsta backdropprovidedby surveysmailedback by 1005 Jews. Nevertheless, it is the insights derived from the three hour interviews that 365

Review: [untitled] Author(s): Rela Mintz Geffen Source: AJS Review, Vol. 27, No. 2 (Nov., 2003), pp. 365-367 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4131633 . Accessed: 19/07/2011 03:39 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].



Book Reviews had fallen, and ignoresthe furiousbacklashthe letterprovoked,a backlashthathas echoed throughthe yearsas an inhibitionagainstCongressionalcriticismof Israel. From the standpointof Israel-Diasporarelations,thatparticularShamirtrip was in fact a triumph. More generally,one wonderswhat Rosenthalcan have had in mind in referring to the "liberalpolicies of Ben Gurionand Eban"(pp. 180-181), since whatever the reasonsto honorAbba Eban-and thereare many-affecting the policies of Israel'sgovernmentis assuredlynot among them. Whatwe havehereis a well-intentionedbook, a book thatalso andinevitably takes up the question of the Jewishness of the Jewish state-though it comes to rest in a very differentplace from Auerbach'sbook-but that cannot, for all its good intentions,be takenas definitive. The real questionis whetherit can even be taken seriously,since the road it travelsis so rutted,so filled with potholes, large and small. It is hardto see the forest when so many of the trees are missing. Fearnot, however:Next season, therewill be two or four or eight or perhaps sixteen more books on the subject.They,too, will, whetherexplicitly or implicitly, take the Emancipationas their startingpoint;they, too, will try to characterize the fractiousAmerican Jewish communitywith a few sweeping generalizations; they,too, will be outdatedby the time they appear;they,too, will stumbleover the difficulties of deciding whetherthey are writingaboutthe Jewish organizationsof the Diasporaand their leadersor aboutamcha, the Jewish people. The sometimes stormy,sometimes happy,alwayscomplicatedrelationshipbetween Israeland the Diasporawill doubtless survive them all. LeonardFein Massachusetts Boston,

Steven M. Cohen and Arnold M. Eisen. TheJew Within:Self, Family and Communityin America.Bloomington:IndianaUniversityPress, 2000. x, 242 pp. Demographicstudies and their findings have dominatedresearchin to the American Jewish community since the first National Jewish PopulationSurvey (NJPS) of 1970. When it comes to Jewish identity,both nationaland communitybased demographicstudieshavebeen criticizedfor providingonly superficialportraits of the characterof American Jewish institutionallife and being even less revelatoryof the inner life of AmericanJews. Yet, few fiscal resourcesand little public notice have been given to those who soughtto describeAmericanJews and their Judaism in depth throughthe use of qualitativeresearchmethods. It took Steven M. Cohen and Arnold M. Eisen, professors of sociology and religion respectively to risk the developmentof a theory of Jewish identityfor more than 50 percentof America'sadultJewishpopulationbased on 45 in-depthinterviewsand two focus groups.To be sure,the authors,both highly respectedandprolific scholars, set theirfindings againsta backdropprovidedby surveysmailedback by 1005 Jews. Nevertheless, it is the insights derived from the three hour interviews that 365

Book Reviews are critical to the analysis. Parallelingthe work of studentsof American Protestantismsuch as RobertBellah, WadeClarkRoof, and RobertWuthnow,Cohenand Eisen seek to decipherthe innerworkingsof the life journeys of moderatelyaffiliated Jews. Anthropologistsand ethnographershave writtencase studiesof synagogues, havurotandTalmudstudy circles, but this volume chroniclesa pioneeringattempt to delineatethe "Jewin the street."ModeratelyaffiliatedJews were defined as the more than 50 percent who belong to a Jewish institutionbut are not as involved, learnedor pious as the most highly engaged 20-25 percentof AmericanJews. The authorswrite that "Ouraim was to get to know the averagemembersof Reform and Conservativecongregations,Hadassahchaptersand the like" (p. 5). The target generationwas marriedJewsbetweenthe ages of 35 and50. In theirown words, "the single most importantfinding of our study is decidedly double-edged .... The 'first language'that our subjects speak is by and large one of profoundindividualism. Their language is universalist,liberal and personalist.Communitythough a buzzwordin our interviews,a felt need, even a real hungerfor some-is a 'second language,'subordinateto the first. Our subjects, like Americansmore generallytoday,do not speak it as often or as well." Cohen andEisen buttressthese findings in chapterson the sovereignself (an explanationof the individualistimperative);the family (the most importantsource of Jewish identityfor interviewees);and ritual(the most significant way in which they expresstheirJewish commitments).Althoughthree-quartersof the Jews who participatedin the nationalsurveyagreedthat"Ihave the rightto rejectthose Jewish observancesthat I don't find meaningful,"some Sabbathand festival observance is prevalent.They then describe the retreatof public Judaism,contending that threepillars of mid- to late-twentieth-centuryJudaismhave eroded.These include interestin or knowledge of the organizedcommunity;particularratherthan universallessons gleaned from the Holocaust;and connections to Israel.The authors see the decline in passion for Israelas one of severalfactorsunderlyinga related decline in Jewish organizationallife (p. 189). In contrast to the demonstratederosion of public Judaism, the authors learnedthat for the Jews studied,God and the synagogue are centralattachments though, somewhatironically,the authorsnote that they are usually not connected to each other.Attachmentto synagogues is real and persistentbut based on what might be seen as a Kaplanianor Durkheimianview-the communal,social, and study functionsof synagogue life are paramount.Althoughthe intervieweesoverwelmingly believe in God, this belief is linkedto a non-institutionalizedpursuitof spiritualityratherthan to formalprayeror synagogue life. Periodically,the authorsreturnto the "unprecedentedexercise of autonomy amongthe currentgenerationof Jews"(p. 75). Thusthey note that"moderatelyaffiliated Jews choose what to observe and what not to observe; they also decide, and take it for grantedthat they have the right to decide, with no one able to tell them any decision is wrong, when to observe, how to observe, and how much to observe .... Oursubjectsare clear..,. authorityrests with each individualor family" (p. 91, italics in original).More than 83 percentof the participantsin the mail surveyagreedthat"itbothersme when people try to tell me thatthere'sa rightway 366

Book Reviews to be Jewish."ModeratelyaffiliatedJews are open to increasedperformanceof rituals but they invent new and diverse meanings for them. The authors express doubtsaboutthe possibility of lastingor transmittablecommitmentsbased on such subjectivereasons for observanceattenuatedfrom a sense of being commanded. Along with a high level of subjectivity,Cohen and Eisen describe a Jewish identity which is so fluid that it is more about "search,exploration,growth, and change"(p. 119) than it is about commitmentto any particularbelief or practice. Thereis a sense of tribalconnectionwhich runsvery deep for many interviewees, a connectionwhich leads them to preferfriendshipsandmarriagewith otherJews. Nevertheless, "more Jews today than previously count non-Jews among their friends, and more count non-Jews among their closest friends"(p. 124). There is a withering opposition to intermarriagewith just 60 percent agreeing with the statementthat"JewsshouldmarryJews"(p. 132). And, in the event thattheirchildren were to marrynon-Jews, almost all said that they would be warm and welcoming. It is impossible in a brief review to capturethe complex analysis of American Jewishidentityso richlydelineatedin TheJew Within.It is a book which should be readcarefullyby AmericanJewish leaders,in the community,the academy,and the synagogue.It shouldalso be utilized as a requiredor recommendedtext in university and adultlearningcourses on AmericanJudaismon the cusp of the twentyfirst century. Rela Mintz Geffen BaltimoreHebrewUniversity Baltimore,Maryland

367

Back Matter Source: AJS Review, Vol. 27, No. 2 (Nov., 2003) Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4131634 . Accessed: 19/07/2011 03:39 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].



CALIfORNIA

from

W

OFANARCHY THE FLOWER

PASSAGES VISH

SelectedPoems

clesof JewishLife E.GOLDBERG NRVEY

MEIRWIESELTIER fromthe HebrewbyShirley Translated Kaufman,withthe Author

rst-ratebook ... both compre-

making nsiveandaccessible, even Nishcustomsmeaningful

ofTelAviv'sbleaker "Amasterdraftsman is alsoa brutal Wieseltier landscapes, his observerof society....Allis here,in conveyboth thatfaithfully translations he and claritythathave the harshness one of the mostinfluenmadeWieseltier tialIsraelipoetsof thistime."

non-specialists."

- JackKugelmass,

Lowe andMiriam Irving Studies Jewish andDirector, Professor StateUniversity atArizona Program ,7.50hardcover

-

andQualms PeterCole,authorof Hymns

$16.95paperback $39.95hardcover,

OFLUDMIR HEMAIDEN JewishHolyWomanand lerWorld DEUTSCH 4ATHANIEL Bardach Janusz by :oreword of 19th-century world the 'Makes comealive.Deutschis a europe andrare sophisticated, Fascinating, and of socialhistorian combination critic." cultural University NewYork - Elliot Wolfson, $34.95hardcover

NEWINPAPERBAC

UriAOON

RosenzweigandHeidegger:

rEM••i Philosophy andGerman Judaism Between

SOCIETY AMEDITERRANEAN in OneVolume AnAbridgment

S.D.GOITEIN Revisedand Editedby JacobLassner hasbroughtto vibrant "Lassner andnewlifea greatscholar's PaulLindner, masterpiece."- Rudi of Michigan University

$24.95paperback Atbookstoresor order (800)822-6657www.ucpress.edu

HEIDEGGER AND ROSENZWEIG BetweenJudaismand GermanPhilosophy ELIGORDON PETER "Foranyonewitha seriousinterestin of author - Hilary Putnam, eitherthinker."

Dichotomy oftheFact/Value TheCollapse andOther Essays

Criticism andNow:GermanCultural Weimar $65.00hardcover

PRESS UNIVERSITY OF CAL IFORNIA

DISCOVERTHE JEWISH

: SR A.........

Since 1978, French photographer Frederic Brenner has chronicled the Jewish Diaspora by producing visual social histories of Jewish communities. Here is a photographic record of his twenty-five-year journey to forty countries, capturing the scope and dynamism of one of the world's oldest, most diverse communities, and challenging the stereotypes held by Jews and non-Jews alike. Diaspora:Homelandsin Exile* FredericBrenner ISBN0-06-008778-1 * hardcover$100.00 ($150.00 Can.)* 508pp.

Volume I: A collection of 264 of Brenner'smore than 80,000 photographs, the most extensive and diverse visual recordof Jewish life ever created. A four-page color insert includestwo full-color photographs. Volume II: Evocativeessays by leading intellectualson the personal meaning and significanceof sixty of Brenner'sphotographs, reproducedhere in smallerformat.

HarperCollinsPublishers www.harperacademic.com www.diasporathebook.com

YALE Jewish Studiesfrom SECRETCITY The Hidden Jews of Warsaw, 1940-1945

THE JEWISH POLITICAL TRADITION

Gunnar S. Paulsson

Editedby Michael Walzer, Menachem

"For many of us in this field it is always hard to imagine something new. Paulsson manages to break new ground, however, and offers an intelligent, fresh analysis."-MichaelMarrus

Lorberbaum, andNoam J. Zohar Volume 2: Membership Co-edited by Ari Ackerman

Co-edited by Yair Lorberbaum

$25.00 paperback

"Thejewish Political Traditionis one of the most ambitious Jewish intellectual efforts of recent

Winner of the 1998 Fraenkel Prize in

Contemporary History 16 illus. $29.95

SPINOZA'S BOOK OF LIFE Freedomand Redemption in the Ethics

Steven B. Smith "This important book dispels a number of major misunderstandings about Spinoza and shows his importance for an understanding of modernity."-David

Novak

$40.00

Volume 1: Authority

$35.00

years."-David

Novak,New Republic

"Walzer and his collaborators have succeeded admirably, opening a new chapter in our understanding of Jewish experience and offering fresh perspectives on the abiding questions of politics everywhere." -Mark Lilla,WallStreetJournal

"A splendid achievement. When Jews call themselves the people of the book, this is the sort of book they have, or at least ought to have, in mind."-Noah J. Efron,BostonBookReview

Available in paper GHETTO DIARY Janusz Korczak

BLOOD FROM THE SKY Piotr Rawicz

With an introduction by Betty Jean Lifton

Translated by PeterWiles Withan introductionby LawrenceLanger

"Korczak's diary is a moving piece of literature and an indispensable insight into life inside the ghetto. The quality of his testimony, contemporaneous with the events he lived, is powerful, poignant, and moving."

With the publication of this paperback edition of Piotr Rawicz's prizewinning Blood from the Sky, a classic of Holocaust literature emerges from many years out of print. $16.95 papeback

-Michael Berenbaum $12.95 paperback

YA L E

UNIVERSITY PRESS yalebooks.com

Jewish Studies tromYALE RESILIENCE

AND COURAGE Women, Men, and the Holocaust

THE DESTRUCTION OFTHE JEWS EUROPEAN

Nechama Tec

ThirdEdition

"A milestone work in the canon of Holocaust studies. Quite simply: it is the first comprehensive study of the role and function of gender during the Holocaust years. This is a work studded with insight and imbued with compassion." -Deb6rah

Dwork

$35.00

"Monumental. ... No other work gives such a complete and awesome sense of the Nazis' Final Solution. ... In its originality, scope and seriousness of theme, this is one of the great historical works of our time."-Michael R.Marrus,Times LiterarySupplement (on the second edition) 3 volume set $150.00

WRESTLING

WITH AN ANGEL

Power,Morality,andJewish Identity Ehud Luz

WOMEN AND THE

GERMAN EAST Agentsand Witnessesof Germanization

ElizabethHarvey

This pioneering book examines the role of women in Nazi Germany's core policies: to segregate Germans and non-Germans, to Germanize occupied Poland, and to persecute Poles and Jews.

Raul Hilberg

37 illus. $40.00

Translatedfrom the Hebrew by Michael Swirsky

"This thoughtful and thought-provoking book, which has already sparked a very lively debate in Israel, is certainly timely in light of recent developments that suggest that the military conflict between Israel and the Palestinians may continue for a very long time." -David

Biale

$40.00

IMAGINING ZION

KNOCKING ON HEAVEN'S DOOR

Dreams,Designs,andRealitiesin a CenturyofJewishSettlement S. Ilan Troen "Among all the books on the subject of Zionist economic/security ideology, this is one of the finest I have ever read. Its research is vast, its approach is fresh and original, its conclusions are sound."

AmericanReligionin theAgeof Counterculture Mark Oppenheimer This witty and provocative book, "which examines how movements arising from the 1960s' cultural liberalism affected American religion, makes a significant historical contribution."-Mark A. Noll

-Howard

18 illus. $30.00

M. Sachar 30 illus. $35.00

YA L E

UNIVERSITY PRESS yalebooks.com

ssential

E

The Monotheists Jews, Christians, and Muslims in Conflict and Competition

F.E. Peters

-o MOOTg

ST

The world's three great monotheisticreligions have often been in conflict, yet they spring from the same spiritualroots and have grown from the same historicalsoil. Here FrankPeters, one of the world's foremost authorities,clearly compares them so that readers can better appreciate both their differences and their similarities. VolumeI:ThePeoplesof God:Cloth $29.95 ISBN0-691-11460-9 VolumeII:TheWordsand Willof God Cloth $29.95 ISBN0-691-11461-7 Two-volume slipcaseset:$49.50 ISBN 0-691-11561-3 Due November

The Curseof Ham Race and Slavery in EarlyJudaism, Christianity,and Islam

David M. Goldenberg "A trulystunningwork and a masterpiece of its kind. [The]most comprehensive, convincing, and importantanalysis I've read on interpretationsof the famous Curse and, generally, of blackness and slavery. [Goldenberg's] research is breathtaking." -David Brion Davis, Yale University Jews, Christians,and Muslims from the Ancient to the Modern World

Cloth $35.00 ISBN0-691-11465-X Due December

The NeighborsRespond

The Controversyover the Jedwabne Massacre in Poland

Edited by Antony Polonsky and Joanna B. Michlic Neighbors-Jan Gross's account of the brutalmass murderof the Jews of Jedwabne by their Polish neighbors-was met with internationalcriticalacclaim and a great deal of shock. This book captures some of the most importantvoices in the ensuing debate. Paper $19.95 ISBN0-691-11306-8 Cloth $49.50 ISBN0-691-11643-1 DueJanuary

New in paperback

Jazz Age Jews Michael Alexander "A fascinating study.... Jazz Age Jews covers its subject without padding or pedantry.... A book that takes strong, interestingpositions on how the Jews made their way to mainstream America."-Sanford Pinsker,Philadelphia Inquirer Winnerof the NationalJewish Book Award

Paper$18.95 ISBN0-691-11653-9

PRINCETON University Press

800-777-4726 * READ EXCERPTS ONLINE WWW.PUP.PRINCETON.EDU

talmubic stornes Narrative Art, Composition, and Culture

Jeffrey L. Rubenstein Winnerofthe ewishBookCouncil's National]ewishBookAward "Rubenstein's argument is not only important, but also, I think, persuasive. This book should not be allowed to go unnoticed: in a well-trodden field like Talmudic studies one rarely gets the feeling that a major breakthrough has been achieved."-Sacha Stern, Journal of ewish Studies "Rubenstein has produced a fascinating volume ... Anyone who reads this book will find important new insights." -Gary G. Porton, Shofar $27.95 paperback

the cultute of the BaBytonian talmuo Jeffrey L. Rubenstein "Rubenstein's reconstruction of the social setting of the Bavli, building on the work of his previous book, TalmudicStories, is remarkable because there is no direct evidence for the existence of such an Academy, or the anonymous scholars who labored in it. Recovering the distinctive culture that produced the Bavli is much like recovering the setting for the redaction of the Hebrew Bible. The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud fills a critical scholarly gap and should begin a healthy and overdue discussion of the role, culture, and underestimated contributions of the redactors of the Bavli."-Michael Satlow, Brown University $42.00 hardcover

hotocaust iRepesentation Art within the Limits of History and Ethics

Berel Lang "With his profound philosophical grasp of both aesthetic and ethical issues at play in Holocaust literature and art, Berel Lang brings great clarity to the very difficult and complex issues surrounding Holocaust representation-whether by survivors or by the next generation."-James E. Young, University of Massachusetts, Amherst

*

HOLOCAUS S

"Brilliantly rethinks and redirects that flourishing new genre, the book about Holocaust writing."-Herbert Lindenberger, Stanford University "Lang'sessays, historically informed and critically astute, warrant and will amply reward the most careful reading." -Alvin H. Rosenfeld, Indiana University $19.95 paperback

The Johns Hopkins University Press

1-800-537-5487 * www.jhupbooks.com

to Escapeto Escape Manila Manila

Review Theological Harvard

FromNazi to Tyranny Japanese Terror

has been a centralforumfor

FRANK EPHRAIM Foreword by StanleyKarnow

founding in 190.

has constructeda fascinatingnarra"Ephraim tive froma richmixof archivalresearch,oral memoir. He offers history,andautobiographical us a stirring of a community of resourceportrait and ful. resilient,courageous, compassionate - Michael Shapiro, Director, individuals." Program in Jewish Culture and Society, at Urbana-Champaign of Illinois University Hardcover. S29.95

American Jewish Filmmakers SecondEdition DAVID DESSER

scholars of religion

since

its

I continues

to publish compelling original research that

contibutes

to

scholari

the. development .

un ersanding and interpretation

in the historjand philosoph of religious thought in all andperiods, traditions including: Ne

-Iv

esiament,

and LESTERD. FRIEDMAN

Thiseditionincludesa newlywrittendiscussion of the careersof currentfilm-makers including StevenSpielbergandBarryLevinson. $26.95 Paperback,

vol 97, 2004 - quarterl - issn 0017-8160

IntheShadow oftheSwastika

inst. print + e: $101

HERMANN WYGODA WYGODA EditedbyMARK Foreword Berenbaum byMichael "Thecourageandaltruism of Hermann Wygoda Jewish placehiminthe pantheonof inspirational - JerusalemPost heroesof the Holocaust." $18.95 Paperback, (800) 537-5487 -

www.press.uillinois.edu

UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS PRESS

indiv. print: $44

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS

40 west 20th street, new york, ny 10011

tel: 800.872.7423

fax: 845.353.4141

http://cambridge.org

*I.,,

rn

iijioni

iiti

urnal

oi'

Journal of Middle EastStudies TheInternational publishes original onpolitics, research intheMiddle EastFrom the societyandculture seventh to thepresent alsocovers Spain, century day.Thejournal AsiaandtheFormer south-east andpartsof South Africa, Europe, Forsubjects of relevance toMiddle Eastern civilization. SovietUnion attention is paidto the history, Particular economics, politics, of thearea studies andcultural literature, anthropology, sociology, andto comparative Each law,andphilosophy. religion, theology, 50 pagesof detailed bookreviews. issuecontains approximately Subscribers alsoreceive theMESA Bulletin Free. For: important reading Middle East Studies Association members historians economists politicians Eastern Middle specialists

* issn0020-7438 + 2 bulletins vol36,2004*quarterly + online, online onlu,$212* $245* print of MESA. existformembers *special arrangements 40 West2OthStreet tel:800.8T1.7423 BRIDGE NewYork, NewYorkUNIVERSI TY PRESS Fax: •ANM 845.353.4141 10011-4211 email: journals [email protected]

IItItp

://cIa

ink

ri

d(Iq.

n rq

0364-0094(200310)27:2;1-2

Association for Jewish studies 2003-27(2)

Association for Jewish studies 2004-28(1)

Association for Jewish studies 1997- 22(2)

Association for Jewish studies 2010- 34(2)

Association for Jewish studies 2010- 34(1)

Association for Jewish studies 2000-2001- 25

Association for Jewish studies 2009- 33(2)

Association for Jewish studies 2005-29(2)

Association for Jewish studies 2003-27(1)

Association for Jewish studies 2009- 33(1)

Association for Jewish studies 1997- 22(1)

Association for Jewish studies 1999- 24(1)

Association for Jewish studies 1998- 23(2)

Association for Jewish studies 2004-28(2)

Association for Jewish studies 2002-26(1)

Association for Jewish studies 1998- 23(1)

Association for Jewish studies 2002-26(2)

Association for Jewish studies 2005-29(1)

AJS REVIEW. VOL. 6. 1981. VI ASSOCIATION FOR JEWISH STUDIES

Studies in Jewish myth and Jewish messianism

AJS Review: The Journal of the Association for Jewish Studies (Volume 24) 2

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

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

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

Analysis of Genetic Association Studies

Feminist Perspectives on Jewish Studies

Studies in Early Jewish Epigraphy

Permutation Testing for Isotonic Inference on Association Studies in Genetics

Jewish Cultural Nationalism: Origins and influences (Routledge Jewish Studies Series)

Indonesian Islam (Asian Studies Association of a)

Association for Jewish studies 2003-27(2)

Association for Jewish studies 2004-28(1)

Association for Jewish studies 1997- 22(2)

Association for Jewish studies 2010- 34(2)

Association for Jewish studies 2010- 34(1)

Association for Jewish studies 2000-2001- 25

Association for Jewish studies 2009- 33(2)

Association for Jewish studies 2005-29(2)

Association for Jewish studies 2003-27(1)

Association for Jewish studies 2009- 33(1)

Association for Jewish studies 1997- 22(1)

Association for Jewish studies 1999- 24(1)

Association for Jewish studies 1998- 23(2)

Association for Jewish studies 2004-28(2)

Association for Jewish studies 2002-26(1)

Association for Jewish studies 1998- 23(1)

Association for Jewish studies 2002-26(2)

Association for Jewish studies 2005-29(1)

AJS REVIEW. VOL. 6. 1981. VI ASSOCIATION FOR JEWISH STUDIES

Studies in Jewish myth and Jewish messianism

AJS Review: The Journal of the Association for Jewish Studies (Volume 24) 2

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

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

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

Analysis of Genetic Association Studies

Feminist Perspectives on Jewish Studies

Studies in Early Jewish Epigraphy

Permutation Testing for Isotonic Inference on Association Studies in Genetics

Jewish Cultural Nationalism: Origins and influences (Routledge Jewish Studies Series)

Indonesian Islam (Asian Studies Association of a)

Recommend Documents