The Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees before 70 (Parts I, II & III)

THE RABBINIC ABOUT THE TRADITIONS PHARISEES BEFORE 70 PART I THE MASTERS THE RABBINIC TRADITIONS ABOUT THE PHARISE...

Author: Jacob Neusner

45 downloads 676 Views 22MB 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

THE RABBINIC ABOUT THE

TRADITIONS PHARISEES

BEFORE 70

PART I THE

MASTERS

THE RABBINIC TRADITIONS ABOUT THE PHARISEES BEFORE 70 PART I

THE MASTERS

BY

JACOB

NEUSNER

Professor of Religious Studies B r o w n University

LEIDEN E. J . B R I L L 1971

Copyright

1971 by E. j . Brill, Leiden,

Netherlands

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or translated in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, microfiche or any other means without written permission from the publisher

PRINTED IN THE NETHERLANDS

For Morton Smith

TABLE

OF

CONTENTS

Preface

XIII PART

ONE

THE MASTERS List of Abbreviations

xiv

Transliterations

xvi

I.

INTRODUCTION

II.

THE CHAINS OF PHARISAIC TRADITION

11

i. ii. iii. iv.

11 13 15 22

III.

IV.

To Lay on Hands Decrees Moral Apophthegms Conclusion

SIMEON THE JUST

24

i. Traditions ii. Synopses iii. Conclusion

24 44 57

ANTIGONUS OF SOKHO. YOSI B. YO'EZER AND YOSI B. YOHANAN

i. ii. iii. iv. V.

Antigonus of Sokho Traditions of Yosi b. Yo'ezer and Yosi b. Yohanan. Synopses Conclusion

60

60 61 77 81

JOSHUA B. PERAHIAH AND NITTAI THE ARBELITE. JUDAH B. TABBAI AND SIMEON B. SHETAH

i. ii. iii. iv. VI.

1

82

Joshua b. Perahiah and Nittai the Arbelite 82 Traditions of Judah b. Tabbai and Simeon b. Shetah 8 6 Synopses 122 Conclusion 137

SHEMA'IAH AND ABTALION

i. Traditions ii. Synopses iii. Conclusion

142

142 155 158

VIII

TABLE OF CONTENTS

VII.

YOHANAN THE H l G H PRIEST, HONI THE ClRCLER, AND OTHERS MENTIONED IN CONNECTION WITH PHARISAISM BEFORE HlLLEL

i. Yohanan the High Priest ii. Honi the Circler iii. Others VIII. MENAHEM. SHAMMAI

i. ii. iii. iv. IX.

Menahem Traditions of Shammai Synopses Conclusion

HILLEL

i. Traditions ii. Synopses iii. Conclusion X.

SHAMMAI AND HILLEL

i. Traditions ii. Synopses iii. Conclusion XI.

GAMALIEL

i. Traditions ii. Synopses iii. Conclusion XII.

SIMEON B. GAMALIEL

i. Traditions ii. Synopses iii. Conclusion XIII. OTHER PHARISEES BEFORE 70

i.

Mentioned in Connection with Shammai 1. Dositheus of Kefar Yatmah 2. Baba b. Buta 3. Yo'ezer >Ish HaBirah 4. Sadoq 5. Yohanan the Hauranite ii. Mentioned in Connection with Hillel 1. BeneBathyra 2. Gedva

160

160 176 182 184

184 185 204 208 212

212 280 294 303

303 333 338 341

342 370 373 377

377 384 386 389

389 389 389 391 392 392 392 392 392

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I X

3. Ben He He and Ben Bag Bag 392 4. Shebna 393 5. Jonathan b. 'Uzziel 393 iii. Mentioned in Connection with Gamaliel I 394 1. Admon and Hanan 394 2. Hanina b. Dosa 394 3. Yohanan the Scribe 396 iv. Others 396 1. Honi the Circler, Grandson of Honi the Circler (Abba Hilqiah) 396 2. Joshua b. Gamala 396 3. "Rabbi" Ishmael b. Phiabi and Eleazar b. Harsom 397 4. Hananiah Prefect of the Priests 400 5. Nahum the Mede and Hanan the Egyptian . . . 413 6. Zekhariah b. Qevutal and Zekhariah b. HaQassav 414 7. Measha, Nahum the Scribe, Simeon of Mispah, Judah b. Bathyra, 'Aqavyah b. Mehallel, Hananiah b. Hezeqiah b. Gorion, Abba Yosi b. Hanan, and Yohanan b. Gudgada 415

PART TWO THE HOUSES List of Abbreviations Transliterations XIV. XV.

INTRODUCTION TANNAITIC MIDRASHIM

i. ii. iii. iv. v. XVI.

Mekhilta de R. Ishmael Mekhilta de R. Simeon b. Yohai Sifra Sifre Midrash Tannaim

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA AND SOME Beraitot

i. ii. iii. iv. v. vi. vii. viii.

Zera'im Mo'ed Nashim Neziqin Qodashim Toharot Collections of Houses-Disputes in Mishnah-Tosefta Tables

xin xv 1 6

6 9 11 30 39 41

41 120 190 234 239 253 324 344

TABLE OF CONTENTS

X

PART

THREE

CONCLUSIONS List o f Abbreviations

xiv

Transliterations

xvi

XVII.

INTRODUCTION

1

X V I I I . INTERMEDIATE UNITS OF TRADITION : TYPES AND FORMS i.

A.

Standard Legal F o r m

B. C.

Testimonies Debates

D.

Narratives 1 . Historical Information in Standard Legal F o r m 2 . Epistles

ii.

iii. iv. v.

XIX.

5

Legal Traditions

3 . Ordinances 4 . Chains and Lists 5 . Precedents 6 . Contexts 7 . First-Person Accounts 8 . Illustrations and Proofs 9 . Histories o f L a w s E. Legal Exegeses 1 . Scriptural References 2 . Exegeses 3 . Proof-texts 4 . F r o m Exegesis t o Chria Aggadic Traditions A . Stories 1 . Allusions t o Stories 2 . S h o r t Biographical References 3 . Biographical and Historical Stories B. Sayings 1 . 'T'-Sayings 2 . Sayings N o t in a Narrative Setting 3. Apophthegms 4 . "Woe"-Sayings . . . 5 . Formulaic Sayings C. A g g a d i c Exegeses 1 . Scriptural References 2 . Exegeses 3 . Proof-Texts 4 . F r o m Exegesis t o Fable Summary o f Forms and Types Some Comparisons History o f Forms

5 5 1 4 1 6 .

.

.

2 3 2 4 2 5 2 5 2 7 2 8 3 1 3 3 3 5 3 8 3 9 3 9 4 0 4 2 4 2 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 5 4 7 5 5 5 6 5 6 5 9 6 1 6 1 6 2 6 2 6 2 6

6 6 6 8

3

4 4 9 9

SMALL UNITS OF TRADITION AND OTHER MNEMONIC PATTERNS . . 1 0 1 i. ii. iii.

Introduction Pericopae without Formulae o r Patterns Pericopae w i t h Formulae o r Patterns

1 0 * 1 0 6 1 1 4

TABLE OF CONTENTS

iv.

Small Units o f Tradition 1 . Fixed Opposites a. L i a b l e v s . F r e e b. Unclean v s . Clean c. P r o h i b i t v s . P e r m i t d. Unfit v s . F i t e. Midras vs. Terne-Met f. I n s i d e v s . O u t s i d e ; P a s t v s . F u t u r e ; A b o v e v s . B e l o w . 2 . Balance o f M e t e r 3 . Balance o f M e t e r and Change o f Letter v. S y n t a c t i c a l a n d M o r p h o l o g i c a l C h a n g e s E q u i v a l e n t in F u n c t i o n t o Small Units o f Tradition 1 . Tense and N u m b e r 2 . D i s t i n c t i o n v s . N o D i s t i n c t i o n {And v s . Or) 3 . Reversal of W o r d - O r d e r 4 . Statement of l a w + / — N e g a t i v e 5 . Negative Statement + Permit 6 . >P i n S e c o n d L e m m a vi. Differences i n W o r d - C h o i c e vii. Number-Sequences viii. Houses-Disputes N o t in Precise Balance ix. S u m m a r y of Small Units o f Tradition and Other M n e m o n i c Patterns

XX.

XI

1 1 9 1 1 9 120 120 122 122 123 123 124 125 126 126 126 128 129 132 1 3 4 1 3 4 136 1 3 8 140

x.

Oral Transmission: Defining the Problem

143

xi.

Oral Traditions

163

VERIFICATIONS

180

i. ii.

Introduction 180 P e r i c o p a e w i t h o u t V e r i f i c a t i o n s b e f o r e ca. 2 0 0 A . D . ( M i s h n a h Tosefta) 175

iii.

Verifications of Y a v n e h 1. Eliezer b. Hyrcanus 2. Joshua b. Hananiah 3. Eliezer + J o s h u a 4. E l i e z e r + BWT BYT DYN). (M. Hag. 2:2) The opinions are in indirect discourse, "says to lay," "says not to lay." Normally "says" is followed by direct discourse. Someone has supplied the subscription (B) that the first-named were nasis, the second-named, heads of the court, considerations which do not figure in the body of the pericope and are irrelevant to its con tents. But the pattern is not exact; the first-named always should say, not to lay on hands. Yet while Yosi b. Yo'ezer, Joshua b. Perahiah, and Judah b. Tabbai, say not to do so, Shema'iah has the wrong opinion for his position in the list. The little group at the end, HillelMenahem, then Shammai-Hillel, is also difficult. Hillel-Menahem break the pattern; the lemma is a later insertion. In fact, Hillel should say not to lay on hands, since he was supposed to have been nasi. We shall

12

THE CHAINS OF PHARISAIC

TRADITION

see a story on this very point, in which Hillel is represented as follow ing Shammai's practice. Clearly, in the pericope before us Hillel is presumed to be nasi, despite the wrong opinion. But if we drop the interpolation of Hillel-Menahem, we find what the form calls for, merely: Shammai/ Hillel: not to lay/lay, and that is surely the authentic reading according to the foregoing pattern. (Finkelstein, Mavo, p. 15, comes to the same conclusion for quite different reasons.) Therefore the original list had Shammai as nasi, Hillel as head of the court. The switch with Menahem (otherwise unknown) permits placing Hillel first, therefore makes him nasi, according to the subscription, so it becomes Hillel-MenahemShammai-Hillel. I cannot guess why Shema'iah's opinion has been reversed. In Tos. Hag., R. Meir provides a far better solution to the problem of making Hillel nasi in traditions which originally have him as father of the court. Tos. Hag. 2:8 (ed. Lieberman, p. 382-3, lines 40-44) is as follows: They differed only on the laying of hands. "They are five pairs. The three of the first pairs who said not to lay on hands, and the two of the last pairs who said to lay on hands were nasis. The second ones [mentioned] were heads of the court," so R. Meir. R. Judah said, "Simeon b. Shetah [was] nasi. Judah b. Tabbai [was] head of the court." Meir thus has five pairs: 1. Nasi (not to lay) + head of court (to lay) 2. Nasi (not to lay) + head of court (to lay) 3. Nasi (not to lay) -j- head of court (to lay) 4. Nasi (to lay) + head of court (not to lay) 5. Nasi (to lay) + head of court (not to lay) Meir's list is the same as M. Hag. 2:2 as far as Shema'iah and Abtalion. He presumably had no mention of Hillel-Menahem, for that would have made Hillel-Shammai a sixth pair. But for the last pair he had a "to lay"-Nasi in first place. Was it Shammai or Hillel? Proba bly Hillel, since the "not to lay"/"to lay" antithesis is primary to the tradition, and there seems no strong reason for changing the attribu tions. So we have two forms of the list, one which can be reconstructed from M. Hag. 2:2, the other from Meir's report. They agree for the first four pairs; for the first, the form behind M. Hag. 2:2 had Shammai not, Hillel to; while Meir had Hillel to, Shammai not. Meir's tradition can be explained as a secondary development from the other, motivat-


TRADITION

13

ed by the desire of the Hillelites to represent Hillel as head of the government, nasi. What was done to the M. Hag. tradition by insert ing the Hillel-Menahem pair before Shammai and Hillel was done in Meir's tradition by simply reversing the customary order and putting Hillel before Shammai. This is neat and may be correct, but it leaves us with a second, unanswered problem: who was Menahem and how did he get in? The possibility that the last of Meir's pairs may have been, Hillel said to lay, Menahem said not to lay, and there may have been no reference at all to Shammai—which would be understandable if we had an old list from the House of Hillel—cannot be wholly excluded. In that event Meir's list would be older and M. Hag. would represent a post-70 revision, when the Shammaites and the Hillelites, for survival's sake, combined their forces, the terms of the compro mise (here) being that Shammai's name would have precedence, but the law would in general follow Hillel. Judah [b. Ilai] differs only with reference to Judah b. Tabbai and Simeon b. Shetah. The latter, he says, was nasi. The list of M. Hag., excluding Menahem and the subscription, could not have been shaped later than the time of Meir and Judah, since both refer to it. Judah the Patriarch follows Meir, therefore has as nasis Yosi b. Yo'ezer, Joshua, Judah, Shema'iah, and Hillel. Since he thought he descended from Hillel and referred to the Bene Bathyrans' giving up their position to Hillel and making him nasi, it was natural to explain matters as he did in the subscription. But the subscription in M. Hag. 2:2 cannot come before Meir-Judah, who do not cite it verbatim. It looks like Judah the Patriarch's summary of Meir's comment; note Epstein, Mishnah, pp. 133-4.

II. DECREES

DTNY>: (1) Yosi b. Yo'ezer of Seredah and Yosi b. Yohanan of Jerusalem decreed (GZR) [the capacity to receive] uncleanness (TWM'H) upon the land of the peoples and on glassware. (2) Simeon b. Shetah ordained (TQN) a marriage-contract for the wife and decreed (GZR) [the capacity to receive] uncleanness upon metal utensils. (3) Shammai and Hillel decreed (GZR) uncleanness on hands. (b. Shab. 14b) Did not R. Ze'ira b. Abuna in the name of R. Jeremiah say, "Yosef

14


TRADITION

c

b. Yo ezer of Seredah and Yosi b. Yohanan of Jerusalem decreed uncleanness upon the land of the peoples and upon glass utensils." R. Yonah [Var.: Yuda] said, "Rabbi Judah b. Tabbi." R. Yosi said, "Rabbi Judah b. Tabbai and Simeon b. Shetah decreed uncleanness on metal utensils. "Hillel and Shammai decreed concerning the cleanness of the hands." y. Shab. 1:4 ( = y. Pes. 1:6, y. Ket. 8:11) The Babylonian herait a is a list of decrees. I assume Simeon b. Shetah's saying has been contaminated by the reference to the ordi nance (TQN) about the marriage-contract, missing in y., which is out of place here, for all are decrees and concern uncleanness. Judah b. Tabbai is absent—thus following Judah b. Ilai—and the Palestinian version supplies his name, making the list Yosi + Yosi, Judah + Simeon, and Hillel -f- Shammai, in all three instances with the nasi first, hence following Meir in Tos. Hag., and (of course) placing Hillel in the nasVs position. The absence of Joshua b. Perahiah-Nittai the Arbelite is curious. The addition of the places of origin of the Yosi's suggests that this might come after M. Hag., so I should also have expected the inclusion of the absent masters. Perhaps no one had traditions on uncleanness-decrees to attribute to the men. That guess depends upon the presumption that without considerable moti vation people did not make up what they did not have. But often they did, as we shall observe time and again (for one example, sayings attri buted to Simeon b. Gamaliel I/Gamaliel II, in fact are made up by Meir-Judah, below, Chapter Twelve). The representation of Shammai as nasi, Hillel second to him, is congruent to the stories of the (temporary) predominance of the House of Shammai and of the (later) rise of the House of Hillel to power. It also explains why the Houses-form nearly always puts the Shammaite House ahead of the Hillelite one, in conformity with the order of M. Hag. The later masters, coming long after the Hillelite hegemony had been well established by the patriarchate, appropriately doctored the earlier materials in the ways that have become evident. This explanation however takes for granted two allegations of the later Tannaim, first, that Yohanan b. Zakkai took over from Shammai and Hillel and was HillePs heir; second, that the Yavnean patriarch Gamaliel was descended from Hillel. But the allegation that Yohanan b. Zakkai was HillePs continuator first occurs in M. Avot, which, as we shall see, comes later than the M. Hag.-chain. No Tannaitic


TRADITION

15

or early Amoraic authority refers to Yohanan b. Zakkai as Hillel's disciple, and it is primarily in the highly developed traditions of ARN that Yohanan's discipleship to Hillel plays a considerable role. The beraitot of b. Suk. = b. B.B. {Development, pp. 216-221), which make something of that fact, are apt to be later than, and based upon, Avot, therefore do not change matters. More strikingly still, in all the Gamaliel-traditions—pertaining ei ther to the first or the second one—we find not the slightest allusion to the familial relationship between Gamaliel and Hillel. To the contra ry, Gamaliel II-materials persistently allege that Simeon b. Gamaliel I followed Shammaite rules, certainly an extraordinary state of affairs for the "grandson" (or great-grandson) of Hillel himself. It is more over remarkable that Simeon b. Gamaliel and Gamaliel I never occur in the Houses-materials. The heirs of Hillel (Yohanan b. Zakkai, Gama liel) and the House of Hillel on the face of it have nothing whatever to do with one another. It may therefore be anachronistic to suppose that the Hillelites predominated because Yohanan b. Zakkai and Gama liel II were the greatest student and the great-grandson of Hillel, respectively. It looks as if things were the other way around. They were given a relationship to Hillel because they came to power at a point at which the Hillelite House predominated, and the allegation that both were Hillelites was the condition of their leadership at Yavneh. Strikingly, while that allegation later was important, no one took the trouble to invent stories in which either authority ever cited "my master" or "my father" Hillel. As I said, no named authority from Hillel to Yavneh ever quotes Hillel. But the predominance of Hillelites at Yavneh is very well attested and may be regarded as an axiom. Nothing in the Tannaitic stratum of Yohanan b. Zakkaimaterials places him into relationship with either the House of Sham mai or the House of Hillel. Yohanan cites "my teachers" back to Moses, but never mentions Hillel, as early as Eliezer b. Hyrcanus (M. Yad. 4:3). This seems to me probative that the circles of Yohanan's immediate disciples had no traditions relating Yohanan to Hillel. Similarly, Gamaliel II repeatedly is given references to "the house of father," meaning Simeon b. Gamaliel I, but none to Hillel, directly or inferentially.

i n . MORAL APOPHTHEGMS

1.

A. Moses received the Torah from Sinai and handed it on to

16


TRADITION

Joshua, Joshua to the Elders, the Elders to the Prophets; and the Prophets handed it on to the men of the Great Assembly (KN$T). B. They said three things, "Be deliberate in judgment, raise up many disciples, and make a fence around the Torah." 2. Simeon the Just was of the remnants of the Great Assembly. He used to say, "On three things the world stands: on the Torah, on the [Temple-] service, and on deeds of loving kindness." 3. Antigonus of Sokho received from Simeon the Just. He used to say, "Be not like slaves that minister to the master for the sake of receiving a reward, but be like slaves that minister to the master not for the sake of receiving a reward; and let the fear of heaven be upon you." 4. Yosi b. Yo'ezer of 0Y§) Seredah and Yosi b. Yohanan of Jerusalem received from them [sic], Yosi b. Yo'ezer says, "Let your house be a meeting-house for the Sages, and sit amid the dust of their feet, and thirstily drink in their words." 5. A. Yosi b. Yohanan of Jerusalem says, "Let your house be opened wide; and let the needy be members of your house; and do not talk much with a woman." B. They said this of a man's own wife: how much more of his fellow's wife! Hence the Sages have said, "He that talks much with women brings evil upon himself, and neglects the study of the Law, and at the end he inherits Gehenna." 6. Joshua b. Perahiah and Nittai the Arbelite received from them. Joshua b. Perahiah says, "Make for yourself a master (RB), and get a fellow (HBR) [-disciple]; and judge any man with the balance in his favor." 7. Nittai the Arbelite says, "Keep far from an evil neighbor, and do not consort with a wicked neighbor, and do not despair of retribu tion." 8. Judah b. Tabbai and Simeon b. Shetah received from them. Judah b. Tabbai says, "Make not yourself like them that would influence the judges; and when the suitors stand before you, let them be in your eyes as wicked men; and when they have departed from before you, let them be in your eyes as innocent, so soon as they have accepted the judgment." 9. Simeon b. Shetah says, "Abundantly examine the witnesses; and be cautious in your words, lest from them they learn to swear falsely."


TRADITION

17

10. Shema'iah and Abtalion received from them. Shema'iah says, "Love work; and hate mastery (RBNWT), and seek not acquaintance with the ruling power (R$WT)." 11. Abtalion says, "Sages, give heed to your words, lest you incur the penalty of exile, and be exiled to a place of evil waters, and the disciples that come after you drink and die, and the name of Heaven be profaned." 12. Hillel and Shammai received from them. Hillel says, "Be of the disciples of Aaron, loving peace, and pursuing peace, loving mankind, and bringing them near to the Torah." 13. He used to say, "A name made great is a name destroyed, and he that increases not decreases, and he that learns not is worthy of death, and he that makes worldly use of the crown perishes" 14. He used to say, "If I am not for myself who is for me? And being for mine own self, what am I? And if not now, when?" 15. Shammai says, "Make your [study of] Torah [a] fixed [habit]. Say little and do much. And receive all men with a cheerful counte nance." 16. Rabban Gamaliel says, "Make for yourself a master (RB) [ = Joshua b. Perahiah's saying, above]; and keep distant from doubt; and do not tithe by guesswork." 17. Simeon his son says, "All my days I have grown up among the sages, and I have found nothing better for the person (GWP) than silence; and the expounding is not the principle, but the doing; and he that multiplies words occasions sin." 18. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says, "On three things the world stands: on truth, on judgment, and on peace, as it is written, Execute the judgment of truth and peace (Zech. 8:16)." M. Avot 1:1-18 (Compare trans. Danby, pp. 446-7; no. 13 ital. = Aramaic)

The form from no. 4 to no. 12 is fixed: the names of the two who received the Torah from the foregoing, then apophthegms assigned to each, in order. The apophthegms are always triplicates; each says (>WMR) three things. The list is heavily glossed. In no. 5, for example, we are given a qal vehomer, which then produces a saying of the sages. In no. 8, as soon as they have accepted makes specific what has already been presuppos ed by when they have departed. Its purpose is to rule out the possible

18


TRADITION

objection, "What if they have not accepted the judgment?"—a typical sort of Talmudic quibble. Abtalion's saying is not a triplicate, but the three evil consequences make up for the absence of three separate sayings. No. 3 is expanded by the affirmative revision and the gloss, thus three. Nos. 13 and 14 are added to Hillel's saying, not a gloss but a considerable interpolation of materials, some in Aramaic, occurr ing elsewhere. Now it is used to say (HYH WMR) as in nos. 2-3. Strikingly, with Hillel and Shammai the pairs cease. Also Gamaliel, standing alone, is not said to "receive" from Hillel/Shammai, nor Simeon from Gamaliel. Gamaliel's saying follows the earlier form. Simeon's does not, for it is glossed by all my days... I have found, making an apophthegm, "There is naught better" into an autobiographical comment. But the rest of the saying conforms to the earlier pattern. Then in no. 18, Simeon his son becomes Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel and is given a statement incongruent to the foregoing form. That saying is a counterpart of Simeon the Just's, though the specification of the "three things" changes, and is glossed with a Scriptural proof-text. What is striking is the persistence of the "three things" form in the sayings that come in-between. No. 18 has been tacked on to the fore going list to close with a parallel to no. 2. Simeon the Just's saying is parallel to Simeon b. Gamaliel's, which clearly represents a post-135 revision of no. 2: the Torah now is truth, a philosophizing tendency; the Temple service is now replaced by justice; and deeds of lovingkindness are replaced by peace. Morton Smith observes that the basis of "the world" is no longer the coherent "brotherhood of Israel," but the pax Romana. That this conclusion balances no. 2, and not the saying in no. 1, strongly suggests that no. 2 was originally the first saying in the list, and that the saying in no. 1 is a later addition, putting at the head of the whole list the fundamental principles of the rabbinic academy as a social form. But the fact that no. 18 was added to balance no. 2 raises the prob lem about no. 2 itself: Was it an integral part of the list? We saw that the fixed form characteristic of the list ("A + B received from them; A said [three sayings]; B said [three sayings]") begins only with no. 4. Thus on formal grounds there are strong reasons for thinking that nos. 2 and 3 were secondary accretions, and since the rabbinic tradi tions had no substantial legal materials from Simeon the Just and Antigonus—indeed, ignored Antigonus and treated Simeon primarily through legends—the case is clear. The original list began just as the rabbinic legal tradition began: with the two Yosi's. The appeal to }

19


Simeon the Just, perhaps known from Ben Sira, was motivated by the desire to attach this legal tradition to the last great member of the legitimate Jerusalem priesthood before its fall. Simeon's function is therefore the same as that of Moses etc.,—he is part of the biblical (and Ben Sira) stemma of the tradition of the law. Antigonus was put in to bridge the temporal gap between Simeon and the Yosi's—a whole century! Whence did they get him? We have no idea. Another mystery is the beginning of no. 4: the two Yosi's received from them, when the solitary Antigonus has preceded them. This pro bably is confirmation of our conjecture that Simeon and Antigonus have been added. The original referent of them will have been "the men of the great synagogue"—a single mythologumenon which bridg ed the gap from the prophets to the Pharisees. The original list was thus 1A, 4, 5A, 6, 7, 8, 9,10,11,12, and 15. That this elegant structure was broken to insert Simeon and thus claim connection with the last of the legitimate priesthood, and also to make the representation that the priesthood put the law ahead of the Temple service, indicates that the insertion was made when rivalry with the illegitimate priest hood was important, i.e. before 70, and this indication is confirmed by the fact that the Temple service is still conceived as one of the foundations of the world. So no. 2 was added before 70, and no. 3 may have come at the same time. Its development after 70 was double, as can be seen from M. Avot 2. After no. 18, M. Avot 2 begins with the yet later additions from the patriarch's circle, Rabbi, and Rabban Gamaliel III (M. Avot 2:1, 2:2ff), and then a collection of sayings of Hillel, purported ancestor of the patriarchal house, and then in Avot 2:8 comes an earlier addi tion to the list: Rabban Yohanan b. Zakkai received [the Torah] from Hillel and Shammai. This, which does have the form of the earlier entries, clearly is what has been displaced by the intervening (inserted) patriarchal material. The pre-70 list was therefore expanded by his pupils before it was taken over by the patriarchate. From the material following M. Avot 2:8 (Yohanan's pupils and their sayings) we can see how it was developed in his school, by contrast to the patriarchal development. The Mishnah combines the two traditions. The names on the lists compare as follows M. Hag.

2:2

b. Shab. 1:4

14b = y. Shab.

M. Avot Moses Joshua

1:1-18

20


Elders Prophets M e n of the Great Syna gogue Simeon the Just Antigonus of Sokho Y o s i b. Yo'ezer Y o s i b. Y o h a n a n Joshua b. Perahiah Nittai the A r b e l i t e J u d a h b. Tabbai Simeon b. Shetah Shema'iah Abtalion Hillel-Menahem Shammai-Hillel

Y o s i b . Y o ' e z e r of Seredah Y o s i b . Y o h a n a n of Jerusalem

[y.: J u d a h b . T a b b a i and] Simeon b. Shetah

Shammai Hillel [y.: Hillel a n d S h a m m a i ]

Y o s i b . Y o ' e z e r of Seredah Y o s i b . Y o h a n a n of Jerusalem J o s h u a b. Perahiah Nittai the Arbelite J u d a h b. Tabbai S i m e o n b. Shetah Shema'iah Abtalion Hillel Shammai

Gamaliel [omits: received] S i m e o n b. Gamaliel [omits: received] [2:8: Y o h a n a n b. Zakkai received f r o m Hillel a n d Shammai]

The second names in the first two pairs, Yosi b. Yohanan and Nittai the Arbelite, elsewhere are given no independent sayings whatever. They occur only in the context of the first-mentioned names, Yosi b. Yo ezer and Joshua b. Perahiah. Further, Shema'iah and Abtalion are rarely separated at all, but, except in Avot, normally appear as a pair, with remarkably few independent lemmas attributed to either the one or the other. They are given common ancestry. The first two Yosi's are not supplied with places of origin in M. Hag. M. Avot corresponds to M. Hag. where the two coincide, except in the additions of the places of origin of the Yosi's, and in the reversal of the order to Hillel-Shammai, making Hillel nasi; the subscription of M. Hag. serves the same purpose. The Babylonian version of the cleanness-decree lists does not conform. The names tacked on to the Avot-list obviously serve to complete the story back to Moses, on the one side, and to 170 A.D., on the other. Gamaliel is made the heir of Hillel's Torah. The Simeon mentioned in the beraita in b. Shab. 15a is ignored; perhaps the compiler of the Avot-list did not know that beraita. c


TRADITION

21

It is striking that, except for Hillel's (no. 13), none of the apoph thegms in the M. Avot-list ever is discussed or even referred to by Tannaim or in Tannaitic collections. By contrast, the materials in M. Hag. are reworked by Judah b. Ilai and Meir. On this basis, one can hardly propose for the Avot-apophthegms a date before Judah the Patriarch (if then). This is congruent to the fact that Hillel both as ancestor of the patriarchate and as master of Yohanan b. Zakkai first turns up in the Avot-list and becomes important thereafter. Since, as I said, no extant materials have either Simeon b. Gamaliel or Gamaliel I referring to Hillel, we may suppose that the claim of Hillel as an ancestor by the patriarchate came some time after the destruction of the Temple. My guess is that it was first alleged quite a long time later on. Judah the Patriarch's circle probably is responsi ble for the additions of Gamaliel and Simeon b. Gamaliel to the Avot list. Since that same circle also produced the genealogy linking Hillel to David—presumably because the Babylonian exilarch did the same— the link between Gamaliel I and Hillel may have come some time before Judah the Patriarch, who is the first patriarch to refer to Hillel as his ancestor. The link is to be traced to the point at which the patriarchate made peace with the growing predominance of the Hille lite House, some time soon after the destruction of the Temple. Before then the Shammaites apparently predominated within Pharisaism, and Simeon b. Gamaliel probably was one of them, which accounts for the suppression of virtually all of his legal traditions. The first point at which a Hillelite claim would have served the patriarchate therefore was the time of Gamaliel II. But, since Gamaliel II is represented as following Shammaite law (e.g. b. Yev. 15b), makes no reference to Hillel, plays no role in the Hillel-pericopae or in Hillel's House's materials, as I said, and tells how his father Simeon followed Shammai te rules, the Hillelite ancestry for the patriarchate founded by Gama liel II may not have been established until ca. 150, by which time it seems to be settled. That is the point at which Meir had to revise the form of the earlier list to make Hillel nasi. Yosi b. Halafta, Meir's contemporary, knew nothing about b. Shab. 14b, and said the decree about the uncleanness of glassware and the land of the peoples in fact was in force (with no authority given) eighty years before the destruction of the Temple. The masters cer tainly recognized that the two Yosi's long antedated Hillel and Sham mai. Therefore Yosi b. Halafta's tradition was separate from, and con tradicted, b. Shab. He presumably knew no other. It therefore may be

22


that that beraita comes well after ca. 150, as the names of Palestinian Talmud's authorities suggest. i v . CONCLUSION

The earliest chain of Pharisaic tradition probably consisted of the following names: 1. Yosi b. Yo'ezer 2. Yosi b. Yohanan 3. Joshua b. Perahiah 4. Nittai the Arbelite 5. Judah b. Tabbai 6. Simeon b. Shetah 7. Shema'iah

+ 8. Abtalion 9. Shammai 10. Hillel 11. Yohanan b. Zakkai 12. Yohanan's disciples Replaced by 13. Gamaliel 14. Simeon b. Gamaliel Of the foregoing, nos. 2 and 4 exist in the traditions only in associa tion with nos. 1 and 3; nos. 7 and 8 are always connected. As we shall see, furthermore, the relationships between nos. 5 and 6 are extremely complex, and it looks as if separate traditions of the two masters may have been put together for a post facto explanation of the union of two originally unrelated circles of disciples. We shall now consider in sequence the traditions of each of the masters on the list. The judgment of E. J . Bickerman is everywhere verified: "Un oubli general couvrit les stecles qui s'etaient ecoules entre Alexandre et Auguste, parce que personne n'avait plus interet a s'en souvenir." For the later rabbinic continuators of the 1

1

E l i e B i c k e r m a n , " L a c h a i n e d e la t r a d i t i o n p h a r i s i e n n e , " Revue biblique 5 9 , 1952, pp. 44-54; pp. 45-6.


TRADITION

23

Pharisees what happened had to be revised into what ought to have happened. They had a keen interest in the intervening period, but the likely facts of the matter—the recent origins of the Pharisaic party, probably in the second century B.C., and the Shammaite pre dominance in the party in the first century A.D. until the destruction of the Temple—were not palatable, so new facts had to be invented both to improve the picture, and to fill out its blank spaces.

CHAPTER THREE SIMEON THE

JUST

i. TRADITIONS

I.i.l. [When either a man or a woman makes a special vow, the vow of a Naîrite] to separate himself to the Lord (Num. 6:2)... Rabbi Simeon the Just said, "I ate the guilt-offering of Naziriteship (NZRWT) but one, when one came from the South, of beautiful eyes, lovely appearance, with his locks in curls. I spoke to him (N'M), 'Quickly must one (MHR >YT) [should be: MH R>YT = What did you see to, why did you] destroy beautiful hair?' "And he said (N'M) to me, 'I was a shepherd in my town. I went to fetch water from the spring. I looked at my shadow. My heart grew haughty (PHZ). It sought to remove me from the world. I said to it, 'Wicked (R$): B. Yohanan the High Priest heard an echo (BT QWL) from the house of the Holy of Holies, which was saying [in Aramaic]. "The young men who went to wage war against Antioch have conquered (NSHW TLY> D>ZLW L>GH> QRB> L'NTWKY')." C. Further the story is told concerning (M SH B) Simeon the Just, that he heard an echo from the house of the Holy of Holies, which was saying [in Aramaic], "Annulled (BTYLT) is the decree (*BYDT') which the enemy (SN H) thought to introduce (L?YYT H) into the Temple (HYKV), and [in Hebrew] Gasqelges (GSQLGS) [A. Cohen, trans.: Caius Caligula (sic)] has been slain, and his decrees have been annulled." D. They wrote down that hour and it tallied [with the time of his death]. Now it was in Aramaic that it [the echo] spoke. (b. Sot. 33a) C

y

y

Comment: The issue is raised by Rav Judah with the agreement of R. Yohanan, the contemporary Palestinian master, that one should not pray in Aramaic, for the angels do not understand it. The story con cerning Yohanan the High Priest, followed by and a further story con cerning Simeon the Just, seems to me an integral part of the composite beraita. But part D belongs after part B. Part C is an intrusion. So at the outset the elements were separate and probably circulated by them selves. III. ii.5. Needless to say [this is so of priests who ministered to] another matter. Since it says here, Needless to say [this is so of priests who minister ed to] another matter, it follows that the Temple of Onias was not an idolatrous shrine. Our Tanna thus concurs with the view of him who said that the Temple of Onias was not an idolatrous shrine. A. For it was taught (DTNY>): In the year in which Simeon the Just died, he said to them that he would die. They said to him, "How do you know?" He replied, "Every Day of Atonement an old man, dressed in white and wrapped in white, met me. He entered with me [into the Holy of Holies] and left with me. But this year an old man, dressed in black and wrapped in black, met me. He entered with me but did not leave with me." After the Festival (RGL) [of Tabernacles] he was ill for seven days and then died.

36

S I M E O N T H E J U S T — III.ii.5

And his brethren the priests forbore [to pronounce] the Name in [the priestly] benediction. B. In the hour of his departure [from this life], he said to them, "My son Onias shall assume the office [of High Priest] after me." His brother Shime i, who was two years and a half older, was jealous of him and said to him, "Come and I will teach you the order of the Temple service." He thereupon put on him a gown ('WNQLY), girded him with a girdle, placed him near the altar, and said to his brethren the priests, "See what this man promised his beloved and has now fulfilled: 'On the day in which I assume the office of High Priest, I will put on your gown and gird myself with your girdle.' " At this his brethren the priests sought to kill him. He fled from them, but they pursued him. He then went to Alexan dria in Egypt, built an altar there, and offered thereon sacrifices in ho nor of idols. When the Sages heard of this, they said, "If this is what happened [through the jealousy] of one who had never assumed the honor, what would happen [through the jealousy] of one who had once assumed the honor [and had been ousted from i t ] ! " This is the view of the events according to R. Meir. C. R. Judah said to him, "That was not what happened, but the fact was that Onias did not accept the office of High Priest because his brother Shime'i was two years and a half older than he..." (b. Men. 109b, trans. E. Cashdan, pp. 676-7) c

Comment: The context is an anonymous discussion of the status of the Temple of Onias. The responsible Tannaim obviously are Meir and Judah b. Ilai. Indeed, in this instance we are explicitly informed that the whole version of events printed here is that of Meir. There follows a completely different version of Onias's history, told by Judah. But all parties seem to agree on the story about Simeon the Just,—if they know it at all. The introductory story about Simeon comes both separate from, and before, the materials on Onias. Meir and Judah may there fore supply the terminus ante quern for part A, the middle of the second century A.D. As we have it, the beraita must be regarded as a composite of two traditions, A + B or C. It is noteworthy that the beraita A + B or A + C is not divided with a second superscription, which supports my earlier contention thatfora/te-superscriptionscould well have been sup plied in such a way as to break apart existing, unitary pericopae. Part A seems to me divided, as earlier stated, into two parts, the story of the prediction of Simeon's death, his death, and then a second item, that

S I M E O N THE J U S T — IV.i.1-2

37

the priests then ceased to pronounce the Ineffable Name. The latter is not integral to the story. It would have been better located in the list of miracles that ceased to take place after Simeon died. IV.i.l. [Concerning the high priests in the Second Temple]: Simeon the Just served forty years. R. Aha said, "It is written, Fear of the Lord augments one's days (Prov. 10:27)—these are the priests who served in the First Temple. But theyears of the wicked are diminished—these are the ones who served in the Second Temple." (y. Yoma 1:1, repr. Gilead, p. 4b) Comment: The reference to Simeon the Just's tenure in office is ano nymous. The observation of R. Aha supplies a terminus ante quern. In IV.ii.1 (b. Yoma 9a), the passage is in the name of Rabba b. b. Hana in the name of R. Yohanan, hence mid third-century for the latter, late third-century for the tradent. IV.L2.A. [Regarding the high priest's prayer on the Day of Atone ment in the Holy of Holies, it is said that he should not pray too long lest he frighten the congregation.] The story is told concerning (M SH B) one who went on a long time, and they decided to go in after him. They said it was Simeon the Just. They said to him, "Why did you go on a long time?" He said to them, "I was praying concerning the Sanctuary of your God that it not be destroyed." They said to him, "Even so, you ought not to have gone on a long time." B. Forty years did Simeon the Just serve Israel in the high priest hood. In the final year he said to them, "In this year I am going to die." They said to him, "How do you know?" He said to them, "Every year, when I would enter the House of the Holy of Holies, there was a certain old man, dressed in white and cloaked in white. He enters with me and departs (YWS*) with me. But in this year he entered with me and did not depart with me." (y. Yoma 5:2, repr. Gilead, p. 27a) C

Comment: The terminus ante quern is set by the immediately following comment: R. Abbahu was asked how it was possible for a man to enter with the high priest—or even angels with men's appearance. He replied that it was not a man but the Holy One blessed be He, Here part A of the long beraita already considered (IILii.5) stands by itself, without part C, also without mentioning the priests' ceasing to

38

S I M E O N T H E J U S T — IV.i.3

articulate the Ineffable Name (part B). More remarkable still, the pas sage does not even include a reference to the "fact" that Simeon actually died a week later. The story of the high priest who prayed too long is anonymous. Simeon's name is supplied as a gloss, because of the context. The story does not appear elsewhere. IV.i.3.A. The days that Simeon the Just was alive, it [the goat of Atonement] would not reach half-way down the mountain before it broke into pieces. When Simeon the Just died, it [the goat of Atonement] would flee to the wilderness, and the Saracens (SRQYN) would eat it. B. All the days that Simeon the Just was alive, the lot of the Name would come up in the right hand. When Simeon the Just died, some times [it would come up] in the right hand, and sometimes in the left. C. All the days that Simeon the Just was alive, the western lamp would burn. When Simeon the Just died, sometimes it would flicker out, and sometimes it would burn. D. All the days that Simeon the Just was alive, the strap of crimson would turn white. When Simeon the Just died, sometimes it would turn white, sometimes red. E. All the days that Simeon the Just was alive, the flame of the wood offering would burn strongly. When they had placed two logs of wood in the morning, they would not place [more] all day long. When Simeon the Just died, the power of the fire-offering was diminish ed, and they would not hesitate to place wood [on the fire] all daylong. F. All the days that Simeon the Just was alive, a blessing was sent on the two loaves of bread and the showbread. To each one would come about an olive's measure, and some ate and were satisfied, while some ate and left over. When Simeon the Just died, the blessing was taken from the two bread-loaves and from the showbread...(etc.) (y. Yoma 6:3, repr. Gilead, p. 33b) Comment: The context of the list of miracles that ended with the death of Simeon the Just is the Mishnah pertaining to the disposition of the sacrificial goat on the Day of Atonement. There is no close tie to the foregoing materials. The following pericope relates to a priest's taking his portion of the bread; the connection to the Simeon-list is the theme of the final item. The classification is historical: changes in Israel's supernatural situa tion following Simeon's death. The list is probably a composite, for, as we have seen, some of the items recur elsewhere, but not as part of the entire pericope before us. The details of his predicting his death and the events following it are omitted.

S I M E O N THE J U S T — IV.i.4, IV.ii.1-2

39

IV.i.4. The story is told that Simeon the Just heard an echo coming from the house of the Holy of Holies, and it said, "Gaius Goliqes [GYYS GWLYQS] is slain, and his decrees are annulled." (y. Sot. 9:13, ed. Gilead, p. 45b) Comment: The entire pericope now is in Hebrew; no Aramaic ap pears, unlike the Babylonian version of the same message. The context is set by the foregoing remark: while prophecy has ceased, Heaven still communicates through the echo. No Amoraic masters refer to the story, which is anonymous. There follows the story of the message to Yohanan the High Priest, this time in Aramaic, and further heavenly echoes are mentioned, with reference to the worthiness of Hillel, Samuel the Small, and other meritorious men, to receive the holy spirit. The story as it stands is a unity. The reference to GYYS GWLYQS is generally interpreted to mean Caligula. But this seems to me unlikely; if it is Caligula, it cannot be Simeon the Just. Or Simeon's pericope has been doctored. That accurate historical data are before us is unlikely. IV.ii.l. Rabbah b. b. Hana said in the name of R. Yohanan, "What is the meaning of the Scripture, The fear of the Lord adds days, but the years of the wicked are shortened (Prov. 10:27)?... The years of the wicked refers to the Second Temple which stood for four hundred twenty years, in which more than three hundred priests served. Deduct from them the forty years that Simeon the Just served, the eighty that Yohanan the High Priest served, the ten that Ishmael the son of Phiabi served, and some say, the eleven that Rabbi [sic] Eleazar b. Harsom served. Go and calculate—none of the remainder completed [even] his [one] year [in office]." (b. Yoma 9a) Comment: The context of the reference to Simeon is a saying of R. Yohanan transmitted by Rabbah b. b. Hana. The tradition about his forty years in office is apparently well known, presumably from Il.ii.l. Hence the latter must come before ca. 250 A.D. IV.ii.2. / did not reject them, neither did I abhor them to destroy them utterly (Lev. 26:44). Samuel said, "...neither did I abhor them—in the days of the Greeks, when I raised up for them Simeon the Just and Hashmona'i and his sons and Mattathias the high priest..." (b. Meg. 11a) Comment: Samuel's exegesis is to be dated to the middle of the third century. Clearly, Samuel imagined Simeon the Just was a contemporary of the Maccabees. Whether or not he knew the materials connecting

40

S I M E O N THE J U S T — IV.ii.3, Vl.iii.l, V L i v . l

Simeon to the time of Alexander of Macedonia I cannot say. And we do not know for certain that Samuel knew Alexander was not a contem porary of the Maccabees. Still, we may safely postulate that he did know it and hence may suppose that stories about Simeon the Just and Alexander were not available in third-century Nehardea. This seems plausible, also, because no such stories are told by a Nehardean master. All occur in Pumbedita or elsewhere, none among the authorities of Samuel's circle. But our sample is too limited for that fact to be proba tive. To be sure, Samuel may have thought "the Greeks" who troubled Israel included Alexander himself, but this would run counter to the tendency of rabbinical traditions about the Macedonian. Hence it seems more likely, as I said, that Samuel did not know the materials connect ing Alexander and Simeon the Just. IV.ii.3. Abbaye said, "Simeon the Just, R. Simeon, and R. Eleazar HaQappar are all agreed that a Naîr is a sinner..." (b. Ned. 10a) Comment: The reference to the story of Simeon the Just and the Jewish Narcissus is interpreted to show that Simeon did not approve of Nazirites. The story appears in the preceding page. It seems reasonable to suppose the story lay before Abbaye, and that the materials of b. Ned. 9b-10a were edited with reference to Abbaye's thesis, hence in fourthcentury Pumbedita. These materials need not have then received their final form, but later changes would have been minor and inconsequen tial. Otherwise, the materials as now arranged could not have served the purpose Abbaye assigned to them. Vl.iii.l. When Alexander looked at Simeon the Just, he stood on his feet. The Kuteans said to him, "Do you rise before a Jew?" He said, "When I go forth to battle, I behold his likeness, and I conquer." (Lev. R. 13:5) Comment: Here is a late citation of the brief colloquy about Alex ander's respect for Simeon, appearing entirely by itself. I do not think the rest of the story was purposely omitted. The greater likelihood is that this pericope circulated independently. VLiv.l. [Abba Saul says the high priests would make a ramp for the heifer... All were prideful.] But lo, it is taught (TNY) "Simeon the Just made two heifers, and he did not bring out the second on the ramp on which he brought out the first." Can you say of that just man that he was prideful? R. Abun in the name of R. Eleazar said, "[It was] on account of the importance of the heifer-sacrifice." (Pesiqta de Rav Kahana, ed. Mandelbaum I, pp. 73, 1.11 to 7 4 , 1 . 1 )

SIMEON THE J U S T — VI.iv.2, 3, V I . v . l , 2

41

Comment: Here is a later version of materials familiar in III.i.1. The masters are different, but the references to Simeon are the same. In fact the beraita about the two ramps built by Simeon must have been shaped before Pesiqta de R. Kahana's editor made use of it together with the colloquy of R. Abun. If R. Eleazar b. Pedat in fact referred to the beraita, then it had to have been known in early Amoraic times in Palestine. This would point to a terminus ante quern of ca. 250 A.D. VI.iv.2. When Alexander of Macedonia saw Simeon the Just, he would stand up, and say, "Blessed is the God of Simeon the Just." His courtiers said to him, "Do you rise before a J e w ? " He said to them, "When I go to battle, I see his face and conquer." (Pesiqta de Rav Kahana, ed. Mandelbaum, I, p. 75, lines 4-7) Comment: See Vl.iii.l, VLiv.3. There we learned [TMN TNYNN (Avot 1:2)], "Simeon the Righteous was of the remnants of the whole law." (Pesiqta de Rav Kahana, ed. Mandelbaum, I, p. 308, 1. 17) Comment: I do not see the connection between the above reference to Avot and the context in which it occurs. Nor do I comprehend the language, "M$YYRY KL HYLKTH." Mandelbaum merely refers to Avot 1:3, as if the above replicated the language found there. VI.v.l. R. Aha said in the name of R. Hanina: "Out of ostentatiousness, each High Priest spent as much as sixty talents of gold on the runway." "But in a beraita we are told of Simeon the Just, who [during his ministry] led out two red heifers, that even he deemed it necessary not to lead out the second on the runway upon which he led out the first. Do you dare say that such a righteous man was ostentatious?" "Indeed not," as R. Abin explained in the name of R. Eliezer, "Simeon the Just did what he did in order to lend solemnity to the preparation of the ash of the red heifer." (Pesiqta Rabbati 14:14, [trans. W. Braude, p. 291]) Comment: See VLiv.l. Braude paraphrases. VI.v.2. Alexander of Macedon, whenever he saw Simeon the Just, would stand up and say, "Blessed is the God of Simeon the Just." When his retinue reproached him, "Do you stand up in the presence

42 Simeon the Just

I Tannaitic Midrashim

1. A t e guilt-offer ing o f w o r t h y Nazirite

Sifre N u m . 2 2

2. Prepared redheifer

Il.i Mishnah

Il.ii Tosefta

IH.i

Tos. Nez. 4 : 7

y. Ned. 1 : 1 y. Naz. 1 : 5

M . Parah 3 : 5 (Meir) Tos. Sot. 1 3 : 7 a ( 2 n d cen.)

4 . C h a n g e in supernatural after death

Tos. Sot. 1 3 : 7 b (see I V . i i . l )

5. W o r l d stands o n three things

6. Met Alexander and saved Temple

M. Avot 1:3

Tannaitic M a t e r i a l s in Palestinian Gemara

Ill.ii Tannaitic M a t e r i a l s in Babylonian Gemara

IV.i Amoraic Materials in Palestinian Gemara

b. Ned. 1 0 a (Abbaye)

b. N a z . 4 b b. N e d . 9 b (Judah + Simeon)

[y. Y o m a 6 : 3 ]

b. S o t . 3 3 a (Yohanan-Judah; 3 r d c.)

y. Sot. 9 : 1 3

b. Y o m a 3 9 a - b

y. Y o m a 6 : 3

VI Later Compilations of Midrashim

N u m . R. 1 0 : 7

Pes. R. K a h .

y. Ta. 4 : 2 y. M e g . 3 : 6 (Jacob b. Aha)

L e v . R. 1 3 : 5 Pes. R. K a h . Pes. Rab.

b. Y o m a 6 9 a

y. Y o m a 1 : 1 y. Y o m a 5 : 2 (R. A b b a h u )

8. Raised u p t o meet Greek threat

b. Y o m a 9a (Yohanan3 r d c.) b. M e g . 1 1 a ( S a m u e l ; 3 r d c.)

9. Predicted o w n death

b. S o t . 3 9 b b. M e n . 1 0 9 b

10.

b. M e n . 1 0 9 b

* N o t signified as T a n n a i t i c .

V ARN

Pes. R. K a h . Pes. Rab.

7. Served forty y r s . as h i g h p r i e s t (see n o . 4 )

Onias

IV.ii Amoraic M a t e r i a l s in Babylonian Gemara

y. Sheq. 4 : 2 CUlla)

3. Heard decree was annulled

43

SIMEON THE J U S T — VI.v.2

SIMEON THE JUST — VI.v.2

y. Y o m a 6 : 3

44

SIMEON THE JUST — VI.v.2

of a Jew?" he would reply, "Whenever I go down into battle and see his visage, I am victorious." (Pesiqta Rabbati 14:15, [trans. W. Braude, p. 293]) Comment:

See VLii.l. ii. SYNOPSES

1.

Sayings Attributed to Simeon the Just

In the first classification is only one saying of apophthegmatic character, Avot 1:3 (2): Avot 1:3(2) 1. Simeon the Just was among the remnants of the Great Assembly.

y. Ta. 4:2 1. T M N TNNYN „ „ „

y. Meg. 3:6 1. „ „ „

Pes. R. Kahana 1. „ „ „ remnants of the whole law ( K L

2. H e w o u l d say, O n t h r e e things the w o r l d stands, O n the T o r a h , and o n the cult, a n d o n deeds o f l o v i n g kindness.

2.

2.

„

„

„

HYLKTH) 2.

3.

3 . A n d all 3. three are in one S c r i p t u r e , Is. 5 1

„

„

„

3.

„

„

„

Clearly the Avot saying was accurately quoted in the third century, with the addition of an appropriate exegesis, presumably sometime after the Avot-collection was widely available. The version in Pes. de R. Kahana omits the operative moral teaching. The passage probably is garbled. 2.

Stories Attributed to Simeon the Just

We have one story told in the name of Simeon the Just about himself. The form is: Simeon the Just said + story told in the first person. When other characters appear in the story, their dialogue is supplied by Simeon. Sifre Num.

22

1. 2. 3.

R a b b i S i m e o n t h e J u s t said I n e v e r ( M ' W L M ) ate the guiltoffering o f N a z i r i t e s h i p b u t o n e

Tos. Nez. 4:7 (Text: S. L i e b e r m a n , [N.Y., 1 9 6 7 ] p. 1 3 8 ) 1. 2. 3.

„ „

„ „

Tosefta

„ [ O m i t s Rabbi] „ (MYMYY)

Nashim

45

SIMEON THE J U S T — SYNOPSES

4.

W h e n one came f r o m the south,

5. o f beautiful eyes, l o v e l y appear ance 6. a n d his l o c k s h e a p e d u p i n t o c u r l s 7. I said ( N ' M ) t o h i m , Q u i c k l y m u s t ( M H R ' Y T ) one destroy beautiful hair 8. H e said ( N ' M ) t o m e 9. I w a s a s h e p h e r d in m y t o w n 10. A n d I w e n t t o fill ( M L ' ) w a t e r from the well 11. I l o o k e d at m y s h a d o w 12. and m y heart g r e w haughty (PHZ) 13. It w a n t e d t o r e m o v e m e f r o m the world. (LH'BRNY) 14. I s a i d (N>M) t o i t , E v i l o n e (R$

3. never (MYMY)—guilt-offering of a n unclean Na%ir except f o r o n e man

4 . ft7w* up to me (*LH). 5. I s a w h i m ruddy f D M W N Y ) with [Naz.: a d d s D M W T ]

10. with 11. 12. 13. 14.

,,

b. Na .

5

#

5

came t o m e ( B ) j>

»

»

arranged for him in curls

7 . I said ( ' M R ) — s o n W h a t d i d y o u see t o d e s t r o y this b e a u t i f u l h a i r ? 8. „ „ „ ['MR] 9. 10.

„ „

„ „

„ for my father „ [to d r a w , § B ]

11 12. 13. 14. 15.

m y impulse „ „ „ to drive me ( T W R D N Y ) „ „ „ „ „ „ ( ' M R ) , Base one ( R Y Q H ) On what account do you take pride in

J

46

SIMEON THE JUST —

d u s t , etc.]

16. It is i n c u m b e n t o n m e t o sanctify you to heaven 17. „ „ „ [ N a z . : I embraced a n d kissed] A

0

,

19. 20

»

»

»>

C o n c e r n i n g y o u , Scripture

says

SYNOPSES

/fo awr/*/ w h i c h is n o t y o u r s ? For your end will be with w o r m a n d m a g g o t [ O m i t s : dust] 16. By the cult [ O m i t s : Z ^ ( H R N Y ) ] »

»

»>

17. / arose and [in place o f / shaved], I said ('MR) 18. M a y s u c h Naîrites as y o u [ O m i t s : who do the will...] 19. Scripture says [Instead o f is fulfilled] 20. „ „ „

The Tosefta stands between the fully revised Babylonian beraita and Sifre Num. Important improvements include the addition of my son (no. 7), this (no. 7), impulse in place of heart (no. 12), and, most striking, the complete revision of no. 15 by which the language is greatly clarified. I have rendered SH in passive, to be made, but it may be translated to makejproduce. The unclear shaved my head of no. 16, which is poor diction, is changed to a clause in Simeon's reply, / bent my head. These changes are not fundamental, but superficial and stylistic. The several versions certainly are interdependent. The Palestinian Talmudic versions, which are close to one another, though not identi cal in all respects, on the whole follow Tosefta, as is to be expected. Story is told of Tos. no. 4 is rightly omitted, but the Yer. versions add several words: ruddy, demut. The oath it is incumbent—to sanctify occurs, only to be changed in the Babylonian beraita to the exclamatory by the cult. The reference to dust, worm and maggot is omitted in both Pales tinian Talmudic versions, perhaps not a lapse of a scribe but a definite literary choice. The most important differences are, in general, be tween the earliest version and the latest; the intermediate versions are transitional. The accounts in Sifre Num. and b. Naz. are closely related, for all differences are minor. No major element in one account is omitted in the other. But the beraita consistently supplies details left out of the version of Sifre Num., for instance unclean Nazir, explaining what Simeon the Just had against guilt offerings of Nazirs; came to me, arranged for him (addition of sedurot 16) in curls; my son added to the colloquy. The difficult language of Sifre Num., MHR >YT, which I roughly translated, jg/z/V^/)' must one, is corrected in favor of a much more lucid what did you see [= what made you, why] (i.e. MH R'YT—not much of a change). The diction is then improved with the addition of this beautiful hair. The shepherd now works for my father. Fill is replaced by draw, which settles the matter of the duplicated verbs in C

SIMEON THE J U S T —

SYNOPSES

47

the Palestinian versions (no. 10), where both roots occur. Heart is dropped in favor of impulse (YSR), possibly more colloquial. The change of TRD for BR or >BD probably is for the same reason. Like no. 7, no. 15 is improved in the beraita by the inclusion of the more complete and lucid statement, phrased in the form of a question, On what account, followed by a declarative For your end... All that survives of the Sifre version is the stock-reference to dust, worm, and maggot, and the choice of PHZ and G'H. Similarly in no. 16, the Lo is replaced by the language of a vow, By the cult. In the absence of the oath "by the Temple cult", the force of the vow is diminished; by the cult intensifies lo. The changes in nos. 17 and 18 conform to the earlier ones: I arose and Naîrites add, in the former instance, a more collo quial expression, in the latter, a more pointed reference to the sort of Nazirites Simeon hopes will multiply. The general who do the will is made more specific and precise: Nazirites. The Scripture is set into different citation-form. In Sifre Num. the Scripture is fulfilled in the Nazirite; in the Palestinian and beraita versions is found the language common in the Babylonian Talmud, "Scripture says concerning you..." It is difficult to deny that the beraita-vetsion depends, and improves, upon that in Sifre Num. Valuable details are added to the Sifre's account. The language is clarified and in several points is made to conform to rabbinical diction and word-choice. While some of the differences may represent merely different linguistic conventions (N'M/'MR), most of them enhance the Sifre version. The beraita thus comes later than the version in Sifre Num. This dependence is not merely in the general outline of the story; the differences are not in generalities but in minor details. These cannot have been independent accounts which circulated separately; the authority responsible for the beraita seems to have had the Sifre version before him. The differences between the versions of the beraita in b. Ned. and Naz. are negligible. If Sifre were dated later than the other versions, what we have called improvements would have to be regarded as corruptions of superior, earlier versions. C

3.

Stories about Simeon the Just

Of the four stories told about, or containing references to, Simeon the Just, two are historical, and two are of a miraculous, or superna tural, character, a distinction the narrator would not have recognized. The former pertain to Simeon's preparing a heifer-sacrifice and to his

48

SIMEON THE JUST —

SYNOPSES

encounter with Alexander of Macedonia. The latter are, first, the heavenly-message story, and second, the list of supernatural changes in the life of the cult, marking Simeon's death. a. Heifer M. Parah 3:5 1. W h o made them? 2. Simeon the Just and Y o h a n a n the high priest m a d e t w o each 3.

5.

6.

y. Sheq.

4:2

1. 2.

3. 'Ulla objected before M a n a , L o it is taught (TNY): 4. Simeon the Just made t w o [omits: each] 5 . He did not bring the second out on the ramp on which he brought out the first 6. ful

Can you say he was waste [etc]}

Pes. de R. 1. 2.

Kahana

3. [ H e r e : Anony mous] L o it is t a u g h t 4. Simeon the m a d e t w o heifers

Just

5 . [Identical t o y . S h e q . ]

6. C a n y o u say that just man [ e t c ] ?

The Mishnah is referred to in the later versions, but not cited verbatim. The reference to Yohanan the High Priest is deliberately omitted. This leaves a lacuna, filled in by the latest midrashic compilation with the addition of heifers. The other change, for he supplying that just man, intensifies the ironic force of the question. TNY means that the editor alludes to the Mishnah. Clearly the later materials depend upon the earlier, but they have also greatly augmented the Mishnah, by supply ing the "fact" that the high priests had wastefully constructed the ramp referred to in M. Parah 3:6, "They would construct a ramp from the Tem ple Mount to the Mount of Olives." The assumption made by the later masters is that for each sacrifice a new ramp was constructed. But this must then apply to all the priests listed in 3:5, including Simeon the Just. The problem is how to distinguish Simeon the Just, a high priest admired by rabbis, from others on that same list, who are not held in high esteem. The later history of the high priesthood is told in lurid colors by Pharisaic-rabbinic tradition. No restraints limited expression of rabbinic hostility against the late priesthood. Hence, if anyone implies all high priests did the same lavish act, Simeon must forthwith be cited to show the act was not disreputable at all. The inclusion of no. 5 is not part of the citation of the Mishnah, though it occurs under the superscription TNY. I do not know whence the beraita derives, for Tos. Par. 3:7 follows the Mishnah at the perti nent place. The inference that the ramp could not be used twice was

SIMEON THE JUST — SYNOPSES

49

drawn from M. Par. 3:5-6, but we do not know drew it, why, or when it was important to add to the anti-priestly polemic this particular detail. But at that point the problem of Simeon's inclusion in the list had to be faced. The terminus ante quern is the middle of the third century A.D. Clearly, the detail about the priests' constructing new ramps circulated separate ly from the Mishnah and was added to the beraita later on. Yet, standing by itself, it is incomprehensible, for a saying Simeon did not bring the second out... would mean nothing outside of the context of "Simeon the Just made two." The additional detail of the beraita depended upon the Mishnah, having been added later as a commentary on Mishnah 3:6, as I said. We therefore cannot regard no. 5 as an independent tradition.

b. b. Yoma 69a 1. TNY> 2. Forbidden to mourn on the 25th of Tevet, the day of Mt. Gerizim. 3. Kuteans sought per mission to destroy Temple, from Alexander. 4. He gave permission. 5. Simeon the Just wore priestly garments 6. and arranged proces sion of Israelite nobility carrying torches. 7. When morning star arose, approached Alexan der. 8. Who are these? Jews who rebelled against you. 9. At Antipatris sun came out and the processions met. 10. Alexander rose before Simeon, saying if he saw him before battle, he would" win.

Lev. R. 13:5 1. 2.

Pes. R. Kahana 1. 2.

Pes. Rabbati 1. 2.

3.

3.

3.

4. 5.

4. 5.

4. 5.

6.

6.

7.

7.

8. 9.

8. 9.

6.

8. 9. 10. Kuteans asked, Do you rise before a Jew} »

11. Why have you come? 12. You want to destroy the Temple where they pray for you and your kingdom.

Alexander

11. 12.

»

»

10. A. would 10. [As in Pes. say, Blessed is de R. Kahana.] God of Simeon the Just. Courtiers: Do you rise? A.: See face 11. 11. 12. 12.

NEUSNER, The Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees before 70, I

4

50

SIMEON THE JUST —

13. Gave Kuteans over to J e w s , w h o mutilated them and destroyed Mt. Gerizim.

13.

SYNOPSES

13.

13.

Clearly, no. 10, which interrupts the narrative of b. Yoma 69a, circulat ed separately. It was erroneously placed in the Babylonian beraita, presumably because it supplied additional information on Alexander's encounter with Simeon the Just. But it did not explain his favor to the Jews, for immediately thereafter Alexander asks them (no. 11) why the Jews have come, and only after they explain their case in terms favorable to the king does he grant their request, and, more than the request, also the right to take vengeance against the Samari tans. If the materials in no. 10 circulated by themselves, however, then they may antedate the beraita, for they fit in too well to suggest later contamination. They presumably were shaped before ca. 250 A.D., but appeared only in the late midrashic compilations. This is one instance in which the unredacted form of a story may have indepen dently circulated early, only to be written down long afterward. On the other hand, it is possible that the beraita as we have it was the only redaction of the pericope about Alexander's respect for Simeon, in which case the later midrashic compilers took only a part of it, without the slightest reference to the context in which it had originally appeared. Lev. R. presupposes the connection by including Kuteans. The Pesiqtas improve matters by substituting courtiers—leaving no problem as to the identity of the questioners.

c. Heavenly Tos. Sot. 13:7Part (13:6) 1. Simeon the heard

A Just

b. Sot.

Echo

33a

1. Further story is told ( S W B M<SH B ) of S i m e o n t h e J u s t that he h e a r d a n echo from the house of the Holy of Holies* which was sayinz

2. T h e d e c r e e is a n 9 » » » nulled ( B T Y L T ) 3. which the enemy 3 CSN'tD said ( D Y ' M I O 4. 4. to bring ( L H Y T Y H ) to the tem to bring ( L ' Y Y T ' H ) ple

y. Sot.

9:13

1. The Simeon echo from of Holies 2.

3. 4.

s t o r y is t o l d t h a t the Just heard an the house of the Holy and said

SIMEON THE J U S T — SYNOPSES

51

5. a n d Q S G L G S h a s 5» 5. G Y Y S G W L Y Q S has » >> » b e e n slain [in Hebrew] GSQLGS b e e n s l a i n [in Hebrew] 6. a n d h i s d e c r e e s a r e ^» 6. a n d h i s decrees a r e a n 99 99 99 a n n u l l e d [in Hebrew] n u l l e d [in Hebrew] [=9] 7. a n d he heard them 7. 7. in t h e A r a m a i c l a n g u a g e 8. a n d t h e y w r o t e d o w n 8. 8. t h e h o u r a n d i t tallied 9. A n d / / spoke i n t h e A r a 9. 9. maic language

N.B. Tos. Sot. 1 3 : 7 Part B

Omitted

Omitted

The pericope of Simeon-stories in Tos. Sot. 13:7 splits into two sepa rate traditions. The first tradition is represented here. The second occurs in the next synopsis (p. 52). For y. Sot. 9:13, the point of the story is that Simeon heard a heavenly echo. This version therefore excludes the Aramaic translation of the decrees (nos. 2, 3, and 4), for use of Aramaic is no issue. In other respects y. Sot. does not differ from Tos. nos. 5 and 6. The superscription is simply the story is told concerning, with no reference to a Tannaite tradent. For the Babylonian Talmud and Tosefta, on the other hand, the point of the story is that the heavenly voice spoke in Aramaic. Therefore nos. 2, 3, and 4 are in Aramaic, but these are in substance then summarized in Hebrew in nos. 5 and 6. No. 6 actually translates no. 2! The relationship of the first element in the three versions is fairly clear. The original was simply Tos. Sot. no. 1. This is augmented for editorial purposes with further in the Babylonian Talmudic account. Both the Babylonian and Palestinian Talmuds include story is told and supply the information on where the voice came from. From that point forward Tos. Sot. and b. Sot. are pretty much identical, except for the improvement of the representation of the verb to bring, and the revision of the spelling of the name of the enemy. The addition of no. 8 in b. Sot. is clearly a contamination from the foregoing account, about Yohanan the High Priest (below). The passage is quite meaningless here. No.7 in Tos. is out of place, for the point of the Tos. stories is not that the echo spoke Aramaic. That is the point in b. Sot. 33a. It is a probable contamination. The several traditions therefore serve quite separate purposes. The point is either that Simeon heard as echo, or that angels speak Aramaic, but it cannot be both. The simplest and purest version of the former is y. Sot. Tos. Sot. and b. Sot. have then been contaminated by the

52

SIMEON THE JUST —

SYNOPSES

inclusion of both tendencies, resulting in the egregious repetition of no. 2 in no. 6. If the point were that angels spoke Aramaic, the perti nent elements ought to have been Tos. Sot. nos. 1-4 and 7, or b. Sot. nos. 1-4 and 9. In neither does no. 8 fit at all. No. 1 of the Palestinian Talmudic version comes earlier than no. 1 of the Babylonian. But the relationship of the rest of the elements to one another is unclear to me. Certainly without Tos. Sot. we should have concluded that b. Sot. came after the version in the Palestinian Talmud. It would represent a thoroughgoing revision to serve the purpose of the argument for which it is cited in the Babylonian context. Hence the story would have been revised later on in Babylonia. But this supposition is impossible, since the Babylonian version is, except for no. 8, pretty much the same as the one in the Tosefta; indeed, it is almost certainly based upon it. Hence we have to postulate two quite separate versions of the pericope: Tos. + b. Sot.,or Tos. + y. Sot. The two may be based upon a common, simple story, of which nos. 5 and6 in the Palestinian Talmudic version are an accurate reminiscence. If this is so, then y. Sot. is the earliest of the three versions, followed by Tosefta, then the Babylonian based upon the Tosefta—a strange anomaly. As to the identification of the enemy referred to in no. 5 of all three accounts, we have no idea what name is here rendered into Hebrew characters. I see no profit in attempting to read Gaius Caligula into any of the consonantal representations before us. d. Tos. Sot.

2.

13:7b

Miracles

y. Yoma 6:3 1. A l l the days that Sime o n t h e J u s t w a s a l i v e , it [the g o a t ] w o u l d n o t r e a c h half way d o w n the mountain be f o r e it w a s t u r n e d i n t o b i t s . W h e n S i m e o n the J u s t died, it w o u l d flee t o t h e w i l d e r ness, and the Saracens w o u l d eat it.

b. Yoma 39a-b 1. T N W R B N N : In the forty years that Simeon the Just served—[omits goatmiracle]

„ 2 . A l l t h e d a y s t h a t S i m e o n 2. t h e J u s t w a s a l i v e , t h e l o t o f alive] the Name w o u l d come up in t h e r i g h t [ h a n d ] . W h e n Simeon the J u s t died, some t i m e s it w o u l d c o m e u p in t h e r i g h t , s o m e t i m e s in t h e left.

„

„

[Omits

All-


2*.

[2*.

see 7 * ]

3. A l l the time that Simeon the Just was alive 4. The Western lamp was continual ( T D Y R ) 5. W h e n he died 6. they w e n t and it h a d g o n e o u t 7. Afterward, some t i m e s it w e n t o u t , s o m e t i m e s it b u r n e d

3.

days»

4.

w o u l d burn ( D L Q )

4.

5* 6.

»

»

»

5. 6.

99

99

99

„

7 ' •

53

SYNOPSES

„

2*. The red strap w o u l d turn white. Henceforward, s o m e t i m e s it w o u l d t u r n w h i t e , s o m e t i m e s it w o u l d n o t t u r n w h i t e . [See y . Y o m a 7* below] 3. [ O m i t s all-alive]

burn [ = y . Y o m a ) Henceforward

7 ' •

99

99

99

7*. A l l the days that S i [7*. = 2* above] meon the Just was alive, the red strap w o u l d turn white. W h e n Simeon the Just died, s o m e t i m e s it w o u l d t u r n w h i t e , s o m e t i m e s it w o u l d turn red. A l l t h e d a y s e t c . , thefire 8 . 8. A n d t h e fire o f t h e 8 . [ O m i t s all-alive] fire o f w o o d - o f f e r i n g w a s c o n o f t h e w o o d - o f f e r i n g would w o o d - o f f e r i n g w a s strong, flame up tinual and the priests did not have to bring wood to the fire exceptfor the two logs to carry out the commandment of the wood. 9. Once they had ar 9. O n c e t h e y hadplaced two 9 . r a n g e d it i n t h e m o r n logs i n t h e m o r n i n g i n g , it w a s s t r o n g 99 99 99 ( H Y T H M T G B R T ) all day long 10. a n d t h e y w o u l d of 1 0 . 10. f e r o n it c o n t i n u a l offer ings and supplementary offerings and their drink-offerings 7*.

11. and they o n l y ad 1 1 . — 11. d e d t o it t w o l o g s o f t h e e v e n i n g offering 12. Lev. 6:5 12. t h e y a d d e d n o t h i n g all 1 2 . day l o n g [omits L e v 6 : 5 ] 13. W h e n Simeon the 1 3 . 13. 99 99 99 Just died 14. the strength (KH) 1 4 14. Henceforward, some •*• • • 99 99 99 of the fire-offering di t i m e s it w a s s t r o n g a n d m i n i s h e d (T§&) s o m e t i m e s it w a s n o t stronff 15. and they did not ,, ,, 15* „ „ ,, refrain f r o m adding w o o d all d a y l o n g

54

SIMEON THE JUST — SYNOPSES

16. A n d there was a blessing o n the t w o loaves of bread and the show-bread.

16.

17. The t w o loaves of bread w e r e d i v i d e d at t h e G a t h e r i n g (<SRT) a n d t h e s h o w - b r e a d at the festival ( R G L ) f o r all t h e w a t c h e s . 18. S o m e ate and w e r e sated, and s o m e ate a n d left o v e r 19. a n d o n l y as m u c h as a n o l i v e ' s b u l k c a m e t o each o n e . 20. W h e n Simeon the J u s t died the blessing departed... 21.

17.

b l e s s i n g sent u p o n »

»

»

16. b l e s s i n g was sent on the 2. In that year in 2 which Simeon the Just died

y. Yoma 5:2 1. 2. Forty years Simeon the Just served Israel in the high priesthood. I n t h e last y e a r , he said t o them, In this year / am g o i n g t o d i e .

3. h e said t o t h e m t h a t 3 *» in this year he w o u l d die 4. T h e y said t o h i m , 4 W h e n c e d o y o u k n o w ? ~* 5. H e said t o t h e m , 5* Every DayofAtonement an old man w o u l d meet m e , dressed in w h i t e a n d cloaked in w h i t e . 6. He w o u l d enter 6* w i t h me and leave w i t h me. 7. Today an old man 7 ' • m e t m e d r e s s e d in b l a c k and cloaked in black. He went in w i t h me but he did n o t leave w i t h

3.

y

99

99

99

99

99

99

4 99

99

99

99

99

99

99

99

99

99

99

99

99

99

99

%

~

99

99

99

5. H e said t o t h e m , E v e r y year that I w o u l d enter the house of the Holy of Holies, an old m a n „ „ „ 6«

99

99

99

7. This year h e e n t e r e d w i t h me but did not leave with me. [Omits black clothes]

me. O 8. A f t e r t h e f e s t i v a l h e °» fell ill f o r s e v e n d a y s a n d he died. 9. His brethren the 9 ' * priests held back f r o m b l e s s i n g w i t h t h e [Inef fable] name.

[As above]

8.

9.


10. W h e n he was dying, h e said t o t h e m , M y s o n O n i a s etc. [The rest o f the story ap pears o n l y here.l [11. ]

10.

[11.

— ]

55

SYNOPSES

10.

[11. C o l l o q u y o f R. A b bahu: M a n was the Holy One.]

The changes in the supernatural setting of the cult and the prediction by Simeon that he would die are as follows: Tos. Sot. 13:7b 1. Western lamp 2. Fire of wood-offering 3. Blessing o f loaves

v. Yoma 6:9 1. Goat

b. Yoma 1. Lot

2. Lot

2. Red strap

3. Western lamp

3. Western lamp

4. Red strap

4. Fire of wood-offering 5. Blessing of loaves 6. Predicted death 7 . Ineffable Name

5. Fire of wood-offering 6. Blessing o f loaves

39a-b

b. Men. 109b 1. Predicted death 2 . Ineffable Name

y. Yoma

5:2

1. Prayed too long 2. Predicted death

If we could reconstruct a single, unitary source that underlay the several pericopae, it logically would look something like this:

Day

of Atonement

Daily cult

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Prayed too long Predicted death and died Priests s t o p s a y i n g Ineffable N a m e After he died-. G o a t Lot Red Strap

7. 8. 9.

Western lamp Fire of wood-offering Blessing of loaves

Nos. 1-6 all pertain to the Day of Atonement. Nos. 7-9 stand by them selves as a comparable, but separate list of supernatural changes. Strikingly, Tos. Sot. does preserve nos. 7-9 as a separate pericope. Similarly, b. Yoma 39a-b, nos. 6-7, probably circulated separately, as seen in the identical version in b. Men. 109b. There the pericope serves to introduce the long singleton about the succession to Simeon. Palestinian Talmud Yoma 5:2 similarly supplies the Yom Kippur per icope, but without the miracles in connection with the cult of that day. That leaves the lists in y. Yoma 6:3 and b. Yoma 39a-b, in which the

56

SIMEON THE JUST —

SYNOPSES

YomKippur miracles are presented together with those of Tos. Sot.; but b. Yoma keeps the Yom Kippur materials separate from the other mira cles, while y. Yoma inserts no. 3, Western lamp, into the midst of the others. We may therefore take it for granted that Tos. Sot. does constitute a single, separate pericope. The stories about the predic tion of Simeon's death probably circulated separately as well, there fore serving diverse editorial purposes later on. To these were attach ed the detail about the Ineffable Name or the prayer that went on too long; neither was integral to the prediction-story, but both found a satisfactory place. The miracles connected with the Day of Atonement service likewise may have circulated by themselves, but in the form before us they have already been contaminated by the list of Tos. Sot. As to the relationships among the several components of the perico pae, we find that the Babylonian beraita imposed its own conventional language, as would be expected. Normally, this meant choosing words common in Babylonian rabbinical Hebrew and rendering vague de tails more precise and pointed, e.g. all the days of y. Yoma becomes in the forty years. But the substance of the several miracles varies very little between the Palestinian and Babylonian versions. The important differences are between both and Tosefta. Thus Tos. Sot. 13:7b, nos. 6, 9, 10, 11, and 17 have no close equivalent, or no equivalent at all, in either Talmudic version. The Babylonian version, to be sure, transforms the participle of y. Yoma 6:3 no. 16 into a verb, adds omer (no. 20), and makes a few other, minor alterations. But in the main Tos. presents a striking contrast to the two Talmuds' versions, and these by and large closely resemble one another. The beraita in b. Yoma 39b is unchanged in b. Men. 109b. I imagine the editor of b. Men. 109b took it from existing materials to serve as an introduction to the story of real interest to him, about the Temple of Onias. Without the foregoing materials (nos. 1-9) the story told by R. Meir could have stood by itself. The death-story in b. Yoma 39b and y. Yoma 5:2 presents some contrasts. The Palestinian Tal mudic version makes explicit the forty years, but that detail had already occurred in b. Yoma 39a-b. Perhaps the editor of the beraita saw no reason to repeat the information. Since the y. Yoma pericope stands by itself, it was natural to include the more concrete detail. Hence we cannot in this instance suppose the Palestinian version to have been more detailed or concrete than the Babylonian one. The indirect discourse of the Babylonian beraita becomes direct discourse (or vice versa) in no 2. The detail about the old man dressed in white is omitted c

SIMEON THE J U S T — CONCLUSION

57

in no. 7 of the Palestinian version. It seems to me a striking omission, and the likelihood is that the editor of the Babylonian beraita supplied it to complete the symmetry of the story. He likewise invented nos. 8 and 9; no. 8 is absolutely necessary to complete the tale—that is, Simeon actually did die. No. 9 is not essential. In any event, the Baby lonian beraita probably comes after the Palestinian version of the same story and likely depends upon it. The augmentations are not derived from a separate oral or written tradition circulating by itself, but all were provoked by literary and artistic considerations. None presents a detail of independent, historical interest.

i n . CONCLUSION

Pharisaic-rabbinic materials on Simeon the Just contain no legal materials. This is striking, since Simeon stands (with Antigonus) as the only ancient "rabbi" who left not a single legal saying. Others in the chain of tradition ruled at least on the controversy of whether or not to lay hands (M. Hag. 2:2). The stories about Simeon scarcely relate to law. Apart from the single moral apophthegm in M. Avot 1:3, we have no materials one might call theological. The rabbinic record consisted chiefly of stories about Simeon, some told by him, others recorded anonymously. The content of these stories, on the other hand, is more or less congruent with non-Pharisaic traditions on Simeon. He was high priest. He piously carried out the most solemn obligations of the high priesthood, the rites of the Day of Atonement and of the red-heifer. He enjoyed divine favor, demonstrated by his receiving heavenly mes sages and also by the supernatural events characteristic of the Temple and cult during his high priesthood. Following R. Abbahu, we may suppose Pharisaic-rabbinic tradition included the detail that God accompanied Simeon into the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atone ment. Pharisaic-rabbinic tradition was unclear as to when Simeon lived. One predominant school placed him in the time of Alexander the Great. But Samuel seemed to imagine Simeon was a contemporary of the Maccabees, and modern scholars have read the name of Gaius Caligula or even Seleucus into another pericope, Still, the traditions do not depend upon any particular historical period. But all of them point toward a Pharisaic-rabbinic memory of a noble and pious high priest. Two other bodies of tradition on a Simeon, high priest, come down

58


from other circles in antiquity. One is Ben Sira 50:1-21, at the end of the praise of famous men. Since Ben Sira lived no more than a century after the Simeon of whom he wrote, we may find "the pride of his people, Simeon the high priest, son of Onias" a reliable historical reminiscence. This Simeon repaired and fortified the Temple, improved the water supply, fortified the city, and carried out other important functions of the priestly government of Jerusalem. Ben Sira's vision of the high priest as he came out of the inner sanctuary, "like the morning star among the clouds" and his recollection of Simeon in his "glorious robe, clothed...with superb perfection...like a young cedar on Lebanon" in general are congruent to the similar Pharisaicrabbinic tradition. But that tradition in no detail reflects knowledge of the Simeon-portrait in Ben Sira. Not a single common motif, detail, or image unites the two bodies of information. Ben Sira lists no mira cles, but rather provides a portrait of the worldly priest-administrator. The rabbis' praise finds its form chiefly in miracles. Ill Maccabees 2: Iff refers to the high priest Simon, but this high priest can have nothing to do with Simeon the Just of rabbinic tradi tion. In Josephus's Jewish Antiquities (12:32, trans. Ralph Marcus, VII, p. 25, and note pp. 732-6), we find an explicit reference to our Simeon: On the death of the high priest Onias, he was succeeded by his son Simon, who was surnamed the Just because of both his piety toward God and his benevolence to his countrymen. While Josephus had supposedly studied Pharisaic tradition, he did not refer to the Avot saying, let alone to the miracle-stories. The Simeon the Just of Pharisaic-rabbinic tradition has been identi fied with Simeon I (310-291 or 300-270 B.C.) son of Onias I and grand son of Yaddua, or with Simeon II (219-199 B.C.) son of Onias II [see S. Ochser, JE XI, pp. 352-4]. In fact the traditions we have considered have been divided by various scholars among several Simeons, including Simon Maccabee and Simeon son of Gamaliel I. It serves no good purpose to speculate on the historical facts underly ing these flimsy traditions. The likelihood that any of the rabbinic traditions accurately portrays the historical Simeon the Just is nil. First, the traditions are all highly developed stories, not brief, easily memorized lemmas. None of the stories can be reduced to a simple and unadorned formula. Not a single one reveals the marks of an oral tradition which has been written


59

down and then expanded. The forms of all the materials are manifestlylate. They conform to what is entirely familiar in Tannaitic and Amo raic literature, rather than to the more primitive forms one would have reason to expect on the basis of the Houses lemmas, as we shall see. The historical Simeon presumably lived ca. 300 B.C., before the existence of the Pharisaic movement itself, so we have no reason to imagine the Pharisees had any first-hand traditions. But the rabbinic traditions we do have cannot be supposed to be based on materials of any great antiquity. Simeon, like Simeon b. Shetah, is a typical righteous priest. He therefore appears in various lists of things good priests did and marks the end of a golden age. Any list of significant rites performed under named high priests naturally will include him, along with Moses, and equally credibly. One tradition seems to me more than routine, and that is the story that Simeon heard an echo announcing a decree was annulled. As we shall see, this message is related to one that came to Yohanan the High Priest (John Hyrcanus). Josephus preserves the same saying in pretty much the same words. What has happened, therefore, is that a remarkable incident pertaining to one high priest of olden times has naturally been expanded to include Simeon. The Simeon-tradition consists of the following sorts of materials: Stories of things Simeon did and said: world stands on three things, met Alexander; Supernatural events: heard decree was annulled, changes in supernatural life of cult after death, predicted own death; Cultic reports: prepared heifer, ate Nazirite-offering. Of these sorts of materials, none is on the face of it more credible than any other. We have no reason to suppose the second-century A.D. masters had in hand more than a name, Simeon (the Just), and an interest in shaping stories about him. He joins the chain of tradition, as we have seen, in the early third century, probably not much earlier. The name was known before that time, but its importance to the Tannaim may be measured by the paucity of Tannaitic references to him: the heifer, the Nazirite story, and receiving an echo—but no laws, no exegeses of Scripture, none of the materials characteristic of authorities about whom the rabbis claimed to have substantial tradi tions. The rest of the Simeon tradition comes later, but does not change the picture.

CHAPTER FOUR ANTIGONUS OF SOKHO. AND

Y O S I B.

Y O S I B.

YO'EZER

YOHANAN

i. ANTIGONUS OF SOKHO

Apart from the apophthegm in M. Avot 1:3, the only tradition pertaining to Antigonus is as follows: ...and let the fear of heaven be upon you [as in M. Avot 1:3]—so that your reward may be doubled in the age to come. A. Antigonus of Sokho had two disciples who used to study his words. They taught them to their disciples, and their disciples to their disciples. These proceeded to examine the words closely and demanded, "Why did our ancestors see fit to say this thing? Is it possible that a laborer should do his work all day and not take his reward in the evening? If our ancestors, forsooth, had known that there is another world and that there will be a resurrection of the dead, they would not have spoken in this manner." B. So they arose and withdrew from the Torah, and split into two sects, the Sadducees and the Boethusians: Sadducees named after Sadoq, Boethusians after Boethus. C. And they used silver vessels and gold vessels all their lives—not because they were ostentatious; but the Sadducees said, "It is a tradi tion among the Pharisees to afflict themselves in this world; yet in the world to come they will have nothing." (ARNa Chap. 5, trans. Goldin, p. 39) Comment: The story has nothing to do with Antigonus himself, but explains the formation of the Sadducean and Boethusian sects. The likelihood that the other parties were born in the midst of Pharisaism and were merely heretical offshoots is slight. The pericope is a com posite. First comes the long account of the break of the disciples into conflicting parties. Second, part C, And they used, is a separate and dis tinct unit, in which the routine Pharisaic criticism of the Sadducees for their lavishness is repeated. The link to the foregoing is obvious, but artificial. Part A would have stood by itself. Part B could have been interpo lated but could not have stood separately, since a pericope consisting merely of They arose and withdrew would mean nothing. A pericope about

61

T H E Y O S I ' S — I.ii.l

the Sadducees named after Sadoq, furthermore, would have had no special interest to Pharisaic tradents. Part C therefore stands by itself as a separate and distinct unit. It may be that the opening sentence was part of the foregoing. They arose and withdrew ... and used ... But then the additional explanation comes from a tradent friendly to the Sadducees, eager to turn aside the Pharisaic critique of Sadducean ostentation by explaining that it was really for sound (to them) theological reasons. In any event we do not have any similar text, so we cannot speculate on what circulated elsewhere in other forms. We have no idea as to the time or place of the redaction of this pericope. That must depend upon more careful inquiry into the date and place of the final redaction of ARN. Finkelstein (Mavo, p. 36), argues that part C must derive from a Boethusian tradition, giving reasons similar to those adduced above: "How is it possible that the sages of the Pharisees should speak in praise of the founder of the Boethusian sect..." This passage is there fore "a remnant of Sadducean literature." If the passage was actually shaped in early times, then Finkelstein's argument seems correct. On the other hand, if ARN is the product of a much later time, when the issues separating Pharisaism from Sadduceeism had long since been forgotten, the pericope could well have been composed in utter igno rance of what Sadducees and Boethusians actually said. The author might have constructed the story from his own imagination, responding to the philosophical difficulties of Antigonus's saying, by the construc tion of a little dramatic colloquy among disciples, leading to a historical break in "the Torah." Afflicting yourself in this world and having nothing in the world to come could be an inference drawn from the question in Part A, Is it possible that a laborer should do his work... In that case the story has no historical connection with ancient Sadduceeism. II. TRADITIONS OF YOSI B. YO'EZER AND YOSI B. YOHANAN

Apart from the Avot and Hagigah chains of Pharisaic tradition, the Yosi's occur in the following materials: I.ii.l. Rabbi Eliezer says, "Uncleanness in no way pertains to liquids (M$QYN). You may know that this is so, for behold, Yosi ben Seredah [sic] gave testimony ( YD) concerning the waters [read MY for BY] of the slaughter-house, that they are clean (DKYYN). Rabbi Aqiba says... (Sifra Shemini Parashah 8:5, ed. I. H. Weiss, p. 55a) C

c

Comment: This is the first legal saying attributed to a Pharisaic master. R. Eliezer here cites materials redacted in M. *Ed. 8:4. Aqiba and Eliezer supply the earliest possible terminus ante quern. M. Ed. includes Yosi b. Yo'ezer's opinion on other legal matters as well. The text is c

l

62

THE Y O S T S — Il.i.l

imperfect, for Yosi's name is given incorrectly. The text here reads Eliezer, that is, Eliezer b. Hyrcanus. Elsewhere it is Ele'azar. The content of the legal saying is important. It concerns purity laws, which to begin with applied only in the Temple. This tends to suggest that the saying in substance is genuine, for the Pharisaic masters, be ginning with Simeon the Just, later on were associated in the mind of the movement with the Temple and its procedures. The earliest laws of the Pharisaic movement pertained primarily to Temple law, as in M. Hag. 2:2. This is only part of the Yosi-tradition on purity laws. The setting in Sifra indicates that the saying was redacted under 'Aqiban auspices. But that fact does not tell us anything about possible changes in the tradition to conform to an 'Aqiban viewpoint; I see no partisan issue in the saying. Yosi b. Yo ezer would not "originally" have said, "I testify (that) ..." Where would such "testimony" have been given, and for what pur pose? The testimony-form seems to derive from the earliest Yavnean stratum; whether it is earlier than that we cannot now know. The say ing is not merely a revision from direct to indirect discourse. What is interesting is the persistence of Aramaic formulations in sayings attri buted to the early Pharisees. If the language of the early masters was Aramaic, the language of this lemma would be a mark of authenticity. So the content and the language in this instance suggest, but do not prove, an early date for the saying. c

Il.i.l. When Yosi b. Yo'ezer of Seredah and Yosi b. Yohanan of Jerusalem died, the grapeclusters ceased (BTL), as it is written, There is not a cluster to eat, my soul desireth the first-ripe fig (Mic. 7:1). (M. Sot. 9:9) Comment: Danby gives the meaning of "grapeclusters" as "metaphor for those of outstanding merit." Third-century midrashic explanation of the word is "a man in whom is everything": What does grapeclusters (>$KWLWT) mean? Rav Judah in the name of Samuel said, "A man in whom are all things [>Y$ SHKL BW]." (b. Sot. 47b) Albeck (Seder Nashim, [Tel Aviv, 1954] p. 259) offers the same: "Men in whom are wisdom and good deeds," following b. Tern. 15b. In his extended notes, p. 393, he lists a number of references in which the same ridiculous etymology appears. S. Y. Rapaport, Êrekh Milin (Warsaw, 1914) pp. 99-105 defines it as "school, gathering place of the learned men." A further reference to grapecluster, in addition to Micah 7:1, is Is. 65:8. The sense of the Scripture is the same as in Aphrahat, Demonstration XXIII, Concerning the Grapecluster, where the "grape cluster" symbolizes the bearer of divine blessing. For Aphrahat it is the messianic blessing; for the rabbinic and Pharisaic sources it is the bearer of the true single and unified Torah, oral and written, revealed

63

T H E Y O S I ' S — II.i.2

to Moses and handed down from him to the Pharisees themselves. That "grapecluster" was lost or hidden from this time until after Aqiba, as we shall see. From that time controversies marred the formerly united and irreproachable tradition. This is spelled out in other materials. The saying is to be classified as a very late reminiscence. We do not know who originally said that the first of the pairs was also the last of the grapeclusters and drew from this the inference that the change after Yosi + Yosi was not for the better. We certainly cannot imagine that either Yosi "one day taught his disciples, 'My sons, Yosi and I are the last of the grapeclusters.'" Since that is obvious, one must ask, Who so stated and why? I do not know. But since the Yosi's stood at the head of the M. Hag. list, and since this list cannot come after ca. 140 A.D., it looks as if the responsible authority would appear in Ushan times. The setting is a collection of sayings about the end of old virtue. When murders multiplied, one rite ended; when adulterers did, an other; when the Yosi's died, the grapeclusters came to an end. Then comes an interruption about Yohanan the High Priest, presumably be cause Yosi + Yosi were understood to have been his contemporaries. The sequence resumes with the end of the Sanhedrin, followed by a long list of the deaths of ancient worthies and what ended when they died. The whole in current form cannot date from earlier than the third-century, to be sure, but in this instance we need not doubt that the list was composed of somewhat earlier materials. The editor did not consistently impose on those materials the form When X died,y ended. In any event, original teachings of the Yosi's cannot be present here. Note Epstein, Mishnah, pp. 684-5. c

II.i.2.A. For perushim (Pharisees? Separatists?) the clothes of an '-am ha ares count as suffering /^raAincleanness. For them that eat heave-offering the clothes of Pharisees count as suffering midras'-uncle&nness. For them that eat of hallowed things, the clothes of them that eat heave-offering count as suffering ^/t^r^-uncleanness. For them that occupy themselves with sin-offering water, the clothes of them that eat of hallowed things count as suffering /^/^/-uncleanness. B. Yosef b. Yo'ezer was the [most] pious (H^YD) in the priesthood, yet for them that ate of hallowed things, his apron counted as suffer ing /#/Vraj--uncleanness. (M. Hag. 2:7, trans. Danby, p. 214) y

Comment: Like the foregoing, this is to be classified as a reminiscence concerning Yosi/Yosef b. Yo'ezer. Here Yosi serves as an example of an ancient pious priest. Even the best of the virtuous old priests still served as a source of ^/^/-uncleanness. Any other name—e.g. Simeon the Just—would have served just as well. I do not imagine the saying circulated separately from the tradition about the conditions of midrasuncleanness. That is, we do not have an apophthegm about the matter

64

T H E Y O S T S — II.i.3

of /^/^/-uncleanness, only later on attached to the law. The reference to the example of Yosi is a gloss on the legal saying. The setting is a tradition about Temple uncleanness laws. To be sure, the Pharisees some time late in the Temple period asserted that Templepurity laws pertain also to the eating of unconsecrated food (hullin), but no hint of that development is in the above formulation. At best, in the context of the earlier laws in the pericope, the reference is to eating tithes and other holy offerings, but not ordinary foods. M. Hag. 3:6 concerns purity for eating or touching tithes, heave-offerings, sanctities (qddesh) and the like, so this view seems likely. We once more observe that the content of the laws attributed to early Pharisaic heroes pertains to Temple purity rules. My guess is that the Pharisees at the outset included priests who rejected the procedures of Temple priests, asserting their own views on Temple purity laws and other cultic matters (laying on of hands). Later on, Pharisaism proceeded to apply those same laws to the eating of an ordinary meal, saying the table of the Jew is like the cultic table of God. But the original disputes evidently centered on the cult itself. The view about eating ordinary food in ritual cleanness comes long after the Pharisaic group had achieved full self-consciousness, regarding itself as quite apart from the Temple group, and its own traditions as superior to those of the Temple schools; thus for Pharisaism a layman's judgment was superior to a priest's. C

II.L3.A. R. Yosi b. Yo'ezer of Seredah testified concerning ( L) (1) the Mj/7-locust (QMS') is clean (DKY), and (2) that the liquids in the Temple shambles are clean (DKYYN), and (3) that he who touches a corpse becomes unclean (YQRB LMYTH M$>B). B. And the called him "Yosah the permitter" (WQRWN LYH Y W S H SRYY>).

(M. 'Ed. 8:4, trans. Danby, p. 436) Comment: Except for the italicized words, the whole pericope is in Aramaic. Instead of the more usual TM* and THR we find S'B (mista'av) and DKY (dekhe, dekhayin). Like the language of Megillat Ta'anit, the language of Yosi's opinion is not translated into rabbinic-Mishnaic Hebrew. The Hebrew formula at the outset (H YD) is imposed by the editor of the on that day materials. But obviously Yosi's and other testimonies of the pericope derive from masters who could not have been present. We do not have definitive evidences of the fixed forms in which Pharisaic teachings were transmitted before rabbinic times, but these materials are apt to have been part of those teachings. We may readily imagine the teaching began simply Yosi b. Yoêêr said. The three-things form is followed here, with purity-laws instead of moral apophthegms. A second example is Yohanan the High Priest's abrog ations, M. M.S. 5:15. C

T H E Y O S T S — II.i.3

65

We do not know who called him "the permitter" (or lenient), or who held an opposite view, that the locust was capable of uncleanness, and that the liquids were susceptible. We may imagine someone taught that the liquids (blood, water) could receive uncleanness. The commentaries further discuss why Yosi should have ruled concerning the corpse, since Scripture (Num. 19:11,17) makes this perfectly clear. The various distinctions and explanations of course are of no interest here. We may suppose Temple priests, whose sayings were not preserved in Pharisaic tradition, held the contrary. But then why would the epithet "Yosi the permitter" have been preserved by Pharisaic tradents later on? We may regard the tradition as an accurate record of what early generations of Pharisees attributed to Yosi b. Yo ezer. Perhaps he himself as a priest issued such rulings. If he did so, it was not in the Temple, but in the party, and hence the teaching contains one of the Pharisaic disputes with the Temple authorities. Temple authorities then held the opposite, and we may assign to them both the hypothetical contrary rulings and the epithet. Presumably the Pharisaic tradents did not regard the epithet as particularly hostile, and, since it would have been known outside of their circles, they had no reason to suppress it. So Temple authorities applied a stricter rule than did the Pharisees: the locust could receive uncleanness, and purity rules did pertain to the liquids of the Templeslaughterhouse—a considerable inconvenience. The Temple in all re spects must be kept inviolable and the sanctity-rules must be applied as strictly as possible. This indeed later characterized the Sadducees in matters of purity-laws. The laws are strict, but affect only the Temple. The Pharisees tended to apply lenient interpretations to those laws, but regarded them as everywhere applicable, even in connection with com mon meals. The Essenes were equally strict, but kept the laws only in their commune, where it presumably was relatively easy to do so. As to the classification, the pericope contains an earlier legal saying by Yosi b. Yo'ezer. The Mishnaic setting, as I said, is traditions from Yavneh. The other masters in the same pericope however are not only Yavneans. In their form prior to the one before us, the sayings probably were originally given as a unit, for they consist of closely related uncleanness rules on 1. locust, 2. liquid, 3. corpse. All pertain to the chief legal issue about which Pharisaic tradition attributed teachings to the early mas ters. The unifying principle was not the legal theme by itself, but also a unifying form: three things attributed to Yosi b. Yo'ezer. To be sure, the logia may have circulated separately and only later on have been put together. If so, the earlier Pharisaic materials presumably were ex tremely brief, one-sentence, simple logia containing rules of Temple (uncleanness) law, mainly concerning matters of detail (locust, liquid). Dropping the attribution ("R. Yosi b. Yo'ezer of Seredah testified con cerning") we find the following: [YL QMS' DKY [W [D>NWN] DKYYN [W] DYQRB BMYT> MST'B [MS Kaufmann: MS'B] with the subscription: WQRW LH YWSY $RY\ The bracketed words are the connecting material. As we noted, the first connector (W L) is in Hebrew and carries forward the Hebrew redactional introduction. The redactor then has left the substance of the Yosi-saying unchanged. This again suggests that the subscription is part of a pre-Yavnean formulation. One should look for mnemonic considerations in the present lem mas, for in authentic Houses-sayings we can usually locate the rhymescheme or small units of which materials are constructed. What words or elements unite the three sayings? Clearly, DKY/DKYN joins the first and second. Otherwise they are not balanced or matched. What joins no. 3 to no. 2 is the syzygy clean\unclean\ otherwise, they too are unrelated either in subject-matter or in diction; no. 1 has six syllables, no. 2 ten, no. 3 eight, so there is no intelligible pattern or rhyme-scheme. The mnemonic principle can therefore have been the clean\clean\uncleantheme and that alone—not a very striking pattern. The Temple for centuries had carried on its affairs according to purity rules, presumably those in Scriptures as interpreted by the priests' traditions. If the Pharisees took seriously matters of detail, it must have been because Temple authorities and Pharisaic opinion sepa rated primarily on these matters. We of course do not know why the Pharisees believed that the ^//-locust was pure. For many centuries the Temple authorities presumably regarded the liquid of the slaughter house as capable of receiving uncleanness. Why just now did the Phari sees maintain otherwise? More important, why and how did it become a partisan issue? See Epstein, Mevo'ot, pp. 505-6; Mishnah, p. 181. C

Il.ii.l. It is impossible (>Y 'PSY) to set a reproach (DWPY) against any of the grapeclusters that arose for Israel from when Moses died until Yosef ben Yo'ezer of Seredah and Yosef ben Yohanan of Jerusa lem arose. After Yosef ben Yo'ezer of Seredah and Yosef ben Yohanan of Jerusalem died, and until R. Judah b. Baba arose, it is possible to set a reproach against them. (Tos. B.Q. ed. Zuckermandel, p. 362, lines 9-12) Comment: Variants give 'PSR, which I have followed in my transla tion. Other versions confirm this reading. This pericope obviously cannot date from before the middle of the second century A.D. The first clause, that it is impossible to reproach any of the grapeclusters, could have circulated separately, but it would have meant little, unless a contrasting after they died had been added.

THE Y O S T S — Il.ii.l

67

Hence the pericope is a unity. Reproach (DWPY) elsewhere means divi sion or controversy; the apparent meaning therefore is that until the last of the grapeclusters, the masters were unanimous on all things, but afterward controversy began to multiply in the Torah. This is parallel to the late Antigonus-story about the schism of the Sadducees and Boethusians. The viewpoint is consistent with M. Hag. 2 : 2 . The laying on of hands controversy began with the last of the grapeclusters. M. Hag. certainly gave rise to this saying. It is astonishing that a second-century tradition, presumably deriving from the circle of the martyred Judah b. Baba, to whom the ordination of all the surviving students of 'Aqiba is credited, should have asserted that all the generations of sages from the grapeclusters to Aqiba were reproachable. Clearly, important legal issues divided Yavneans and the later 'Aqibans. No one could have imagined that what distinguished the ancients from the moderns was the absence of controversy among the current or preceding generation. But if some other reproach than legal controversy was in mind, it is equally puzzling. We have here what seems to be a rejection of the entire Pharisaic tradition from Yosi + Yosi to, and including, Aqiba. The source is a post- Aqiban collection, so we cannot attribute to the Ishmaeleans any role whatever in shaping the tradition. The saying may be classified as a later reminiscence of the two Yosi's. It serves as an interpretation of the meaning ofgrapecluster: What ended? Irreproachability, perfection, absence of division, lack of schism. Im mediately following is the assertion that nearly all of Judah b. Baba's deeds were for the sake of heaven, except for a minor one: he violated the law against raising small cattle in Palestine. The inference is to be drawn that from the two Yosi's until Judah b. Baba, not all the deeds of the masters were for the sake of heaven—a strange allegation. My guess is that the introduction of the two Yosi's served as a con venient dividing point and nothing more. That is to say, since the grapeclusters are at issue, and since the purpose of the editor of the pericope is to assert Judah b. Baba renewed the blessing of the grapeclusters, it was natural to refer to the characterization, known from materials later placed into the Mishnah, of the two men as the end of the old line of tradition and the start of controversies. The purpose of the editor of the pericope therefore is to state that Yosi + Yosi themselves marked the end of a great era. But if, as alleged, the list of Pharisaic masters at Ushan times began with the Yosi's, then it is difficult to understand the reference to the two men as the end of something old. Rather they should be made into the start of something new; hence they should be said to be the first of the grapeclusters, a list of worthies ending with Judah b. Baba. In that case Aqiba and all the other ancients would not be listed among those not regarded as grapeclusters, but rather would be among those regarded as a model for the coming generation, a senti ment surely appropriate in Judah b. Baba's circle. The grapeclusters then should end with Judah b. Baba—and this Judah the Patriarch obvi ously could not abide. So he dropped the Toseftan materials entirely, c

c

c

c

68

T H E Y O S T S — III.i.1, III.ii.1

and ended the grapeclusters where they had formerly begun, with the Yosi's. But other versions preserve precisely this judgment. The setting is a discussion of raising small cattle in Palestine, a ruling that came long after Maccabean times. III.i.1. Mishnah: When Yosi b. Yo'ezer of Seredah and Yosef b. Yohanan of Jerusalem died, the grapeclusters ceased, as it is said, There is no grapecluster to eat, my soul desireth the first ripe fig (Micah 7:1). TNY: All the pairs (ZWGWT) that arose from the death of Moses until Yosi b. Yo'ezer of Seredah and Yosef b. Yohanan of Jerusalem arose, it is possible to set against them a reproach. Until R. Judah b. Baba arose, it is not possible to place against them a reproach. (y. Sot. 9:10, repr. Gilead, p. 44a) Comment: Now the tradition is reversed. The present "Tannaitic" for mulation of the Toseftan tradition is that the late Tannaitic generation (= Judah the Patriarch's) is reproachable, but the masters from Yosi -fYosi to 'Aqiba-Judah b. Baba were not reproachable, just as I suggested. Obviously, if the polemic has been reversed, the facts cannot have changed. If by reproach schism or division is meant, then the large cor pus of divisions of the Houses of Hillel and Shammai, of the laying on of hands controversy, and of other materials was available to demon strate the contrary. The intervening generations were demonstrably flawed, subject to reproach. Hence the Toseftan version has been de liberately changed, without reference to contrary information. The re proach of the intervening generation is turned to praise; the praise of the disciples of Judah b. Baba is turned into reproach. The setting is clear. The gemara following M. Sot. 9:9 reads, "Until R. Aqiba and all the pairs arose, there were no grapeclusters..." Then TNY, and the above follows. The gemara therefore asserts that the times from the last grapeclusters, the two Yosi's, until 'Aqiba, were irre proachable and unblemished, and following Judah b. Baba the masters again were reproachable. Hence the meaning of the TNY-passage con firms the reading of the introductory superscription as we have it. All is quite consistent. And all is quite contrary to the earlier version! But the whole thing furthermore contradicts the Mishnah to which it is attached. The Mishnah explicitly states Yosi + Yosi were the end of the grape clusters, with the implication that something good had come to an end, not that they had marked the beginning of an irreproachable chain of masters. The present version thus is contrary both to the Mishnah and to the Toseftan supplement to the Mishnah. c

III.ii.1. [Mishnah: And these are the laws stated in the upper cham ber of Hananiah b. Hezekiah b. Garon, when they went up to visit him. They took a count, and the House of Shammai outnumbered

T H E Y O S T S — III.ii.1

69

the House of Hillel. And on that day they enacted eighteen measures. Gemara: And what are the eighteen measures? We learned...one's hands.] And the hands. Did the students of Shammai and Hillel [so] decree? Shammai and Hillel decreed [it], as it is taught (DTNY>): Yosi b. Yo ezer of Seredah and Yosi b. Yohanan of Jerusalem de creed (GZR) [the capacity to receive] uncleanness (TWM'H) upon the land of the peoples and on glassware. Simeon b. Shetah ordained (TQN) a marriage-contract for the wife and decreed (GZR) [the capacity to receive] uncleanness upon metal utensils. Shammai and Hillel decreed uncleanness on hands. (b. Shab. 14b) c

Yosi b. Yo'ezer of Seredah and Yosi b. Yohanan of Jerusalem de creed uncleanness on the land of the peoples and glassware. But the rabbis of the "eighty years" [before the destruction of the Temple] did so, for R. Kahana said, "When R. Ishmael son of R. Yosi fell ill, they sent to him, 'Rabbi, tell us two or three of the things you stated in your father's name.'" "He replied, "Thus did my father say, One hundred and eighty years before the destruction of the Temple the wicked kingdom spread over Israel. "'Eightyyears before the destruction of the Temple uncleanness was imposed on the land of the peoples and glassware. "'Forty years before the destruction of the Temple the Sanhedrin went into exile and took its seat in the trade halls...'" And should you say, They [Yosi b. Yo'ezer and Yosi b. Yohanan] flourished during these eighty years also, it was taught: Hillel and Simeon Gamaliel and Simeon ruled as patriarchs during the [last] century of the Temple's existence. Thus Yosi b. Yo'ezer of Seredah and Yosi b. Yohanan were much earlier... (b. Shab. 15a) Comment: This beraita may be classified as a report of a legal decision made by the two Yosi's. We cannot accurately date it, but it cannot derive from the second century B.C., when the two masters probably were alive, for the formulation begins after Shammai and Hillel. The beraita may be compared to the laying-on-of-hands list of M. Hag. 2 : 2

70

T H E Y O S T S — III.ii.2

and Avot 1 :lff. That is, its literary form is a chain of Pharisaic tradition, pertaining now not to sacrificial practice or to moral rules but to clean ness laws (pp. 11-23). The likelihood is that the beraita before us de rives from a period after the end of the second century A.D., for it is unlikely that Yosi b. Halafta, father of Ishmael b. R. Yosi, would have framed a teaching on the imposition of uncleanness on the land of the peoples and on glassware in ignorance of a beraita alleging Yosi + Yosi were the responsible authorities. The Talmud's discussion must be re garded as completely accurate. The rabbinical tradition did recognize that the two Yosi's long antedated Hillel and Shammai, hence came many years before the final century of the Temple's existence. On the other hand, it could be that a different tradition existed along side Yosi b. Halafta's. If so, it is striking that we have no evidence of it in any corpus of traditions earlier than the Babylonian beraita. The beraita-lketztute presumably did not originate in a single place, time, or circle of masters. Some of it may actually have come from Tannaitic schools in Palestine. But in the Babylonian Talmud, beraitas frequently give evidence of having been shaped, or at least reshaped, in the Baby lonian schools themselves. The absence of a reference in an earlier com pilation of traditions to the alleged decree of the two Yosi's and the presence of Yosi b. Halafta's contrary tradition on the same matter to gether suggest that the beraita-vetsion was unknown to Yosi b. Halafta. I cannot imagine who might have invented the story, or for what purpose. No contemporary polemic seems to me to have been involved. Nor do I see a relationship to any other teachings of the two Yosi's which might have provoked the attribution to them of similar decrees on the land of the peoples and on glassware. The early decrees all per tain to Temple-cleanness, not to the extension of Temple-cleanness laws to such remote matters as the uncleanness of foreign countries, on the one hand, or to glassware, on the other. These considerations were important only when cleanness laws were observed outside of the Temple as well as within it, and when numbers of Pharisees therefore were concerned with the applicability of cleanness-rules to daily life. Only then was the ruling concerning glassware and foreign dirt conse quential. Hence I tend to doubt the accuracy of the attribution. The question remains, Why then attribute the ruling not to the sages of the "eighty years," but rather to much earlier masters ? I suspect the answer will illuminate not the early traditions on the two Yosi's, but rather the mind of some circle within the school of Judah the Patriarch. In y. Shab. 1:4, R. Yosi attributes the decree to Judah b. Tabbai and Simeon b. Shetah. The setting is a Babylonian Amoraic discussion. In its present form the beraita constitutes a chain of tradition. The actual decrees attributed to the two Yosi's may originally have been separate, but were brought together for transmission before they reached the editor of the beraita. III.ii.2. TNY*: R. Eleazar says, "Uncleanness does not pertain to liquids at all. You should know [it] for behold, Yosef b. Yo ezer of c

71

T H E Y O S F S — III.ii.3, 4 , 5

Seredah testified concerning the ^//-locust, that it is clean, and con cerning liquids (M$QYN) of the slaughter-house, that they are clean." (b. Pes. 16a) Comment: The setting is a discussion concerning the opinion of Eleazar in the context of the opinions of Meir, Judah, Yosi, and Simeon. The discussion in fact is anonymous; the Tannaim are cited, not directly quoted. Thefirstnamed Amora is Nahmanb. Isaac. The text has Ele azar, not Eliezer. But the beraita reads R \ which could produce either attri bution. See above, I.ii.l for further comment. The corpse-uncleanness is omitted. c

111.11.3. R. Eliezer says, "Uncleanness does not pertain to liquids at all. You should know [it] for lo, Yosi b. Yo ezer of Seredah testified concerning the ^//-locust, that it is clean and about liquids of the [Temple] slaughter-house (BYT MTBHY'), that they are clean." (b. Ned. 19a) c

Comment:

See I.ii.l. The setting is the same as b. Pes. 16a.

111.11.4. TNN: Rabbi Yosi b. Yo'ezer of Seredah testified concern ing the ^//-locust, that it is pure (DKN), and concerning the liquid (M$QH) of the slaughter-house, that it is pure (DKN), and that one who comes into contact with the dead, (that) he is unclean (QRB LMYT> MS'B); and they called him Yosef who permits [alternatively: Yosef the lenient]. (b. A.Z. 37a) Comment: See I.ii.l. The context is a discussion between R. Judah Nesi'a and R. Simlai. Several things have been permitted, and the warning is raised that "we shall be called a permissive court." Then the above is cited. Later on in the same setting the beraita is further dis cussed. R. Papa and others explain what locust is referred to.

111.11.5. TNN HTM: When Yosef ben Yo'ezer of Seredah and Yosef b. Yohanan of Jerusalem died, the grapeclusters came to an end. What are the grapeclusters? A man in whom are all things. And Rav Judah said in the name of Samuel, "All the grapeclusters who arose for Israel from the days of Moses until Yosef b. Yo'ezer died learned Torah like Moses our rabbi. Henceforward they did not learn Torah like Moses our rabbi." In a Mishnah we learned: There was no reproach in all the grapeclusters that arose for Israel

72

THE Y O S T S — IV.i.l, 2

from the days of Moses until Yosef b. Yo'ezer of Seredah. Hencefor ward there was reproach in them... [Here a story is told of a certain hasid in whom was found only a single matter of reproach, that he reared a small goat in Palestine, which is forbidden.] And it is an established fact with us that whereever we deal with a certain hasid, it refers to either R. Judah b. Baba or R. Judah b. Ilai. Now [these] rabbis lived many generations after Yosef b. Yo ezer. R. Joseph said, "[It is the] reproach of the laying on of hands [controversy]." But does not Yosef b. Yo'ezer himself differ with reference to the law of laying on of hands? When he differed it was in his later years, when his heart had weakened. (b. Tern. 15b-16a) c

Comment: See Il.ii.l. The setting is autonomous. There is no apparent connection with the foregoing materials. For Samuel the reproach was poor learning. R. Joseph interprets "reproach" as division or schism. The question is raised, How can we say Yosi was beyond reproach when he himself participated in controversy? Hence the meaning of DWPY, as stated above, must be schism or controversy. The reference to in a Mishnah we learned of course is inaccurate, since the materials appear in a late beraita.

IV.i.l. Did not R. Ze'ira b. Abuna in the name of R. Jeremiah say, "Yosef b. Yo'ezer of Seredah and Yosi b. Yohanan of Jerusalem decreed uncleanness upon the land of the peoples and upon glass utensils"? Rabbi Yonah said, "Rabbi Judah b. Tabbai [did i t ] . " R. Yosi said, "Rabbi Judah b. Tabbai and Simeon b. Shetah decreed uncleanness on metal utensils. Hillel and Shammai decreed concerning the cleanness [sic] of the hands." (y. Shab. 1:4, repr. Gilead p. 11a) Comment: See III.ii.1. Here we have still another discussion of the decree about uncleanness upon the land of the peoples, but this one leaves no doubt as to the role of the two Yosi's. It allows us to date the formation of the beraita (III.ii.1) at least to the time of R. Jeremiah, midfourth-century, and R. Yonah of the same period. It is clear that until then there was no well-established tradition on who was responsible for the decree.

IV.i.2. Did not R. Ze'ira, R. Abuna in the name of R. Jeremiah

T H E Y O S I ' S — IV.i.3, IV.ii.l

73

say, "Yosi b. Yo'ezer of Seredah and Yosi b. Yohanan of Jerusalem decreed uncleanness on the land of the peoples and on glass uten sils." R. Yuda said, "Judah b. Tabbai and Simeon b. Shetah decreed [uncleanness] on metal utensils. Hillel and Shammai decreed concern ing the cleanness of hands." (y. Pes. 1:6, repr. Gilead p. 6b) Comment:

See IV.i.l.

IV.i.3. [Simeon b. Shetah made three ordinances, that a man may do business with his wife's marriage-contract, that children must go to school; and he decreed uncleanness concerning glass vessels.] Did not Rabbi Ze'ra R. Abuna in the name of R. Jeremiah say, "Yosi b. Yo'ezer of Seredah and Yosi b. Yohanan of Jerusalem decreed [the capacity to receive] uncleanness on the land of the peoples and on glass utensils." Rabbi Yosi said, "R. Judah b. Tabbi [did i t ] . " Rabbi Yonah said, "Judah b. Tabbi and Simeon b. Shetah decreed concerning metal utensils, and Hillel and Shammai decreed concern ing the cleanness of hands..." (y. Ket. 8:11, repr. Gilead p. 50b) Comment:

See IV.i.l.

IV.ii.l.A. It was asked, Did the rabbis disagree with R. Simeon b. Gamaliel [re disinheriting one's wicked children] or not? Come and hear concerning: B. Yosef b. Yo e%er had a son who did not behave properly. [What follows is in Aramaic] He had a loft [full of] denarii. He rose and sanctified it [to the Temple]. C. He [the son] went and married the daughter of the wreathmaker of Yannai the King. She gave birth to a son. He [the husband] bought her a fish. When he opened it, he found a pearl in it. D. She said to him, "Do not show it to the king, for he will take it from you for a small sum of money. Go and show it to the treasurers [of the Temple]. But do not suggest the price, for it is said that making an offer to the Most High is like [actually] giving [something] to an ordinary person. But let them state its value." E. He brought it. They assessed it for thirteen lofts of denarii. They said to him, "Seven are [available], and six are not." c

74

Y o s i b. Yo'ezer and Y o s i b. Yohanan

THE YOSI'S —IV.ii.l


1. W h e n they died, grape c l u s t e r s ceased

ILi Mishnah

ILii Tosefta

IILi Tannaitic M a t e r i a l s in Palestinian Gemara

IILii Tannaitic M a t e r i a l s in Babylonian Gemara

Tos. B.Q. 8 : 1 3

y. Sot. 9 : 1 0

b. T e r n . 1 5 b - 1 6 a

3. Uncleanness o f land of peoples and glassware 4. Lay hands on sacrifice

M . Hag. 2 : 2

5. Let house be meeting place— let house be o p e n

M. A v o t 1:4-5

1 . Cleanness o f fluids in T e m p l e slaughter-house


Sifra 8 : 5 (Eliezer)

ILi Mishnah

M . <Ed. 8 : 4

ILii Tosefta


b. S h a b . 1 4 b - 1 5 a

y. S h a b . 1 : 4 y. Pes. 1 : 6 y. K e t . 8 : 1 1


IV.i Amoraic M a t e r i a l s in Palestinian Gemara

M . Hag. 2 : 7

3 . Mj//7-locust clean

M , <Ed. 8 : 4

b. Pes. 1 6 a b. A . Z . 3 7 a

4. Corpse-uncleanness

M . <Ed. 8 : 4

b. A . Z . 3 7 a

6. N e p h e w killed self


V ARN



V ARN


b. Pes. 1 6 a b. N e d . 1 9 a b. A . Z . 3 7 a - b

2. W a s most pious of priesthood, but s u f f e r e d midrasuncleanness

5. Son gave pearl to Temple


M. Sot. 9 : 9

2. Reproach against grape clusters

Y o s i b. Yo'ezer Alone

75

THE Y O S I ' S — IV.ii.l

b. B.B. 1 3 3 b

L e v . R. 6 5 : 2 7

76

THE YOSTS — Vl.i.l

He said to them, "Give me seven. As to the six, [in Hebrew] Behold, they are sanctified to Heaven!' They went and wrote, "Yosef b. Yo'ezer brought in one [loft of denarii] and his son brought in six [lofts]." F. Some say, "Yosef b. Yo'ezer brought in one, and his son took out seven." (b. B.B. 133b) Comment: The setting is an anonymous inquiry into the support for Simeon b. Gamaliel's opinion. No named tradents or masters partici pate in the discussion. The language shifts from Hebrew to Aramaic, then in the conventional form associated with the Temple transaction, back to Hebrew, given in italics. The beraita is a singleton. We have no idea when, why, or where it was written. It may be classified as a biographical narrative, and, apart from Vl.i.l, it is the only exemplum of biography in the Yosi-traditions. As it stands, parts C, D, and E form a single, unified narrative. Part F is tacked on as a revision of E. But it could not have circulated separately, for it would have meant little outside of the context of some story, if not this one, unless as an allusion. On the other hand, it certainly has the resonance of a pithy saying. The superscription, part A, stands quite separately. The problem is part B. It now serves to introduce the story of Yosef's son, who is not named. But had part C begun, The son of Yosef b. Yo*e%er married the daughter of... then the introductory clause would have been superfluous. Then part E refers back to part B. I sup pose that parts B and C could have generated a quite separate story than that in parts C and D. Vl.i.l.A. Yaqim of Serurot was the nephew of R. Yosi b. Yo'ezer of Seredah. He was riding on his horse. He went before the beam on which he [Yosi] was to be hanged. He said to him, "See the horse on which my master has set me, and see your horse on which your master has set you." He said to him, "If he does thus to those that anger him, how much the more [good will he do to] those that do his will." He said to him, "Has any man done his will more than you?" He said to him, "If so to those that do his will, how much the [worse will he do to] those that anger him." The matter pierced him like the poison of a snake, and he went and brought on himself the four modes of death inflicted by the court: stoning, burning, decapitation, and strangulation. B. What did he do? He brought a post and planted it in the earth, raised around it a wall, and tied on it a cord. He made a fire in front

77

THE YOSI'S — Vl.i.l

of it and set a sword in the middle [of the post]. He hanged himself on the post, and the cord was burned through, and he was strangled. The sword caught him, while the wall [of stones also] fell on him, and he was burned. C. Yosi b. Yo'ezer of Seredah dozed and saw his bier flying through the air. He said, "By a brief hour has he preceded me to the Garden of Eden." (Gen. R. 65:27, ed. Theodor-Albeck, II, pp. 742 1. 5 through 744,1.1 = Midrash on Psalms 11:7, Braude, I, pp. 166-7) Comment: This is a singleton, appearing in a late compilation, with no connections in theme or in detail to any antecedent traditions on Yosi b. Yo'ezer. We do not know how the story was shaped and have no idea whatever as to the sources of Yosef b. Yo^zer's supposed mar tyrdom. As it stands, the story stands quite apart from, and outside of, the other traditions on Yosef b. Yo'ezer. Had Yaqim been associated with any other ancient worthy, it would have made no difference for the substance of the story, which apparently is an echo of one of the several 'Aqiba martyrdom-legends. Part B is interpolated, a gloss ex plaining the foregoing. The identification of Yaqim of Serurot with Alcimus of I Mace. 7:16 and the further allegation that Alcimus was Yosi's nephew (!) are groundless; the various historical opinions based on that identification are absurd. in. SYNOPSES

A. 1.

c

Yosi b. Yo e%er and Yosi b. Yohanan

Reproach against Grapeclusters

Tos. B.O.

8:13

1. A l l the grapeclusters t h a t a r o s e f r o m Israel f r o m w h e n Moses died until Y o sef b . Y o ' e z e r o f S e r e d a h and Y o s e f b. Y o h a n a n o f Jerusalem

y. Sot.

1.

9:10

TNY:

(ZWGWT) »

>»

»

b. Tern. 15b-16a 1*. A n d R a v J u d a h said in the name o f S a m u e l , A l l the grapeclusters „ „ „ f r o m the days of Moses until Yosef

Pairs

b. Yo*e%er died would learn Torah like Moses our rabbi. Thenceforward, they did not learn Torah like Moses our rabbi. 1. T N Y ' : A l l the grape clusters t h a t a r o s e f o r Israel f r o m the days o f M o s e s u n t i l Y o s i b . Y o e z e r died {

78

THE YOSI'S —

2. It is not p o s s i b l e t o place r e p r o a c h against them. 3. A n d until arose J u d a h b. Baba 4. It is p o s s i b l e t o p l a c e against t h e m reproach

2.

SYNOPSES

It is p o s s i b l e

3 99

99

99

[ o m i t s : and] 4. It is not p o s s i b l e

2. There was not in them a n y reproach 3. 4. Thenceforward, in them reproach

there was

The Tos. has been much garbled in transmission to the Babylonian beraita, no less so to the Palestinian version. As to the latter, we have already observed that the sense of the tradition has been reversed. The beraita begins with the teaching in Samuel's name about study of Torah, followed by TNY* as in 1* above. It seems to represent at best a paraphrase of Tos. Yosi b. Yohanan has been dropped in both parts of the Babylonian Talmudic version; Judah b. Baba (no. 3) is likewise omitted here, but is referred to in the immediately following Talmudic discussion. This proves that the beraita originally contained no reference to him, for if it had, the subsequent discussion, aimed at showing Judah is referred to, would have been superfluous. The Babylonian beraita thus has drawn the sting from the Judah b. Babatradition, by leaving the impression that while the end of the grape clusters concluded old-time virtue, no particular sage later on can be credited with reverting to that former glory. Without the praise of Judah b. Baba as the restorer of ancient merit, the beraita has been deprived of its former contemporary relevance. It stands merely as an untendentious supplement to the grapecluster-Mishnah. I imagine the beraita was shaped after the version in Tos. B.Q., indeed after Rav Judah (d. 299), the language of whose citation of Samuel suggests that the original formulation of Tos. B.Q. was un known. Had it been known to Rav Judah (Samuel), he would have directly referred to it and would not have offered his own formulation, involving study of Torah, of the change in the history of the grape cluster. Alternatively, Samuel-Rav Judah did know Tos. B.Q., but, because of its political aspect (Judah b. Baba), preferred to formulate it in other, quite original, but neutral terms. But the beraita in any event accomplished the same end. It may, to be sure, have been formulated after the Judah b. Baba-version and circulated independently thereafter. The omission of Yosi/Yosef b. Yohanan later on could not have been consequential. He was merely a name on a list. No one had ties to him or direct access to traditions originally deriving from him.

THE YOSTS —

2.

79

SYNOPSES

Uncleanness of Land of Peoples and Glassware.

b. Shab. 14b 1. DTNY'

2. Yosi + Yosi 3. decreed uncleanness 4. on the land of the peoples 5. a n d o n glass ware 5*.

6. Simeon b. Shetah ordained (TQN) 7. marriage-set tlement for a wife 8. and decreed uncleanness o n metal utensils 9. Shammai and Hillel decreed 10. uncleanness o n the hands

y. Shab. 1:4 1. Did not R. Ze'ira b. A b u n a in R . J e r e m i a h ' s n a m e say 2. Yosef + Yosef 3 4 5»

1.

Ze'ira » 2. 3

not R.

R.

n

»

5»

»

5*

6. And S i m e o n b. S h e t a h decreed

6.

1.

7. 99

99

9 . Hillel and Shammai „ „ 10

„

Yosi +

Yosi

2. 3

Yosi +

Yosi

99

99

99

>>

»

99

4 »

»

>»

5*

5*. R . Y o s i said, J u d a h b. Tabbi R. Y o n a h said, J u d a h b. Tabbi and Simeon b. Shetah decreed... [ = y. Shab.]

6.

[As a b o v e ]

7. »

99

99

o

»

9 . Hillel and Shammai „ „ 10. cleanness 99

„

»

»

99

y.Ket. 8:11 1. Did not „

Abuna

4

5*. R. Y o n a h said, Judah b. Tabbai

8»

Did

°*

„

99

99

99

9. Hillel and Shammai „ „ 10. cleanness 99

99

„

99

What the Babylonian Talmud knows as a beraita allegedly formulated by Tannaim is available to the Palestinian Talmud only in the names of fourth-century Palestinian Amoraim from Babylonia (Jeremiah, Ze ira). Apart from the marriage-contract (no. 7), the materials are nearly identical in all important matters. Variations are in such minor details as the names Yosi/Yosef. The Palestinian versions are virtu ally identical with one another, b. Shab.'s S + H is the better order; and uncleanness (no. 10) must be more accurate than cleanness, which makes no sense. But the inclusion of no. 7 is irrelevant to decrees on purity laws—indeed, the language TQN is substituted, obviously unsatisfactorily, for GZR, otherwise used throughout. Alternatively, the beraita before us has been contaminated by materials from other sources. c

80

THE YOSI'S — SYNOPSES

B.

c

Yosi b. Yo e%er Alone

1. Cleanness of Fluids in Temple Sifra

8:5

M. 'Ed.

8:4

Slaughter-house

1. Rabbi Eliezer says

1.

b. Pes. 16a 1. WHTNY':

2. Uncleanness ( T W M ' H ) etc.

2.

Ele'arar 2

3. Y o u should k n o w t h a t it is s o

3.

3.

4.

4.

that] 4

for behold,

Y o s i b. Seredah testified c o n c e r n ing 4* #

5.

BYMTBHY'

b. Ned. 19a 1. [As b. Pes.]

b. A.Z. 37a 1. DTNN

2

2.

99

[ O m i t s : for

' *

[Omits:

99

99

99

99

99

3.

[ A s b. Pes.]

3.

4.

[As b. Pes.]

4 ~*

99

99

4*. „

„

99

behold; A d d s : b. Yo<e er] „ „ „ Z

4 * . o n *ayilQMS> D K Y 5. a n d o n fluid o f the slaughter

4*. 5.

DKN

4*.

MSQYN

5.

[As b. Pes.] [As b. Pes.]

DKN

5.

MSQH

6.

DKN

house (M$QH B Y T MTBHY') 6. that [they are] pure (DKYYN).

6. t h a t they are pure ( D ' Y N W N DKYN)

6» »> DKN

7.

7. A n d that one w h o touches a c o r p s e is i m p u r e (WDYQRB BMYT> M§T>B)

7.

7.

7. [As in Mishnah] LMYT> MS'B

8.

8. And they called h i m Y o s i the lenient (WQRW LH Y W S Y §RY')

8.

8.

8. [As in Mishnah] LYH

»

»

6«

99

99

99

YWSP

The citation of the Mishnah in b. A.Z. 37a is accurate and reveals only minor variations, none of which changes the meaning. The beraita-versions of b. Pes. and b. Ned are identical. Both differ markedly from the Mishnah in omitting nos. 7 and 8. But the real comparison is between Mishnah and Sifra. Sifra is shorter, leaving out all but the question of fluids (nos. 5-6). The rulings however pertain to unclean ness. I suppose the Mishnah preserves the earliest formulation of the saying, that is, the full list in Aramaic. Then Sifra presents merely part of it, for R. Eliezer's purposes. To be sure, the brief citation (nos. 5-6) could have been an independent tradition, circulating quite separately from the list of three Yosi-rulings supplied by M. Ed. In any event the entire list in M. Ed. now forms a unified pericope. Two of the three rulings are lenient and are so characterized at the end (no. 8). The whole is set into an editorial form of the Yavnean c

c

THE YOSTS — CONCLUSION

81

period, yet, as I suggested, the actual formulation, best preserved in the Mishnah, may well date back to earlier times. i v . CONCLUSION

At the outset we must distinguish between the corpus of Yosi + Yosi sayings, and that in which the two masters stand separately. Yosi b. Yo'ezer by himself is the subject of six stories or sayings; the pericope of M. <Ed. produces three of these. In addition we have a reference to him as "the most pious of the priesthood," and two very late stories about him. The two Yosi's are linked only in the several chains of Pharisaic tradition: M. Sot., Avot, Hag., and the beraita in b. Shab. 14b. Yosi b. Yohanan of Jerusalem otherwise is completely ignored. Yosi b. Yo'ezer thus left one set of three sayings which may in fact be genuine. To this point, we may characterize early Pharisaic heroes as priests. Their traditions were primarily rules on ritual cleanness and the sacri ficial cult, both for Temple purposes. Antigonus of Sokho is an exception. What is exceptional about him is that he occurs in the Avot-list, in which the priestly connection or cultic interest of the early Pharisees is obscured, and moral teachings substituted. Antigonus is an anomaly, but, because of the paucity of evidence outside of the Avot-chain, not a very important one. Later Pharisaism clearly saw the advent of the pairs, beginning with the two Yosi's, as a significant turning, but whether this was to the good or otherwise was unclear. The decrees attributed to the two Yosi's pertaining to uncleanness of foreign lands and the capacity of glassware to be susceptible to uncleanness, and their rulings on laying on hands in sacrifice, all at first were primarily considerations for the Temple and its cult. Yosi b. Yo'ezer's laws are consistent with this pattern, for they concern Temple fluids and other cleanness rules. The other references to, and stories about, both men or about Yosi b. Yo ezer alone are late and not very credible. We find no hint that one held office higher than the other, e.g. president {Nasi) and vicepresident of some Sanhedrin. That issue is imposed on M. Hag. 2:2 by Judah the Patriarch's subscription. The Yosi-traditions would not have given rise to the supposition that the Pharisaic offices were at issue in listing the names of the early masters. The traditions likewise supply no hint of the existence of such offices—or, indeed, of a Phari saic "party," sect, or movement. c

CHAPTER FIVE J O S H U A B. P E R A H I A H JUDAH

AND

B. T A B B A I A N D

NITTAI THE SIMEON

B.

ARBELITE. SHETAH

i. JOSHUA B. PERAHIAH AND NITTAI THE ARBELITE

Nittai the Arbelite occurs only in M. Avot and M. Hag. In addition, we have four traditions on Joshua b. Perahiah, who further appears in the magical bowls found at Nippur (see my History of the Jews in Babylonia, V. Later Sasanian Times [Leiden, 1969], pp. 235-241). Il.ii.l.A. Joshua b. Perahiah says, "Wheat that comes from Alexan dria is [capable of becoming] unclean on account of its baling machine ('NTLY') [which sprinkles water on the wheat]." B. The sages said, "If so, let it be unclean for Joshua b. Perahiah and clean for all Israel." (Tos. Maksh. 3:4, ed. Zuckermandel, p. 675, lines 21-3) Comment: Still another ruling on purity laws, this pericope falls with in the classification of legal sayings. The form [Rabbi] X says is standard later on. The pericope is in a list of rulings on susceptibility to unclean ness on account of the application of fluids. The pericope may be com posite, for part A could have stood alone. Part B introduces as a col loquy the response of the sages, but this, lacking to him, looks tacked on. The language is good Mishnaic Hebrew. I imagine that had a ruling been preserved in Joshua b. Perahiah's own words, it would have con formed to the Aramaic noted in connection with Yosi b. Yo ezer. This pericope, if authentic, has been translated into the usage conventional later on. But we have no way to date it. Epstein, Mev6*ot, p. 510, takes for granted its antiquity; Mishnah, pp. 1153-4: sages said is "early style." c

III.ii.1. TNW RBNN: Always let the left hand thrust away and the right hand draw near...not like R. Joshua b. Perahiah who thrust one of his disciples away with both hands. (b. Sot. 47a) Comment: This is an allusion to the story of Joshua b. Perahiah and Jesus, to be dated after the story became well-known.

83

J O S H U A — III.ii.2, I V . i i . l

III.ii.2. It was taught (TNY*): A. R. Joshua b. Perahiah said, "At first whoever says to me, 'Go up/ I should bind him and put him in front of the lion. Now whoever says to me, 'Go down/ I should pour over him a kettle of hot water." B. For [we see that] Saul [at first] shunned [the throne], but, after he had taken it, he sought to kill David. (b. Men. 109b, trans. E. Cashdan, p. 678) Comment: The beraita is an autobiographical form for a moral apoph thegm. It follows the long beraita (cited above, p. 35) about the death of Simeon the Just and the foundation of the Temple of Onias by his son. The thematic connection to the foregoing is the reference to Alexandria. At this point stories about sages who went there follow. But the story does not say Joshua b. Perahiah was associated with Alexandria. We must assume the editor was familiar with the beraita, or at least the tradition, about Joshua b. Perahiah in Alexandria and therefore selected this saying for inclusion with the Onias-Temple story. The beraita could have circulated independently. We do not know where or why it was framed, or how the editor knew anything at all about Joshua. I imagine he would have known the M. Avot and Hag. lists, so would have been aware that Joshua b. Perahiah had held high office. But any other name on those lists would have served. Hence the attribution is not necessarily random. Part B certainly is not integral to the saying and probably was tacked on later. IV.ii.l.A. What was the incident with R. Joshua b. Perahiah? B. When Yannai the King killed the rabbis, Simeon b. Shetah was hidden by his sister, while R. Joshua b. Perahiah and Jesus fled to Egyptian Alexandria. C. When there was peace, Simeon b. Shetah sent, "From me, Jeru salem, the Holy City, to you, Alexandria in Egypt: O my sister, my husband [Joshua] dwells in your midst, and I remain desolate" D. He arose and came back and found himself in a certain inn ( W§PYZ>). They paid him great respect. He said, "How beautiful is this *aksania? / " [ = inn or inn-keeper]. E. One of his disciples [MSS: Jesus] said to him, "Rabbi, her eyes are narrow" He replied, "Wicked person! Do you occupy yourself with such [a thought]?" He sounded four hundred horns [ = shofar-bl&sts] and excommunicat ed him. He came before him many times. C

84 JOSHUA —IV.ii.l JOSHUA J o s h u a b. Perahiah Alone


ILi Mishnah

ILii Tosefta


Tos. Maksh.

1. Alexandrian w h e a t unclean

IILii Tannaitic Materials i n Babylonian Gemara

b. S o t . 4 7 a b. S a n h . 1 0 7 b

3. H a r d t o r e l i n quish h o n o r

b. M e n . 1 0 9 b

and Nittai the Arbelite


ILi Mishnah

1. Ordinationcontroversy

M . Hag. 2 : 2

2. M o r a l sayings

M. A v o t 1:6-7


ILii Tosefta

IV.ii Amoraic Materials in Babylonian Gemara

- IV.ii.l V ARN

VI Later

85

Compilations of Midrashim

3:4

2. J o s h u a d r o v e Jesus away

Joshua b. Perahiah


He [Jesus] said, "Receive me." But he [Joshua] refused to take notice. F. One day while he [Joshua] was reciting the Shema , he [Jesus] came before him. He planned to receive him. He made a sign to him with his hand. He [Jesus] thought he [Joshua] was [again] repelling him. He went and set up a brick and worshipped it. G. He said to him, "Repent" H. He answered him, "Thus have I learned from you: Whoever sinned and caused others to sin is deprived of the power of doing penitence" I. A Master has said, "Jesuspractised magic and deceived and led Israel as tray?' (b. Sot. 47a, trans. A. Cohen, pp. 247-8 = b. Sanh. 107b, trans. H. Freedman, p. 736 n. 2) c

Comment: The above appears in the uncensored versions of the Babylonian Talmud. I followed the text in R. Rabbinovicz, Variae

IILii Tannaitic Materials i n Babylonian Gemara

(b. S a n h . 1 0 7 b )


IV.ii Amoraic Materials in Babylonian Gemara

V ARN


Lectiones in Mischnam et in Talmud Bahylonicum (Repr. N.Y., 1960), vol. XI, Sanhedrin, pp. 339-340, and revised the above-cited translation to conform to Rabbinovicz's text. The referent of part A is the beraita quoted above. That does not mean the narrative is necessarily later than the beraita, for it may be a literary convention to introduce further ex planatory matter by means of questions. Indeed, the beraita presupposes knowledge of some such story as this. Classified as a biographical narrative, the pericope is set in a collec tion of beraitot about accepting penitents, particularly with reference to Elisha and Gehazi. Then comes supplementary discussion about Gehazi. Finally, the editor reverts to the above narrative, beginning with part A. Part B must now be integral to what follows. Without it we have no knowledge of why Joshua went to Egypt, or on what basis Simeon called him back. The message in part C is in a mixture of Hebrew and Aramaic, as is the rest of the story. Hebrew passages are in italics. They conform to the rule that discourse between master and disciple tends to be in Hebrew, narrative material in Aramaic. Parts D, E, F, G, and H are all a unity. No detail is superfluous; none could have been comprehensible out of context. No element in the dialogue echoes

86

JUDAH AND

S I M E O N — I.i.l

a pre-existing logion, except part I, obviously a subscription, an inde pendent logion now attached to the foregoing story because of its thematic relevance. Part I is apt to be the earliest element in the as semblage. (It is quoted verbatim by Justin Martyr, see W. A. Meeks, Prophet-King [Leiden, 1968] p. 56.) The story cannot in any form date before ca. 100 A.D., and may de rive from later times. Perhaps parts B and C circulated earlier and sepa rately, as part of a corpus of traditions on early Pharisees and their lives, or, in the case of part B, of famous communications between Pharisees. Sending Joshua to Alexandria probably served a purpose apart from bringing him back with Jesus; many MSS omit and Jesus in part B. We may therefore speculate that a pre-existing tradition about Joshua in Alexandria may have been revised to serve the purpose of the antiChristian polemic. Tos. Maksh. would represent an element of that tradition. In its current form, the story is smooth and probably the product of a single hand, perhaps working with elements earlier told for other purposes.

II. TRADITIONS OF JUDAH B. TABBAI AND SIMEON B. SHETAH

I.i.l.A. Once (KBR) Simeon b. Shetah sentenced to death [one false] witness [against whom an] alibi [had been established] ( D ZWMM). Judah b. Tabbai said to him, "May I [not] see consolation if you did not shed innocent blood, for the Torah said that you may sentence [a murderer] to death on the evidence of witnesses, and [also] you may sentence witnesses to death on the basis of an alibi. Just as there must be two witnesses giving evidence, so also must be two against whom an alibi is established." B. And once (WKBR) Judah b. Tabbai entered a ruin and found a slain man still writhing, and a sword still dripping blood [was] in [text: from] the hand of the slayer. Said Judah b. Tabbai to him, "May [evil] come upon me if [it be] not [true that] either I or you have killed him. However, what can I do, since the Torah has said, At the mouth of two witnesses ...shall a matter he established (Deut. 19:15)? But he who knows [all], [even] master of [the] thoughts [of man], will exact punishment of that man." Hardly had he come out [from that place] when a serpent bit him [that man], and he died. (Mekhilta Kaspa III, lines 31-41, ed. and trans. Lauterbach, III, pp. 170-1) C

JUDAH AND


87

Comment: The pericope is a biographical account, illustrating a point of law. But the law is not enunciated here. In both instances the irony is underlined: even though the false witness and the murderer ought to be punished, the law will not permit it. I do not think the stories are in tended as a critique of the law, or that they derive from circles holding a contrary opinion of what the law ought to be. The setting is a commentary on E x . 23:6-12. No Tannaite tradents are mentioned in connection with the pericope. Immediately preceding comes this story (trans. Lauterbach, III, pp. 169-70): S u p p o s e t h e y see h i m p u r s u i n g his f e l l o w - m a n t o k i l l h i m w i t h a s w o r d in his h a n d . T h e y say t o h i m , " K n o w y o u t h a t t h e m a n y o u a r e after is a s o n o f t h e c o v e n a n t , a n d t h e T o r a h h a s said, Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed ( G e n . 9 : 6 ) ? " B u t h e says t o t h e m , "I k n o w a b o u t all t h a t . " T h e w i t n e s s e s t h e n l o s e s i g h t o f h i m . A f t e r a w h i l e , h o w e v e r , t h e y find t h e o n e w h o h a d b e e n p u r s u e d slain b u t still w r i t h i n g , a n d b l o o d d r i p p i n g f r o m t h e s w o r d in t h e h a n d o f t h e p u r s u e r . I m i g h t u n d e r s t a n d t h a t h e s h o u l d b e d e c l a r e d g u i l t y . B u t it says, A.nd the innocent and righteous slay thou not.

There follows "Once Simeon b. Shetah sentenced to death..." The two stories look suspiciously alike. What they have in common is, first, the stock phrase, slain but still writhing, and blood dripping from the hand of the pursuer. The point of both stories, second, is that the law contains anomalies; a murderer cannot always be punished, for circumstantial evidence is insufficient. But the first story stresses that the murderer was properly warned and acknowledged the warning, details absent from the Judah b. Tabbai-version. And the Judah-story adds the detail that the man actually was punished by Heaven, so one should not be disturbed at the inability of the earthly court always to carry out justice, since the heavenly court will take up the slack. It is clear that the stories are, if separate, interrelated. The Judah-story is more specific and con crete. Its conclusion is far more satisfactory. It looks as if the generalized version comes first and has been revised. The pericope clearly is composite. Part A stands separate from part B and bears little relation to it, other than the obvious thematic one. The criticism is Judah b. Tabbai's against Simeon b. Shetah. In all other versions the situation is reversed. We must therefore suppose either that a tradition favorable to Judah b. Tabbai circulated, part A, only to be revised by tradents favorable to Simeon b. Shetah, or the contrary. Because the roles are reversed, not only here but in discussions on which of the two men was nasi and which was head of the court, it is certain that someone has intentionally reversed the names. The Judahgroup's version of the anonymous story comes as part B. Simeon's version of the miscarriage of justice appears elsewhere, where Simeon tells Judah he has killed an innocent man, that is, Judah b. Ilai's version, not Meir's, and the one Judah the Patriarch accepted. Two separate traditions are now brought together:

JUDAH AND


I. Miscarriage of justice II. Circumstantial evidence. Both schools preserved both stories. Judah b. Tabbai's circle gave the former (part A), as I said, as a criticism of Judah against Simeon, and presumably added Judah's name in part B in place of the anonymous version of II. Simeon b. Shetah's school gave the former (I) as Simeon's critique of Judah. Perhaps the story about circumstantial evidence in which no one is mentioned comes from them as well. To be sure, the anonymous story did not necessarily originate among Simeon's stu dents. Since the Judah-version came later, it may have had no connec tion at the outset to Simeon. But it surely would have been preserved by them instead of the Judah-version, so the end-result is not much changed. We do not have sufficient evidence on the history of Pharisaic circles, houses, or schools before Hillel to speculate on why or how these par ticular materials took shape. Perhaps the two masters did teach disci ples, and later on the materials were amalgamated in collected tradi tions of early Pharisees. In the amalgamation the stories of the respec tive disciple-circles were put together, so that in the end the two men were represented as having worked together, one as head of the court, the other as nasi. They were further represented as having headed a single, united party. But the representation required the preservation of the traditions of each circle, and we consequently have duplicated versions of the same "event." This theory presupposes that the stories are very early, despite the absence of the marks of oral transmission. If the stories come later on—after 70—then they would suggest that the names of Judah and Simeon proved important to Tannaitic authorities at Usha, therefore provoking partisan accounts of the early masters. We may take for granted that part B is of no historical use. Part A purports to describe a murder trial. The legal issue involved is rules of testimony affecting such a trial. This represents the first tradition attri buted by rabbis to early Pharisees in which something other than cultic rules of purity is at issue. The conduct of murder trials may well have been in the hands of the high priesthood, however, so we cannot regard part A as a tradition necessarily pertaining to other than Temple priests. But, as I said, it is thefirsttradition that does not necessarily derive from priestly or Temple circles. Still, the law which it contains is not enun ciated in the usual abstract form, but merely is taken for granted. Since the story in which the version of Judah b. Tabbai's school ap pears occurs only in the Ishmaelean collection, one must note that all the versions in which Simeon b. Shetah predominates derive from 'Aqiban collections. This fact would be of greater consequence, if, in the case of the former subordinated figures among the pairs, e.g. Yosi b. Yohanan, Nittai the Arbeb'te, we had similar evidence that stories favoring the lesser of the figures were preserved in Ishmaelean circles. We have no such stories, and we can say nothing about the Ishmaelean attitude toward heads of the court (in later parlance). All we can say is that the assignment of one of the pairs to be nasi and the other to be head of

JUDAH AND

S I M E O N — I.ii.l

89

c

the court is characteristic of 'Aqiban and post- Aqiban collections. The one point at which we observe the contrary—or a confusion of tradi tions—is in the sole Ishmaelean tradition. Perhaps the revision and cre ation of pre-70 history that took place in Yavneh and Usha involved some sort of partisan debate on the relative value of traditions deriving from various schools and circles. But most of the materials we have now come down to us in the form the 'Aqibans gave to them. I cannot think of what motive Aqibans would have had to downgrade Judah b. Tabbai-traditions in favor of Simeon b. Shetah ones. But it is a fact that they did so. In this regard Meir consistently espoused the Mekhiltan view of Judah b. Tabbai; Judah b. Ilai favored Simeon b. Shetah's circle's view of matters, so the revisions evidently derive from Usha. But they cannot be later than that. Note M. Makkot 1:6, Tos. Sanh. 6:6. c

I.ii.l. A. And I shall give you rains in their season—on the evenings of the Sabbaths [when people stay home]. B. The story is told concerning (M SH B) in the days of Simeon b. Shetah, in the days of Shelomsu [SLMSW] the queen, that the rains came down from one Sabbath evening to the next, until the wheat became like kidneys, the barley like olive-pits, and the lentils like golden denars. C. And the sages tied up some of them and set them aside for coming generations, to make known how much [loss, damage] sin causes, to fulfill that which is said (Jer. 5:25), Your iniquities have turned these away, and your sins have kept good from you. (Sifra Behuqotai Pereq 1:1, ed. Weiss, p. 110b) C

Comment: The context is a saying on rain. A story about rain in the days of Herod immediately precedes, and the two may have formed a single pericope even at the outset. The form is certainly similar. In both pericopae the named authorities serve only to provide a date for a mi raculous event. By this time, "in the days of Simeon b. Shetah" means simply, "in the good old days," or "a long time ago." Moreover, the reference to the sages is clearly an anachronism. In the time the peri cope was shaped, "the sages", not the priests or the government, were the people likely to take responsibility for preserving examples of the way things were in the golden past. Furthermore, the assumption that in Simeon's day, Israel was sinless and therefore enjoyed supernatural abundance could have been drawn only if no one knew, or cared about, other facts of that time. Further stories, not in this collection, tell of the persecution of sages, witchcraft in Ashqelon, and other sins; no one could have ignored those sins on the part of the Jewish regime and or dinary folk. So the story comes long after the 'event' and is pure fantasy. The date is duplicated: BYMY Simeon BYMY Shelomsu. It would have been sufficient to refer either to Simeon or to Salome, and was un-

90

JUDAH AND

S I M E O N — I.ii.2

necessary to mention both. Perhaps Simeon is a gloss, since the context has Salome and Herod. But I cannot think of the motive in originally including both sage and queen. Perhaps the story takes for granted other materials linking Simeon and the queen ("his sister"). The peri cope otherwise is a unity. No detail could have been left out or circu lated separately. The point of the story comes at the end, "to make known how much damage is done by sin," and hence the moral and accompanying proof-text are integral. The story bears no close rela tionship to the life and times of Simeon b. Shetah. On the other hand, since it looks back on his times as especially prosperous, we may imag ine it could have circulated in circles favorable to the Simeon-tradi tions. The omission of Judah b. Tabbai here as elsewhere is not unimpor tant. It would have been natural for a tradent influenced by lists of the pairs to say, "In the days of Simeon and Judah," rather than of "SimeonSalome." Under the circumstances it is a striking revision of what ought to have been the normal formula. Perhaps the story was redacted in circles in which Judah-traditions either were not favorably treated or were regarded as unimportant. Since the story cannot derive from the times of Simeon himself, and probably comes long after Herod's time, one may suggest that even as late as the second century a tendency within Pharisaism (Judah b. Ilai's?) persistently favored Simeon and excluded Judah b. Tabbai from consideration even in routine contexts. Alternatively, such a circle knew nothing of Simeon's alleged associa tion with Judah. But this alternative seems possible only if the lists of the pairs were not widely known or referred to, and that is unlikely. I.ii.2. A. And if a man has committed a crime punishable by death and he is put to death, and you hang him on a tree (Deut. 22:22). A man is to be hung, but a woman is not to be hung. B. R. Eliezer says, "Even a woman is to be hung. C. R. Eliezer said to them, "Did not Simeon b. Shetah hang women in Ashqelon?" They said to him, "He hung eighty women, and yet [the law is] one does not judge [even] two [capital] cases on one day, but the times necessitated teaching through exemplary punishment [and also as regards to hanging women]." (Sifre Deut. 221, ed. Friedman, p. 114b, Finkelstein, p. 253) Comment: This pericope supplies important evidence of the antiquity of the story of Simeon's hanging in Ashqelon. The story is not told, merely alluded to. In some form it therefore must have circulated before ca. 100 A.D. The elements of the story here attested are four: Ashqelon, hanging, women, and eighty. The fact that they were witches must come later; the magical side to Simeon's action is utterly absent. As it

JUDAH AND

91

S I M E O N — Il.i.l

stands, the above pericope shows that Simeon b. Shetah served to ex emplify proper legal procedure for sages of Yavneh (Eliezer b. Hyrcanus). No one doubted Simeon supplied a valid precedent, the only issue being, for what rule? The classification is a biographical reference to something Simeon had done. The context is clear as given. Part B has a standard lemma of Eliezer. Part C duplicates it and is joined to the foregoing by the de bate-form: the verb >MR is shifted into the past tense, ignoring the form of the immediately preceding lemma, and the exegesis of part A is treated as if "they" had "said" it to him—hence, theyjsages say is imag ined before "a man is..." The colloquy thus is artificial. We have no reason to believe it is a verbatim report of something once actually said in the school on a par ticular day. It rather is a formalized account of how Simeon's actions both served as a precedent and also were justified in Yavnean discourse. Eliezer's disciples cannot be held responsible for the pericope in its present form. They would not have left matters with a refutation of their teacher. Nor in its primitive form—e.g. omitting they said to him— could the school of Eliezer have played a part, for their formulation ought to have read, "Rabbi Eliezer says, Even a woman is to be hung— just as Simeon b. Shetah did." Without a contrary view, the precedent of the just as clause is superfluous. The whole therefore must derive from circles that held a view contrary to Eliezer's. In that case, the in trusion of the reference to Simeon's action serves not to illustrate Eliezer's sound precedent, but rather the opposite: Some might suppose Simeon supplies a precedent to the contrary of our opinion, but that is not the case. So Eliezer's saying (C) comes from the opposition! If we had a clearer idea as to the opposition to Eliezer—we cannot routinely supply the names of Joshua, Gamaliel, or Aqiba—we might have grounds for speculating on what circle or group referred to Simeon in this matter. But at best, as I said, we may merely offer a date for some elements of the Ashqelon tradition, no later than ca. 1 0 0 A.D. c

Il.i.l.A. They sound the shofar because of any public distress—may it never befall. But not because of too great abundance of rain. B. Once (M SH §) they said to Honi the Circlemaker, "Pray that rain may fall." He answered, "Go out and bring in the Passover ovens, that they not be softened." He prayed, but the rain did not fall. What did he do? [MS Kaufmann omits.] He drew a circle and stood within and said, "Lord of the world, your children have turned their faces to me, for I am like a son of [the] house before you. I swear by your great name that I will not stir hence until you have pity on your children." Rain began falling drop by drop. C

92

JUDAH AND

S I M E O N — II.i.2

He said, "Not for such rain have I prayed, but for rain [that will fill] the cisterns, pits, and caverns." It began to rain with violence. He said, "Not for such rain I prayed, but for rain of goodwill, blessing, and graciousness." Then it rained properly, until the Israelites went up from Jerusalem to the Temple Mount because of the rain. They [went to him and] said, "Just as you prayed for the rain to come, so pray that it may go away!" He replied, "Go and see if the Stone of the Strayers has disappeared." C. Simeon b. Shetah sent to him, "If you were not Honi, I should have pronounced a ban against you! [MS Kaufmann: You need to be excommunicated.] But what shall I do to you? You importune God [MS Kaufmann: Before the Omnipotent], and he performs your will, like a son that importunes his father and he performs his will, and of you Scripture says, Let thy father and thy mother be glad, and let her that bare thee rejoice (Prov. 23:25)." (M. Ta'anit 3:8, trans. Danby, p. 198) Comment: The classification of Simeon's saying is a famous apoph thegm, in which Simeon rebukes the miracle-worker. Clearly, part C is separate from, and plays no role whatever in, part B. The story of part B could well have ended with his reply. Simeon's rebuke circulated separately and probably was an independent pericope, but it was natural to add Simeon's opinion to this Honi-story. The criticism of miracle-workers is made by Yohanan b. Zakkai in much the same terms: The miracle-worker is close to God, but like a slave (Yohanan) or like a child (Simeon), and not in the way Pharisaism prefers. But this gives us no grounds for dating the logion attributed to Simeon. As it stands, part C, excluding the Scriptural proof-text, is not composite, but a unity of thought and style; nor do we have to suppose the Scripture was supplied later on. We have no clue as to the school or master responsible for the final formulation of the pericope. Judah the Patriarch provides merely the terminus ante quern.

II.L2.A. "A man is hanged with his face to the people, and a woman with her face towards the gallows," the words of R. Eliezer. But the sages say, "A man is hanged, but a woman is not hanged." B. R. Eliezer said, "Did not [MS Kaufmann: M'SH B] Simeon b. Shetah hang women in Ashqelon?" They said to him, "He hanged eighty women, while two ought not to be judged in the same day." (M. Sanh. 6:4, trans. Danby, p. 390)

JUDAH AND

S I M E O N — Il.ii.l, 2

93

Comment: See I.ii.2. But Eliezer's opinion now is developed and con cerns a detail of the hanging, while the sages' saying is unaltered; the sayings therefore do not match, while in Sifre they are in proper bal ance. M. Sanh. looks like a development of Sifre, presumably worked in because the antecedent rule on hanging is debated by the same parties. 11.11.1. They differed only on the laying of hands. "They are five pairs. The three of the first pairs who said not to lay on hands, and the two of the last pairs who said to lay on hands, were nasis. The second ones [mentioned] were heads of the court (ABWT BYT DYN)," the words of R. Meir. R. Judah said, "Simeon b. Shetah [was] nasi, Judah b. Tabbai [was] head of the court." R. Yosi said, "At first there was no dispute in Israel..." (Tos. Hag. 2:8, ed. Lieberman, p. 382-3, lines 40-44)" Comment: The above pericope supplies supplementary information for M. Hag. 2:2. Once again we find Meir and Judah [b. Ilai] dis puting about the early history of Pharisaism. The motive, if any, for at tributing to Simeon the position of nasi is unclear to me. I cannot under stand why either party to the argument could have had an ulterior mo tive in espousing one position rather than the other. But this makes matters all the more complex, for we have no ground to conjecture about what either master had in hand as a tradition from olden times. The pericope serves merely to supply a valid terminus ante quern for M. Hag. 2:2. The list in its current form could not have been shaped later than the middle of the second century; since Meir and Judah refer to it, it must have been shaped before their day. The Mishnah follows Meir's view, just as in the case of the red heifers. But Judah's predominates nearly everywhere else. As noted, Meir preserves the view that Judah b. Tabbai took prece dence over Simeon; that view would have approved the earliest version of the slaying of innocent parties, in which Judah criticizes Simeon's judicial error. The tradition is classified as a later biographical remark on Simeon and Judah. The setting is clear: Usha in the second half of the second century. In its present form the pericope gives no evidence of being a composite. 11.11.2. At first, when the marriage-contract was kept by the father, divorcing her was held lightly in his eyes. Simeon b. Shetah ordained that the marriage-contract be kept by her husband, and he writes to her, "All the property that I have is liable and pledged for [ the sum of] your marriage-contract" (Tos. Ket. 12:1, ed. Zuckermandel, p. 274, lines 3-5; Lieberman, p. 95, lines 1-4)

94

JUDAH AND

S I M E O N — II.ii.3

Comment: Lieberman calls the above an "intermediate version" of the decrees of Simeon; in this connection see synoptic studies. The sentence in italics is in Aramaic, the rest in Hebrew. The pericope contains no evidence permitting the suggestion of a date. Attributing to Simeon such an ordinance may have been a way of saying, "In very olden times." We have no idea how the later masters knew of Simeon's rule. But the present form—at first... R. So-and-so ordained...—is wellknown, having been used in the formulation of the Yohanan ben Zakkai's decree-materials. The form at first... ordained... makes no sense here. A report of a legal decree, the pericope is a unity. No logion is at tributed to Simeon, nor is the language of his decree preserved, except for the clause to be introduced into, and probably already known from, the marriage contract. We again observe the omission of Judah b. Tabbai. Presumably he ought to have played a role in issuing such a decree, but his name is consistently omitted in references to legal materials attributed to the person or times of Simeon b. Shetah.

II.ii.3.A. R. Judah b. Tabbai said, "May I [not] see consolation if I did not put to death a false witness, in order to uproot from the heart of the Boethusians [their false opinion]. For they would say, ' [The false witness is not put to death] unless the accused has [first] been put to death.'" B. Simeon b. Shetah said to him, "May I [not] see consolation if you have not shed innocent blood, for behold, the Torah said, At the testimony of two or three witnesses the accused will be put to death (Deut. 17:6)—Just as there must be two witnesses, so also the [two] false witnesses [cannot be punished unless] both [are punished]." C. At that moment Judah b. Tabbai took upon himself not to teach law except according to Simeon b. Shetah. (Tos. Sanh. 6:6, ed Zuckermandel, p. 424, lines 29-34 = Midrash Tannaim, ed. Hoffmann, p. 117.) Comment: We have the reverse of I.i.l. Judah made the error, Simeon corrected it. A polemical context now has been supplied. In his struggle with the Boethusians Judah went beyond the measure of the law. In I.i.l the Boethusians were not mentioned. The version naming them must come later than the one in which they are absent and the motiva tion for the false ruling is not explained. The conclusion, part C, now accords with the view that Simeon was the dominant figure. Judah agrees never again to rule on law except with Simeon's concurrence. In the version of Judah's circle no such detail is mentioned, and this too must have been supplied later on, as a fitting consequence of the judicial

JUDAH AND

S I M E O N — II.ii.4

95

miscarriage. That the above is later than Judah b. Tabbai's therefore is clear. The story of Judah's criticism of Simeon's judicial error has thus been turned into an explanation of how Judah subordinated himself to Simeon and therefore was head of the court, not nasi. Since in this form it is likely to be later than the version of I.i.l, perhaps Meir's tradition (if he had 2. tradition) would have antedated Judah b. Ilai's, and, ac cording to the earliest Pharisaic tradition, Judah b. Tabbai did originally serve as nasi (see conclusion, p. 141). But in later formulations of the facts, Judah is removed from office, Simeon put in his place. The traditions were revised, and an explanation supplied for Simeon's greater authority. We have no clear information on when such a revision of the facts took place, or what motivated it. It must come long after the time of Simeon and Judah, for no one aware of the historical realities would have believed an account which reversed them. It stands to reason that some sort of conflict about Simeon's and Judah's respective places in the Pharisaic hierarchy continued for some time. This could not pos sibly account for echoes of the dispute even two centuries later. We do not know what kept such a dispute alive, unless we postulate that the schools of the two masters continued in existence for a while; or, as I said, that the later Tannaim created the issue to begin with, perhaps as an expansion of disagreement about the text of the original chain before Meir and Judah b. Ilai. M. Makkot 1:6 omits Judah's and Simeon's dispute. II.ii.4. Simeon b. Shetah said, "May I [not] see consolation if I did not see a man running after his fellow with a sword in his hand. He entered before him into a ruin, and the other followed after him, and I [myself] entered after him. I found him slain, with a sword in the hand of the murderer, dripping blood. "I said to him, 'Wicked! Who killed this man? May I [not] see consolation if I do not see it [sic]. You and I—[one of us] killed him. But what shall I do to you? For your case is not given into my hands, for lo, the Torah has said, By the testimony of two witnesses or three will the accused man he put to death (Deut. 17:6). But the One who knows [all] thoughts will exact punishment from that man." He did not move from there before a serpent bit him, and he died. (Tos. Sanh. 8:3, ed. Zuckermandel, p. 427, lines 19-24 = Midrash Tannaim, ed. Hoffmann, p. 120) Comment: Now Simeon takes Judah's place. The Toseftan stories persistently give the Simeon-circle's view of things, that is, Judah b. Ilai's. Meir's is in the Mishnah, as one would expect. The setting is identical to the Mekhilta's: the generalized account followed by the later one specifying a hero.

96

JUDAH AND

SIMEON — IV.i.l

III.i.1.A. R. Jeremiah asked, "May one who ate [only] vegetables bless?"... B. TNY: Three hundred Naîrites came up [to Jerusalem] in the days of RSimeon b. Shetah. For one hundred fifty of them he found grounds for absolution, andfor one hundred fifty of them he did not find grounds for absolu tion. C. He came to Yannai the King. He said to him, "There are here three hundred Nazirites who require nine hundred offerings. But ('L') you give half from your [property], and I shall give half from mine." He sent him four hundred fifty [sacrifices]. An evil tongue [rumor] came and said to him, "He gave nothing of his own." D. Yannai the King heard and was angered. Simeon b. Shetah was frightened and fled. E. After [some] days important men came up from the Kingdom of Persia to Yannai the King. When they were sitting and eating, they said to him, "We recall that there was here a certain old man who said before us words of wisdom. Let him teach us something (<WBD>)." They said to him, "Send and bring him." F. He sent and gave him his word, and he came. He seated him [self] between the king and queen. G. He said to him, "Why did you deceive me?" He said to him, "I did not deceive you. You [gave] of your money and I [gave] of my light [Torah], as it is written (Qoh. 7: 12), For wisdom is a defense even as money is a defense" H. He said to him, "Why did you flee?" He said to him, "I heard that my lord was angry against me, and I wanted to carry out this Scripture, Hide yourself for a little moment, until the anger be past (Is. 26:20)." And he [Yannai] cited concerning him [the following Scripture]: The advantage of knowledge of wisdom will give life to those that possess it (Qoh. 7:12). I. He [Yannai] said to him, "And why did you sit down between the king and queen?" He [Simeon] said to him, "In the Book of Ben Sira it is written (Ben Sira 11:1), Esteem her, so she shall exalt you and seat you between princes." J . He [Yannai] said, "Give him the cup so that he may bless."

JUDAH AND

S I M E O N — III.i.1

97

He [Simeon] took the cup and said, "Let us bless the food which Yannai and his companions have eaten" He said to him, "Are you stubborn even to such an extent?" He said to him, "What shall we say, 'For the food which we have not eaten'?" He said, "Give him something to eat." They gave him, and he ate and said, "Let us bless the food which we have eaten" (y. Ber. 7:2, repr. Gilead, p. 53b-54a = y. Nazir 5:3, repr. Gilead p. 23b) Comment: The opening beraita, in rabbinic Hebrew (italics), does not merely summarize the rest or serve as a brief mnemonic device. It is the first sentence of the story. Yet the story is not told in the same language. What seems likely, therefore, is that the opening sentence has been translated into Hebrew for the purpose of setting the story into beraitaform (TNY), while the rest has been allowed to stand. The pericope provides a veritable repertoire, or massekhet, of Simeon/ Yannai stories. The setting is a discussion of rules of saying grace, hence the reference point is part J. R. Jeremiah supplies merely a terminus ante quern; we have no reason to suppose the pericope is not older than the fourth century A.D., when it was cited whole and complete. As to Simeon the Just, so to Simeon b. Shetah is attributed special interest in Nazirites. He inferentially is an important priest, but not high priest. The pericope is a biographical narrative. Its setting in late Amoraic times can, as I said, prove little about when it was first composed. I do not think R. Jeremiah or others invented it to serve the purpose of the argument. It now is cited as a well-known incident. The pericope obviously is composite. Thefirstpart (B-D) concerns the sage's ability to hoodwink the king. It ends with Simeon's escape. The second story, parts E-F, does not depend upon the content of the first. The fact that Simeon was not present, but was remembered by the distinguished visitors from abroad, would have been sufficient. The third element, part F, now quite ignores the earlier setting. It is a brief allusion to Simeon's role at court. He sat between the king and the queen. Then parts G, H, and I serve to explain the foregoing stories and bring them into relationship with one another. Simeon fled to avoid momentary wrath, and his wisdom served him well. He sat between the monarchs, because of his wisdom. His wisdom saved him money. In all three instances odd aspects of Simeon's behavior are traced back to his knowledge of Torah. I imagine that the details of his behavior survived for a time before the reasons were supplied by "his Torah." It seems to me likely that stories about Simeon indeed circulated separately, only later on to be brought together and supplied with this single explana tion. Then part J follows, a separate pericope tacked on to the foregoing collection. Simeon's cleverness made it necessary for the king to inN E U S N E R , The Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees before 70, I

7

JUDAH AND


elude him in the royal meal, not merely to use him as a ritual expert. Underlying the whole is the standard Pharisaic polemic, spelled out in the Scriptural citations, that wisdom raises a person to the heights and secures for him both wealth and glory. The king is ignorant and easily fooled. Really, the sage should rule. Without that polemic the stories serve as disjointed echoes of a great Pharisaic master and his rela tionships to the throne—he cheated the king of his sacrifices, made a profound impression on foreign dignitaries, sat between the king and the queen, and said a blessing over the royal meal. I therefore suppose, as I said, that the stories originally circulated separately, and only later were brought together and given form and meaning. The hand of the editor is most clearly revealed in parts G, H, and I. Without that collo quy, the stories, though juxtaposed, would still have little if anything to do with one another. With it they are united and make a standard point. As to the historical facts, nothing in Josephus's account of Alexander Jannaeus prepares us for a picture of the king's cordial treatment of the Pharisaic leader. On the contrary, only when he died did he (allegedly) counsel reconciliation with the party. Before that time he struggled with them and slaughtered many of them, probably because he rightly thought they were traitors to the state and throne. It is difficult to isolate elements in the stories that exhibit a mnemonic pattern. Part D is balanced, two verbs for each clause, plus the names of the heroes. Perhaps you give half and I give half would have been a fixed phrase, though this is less clear. Along the same lines, the division of the three hundred into halves would have been simple, had the original oral lemma consisted of three hundred Naîrites, with the rest spelled out later on. I see nothing in part E of the same order. Parts G, H, and I center upon Scriptures, and the heart of the tradition may have con sisted of the association of those Scriptures with Simeon. Part J , by contrast, gives us severalfixedphrases, let us bless... which Yannai/which we have not I which we have... eaten. These all are clearly plays on let us bless the food which we have eaten, and it looks as though variations on that phrase lie at the foundation of the little fable. But apart from these brief lemmas and key words, the stories are fully articulated and exhibit no marks that they were transmitted in formulae or fixed forms. The Houses-materials exhibit a striking contrast, for the rigid adherence to a single form, the highly disciplined articulation of the form in terms of balanced phrases, syzygous predicates, and the like are absent here. If the Houses-materials provide a sound model for how mnemonic tra ditions were finally written down and developed, then the Simeonstories and many others considered in this part of our study must be regarded as having a quite different literary history. The tradents may have handed down various sorts of fables, as in the reference of Eliezer b. Hyrcanus to Simeon's hanging witches in Ashqelon, but the redac tors who developed those traditions had before them little more than a theme and perhaps a story-line, which they developed according to their own imagination of how things must have been. But the tradition in

JUDAH AND

S I M E O N — III.i.2, 3

99

this sort of material could not have consisted of carefully redacted forms, formulae, and lemmas. III.i.2. We learned there (TMN TNYNN): Simeon b. Shetah sent to him. He said to him, "You ought (SRYK) to be excommunicated, for if a decree were issued, as it was issued in the days of Elijah, would you not be found leading the public to the profanation of the name? For whoever leads the public to the profanation of the name requires excommunication." (y. M.Q. 3:1, repr. Gilead, p. 10b [See y. Ta. 3:10]) Comment: The referent of we learned there is y. Ta. 3:10. Immediately after Simeon's rebuke, ending with the citation of Prov. 23, in the gemara follows the above pericope, without the introduction TMN TNYNN. Otherwise it is identical. The recipient of Simeon's message thus can only be Honi. The setting is stories about messages sent by various sages to recal citrants. The connection is chiefly in theme, in small measure in form, for some begin if you were not, just as in M. Ta. 3:8. But if the rebuke to Honi circulated independently, the above is not evidence of that fact. It is not the message cited in the Mishnah at all, rather an extension of it, therefore a secondary development. The category is an attribution of a saying to Simeon in the context of the story about another figure entirely. Simeon in the full version is not the center of things at all. The reference to the days of Elijah derives from Honi's rainmaking. III.i.3.A. We have learned (>NN TNYNN): Judah b. Tabbai was nasi. Simeon b. Shetah was head of the court. Some teach it vice versa (>YT TNYY TNY WMHLP). He who says Judah b. Tabbai was nasi finds support in the incident of Alexandria. III.i.3.B.a. The men of Jerusalem wanted to appoint Judah b. Tabbai as nasi in Jerusalem. He fled and went to Alexandria. The men of Jerusalem would write, "From Jerusalem, the great, to Alexandria, the small: How long will my betrothed dwell with you, while I am widow ( GWMH) on his account?" b. He departed, coming in a boat. He said, "Do you remember what the mistress of the house who received us lacked?" One of his disciples said to him, "Rabbi, her eye was blinking." He said to him, "Lo, two [sins] are against you: one that you suspected me [of looking at her], and one that you looked at her. Did C

100

JUDAH AND


I say that her appearance was handsome of sight ? I only said [handsome] in [her] deed[s]!" He was angry with him, and he went away. III.i.3.C. He who says Simeon b. Shetah was Nasi gains support in the incident of Ashqelon. a. There were two pious men (H$YDYN) in Ashqelon, who would eat in common, drink in common, and toil in the Light [study Torah] in common. One of them died, and he was not properly mourned [lit.: an act of mercy was not paid to him]. But when a villager [lit.: son of the town], a tax-collector, died, the whole town took time off to mourn him (GML H$D). That [remaining] pious man began to be troubled, saying, "Woe, for the enemies of Israel [ = Israel] have nothing!" He appeared to him in a dream and said to him, "Do not despise the sons of your Lord. This one did one sin, and the other one did one good deed, and it went well for him [so on earth, while I was being punished for my sin, he was rewarded for his good deed]." [The account now proceeds to specify what sin the pious man had done, and what good deed the tax-collector had done.] After [a few] days, that pious man saw his fellow walking in the midst of (GW) gardens, in the midst of orchards, in the midst of fountains of water. He saw the village tax-collector [with] his tongue hanging out by a river. He wanted to reach the water, and he [could] not reach [it]. b. He saw Miriam the daughter of LY BSLYM (?) [Jastrow: the leek-like sprouts of onions.] Rabbi Le'azar b. R. Yosa said, "[She was] hanging from the nipples of the breasts. " Rabbi Yosi b. Hanina said, "The pin of the gate of Gehenna was fastened to her ear." He said to them, "Why is this so?" They said to him, "Because she fasted and would publicize [her good deed]." Some say, "She would fast one day and claim she had fasted two days." c. He said to them, "How long will it be thus?" They said to him, "Until Simeon b. Shetah will come, and we shall remove it from her ear and set it in his ear." He said to him, "Why?" He said to him, "Because he said, If I am made Nasi, I shall kill C

JUDAH AND


101

the witches, and lo, he has been made Nasi and has not killed the witches. Lo, there are eighty [female] witches in a cave of Ashqelon, doing destruction [to] the world. So go and tell him." He said to them, "I am afraid, for he is the Nasi and will not believe ^

n

99

me. He said to him, "If he believes you, well and good, but if not, do this as your sign before him. Put your hand on your eye and remove it and return it, and it will return." He went and reported to him the incident. He wanted to do the sign before him, but he would not allow him to do so. He [Simeon] said to him, " I know that you are a pious man. More than this are you able to do. Moreover, I did not say publicly [that I would uproot witchcraft], but only thought it in my heart." d. Forthwith Simeon b. Shetah arose in a severe rainstorm. He took with him eighty young men. He put in their hands eighty clean gar ments. He put them into new pots, and put on the(ir) covers [of the pots]. He said to them, "When I whistle once, put on your garments. When I whistle a second time, all of you come out at once. When you arise, let each one of you embrace one [of the witches] and raise her off the ground, for the practice of that witchcraft does not work if you raise [the witch] off the ground." He went and stood before the mouth of the cave. He said, "Hello, hello, CWYYM >WYYM) open to me, for I am one of yours." They said to him, "How did you come on such a day?" He said to them, "I walked between the rain-drops." They said to him, "And what did you come here to do?" He said to them, "To study and to teach. Let each one do something of wisdom." One of them said what she said and brought bread. One of them said what she said and brought meat. One of them said what she said and brought vegetables. One of them said what she said and brought wine. They said to him, "What can you do?" He said to them, "I can whistle twice and bring up for you eighty young men. They will have pleasure with you and give you pleasure." They said to him, "That is what we want." He whistled once, and they put on their garments. He whistled a second time, and they all came up at once. He said, "Whoever wants, let him choose his partner."

102

J U D A H A N D S I M E O N — III.i.3

They lifted them up and went and crucified them. e. This is what we have learned (TNYNN): The story is told concerning (M'SH B) Simeon b. Shetah that he hung women in Ashqelon. They say he hung eighty women. While one does notjudge two [capital cases] on the same day, the hour required it. (y. Hag. 2:2, repr. Gilead p. lla-b = y. Sanh. 6:6, repr. Gilead p. 28b-29a) Comment: The pericope before us unites several discrete stories, and these are composites of other stories. III.i.3.A is a rendition of the dis pute between Judah b. Ilai and Meir, but the names of the Tannaitic masters are dropped. That does not mean the pericope is earlier. In fact it is a quite different formulation of the Meir-Judah dispute. III.i.3.B is a composite of two stories. The first (a) is the account of Judah's flight to Alexandria. The second (b) has to do with the es trangement of his disciple, an echo of the story of Jesus and Joshua b. Perahiah. The italicized words in III.i.3.B.a are in Hebrew, and the probability is that this logion was the kernel of a story—but not this one! It is assigned to Joshua b. Perahiah as well (p. 83). III.i.3.B.b is an abbreviated version of the remainder of the Joshua-story. It is pointless without the details supplied there. Hence the whole Judah-pericope (b) comes later than, and depends upon, the Joshua-parallel. III.i.3.C is a strange and difficult pericope. Thefirstelement, III.i.3.C.a stands completely apart from the rest, and has been clumsily tacked on by combining the second dream of the pious man with a reference to Miriam. The long discussion, which I have not translated, of the sins of the pious man and the tax collector is a further augmentation of part a. Then comes another, and separate story. The pious man now fades out, having supplied the connection to the new material. Here the chief fig ure is Miriam, the meaning of whose father's name (if that is what is intended) escapes me. Here we have some evidence for a terminus ante quern, since Yosi b. Hanina was a Palestinian Amora of the middle third century and a disciple of Yohanan b. Nappaha. But the date pertains only to the Miriam-story. Then comes a clumsy transition, in which Simeon b. Shetah, formerly absent from both stories, is introduced. III.i.3.C.c still is not a unity. The pious man now returns and is told to warn Simeon that he is des tined for Gehenna. The pious man is given a sign to demonstrate to Simeon, but Simeon does not require it. The transition to Simeon ends here. Since Simeon is Nasi, the story presumably comes after Judah b. Ilai. Finally comes the story of Simeon's execution of the witches, III.i.3.C.d. The story certainly stands entirely by itself, tacked on to the foregoing but, intrinsically unrelated to it. It surely circulated alone. Here Simeon is represented as a master of witchcraft, which illustrates R. Yohanan b. Nappaha's rule that one could not be appointed to the Sanhedrin unless he was a master of magic. The story therefore con-

JUDAH AND

S I M E O N — III.i.4, III.ii.1

103

forms to the conceptions of Yohanan b. Nappaha and his circle. But it would be farfetched to suggest on that flimsy basis that Yohanan b. Nappaha's circle fabricated the story. The exchange with the witches in the older of the two versions, y. Hag., is surely a single, unitary account. The denouement is extremely brief, in fact too rapid. The concluding element, III.i.3.C.e, therefore "explains" the whole story, now in Hebrew. Without it, we should have no clear notion as to what has just now taken place or why. The likeli hood is, therefore, that the earliest element in the repertoire is III.i.3.C.e, that is, the version of the Sifre, with the rest following in stages. But the foregoing tale says nothing about hanging witches—so III.i.3.C.e is hardly an appropriate subscription! It has the eighty and Ashqelon, but lacks the element crucial here: witches. The whole pericope may be classified as a biographical narrative. The setting must be third-century Palestine. III.i.4. TNY: Forty years before the Temple was destroyed, [jurisdic tion over] capital crimes was removed [from Jewish courts in Palesti ne]. And in the days of Simeon b. Shetah [jurisdiction over] cases of property-litigation (DYNY MMWNWT) was removed (NTL). (y. Sanh. 1:1, repr. Gilead, p. lb) Comment: The setting of the pericope bears no relationship to its con tent. Immediately preceding is a saying of how R. Aqiba would open his court proceedings, then the above, followed by a saying of Simeon b. Yohai, then Samuel. The whole is simply an unconnected collection of sayings pertinent to the Mishnah. The pericope itself is of a familiar sort: in the days of Simeon such-andso happened. As in I.ii.l Simeon figures as an ancient hero. It is a curious tradition. The Tannaim had substantial materials on the judgment of dyny mmwnwt in Temple times, e.g. M. Ket. 13:1-2, to mention just one among many sayings and case-reports. Certainly, no one maintained Pharisaic courts had lost the right to judge property cases. Nor is there a tradition that the days of Simeon were so evil a period as the forty years before the destruction. So both the meaning and intent of the pericope are unclear to me. c

III.ii.1.A. DTNN: Simeon b. Shetah sent to Honi the Circler, "You need to be excommunicated, and if you were not Honi, I should decree excommunication against you, but what shall I do? For you appease the Omnipresent, and he does your will, like a son who ap peases his father, and he does his will, and concerning you Scripture says, Your father and mother will rejoice, and she who bore you will be joyful (Prov. 23:25)." B. R. Joseph learned (TNY): Thaddeus of Rome accustomed the

104

JUDAH AND

S I M E O N — III.ii.2

Romans to eat kids roasted whole on the eve of Passover. Simeon b. Shetah sent to him and said, "Were you not Thaddeus, I should decree excommunication against you, because you make Israel eat holy things outside the precincts [of the Temple]." (b. Ber. 19a) In y. M.Q. 3:1 the passage is as follows: TNY: R. Yosi said, "Thaddeus of Rome... Passover" [as above]. The sages sent to him, "Were you not Thaddeus, we should decree excommunication against you." Apparently R. Joseph's tradition has been contaminated by the fore going pericope about Simeon b. Shetah, presumably because of the were you not formula. On the other hand, it is possible that Joseph's tra dition is simply a late version of that in y. M.Q. 3:1, in which now are supplied not only the name of Simeon b. Shetah, but also the reason for his condemning Thaddeus's action. The earlier pericope clearly refers to M. Ta. 3:8 (b. Ta. 19a) and here has been cited separately. It would not support my contention that Simeon's message to Honi was not integral to the earlier story. Here we are not told what Honi had done to warrant Simeon's rebuke; there we are told what Honi did, but Simeon's rebuke is not integral to the story. But the point is obvious, since the intent is merely to refer to the Mishnah. The setting is a list of decrees of excommunication on account of in sults to teachers. Joshua b. Levi states that twenty-four such incidents are mentioned in the Mishnah. That does not help us to investigate the background of the pericope, for Joshua simply refers to existing ma terials. The Mishnah remains the terminus ante quern for the pericopae, both separately and together. Comment:

III.ii.2. TNY": Yosi b. Yo'ezer of Seredah and Yosi b. Yohanan of Jerusalem decreed uncleanness on the land of the peoples and on glassware. Simeon b. Shetah ordained the marriage-contract for the wife and decreed uncleanness on metalware. Shammai and Hillel decreed uncleanness on hands. b. Shab. 14b (also cited in b. Shab. 15a) Comment: The chain of tradition, which we have seen earlier, here in cludes one of the ordinances (TQNWT) of Simeon, and a decree (GZRH) as well. It suffices to note that the beraita does not explain what Simeon had done about the marriage-contract and omits reference to establishing schools for children's education. As to the former, other traditions supply a full account of Simeon's ordinance, as well as the reasons for it. The list is abbreviated and for all practical purposes serves simply as a summary or set of brief allusions.

JUDAH AND


105

III.ii.3.A. TNW RBNN: "Three of the first pairs who said not to lay on hands, and two of the last pairs who said to lay on hands were nasis, and those second to them were heads of the court," the words of R. Meir. The sages say, "Judah b. Tabbai was head of the court, and Simeon b. Shetah was nasi" Who is the Tannaitic authority for the following teaching of the rabbis (DTNW RBNN): (b. Hag. 16b) B. Rabbi Judah b. Tabbai said, "May I [not] see consolation if I did not kill a false witness, to remove from the heart of the Sadducees [a false opinion], for they would say false witnesses are not put to death unless the accused has been executed." Simeon b. Shetah said to him, "May I [not] see consolation if you have not shed innocent blood, for lo, the sages have said false witnesses are not put to death until both of them are proved perj urers (Z WMM YM), nor are they flagellated until both are proved perjurers, nor are they fined [Lit.: do they pay money] until both are proved perjurers." Forthwith Judah b. Tabbai undertook never to teach law except in the presence of Simeon b. Shetah. C. All the [remaining] days of Judah b. Tabbai he would prostrate himself on the grave of the slain man, and his voice would be heard [from afar]. The people thought it was the voice of the slain man. He said to them, "It is my voice. You will know this on the morrow when he [I] dies, and his [my] voice is no longer heard." (b. Hag. 16b = b. Mak. 5b = y. Sanh. 6:3, repr. Gilead p. 28a) Comment: Variations in the several versions will be listed in the syn optic comparison below. The sages replace Judah in part A. The legal problem is now the pun ishment, not the number, of false witnesses. Only after the decree of the court has been carried out are the perjurers liable. In b. Hag. 16b the above serves as a comment on M. Hag. 2:2. Noth ing intervenes, and the attribution of the beraita reveals no Amoraic in fluence. Part B follows in b. Hag. 16b, and recurs in b. Mak. 5b and y. Sanh. 6:3. But b. Mak. 5b and y. Sanh. 6:3 omit part A. In b. Mak. 5b, part B illustrates a discussion of perjured witnesses and their punishment. The discussion both before and afterward is anonymous. Immediately following in both b. Mak. and b. Hag., R. Aha b. Rava comments to R. Ashi about the content of the beraita, but

106

JUDAH AND

S I M E O N — III.ii.4, 5

the story clearly is at least two centuries older. Part B is cited in b. Hag. as an existing beraita, which certainly circulated separately from part A, as we have already seen. In b. Hag., immediately following the whole pericope is a new Mishnah. There is no further Amoraic discussion, apart from the remark of R. Aha mentioned above. Part C is the latest development, a usual addition in the beraita-stt&tum. III.ii.4. ...We find that in the days of Simeon b. Shetah the rains came down for them on the eve of Wednesdays and Sabbaths until the wheat came up like kidneys, the barley like olive pits, and lentils like gold denars. They tied some of them together as an example (DWGM>) for the [future] generations, to teach how much [damage] sin causes, as it is said, Your sins have caused these things, andjour trans gressions have withheld the good (Jer. 5:25). So too we find in connection with Herod when they were engaged in the building of the holy house that rains would come [etc.]. (b. Ta'anit 23a) Comment: The context is an exegesis of Lev. 26:4, about rain "in its season." It is here part of a beraita. No authorities are mentioned. The whole is an anonymous narrative. Shelomsu is dropped. See I.ii.l.

IILii.5.A. Rav Judah said, "At first they would write for the virgin two hundred [zu%] and for the widow a maneh [one hundred], so [men] would grow old and not take wives, until Simeon b. Shetah came and ordained 'All his property is liable [for the payment of] her marriage-contract.' " B. It was likewise taught in a beraita (TNY ): At first they would write for the virgin two hundred i^ K) d f ° the widow a maneh, and they would grow old and not take wives. They decreed that they should leave it in the house of her father. But still, when he grew angry against her, he would say to her, "Go to your marriage-contract." They ordained that they should leave it in her father's house. But still, when he grew angry at her, he would say to her, "Go to your marriage-contract." They ordained that they should leave it in her father-in-law's house. The rich girls would make it into baskets of silver and gold, and the poor ones would make it of mud and urine. But still, when he would grow angry against her, he would say to her, "Take your marriage-contract and go." Then ( = until, T) S) Simeon b. Shetah came and decreed that he J

u

a n

r

JUDAH AND


107

should write to her, "All my property is liable [for the payment of] her marriage-contract." (b. Ket. 82b) Comment: Rav Judah's tradition is not the same as the beraita, for it omits the intermediate stages leading to Simeon's decree. For our pur poses, however, Rav Judah provides a terminus ante quern for the tradi tion about Simeon, for the language of Rav Judah and that of the beraita are nearly identical: Judah: Beraita:

U n t i l S i m e o n b . S h e t a h c a m e a n d o r d a i n e d , A l l h i s p r o p e r t y is liable for her marriage-contract. U n t i l S i m e o n b . S h e t a h c a m e a n d o r d a i n e d that he should write to her, A l l my p r o p e r t y is l i a b l e f o r her [sic] m a r r i a g e - c o n t r a c t .

The major difference therefore is that the beraita presents Simeon's ordi nance in the form of a clause in the marriage-contract itself. The beraita further shifts the whole into direct discourse, but fails to do a complete job of it, leaving her instead of the expected your. To be sure, the state of MS evidence is insufficient to build much of a case on any given reading, and MSS variants are not available to me. Tos. Ket. 12:1 reads jour, but there are sufficient differences so that we certainly cannot maintain the beraita is a copy, imperfect to be sure, of the Toseftan ver sion. Simeon again serves as a convenient name on which to hang a change in the marriage-contract, believed to have taken place long ago. The language, nonetheless, is a direct attribution: he ordained that one should do so-and-so. Hence the pericope should be classified as a legal saying, not as biographical narrative. The context is supplied by the saying of Rav Judah, in late third-century Pumbedita. The Simeon-part of the pericope is a unified narrative; what is important for our purpose is that Simeon's saying is a brief lemma. The legal problems are of no interest here. See David Weiss Halivni, Meqorot, pp. 225-6, for a valuable analysis. III.ii.6.A. Abbaye said, "How do I know it [re the silence of a husband in a case in which the wife is charged with committing adultery by one witness only, that the husband must divorce the wife if he remains silent] ?" B. DTNY>: The story is told that (M<SH B) Yannai the King went to Kohalit in the wilderness and there conquered sixty towns. When he returned, he rejoiced greatly, and invited (QR*) all the sages of Israel. He said to them, "Our forefathers would eat salt fish when they were engaged in the building of the Holy House. Let us also eat salt fish as a memorial to our forefathers." So they brought up salt fish on golden tables, and they ate.

108

JUDAH AND


C. There was there a certain scoffer, evil-hearted and empty headed, and Eleazar ben Po'irah was his name. Eleazar b. Po'irah said to Yannai the king, "O King Yannai, the hearts of the Pharisees are [set] against you." "What shall I do?" "Test (HQM) them by the plate (SYS) that is between your eyes." He tested them by the plate that was between his eyes. D. There was there a certain sage, and Judah b. Gedidiah was his name. Judah b. Gedidiah said to Yannai the King, "O King Yannai, Let suffice for you the crown of sovereignty [kingship]. Leave the crown of the [high] priesthood for the seed of Aaron." For people said that his [Yannai's] mother had been taken captive in Modi im. The charge was investigated and not found [sustained]. The sages of Israel departed in anger. E. Eleazar b. Po'irah then said to Yannai the king, "O King Yannai, That is the law [not here specified as the punishment inflicted on Judah] even for the ordinary folk in Israel. But you are king and high priest— should that be your law too?" "What should I do?" "If you take my advice, you will trample them down." "But what will become of the Torah?" "Lo, it is rolled up and lying in the corner. Whoever wants to learn, let him come and learn." (R. Nahman b. Isaac said, "Forthwith Epicureanism [>PYQWR$WT] was instilled in him [Yannai], for he should have said, 'That is well and good for the Written Torah, but what will become of the Oral Torah? ") F. The evil blossomed through Eleazar b. Po'irah. All the sages of Israel were killed. The world was desolate until Simeon b. Shetah came and restored the Torah to its place. (b. Qid. 66a) c

9

Comment: The italicized words are in Aramaic, the rest in Hebrew. Simeon's place in the pericope is certainly peripheral. It is as if a wellknown event is referred to at the end: Simeon b. Shetah made peace be tween the Pharisees and Yannai (or he overcame Yannai). But we do not know what actually is attributed to Simeon, for what he said or did is left unexplained. A persistent tradition on a falling out between the Pharisees and Alexander Jannaeus evidently circulated in later times. One form of that tradition placed the origin of the whole difficulty at the feet of Simeon b. Shetah himself, holding that the king believed he had been

J U D A H A N D S I M E O N — III.ii.7, 8

109

cheated; therefore Simeon fled for a time but later on returned. A se cond, and different, set of traditions, of which the above is one exemplum, held that difficulties between Yannai and the Pharisees ("rabbis") as a group led to the flight of many of them, including Judah b. Tabbai and/or Joshua b. Perahiah to Alexandria. Simeon managed to patch things up—we do not know how—and therefore summoned the refu gees to return. But the two traditions cannot be reconciled or trans lated into historical language, nor can we profitably speculate on what 'kernel' of historical truth underlay either or both of them. All we do know is that Simeon b. Shetah was believed to have played a role in either the difficulty, or the reconciliation, or both. We may classify the brief reference at the end with similar materials in which Simeon supplies either a date (in the days of) or the name of an honored ancient authority to whom to attribute a hoary law (marriagecontract ordinance: until Simeon came and ordained). In fact Simeon has no part at all in the story and is not mentioned until the very end. Whatever important role he played either in the party or at court did not suffice to give him influence over the course of events. This cannot be regarded as a biographical narrative. His role here in providing a date for the end of the persecution is not much different from his place in the story of how much it had rained "in the good old days." Abbaye supplies the setting for the citation—fourth-century Pum bedita. Josephus's version is given below, pp. 173-176. 111.11.7. TNY': Rabbi Simeon b. Shetah said, "May I [not] see consolation, if I did not see a man who ran after his fellow into a ruin, and I ran after him, and I saw a sword in his hand, and his blood was dripping, and the slain man was writhing. "I said to him, 'Wicked! Who killed this man? Either I or you ! But what shall I do, for your blood is not given into my hands, for lo, the Torah has said, At the testimony of two witnesses will the condemned he put to death (Deut. 17:6). He who knows thoughts will exact vengeance from that man who slew his fellow.'" They say they did not move from there before a serpent came and bit him and he died. (b. Sanh. 37b = b. Shav. 34a = y. Sanh. 4 : 9, repr. Gilead, p. 23b) Comment:

See I.i.l.

111.11.8. TNY*: R. Judah b. Dosetai says in the name of R. Simeon b. Shetah, "If a fugitive from Palestine fled abroad, his sentence is not set aside; if from abroad to Palestine, his sentence is set aside, on account of Palestine's prerogative." (b. Mak. 7a)

110

JUDAH AND

SIMEON — IV.i.1,2

Comment: Tos. Sanh. 3:11 omits reference to Simeon, as do many MSS of the above. I cannot explain why some MSS would have attrib uted the saying to Simeon.

IV.i.l. R. Ze'ira bar Abuna in the name of R. Jeremiah, "Yosef b. Yo'ezer of Seredah and Yosi b. Yohanan of Jerusalem decreed uncleanness on the land of the peoples and on glassware." Rabbi Yonah said, "R. Judah b. Tabbai." R. Yosi said, "R. Judah b. Tabbai and Simeon b. Shetah decreed uncleanness on metalware. "Hillel and Shammai decreed concerning the purity of hands." (y. Shab. 1:4, repr. Gilead p. 11a = y. Pes. 1:6, repr. Gilead p. 6b) Comment: In III.ii.2, b. Shab. 14b, the decree is credited to Simeon alone. For further comment, see synoptic studies. The classification is a form of the chain of tradition. The context is fourth-century Palestin ian Amoraic, but the tradition must be considerably earlier than R. Jeremiah.

IV.i.2.A. Simeon b. Shetah ordained three things: (1) That a man may do business with the marriage-contract of his wife; (2) and that children should go to school; (3) and he ordained uncleanness (TWM'H) for glassware. B. Did not R. Ze'ira, R. Abuna say in the name of R. Jeremiah, "Yosi b. Yo'ezer of Seredah and Yosi b. Yohanan of Jerusalem decreed uncleanness on the land of the peoples and on glassware." R. Yosi in the name of R. Judah b. Tabbai [sic]. R. Yonah said, "Judah b. Tabbai and Simeon b. Shetah decreed concerning metalware, and Hillel and Shammai decreed concerning the purity of hands." (y. Ket. 8:11, repr. Gilead p. 50b) Comment: The list of Simeon's decrees now is challenged, for, as we observed, the decree on metalware was credited to both Simeon and Judah b. Tabbai. Clearly, the tradition was in a state of confusion. Yet the basis for the confusion here lies before us: The desire to list the decrees or ordinances of Simeon alone. Since no one disputed that Simeon had a role in the third item on the list, it was included to his credit. Immediately following, therefore, comes the inquiry as to why Judah has been omitted. The inquiry is identical to R. Yosi's saying in y. Shab. 1:4 = y. Pes. 1:6, but with this difference: there R. Yonah is represented as saying "Judah b. Tabbai." If the text is an accurate rep-

J U D A H A N D S I M E O N — IV.i.3, 4

111

resentation of the tradition attributed to him, then we may suppose he went on to say that Judah b. Tabbai comes next on the list, and is cred ited with a decree on glassware. Then R. Yosi corrected the tradition by saying both ancients were responsible. Here, by contrast, R. Yosi's say ing recurs, but R. Yonah is cited. Perhaps the text or tradition before us is garbled. Part A is classified as a record of Simeon's legal ordinances. The con text in y. Ket. 8:11 is a discussion of the language of the marriage-con tract. The antecedent materials are similar to those in the Babylonian version. No authorities are mentioned; the whole probably is of Tan naitic origin. As to the list in part A, we may be certain that no. 3 is borrowed from other versions, for we have seen the formulation in precisely this language in b. Shab. 14b. The reference to the schools is unique. It ac tually belongs to Joshua b. Gamala. The content of no. 1 is not what we should have expected on the basis of earlier formulations. Indeed, this is not what Simeon ordained at all. At best it may be a separate tra dition, at worst a garbled summary. The list is a composite; we do not know who compiled it, but he could not have known either the beraita or Rav Judah's saying in b. Ket. 82a. IV.i.3. The hands of Simeon b. Shetah were heated [Jastrow, I, p. 476: "He was very severe in executing judgment."] A conspiracy of scoffers came, saying, "Take counsel. Let us testify against his son and kill him." They gave testimony against him, and his judgment was entered, to be put to death. When he went forth to be executed, they said to him, "My lord, we are liars." His father wanted to bring him back. He said to him, "Father, if you seek to bring salvation by your hand, make me as the threshold" [Jastrow: "Make me the threshold for the Law to pass over me"]. (y. Sanh. 6:3, repr. Gilead p. 28a) Comment:

See III.i.3, to which the above is a curious supplement.

IV.i.4. Simeon b. Shetah was employed in flax [to support himself]. His disciples said to him, "Rabbi, remove [this work] from yourself, and we shall buy for you an ass, and you will not have to work so much." They went and brought him an ass from a Saracen. Hanging on it was a pearl. They came to him and told him, "From now on you do not have to work any more."

112

J U D A H A N D SIMEON — IV.ii.l

He said to them, "Why?" They told him, "We bought you an ass from a Saracen, and hanging on it was a pearl." He said to them, "Did its master know about i t ? " They said to him, "No." He said to them, "Go, return it." (y. B.M. 2:5, repr. Gilead p. 8a) Comment: This biographical fable is told anonymously. A legal teach ing is cited as having been stated before Judah the Patriarch, but the narrator, or editor, who proceeds to explain Simeon's action, is never named, and can only be dated some time after 200 A.D. We have no clear idea as to how much later the story was told. It bears no relation ship to any other story about Simeon, who is normally represented as a courtier of Yannai, or a priest, or a judge, but never as a common labor er. Hence we must regard the story as late and unrelated to living tradi tions (if any) about Simeon's life and and work. The story as it stands certainly is a unity, as one would expect in a late, fictional narrative.

IV.ii.l.A. Yannai the King and the queen ate bread together, and, since he had killed the rabbis, there was no man [able] to bless in their behalf. B. He said to his wife, "Who will give us a man to bless for us?" She said to him, "Take an oath to me that if I bring you a man, you will not torment him." He vowed. She brought him Simeon b. Shetah, her brother. C. She sat him down between him and her. He said to him, "Do you see how much honor I pay you." He said to him, "It is not you who honors me, but the Torah that honors me, as it is written, £fcr way will liftyou up andhonoryou whenyou embrace her (Prov. 4:8)." He said to her, "Do you see that he does not accept authority (MRWT)." D. They gave him the cup to bless. He said, "How shall I bless? 'Blessed is he of whose [gift] Yannai and his companions have eaten*}" He drank that cup. They gave him another, and he blessed [it]. (b. Ber. 48a) Comment: The italicized portion is in Hebrew, the rest in Aramaic. Here an element of the pericope about the three hundred Nazirites, III.i.1, stands entirely by itself.

JUDAH AND

S I M E O N — IV.ii.2

113

A little gloss makes "the queen" into his sister, a singleton, but taken for granted by b. Sot. 47a. Clearly, so far as the redactor is concerned, no reference to any other elements in the former pericope is intended or required, for Simeon's absence is explained on other grounds in the introductory clause, part A. But part C is not integral to the story, which could as well have gone directly from part B to part D. The con cluding clause of part C in fact is borrowed from other accounts. Here it does not fit into the narrator's purpose. It is not only superfluous, but contradicts the spirit of the account. At this point Yannai ought to have accepted Simeon's explanation, rather than rejecting it. The reference to the "companions" is similarly unexplained. It would in this context have been sufficient for the blessing to be, "Yannai has eaten." Hence the whole pericope is based upon the earlier materials, artificially separated by the redactor from them for the present pur pose. The context is a discussion of whether one may bless if he has not eaten with the others present. Immediately following is a comment by R. Abba b. R. Hiyya b. Abba, that Simeon still erred, for he had not eaten anything, merely drunk a cup of wine. But the narrator clearly thought the story proved that very point, and it is so understood in Palestinian Talmudic contexts. What has happened is that in the inclu sion of the story for the Babylonian editor's purpose, the story has been revised, but its original point has also been missed, presumably because Babylonian law on this question differed from the Palestinian view. This is made explicit in the end: R. Hana b. Judah said in Rava's name, "The law is that if he ate with them a vegetable leaf and drank a cup of wine, he can be combined [for the purposes of saying grace]. But he cannot say Grace on behalf of others until he eats with them the quantity of an olive of grain-food." The classification is a biographical narrative told to illustrate a point of law. The setting is late fourth-century Babylonia. The story certainly derives from earlier sources, which we have already reviewed (y. Ber. 7:2, y. Naz. 5:3). It is revised and reduced from its former version, but the elements actually given are not much different. The revision must have taken place in a Babylonian school. IV.ii.2. [The passage is an extended account of Honi's rain prayer, as in the Mishnah.] Thereupon Simeon b. Shetah sent to him, "Were you not Honi, I should have placed you under the ban, for were the years like the years of Elijah, in whose hands were the keys of rain, would not the name of Heaven be profaned through you? But what shall I do to you, for you act petulantly before the Omnipresent, and he grants your desire, as a son who acts petulantly before his father, and he grants his desires. Thus he says to him, 'Father, take me to bathe in warm water, wash me in cold water, give me nuts, almonds, peaches, and

114

JUDAH AND

S I M E O N — IV.ii.3, 4

pomegranates/ and he gives them to him. Of you Scripture says, Let thy father and thy mother be glad... (Prov. 23:25)." (b. Ta. 23a, trans, J . Rabbinowitz, p. 117) Comment: See Il.i.l, M. Ta. 3:8, and III.i.2. The Palestinian version obviously has been expanded here. Note Epstein, Mevo*ot, p. 692. IV.ii.3. What was the incident with R. Joshua b. Perahiah? When Yannai the King put the rabbis to death, Simeon b. Shetah was hidden by his sister, while R. Joshua b. Perahiah fled to Alexan dria in Egypt. When there was peace, Simeon b. Shetah sent, "From me, Jerusalem, the Holy City, to you, Alexandria in Egypt, O my sister, my husband dwells in your midst and I abide desolate." R. Joshua arose and came back...[etc]. (b. Sot. 47a) Comment: Judah b. Tabbai of y. Hag. 2:2B and y. Sanh. 6:6B has be come Joshua b. Perahiah. We have already reviewed the entire pericope above, pp. 83, 99. Here our interest is in Simeon's role. We are not told who the sister was, but since the narrator thought it important, she is presumably the queen of b. Ber. 48a. The reason for Yannai's slaughter of the sages is not given. Simeon plays no role in earlier events. Afterward, because he is available in Jerusalem, he is merely able to summon the surviving "rabbis" to re turn. IV.ii.4.A. Why are not kings of Israel judged or permitted to judge? B. Because of an incident that took place in connection with (M SH SHYH D) the slave of Yannai the King. He killed someone. Simeon b. Shetah said to the sages, "Setyour eyes against him, and let usjudge him" They sent [word] to him, "Your slave has killed someone." He sent him [the slave] to them [the sages, for judgment]. They sent [word] to him, "You come too, for the Torah says, If warning has been given to its owners (Ex. 21:29). Let the owner of the ox come and stand by his ox." He [the King] came and sat down. Simeon b. Shetah said to him, "King Yannai, stand on your feet, so they [witnesses] may give testimony against you, and not before us [onlyJ do you arise, but before Him-Who-Spoke-and-the-World-Came-into-Being do you arise, as it is said, Then both the men between whom the controversy is shall standout. 19:17)." C

JUDAH AND

S I M E O N — IV.ii.5

115

He said to him, "Not asyou say, but asyour comrades say [shall I act]." He looked to the right, and they looked down at the ground. He looked to his left, and they looked down at the ground. Simeon b. Shetah said to them, " You are wrapped in thoughts (B LY MH$BWT). Let the Master of thoughts come and exact vengeance from you" Forthwith, Gabriel came and smote them to the ground, and they died. C. At that moment they said, "The King neitherjudges nor isjudged, neither gives testimony, nor is he the object of testimony" (b. Sanh. 19a-b) C

Comment: The italicized passages are in Hebrew, the rest in Aramaic. Here the slaughter of the sages is attributed to an angel of God, as an act of punishment for their supine behavior toward Yannai. Simeon is not victim, but cause of the punishment. And the king plays a creditable role. He obeys the sages and carries out their orders. But because of their own failure to carry out the law, Gabriel kills them, and the king goes free. Consequently the ruling is made that the king (= the state) is not summoned to a rabbinical court. The pericope is a singleton. It is given anonymously, not attributed to Tannaitic tradents. Before the passage come comments pertaining to the Mishnah, but not to this story, made by R. Joseph and Resh Laqish, and then, "But why this prohibition of the kings of Israel? Because of an incident..." The introductory matter does not involve named authori ties. It is a unity; no element could have been comprehended by itself, and none is superfluous to the story as it stands. The language is not con sistent; it starts in Aramaic and ends in beraita-Hebrew. But the nar rative is smooth. We have no basis on which to estimate when it would have been composed. Since it stands in no relationship to earlier ma terials, however, a prima facie assumption may be made that it is not part of whatever developing traditions existed concerning Simeon. It reveals no signs of mnemonic materials or patterns. The polemic is clearly against sages who fail to stand up to authority. The authority here is the "king," but in later times it could as well have been the patriarch or exilarch. But that will not permit us to assign to the storyteller such a motive. Josephus, Antiquities 14:168-184, has a roughly similar story, in which Samaias speaks against Herod before Hyrcanus. Epstein, Mevo*ot, p. 55, therefore turns Yannai here into Herod and says the law of part C is Simeon b. Shetah's! Others have identified Samaias with Shammai or Shema iah. c

IV.ii.5. [R. Hisda and R. Adda b. Ahava comment on Simeon's actions in Ashqelon.] (b. Sanh. 46a) Comment: See y. Hag. 2:2C. The Mishnah here includes Eliezer's

116

JUDAH AND

S I M E O N — IV.ii.6, V l . i . l

reference to Simeon's hanging women. Hisda's statement is revised in the light of that event. IV.ii.6. [Reference to] "the wheat grains of Simeon b. Shetah" [as particularly large.] (b. Hul. 119b) Comment: In the context of a discussion involving R. Aha b. Rava, the above appears as a proverbial expression denoting very large wheat, with reference to the story cited above, b. Ta anit 23a. c

Vl.i.l.A. R. Jeremiah asked, "Can Grace be recited in common including one who dined on vegetables?" B. Three hundred Nazirites came up in the days of Simeon b. Shetah. For one hundred fifty of them he found grounds for absolu tion, and for one hundred fifty of them he did not find grounds for absolution. He went up to Yannai the King. He said to him, "Three hundred Nazirites have come up, and they require nine hundred offerings. You give them half, and I half." Yannai gave them half. An evil tongue went forth and said, "Simeon gave nothing." He heard and fled. C. After some days, Persian dignitaries were eating at the table of Yannai the King. They said, "We remember that there was here a sage, and he said to us wise things." He said to his sister, "Send, bring him." She said to him, "Give him your word and he will come." He gave him his word. D. He came and sat between the king and queen. He [Yannai] asked, "What is the meaning of this?" He [Simeon] said to him, "As it is written in the Book of Ben Sira, Esteem her so she shall exalt you and seat you between princes" He said to him, "Why did you fool me?" He said to him, "Heaven forfend! I did not fool you, but you gave from yours, and I from mine, as it is written, For wisdom is a defense even as money is a defense (Qoh. 7:12)." E. He said to him, "And you did not tell me [that you had not given the money, but rather absolution] ?" He said to him, "Had I told you, you would not have done it." F. He said to him, "And why did you flee?" He said to him, "As it is written, Hide yourself for a little moment, until the anger be past (Is. 26:20)."

J U D A H A N D SIMEON — Vl.iii.l, VLxii.l

117

He mixed a cup [of wine] for him and told him to bless. G. He said, "Let us bless the food which Yannai and his companions have eaten." He said to him, "In all my days I never heard from you this matter." He replied, "What do you want? Shall I bless food which I have not eaten?" He mixed the cup for him a second time. He said. "Let us bless the food which we have eaten." (Gen. R. 91:3, ed. Theodor-Albeck, III, pp. 1114-1117.) Comment: See y. Ber. 7:2, III.i.1. Here Salome is Yannai's sister—or the pronoun has the wrong antecedent.

Vl.iii.l. The story is told (M'SH B): In the days of Simeon b. Shetah and in the days of Shelomsy the Queen, that the rains would come down from Sabbath eve to Sabbath eve, until the wheat became like kidneys, the barley like olive pits, and the lentils like golden denars. The sages gathered (SBR) some of them and put them aside for the coming generations. All this why? To show how much [dama ge] sin causes, to fulfill that which is said (Jer. 5:25) [etc.]. (Lev. R. 35:10, ed. Margoliot IV, p. 829, lines 1-4.) Comment:

See Sifra Beh., I.ii.l.

And

is added between Salome and

Simeon. VLxii.l. On the 18th of Tevet, the congregation [of the Pharisees] took its place in judgment. Because the Sadducees were seated in the Sanhedrin. Yannai the King and Shelominon [sic] the Queen were seated with it. And not a single one of Israel sat with them except for Simeon b. Shetah. They would ask responsa and laws and did not know how to bring proof from the Torah. Simeon b. Shetah said to them, "Whoever knows how to bring [proof] from the Torah is fit (KSR) to sit in the Sanhedrin." One time a practical matter fell among them, and they did not know how to bring proof from the Torah, except for one who was mumbling and saying, "Give me time, and tomorrow I shall return." He gave him time. He went and sat by himself but was unable to bring proof from the Torah. The next day he was ashamed to come

118

J U D A H A N D SIMEON — VLxii.l


S i m e o n b. Shetah and J u d a h b. Tabbai


1. Man put t o death illegally

Mekh. Kaspa III 3 1 - 4 1 (Judah criti cizes S i m e o n )

ILi Mishnah

2. A n o m a l y of law M e k h . Kaspa against circumstan III 3 1 - 4 1 tial e v i d e n c e (Judah) 3. Judah: May

ILii Tosefta



Tos. Sanh. 6 : 6 (Simeon criti cizes J u d a h )

y. Sanh. 4 : 9 y. Sanh. 6 : 3 (Simeon criti cizes S i m e o n )

b. ag. 1 6 b b. M a k . 5 b (Simeon criti cizes J u d a h )

Tos. Sanh. 6:6 + 8:3 (Simeon)

y. Sanh. 4 : 9 y. Sanh. 6 : 3

b. S a n h . 3 7 b b. S h a v . 3 4 a

Tos. Hag. 2 : 8

y . tfag. 2 : 2 a y. Sanh. 6 : 6 a



V ARN

119


M . Hag. 2 : 2

n o t lay on hands S i m e o n : M a y lay on hands ( =

No.

4) 4 . J u d a h w a s Nasi Simeon head o f court or vice versa 5. J u d a h b. T a b b a i in Alexandria

b. S h a b . 1 4 b ( S i m e o n alone)

6. Decreed uncleanness o n metal w a r e 7. Avot-chain

y. Shab. 1 : 4 y . Pes. 1 : 6 y. Ket. 8 : 1 1

A v o t 1:8-9

and sit on the Sanhedrin. Simeon b. Shetah took one of the disciples and set him in his place. He said to them, "One may not diminish the Sanhedrin less than seventy-one." Thus he did to them each day until all of them had vanished, and the Sanhedrin of Israel was seated. The day that the Sanhedrin of Sadducees vanished and the Sanhedrin of Israel was seated they made into a holiday. (Megillat Ta anit, ed. Lichtenstein, p. 342-3.) c

Comment:

(b. S o t . 4 7 a Joshua instead o f Judah)

y. Hag. 2 : 2 b y. Sanh. 6 : 6 b

As often in the medieval Scholion to Megillat Ta'anit we

find materials with no antecedents whatever in Talmudic literature. The pericope is a unity, highly literary—dramatic, smooth, with no lacunae in narrative—and independent of any earlier tradition. It is still another version of the struggle between Yannai and the Pharisees, but here the Sadducees are the antagonists, and the king merely a bystander. The queen plays no part. The form in which the Sadducees are represented as mumblers who need more time and in the end fail is familiar in other Megillat Ta'anit materials (Development, pp. 1 8 0 - 1 8 2 ) . The superior cleverness of the Pharisaic representative conquers all. Simeon here, like Yohanan ben Zakkai in similar pericopae in Meg. Ta., outwits the Sadducees, and his victory is celebrated. I cite the pericope merely to illus trate the way in which completely new materials in later times were fabricated, then assigned to earlier heroes.

120

Simeon b. Shetah Alone

1. Rained heavily in S i m e o n ' s t i m e 2. Hung eighty w o m e n in Ashqelon 3. Rebuked Honi

4 . D e c r e e re m a r riage-contract 5. S i m e o n , Yannai, and the Nazirites 6. After Simeon's day no propertylitigation

JUDAH AND


SIMEON — VLxii.l

ILi Mishnah

ILii Tosefta



Sifra B e h u q o t a i 1:1 Sifre Deut. 221

IILii Tannaitic Materials in Babylonian Gemara


b. Hul. 1 1 9 b

b. T a . 2 3 a

M. Sanh. 6 : 4

y. H a g . 2 : 2 c y. S a n h . 6 : 6

M . Ta'anit 3 : 8

y. M . Q . 3 : 1 y. T a . 3 : 1 0 Tos. Ket. 1 2 : 1

y. Sanh. 6 : 3 (son)

b. B e r . 1 9 a

b. S h a b . 1 4 b b. K e t . 8 2 b y. Ber. 7 : 2

L e v . R. 3 5 : 1 0

b. Sanh. 4 6 b

b. Ta. 2 3 a

L e v . R. 3 5 : 8

b. Ber. 48a (says blessing)

G e n . R. 9 1 : 3

y. Sanh. 1 : 1

8. Simeon restored Pharisees t o f a v o r with Yannai

b. Q i d . 6 6 a

y. K e t . 8 : 1 1 y . Pes. 1 : 6

9. Decreed chil dren should go t o school

y. K e t . 8 : 1 1

1 0 . Returned pearl

y. B . M . 2 : 5

13. Vanquished Sadducees


y. K e t . 8 : 1 1

y. Naz. 5 : 3

b. S h a b . 1 4 b

12. Tried Yannai f o r slave's m u r d e r

V ARN

b. Ta. 2 3 a

7 . D e c r e e re u n cleanness o f metal w a r e

1 1 . Called J o s h u a back f r o m Egypt


121

(y. H a g . 2 : 2 , y. Sanh. 6 : 6 , Judah)

Deut. R. 1 3 : 5 b. Sot. 47a b. Sanh. 1 0 7 b

b. Sanh. 1 9 a - b

Meg. Ta. p. 3 4 2 - 3

122

JUDAH AND

SIMEON —

SYNOPSES

III. SYNOPSES

A. Judah b. Tabbai and Simeon b. Shetah 1. Man Illegally Put to Death and Anomaly of Law against Circum stantial Evidence Mekh.Kaspa

III

31-41

1 . O n c e ( K B R ) S. k i l l e d ( H R G ) a false w i t n e s s 2 . J u d a h b . T a b b a i said t o him 3 . M a y I [ n o t ] see c o n s o l a t i o n if y o u h a v e n o t s h e d innocent blood [ = Tos. 7*]

4. and the T o r a h said 5. Slay at the t e s t i m o n y o f w i t n e s s e s , slay at t h e testi m o n y of perjurers 6 . J u s t as t h e w i t n e s s e s are t w o 7 . so the perjurers are t w o 7*.

7**

#

8. and once ( W K B R )

9. J u d a h b. Tabbai en tered a ruin. 1 0 . a n d f o u n d t h e r e a slain m a n still w r i t h i n g ( M P R P R ) 1 1 . and the s w o r d dripping blood ( M N J P

Tos. Sanh. 6:6 = Mid. Tan. ed. Hoffmann, p. 112 1 . J u d a h said

Tos. Sanh. 1. 2.

2. 3 . M a y I „ „ if I have not slain a perjurer to uproot from the heart of the Boethusians who say the ac cused must be put to death [ b e f o r e t h e p e r j u r e r is slain] (Mid. Tan. = Sadducees)

3.

4. 5.

4. 5.

6.

6.

7. 7*. Simeon said to h i m , M a y I [etc.] if y o u h a v e n o t shed innocent blood 7**. = Mekh. 6,7 8.

7. 7*.

7**

#

8 . S i m e o n said, M a y I [etc.] if I d i d n o t see o n e r u n n i n g a f t e r his f e l l o w w i t h a s w o r d in h i s hand. He entered before him into a ruin, and ran after him.

9.

9 . / e n t e r e d after him

10.

1 0 . a n d f o u n d h i m slain

11.

1 1 . a n d t h e s w o r d in the hand of the murder-

DM)

^

1 2 . from the hand of the slaver 1 3 . J u d a h b . T a b b a i said t o h i m , M a y [evil] come u p o n me

8:3

99

99

12.

12.

13.

1 3 . I said to him, Wicked one — 99

[see a b o v e ]

99

99

123

J U D A H A N D SIMEON — SYNOPSES

1 4 . i f n o t y o u o r I h a v e slain

14.

14. „

1 5 . But what should I do

15.

15. „ „ „ for your case is not given into my hand

1 6 . f o r l o , t h e T o r a h said, A t the testimony of t w o witnesses (Deut. 1 9 : 1 5 ) 1 7 . But he w h o k n o w s and the master o f thoughts ( H Y W D * WB

The Tosefta has split the single but composite pericope of Mekh. Kaspa into its two components; the first, about killing a perjurer, is separated from the story about circumstantial evidence. In both in stances Judah is replaced as the hero by Simeon. Further, the Tos.'s Simeon now tells Judah he has shed innocent blood; the Mekhilta's Judah says the same to Simeon. The Tos.'s Judah explains his action: to inflict exemplary punishment. Of this Mekh. knows nothing. Tos. no. 3 seems to depend on Mekh. no. 1. The Tos.'s ver sion of the unpunishable murder is similar to the Mekhilta's and in most respect depends upon it, e.g. in the correction of master of (no. 17), which is redundant, and in strengthening the conclusion (no. 19) by killing the man in the very presence of the rabbi. Likewise no. 13 is intensified by the expletive wicked. The whole account is now given in the first person, as the narrative of Simeon himself. Both Toseftan versions are developments of the Mekhilta's composite pericope. But the developments are not merely of detail, which would permit us to impute dependency. Rather, the names of the masters are consistently reversed, and this suggests deliberate doctoring, not mere ly the augmentation of one detail or another. The further versions all depend in general upon the Toseftan one, as we shall now see. Mekhilta stands mostly apart from the later developments of the

124


pericope. For the next stage in the comparison, we shall give y. Sanh. 4:9, to which the other versions will be compared. y. Sanh. 4:9 = Mid. Tan. ed. Hoffmann p. 101 1 . S i m e o n said, M a y I see consolation 2 . If I d i d n o t see o n e p u r suing another 3. He entered [Mid. T a n . : ran] a r u i n 4 . I e n t e r e d after h i m 5 . a n d f o u n d h i m slain 6. and this one going out 7. and the s w o r d was drippine blood 8 . I said t o h i m 9 . M a y I see c o n s o l a t i o n 1 0 . that this one slew h i m 1 1 . b u t w h a t shall I d o 1 2 . f o r y o u r b l o o d is n o t given into m y hands 1 3 . but the one w h o k n o w s t h o u g h t s w i l l exact p u n i s h ment f r o m that man 1 4 . He did not even leave there [ H S P Y Q L S ' T ] 1 5 . before a serpent bit h i m a n d he died. 16.

y. Sanh.

6:3

1.

1.

2.

2.

3.

3.

4. 5. 6. 7.

4. 5. 6. 7.

8. 9. 10.

8. 9. 10.

11. 12.

11. 12.

13.

13.

14.

14.

15.

15.

1 6 . J u d a h b. Tabbai s a i d , M a y I see c o n s o l a t i o n if I d i d n o t s l a y a false w i t n e s s . F o r t h e y w o u l d say, U n t i l h e is slain [the false w i t n e s s is n o t p u n i s h e d ] , as it is said ( E x . 2 1 : 2 3 ) , Soulfor soul

16.

17.

1 7 . Simeon b. Shetah said t o h i m , M a y I see consolation

18.

1 8 . if it is n o t r e g a r d e d t o y o u as if y o u s h e d i n nocent blood.

19.

1 9 . A t that time he t o o k u p o n himself not to teach except f r o m the

5b

b. Mak.

TNY*

99

99

99

99

99

99

t o r e m o v e f r o m t h e heart of the Sadducees who w o u l d say 99

99

17. „

99

„

„

1 8 . if you did not shed 99

99

99

f o r t h e sages said, no punishment until the ac cused perjurers are both found guilty [+ flagella tion a n d fines, in s a m e formulal 1 9 . „ „ „ e x c e p t in the presence „ „

JUDAH AND

20.

b. Sanh. 37b 1. TNY> „ „ „ 2. „ „ „ another into a ruin 3 . / ran after him 4. 5. / saw him with a s w o r d in his hand 6. 7. a n d his blood was d r i p p i n g a n d the slain man was writhing 8. »» » »> 9. 1 0 . Wicked! Who killed this man ? You or me 11. „ „ „ 12. „ „ ,„ f o r l o , t h e T o r a h h a s said D e u t . 1 7 13. „ „ „ f r o m that man who slew his fellow 1 4 . They said h e d i d n o t move f r o m t h e r e b e f o r e a s n a k e came and b i t h i m a n d he died 15. [As above] 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.

SIMEON —

mouth of Shetah. 20.

b. Shav.

J

~'

99

Simeon

b. 2 0 . And all the rest of Judah*s life he prostrated himself on the grave of that witness, and his voice was heard, and people thought it was the voice of the slain man. He said, It is my voice. You will know it tomorrow when he dies. b. Hag. 1.

34a

1 • 99 99 2. „ „ Sanh.] 3 99

99

99

„

„

„ [as b .

Q °»

9. 10 ± K J

'

11 . 12

»»

99

99

99

99

99

99

99

99

99

99

99

16b

2.

„ fas b .

4. 5. I found him „ 6. 7. „ „ Sanh.]

125

SYNOPSES

3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

8. 9. 10. 11. 12.

1 3 . T h e Omnipresent w i l l „ „ „ fromyou [omits who-fellow] 14. „ they d i d n o t m o v e before a snake bit h i m [ o m i t s came and]

13.

15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.

15. 16. T N W RBNN 17. fAs b. Mak. 5b] 1 8 . [As b. M a k . 5 b ] 1 9 . [As b. M a k . 5 b ] 20. [ A s b. M a k . 5 b ]

[As abovel

14.

The beraita about Judah's exemplary but illegal punishment of the false witness, b. Mak. 5b = b. Hag. 16b, is an improvement on the equivalent version in y. Sanh. 6:3. There they would say is unclear. The Babylonian version supplies the identity of those who held the false opinion, namely the Sadducees. This further depends upon Tos. Sanh. 6:6, but Boethusians is dropped in favor of Sadducees. The exact

126

JUDAH AND

SIMEON —

SYNOPSES

quotation of the Boethusians/Sadducees varies somewhat, y. Sanh. supplies a proof-text for their opinion, which is absent in Tos. Sanh. and later dropped in b. Mak. = b. Hag. The most striking change occurs in no. 18, where the language if it is not regarded to you as if you shed is changed to the more direct you shed. This is a simplification and an improvement. Tos. knows nothing of Judah's pledge not to teach instruction/law except according to Simeon, which occurs in more dramatic detail— in the presence of—in the Babylonian beraita. The Palestinian is intermediate; it does not specify what it was that Judah would not teach. The beraita, in summary, is unquestionably later than, and an improvement upon, y. Sanh., being smoother, drop ping irrelevant details (e.g. the proof-text), but supplying important "omissions", e.g. what Judah would not teach, and adding flagellation and fines. In one respect, namely no. 16, to remove etc., the beraita obvi ously must depend upon Tos. But in all other important aspects, it is a development of y. Sanh. 6:3—thus eclectic or a composite, a puz zling result. The Mekh. version provides the briefest and least satisfactory story, omits the dramatic details of Judah's (Simeon's) report of what he had done, and of Judah's vow not to teach except following Simeon's opinions. No. 20 of the beraita is certainly a dramatic and colorful addition to the whole, known only in the latest version. The story about the murderer whom the law cannot punish is linked to the foregoing in Mekh. Kaspa, but everywhere else stands separate ly. In Mekh. Kaspa we again find the simplest and least embellished form. The changes from y. Sanh. 4:9 to b. Sanh. 37b = b. Shav. 34a are not considerable. The scene is somewhat clarified and sharpened. He entered.. .1 entered of y. Sanh. becomes the dramatic confrontation of b. Sanh.: / ran after him and saw him a moment after he did the deed. Then the details (no. 7) are greatly augmented, but again are drawn mainly from Mekh. Kaspa, further from the anonymous accounts, not summarized here, which invariably include the gory details. What shall I do of y. Sanh. 4:9 is greatly expanded by reference to the proof-text, but here this is artfully introduced in the context of the exchange be tween the sage and the murderer. Then, in no. 14 of b. Sanh., the narrator takes over for the unclear he did not leave, so we are now told who has provided the details of the denouement. As we observed above, the two stories are distinct and circulated by themselves. Only the Judah b. Tabbai-version was kept together. The Simeon-ones were allowed to develop separately. The beraitot in both

JUDAH AND

SIMEON — SYNOPSES

127

cases provide additional information, but we have no reason to sup pose they contain material drawn from other, independent traditions. In each instance, on the basis of the earlier versions we can readily account for the alterations.Only no. 20 is entirely independent of the foregoing, but it is certainly a dramatic embellishment, nothing more; it is the sort of addition that editors of beraitot loved to make. Now, assuming the Mekhilta is the earliest version of the pericopae, we note that the later accounts are in general dependent upon, or at least related to, it in all important details except for the identification of the hero. The whole can be said to be a living tradition, in that de tails found later on normally derive from earlier accounts and can be readily traced from one version to the next. But what lies before Mekh. Kaspa? I find it difficult to imagine that the literary relation ships we have observed do not signify the dependence, upon the Mekhilta, of the accounts in which Simeon is the hero. The Mekhilta of R. Ishmael-version is what Meir would have supplied; all the others in general follow opinion of Judah b. Ilai, making Simeon Nasi. All elements of the Simeon-materials thus are revisions of the foregoing, including the important fact that Simeon is the hero, Judah the judge who erred. In that case, the correct tradition must be the one which places Judah b. Tabbai superior to Simeon b. Shetah—just as in M. Hag. The others testify to the ability of Judah b. Ilai and those who shared his view not only to develop the older tradition, but also completely to revise its historical and biographical facts. The relative importance of Simeon and Judah seems to have constituted an impor tant issue for the late second century Tannaitic schools. 2.

Nasi—Head of Court

Tos. HaQ. 2:8

y. HaQ. 2:2a

y. Sanh. 6:6a

1 . T h e r e w e r e five p a i r s . 2 . T h r e e o f t h e first p a i r s w h o said n o t t o l a y o n h a n d s 3 . a n d t w o o f t h e last w h o said t o l a y o n h a n d s 4 . w e r e Nasis* 5. a n d t h e second w e r e heads o f court, according t o R. M e i r . 6. R . J u d a h says, S i m e o n b. S h e t a h w a s Nasi, J u d a h b . Tabbai head o f the court 6*.

1. 2.

1. 2.

3.

3.

4. 5.

4. 5.

6.

[As in 6*]

6*. W e have learned CNN T N Y N N ) : Judah b . T a b b a i w a s Nasi, S i m -

6 . [ A s in 6 * ]

6*. Some Tannaim teach C Y T T N Y Y T N Y ) Judah b. Tabbai

128


eon b. Shetah w a s head of the court.

w a s Nasi, a n d s o m e T a n n a i m teach S i m e o n b . S h e t a h w a s Nasi 7.

7. S o m e teach it i n r e verse. [The story o f J u d a h in A l e x a n d r i a a n d S i m e o n in A s h q e l o n f o l lows.]

7.

The Tos. version thus has not been reproduced, merely cited, in the Palestinian Amoraic discussion. But y. Hag. rephrases the whole in explicit form: Judah was Nasi, Simeon was head of the court. In y. Sanh. two separate attributions to Tannaim simply assign the position of Nasi to each of the authorities. In any event the language of Tos. has been abandoned, while Tannaitic authority is claimed for its con tent. 3.

Judah b. Tabbai in Alexandria

y. Hag. 2:2b 1. The m e n o f Jerusalem wanted t o appoint J u d a h b . T . as nasi i n J e r u s a l e m . H e fled t o Alexandria. 2. T h e m e n o f Jerusalem w o u l d w r i t e 3. F r o m Jerusalem the great, t o Alexandria the small 4. H o w long will m y betrothed dwell with y o u , a n d I sit e t c .

y. Sanh.

6:6b

1.

2 3

»

» »

4 . H o w l o n g w i l l m y husband d w e l l i n y o u r midst „ „ „ in my house 5 . [ O m i t s t h e affair w i t h t h e student.]

5 . H e d e p a r t e d , c o m i n g i n a b o a t . H e said, y o u r e m e m b e r etc.

The version in y. Sanh. omits the introductory materials and knows nothing of the incident with the student at all. The augmentations in no. 4 suggest a somewhat later version, and my guess is that y. Sanh. depends upon, but abbreviates, y. Hag. The same pattern of summary and abbreviation of y. Hag. by y. Sanh. recurs in the Simeonstory, III.i.3c. 4.

The Decree on the Uncleanness of Metal Utensils

b. Shab. 14b 1. DTNY>

2. Y o s i b. Y o ' e z e r and Y o s i b. Y o h a n a n decreed uncleanness on the land o f the p e o p l e s a n d glass ware.

y. Shab. 1:4 1. R. Ze'ira b. A b u n a in the n a m e of R. Jeremiah 2

y. Pes. 1:6 1. [As y. Shab.] Abuna

R.

y. Ket. 8:11 1. [As y. Pes.]

2

2 99

99

99

99

99

99

JUDAH AND

3. Simeon b. Shetah ordained ( T Q N ) the marriage contract for the w o m a n

4. and decreed ( G Z R ) uncleanness on metalware 5. S h a m m a i and Hillel d e c r e e d u n cleanness on the hands

SIMEON —

SYNOPSES

3 . R. Yonah said, Ju dah b. Tabbai. R. Yosi said, Judah b. Tabbai and S i m e o n b. Shetah decreed uncleanness o n met al w a r e [ O m i t s mar riage-contract] 4 . [See n o . 3 ]

3 . R . Judah said, J u dah b. T. and Si m e o n b . §. [ A s y . Shab.]

5 . „ „ concerning the cleanness o f t h e h a n d s

5. [As y. Shab.]

4.

[See n o . 3 ]

129 3 . R. Yosi said J u d a h b . T . R . Yonah said, J u d a h b . T . a n d S i m e o n b . §. decreed uncleanness on metalware [Omits marriage-con tract] 4 . [See n o . 3 ]

5. [As y. S h a b . ]

Since y. Ket. 8:11 contains the list of Simeon's decrees, we shall add the synopsis of that list here: Tos. Ket. 12:1 1 . A t first... S i m e o n b . S. ordained that her marriagecontract should be w i t h her husband, and he should write to her, A l l the proper t y w h i c h I h a v e is l i a b l e a n d pledged f o r this, y o u r mar riage-contract.

2.

b. Ket. 82b 1. R a v J u d a h . . . Sime o n b . §. o r d a i n e d all h i s p r o p e r t y is l i a b l e f o r h e r marriage-contract. TNY> N M Y H K Y : . . . u n t i l S i m e o n b . §. o r dained that he should w r i t e t o h e r , A l l my p r o p e r t y is l i a b l e f o r her marriage-contract 2.

3.

3.

4.

4.

y. Ket. 8:11 \ . S i m e o n b. Shetah de creed three things

2. That a man m a y do b u s i n e s s w i t h his w i f e ' s marriage-contract 3. That children should go to school 4. and he ordained ( T Q N ) uncleanness on glassware

All the references to the marriage-contract pertain to details. None holds Simeon b. Shetah invented the marriage-contract. The reference in b. Shab. no. 4 appears in y. Ket. 8:11 no. 4, now an ordinance. The version in b. Shab. no. 4 is unrelated to more detailed accounts of the matter. The marriage-contract materials are not closely related. Tos. Ket. has certainly produced b. Ket., but y. Ket. (like b. Shab. no. 3) stands pretty much by itself. Perhaps the intent of the ordinance is what y. Ket. no. 2 maintains, but that is not what is specified. As to the decree on the uncleanness of metal utensils, all the tradi tions are identical in language, except y. Ket. no. 4, which, like b.

130

JUDAH AND

SIMEON —

SYNOPSES

Shab. no. 4, omits reference to Judah b. Tabbai. Since the lists of b. Shab. 14b and y. Ket. 8:11 have in common the omission of Judah b. Tabbai and a reference to the marriage-contract (but not the same reference), there may be some correspondence between them. But a list of Simeon's decrees ought not to have omitted the founding of the school-system, and TQN of y. Ket. changes to GZR in b. Shab. Hence the lists are not closely related. Moreover, the intent of y. Ket. 8:11 is to list Simeon's decrees; one might argue Judah b. Tabbai is not deliberately omitted, merely bypassed for stylistic purposes. But the same cannot be said for b. Shab. 14b, which either is defective or represents a purposeful revision of the tradition referred to by the Palestinian Amoraim. I presume the latter were influenced by the juxtaposition of Judah and Simeon in M. Hag. 2:2 and M. Avot, but I do not understand why the framer of the Babylonian beraita was not similarly impressed with those lists, if he knew them. B.

Simeon b. Shetah Alone

1. Heavy Rains Sifra 1 . M<SH 2. In the days o f S i m e o n b. S . , i n t h e d a y s o f S L M S W the queen 3 . that the rains w o u l d de scend f r o m Sabbath night t o Sabbath night 4. until the wheat w a s made like kidneys 5. the barley like o l i v e pits 6 . a n d t h e lentils l i k e g o l d denars 7 . a n d t h e sages b o u n d up (SRR) some of them 8 . a n d left t h e m f o r c o m ing generations 9. to make k n o w n h o w m u c h sin causes. 1 0 . t o fulfill t h a t w h i c h is said J e r . 5 : 2 5

b. Ta. 23a 1 . S o w e find 2. „ „ „ [ O m i t s : Salome the Queen] 3. „ „ „ on eves of Wednesdays and Sabbaths 4 99

99

99

5» 6»

99

99

99

99

99

99

7. „ „ „ as an (DWGM )

example

}

8. „ „ „ [ O m i t s : and left •them; coming] Q /

99

1 0 . As 99

A

P T H ) , a n d o n e h u n d r e d fifty h e d i d n o t find g r o u n d s f o r a b s o l u t i o n 3. H e c a m e t o Y a n n a i t h e King 4. H e said t o h i m , T h e r e are here three hundred Nazirites requiring nine h u n d r e d sacrifices 5. S o ('L') y o u g i v e h a l f f r o m y o u r s , and I half f r o m mine 6. H e s e n t h i m f o u r h u n d r e d fifty 7. A n e v i l r e p o r t went f o r t h a n d said t o h i m

v. Na?. 1. «

5:3 „

„

99

99

2 99

[Omits

b. Ber. 1. 2.

Gen.

R.

2\ m

99

99

99

Rabbi]

2*

2*. •

48a

99

99

2* ^

99

•

99

99

99

they f o u n d

3 U

'

99

99

99

99

99

99

4 ^«

5.

[ O m i t s >L>]

99

99

6*

3. „ „ (SLQ)

„ went up

4.

4.

„

„

5.

5.

[As y. Naz.]

6.

6.

Yannai gave half

7.

7.

„

99

99

99

99

99

99

99

7. ' •

3.

' •

99

99

99

135


8. He g a v e n o t h i n g o f his own. 9. Y a n n a i the K i n g heard and was angry. Simeon b. §. w a s f r i g h t e n e d a n d fled. 1 0 . After some days im portant men came u p f r o m t h e K i n g d o m o f Persia t o Yannai the K i n g .

1 1 . W h e n t h e y w e r e seated e a t i n g , t h e y said t o h i m , W e r e m e m b e r t h a t t h e r e is h e r e a certain o l d m a n a n d he said b e f o r e u s w o r d s o f wisdom. 1 2 . Let h i m teach f o r us a m a t t e r (<WBD>). 1 3 . T h e y said t o h i m , S e n d and bring him 1 4 . H e sent a n d g a v e h i m This! w o r d 1 5 . H e c a m e a n d h e sat b e tween the king and the queen. 1 6 . H e said t o h i m , W h y did y o u deceive m e ? 1 7 . H e said t o h i m , I d i d n o t deceive y o u . 18. Y o u from your money and I from my light [Torahl, 1 9 . A s it is w r i t t e n Q o h . 7:12

8. „

„

„

9

1^* »

»

»

H«

99

99

99

8.

8«

9.

9. [ O m i t s : angry]

10. [Begins:] Yannai the King and the Queen were eating together. Since he had killed the rabbis, there was no one to bless for them. He said to his wife, Who will give us a man to bless for us} She said to him, Give me your oath that if I bring you a man, you will not torment him. He gave his oath and she brought him Simeon b. 5. her brother

99

A

99

^»

L

£

99

99

99

99

99

99

99

99

99

99

99

99

1 6 . ,,

„

,,

99

99

„

„

99

99

"

13 14 A

^«

A

' •

»

18. „

19 S

/

"*

99

99

Yannai-

99

99

of

99

12.

12.

13.

1 3 . He said to his sis ter, S e n d , b r i n g h i m

14.

17

99

1 1 . a t t h e table Yannai the King

11.

99

12

99

[As above]

14. „

„

„

99

99

1 5 . H e seated h i m between him and her

15

16. 17.

1 6 . H e said t o h i m , W h a t is t h i s 17. [Follows 1 9 ]

18.

18.

19.

19. [Quotes Ben Sira.] 19*. [Now come 1 7 and 1 8 ] 1 9 * * . W h y did y o u n o t tell m e ? If I told you, y o u would not have done it.

X

U

m

99

[Follows 1 9 ]

136


2 0 . H e said t o h i m , A n d w h y d i d y o u flee? 2 1 . H e said t o h i m , I h e a r d that m y lord was a n g r y against m e , and I w a n t e d t o fulfill t h i s S c r i p t u r e , I s . 2 6 : 20 22. A n d he read concern ing him Q o h . 7 : 1 2 b 2 3 . H e said t o h i m , A n d w h y d i d y o u sit b e t w e e n king and queen. 2 4 . H e said t o h i m , I n t h e B o o k s o f B e n S i r a it is w r i t t e n [etc.] ( 1 1 : 1 )

20

24*.

24*.

2 5 . H e said t o h i m , G i v e h i m t h e c u p s o h e w i l l bless 26. He took the cup and said

25

20.

20. „

„

„

„

„

21. „ „ [Omits: to]

„ wanted

21.

21. „

22. „

,,

,,

22.

22.

23. „

„

,,

2 3 . You see how much honor I pay you}

23.

2 4 . / / is not you that honors me, but the Torah honors me, as it is written Prov. 4:8 2 4 * . He said to her, Do you see he does not accept authority.

24.

25. „

2 5 . Mixed cup, said to him, bless

2 4 . B o o k o f Bar S i r a „ ,, ,,

„

„

24*.

99

99

26. „

„

„

2 6 . He said to him, How shall I bless} Blessed is he whose [gift] Y a n n a i a n d his companions have eaten?

26. „

2 7 . L e t u s bless t h e f o o d w h i c h Y a n n a i a n d his c o m panions h a v e eaten 2 8 . H e said t o h i m , T o such an extent are y o u in your stubbornness? 2 9 . H e said t o h i m , W h a t s h o u l d I say, F o r t h e f o o d which w e have not eaten?

27. „

„

,,

27.

[As above]

2 7 . / never heard this from you before

2 8 . ,,

„

,,

28.

[See 2 4 * ]

28.

29

[29. A s a b o v e , 26]

no.

29

3 0 . H e said, G i v e h i m eat. H e a t e .

to

30

30

3 1 . a n d said, L e t u s bless the food which w e have eaten

31

3 0 . He drank it [the cup] they b r o u g h t h i m another cup and he blessed. 31.

»

„

„

31 Xm

-*

99

99

»

Gen. R. does not greatly differ from the Palestinian versions. The order of some of the elements changes, and there are a few minor changes in word-choice, not here indicated. But for the rest, we may regard Gen .R. as a fairly accurate representation of the Palestinian Talmud's accounts. There also are some differences in grammar and spelling between the two Palestinian versions. They have not been signified.

JUDAH AND

SIMEON — CONCLUSION

137

The real comparison is between the three Palestinian versions and the Babylonian one. The latter shows how material would be reshaped by an editor for the purposes of legal discussion. The version in b. Ber. omits all reference to elements extraneous to the inquiry of that discussion. It therefore drops the Nazirites and thus loses the explana tion provided by that incident for Simeon's absence. The more generalized since he had killed the rabbis make up the difference. The Babylonian tradition further omits all conversations related to the earlier incident with the Nazirites. The honor paid to Simeon is now credited to the king, rather than having Simeon take the place of honor on his own. This certainly improves matters and permits an even better sermon to make much the same point. Proverbs replaces Ben Sira, which is consistent with the Babylonian rabbinic denigration of Ben Sira. Finally the story of the blessing is repeated, in the establish ed form, except here, Simeon drinks the first cup, and they have to provide a second. But the explanation of his action is the same; so the argument has been converted into a dramatic gesture.

i v . CONCLUSION

Judah b. Tabbai's traditions invariably survive in the context of Simeon b. Shetah's, with the possible exception of the story of Judah's return from Alexandria. But even there Simeon plays a role in the account. By contrast, Simeon-stories in considerable numbers exclude all reference to Judah. Indeed, even where we should have expected to find Simeon and Judah, we find either Simeon alone or Simeon and Queen Salome. The Judah-traditions were assimilated into Simeonones, with Simeon's predominating throughout (except I.i.l.). But the predominance of Simeon may well derive from revisions of the traditions in the second century A.D. and afterward, particularly in disputed interpretations of early history by Meir and Judah b. Ilai. Simeon is persistently related to Alexandra Salome. In Josephus's ac count of Alexander Jannaeus and his wife, wefindno reference whatever to Simeon b. Shetah. Since Josephus was a Pharisee, the omission of Simeon's name is noteworthy. He presumably knew nothing of the Simeon-traditions in connection with the times of Alexander Jannaeus and Alexandra Salome. What we do find, in the case of Alexander Jannaeus, is stories of revolts against him by the "Jewish population" (War 1:88), producing "fifty-thousand deaths." In the War the Phari sees are never mentioned in that connection. His wife and successor,

138

JUDAH AND


Alexandra Salome, is described as "the very strictest observer of the national traditions"; the reference, however, has to do with the Temple priesthood (War 1:108). Then comes the well-known reference to the Pharisees: Beside Alexandra, and growing as she grew, arose the Pharisees, a body of Jews with the reputation of excelling the rest of their nation in the observances of religion and as exact exponents of the laws. To them, being herself intensely religious, she listened with too great deference; while they, gradually taking advantage of an ingenuous woman, be came at length the real administrators of the state, at liberty to banish and to recall, to loose and to bind whom they would. In short, the en joyments of royal authority were theirs; its expenses and burthens fell to Alexandra... if she ruled the nation, the Pharisees ruled her. (War. 1:110-112, trans. L. H. Feldman, pp. 53-5.) The Pharisees avenged themselves on their enemies of the time of Alexander Jannaeus, which suggests Alexander had persecuted Pharisees, though Josephus does not so specify. In the Antiquities (13:320ff.) the story is much different. Josephus everywhere embel lishes the account, e.g. to the narrative of the Jewish revolt (13:372), he now adds the following: ... at the celebration of the festival [of Sukkot] and as he stood beside the altar and was about to sacrifice, they pelted him with citrons... and they added insult to injury by saying that he was descended from cap tives and was unfit to hold office and to sacrifice. (Antiquities 13:372, trans. Ralph Marcus, p. 413) He thereupon killed "six thousand of them." Further, when Alexander further slaughtered "eight hundred of his opponents in Jerusalem," on account of their treason, "then his opponents, numbering in all about eight thousand, fled at night and remained in exile so long as Alexander lived" (Antiquities 13:383). These are not called Phari sees. Before he died, he further advised Alexandra to yield a certain amount of power to the Pharisees, "for if they praised her in return for this sign of regard, they would dispose the nation favorably to ward her" (Antiquities 13:400). Josephus waxes eloquent, in Jannaeus' dying speech, about the influence of the Pharisees and the importance of conciliating them, presumably because he was eager to convince the Romans to put the Pharisees (of Yavneh) into power. After Yannai's death, Alexandra did just that: Thereupon Alexandra... conferred with the Pharisees... and by placing in their hands all that concerned his corpse and the royal power, stilled

JUDAH AND


139

their anger against Alexander and made them her well-wishers and friends. (Antiquities 13:405) She gave power over to the Pharisees (13:408) and "restored the traditions of their fathers which had been abolished by Hyrcanus." Here we find no reference to their taking advantage of her simplicity. Consequently While she had the title of sovereign, the Pharisees had the power. For example, they recalled exiles and freed prisoners and in a word in no way differed from absolute rulers. (Antiquities 13:409) One is not readily tempted to follow the example of the historians who present a "harmony" of the rabbinic stories of Simeon and his contemporaries with the account of Josephus. Obviously all we have are compilations of inconsistent materials, given their final form over a century after the events described in them. Josephus's second ver sion is much embellished. For all we know, his account of events re flects that of the Pharisees; but neither gains much credence on that account. The report of exiles is congruent with the flight of Judah b. Tabbai —or was it Joshua?—to Alexandria. The relationships between Si meon and Yannai may similarly be harmonized with stories in Jose phus. But all the Simeon-stories place him in close relationship with Alexander Jannaeus before the "persecutions." Josephus says nothing about the relationship of any Pharisees with Jannaeus before the revolt. Indeed, the revision of Josephus's own attitude toward the Pharisees and Alexandra Salome suggests contemporary considerations have everywhere colored his second, detailed version of history. The rabbinic traditions on the Pharisees in the time of Yannai and a queen whose name no one can get straight are, as I said, by no means consistent. The break with the king came about because of an insult, or because Simeon cheated him, or for some other reason. "The Phari sees" called Yannai to court—but then failed to support Simeon. Simeon restored the Pharisees to power—but we do not know how. Or Salome "his sister" got him a safe-conduct. He was essential for saying Grace at the king's table—and made a fool of the king. Simeon was a poor man—or the queen's brother. The Persian embassy remem bered him—or was not present. Simeon vanquished the Sadducees— or they were utterly unknown. Yannai killed all the rabbis, but they managed to flee and later returned—or Gabriel killed them!

140

JUDAH AND


The fact is that the rabbinic traditions themselves are unclear as to the course of events. If one selects one group of traditions for har monization with Josephus's stories, the next group must be dropped. And one must further ignore important developments in Josephus's own account in order to follow him as a reliable informant. All we may say for sure is that some of the rabbinic traditions are roughly congruent with some of the things Josephus reports. That hardly justifies a fusion of the whole into a single historical account. The rabbis for their part know hardly anything of important events in the account of Josephus on Pharisaic-Hasmonean relationships. The whole thing sometimes is reduced to a temporary exile. They have heard nothing of Yannai's advice (if he gave it) to his wife about conciliating them. Most important, they see the Pharisees of those days pretty much like contemporary rabbis. Josephus' picture is of a political party seeking to dominate the country and succeeding in doing so. No hint in the Simeon-stories suggests a quest for the sort of power Josephus attributes to the party. The "rabbis" are needed by the court to say Grace. They cheat the king, harp on the value of their "Torah". They take pride in the petty ceremonial honors paid to them—sitting between the king and the queen. This picture of rabbis derives not from second-century B.C. Hasmonean court poli tics, but from a much later time, when the Pharisaic party had trans cended its origins and become fundamentally a scholastic society of sages, judges, and bureaucrats, exercising power in the Jewish com munity only through political institutions in the hands of patriarch and exilarch, with the imperial governments behind both. To such a group the trivial honors accorded by Yannai the King were note worthy. The practical power described by Josephus lay beyond their imagination. In summary, we are not able to verify either the details or the general picture of one set of stories in the "parallels" elsewhere. I judge the rabbinic traditions to be of modest historical veracity at best. They reveal no very accurate knowledge of contemporary, second century B.C. conditions or traditions. The failure of Josephus to men tion the very "rabbi" thought by the rabbis to have dominated the court of Yannai and Salome is remarkable. The Simeon of Talmudic stories there fore must be regarded entirely within the limits of rabbinic tradition. We have observed a general tendency to idealize the days of Simeon and Salome. Rain was plentiful, crops were abundant, and the effects of sin were removed. Simeon exerted sufficient power to hang eighty

JUDAH AND


141

"witches" in Ashqelon, presumably the Pharisaic equivalent to, and revision of, the stories in Josephus about their vengeful behavior. To him are attributed very ancient ordinances—the marriage-contract (or some clauses in it), the school system, and a ruling on purity laws. In these traditions Simeon's supposed superior or associate, Judah b. Tabbai, is unknown. Those responsible for shaping this picture of Simeon suppressed any mention of his name. Yet he was elsewhere either head of the court or Nasi. Clearly, two sets of traditions about Simeon and Judah were handed on, and in no way can they be harmo nized with one another (let alone, in the case of Simeon, internally). According to the Simeon-traditions we may draw the picture just given. According to the Simeon + Judah traditions, Simeon was simply an associate in the leadership of the party. The two men made a few decrees about Temple matters—whether to lay hands on the sacrifice, purity rules. One of the men judged a murder case. They both hid out in the time of Jannaeus's persecution. That is the whole picture. My guess is that the Judah + Simeon set is the more accurate of the two. The stories of Simeon alone tend to assign the name of Simeon to a great Pharisaic hero in the time of Alexander Jannaeus and Alex andra Salome. I suppose that the attribution is of the same accuracy as the assignment to Simeon's days of abundant rain, and the attribu tion to Simeon's authority of ancient rules in the marriage-contract, the foundation of the school system, and various moral sayings. It is a mere convention, certainly not related to a corpus of living traditions in the first instance shaped in those ancient days.

CHAPTER SIX SHEMA'IAH

AND

ABTALION

i. TRADITIONS

I.i.l. Shema'iah says, "The faith with which their father Abraham believed in me is deserving (KDY) that I should divide the sea for chem, for it is said, And he believed in the Lord (Gen. 15:6)." Abtalion says, "The faith with which they [themselves] believed in me is deserving that I should divide the sea for them, for it is said, And the people believed (Ex. 4:31)." [Mekh. Beshallah, ed. and trans. J . Z. Lauterbach, IV, lines 58-60, Vol. I, p. 220 ( = Mekhilta de R. Shime on b. Yohai, ed. Epstein-Melamed [Jerusalem, 1956], p. 58, lines 17-19)] c

Comment: This theological-exegetical pericope is part of a series of sayings concerning the merit for which God saved Israel at the sea. Bena'ah says it is for the merit of the binding of Isaac. Simon b. Teman says the merit comes from circumcision. Judah the Patriarch says, "That faith with which they believed in me is deserving..."—the same as Abtalion. Like Shema'iah, Ele azar b. Azariah says it is for the sake of Abraham, but does not cite Gen. 15:6. Ele'azar b. Judah of Kefar Tota says it is for the sake of the tribes. Then come Shema'iah and Abtalion. Following is Simon of Kitron (for the merit of the bones of Joseph). No order following generations or any other pattern can be discerned. The context is therefore difficult to locate. The terminus ante quern may be Judah the Patriarch. Strikingly, while Judah the Patriarch and Ele'azar b. 'Azariah take the positions of Abtalion and Shema'iah, respectively, they do not at tribute their opinions to the earlier masters. This may mean they did not know those opinions. In that case the editor drew Shema'iah and Abtalion materials from a source unavailable to Tannaim after 70. This seems to me unlikely. The later rabbis' failure to attribute their opinions to the earlier authorities may best be explained otherwise. The fact is they do not repeat the exact words of Shema iah and Abtalion, but formulate positions similar to theirs. It is rare that a clearcut logion attributed to the two "fathers of the world" is actually quoted at all. Generally, as is common among the Pharisaic authorities before Hillel, stories are told, testimonies are re ported, references are made to deeds done by the sages, but direct at tributions in the form of conventional, balanced logia are seldom found. c

c

c

SHEMA'IAH AND

A B T A L I O N — Il.i.l

143

c

It is also anomalous for Shema iah and Abtalion to be separated and given contradictory opinions. Everywhere else the two are treated as one authority. So it is a puzzling pericope, without formal parallel else where, the only theological-exegetical saying attributed to the two masters. It is a unity. Il.i.l.A. Hillel says, "One hin [= threeqabs] of drawn water renders the immersion-pool unfit." [We speak of hin] only ('L') [MS Kaufmann omits >L>] because (§) a man must speak (HYYB LWMR) in the language of his teacher. And Shammai says, "Nine qabs." And the sages say, "It is not according to the opinion of either." B. But until ('L* D S) two weavers came frome the Dung Gate in Jerusalem and testified in the name of (M§M) Shema'iah and Abtalion [MS Kaufmann: § = that], "Three logs [ = a fourth of a hin] of drawn water render the immersion-pool unfit," [and] the sages [MS Kauf mann omits the sages] confirmed their opinion. (M. <Ed. 1:3, trans. Danby, p. 422) C

Comment: The legal opinion of Shema'iah and Abtalion on the amount of drawn water it takes to disqualify a ritual bath is attributed not to their supposed disciple, Hillel, but to two lowly workers from a poor part of town. The usual order, Shammai, then Hillel, is reversed. I cannot suggest why. The interpolation between their lemmas accounts for nothing. Several curious allegations are before us. First, "the sages" declined the opinion of either Hillel or Shammai. Only an opinion in the name of Shema iah and Abtalion was acceptable. Why until "just that time" the sages were reluctant to go along with the distinguished leaders of (presumably) their own generation is not said. The "sages" here cannot be thought subordinate to Hillel and Shammai. What is equally inter esting, second, is that Hillel is specifically alleged—by the interpolation —to have used the language he heard from his master. One important corpus of traditions relates that Shema iah and Abtalion were his only master(s). Here the language of his master [bin] is explicitly not that of Shema iah and Abtalion [log]. The interpolation ignores that fact. Part B of the pericope is added to part A by a circle by no means im pressed with Hillel or his traditions, for Hillel's opinion is not on the spot accepted. His traditions are not even those of the sages with whom it is alleged that he studied. Quite to the contrary, if this tradition had stood alone, we should have had to conclude Hillel did not study with Shema'iah and Abtalion. We shall have to regard the pericope, there fore, as deriving from a circle that regarded Shema iah and Abtalion as Hillel's superiors and also denied Hillel knew their Torah—a circle hos tile to Hillel himself. Such a group had to come after Hillel and Sham mai. And it is not likely to have been a circle of Shammaites, for they c

c

c

4

144

S H E M A ' I A H A N D A B T A L I O N — II.i.2

would surely have reversed the order of the masters and placed Sham mai first. That this is the original order here is shown in the following, which has Shammai in the right place: A n d w h y d o t h e y r e c o r d t h e o p i n i o n s o f Shammai and Hillel w h e n t h e s e do not prevail (Lit.: F o r n o purpose, L B T L H ; M S K a u f m a n n : L B T L N ) ? T o t e a c h f u t u r e g e n e r a t i o n s t h a t a m a n s h o u l d n o t insist u p o n his o p i n i o n ( W M D *L D B R W ) f o r l o , t h e f a t h e r s o f t h e w o r l d d i d n o t insist u p o n t h e i r opinions. (

M . 'Ed. 1 : 4

This puts a good light on matters, but serves also to underline the anomaly observed above. But compare Tos. Ed. The sages' words, remarkably, were preserved only by humble men, not by the distinguished scholars of their circle. The moral lesson can not obscure the polemic: Hillel and Shammai failed, but ordinary folk succeeded, in preserving the sages' words—just as in the story of Hillel's rise to power, Tos. Pisha = y. Pes. = b. Pes.! I cannot guess who would have wanted to make the point that ordinary folk remember what sages should know but forget, but a circle hostile to Hillel's heirs would be a likely candidate. Such a group would have been responsible both for stories representing Hillel's true heirs not as his children but as learned masters of Torah, e.g. Yohanan ben Zakkai, and for materials such as these, in which Hillel himself "forgets" or ignores an important tradition of his supposed masters, which therefore was left to be pre served by low-class people. "The sages," standing in judgment on Hillel's opinion, rejected it even before they knew what Shema iah and Abtalion had to say, and as soon as they did, confirmed the opinion of S + A. The House of Shammai or circles responsible for the deposition of Gamaliel II at Yavneh present themselves as candidates, but only among other possibilities. The testimony-form for the transmission of Shema iah and Abtalion's sayings, appearing here, with reference to Yosi [b. Halafta], and else where, is the only form in which their legal sayings are preserved. The pericope naturally breaks into two units. Thefirstis Hillel says... Shammai says... The whole of part A could have stood separately. Part B is a separate story, linked to the foregoing by the awkward hut until and then, the sages confirmed their opinion. Without that redactional ele ment, part B would have taken the form M*SH B, and, as we shall see, it actually did. This confirms the supposition that the pericope is a composite. Someone had to add part B to the perfectly neutral materials in part A, thereby turning part A into a criticism of Hillel. The interpolation only... teacher underlines the criticism, but the in tent of the third hand could have been merely to explain Hillel's strange word-choice (hin rather than gab/log). Note Epstein, Mevo*ot, pp. 234, 423. c

c

c

c

II.i.2. [ Aqaviah b. Mahalallel testified to four opinions...] He said, "They do not give a proselytess or a freed bondwoman to drink of the water [of bitterness]."

SHEMA'IAH AND

145

A B T A L I O N — Il.ii.l

And the sages say, "They give her to drink." They said to him, "It happened (M SH B) to Kharkemit, a freed bondwoman who was in Jerusalem, and Shema'iah and Abtalion gave her to drink." He replied, "Only in show (DWGM ) did they make her drink." Whereupon they laid him under a ban, and he died while he was yet under the ban, and the court stoned his coffin... (M. 'Ed. 5:6, trans. Danby, p. 432, = Sifre Num. 7, ed. H. S. Horovitz, p. 11.) C

}

Comment: The story of a judicial decision of Shema'iah and Abtalion is inserted into the 'Aqaviah-story. It probably circulated separately, in ma'aseh b- form. If we did not have the above version (and parallel), we should know nothing about the allegation that they had taken an im portant role in administering Temple rites. I do not know why such an allegation would have been suppressed or allowed to disappear. The rabbis repeatedly claimed that Pharisees had governed Temple rites. Yohanan ben Zakkai was supposed to have abrogated this one. We have no reason to imagine that any circle within Pharisaism was eager to obliterate the record of the deed of the old sages. That the 'Aqaviahpericope cited their deed shows it was regarded as valid precedent. All we may say with certainty, therefore, is that Shema'iah-Abtalion mate rials circulated in forms other than those available to us, and we may further conjecture that some of those materials have been lost. The actual mcfaseh is a model of its genre, brief, simple, unified. Yet the adjectives about who Kharkemit was were supplied later on, to fit the story into the present context. Elsewhere the story serves a quite different purpose, and there we hear nothing about her status as a freed slave-girl. The earliest and simplest form of the story therefore must have been Kharkemit + ShemaHah and Abtalion + made her drink. To this are then supplied the conventional superscription, ma*aseh b- as well as the details about her personal status. y

Il.ii.l.A. Hillel says, "A Ml hin (ML? HYN) of drawn water of twelve log (LWG) spoils the ritual bath." Shammai says, "A full hin of drawn water of thirty-six log spoils the ritual bath." And the sages say, "Not according to the words of this and not ac cording to the words of this, but three logs (LWGYN) of drawn water spoil the ritual bath." B. The story is told (M SH B) that two weavers came from the Dung Gate which is in Jerusalem and gave testimony in the name of Shema'iah and Abtalion that three logs of drawn water spoil the immersion-pool, and the sages confirmed their words. C

146

S H E M A ' I A H A N D A B T A L I O N — III.ii.1, 2, 3

C. And why is the name of their place and of their vocation men tioned? For you have no calling more lowly than weaving, and no place so despised in Jerusalem as the Dung Gate. But just as the fathers of the world did not insist upon their opinions in place of an oral tradition (§MW H), how much the more so that any [lesser]'man should not insist upon his opinion in place of an oral tradition. (Tos. Ed. 1:3,ed. Zuckermandel,pp. 454, lines 31-3, 455, lines 1-6) C

c

Comment:

See Il.i.l and synopses. c

111.11.1. DTNN: He [ Aqaviah] used to say, "The [bitter] water is not administered either to a convert or to a freed slavewoman." And the sages say, "One administers the water." And they said to him, "The story is told of (M<SH B) Kharkemit the freed slavewoman in Jerusalem, and Shema'iah and Abtalion administered the water to her." He said to them, "They administered it to her as an example (DWGM )..." (b. Ber. 19a) }

Comment: The setting now is R. Joshua b. Levi's list of places in which the court inflicted excommunication for an insult to a teacher. The inclusion of Shema'iah and Abtalion is on account of the citation of M. <Ed. 5:6. See II.i.2.

111.11.2. [R. Huna said, In three places Shammai and Hillel differed.] The second: Hillel said, "A hin full of drawn water..." Shammai said, "Nine qabs" But the sages say, "Not according to the opinion of this one or that one." Until two weavers came from the Dung Gate of Jerusalem and testified in the name of Shema'iah and Abtalion that three logs of drawn-water render an immersion-pool unfit, and the sages ratified their words. (b. Shab. 15a) See Il.i.l. The setting is late third-century Sura. 111.11.3. [TNW RBNN: This law was hidden from the Men of Bathyra. After a long argument with Hillel, in which Hillel provides logical proofs, he wins. Then he says to the opposition:] A. "What caused it for you that I should come up from Babylonia Comment:

SHEMA'IAH AND

ABTALION —

III.ii.4

147

to be Nasi over you? It was your indolence, because you did not serve the two greatest men of the time, Shema'iah and Abtalion..." [They ask another question. Hillel cannot answer but observes the conduct of ordinary people. He saw the behavior and then remember ed the law and said,] B. "Thus have I received the tradition from the mouth of Shema iah and Abtalion." (b. Pes. 66a) c

Comment: What is important for our present purposes is the assertion, contrary to Il.i.l, that Hillel did preserve and rely upon what he had learned from Shema'iah and Abtalion. But strikingly, the author of the story (part B) held that whatever was worthwhile in Hillel's traditions was verified by its origin with his two teachers. Nothing Hillel could as sert in his own name was sufficient. Part A underlines this: those who fail to serve the sages lose their job as nasi\ On the one side is the view of M. Ed.: Hillel and Shammai lost traditions they ought to have known or did not study with Shema'iah and Abtalion to begin with. The middle position, represented here (B) is that Hillel did study with them, but only when he could cite them was he taken seriously. The third position is that his earlier learning had taken place abroad, and he was independent of the two predecessors. That third position is repre sented in part A. Hillel was educated elsewhere. He came up as a learned man. "You could have studied with the great sages, but were too lazy to do so. Therefore I am able to overcome you." But the endresult is the same as part B. The beraita is transparently composite. The .beraita s position on Hillel's relationships with the two earlier sages is complex, but hardly so negative as in the earlier materials. Shema'iah and Abtalion again are represented as having given laws pertaining to the Temple cult and holiday sacrifices. c

9

III.ii.4. TNY*: Judah b. Dortai (DWRT'Y) with his son Dortai separated (PR§) and went and took up residence, in the south. He said, "If Elijah should come and say to Israel, 'Why did you not sacrifice the hagigah on the Sabbath?' what would they say to him? I am astonished at the two great men of the generation, Shema'iah and Abtalion, who are great sages and great expositors (DR§NYM), but have not said to Israel, 'The hagigah overrides the Sabbath.'" (b. Pes. 70b) Comment: The setting is a discussion of the Mishnah, "When does he bring a hagigah with it?" Various sayings of Ben Tema are discussed. The discussion is anonymous. Then comes the beraita cited above. Rav immediately comments on it, "What is the reason of the son of Dortai?" Hence the beraita must antedate Rav, therefore is probably Palestinian and certainly of Tannaitic origin. The next comment is R . Ashi, "Are

148

S H E M A ' I A H A N D A B T A L I O N — IILii.5

we to arise and explain the reason of schismatics (PRW$YM)!" Further discussion is on the reason that the rabbis prohibit the hagigah on the Sabbath, but this may pertain just as well to the Mishnah cited earlier as to the

beraita.

This is a striking story, for it represents Shema'iah and Abtalion as "great men" who have failed in their task. The hostility is more impor tant than the complimentary epithets. They supposedly are the greatest sages and expositors of the time, yet have failed to teach the simplest law. We know nothing of a sect of "Dortaians" in the south. The beraita purports to tell the origins of a schismatic group, but the group now is unverified elsewhere. We surely cannot link the beraita to others hostile to the two sages, but it does testify that the sages were subjected to critical judgment in later Pharisaism. Since Hillel's rise to power is tied to a related problem (Pesah on the Sabbath), and Shema'iah andAb talion are credited with ruling the paschal sacrifice does override the Sabbath, this is a very puzzling story. See Epstein, Mevcfot, pp. 333, 373, 511. Epstein comments (p. 511) that this passage shows Shema'iah and Abtalion did say the paschal sac rifice does, and the hagigah does not, override the Sabbath. III.ii.5. [Re the coming of Hillel: He came from Babylonia and was a poor man. He could not afford to enter the school-house. He sat on the skylight] to hear the words of the living God from the mouth of Shema'iah and Abtalion. They say, that day was the eve of the Sabbath in the winter solstice, and snow fell down on him from heaven. When dawn rose, Shema'iah said to Abtalion, "Brother Abtalion, on every day this house is light, and today it is dark. Is it a cloudy day?" They looked up and saw the figure of a man in the window... (b. Yoma 35b) Comment: They ended up by warming Hillel by a fire, commenting that it was "worth (KDY) profaning the Sabbath for Hillel," an apoph thegm, built on the generative KDY-form. The story is a singleton, part of the tradition on the surface cordial to Hillel, that he had learned everything he knew from Shema'iah and Abtalion. But the further pre supposition of that corpus of traditions is that one would be praised who had acquired his traditions from them, and one would not be praised who had not, hence a circle favorable to Shema'iah and Abtalion to begin with. Its point is that Hillel is reliable because of his sacrifice in studying with the two great sages, as in III.ii.3.B. The story is part of a composite beraita which proves that whether a man is poor, rich, or evil, he is liable to study Torah. Those in the beraita held up as worthy examples are Hillel (poor), R. Eleazar b. Harsom (rich), and Joseph in Egypt (evil = sexually attractive). The Hillel-story antedates the composite beraita.

SHEMA'IAH AND

149

A B T A L I O N — III.ii.6

The supposition of the story-teller that one must pay to sit at the ses sions of the Pharisaic schools is striking. I am not sure that a criticism of Shema iah and Abtalion is intended. c

III.ii.6. [Mishnah: On Yom Kippur the high priest would arrange for his friends a day of festivity.] A. Our rabbis taught (TNW RBNN): It happened (M SHB) with a high priest that as he came forth from the sanctuary, all the people follow ed him. When they saw Shema iah and Abtalion, they left him and followed Shema'iah and Abtalion. Eventually Shema'iah and Abtalion visited him to take (their) leave of the high priest. He said to them, "May the descendants of gentiles ( MMYN) come to peace." B. They answered him, "May the descendants of gentiles who do the work of Aaron come to peace, but the descendant of Aaron who does not do the work of Aaron shall not come to peace." (b. Yoma 71b) C

c

C

Comment: The passage is anonymous, connected to the foregoing Mishnah without discussion, and followed by another Mishnah. The italicized portions are in Hebrew, the rest in Aramaic. As in other beraitot pertaining to this period, e.g., Simeon b. Shetah and the Nazirs, and the hangings in Ashqelon, the opening formula is in beraita-Hebrew, the body of the story in Aramaic. The allegation that the two masters descend from gentiles is made in a gloss on another beraita, b. Git. 57b = b. Sanh. 96b. The High Priest here is represented as objecting to the popularity of Pharisaic sages, therefore referring to their disreputable ancestors. Their response is that they do the work of Aaron. The priest does not. The work of Aaron which sages do is not the cult but the study of the Torah. After the destruction of the Temple Torah was alleged by the rabbis to be equivalent to the old Temple cult. Before that time, to be sure, it may well have been asserted that a sage of illegitimate ancestry takes prece dence over a high priest who has not studied Torah, but that is not the same thing as saying the study of Torah is the work of Aaron. Hence I suppose the beraita derives from a period when the more extreme asser tion was taken for granted. It furthermore was a time in which people could imagine that crowds would leave the high priest on the Day of Atonement and celebrate the great sages. This rabbinic conception may not derive from a period in which information on the actual state of af fairs in Temple times was still known. The story is a singleton. The words attributed to the two sages may have originated in an anti-priestly slogan of greater antiquity. But in their present setting, they are integral to the story—indeed, they may

150

SHEMA'IAH AND ABTALION —

III.ii.7, 8; IV.i.l,

2

have provoked the invention of the story. The final logion (B) could have circulated as an anti-priestly saying. 111.11.7. TN>: Naaman was a resident convert. Nebuzaradan was a righteous proselyte. Descendants of Haman studied Torah in Bene Beraq. Descendants of Sisera taught children in Jerusalem. Descend ants of Sennacherib taught Torah in public. Who were these (M>N >YNWN)? Shema'iah and Abtalion. (b. Git. 57b = b. Sanh. 96b) Comment: No authority is mentioned in connection with the above beraita. Who are these is an Aramaic gloss of the beraita. We have no basis on which to propose a date. Presumably, the gloss comes after Tannaitic times, and the glossator knew III.ii.6. 111.11.8. Surely it was taught [WHTNY>]: If an animal takes up its abode in an orchard, it requires predeter mination, and a free bird must be tied by her wings, so that it should not be mistaken for its mother, and this is testimony which they testified from the mouth of Shema iah and Abtalion. (b. Bes. 25a) c

Comment: The setting is a discussion of an opinion of R. Hisda or Rabbah b. R. Huna and R. Nahman. The beraita is a singleton, to be dated at the latest ca. 250 A.D., presumably in Babylonia. As is common for the early names of the Pharisaic chain of tradition, the attribution of a legal opinion is not in the form, Rabbi X says... Rather, the records are preserved as testimonies (Il.i.l, IV.ii.l), in stories (II.i.2), or in other forms which later became unconventional. This matter of festival law nowhere earlier occurs in the names of Shema'iah and Abtalion. The Houses debate the same theme. IV.i.l. [They asked Hillel (re Passover sacrifice)... He said, Observe the people's behavior. When he saw what they did, he said to them:] "Thus have I heard from the mouth of Shema'iah and Abtalion." (y. Shab. 19:1, repr. Gilead, p. 87a) Comment: See III.ii.3. IV.i.2. [This law was lost by the Elders of Bathyra (re Passover)]. They said, "There is here a certain Babylonian, and Hillel is his name, who served [as disciple] to Shema'iah and Abtalion..." [After a long discussion, in which Hillel brings various logical proofs and they refused to be persuaded, he said,] "Thus I have heard from Shema iah and Abtalion." c

SHEMA'IAH

AND

A B T A L I O N — IV.i.3; IV.ii.l

151

Once they had heard from him thus, they arose and appointed him Nasi over them When they had appointed him Nasi over them, he began to criticize them, saying, "Who caused you to require this Babylonian? Is it not because you did not serve the two great men of the world, Shema'iah and Abtalion, who would sit with you [in times past]." (y. Pes. 6:1, repr. Gilead, p. 39a) Comment: See III.ii.3. IV.i.3. [R. 'Aqiba and the sages debate on administering the bitter waters to a woman accused of adultery, in the following circumstance: Her first husband accused her of adultery and made her drink the bitter waters. Then he died. She remarried. The second husband ac cused her of committing adultery even against the first husband. Does he have the right to make her drink the bitter waters again?] The sages say, "Whether against one husband or against two, she drinks and repeats [the ritual]. "Khorkemit [sic] provides proof, for she drank and repeated, and did it a third time before Shema'iah and Abtalion [on account of an accusation of adultery against] one husband [only]." (y. Sot. 2:5, repr. Gilead, p. 13a) c

Comment: See II.i.2, M. Ed. 5:6. This is an allusion to the Mishnah. But the story of Kharkemit is augmented. Nothing in the Mishnah sug gests the above legal issue. There the story serves to illustrate a quite different legal point, namely, that one administers the waters to a freed bondwoman. Here that fact about the woman's status is necessarily dropped. The passage may have been revised for the purposes of the current discussion, but if so, the revision involved drastic changes, the imposition of a quite new set of facts. There is no doubt that the dis cussion is to be attributed to the generation of 'Aqiba. The possibility that Aqiba had a different version of what was important about Kharkemit cannot be ignored. c

IV.ii.l. R. Zakkai said, "This testimony [referring to the Mishnah: If the daughter of an Israelite was married to a priest who died and left her pregnant, her slaves may not eat Terumah in virtue of the share of the embryo, since an embryo may deprive (its mother) of the pri vilege (of eating Terumah), but has no power to bestow it upon her, according to R. Yosi] did R. Yosi testify from the mouth of Shema'iah and Abtalion, and they agreed with him." (b. Yev. 67a)

152

SHEMA'IAH A N D A B T A L I O N — IV.ii.l

Shema'iah and Abtalion


1. Faith merited splitting the R e d Sea

Mekh. Beshallah I V , 58-60

2. W e a v e r s quote S + A re d r a w n w a t e r in i m m e r sion-pool

Sifre N u m . 7

3. G a v e bitterw a t e r t o suspected adulteress

ILi Mishnah

ILii Tosefta

M . 'Ed. 1 : 3

Tos. 'Ed. 1 : 3

M . 'Ed. 5 : 6

S H E M A ' I A H A N D A B T A L I O N — IV.ii.l


j IILii ! Tannaitic Materials i n • Babylonian Gemara

Jb.


Bes. 1 9 a

y. Sot. 2 : 5

1

5. J u d a h b. D o r t a i criticizes S + A

b. Pes. 7 0 a

6 . Hillel s t u d i e d with S + A though a poor man

b. Y o m a 3 5 b

7. H i g h priest insulted S + A

b. Y o m a 7 1 b

8. S + A were descended f r o m Sennacherib

b. G i t . 5 7 b b. S a n h . 9 6 b

9. Re marking animal and bird

b. B e s . 2 5 a

y. Shab. 1 9 : 1 y . Pes. 6 : 1

1 0 . R. Y o s i quotes S - f A re Terumah

b. Y e v . 67a

M. A v o t 1 : 1 0 - 1 1

i

V ARN


Midrash on Psalms 1 7 A : 1

1 b. Pes. 6 6 a

Avot-saying

Amoraic M a t e r i a l s in Palestinian Gemara

b. S h a b . 1 5 a

4. Hillel quotes S + A

11.

IV.i

153

154

SHEMA'IAH

AND

ABTALION — VLxi.l

Comment: See IILii.8 for the same form, "This is testimony which X testified from the mouth of S + A." We do not know where or how the form was created. It does not appear in the earliest stratum of ma terials, but is attributed to R. Yosi in a beraita (IILii. 8) and here in a teaching of a third-century Amora. Such attributions of legal opinions to Shema'iah and Abtalion, while puzzling, cannot be rejected out of hand. We may here have a reminiscence of the 'Eduyyot-fotm of the transmission of legal materials. If so, the materials could have received their current form as early as the end of the first century A.D. But Yosi b. Halafta comes a century and a half after the two sages, and he did not hear the tradition from their mouths. Rather, the meaning obviously is on the authority of VLxi.l. Another comment on A prayer of David. Hear the right, O Lord (Ps. 17:1). Consider these words in the light of what Scripture says elsewhere: And this is the blessing of fudah, and he said: Hear, O Lord, the voice of fudah (Deut. 33:7). Now there, in a Mishnah, we learned: Hillel said, "A hin full of drawn water makes a ritual bath of purifi cation unfit." Note well, that it is the duty of a man to quote his master's exact words. Shammai said, "Nine qabs of drawn water make a ritual bath of purification unfit." But the sages said, "The practice is not in keeping with what the one said, nor with what the other said." Then came two weavers from the Dung-gate in Jerusalem and testified in the name of Shema'iah and Abtalion that three logs of drawn water make a ritual bath of purification unfit, and the sages accepted the testimony of the weavers. Since no craft is more lowly than a weaver's, and no place in Jerusa lem is more despised than the Dung-gate, why was the place whence the weavers came, and why also was the name of their craft recorded, except to show that, like the fathers of the world who did not persist in their own opinion where there was a tradition to the contrary, so no man should persist in his opinion wherever there is a tradition to the contrary? Since the opinions of Shammai and of Hillel in this instance did not prevail, why were they recorded? To teach coming generations that a man should not always persist in his opinions, for even Shammai and Hillel, the fathers of the world, did not. (Midrash on Psalms 17A:l-2, trans. Braude, p. 221)


155

SYNOPSES

c

Comment: See M. Ed. 1:3, Il.i.l .A. Braude solves all problems through paraphrase. ii. SYNOPSES

Synopses of the Hillel-materials will be provided below. 1. Splitting the Sea Mekh. of R. Ishmael 1. Shema'iah says, 2 . W o r t h y is t h e f a i t h t h a t A b r a h a m their father believed in m e 3 . t h a t I shall o p e n f o r t h e m ( L H M ) t h e sea 4. as it is said, G e n . 1 5 : 6 5. A b t a l i o n says, 6 . W o r t h y is t h e f a i t h t h a t t h e y b e l i e v e d in m e 7 . t h a t I s h o u l d o p e n f o r t h e m t h e sea 8. as it is s a i d , E x . 4 : 3 1

Mekb. of R. Simeon b. Yohai 2.

[ o m i t s HY>]

t h e [ f a i t h ] , their father

3 . I am opening f o r t h e m 4.

(LHN)

[ O m i t s as it is said]

5» »

»

»

6 . [ S a m e c h a n g e s as a b o v e , n o . 2 ] t h a t Israel in Egypt b e l i e v e d 7 . [ S a m e c h a n g e s as a b o v e , n o . 3 ] Q °»

»

>»

»

The Mekhilta of R. Simeon b. Yohai exhibits fixed stylistic differ ences from the Mekhilta of R. Ishmael. No. 6 represents a consider able clarification. The point of Abtalion is that their faith, not merely that of the fathers, is being rewarded. Hence Mekhilta of R. Simeon b. Yohai stresses this by supplying Israel in Egypt in place of the less precise they. The versions are otherwise very close and the differences merely stylistic. The Ishmael-version is older. 2. Weavers quote Shemaciah and Abtalion M. 'Ed. 1:3-4 1 . H i l l e l s a y s , A bin o f drawn-water spoils the miqveh 2 . B u t ('L* §) a m a n is o b l i g a t e d t o say i n t h e l a n guage o f his master 3. S h a m m a i says, Nine qabs 4 . A n d t h e sages say, N o t according to the w o r d s of this one, and n o t according to the w o r d s o f this one. 5. B u t u n t i l ('L'

>

y

C

c

1

1H 3L H 12L 4L 3L

= = = =

3Q 1/4H 12L 3Q

= =

Q 3/4Q

c


SYNOPSES

157

marked on the exculpation of Hillel and Shammai. For the Mishnah what requires explanation is the citation of the two masters, Hillel and Shammai, when in fact their opinions do not constitute law. For Tos. the problem is different. No one is bothered about men tioning Hillel's and Shammai's opinion when it is not law. It is taken for granted that this may happen. The Tos. story emphasizes the mod est origins of the opinion attributed to Shema'iah and Abtalion—it came from weavers from the poorest district. The sermon is in form much the same. But the "fathers of the world" now are not Hillel and Shammai, but Shema'iah and Abtalion! And the operative element is the availability of an oral tradition (§M'H). The irony is that Hillel achieved the office of Nasi only because he had such an oral tradition from Shema'iah and Abtalion, yet here ignores it. The irony is under lined in Tos. no. 10. All this is revised by Rabbi Judah the Patriarch, who naturally makes Hillel and Shammai the fathers of the world, and their forebearance the point of the sermon. Here we may attribute to Judah the Patriarch a clearcut preference for the Mishnaic version of the materials. Hillel, his alleged ancestor, is at the center of things. Judah makes Hillel the example of modesty and humility. The story of the weavers occurs—presumably there was no other version of Shema'iah and Abtalion's opinions—but it is sub ordinated. We may therefore take it for granted that the story circu lated separately in the form in which it occurs in the Tosefta. Only afterwards was it revised to serve the purposes of the editor of Mishnah 'Eduyyot. M'SH B is dropped. And so are the significant lessons to be learned from the Dung Gate. The version of Tos. contradicts the letter and spirit of the Hillel-Bene Bathyra stories, which in Judah's time must have been famous. 3. Gave Bitter Water to Suspected M. 'Ed. 5:6 = Sifre Num. 7 1 . [ ' A q a v i a h a n d sages dis pute whether to administer bitter waters t o c o n v e r t o r freed female slave. ' A q a v i a h says o n e d o e s n o t d o s o . T h e sages say o n e d o e s . ]

2 . T h e y said t o h i m , T h e s t o r y is t o l d ( M ' S H B ) c o n cerning K h a r k e m i t , a freed s l a v e g i r l , w h o w a s in Terusalem.

Adulteress

b. Ber. 19a 1. TNY>: He w o u l d say, O n e d o e s n o t cause to drink (MSQYN) the fe male convert n o r the freed slave girl, and t h e sages say, Y o u do. 2. „ „ „

y. Sot. 2:5 1 . R . * A q i b a said, I shall explain: F r o m one man, the wife does not drink and re peat; f r o m t w o men, the wife drinks and repeats. A n d t h e sages say, W h e t h e r f r o m one o r t w o men, the wife drinks and repeats. 2 . Khorkemit will prove it, for she drank and repeated and [did it still a] third [ t i m e ] , ( D r o p s Ma'aseh b-).

158

3.

SHEMA'IAH

A n d Shema'iah and A b -

AND

ABTALION — CONCLUSION

3. „

„

„

3.

talion administered the w a ters t o her. 4.

He

said t o t h e m , T h e y

administered the waters t o h e r as an e x a m p l e ( D W G M ' HSQWH).

4 . and h e said „

„

4.

„

As we see, y. Sot. has 'Aqiba's opposition citing not the Mishnah before us, but rather a quite different reminiscence of, or allusion to, it. The story no longer concerns whether a convert or a freed slavegirl is made to drink the waters. She is not a freed slave-girl at all. Now she is just an ordinary wife, in the situation explained above. We therefore cannot suppose the Mishnah is accurately quoted by the sages opposed to 'Aqiba. A different, slightly related version is used for settling a separate issue. The kernel of both traditions must be an association of Shema'iah and Abtalion with the administration of the bitter waters to Kharkemit—who was either a freed slave-girl, or a wife in an especially complicated situation, but not both. i n . CONCLUSION

Shema'iah and Abtalion have no teachers. Much like the earlier pairs, they are quoted, but quote no one. They rarely are cited separate ly. Indeed, the story of "their" descent from Sennacherib would be more easily understood if the two were really one person. At any rate they function as a unit in nearly all traditions. By inference they are involved in the Temple cult, since they sup posedly ruled on the administration of the bitter waters to an adul teress. But this does not mean the later rabbis assumed they were priests, for the rabbis claimed Temple rites were ruled by rabbis. On the other hand the conflict with the high priest is a stylized sermon, recording an opinion familiar in later rabbinic materials. What is striking is the expansion of the sorts of legal opinions at tributed to the two masters. These include the measurements of a ritual bath, the aforementioned administration of bitter waters, Pass over sacrificial laws (by inference from the attribution of Hillel's opin ion), sacrifice of the hagigah on the Sabbath (by inference from the complaint of Judah b. Dortai), preparation of animals for use on festivals, and rights to consume Terumah. While we of course do not know whether the two masters really made such rulings, it is conse quential that the shape and content of the traditions attributed to them have changed from the earlier ones. The legal materials until Simeon

SHEMA'IAH

AND

ABTALION — CONCLUSION

159

b. Shetah were sparse and chiefly concerned purity rules. Simeontraditions somewhat extended the range to include marriage-contracts, educational reforms, and so on. But nothing like the extent and variety of the legal attributions to Shema'iah and Abtalion occurs earlier. S + A now rule on the range of issues characteristic of the Housesdebates: festival, purity, family, and agricultural laws. Their legal agenda corresponds to that of the first-century authorities. The traditions clearly are to be divided between those in which Hillel plays a role, and those in which he is absent. The latter include the faith that warranted splitting the sea, the administration of the bitter waters, the criticism of Judah b. Dortai, the encounter with the high priest, the attribution of their ancestry to Sennacherib, the animal in the orchard, and the right to eat Terumah. In few of these are the sages represented as putative ancient authorities for already wellknown, established practices, as is so often the impression given by Simeon b. Shetah-materials. On the contrary the S + A traditions independent of Hillel relate to two authorities who, while not abund antly represented, are credited with actual legal sayings (in testimonyform) and considerable authority (the "sages" approved an opinion given in the name of Shema'iah and Abtalion); who supplied important precedents made use of in later legal discussions (the bitter water); and who ruled on complex legal issues (the animal in the orchard, right to Terumah). Only in the Hillel materials do Shema'iah and Abtalion occur, like Simeon b. Shetah and earlier figures, as shadowy, scarcely known "great authorities," to whom conventional opinions are traced (e.g., Hillel and Bathyrans). Efforts to fill in the gaps by identifying Shema'iah and Abtalion with Pollion the Pharisee and his disciple Samaias of Josephus, Antiquities, 15: 1-4, have little in their favor, apart from the approximate similarity of the names of Shema'iah and Samaias. Pollion, or Samaias, is credited with arguing in behalf of Herod when he was on trial before Hyrcanus; he repro achfully foretold to Hyrcanus and the judges that if Herod's life were spared, he would one day persecute them all. Herod later on (15:370) showed kindness to Pollion and Samaias, even though though they refused to take an oath of loyalty to him. Typical of the 'method' of the historians is the effort to identify this story with b. Sanh. 19a-b, above, pp. 114-115, in which Simeon b. Shetah appears against Yan nai; they make Yannai into Herod, and Simeon is now Samaias. At any rate nothing in the rabbinic traditions of S + A hints at involve ments with Herod, nor is Shem'iah represented as Abtalion's disciple.

CHAPTER SEVEN YOHANAN

T H E HIGH PRIEST,

HONI THE

CIRCLER, A N D OTHERS M E N T I O N E D I N CONNECTION WITH BEFORE

PHARISAISM

HILLEL

i. YOHANAN THE HIGH PRIEST

Il.i.l. Yohanan the High Priest (1) did away with the confession concerning the Tithe. (2) He too (T?) made an end (BTL) of the Awakeners and (3) the Stunners. (4) And until his days the hammer was used to smite in Jerusalem. (5) And in his days none needed to inquire concerning demai-ptoduce. (M. Ma'aser Sheni 5:15) Comment: For the meaning of Yohanan's laws, see S. Lieberman, "The Three abrogations of Johanan the High Priest," Hellenism in Jewish Palestine (N.Y., 1950), pp. 139-143. The pericope lists legal actions of Yohanan (= John Hyrcanus). The language is different for each clause. He did away ( BR) with one thing. Also he annulled (BTL) two cultic practices. Then comes a different form: Until his days, joined to the foregoing by and. The final element, again joined by and, in his days a man did not have to ask, is still a fourth form. It is difficult to imagine the original materials drawn upon by the editor. The legal topics are not unrelated. The second and third con cern Temple rites. The first and fourth relate to the priestly dues. The setting is laws on the confession. The pericope is tacked on at the end. While it relates in theme, it is not integral to the antecedent ma terials and could have been dropped without losing significant laws; it surely circulated independently. The tendency of rabbinic .materials is to regard Yohanan the High Priest as a good priest until the very end. But this pericope contains no qualification of that judgment. Yohanan did what was right, and his laws remain valid (so far as they are relevant to contemporary condi tions). Wefindno hint that Yohanan at the end of his "eighty years" in office turned to minut or became a Sadducee. That must be regarded as a separate, and later tradition. After Simeon the Just, Yohanan is the only high priest so favorably regarded until the first century. He is the only Hasmonean of whom the rabbis not only approved, but whom they also held to provide valid precedents in the law. C

YOHANAN —

II.i.2, 3,

4

161

I cannot propose a date. The form is neither the X says... of later rabbinic usage, nor the testimony-form, but the three things, as with Yosi b. Yo'ezer. The preservation of historical-legal reminiscences in other than conventional style is not unusual. Perhaps this is a model for the "three things" style characteristic of early masters' sayings, copied in M . Avot 1:1-18. The lemmas are brief and self-contained. They may have been redacted according to the pattern in which they reach us, consisting chiefly of verb plus predicate. Until in his days would be light glosses. The redactional elements then complete the pericope. The pericope, like Yosi's, may represent the form of pre-Houses-materials. Those materials were redacted at Yavneh. Perhaps the earliest Pharisaic traditions consisted of brief lists on a single legal theme, e.g. unclean ness, Temple cult, like the little legal pericopae of the Qumranian writings. See Epstein, Mevd*ot, pp. 405-6. 11.1.2. Yohanan the High Priest did away with the confession con cerning the Tithe. He also made an end of the Awakeners and the Stunners. Until his days the hammer was used to smite in Jerusalem, and in his days none needed to inquire concerning ^^/-produce. (M. Sot. 9:10) Comment: Confession of is added to Tithe. The setting is a pericope on changes in the Temple cult. Immediately preceding is the reference to the end of the rite of breaking the heifer's neck, the bitter water, and the end of the grapeclusters. The above follows, in the context of the grapeclusters. Following is, "When the Sanhedrin ceased." The passage is nearly unchanged from Il.i.l, and the above is certainly a citation of the foregoing. 11.1.3. And who prepared [the red heifer offering]? ...Yohanan the High Priest prepared two... (M. Par. 3:5) Comment: See above, p. 25. The preservation of Yohanan in this context again indicates he was one of the good high priests of Pharisaicrabbinic tradition. 11.1.4. The Sadducees say, "We cry out against you, O you Pharisees, for you say, "The Holy Scriptures render the hands unclean, and the writings of Homer do not render the hands unclean.'" Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai said, "Have we nothing against the Pharisees but this? For lo, they say, 'The bones of an ass are clean and the bones of Yohanan the High Priest are unclean.'" They said to him, "As is our love for them, so is their uncleanness— N E U S N E R . The Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees before 7 0 , I

11

162

YOHANAN —Il.ii.l, 2

so that no man will make spoons of the bones of his father or mother." He said to them, "Even so the Holy Scriptures..." (M. Yad. 4:6) Comment: ^^.Development of a Legend: Studies on the Traditions concerning Yohanan hen Zakkai (Leiden, 1970), pp. 60, 203. This pericope cannot date before the beginning of the second century, if then. Yohanan ben Zakkai is represented as referring to Yohanan the High Priest in a fa vorable light. The pericope further portrays Yohanan as admired by the Sadducees. I imagine that fact provoked later rabbis to make Yohanan the High Priest into a Sadducee/#?/# "at the very end of his life," so as to harmonize both the favorable view preserved earlier, on the one hand, with the Sadducean attitude shown here, on the other. Later on the inference was drawn and fully articulated in beraita-totm. If so, the traditions on his legal decrees probably come before this story. But I cannot suggest how much earlier. 11.11.1. Yohanan the High Priest heard from the house of the Holy of Holies, 'Theyoung men who went out to make war against Antioch have conquered' (NSHW TLY* D'ZLY L'GPP QRB> B>NTWKY>) and they noted that hour, and it tallied that they had conquered at that very hour. (Tos. Sot. 13:5, ed. Zuckermandel p. 319, lines 8-9) Comment: The italicized words are in Aramaic, the rest in Hebrew. The context is given above, p. 27. The point of the pericope is a mi raculous revelation to Yohanan, another indication of the high favor he enjoyed in rabbinical circles. The tallying of the hour of the supernatu ral revelation with the hour of the event occurs in other miracles, e.g. Hanina b. Dosa and Gamaliel's son, b. Ber. 34b. The kernel of the peri cope is the Aramaic passage, in which case the point must be as given, that Yohanan was vouchsafed a heavenly revelation. Later on, R. Yohanan used the Aramaic logion to prove an additional, and quite different point, about heavenly knowledge of Aramaic. Josephus has the same miracle-story (below, p. 173). 11.11.2. The knockers—These are those that pull (M$K) the calf between its horns as they do to the idol. (Rabban) Yohanan (b. Zakkai) [sic] said to them, "How long are you going to feed the altar unfit meat (terefot)" Until his days the hammer blow was in Jerusalem—on the inter mediate days of the festival. He also decreed concerning the Confession and annulled (BTL) the demai.

Y O H A N A N — III.ii.1

163

For he sent in all the towns of Israel, and saw that they separated only the great Heave-offering. As to First Tithe and Second Tithe, some were tithing and some were not tithing. He said, "As to Heave-offering, the mortal sin [inheres], and as to the Heave-offering of the Tithe, the sin of tevel [untithed produce inheres.]" A man would designate Heave-offering and Tithe and give to the priest, and would profane Second Tithe with coins, and as to the rest of the Tithe and the Poorman's Tithe—he who takes from his fellow must bring proof. (Tos. Sot. 13:10) Comment: Tos. Sot. has already been corrected in accord with b. Sot. 48a (below, p. 165), and corrupted by Rabban... b. Zakkai. Otherwise, y. M.S. 5:5 copies Tos. Sot. III.ii.1. Abbaye said, "We have a tradition that a good man does not become bad." But does he not? Is it not written (Ezek. 18:24), But when the righteous turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity? Such a man was originally wicked, but one who was originally righteous does not do so. But is that so? Have we not learned (TNN): Believe not in yourself until the day of your death. For lo, Yohanan the High Priest officiated as high priest for eighty years, and in the end he became a min [printed texts: Sadducee], Abbaye said, "Yohanan is the same as Yannai." Rava said, "Yohanan and Yannai are different. Yannai was originally wicked, and Yohanan was originally righteous..." (b. Ber. 29a) Comment: This biographical logion cannot have been cited before the middle of the fourth century, possibly much later, for it is brought as a comment on Abbaye's teaching. Abbaye, however, supposed Yohanan and Yannai the King were the same. Since Yannai is referred to as a priest but never called "high priest," while in our materials Yohanan is always called "high priest," we may imagine Abbaye knew the story about Yannai's fight with the Pharisees (b. Qid. 66a) and drew from it the inference that Yannai also was high priest. That provides a terminus ante quern for the beraita cited above, pp. 107-109. But it does not help us to date this one. It seems to me, as I said, that some time between the mid-second cen tury and the mid-fourth century, the implications of Yohanan b. Zak-

164

Y O H A N A N — III.ii.2, 3

kai's Mishnaic logion led to the conclusion that, late in life, Yohanan the High Priest had joined the Sadducees. The apparently Sadducean materials cited in connection with Antigonus of Sokho show that rab binic tradition assigned the beginning of Sadduceeism to the period be fore Joshua b. Perahiah. Hence, had that evidence been known, it would have been logical to place Yohanan in the Sadducean party, if at all, somewhat after that time. As to the beraita itself, it is probably a composite, for do not believe is a separate apophthegm, merely illustrated by lo, Yohanan. It could have stood by itself, and so could the Yohanan-phrase. As we shall see, the latter was quoted without the foregoing homily. Rabbah b. b. Hana refers to it, b. Yoma 9a, and hence a somewhat earlier date may be late third-century. But his saying is not in the form of a separate beraita about Yohanan the High Priest. It rather concerns a whole list of good priests (Simeon the Just, Ishmael b. Phiabi) who served a long time. It therefore seems to me probable that the pericope was placed into beraita-fotm after Rabbah b. b. Hana. Hence sometime in thefirstfifty years of the fourth century, the pericope was given its present form, then was cited with reference to Abbaye's opinion. 111.11.2. R. Yohanan said, "If anyone prays for his needs in Aramaic, the ministering angels do not pay attention to him, because they do not understand that language." But it has been taught (TNY*): Yohanan the High Priest heard an echo issue from within the holy of holies announcing, The young men who went to wage war against Antioch have been victorious. It also happened with (W$WB M'SH B) Simeon the Righteous... (b. Sot. 33a) See Il.ii.l. R. Yohanan supplies the terminus ante quern for the mid-third-century. The italicized words are in Aramaic. The heavenly messages to both high priests in Aramaic prove that angels do know Aramaic. Comment:

beraita:

111.11.3. WHTNY': He also annulled the confession and decreed in respect of demai. For he sent throughout Israelite territory and saw that they separated only the Great Terumah alone. But as for the First and Second Tithes, some tithed and some did not tithe. He said, "My children, Come and I will tell you. Just as in [neglect of] the Great Terumah there is mortal sin, so with respect to the Terumah of the Tithe and to untithed produce (TBL) there is mortal sin." He arose and ordained (TQN) for them: Whoever purchases fruits from an 'am ha!*ares must separate the First and Second Tithes from them.

165

Y O H A N A N — III.ii.4

As to First Tithe, he separates the Terumah of the Tithe and gives it to a priest. And as for the Second Tithe, he should go up and eat it in Jerusalem. With regard to the First Tithe and the Tithe of the poor, whoever demands them from his neighbor has [the burden of] proof [that they had not been already separated]. [Abbaye replied]: He made two decrees. He abolished the confes sion over the presentation of the First Tithe in the case of haverim, and he decreed in regard to the demai of the âmme ha ares. (b. Sot. 48a) y

Comment: This beraita, for which Abbaye supplies the terminus ante quern, is a considerable expansion of the Mishnah cited above, Il.i.l. The whole is in beraita-Hebtew. Yohanan's reason now is given in detail, and in the form of a fabricated, direct address. The opening clause is taken directly from the Mishnah, but that does not prove the clause circulated separately; on the contrary, it is cited, then developed for the purposes of the author of the beraita. For further comment, see Il.i.l, above, p. 160. III.ii.4. TNY': They used to strike with clubs as is the practice with idolatry. He said to them, "How long will you feed the altar with corpses?" Corpses? (Nevelot)—but they were properly slaughtered! Rather, torn flesh (terefot), since the membrane of the brain may have been perforated. He arose and ordained (TQN) for them rings in the ground. (b. Sot 48a) Comment: The pericope explains the meaning of "knockers", referred to in the Mishnah. Like the foregoing beraita it provides a very consid erable expansion of the Mishnah, again supplying a fabricated logion in direct discourse. Immediately preceding is an explanation of Rav Judah in the name of Samuel: "They used to make an incision on the calf between its horns so that the blood should flow into its eyes. He came and abolished the practice because it appeared as though [the animal] was blemished." Then comes the beraita, which gives a different explanation: the practice was drawn from the pagan cult. But the point is much like the one given by Samuel: to prevent the animal from struggling, it would be stunned. The beraita has been revised by a gloss, and the gloss stands. The Palestinian version (IV.i.l) preserves the correction, so the above antedates R. Yohanan. I find it difficult to imagine that Samuel knew the beraita in its current form, for the simple reason that if he had known it, he presumably

166 Y O H A N A N — IV.i.l YOHANAN ILi Mishnah

ILii Tosefta

1. Did away with c o n f e s s i o n etc.

M. M.S. 5 : 1 5 M. Sot. 9 : 1 0

2. Prepared heifer

M. Par. 3 : 5

3. Bones unclean to protect from misuse

M. Yad. 4 : 6

Yohanan the High Priest

4. Heard heavenly



IILii Tannaitic Materials in Babylonian Gemara

IV.i

Tos. Sot. 1 3 : 1 0

b. S o t . 4 8 a

y. M . S . 5 : 5 y. S o t . 9 : 1 1

Tos. Sot. 1 3 : 5

b. S o t . 3 3 a

y. S o t . 9 : 1 3

Amoraic M a t e r i a l s in Palestinian Gemara


— IV.i.l V ARN

VI 167 Later Compilations of Midrashim

echo 5. E n d e d u p a Sadducee after e i g h t y y e a r s in High Priesthood 6. U s e o f D i v i n e N a m e in d o c u ments

would have cited it, rather than explaining matters in other language entirely. Samuel said they made an incision, the beraita, that they stunned the animal. In the former instance the problem was a blemish. In the latter, it was possible damage to the animal's brain which would render it unfit for the altar (and Jewish use = TRP). So while the points are parallel, they are quite different, and, as I said, sufficiently different so Samuel could not likely have known the beraita. That does not mean the beraita was formulated later on, for it probably circulated separately until Rav Judah (d. 297 A.D.). The pericope is a legal reminiscence. The setting is difficult to ascer tain. We only know it was not Nehardea-Pumbedita, and could well have been a Palestinian school. In its present, revised form, the pericope may be regarded as a unity. IV.i.l. R. Yohanan said, "Yohanan the High Priest sent and in vestigated in all the towns of Israel, and found that they were separat ing only the Great Heave-offering (Terumah Gedolah), but as to First Tithe and Second Tithe, some were separating [them] and some were not. "He said, 'Since First Tithe is punishable by death and Second Tithe [comes under] the sin of tevel, let a man designate (QWR' §M)

b. B e r . 2 9 a

b. Y o m a 9a

P e s . R. K a h .

Meg. Ta.

Heave-offering and the Heave-offering of the Tithe and give it to the priest. "'Let him substitute coins for Second Tithe. As to the rest—Poor Man's Tithe, he who takes from his fellow must bring proof [of the legitimacy of his claim], and let him make the confession.'" [As to the knockers]: Yohanan the High Priest said to them, "How long are you going to feed unfit food (terefot) to the altar?" He went and made for them rings. [And in his days a man did not need to ask concerning demai\. For he set up pairs (ZWGWT). (y. M.S. 5:5, repr. Gilead, p. 33b = y. Sot. 9:11, repr. Gilead, p. 44b) Comment: The beraita-fotm is absent; instead, we have an attribution to R. Yohanan b. Nappaha. We shall compare this version to III.ii.4 below, in synopses. As to the pairs, the traditional commentaries on this passage assign the beginning of the pairs to Yohanan's times; they were set up to over see the law of demai. The explanation does not occur elsewhere and is not assigned to a named tradent.

168

Y O H A N A N — IV.i.2, IV.ii.l, V L i v . l , VLxii.l

IV.i.2. The story is told (M'SH §) that the young men went to do battle against Antioch, and Yohanan the High Priest heard an echo coming from the house of the Holy of Holies and saying, The young men who went to make war against Antioch have conquered. They wrote that time and placed in it the hour, and they found that it happened at that very hour. (y. Sot. 9:13, repr. Gilead, p. 45b) Comment: The italicized portion is in Aramaic, the rest in standard Hebrew. For further comment, see above, Il.ii.l. IV.ii.l. Yohanan the High Priest served eighty years. (b. Yoma 9a) Comment: The context is a saying of Rabbah b. b. Hana that the high priests of the Second Temple served less than a year, excluding Simeon the Just, Ishmael b. Phiabi, Eleazar b. Harsom, and Yohanan. See III.ii.1. VLiv.l. They said concerning Yohanan the High Priest that he served in the high priesthood for eighty years, and at the end became a Sadducee. (Pesiqta de R. Kahana, ed. Mandelbaum, I, p. 176) Comment: See III.ii.1. VLxii.l. On the third of Tishri the use of the divine name in legal documents was abrogated. For the evil kingdom of Greece decreed persecution against Israel. They said to them, "Deny the Kingdom of Heaven, and say, 'We have no portion in the God of Israel.'" But they did not mention the name of Heaven in their mouth. When the hand of the Hasmonean House was victorious, they decreed that they should write the name of Heaven in legal documents, and thus would they write, "In the year such-and-such of Yohanan the High Priest, who is High Priest to the Highest God." When the sages heard of the matter, they said, "But do you mention the name of Heaven in legal documents? Shortly this one will pay his debt and destroy his note, and the name of Heaven will be found thrown into the garbage." They stopped them, and that day they made into a festival. (Megillat Ta'anit, ed. Lichtenstein, p. 337.) Comment: This singleton is a rabbinic tradition critical of Yohanan the High Priest. It is a medieval fabrication.

169

YOHANAN — SYNOPSES

Synopses 1. Did Away with Confession M. M.S. M. Sot.

5:15 9:10

=

b. Sot.

Tos. Sot. 13:10

48a

y. M.S.

5:5

y. Sot. ( »

9:11

99

=

99

as i n y . M . S . 5:5) 1. Y o h a n a n the H i g h Priest did a w a y w i t h (

1.

A l s o he annulled (BTL) »

»

1 X

»

99

99

91

19

99

99

„

„

„

7.

7.

8. H e said t o t h e m , Since First Tithe [is] in death and Second Tithe is in the sin of tevel

8. „

„

„

9 . L e t a m a n desig nate Heave-offering and Heave-offering o f T i t h e a n d g i v e it t o the priest

9.

99

99

»

2.

2.

2.

2.

3.

3.

3.

3.

4 . A n d h e decreed concerning demai

4 . H e annulled ( B T L ) demai

4.

4.

5. f o r he sent t h r o u g h the w h o l e b o u n d a r y o f Israel a n d s a w t h e y sepa r a t e d o n l y Terumah Gedolah. 6. A s t o First T i t h e and Second Tithe, some were tithing, and some w e r e n o t tithing.

^*

»

»

»

5 . Yohanan the High Priest sent and searched in all the cities of Israel and found „ „ „

5

6» »

»

»

6*

6.

7.

7 . H e said t o t h e m , M y children, C o m e a n d I shall say t o you.

8.

8 . J u s t as in Terumah °»o Gedolah m o r t a l sin inheres, so in H e a v e offering o f Tithe and tepefy m o r t a l sin inheres.

9.

9. He arose and ordained (TQN) for them: He w h o purchases fruits f r o m an 'am hd*ares separates f r o m them Heave-offering o f tithes and gives it t o t h e priest 10. Second Tithe— h e g o e s u p a n d eats

10.

1. R. Y o h a n a n said

7.

99

99

99

9. [ = y. M.S. 5:5]

99

»

99

' •

1 0 . [y. M . S . 5:5]

19

1 0 . and Second Tithe —he profanes it with

1 0» x

v

/

99

91

91

170

11.

12.

13. 14.

15.

16.

18. 19. 20.

—

YOHANAN —

it in J e r u s a l e m 1 1 . First Tithe and poorman's Tithe— he w h o takes a w a y f r o m his f e l l o w must bring the proof 12. W h a t are knockers? Rav J u d a h - S a m u e l [as above] 13. B M T N Y T ' TN>: 14. They would s m i t e it w i t h h a m m e r s as t h e y d o b e forehand 1 5 . H e said t o them, Until w h e n are y o u g o i n g t o feed corpses ( N B Y L W T ) to the altar

11. „

SYNOPSES

„

„

corns 1 1 . and the rest— p o o r man's Tithe „ „ „ and let him confess

11. „

„

„

„

„

12.

12.

12.

13.

13.

13.

1 4 . [y. M . S . 5:5]

1 4 . Yohanan the High Priest said to them

14.

15. » TRPWT

1 5 . H o w long are y o u g o i n g t o feed » » »

15

16. N B Y L W T ? Lo they slaughter them, but T R P W T lest t h e m e m brane of the brain be pierced

16.

16.

16.

NBYLWT

18. He arose and ordained (TQN) for them 19. rings on the ground 20.

18.

altar [ o m i t s lestpierced] 1 8 . ,, ,, ,, a n d made

19.

19. rings [Omits on ground]

20.

2 0 . for he set up pairs

18.

„

j>

19 20.

We see that both the Babylonian and Palestinian gemarot preserve substantial expansions of the tradition. The two Palestinian versions differ very little, except in the striking failure of y. Sot. 9:11 to correct NBYLWT to TRPWT, the secondary, therefore necessarily later version. Tos. Sot. 13:10 does make the necessary correction, perhaps a scribal "improvement." The earlier form of the Amoraic material must be the Palestinian version attributed to R. Yohanan, with the beraita\r coming later. The Palestinian form omits the colloquy intro ducing Yohanan the High Priest's message, My children, come and I shall teach you. The Babylonian further improves the diction of his message, just as...so..., and corrects sin of tevel (whatever that might mean) to in...tevel, mortal sin... which makes sense. The Babylonian prefers to have the man eat his tithe in Jerusalem, while the saying of R. Yohanan

»

j>

YOHANAN —

171

SYNOPSES

is congruent to Palestinian realities of his day. No one could then go up to Jerusalem. The Babylonian improves on this, by rightly, but anachronistically, setting the whole thing back into Temple times. The Palestinians have him confess he has paid his dues, but this is manifestly dishonest, and the Babylonian drops that detail. The inter ruption of Rav Judah-Samuel obviously will be absent in the Palestin ian version. Then the Babylonian further improves on the brief collo quy, by supplying the detail of what they would do (b. Sot. 48a, no. 14), thus augmenting the Palestinian version's simple he said to them. The Babylonian further explains the legal dilemma, no. 17 lest the membrane, further developing the Palestinian version's no. 17. The concluding detail, no. 19, is augmented by on the ground in Babylonia. There can be no reasonable doubt that the Babylonian beraita not only comes later than R. Yohanan's version, but in fact depends, and improves, upon it in numerous details. But we have no grounds to suppose that R. Yohanan possessed some sort of "very ancient" tradi tion, or, if he did, that he transmitted it in the language in which it would have been formulated centuries earlier. On the contrary, in effect he did much as did Samuel, but instead of phrasing the whole in his own language, he told a story in standard Mishnaic narrative style. This then became the basis for the still later Babylonian beraita. 2. Heard Heavenly Echo Tos. Sof. 13:5 („ „ „ = y. Sot. 9 : 1 3 ) 1 . Y o h a n a n the H i g h Priest heard f r o m the house of the holy o f holies 2.

b. Sot.

3.

[See a b o v e , 1 ]

3

4.

„

4. „

„

„ [ = y. Sot.]

5. A n d they tallied ( K W N ) that h o u r and they tallied t h a t t h e y c o n q u e r e d at t h a t hour 6 . [See a b o v e , 5 ]

1.

33a

WHTNY>: »

»

6.

1.

9:13

M'SH §

„

„

„

»

2.

5.

y. Sot.

2. Y o u n g men w e n t f o r t h t o d o b a t t l e at A n t i o c h 3 . And Y o h a n a n the high priest h e a r d an echo coming forth from the h o u s e o f t h e holy o f holies „

„

4 . Theyouths who made war in Antioch have conquered [in Aramaic] 5. and t h e y w r o t e d o w n t h a t t i m e a n d set in it t h e hour 6 . a n d t h e y t a l l i e d it t h a t it w a s in t h a t v e r y h o u r

In no. 3, y. Sot. adds BT QWL, strikingly absent from Tos. Sot. no. 1.

172

YOHANAN —

SYNOPSES

The Babylonian version is furthest from the other two, which are quite close to one another, as we saw in connection with Simeon. The Babylonian beraita has dropped nos. 5 and 6, since the issue is whether or not the angels speak Aramaic, and those details therefore are of no consequence here. Otherwise, the differences among the three versions are not substantial. The Palestinian version no. 5 removes some of the verbal repetitions of Tos. Sot. and is certainly dependent upon it. The Babylonian beraita copies Tos. Sot. so far as it is relevant. But its omissions look deliberate and indicate dependence on the Tosefta version, not an independent formulation or the transmission of a separate tradition. 3. Ended as a Sadducee b. Ber. 29a 1. T N N 2. D o n o t b e l i e v e in y o u r self etc. 3. F o r lo, Yohanan the H i g h P r i e s t s e r v e d in t h e high priesthood for eighty years 4 . a n d at t h e e n d b e c a m e (Lit: was made) a Sadducee

b. Yoma 9a

1. 2. 3. ...and the eighty that Y o h a n a n the High priest served...

Pes. R. Kah. 1. They said concerning 2. 3. Y o h a n a n p r i e s t that „

the high „ „

4 r

*

»

»

»

The beraita of b. Ber. 29a is referred to, but not closely quoted, in b. Yoma 9a. What is more interesting is the form of the citation in Pes. R. Kahana. There the compiler has imposed a quite different form from TNN. Now it is they said concerning with the additional that neces sary for the new form. Otherwise it is identical to the beraita and pre sumably represents a citation of it. The editor of a midrashic compila tion was prepared to impose his own redactional forms on antecedent materials, even those attributed to Tannaim. Conclusion Until Amoraic times Yohanan the High Priest was represented as a faithful and authoritative teacher of the law and high priest. This is remarkable, given the attitude of the Pharisees toward the priesthood. Yohanan is one of those exceptions in whose time miracles character istic of the cult in the time of Simeon the Just would have recurred. Like Simeon, he prepared a heifer-offering. His decrees and ordinances were not only preserved in the Mishnah, but discussed afterward in both countries with a view to locating his reasons. The fact that the

Y O H A N A N — CONCLUSION

173

real reasons for Yohanan's decrees had long since been forgotten may possibly serve as an indication of the antiquity of the tradition pre served in M. M.S. 5:15. It may well be that an old Pharisaic tradition here persists into rabbinic times, and I think that is the case. The logion about the young men may be the oldest saying deriving from Yohanan; it is set into two separate arguments, one on heavenly echoes, the other on the language of angels, but it must antedate both and may represent language associated with Yohanan from much ear lier times, to be compared to similar usage preserved in the name of Yosi b. Yo ezer of the same approximate period. We were readily able to account for the decided revision of the once favorable attitude toward Yohanan. The language of Yohanan ben Zakkai made it seem Yohanan the High Priest was a Sadducee, and the rest naturally followed. The calculation of the immense reign of Yohanan enhanced the drama of his final heresy. I do not know how the figure of eighty was reached. It was twice Simeon the Just's time. Josephus assigns him thirty-one years. Josephus's John Hyrcanus (135-104) first appears in War I:54ff. He succeeded his murdered brothers as high priest and led the state for thirty-one years (1:68). He enjoyed the "three highest privileges: the supreme command of the nation, the high priesthood, and the gift of prophecy. He could invariably predict the future." In the per tinent materials in the War, Josephus makes no mention of Pharisees. In Antiquities XIII, Josephus vastly expands his account. He credits John Hyrcanus with the destruction of the Gerizim temple and the conversion of Idumaea (13:254). The heavenly message now appears as follows: c

Now about the high priest Hyrcanus an extraordinary story is told, how the Deity communicated with him, for they say that on the very day on which his sons fought with Cyzicenus, Hyrcanus, who was alone in the Temple, burning incense as high priest, heard a voice say ing that his sons had just defeated Antiochus. And on coming out of the Temple, he revealed this to the entire multitude, and so it actually hap pened. The message here preserved in indirect discourse is presented in direct discourse in the rabbinic materials: "The youths who have made war on Antioch have conquered." But the message is nearly identical, and so is the setting. Josephus now brings the story of the Pharisees and Hyrcanus (13: 288ff., trans. L. H. Feldman):

174


As for Hyrcanus, the envy of the Jews was aroused against him by his own successes and those of his sons. Particularly hostile to him were the Pharisees, who are one of the Jewish schools... And so great is their influence with the masses that even when they speak against a king or high priest, they immediately gain credence. Hyrcanus too was a disciple of theirs, and was greatly loved by them. And once he invited them to a feast and entertained them hospitably, and when he saw that they were having a very good time, he began by saying that they knew he wished to be righteous and in everything he did tried to please God and them—for the Pharisees profess such be liefs ; at the same time he begged them, if they observed him doing any thing wrong or straying from the right path, to lead him back to it and correct him. But they testified to his being altogether virtuous, and he was delighted with their praise. However, one of the guests, named Eleazar, who had an evil nature and took pleasure in dissension, said, "Since you have asked to be told the truth, if you wish to be righteous give up the high priesthood and be content with governing the people." And when Hyrcanus asked him for what reason he should give up the high-priesthood, he replied, "Because we have heard from our el ders that your mother was a captive in the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes." But the story was false, and Hyrcanus was furious with the man, while all the Pharisees were very indignant. Then a certain Jonathan, one of Hyrcanus' close friends, belonging to the school of Sadducees, who hold opinions opposed to those of the Pharisees, said that it had been with general approval of all the Pharisees that Eleazar had made his slanderous statement; and this, he added, would be clear to Hyrcanus if he inquired of them what punishment Eleazar deserved for what he had said. Hyrcanus did so, and the Pharisees replied: Eleazar deserved stripes and chains; for they did not think it right to sentence a man to death for calumny, and the Pharisees are naturally lenient in the matter of punishments. Hyrcanus was outraged, and Jonathan in particular inflamed his anger, and so worked upon him that he brought him to join the Sadducean party and desert the Phari sees and to abrogate the regulations which they had established for the people and punish those who observed them. At this point, Josephus explains who the Pharisees are and alleges that everyone listens to them, while the Sadducees are followed only by the wealthy (etc.). Then Josephus returns to the account of War. Hyrca nus lived happily ever after and had the three greatest privileges etc. Clearly, the rabbis' tradition of Alexander Jannaeus (b. Qid. 66a)


175

and Josephus's story of John Hyrcanus in Antiquities exhibit remark able affinities. On Abbaye's theory that Yannai and Yohanan were one and the same, we have no difficulties whatever, and it is Abbaye who cites the materials in b. Qid. 66a. I am impressed by the near-identity of the miracle-story with the rabbinical one, even more impressed by the antiquity of the language attributed to the heavenly echo, and would be inclined to imagine that to both Josephus and the rabbis was available a single, brief logion in Aramaic. The parallels certainly are too close to be accidental. The long story about Hyrcanus ( = b. Qid.'s Jannaeus) and the Pharisees is another matter. It is long, well developed, and involves not a single short phrase, but a complex narrative. Josephus has in serted it whole into his story. He does not account for Pharisaic hostility, but takes it for granted; then he makes Hyrcanus a Pharisee, so their hostility is even more incredible. Now comes the famous banquet, with Eleazer ( = Judah b. Gedidiah of the Talmud) as the trouble-maker, described with much the same adjectives, and his mes sage is identical in substance. Everyone "leaves indignant" in both versions. Then Jonathan (the Talmud's Eleazer b. Po'irah) tells the king to let the Pharisees show their true feelings. They impose the normal punishment. This detail is absent in b. Qid. 66a, but it is there taken for granted, "That is the law even for the most humble... shall that be your law too?" follows the departure of the sages. The version in b. Qid. 66a, if not garbled or defective, therefore is in comprehensible without the details supplied in Josephus's story, thus presumably comes later than Josephus. Now Josephus explains how Hyrcanus left the Pharisees and joined the Sadducees, after which he lived happily. This detail ignores the foregoing narrative. For the rabbis the break came on the threshold of his death and is left unex plained. Then Simeon b. Shetah comes along and restores the Phari sees to power. I find it impossible to imagine how the two versions could have been shaped independently of one another. They are so close that were Josephus's version to appear in a Talmudic document, we should readily have produced an uncomplicated synoptic comparison. Two facts seem to me decisive. The first is the length and complexity of the narrative, the second, the constant parallels of theme, development, and detail, between the two versions. The two cannot be thought entirely separate traditions, but, on the contrary, may be best account ed for within one of three theories: either Josephus here cites an

176

HONI — Il.i.l

ancient pre-rabbinic, Pharisaic story (highly unlikely); or both refer in common to a third, independent source; or the rabbis cite Josephus. This third seems to me most improbable, unless in fact the rabbis knew Josephus's writings in the original Aramaic. The b. Qid. 66a story cannot, for obvious chronological, stylistic and form-critical considerations, have been known to Josephus. If the rabbis did know Josephus's story, it would account for their tradition that Yohanan had been a Pharisee and had deserted the party. Yohanan the High Priest is also alluded to in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Deut. 33:11. See M. Ginsburger, Pseudo-Jonathan (Berlin, 1903), p. 362-3: "May the enemies of Yohanan the High Priest have no leg to stand on," evidently a curse.

II. HONI THE CIRCLER

ILi. 1 .A. Once they said to Honi the Circler, "Pray that rain may fall." He answered, "Go out and bring in the Passover ovens, that they be not softened." He prayed, but rain did not fall. What did he do? He drew a circle and stood within it and said before him, "Lord of the world, your children have turned their faces to me, for I am like a son of the house before you. I swear by your great name that I will not stir hence until you have pity on your children." Rain began falling drop by drop. He said, "Not for such rain have I prayed, but for rain [that will fill] cisterns, pits, and caverns." It began to rain with violence. He said, "Not for such rain have I prayed, but for rain of goodwill, blessing, and graciousness." Then it rained in good order, until the Israelites went up from Jerusalem to the Temple Mount because of the rain. They went to him and said, "Just as you prayed for the rain to come, so pray that it may go away." . He replied, "Go and see if the Stone of the Strayers has disappeared." B. Simeon b. Shetah sent to him saying, "If you were not Honi, I would have pronounced a ban against you, but what shall I do to you, for you importune God and he does your will, like a son that impor tunes his father, and he performs his will, and of you Scripture says, Let thy father and thy mother be glad, and let her that bore you rejoice (Prov. 23:25)." (M. Ta. 3:8)

177

HONI — Il.i.l, IV.ii.l

Comment: The pericope is cited anonymously. It follows a law that one does not sound the shofar on account of an excess of rains, and then comes ma'aseh she + they said to Honi. The biographical story is surely a unity, excluding the message of Simeon b. Shetah (see above, p. 91). The story is quoted without much change in Megillat Ta anit, ed. Lichtenstein, pp. 348-9. The message of Simeon to Honi further recurs as a separate pericope in b. Ber. 19a, above, pp. 103-104. In y. Ta'anit 3:9, the story is somewhat expanded (as in b. Ta'anit 23a, below). A series of glosses is supplied to various elements in the Mishnaic account, e.g. re the stone: c

" J u s t as it is i m p o s s i b l e f o r t h i s s t o n e t o m e l t a w a y f r o m t h e w o r l d , s o it is n o t p o s s i b l e t o p r a y t h a t r a i n s w i l l g o a w a y , b u t g o a n d b r i n g m e a thank-offering." T h e y w e n t a n d b r o u g h t h i m a t h a n k - o f f e r i n g . H e p l a c e d his t w o h a n d s o n it a n d said, " L o r d o f t h e w o r l d , Y o u b r o u g h t e v i l o n y o u r c h i l d r e n , a n d t h e y c o u l d n o t e n d u r e i n it, a n d y o u b r o u g h t g o o d o n y o u r c h i l d r e n , a n d t h e y c o u l d n o t e n d u r e in it, b u t m a y it b e y o u r w i l l t h a t y o u w i l l b r i n g prosperity." F o r t h w i t h the w i n d b l e w and the clouds dispersed and the sun shone and the land dried u p " (and so forth).

The y. Ta. materials certainly come later than the Mishnah and aug ment it, but the meaning is not much changed. The message of Simeon b. Shetah is similarly augmented in y. Ta. 3:10, as we noted earlier. Honi evidently occurs in Josephus's account of the conflict between Hyrcanus and Aristobulus (Antiquities 14:22-24, trans. Ralph Marcus pp. 459-60): N o w there was a certain Onias, w h o , being a righteous man and dear to G o d , h a d o n c e in a rainless p e r i o d p r a y e d t o G o d t o e n d t h e d r o u g h t , a n d G o d h a d h e a r d his p r a y e r a n d sent r a i n . T h i s m a n h i d h i m s e l f w h e n h e s a w that the civil w a r continued t o rage, but he w a s taken t o the camp o f the J e w s and w a s asked t o place a curse o n A r i s t o b u l u s and his fellow-rebels, j u s t as h e h a d , b y his p r a y e r s , p u t a n e n d t o t h e rainless p e r i o d . B u t w h e n in s p i t e o f h i s refusals a n d excuses h e w a s f o r c e d t o s p e a k b y t h e m o b , h e s t o o d u p in t h e i r m i d s t a n d said, " O G o d , K i n g o f t h e u n i v e r s e , since t h e s e m e n standing beside m e are t h y people, and those w h o are besieged are t h y priests, I beseech thee n o t t o hearken t o t h e m against these m e n n o r t o b r i n g t o pass w h a t t h e s e m e n ask t h e e t o d o t o t h o s e o t h e r s . " A n d w h e n h e h a d p r a y e d in t h i s m a n n e r t h e v i l l a i n s a m o n g t h e J e w s w h o s t o o d r o u n d h i m stoned h i m t o death.

The rabbinic traditions about Honi contain no parallel to this story. IV.ii. 1. [It happened that the people said to Honi, the Circle Drawer, etc.] A. Once it happened that the greater part of the month of Adar had gone and yet no rain had fallen. The people sent a message to Honi the Circle Drawer, "Pray that rain may fall." He prayed and no rain fell. He thereupon drew a circle and stood within it, in the same way N E U S N E R . The Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees before 70, I

12

178

H O N I — IV.ii.l

as the prophet Habbakuk had done, as it is said, / will stand upon my watch, and set me upon the tower (Hab. 2:1). He exclaimed, "Lord of the world, your children have turned to me because [they believe] me to be a member of your house. I swear by your great name that I will not move from here until you have mercy upon your children!" Rain began to drip, and his disciples said to him, "We look to you to save us from death. We believe that this rain came down merely to release you from your oath." Thereupon he exclaimed, "It is not for this that I have prayed, but for rain [to fill] cisterns, ditches and caves." The rain then began to come down with great force, every drop being as big as the opening of a barrel (and the sages estimated that no one drop was less than a log). His disciples then said to him, "Master, we look to you to save us from death. We believe that the rain came down to destroy the world." Thereupon he exclaimed before him, "It is not for this that I have prayed, but for rain of benevolence, blessing and bounty." Then rain fell normally until the Israelites [in Jerusalem] were com pelled to go up [for shelter] to the Temple Mount because of the rain. [His disciples] then said to him, "Master, in the same way as you have prayed for the rain to fall, pray for the rain to cease." He replied, "I have it as a tradition that we may not pray on account of an excess of good. Despite this, bring me a bullock for a thanks giving-offering." They brought him a bullock for a thanksgiving-offering, and he laid his two hands upon it and said, "Lord of the world, your people Israel, whom you have brought out from Egypt, cannot endure an excess of good or an excess of punishment. When you were angry with them, they could not endure it. When you showered upon them an excess of good, they could not endure it. May it be your will that the rain may cease and that there be relief for the world." Immediately the wind began to blow and the clouds were dispersed, and the sun shone, and the people went out into the fields and gathered for themselves mushrooms and truffles. Thereupon Simeon b. Shetah sent this message to him, "Were it not that you are Honi, I would have placed you under the ban; for were the years like the years [of famine in the time] of Elijah, in whose hands were the keys of rain, would not the name of Heaven be profaned through you? But what shall I do to you, who act petulantly

HONI — IV.ii.l

179

before the Omnipresent and he grants your desire, as a son who acts petulantly before his father and he grants his desires. "Thus he says to him, 'Father, take me to bathe in warm water, wash me in cold water, give me nuts, almonds, peaches, and pome granates,' and he gives them to him. Of you Scripture says, Let thy father and thy mother be glad, and let her that bore thee rejoice (Prov. 23:25)." B. Our rabbis have taught: What was the message that the Sanhe drin sent to Honi the Circle Drawer? [It was an interpretation of the verse], Thou shalt also decree a thing, and it shall be established unto thee, and light shall shine upon thy ways (Job 22:28). Thou shalt also decree a thing: You have decreed [on earth] below and the Holy One, blessed be He, fulfills your word [in heaven] above. And light shall shine upon thy ways. You have illumined with your prayer a generation in darkness. When they cast thee down, thou shalt say: There is lifting up. You have raised with your prayer a generation that has sunk low. For the humble person He saveth. You have saved by your prayer a generation that is humiliated with sin. He delivereth him that is not innocent. You have delivered by your prayer a generation that is not innocent. Yea, He shall be delivered through the cleanness of thy hands. You have delivered it through the work of your clean hands. C. R. Yohanan said, "This righteous man [Honi] was throughout the whole of life troubled about the meaning of the verse, A Song of Ascents, When the Lord brought back those that returned to Zion, we were like them that dream (Ps. 126:1). Is it possible for a man to dream continuously for seventy years? "One day he was journeying on the road, and he saw a man planting a carob tree. "He asked him, 'How long does it take [for this tree] to bear fruit?' "The man replied, 'Seventy years.' "He then further asked him, 'Are you certain that you will live another seventy years?' "The man replied, 'I found carob trees in the world. As my fore fathers planted these for me, so I too plant these for my children.' "Honi sat down to have a meal and sleep overcame him. As he slept, a rocky formation enclosed upon him which hid him from sight, and he continued to sleep for seventy years. When he awoke, he saw a man gathering the fruit of the carob tree, and he asked him, 'Are you the man who planted the tree?'

180

HONI — IV.ii.l

"The man replied, 'I am his grandson.' "Thereupon he exclaimed, 'It is clear that I slept for seventy years.' "He then caught sight of his ass, who had given birth to several generations of mules, and he returned home. "He there inquired, 'Is the son of Honi the Circle Drawer still alive?' The people answered him, 'His son is no more, but his grand son is still living.' "Thereupon he said to them, 'I am Honi the Circle Drawer,' but no one would believe him. "He then went to the study-house, and there he overheard the sage say, 'The law is as clear to us as in the days of Honi the Circle Drawer, for whenever he came to the study-house, he would settle for the sages any difficulty that they had.' Whereupon he called out, 'I am he,' but the sages would not believe him, nor did they give him the honor due to him. "This hurt him greatly and he prayed [for death] and died." Rava said, "Hence the saying, 'Either companionship or death.'" D. Abba Hilqiah was a grandson of Honi the Circle Drawer, and whenever the world was in need of rain, the rabbis sent a message to him and he prayed and rain fell. Once there was an urgent need for rain, and the rabbis sent to him a couple of sages [to ask him] to pray for rain. They came to his house but they did not find him there. They then proceeded to the fields, and they found him there hoeing. They greeted him, but he took no notice of them. Towards evening he gathered some wood and placed the wood and the rake on one shoulder and his cloak on the other shoulder. Throughout the journey he walked barefoot, but, when he reached a stream, he put his shoes on. When he lighted upon thorns and thist les, he lifted up his garments. When he reached the city, his wife, well-bedecked, came out to meet him. When he arrived home, his wife first entered [the house], and then he, and then the scholars. He sat down to eat, but he did not say to the sages, "Join me." He then shared the meal among his children, giving the older son one portion and the younger two. He said to his wife, "I know the sages have come on account of rain; let us go up to the roof and pray; perhaps the Holy One, blessed be He, will have mercy and rain will fall, without having credit given to us." They went up to the roof; he stood in one corner and she in another.

HONI —IV.ii.l

181

At first the clouds appeared over the corner where his wife stood. When he came down he said to the sages, "Why have you sages come here?" They replied, "The rabbis have sent us to you, Sir, [to ask you] to pray for rain." Thereupon he exclaimed, "Blessed be God, who has made you no longer dependent on Abba Hilqiah." They replied, "We know that the rain has come on your account, but tell us, Sir, the meaning of these mysterious acts of yours, which are bewildering to us? Why did you not take notice of us when we greeted you?" He answered, "I was a laborer hired by the day, and I said I must not relax [from my work]." "And why did you, Sir, carry the wood on one shoulder and the cloak on the other shoulder?" He replied, "It was a borrowed cloak. I borrowed it for one purpose [to wear] and not for any other purpose." "Why did you, Sir, go barefoot throughout the whole journey, but when you came to a stream, you put your shoes on?" He replied, "What was on the road I could see, but not what was in the water." "Why did you, Sir, lift up your garments whenever you lighted upon thorns and thistles?" He replied, "This [the body] heals itself, but the other [the clothes] does not." "Why did your wife come out well bedecked to meet you, Sir, when you entered the city?" He replied, "In order that I might not set my eyes on any other woman." "Why, Sir, did she enter [the house] first, and you after her, and then we?" He replied, "Because I did not know your character." "Why, Sir, did you not ask us to join you in the meal?" [He replied], "Because there was not sufficient food [for all]." "Why did you give, Sir, one portion to the older son and two por tions to the younger?" He replied, "Because the one stays at home, and the other is away in the synagogue [the whole day]." "Why, Sir, did the clouds appear first in the corner where you wife stood and then in your corner?"

182

H O N I — IV.ii.l

[He replied], "Because a wife stays at home and gives bread to the poor, which they can at once enjoy, while I give them money, which they cannot at once enjoy. "Or perhaps it may have to do with certain robbers in our neigh borhood. I prayed that they might die, but she prayed that they might repent [and they did repent]." E. Hanan ha-Nehba [the Modest] was the son of the daughter of Honi the Circle Drawer. When the world was in need of rain, the rabbis would send to him school children, and they would take hold of the hem of his garment and say to him, "Father, father, give us rain." Thereupon he would plead with the Holy One, blessed be He, [thus], "Master of the Universe, do it for the sake of these who are unable to distinguish between the Father who gives rain and the father who does not." And why was he called, Hanan ha-Nehba?—Because he was wont to lock (mihabbeh) himself in the privy [out of modesty]. (b. Ta. 23a-b, trans. J . Rabbinowitz, pp. 115-120) Comment: This Amoraic expansion of the Mishnaic passage constitutes a veritable Honi-tractate. Apart from parallels to materials already re ferred to, the whole is a singleton. It is transparently composite. Part A successively develops each of the elements of the Mishnah. Disciples are supplied, to allow a more congenial context for the exchanges. The ma terials are certainly later than the Palestinian Talmudic equivalents, e.g. Your children becomes the people you brought forth from Egypt, with many more additions. The pericope is late. The Simeon-message is greatly expanded, as we observed above (p. 177). Then comes part B, a beraita, Amoraic in origin, in which a conversation is supplied for the Sanhedrin. Part C consists of R. Yohanan's story about Honi and the man who planted a carob-tree. That story seems to me a unity. It must date be fore ca. 350 (Rava) but after ca. 250 (R. Yohanan). Then come the further stories of Honi's family. The whole Honi-corpus consists of the materials given here. We cannot doubt that the bulk of new materials comes very late. But how much older is the Mishnaic stratum? I find it difficult to offer even a rough guess. The special interest of R. Yohanan in the whole corpus likewise requires an explanation, but I cannot sug gest one. in.

OTHERS

The only names mentioned in Simeon the Just materials are those of his two sons, Shimeî and Honyo (pp. 36-7). They do not occur else where.

OTHERS

183

While Yosi b. Yo'ezer's son is left nameless, his nephew, Yaqim of Serurot, is mentioned (p. 76). No further rabbinic traditions refer to him. The sages Eleazar b. PoHrah and Judah b. Gedidiah mentioned in connection with the Pharisaic dispute with Yannai the King occur only there (pp. 107-108). The criticism of Shema'iah and Abtalion is the only tradition refer ring to Judah b. Dortai or to his son (p. 147).

CHAPTER EIGHT MENAHEM.

SHAMMAI

i. M E N A H E M

The only explicit reference to Menahem is in M. Hag. 2:2, cited above: "Hillel and Menahem did not differ, but Menahem went forth and Shammai entered in." This enigmatic saying is discussed in Amoraic pericopae, as follows: [Menahem went forth and Shammai entered.] Where did he go? Abbaye said, "He went forth to evil culture." Rava said, "He went forth to the king's service." It has also been taught (TNY> NMY HKY): Menahem went forth to the king's service, and eighty pairs of disciples dressed in silk (SYRYQWN) went forth with him. (b. Hag. 16b) Where did he go forth? Some say, "He went forth from measure to measure (MYDH)." And some say, "He went against his face (KNGD PNYW), he and eighty pair of disciples of the sages, dressed in golden silk [following Jastrow, read SYRQY instead of TYRQY] that brightened their faces like the saucer attached to a pot." For they said to them, "Write on the horn of an ox that you do not have a portion in the God of Israel." (y. Hag. 2:2, repr. Gilead, pp. lOb-lla) Comment: The Babylonian pericope is unrelated to other materials in the same context. Rava's saying is expanded in the beraita, or perhaps he cited the tradition contained in the beraita. I assume the eighty pair of disciples is a counterpart to Hillel's, in a beraita also from Pumbedita; perhaps it is a stock-phrase. The Palestinian pericope, isolated from its setting, is enigmatic. The meaning of "from measure to measure" has been variously explained; I do not know what it means. He went against his face generally is inter preted to mean, he went out unwillingly, but here again, I do not know the philological basis for that explanation. The passages compare as fol lows:

S H A M M A I — I.ii.l

b. Hag. 1. W h e r e did he g o ? 2 . A b b a y e said 3. He w e n t forth to evil culture 4 . R a v a said 5. He w e n t f o r t h t o the service o f the king 6. T N Y ' N M Y H K Y 7. M e n a h e m w e n t f o r t h t o t h e s e r vice of the king 8. A n d t h e r e w e n t f o r t h w i t h h i m e i g h t y p a i r s o f disciples 9 . d r e s s e d in silk (LBW$YN SYRYQWN) 10.

185

y.

Hag. 1. „ „ „ 2 . Some say 3 . from measure to measure h e w e n t forth 4 . Some say 5 . H e w e n t f o r t h against his face 6. 7. 8. H e a n d e i g h t y p a i r [sing.] o f disciples of the sages 9 . d r e s s e d ( M L B W $ Y N ) [in] silks of ( T Y R Q Y = S Y R Q Y ) gold 1 0 . F o r t h e y said t o t h e m , etc.

The Babylonian beraita has improved the Palestinian Amoraic tradition in a number of respects. First, the enigmatic language, from measure to measure and against his face, has been dropped in favor of commonplace and immediately comprehensible expressions. Second, the beraita changes pair to pair/, clarifies S YRYQY and drops the redundant gold. All of no. 10 is dropped in the Babylonian version. My guess therefore is that the Babylonian version depends upon the Palestinian one. It seems to me unlikely that the two traditions developed independent of one another, and in this instance the shorter and clearer probably im proves upon the longer and less lucid. But I do not understand why the substantial detail of no. 10 should have failed to serve the editor of the Babylonian beraita. We have no reason to attribute any tradition con cerning Menahem to a period before the circulation of M. Hag., for both Palestinian and Babylonian pericopae begin with the language of the Mishnah, "Where did he go," although the beraita has hidden that question in the declarative statement of no. 7. The Mishnah, in its present form, must have been known to all parties responsible for the foregoing pericopae. On this basis we must regard all the traditions as efforts to provide glosses for the Mishnah, not as independent traditions deriving from the period before it. For a discussion of the interpretation of the language of the pericopae and an account of Menahem, see Sidney B. Hoenig, "Menahem, Hillel's First Associate," Bitâron 52, 1964, pp. 87-96. Hoenig identifies Mena hem with the Menahem ben Signai of M. Ed. 7:8. Others have found our Menahem in Menahem b. Judah, the Galilean Sicarius, and Menahem the Essene, both mentioned by Josephus. I see no merit in any of these guesses. So far as I can see, the Menahem of M. Hag. 2:2 appears only there. We do not gain much by supplying him with new patronymics and identities. See Epstein, Mishnah, pp. 138, 900. c

I I . T R A D I T I O N S OF S H A M M A I

I.ii.l.A. Shammai the Elder says, and keep it—when it comes."

"Remember

it—before it comes,

186

S H A M M A I — I.ii.l

B. They said concerning (>MRW P H*SWY BH) [is susceptible]." (M. Kel. 22:4, trans. Danby, p. 637 [Compare M. *Ed. 1:11])

195

S H A M M A I — Il.ii.l

Comment: The stool (A) is in two parts, the frame and the covering, with the latter providing the seat. The stool also has a receptacle for small objects. The issue is, If the seat is no longer usable for ordinary sitting, is it still susceptible to uncleanness? The House of Shammai hold that it remains susceptible, because it can still be used for sitting— if not in the normal way—even though the seat-boards are removed. The House of Hillel hold that it is not susceptible, because the bride can no longer use the stool, even though others can. The legal prin ciple is this: If the object is no longer usable for its primary function in the ordinary way, do we take into account other possible functions in assessing susceptibility to receive uncleanness? Shammai's view is that even the frame may be susceptible without any covering, for in case of need it can still be used as a stool. In the second case the opinion of the House of Shammai is that the object (B) can still be used for a bakingtrough, and its original condition is unchanged. The House of Hillel hold that its original condition is sufficiently changed to warrant a change in the susceptibility to receive uncleanness. Shammai's opinion is that even though the chair was not used for sitting at the outset, the susceptibility is unchanged (so H. Albeck Seder Toharot [Tel Aviv, 1958], pp. 94-5). Shammai's opinion again differs from that attributed to either House. He takes a position outside of, and more extreme than, both Houses. Il.ii.l.A. A field that has been improved may not be sown at the end of the Seventh Year. What is a field that has been improved? When people plough five, he ploughs six; six, and he ploughs seven [rows]. B. Shammai the Elder says, "If the time (S H) were propitious (PNWYH), I should decree concerning it that it should not be sown." C. The court that followed him decreed concerning it that it should not be sown. [Tos. Shev. 3:10, ed. Lieberman, p. 176, lines 21-25 (M. Shev. 4:2, y. Shev. 3:3, b. M.Q. 13a, b. Git. 44b, b. Bekh. 34b)] C

Comment: The category is a saying in standard legal form, but the say ing is not a statement of the law, One should not do so-and-so. It is an auto biographical remark, "If I had the power, I would decree such-andsuch," with the concommitant implication that he did not have the power. This is immediately spelled out. Shammai could not do it, but the next generation did. Part C then repeats the law of part A, and ac counts for it, but depends upon the language of part B, not part A ("That followed him"). So B-C are a unit, attached to A. The obvious polemic is that Shammai was not much of an authority in his own day. On that basis Hillelite-*Aqibans would have preserved his saying. I cannot imagine that the saying was transmitted by Sham-

196

S H A M M A I — II.ii.2, 3

mai's disciples in this form, without a legal lemma precisely specifying Shammai's view of the law. As we have seen, Shammai is the subject of stories or autobiographical sayings, but rarely are his legal opinions preserved by themselves and without prejudice. Normally they stand in contrast with those of his House or agree with Hillel's, and seldom are they supplied as authorita tive legal opinions. While Shammai's saying is a separate logion, in fact it was shaped, as I said, right along with the following, anonymous observation about the later court. Without that observation, the point of Shammai's say ing is quite neutral, but with it the polemic against Shammai himself is underscored. It is independent of the influence of Shammai's own dis ciples. The original form and substance of Shammai's saying therefore lie outside of the framework of the pericope. As to the law involved, Lieberman (Tosefta Kifshutah Seder Zeraîm, Part B, p. 517) points out that interpreters of the Mishnah supposed the law about ploughing in the Sabbatical Year applied to the period after the destruction of the Temple, when paying Roman taxes prevented full observance of the Year. This, he says, is shown to be false. "Even in Shammai's time" the problem was considerable. The rule was that one should not plough in the Seventh Year in the same manner as in other years. The reference here is to man who ploughs morefinelythan in ordinary times. According to the above explanation the reason Shammai could not decree against this practice had to do with economic necessity—the heavy taxes. But that necessity ought to have increased in the subse quent generations, particularly after 70, as the commentators on the Mishnah supposed. Hence whatever the actual facts of the matter, the intention of the narrator certainly is to represent Shammai as unable to do what later sages were able to do. 11.11.2. R. Simeon b. Leazar says, "Shammai the Elder says, 'Let him leave it in the store and eat against it.'" (Tos. M.S. 2:10, ed, Lieberman p. 252, lines 49-50) Comment: R. Simeon b. Leazar here cites the opinion of Shammai in M. M.S. 2:9 (II.i.2). See above, and synopsis below. 11.11.3. A camp that goes forth to an optional war may not [begin to] besiege a gentile city less than three days before the Sabbath. But if they began, even on the Sabbath they may not raise the siege. And so Shammai the elder would expound, "Until it fall (Deut. 20:20)—even on the Sabbath." (Tos. 'Eruv. 3:7, ed. Lieberman, p. 100, lines 25-28.)

S H A M M A I — III.ii.1, 2

197

Comment: The opinion attributed to Shammai in Sifre Deut. 203 (I.i.2) is here given anonymously, but an exegesis of Shammai's is sup plied to support that opinion. The whole passage appears without tra dents. Shammai's saying, an exegesis of legal materials, is a unitary text and follows the form conventional for its genre. Lieberman notes in his extended commentary (p. 343) that some MSS read £////

The Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees before 70 (Parts I, II & III)

Jesus & the Pharisees

Archangel I & II

KV I & II

The Tiger I & Tiger II Profile

The Vickers Wellington I & II

Mathematical Circles, Quadrants I, II, III, IV

Tiger I & Tiger II

LIVY - BOOKS I & II

Westland Lysander Mks. I, III IIIA, III(SD), TT Mks. I, II, III

The despoliation of Egypt in pre-rabbinic, rabbinic and patristic traditions

The history of Fortran I, II, and III

A musical grammar, in four parts: I. Notation, II. Melody, III. Harmony, IV. Rhythm

The Klone & I

The Duke & I

The Social Teaching of Rabbinic Judaism, Part II: Between Israelites

Die Before I Wake

Before I Say Goodbye

Before I Fall

Before I Say Goodbye

Before I Die

Before I Forget

Before I Wake

Before I Fall

The Black Book volume III-part II

Before I Fall

Before I Wake

Die Before I Wake

Before I Die

Before I Wake

Before I Wake

The Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees before 70 (Parts I, II & III)

Jesus & the Pharisees

Archangel I & II

KV I & II

The Tiger I & Tiger II Profile

The Vickers Wellington I & II

Mathematical Circles, Quadrants I, II, III, IV

Tiger I & Tiger II

LIVY - BOOKS I & II

Westland Lysander Mks. I, III IIIA, III(SD), TT Mks. I, II, III

The despoliation of Egypt in pre-rabbinic, rabbinic and patristic traditions

The history of Fortran I, II, and III

A musical grammar, in four parts: I. Notation, II. Melody, III. Harmony, IV. Rhythm

The Klone & I

The Duke & I

The Social Teaching of Rabbinic Judaism, Part II: Between Israelites

Die Before I Wake

Before I Say Goodbye

Before I Fall

Before I Say Goodbye

Before I Die

Before I Forget

Before I Wake

Before I Fall

The Black Book volume III-part II

Before I Fall

Before I Wake

Die Before I Wake

Before I Die

Before I Wake

Before I Wake

Recommend Documents