Association for Jewish studies 1997- 22(1)

Front Matter Source: AJS Review, Vol. 22, No. 1 (1997), pp. i-36 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486863 . Accessed: 15/07/2011 10:30 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

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

http://www.jstor.org

AJS VOL. XXII,NO. 1 1997

TheJournalof the Associationfor JewishStudies

REVIE

Volume XXII, Number 1 1997

ASSOCIATION FORJEWISHSTUDIES WALTHAM,MASSACHUSETTS

AJS Review EDITOR:

NormanA. Stillman, University of Oklahoma EDITORS: ASSOCIATE

Nehama Aschkenasy,University of Connecticut,Stamford Rela Geffen, GratzCollege RobertGoldenberg,State University of New Yorkat Stony Brook BenjaminC. I. Ravid, BrandeisUniversity MarshaRozenblit, University of Maryland EDITOR: CORRESPONDING

Lloyd P. Gartner,Tel-Aviv University BOOKREVIEWEDITOR:

GaryRendsburg,Cornell University ASSISTANT: EDITORIAL

JohnBorrego TheAJSReview(ISSN 0364-0094) is publishedtwice annuallyby the Association for Jewish Studies. Manuscriptsfor consideration should be sent to Prof. Norman A. Stillman, History Department, 455 W. Lindsey, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK 73019-0535. Books for review should be sent to Prof. Gary A. Rendsburg, Dept. of Near Eastern Studies, 360 Rockefeller Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y. 14853-2502. C 1997 by the Association for Jewish Studies INTHEUNITEDSTATES OFAMERICA MANUFACTURED

AJS REVIEW THE JOURNALOF THE ASSOCIATIONFOR JEWISHSTUDIES VOLUME XXII, NUMBER 1, 1997 Articles 1

TALILAN The Quest for the Historical Beruriah, Rachel, and Imma Shalom

19

MELAMMED RENEELEVINE He Said, She Said: A Woman Teacher in Twelfth-CenturyCairo

37

SHAULMAGID From Theosophy to Midrash: Lurianic Exegesis and the Garden of Eden

Review Essays 77

Lawrence H. Schiffman. Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls: TheHistory ofJudaism, the Backgroundof Christianity,the Lost Libraryof Qumran MOSHEJ. BERNSTEIN

95

Irving Jacobs. The Midrashic Process JOSHUALEVINSON

Book Reviews 103

David Marcus. From Balaam to Jonah: Anti-Prophetic Satire in the Hebrew Bible SCOTTNOEGEL

105

Herbert J. Levine. Sing Unto God a New Song: A Contemporary Reading of the Psalms DANIELGROSSBERG

107

Hector Avalos. Illness and Health Care in the Ancient Near East: The Role of the Templein Greece, Mesopotamia, and Israel SCOTTNOEGEL

ii 110

CONTENTS Lawrence M. Wills. The Jewish Novel in the Ancient World LEONARDJ. GREENSPOON

112

Menahem Stem. Hasmonean Judaea in the Hellenistic World:Chapters in Political History DAVIDGOODBLATT

114

Tal Ilan. Jewish Womenin Greco-Roman Palestine: An Inquiry into Image and Status ADELEREINHARTZ

116

Jeffrey L. Rubinstein. The History ofSukkot in the Second Templeand Rabbinic Periods ALANJ. YUTER

121

N. A. von Uchelen. Chagigah: The Linguistic Encoding ofHalakhah Fox HARRY

122

John Y. B. Hood. Aquinas and the Jews D. YAFFE MARTIN

125

Idit Dobbs-Wettstein. Maimonides and St. Thomas on the Limits of Reason DAVIDB. BURRELL

127

Yochanan Silman. Philosopher and Prophet: Judah Halevi, the "Kuzari," and the Evolution of His Thought DAVIDH. FRANK

129

David Novak. The Election of Israel.: The Idea of the Chosen People ALLANARKUSH

132

Marc A. Weiner.Richard Wagnerand the Anti-Semitic Imagination GEORGEJOCHNOWITZ

135

Christoph Gassenschmidt. Jewish Liberal Politics in Tsarist Russia, 1900-1914: The Modernization of Russian Jewry HENRYABRAMSON

iii

CONTENTS

136

Daniel Carpi. Between Mussolini and Hitler: TheJews and the Italian Authorities in France and Tunisia DAVIDWEINBERG

139

Lance J. Sussman. Isaac Leeser and the Making ofAmerican Judaism SORIN GERALD

142

Michael Ragussis. Figures of Conversion: "TheJewish Question " & English National Identity NANCYHENRY

148

Robert Liberles. Salo WittmayerBaron: Architect of Jewish History DASHMOORE DEBORAH

150

Anthony Julius. T S. Eliot, Anti-Semitismand Literary Form JACOBKORG

153

Collected Studies

161

Books Received Hebrew Article

K

I= 90w)XV)=?

Tu2,11

ov'lnn

nlnnln

t nx K

-1 -1m

Conversations with Dvora

JUDAICA Unheroic Conduct The Rise ofHeterosexuality and the Invention of the Jewish Man Daniel Boyarin "Boyarin'swork has been instrumental in opening a way for me into Jewish thinking, Jewish history, and Judaism itself. ... His is a thoroughly dazzling intellect." -Tony Kushner, author of Angelsin America $50.00 cloth, Contraversions, $18.95 paper,illustrated

100 IN

An ExperimentalBiographyofthe First Modern Hebrew WomanWriter Amia Lieblich Translatedfrom the Hebrewby Naomi Seidman Edited by Chana Kronfeldand Naomi Seidman "Afascinating, haunting book.... Conversations with Dvora inevitably challenges our assumptions about the distances between art, life, and history as well as our judgments of the choices made by women of different generations." -Irena Klepfisz, author of

Dreamsofan Insomniac: JewishFeministEssays $45.00 cloth, $16.95 paper Contraversions,

A MarriageMadein Heaven The Sexual Politics of Hebrew and Yiddish Naomi Seidman This sophisticated history is the first booklength exploration of the sexual politics underlying the "marriage"of Hebrew and Yiddish, and it has profound implications for understanding the construction of modern Jewish identity. Contraversions, $40.00 cloth,illustrated

MedievalStereotypesand ModernAntisemitism RobertChazan "Chazan's workraiseslarge highlyreadable t Thefluiditiesof Jewish Conduct. FromUnheroic gender:RuthZurom(left)andHymanFenster(right) in theCatskills c. 1925,justbeforetheyweremarried.

ororder1-800-822-6657 At bookstores

OF UNIVERSITY PRESS CALIFORNIA

questions of great contemporary interest.... No one has made the argument, at least in so direct a way, that it was in the twelfth century for the first time that Christians began to think of contemporaryJews as a fundamentally malevolent force." -Robert C. Stacey,author of TheEnglishJews in theMiddle Ages, 1066-1290 $35.00 cloth

Keter The Crown of God in

Jewish Mysticism

SEarly

Arthur Green

is a close reading of fifty relatively 1Keter brief Jewish texts, tracing the motif of divine

%0 10

coronation from Jewish esoteric writings of

late antiquity to the Zohar,written in thirteenth-century Spain. In the course of this investigation Arthur Green draws a wide arc %0 * Talmudic, Midrashic, liturgical, 0including %I Merkavah,German Hasidic, and Kabbalistic works, showing through this single theme Sthe spectrum of devotional, mystical, and magical views held by various circles of Jews over the course of a millennium or more. "Asuperb contribution to the study of Jewish myth and its imaginative transformations from midrash to mysticism. Particularlysignificant is Green's correlation of mythic symbology with religious ritual in several historical periods. This work is a model of its kind." -Michael Fishbane, University of Chicago -

Due August

Cloth $35.00 ISBN0-691-04372-8

New in paperback of Egypt Jews The FromRameses IIto EmperorHadrian

Joseph Meleze Modrzejewski Translatedby RobertCornman Preface by Shaye i. D. Cohen

Hellenistic Egypt was the setting for perhaps the first Jewish Golden Age, a time "golden"in Jewish memory as an era of vibrant cultural interaction between the Jews and their gentile hosts. This is the story of the people of Israel in the land of Egypt-the years shrouded in the mists of biblical history under the Pharaohs; the strange intermezzo of the Jewish mercenary detachment on the island of Elephantine on the upper Nile; the apogee of Jewish culture under Ptolemies; and finally, the Jewish community's rapid decline and catastrophic disappearance under Roman rule. "Urbane, intelligent, and well-researched

. . . more than ample for a

well-rounded view of Jewish history in ancient Egypt."-Library Journal Paper $18.95 ISBN0-691-01 575-9 Pinceon A FI AVALABE

Due June

g EeBOKTRE0' VIITOU

I Pes

loers W''T:

IECL UPP

FO TEPULSHE'R*:800-7742 SNETN

ID

The Quest for the Historical Beruriah, Rachel, and Imma Shalom Author(s): Tal Ilan Source: AJS Review, Vol. 22, No. 1 (1997), pp. 1-17 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486864 . Accessed: 15/07/2011 10:30 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

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

http://www.jstor.org

THE QUESTFOR THEHISTORICAL BERURIAH,RACHEL,AND IMMASHALOM by TALILAN Beruriah,reputedlythe greatestJewishwoman scholarof all times, has figuredprominentlyin anthologiesdescribingthe lives and deeds of Jewish sages,'andin particularin booksandcollectionsdedicatedto Jewishwomen.2 Most of these presentationsare no more thanparaphrasesof the sourceson which they are dependent,acceptingtheirjudgmentsat face value and thus giving an idealizeddescriptionof the womanBeruriah.

JewishEncyclopedia(1903), vol. 3, pp. 109-110; A. 1. HenriettaSzold, s.v. "Beruriah," Heimann,ToldotTannaimve-Amoraim(London:Ha-Express,1910), vol. 1, pp. 294-295; R. Gordis, s.v. "Beruriah,"UniversalJewish Encyclopedia(1940), vol. 2, p. 243; Z. Kaplan, s.v. "Beruryah,"EncyclopaediaJudaica (1971), vol. 4, col. 701; ShulamitTov, Demuyot min ha-Talmud(Jerusalem:GraphChen, 1988), pp. 67-76. In A. Blumenthal,RabbiMeir: a.M.:Kauffmann,1888),one section(pp. Lebenund WirkeneinesfjidischenWeisen(Frankfurt 108-112) is devotedto RabbiMeir'slearnedwife. 2. M. Kayserling,Die jiidischenFrauenin der Geschichte,LiteraturundKunst(Leipzig: Brockhaus,1879), pp. 120-121; H. Zirndorf,Some Jewish Women(Philadelphia:Jewish PublicationSociety, 1892), pp. 162-173; S. Safrai, "NashimHakhamotTorahbi-Tekufat Mahanaim98 (1965): 58-59; Ann Goldfeld,"Womenas Sources ha-Mishnahve-ha-Talmud," of Torahin RabbinicTradition,"in The Jewish Woman,ed. ElizabethKoltun(New York: HerWordBecameLaw,"Lilith3 (1977): Schocken,1976),pp. 257-271; L. Swidler,"Beruriah: 9-12; SondraHenryandEmily Taitz,WrittenOutof History:OurJewishForemothers(Fresh Meadows,N.Y.:Biblio Press, 1983),pp. 54-58; NehamaAschkenasy,Eve' Journey:Feminine Imagesin HebraicLiteraryTradition(Philadelphia:Universityof PennsylvaniaPress, 1986), pp. 145-146, 179-181; JudithR. Wegner,"The Image and Statusof Womenin Classical RabbinicJudaism,"in Womenin HistoricalPerspective,ed. JudithR. Baskin(Detroit:Wayne StateUniversityPress, 1991),pp. 68-93.

AJS Review 22/1 (1997): 1-17

1

2

TALILAN

In 1975 David Goodblattpublishedan article entitled "The Beruriah Its purposewas to tracethe historicalBeruriah.Goodblattused Traditions."3 thattheBeruriahtraditions techniquesin orderto demonstrate literary-critical should not be taken at face value but should be analyzed accordingto the date of the compilationsin which they appear,and that each tradition should be analyzedindividuallybefore being taken as part of the whole. Goodblattcame to the conclusionthattwo, perhapsthree,historicalwomen of the tannaiticperiod had been incorporatedinto the legendaryamoraic Beruriah-(1l) Beruriah,(2) the daughterof Rabbi Haninaben Teradion, and (3) the wife of Rabbi Meir-and that the tannaiticBeruriahwas only versedin some of the laws pertainingto women'sconductin the home. He concludedthatit was only in the BabylonianTalmudthatBeruriahemerged as a full-fledgedscholar. Althoughthe imageof BeruriahhasbeenfurtherdiscussedsinceGoodblatt publishedthisarticle,4new studiesof theBeruriahtraditions,or forthatmatter of any other talmudicJewish women, would do well to take Goodblatt's conclusions into account.5Furthermore,Goodblatt'stechniquescould be Journalof JewishStudies26 (1975):68-85. 3. D. Goodblatt,"TheBeruriahTraditions," 4. See above, n. 2; also: RachelAdler,"TheVirginin the Brotheland OtherAnomalies: CharacterandContextin the Legendof Beruriah,"Tikkun3, no. 6 (1988):28-32, 102-105;D. Boyarin,CarnalIsrael: ReadingSex in TalmudicCulture(Berkeley:Universityof California Press, 1993),pp. 167-196. Both of these workswill be discussedbelow. 5. Forexample,in an articlepublishedin 1973,Alisa Shenhardiscussedthe folktalenature of the storyof RabbiMeir'swife andthe deathof his two sons (MidrashMishlei31:10). See shel AgadatBeruriahEshetRabbiMeir"("Onthe FolkloristicNatureof her "Le-Amamiyuta the Legendof BeruriahWife of RabbiMeir"),in Mehkareiha-Merkazle-Hekerha-Folklore (Jerusalem:MagnesPress, 1973),vol. 3, pp. 223-227. AfterGoodblatt'sdiscussion,Shenhar's choice of a name for the articleimpliesthat she failedto notice thatMidrashMishleileaves RabbiMeir's wife unnamed.It is interestingto note that JudithHauptman,althoughnot yet familiarwith Goodblatt'sideas, did not analyzeall the Beruriahtraditionsas a whole in her "Imagesof Womenin the Talmud,"in Religionand Sexism:Imagesof Womenin Jewishand ChristianTraditions,ed. RosemaryR. Ruether(New York:Simon& Schuster,1974),pp. 201, 203, 204. Leone Archer,Her Price Is BeyondRubies:TheJewish Womanin Graeco-Roman Palestine,JSOTSupplementSeries60 (Sheffield:SheffieldAcademicPress,1990),pp. 97-99, had read Goodblatt'sarticle and agreedwith his conclusionsbecause they fitted with her generalnotionof women'spositionin Palestineat the time,but she failedutterlyto internalize his systematicsource analysis,as is shown by her treatmentof the Beruriahtraditions,and by her generalattitudeto the rabbinicliteraturethroughouther book. However,Goodblatt's conclusionsarehardlyworthmentioningwhennot dependenton his sourceanalysis.

THE HISTORICALBERURIAH,RACHEL,AND IMMA SHALOM

3

employedin a deeperanalysisof the Beruriahtraditionsandalso in the study of two otherfamoustalmudicwomen,RabbiAqiva'swife andImmaShalom. Beruriah Goodblattdemonstratedthat several of the Beruriahtraditionsshould be viewed as nothingmore than literarycompositionsin which the name Beruriahis a secondaryinsertion.He comparedthe Beruriahtraditionsin the BabylonianTalmudwith similarliterarycompositionsfound in Palestinian compilationsfrom which Beruriahis absent.For instance,the traditionin the BabylonianTalmud(bPesahim62b) whereBeruriahis held up by Rabbi Yohananas an exampleof an industriousandoutstandingstudentis brought in the Palestinianversionwithoutanypersonalexample(yPesahim5:3, 32a). The storyof RabbiMeir's escape from the Romanauthoritiesis connected in the BabylonianTalmudwith his attemptto rescueBeruriah'ssisterfrom a brothel(bAvodahZarah 18b), whereasthe Palestiniantraditionknows of no such sister-in-law(EcclesiastesRabbah7:11).However,this techniqueis usefulfor morethanjust provingthe superiorityof the Palestiniantraditions. If we can demonstratethata Beruriahtraditionis a literaryframeworkinto at a laterstage,the compilationin whichthe whichBeruriahwas incorporated parallelis foundis not essentialto the model.One of the Beruriahtraditions has a parallelin the BabylonianTalmuditself, butits heroesarenot Beruriah and her husband,RabbiMeir,but the saintlyAbbaHilqiaandhis wife. The Beruriahtraditionrunsas follows: of RabbiMeirtroubledhim Certainbanditswho werein the neighborhood much.He prayedthattheydie. Beruriah, his wife,saidto him:Do youbase yourprayeron whatis written:"Letsins cease"(Ps. 104:35)? Is "sinner" "Sins"is written.Furthermore, castyoureyesto theendof theverse, written? "andtheyarewickedno more."Sincesinswill cease,theywillbe wickedno more.Heprayedforthemandtheyrepented. (bBerakhot1Oa)

GoodblattnotedthatBeruriahis not essentialto the plot of thistalebuta wife is, and he assumedthatthe wife was RabbiMeir's.However,in the parallel the heroesareAbbaHilqiaandhis wife. At the instigationof the rabbis,they praytogetherfor rain;clouds emergefromher directionratherthanhis. In

4

TALILAN

answerto the sages' queryaboutwhy this happened,AbbaHilqiatells them: "Therewere once banditsin our neighborhood.I prayedthat they die, but she prayedthatthey repent"(bTa'anit23b).6 The differencesbetweenthe traditionsare obvious:while AbbaHilqia's wife prays herself, Beruriahquotes Scriptureto her husbandin orderto improvethe qualityof his prayer.This resultsfrom the differencebetween thetwo womenas literarycharacters.Beruriahis a scholar,AbbaHilqia'swife is a pious woman.However,it is obviousthatwe are dealinghere with the sameliterarycomposition,which,therefore,has no historicalsignificance.7 In differentiating chronologicallybetweenthe tannaiticandlaterBeruriah fromthe startthe infamoustradition,recorded discarded traditions,Goodblatt only by Rashi,whichrelatesBeruriah'sseduction,fall fromgrace,andtragic end. arelightmockedthe sages'saying[that]"Women Onetimeshe [Beruriah] affirm their will said to her: headed." life, eventually By your you [RabbiMeir] oneof hisdisciplesto seduceher.Heurgedherformany words.Heinstructed Whenthematterbecameknownto her,shestrangled daysuntilsheconsented. herself,andRabbiMeirfledoutof disgrace. (Rashito bAvodahZarah18b)

Goodblattclaimedthatthis traditionis unreliablebecauseof its latedate,and is of no use in a historicalreconstruction.In adoptingthis view he fails to inquireinto the historicalmotivesbehindthe compositionof such a legend, and consequentlyits deviationfrom the themes of all the other Beruriah traditions. This question is exactly the one posed by two recent studies. Daniel Boyarinexplainedthis traditionas a literarycompositionthatis an antithesis to the storyof Beruriah'ssister in the brothel(bAvodahZarah 18a-b). The sister had begun her life as a frivolous girl, but when the crunchcame, passedRabbiMeir'smodestytest,while Beruriahbeganherlife as a scholar, but failed the same test.8In Boyarin'sopinionthis provesthatthe Beruriah 6. A similartraditionabouta saintlymanwho bringsrainis foundin thePalestinianTalmud is simplyreferredto as "a saintof KefarAmi," (yTa'anit 1:4, 64b), wherethe wonder-worker butthe storyof raincomingfromthe wife's directionandits explanationaremissing. 7. This, as opposedto the opinionexpressedby Goldfeld,"Womenas Sourcesof Torah," pp. 265, 267-269, who sees in these two traditionstwo separateexamplesof Jewishwomen servingas sourcesof Torahtransmission. 8. Boyarin,CarnalIsrael,pp. 184-192.

5

ANDIMMASHALOM THEHISTORICAL RACHEL, BERURIAH,

legend'sSitz im Lebenis Babyloniain the late amoraicor gaonicperiod,and thatthe legendwas createdto opposethe idea of educatingwomen. RachelAdlerclaimsthatRashi'sstoryis essentialto the "legend"(in the singular)of Beruriah.9Adler maintainsthat the aim of the entireBeruriah corpus(which she takes as a literarywhole) is to wrestlewith the unlikely prospect:"Whatif therewere a womanwho was just like us [men]?"'1The storyof Beruriah'sseductionanddisgraceis essentialfor Adler'stheory.If a womanlike Beruriahhad indeedexisted, she would have had to come to a bad end even if it meantthather own husbandhad to play the pimp for her. Therefore,accordingto Adler'sscenario,the storyof Beruriah'sseductionis of rabbinic,probablyBabylonian,provenance. In her enthusiasmto show how harshlythe sages dealt with seduced women, as opposedto theirlenienttreatmentof seducedmen, Adler refers the readerto anothermidrash,relatingthe seductionof none other than Beruriah'shusband,RabbiMeir. OnedaySatanappeared to himin RabbiMeirusedto scoffat transgressors. theguiseof a womanontheoppositebankof theriver.Therewasno ferry,so across.Whenhe hadreached he seizedtheropeandproceeded halfwayalong in Heaven,"Take therope[Satan]lethimgo, saying:Hadtheynotproclaimed I wouldhavevaluedyourlife at two heedof RabbiMeirandhis learning," dimes. (bQiddushin81a)

Accordingto Adler,this storyshowsthatmenweremoreeasilytemptedthan women,but did not come to a bad end." 9. Adler,"Virginin the Brothel." 10. Ibid., p. 29. A similarsentimentwas voiced earlierby H. Kosmala,"Gedankenzur KontroverseFarbstein-Hoch," Judaica4 (1948):231-232. 11. The connectionbetweenthe two seductionstorieswas alreadynotedby Blumenthal, RabbiMeir:Lebenund Wirken, pp. 111-112.Onthe literarymotifof this seductionstory,see J. Perles,"Rabbinische Aggadasin 1001Nacht,"MonatsschriftfirGeschichteund Wissenschaft des Judentums22 (1873): 78-81. Anotherstory about RabbiMeir being seducedis found in the late midrashon the Ten Commandments; cf. A. Jellinek,Bet ha-Midrasch(Jerusalem: Bamberger& Wahrmann,1938), vol. 1, pp. 81-83. On the connectionbetween the three seductionstoriesand a theorymakingRashi'sversionold and authentic,see Alisa Shenhar, "Le-Demutoshel RabbiMeir ve-Itzuvabe-Safrutha-Agadah,"in Hekerve-Iyunbe-Madaei ed. Y. Bahat,M. Ben-Asher,andT. Fenton(Haifa:HaifaUniversityPress, 1976), ha-Yahadut, pp. 259-266.

6

TALILAN

Adler's literaryanalysisassumesthe existenceof a "Beruriahlegend," a literarycompositionwhich, accordingto Goodblatt,and also in my view, draws closer to identifyingthe did not exist. However,her interpretation Rashi relates thistale as a commentaryon Rashi's Beruriah of episode. origin an obscuretalmudicexpression,"TheBeruriahEvent"(xKirlnltnn) which follows the storyof RabbiMeir'sflightto Babylonia(bAvodahZarah 18b). Accordingto one opinion,RabbiMeirfled for fearof the Romanauthorities, but accordingto another,his motive was "The BeruriahEvent."'2When Rashirelatesthis event, he connectsBeruriah'sdownfallto a saying of the sages on the natureof women ("womenare light-headed")which is found in a totally differentsection of the BabylonianTalmud:bQiddushin80b. Surprisingly,it is exactly in this part of the vast talmudiccorpusthat the storyof the seductionof RabbiMeiris found.This, however,shouldnot be viewed as a mere coincidence.Rashimusthave had this fact in mindwhen he constructedthe Beruriahnarrative.An attemptto tracehis trainof thought in the compositionprocessis very speculative,butit is clearthatthe tradition foundin Rashirelies on threedistinctliterarycomponents.The firstof these was an amoraicsayingaboutthe light-headednatureof women,followedby the RabbiMeir seductionstory.The secondwas anotherBeruriahtradition in which she mocks a saying of the sages aboutthe natureof women.This story,however,does not have a tragicending: Hesaid waswalkingalongtheroad.HemetBeruriah. RabbiYositheGalilean to him: She said to her:By whichroadshallwe go to Lod(nT* l'tr JKan)? talktoo muchwitha woman" Galileanfool!Didnotthe sagessay:"Donot1, S rlK)? (mAvot1:5)?Youshouldhavesaid:By whichto Lod(Ti?bb (bEruvin53b)

The third componentwas a literarymotif on feminine corruptibility:all women can be seduced, and it is just a questionof the right amountof pressure.This well-knownmotif is foundoften in folklore,anddocumented These three togetherare the ingredients alreadyin Hellenistic literature.'3 Beruriah fromwhichthe medieval legendwas composed. 12. Boyarin, Carnal Israel, p. 193, claims that the medieval scholarRabbi Judahof as her halakhicrulings,whichher husbanddid not follow, Ashkenazunderstood ,~at exile. But in Judah'sYohaseiTannaimve-Amoraim,ed. N. N. and as a resulthad to •lo'na go into Rabinovitz(Lyck:MakitzeNirdamim,1874),pp. 10 Ob-1la, I foundno hintof thisinterpretation. "International 13. For a thoroughanalysisof this literarytheme, see H. Schwartzbaum, in Studiesin AggadahandJewish FolkloreMotifsin Josephibn Zabara's'SeferShaashuim',"

THEHISTORICAL ANDIMMASHALOM BERURIAH, RACHEL,

7

It is not possible to pursuefurtherthe origins of the Beruriahepisode itself, butRashi'shandlingof materialin similarcases canbe traced.Another tale involving a woman is found in Rashi'scommentaryon the Talmud.In explainingwho Yohanidaughterof Retabiwas, a womanmentionedby name in bSotah22a but aboutwhomnothingelse is stated,Rashisays: She was a widow and a witch, and when a woman'stime to give birthdrew near she would close her womb with charms,and after much suffering[on the partof the womanin labor]she would say: "I shall go andask for mercy, perhapsmy prayerswill be answered,"andshe wouldgo andundohercharms, andthe babywouldthenbe born.Onetime she hada day laborerin her house, and when she went to the house of the womanin laborhe heardthe charms rattlingin a vessel as the baby rattlesin his mother'swomb, so he went and openedthe lid of the vessel and the charmswere releasedand the child was born,andthusthey knew she was a witch.

As opposedto the Beruriahtradition,in this case we can tracesome of the story'sliteraryhistory.It is foundin a collectionof midrashimpublished by M. Gasterand ascribedto RabbiNissim of Kairouan(in NorthAfrica),a sage of the late tenthand early eleventhcenturies,a generationearlierthan Rashi.14However,in the versionpublishedby Gasterthe witch is unnamed. In this case Rashi himself seems to have been responsiblefor insertingthe name of a historicalfigureinto an anonymousstory,much as the compilers of the BabylonianTalmudhad often donebeforehim." It appears,therefore, Folklore,ed. I. Ben-Amiand J. Dan = FolkloreResearchCenterStudies(Jerusalem:Magnes Press, 1983),vol. 7, pp. 66-71, n. 38. Cf. M. H. Levine,"ThreeTalmudicTalesof Seduction," natureof this themeandits connectionwith Judaism36 (1987):466-470. On the international the themeof the widowof Ephesus,also foundin the Tosafot'scommentary on bQiddushin80b der Novelle von der treulosen (see diburha-mathil"ki"),see E. Grisebach,Die Wanderung Wittwedurchdie WeltLiteratur(Berlin:F. & P. Lehmann,1889),pp. 26-29, 51. 14. M. Gaster,TheExemplaof the Rabbis(1924; reprinted., New York:Ktav, 1968), p. 158, no. 412. 15. I wouldlike to drawattentionhereto the dangerof usingRashias thoughhis textwere partof the Talmud.Recently,in a reallyexcellentand learnedbook, Ross S. Kraemerquoted this Rashi narrativeas if it were from some rabbinicwork. It is not clear whetherKraemer assumedthatthe storywas foundin the Mishnahor in the BabylonianTalmud,since she cites it as "m. Sotah22b."The consequencesof this mistakefor herstudyareobvious.See Ross S. Kraemer,Her Shareof the Blessing: Women 's ReligionAmongPagans,Jews and Christians (Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress, 1992),pp. 109 and230, n. 26.

8

TALILAN

thatRashi'sBeruriahnarrativeis not a lost talmudictraditionafterall, and even the talmudicBeruriahwas neverconsideredcorruptor corruptible. At the close of his analysis,Goodblattattempts,half-heartedly, to explain how the uninterestingtannaiticBeruriahbecamethe accomplishedamoraic scholar.He claims that the existence of such a woman was impossible in second-centuryPalestine, but not in third- and fourth-centuryJewish Babylonia,where the Talmudwas composed and the talmudictraditions developed.16In makingthis claim,however,Goodblattfailsto bringanyother exampleto verifyits historicity.Onthe otherhand,Boyarinclaimsexactlythe Theeducationof womenwas a realityin second-century Palestine, opposite."7 butcertainlynot in sixth-centuryBabylonia.Thatthesetwo scholarscome to diametricallyoppositeconclusionson the strengthof the same texts proves thatBeruriahwas probablyan anomaly,notjust in second-century Palestine, but in all of ancientJewishhistory.In this respectone shouldtreatAdler's overviewas closerto reality.InhertheoryBeruriahis a fantasyandnightmare of the guilty male conscienceof the rabbis.'"This explanation,even without Rashi'sepisode,seems morehistoricallycorrect,andin factmorein keeping with Goodblatt'svision of the historicalBeruriah. Rachel,the Wifeof RabbiAqiva The traditionsaboutRabbiAqiva and his self-sacrificingwife, Rachel, have been analyzed from a literarypoint of view in search of historical evidence by S. Safrai.19Like Goodblatt,Safrai championsthe superior qualityof the Palestiniantraditionson the beginningsof RabbiAqivaandhis 16. Goodblatt,"BeruriahTraditions," pp. 84-85. 17. Boyarin,CarnalIsrael,pp. 194-195. 18. Adler,"Virginin the Brothel,"p. 104. in 19. S. Safrai,"Talesof theSagesin thePalestinianTraditionandtheBabylonianTalmud," ed.J.HeinemannandD. Noy = ScriptaHierosolymitana StudiesinAggadahandFolk-Literature, (Jerusalem: MagnesPress, 1971),vol. 22, pp. 229-232. The storyof RabbiAqivaandhis wife has been widely discussedin Hebrew.An interestingcomparisonof the two versionsof the story in the BabylonianTalmudis foundin A. Aderet,"Ha-Sipurbe-Seferha-AgadaB, Alei Siah 4-5 (1978): 122-129. A similarmotif found in ancientChinesetraditionis mentioned by E. Bin-Gorion,ShevileiAggadah(Jerusalem:MosadBialik, 1950), pp. 61-62. The motif Mahanaim98 is also discussedby ZiporaKagan,"Ha-Ishaha-Neemanaba-Sipurha-Amami," al Rachelve-RabbiAqiva,"Maalot8, no. (1965): 144-149. Cf. also YaffaKemer,"Ha-Agadah 6 (1977):37-40.

ANDIMMASHALOM THEHISTORICAL BERURIAH, RACHEL,

9

wife over andagainstthe Babyloniantraditions.Threeliterarynoteson these traditions,which Safraiignores,will be discussedhere. 1. Safraishows that,for chronologicalreasons,RabbiAqiva'swife could not have been the daughterof Kalba Savua, the Croesusof the last days of Jerusalem.He explains this fictitious family tie as part of a greater designof the BabylonianTalmudwherebyimportantsages are connectedby marriageto one anotheror to other importantfiguresof the day; thus, for example,Simeonben Shatahis madebrotherto QueenSalamzionAlexandra to RabbiYohanan (bBerakhot48a), and Resh Laqishis madebrother-in-law (bBabaMezia84a).20Althoughnot acknowledginghis indebtednessto Safrai, Goodblattmakesa similarclaim regardingthe historicityof Beruriah'sfilial relationshipto RabbiHaninaben Teradionandmarriageconnectionto Rabbi Meir,both mentionedexplicitly only in the BabylonianTalmud.He holds thatthese two familyrelationswere a fancifulinventionof thatcomposition. Further,Goodblattnot only claims that Beruriah'smarriageto RabbiMeir was fictitious,he also shows thatthe sourcespreservethe name of another, perhapssomewhatmoreplausiblefather-in-lawforRabbiMeir,a certainBen Ziroz(yDemai2:1, 22c; Hullin6b).21 In this connectionit is importantto point out, as was alreadyshownby that the sourcesalso mentiona more historicallyplausible L. Finkelstein,22 for father-in-law Rabbi Aqiva. In the Mishnah(mYadaim3:5) a certain is mentioned. "RabbiJohananson of Joshua,RabbiAqiva's father-in-law" The likelihood that Joshuawas indeed the name of Aqiva's father-in-law becomesapparentwhen we perceivethatRabbiAqiva'sson was also named Joshua (e.g., tKetubbot4:7). Jewish boys were often named after their grandfathers. 2. Rabbi Aqiva's wife is often referredto as Rachel. She appearsin both Talmudimas well as in both versions of Avot de-RabbiNathan, but she is only mentionedby name in version A of this midrash(chap. 6).23 However,the name Rachel is not recordedfor women in Palestinein the entire Second Templeand mishnaicperiod.24Does Avot de-RabbiNathan 20. Safrai,"Talesof the Sages." 21. Goodblatt,"BeruriahTraditions," pp. 76-77. 22. Finkelstein,Akiba:Scholar,Saint and Martyr(New York:Covici, Fried, 1936), pp. 22-23.

23. Schechtered., p. 29. 24. See my "Notes on the Distributionof Jewish Women'sNames in Palestinein the SecondTempleand MishnaicPeriods,"Journalof JewishStudies40 (1989): 197. It appears

10

TALILAN

Or preservean authentictradition,whichthe othersourcesfailedto record?25 is thereanotherexplanationfor hername? One of the two versions of the RabbiAqiva and wife traditionin the BabylonianTalmudwas providedwith an epilogue:"RabbiAqiva'sdaughter did the same for Ben Azzai. This is what is meantby the expression:'The the deeds of the daughterare sheep (rSSlm)went after the sheep (,'r),' like the deeds of the mother"(bKetubbot63a).26The Aramaicsayinglikens RabbiAqiva'swife to a sheep.The word "sheep"in Aramaic 'n) stems (•S fromthe samerootas the nameRachel.My guess is thatthe Aramaicsaying in the BabylonianTalmudwas understoodby the Avotde-RabbiNathanas the nameof the woman(or as a pun on her name). 3. Thisepilogueraisesa discrepancybetweenthe PalestinianandBabyloniantraditions.WeareinformedherethatRabbiAqiva'sdaughterdid forBen Azzai whathermotherhad donefor her father,which,in this context,means thatshe marriedBen Azzaibutallowedhimto leaveherin direpovertywhile he went off to study.Howeverin Palestiniantraditions(tYevamot8.4;ySotah 1:2, 16c;BereshitRabbah34:14), and even once in the BabylonianTalmud 63b), Ben Azzai is mentionedas the one sage in the entireJewish (bYevamot academicworld who remaineda bachelor,since he consideredmarriagean obstacleto the studyof Torah.Naturally,this is just anotherapplicationof the

for the firsttime on a late inscriptionfromthe Beit Shearimcemeteryand in Greek.See B. Lifschitzand M. Schwabe, Beit She'arim(Jerusalem:IsraelExplorationSociety,1974), vol. 2, p. 94, no. 121. This Rachelalso had a second,Greekname,Ourania,and apparentlycame fromAsia Minoror, alternatively, Eilat. 25. VersionA, in itsfinalform,shouldbe consideredlaterthanVersionB, andwasapparently acquaintedwith the BabylonianTalmud.See M. B. Lerner,"TheExternalTractates,"in The Literatureof the Sages, ed. S. Safrai= CompendiaRerumludaicarumad NovumTestament, sec. 2 (Assen:Van Gorcum,1987), pp. 376-377. Cf. J. Fraenkel,"KavimBoltim be-Toldot Masoretha-Textshel Sipurha-Agadah,"in Divreiha-Congressha-Olamiha-Sheviile-Madaei ha-Yahadut (Jerusalem:WorldUnionfor JewishStudies,1981),vol. 3, pp. 67-68. 26. The ideathatthe deedsof the sages arerepeatedby theirstudentsor by theirchildren, includinga discussionof RabbiAqiva's son and daughter,is foundin J. Elbaum,"Tavniyot Lashonve-Inyanbe-MaaseiHakhamim:le-Tivan shel ha-Eduyotal Rabbi Aqiva be-Avot (Jerusalem: de-RabbiNatan,"in Divreiha-Congressha-Olamiha-Sheviile-Madaeiha-Yahahut WorldUnionfor JewishStudies,1981),vol. 3, pp. 70(-77.

ANDIMMASHALOM THEHISTORICAL RACHEL, BERURIAH,

11

BabylonianTalmud'sfancy for creatingfictitiousfamily relationsbetween sages.27

ImmaShalom As opposed to the Beruriahand Rachel traditions,the Imma Shalom ImmaShalom traditionshave never been scrutinizedby seriousscholars.28 has always been presentedin popularanthologieson Jewish women, both before Goodblatt'sarticleand after,as an exampleintendedto second the claim that Beruriahwas an outstandingwoman scholar.In this view Imma Shalom,who was older than Beruriah,is said to have been perhapsnot as In orderto makethis accomplished,but,nevertheless,almostas compelling.29 claim, scholarshave been even less cautiousthanin dealingwith Beruriah andhavetakenpassagesreferringto RabbanGamaliel'sdaughteras authentic ImmaShalomtraditions(bYevamot90b-91a, bSanhedrin39a), although,if anything,Imma Shalom should be consideredRabbanGamaliel'ssister.30 One authorregardsImmaShalom'sprovocativeacademicachievementsas 27. Anotherson-in-lawof RabbiAqiva,RabbiJoshuaben Qupsai,is mentionedin another section of the BabylonianTalmud(bShabbat147a), but RabbiAqiva, of course,could have hadtwo sons-in-law. 28. Forexample,a scholarlybookaboutRabbiEliezer,Y.D. Gilat,R.EliezerbenHyrcanus: A ScholarOutcast(RamatGan:Bar-IlanUniversityPress, 1984), mentionsImmaShalomin passing and takes it for grantedthat her biographicalcredentialsare trustworthy(pp. 417, 428 n. 27, andparticularly484 n. 62). In anotherbook on RabbiEliezer,J. Neusner'sEliezer ben Hyrcanus: The Tradition and the Man (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1973), Imma Shalom is not

mentionedexceptin quotedtraditions. 29. Kayserling, Diejiidischen Frau, p. 124; Henry and Taitz, WrittenOut ofHistory, p. 47. J.

Elbaum,"DemuyotNashimbe-AggadatHazal--Modelle-Hikui,"Hagut= Ha Ishabe-Mekorot ha-Yahadut (Jerusalem:IsraelMinistryof Education,1983),p. 26, mentionsBeruriahtogether with ImmaShalomandRachel,Aqiva'swife. One writer,L. Swidler,however,attemptedthe opposite.He claimedthatImmaShalomhadnot achievedscholarlygreatness,as comparedto Beruriah,who had,andthusshe only provedBeruriah'suniqueness.See L. Swidler,Womenin Judaism: The Status of Womenin Formative Judaism (Metuchen, N.J.: Scarecrow Press, 1976),

p. 104. 30. See Zirndorf,SomeJewish Women, pp. 142-144; S. Mendelsohn,s.v. "ImmaShalom," Jewish Encyclopedia (1904), vol. 6, p. 562; Swidler, Womenin Judaism, p. 104; Henry and

Taitz, WrittenOutof History,pp. 52-53, althoughthey acknowledgethe fact thatthe speaker is actuallynot ImmaShalom.

12

TALILAN

the sole reasonfor the negativeattitudeof her husband,RabbiEliezerben Hyrcanus,towardwomen'sstudyof Torah.31 ImmaShalomis mentionedby namein fourtraditions.Threeof themappearonly in the BabylonianTalmud(bShabbat116a,bNedarim20a-b, bBaba Mezia 49b). One traditionis tannaitic(Sifra Shemini MekhiltadeMiluim 2:32-33),32 althoughit has parallelsin the Palestinianamoraicliterature (ySheviit6:1, 36c; yGittin 1:2, 43c; LeviticusRabbah20:6;33Pesiqta deRav Kahana34)andin the BabylonianTalmud(Eruvin63a).FollowingGoodblatt's model,I shallfirstanalyzethe tannaitictradition. 1. Thetannaitictradition.In the Sifra,the ImmaShalomtraditionis found in the chapterdiscussingLeviticus 10, where the sons of Aaronthe Priest die while sacrificingin the SanctuaryagainstGod'sdesire.The sageswonder storyis presentedto why the sons of Aaronhad to die, and a contemporary illustrateone suggestion. a certainstudentwho instructed in the presenceof It happenedconcerning I Shalom his wife: wonderif he will commented to Imma He Eliezer. Rabbi survivethe week.Andhe didnot survivetheweek[i.e.,he diedwithinthe week]. de Miluim99:5 SifraSheminiMekhilta Thisis the only tannaitic(andindeedPalestinian)traditionmentioningImma Shalom. What can be gleaned about her from this earliest stratum?It is obvious that Imma Shalom was the name of Rabbi Eliezer's wife. The womanis totallypassive in the story,althoughit is to herthatRabbiEliezer commentsaboutthe fate of his student,perhapsreflectinga certaindegreeof intimacybetweenthem. Rabbi Eliezer's wife is mentionedonce more in tannaiticliterature, althoughnot by name. In the Toseftawe read:"All those [pubescentgirls] who are inspectedare inspectedonly by women. Thus did RabbiEliezer instructhis wife" (tNiddah6:8, cf. bNiddah48b). Fromthis sourceit is clear thatRabbiEliezerusedhis wife's servicesin orderto determinewhethergirls 31. S. I. Ish Hurwitz,"RabbiEliezerben Horkanosve-Haskaltha-Nashim,"Hashahar11 (1883):437-441. 32. J. H. Weissed., 45c. 33. M. Margalioted., p. 449. 34. B. Mandelbaum ed., p. 393.

ANDIMMASHALOM THEHISTORICAL BERURIAH, RACHEL,

13

hadreachedpuberty.If this text refersto the samewomanas the one above, the intimacywe notedin the previoustext is furthersubstantiated. 2. TheBabylonianamoraictraditions.Aside froma parallelto the abovementionedtannaitictradition(bEruvin63a), ImmaShalomis mentionedthree moretimes in the BabylonianTalmud.Of the threetraditions,one is related in Hebrew(bNedarim20a-b) andthe two othersin Aramaic(bShabbat116a, bBabaMezia49b). I shall begin by examiningthe Hebrewtradition. In Nedarim the sages ask Imma Shalom how her sons come to be so good-looking.Imma Shalomanswersratherboldly, describinghow her husbandhas sexual intercoursewith her:"Notat the beginningof the night and not at the end of the night.. . . he revealsa portionand covers another, and appearsas though possessed by a demon"(bNedarim49b).35For our surveythis sourceis of little value. ImmaShalom'swordsarepresentedby amoraimas a prooftextfor a statementmade by the tannaRabbiYohanan ben Dehebai,andalthoughthe usualformularepresentinga tannaiticbaraita is absentat its head,the traditioncould,nevertheless,be consideredtannaitic, due to its Hebrew.The nameof ImmaShalom'shusbandis not mentionedin the source.36 AdditionalevidenceregardingImmaShalom'sbiographyis foundin the two Aramaictraditionsof the BabylonianTalmud.Both traditionsbegin by statingthatImmaShalom,the wife of RabbiEliezer,was RabbanGamaliel's sister.The informationaboutRabbiEliezer'sbrother-in-law is totallyabsent from the tannaiticand Palestiniansources,althoughRabbanGamalielwas certainlya populartannaiticfigure.Thus,heretoo the BabylonianTalmudis creatinga fictitiousmarriagewith whichto bindimportantsagestogether. Only in bBabaMezia does the dualfamilyrelationshipof ImmaShalom play an integralpart in the tradition.The story is an Aramaicepilogue to the Hebrew(tannaitic?)narrativeof the ban imposedon RabbiEliezerby RabbanGamalielandthe academyat Yavneh. 35. This source reveals a unique paradox:althoughthe sexual behaviorit describes supposedlydisplaysa highlevel of pietyandmodesty(cf. Gilat,RabbiEliezerbenHyrcanus,p. 484, n. 62), detaileddescriptionsof sexualpracticeslike this one arealtogetherrarein rabbinic literature,most likely becauseof theirindiscreetnature. 36. In bBerakhot3a, RabbiEliezerrecommendssexualintercoursebetweenhusbandand wife in the middleof thenight,as describedhereby ImmaShalom.Eitherthissourcegenerated the story aboutImma Shalomor the story aboutImmaShalomgeneratedthis attributionto RabbiEliezer,or both sourcesexistedsimultaneously,indicatingthatthey containa grainof truth.I suspectthatone of the firsttwo reconstructions is the correctone.

14

TALILAN ImmaShalom,RabbiEliezer'swife, was RabbanGamaliel'ssister.Fromthe time of this incidentonwardsshe did not permithimto fall uponhis face.Now a certainday ... a poormancameandstoodat the door,andshe tookout some breadto him. [Onherreturn]she found[RabbiEliezer]fallenon his face. She said to him: Arise, you have slain my brother.Meanwhilean announcement was madefromthe Houseof RabbanGamalielthathe haddied.[RabbiEliezer] questionedher:How did you know it? I have this traditionfrommy father's house,all gates arelockedexceptthe gatesof woundedfeeling. (bBabaMezia59b)

This story is about Rabbi Eliezer's appeal to heaven to be his judge in his disagreement with Rabban Gamaliel. But Imma Shalom forbids him to pray, since she fears rightly that if Rabbi Eliezer's grievances reach heaven, her brotherwould perish. This epilogue has a distinctly legendary quality. It is absent from the parallel tradition, relating the imposition of the ban on Rabbi Eliezer, in the Palestinian Talmud (yMo 'ed Qatan 3:1, 81c-d). Imma Shalom's hostile attitude to her husband is also a new element. The tradition in tractate Shabbat also begins by stating Imma Shalom's dual family ties, but her marriage to Rabbi Eliezer is totally irrelevantto the narrative. ImmaShalom,the wife of RabbiEliezer,was RabbanGamaliel'ssister.There was once a philosopher(XD10•1~)in theirneighborhood,who gaineda name for himselffor not acceptingbribes.Theycameto mockhim. She broughthim a goldenlampandpresentedherselfbeforehim. She said:I inheritedproperty of the house of the nasi [i.e., her family].He said to them:Divide it. He said to him:It is writtento us: "Wherethereis a son, a daughtershallnot inherit." He said to him: Fromthe day thatyou have been exiled fromyour land,the Law of Moses has been withdrawnand anotherbook has been introducedin which it is written:"A son and a daughtershall inheritequally."Next day he [RabbanGamaliel]broughthim a Libyanass. He saidto them:I have cast my eyes at the end of the book and it is writtenthere,"I have not come to add to the Law of Moses"(Matthew5:7). And it is writtenthere:"Wherethereis a son, a daughtershall not inherit."She said to him:Yourwisdomshineslike a lamp.He said to him:An ass cameandkickedthe lamp. (bShabbat116a-b) The philosopher in the story is evidently a Christian, as his reference to a nearly exact quotation from the New Testamentindicates. The role of Rabban

THE HISTORICALBERURIAH,RACHEL,AND IMMA SHALOM

15

Gamalieland his sister in this story is twofold:discreditingthe integrityof thejudge anddiscreditingChristianity. Fourliterarystagescanbe discernedin thistradition.At firstthereexisted a saying, "The ass has kicked the lamp,"which referredin some way or anotherto the acceptanceof a bribe.This stage is found,for example,in the PalestinianTalmud: "Theyearsof the wickedshallbe short"(Proverbs10:27).Thisrefersto priests who servedin the SecondTemple.Therewas the case of one who sent his son with two weights of silver and leveling-rodsof silver.And anothercame and sent his son with two weights of gold and leveling-rodsof gold. They said: "Theass has upsetthe lamp." (yYoma 1:1, 38c)

The saying is found here withoutany explanation,althoughthe fact that it referredto briberycan be inferredfrom the context. Obviously,it was a commonidiom at the time, understoodby all, butnow, alas, lost. Theoriginof this sayingwas also seeminglylost quiteearly,becausethere soon appeareda storyto explainit, abouta corruptjudge who rulesagainst a woman in distressbecause her adversaryis much wealthier.The story is constructedaroundthis pessimisticsaying.It appearsin an anonymousform in a Palestiniantradition: Said RabbiLevi: Therewas the case of a womanwho bribeda judge with a silver lamp. Her adversarywent and bribedhim with a golden ass. The next day she came to courtand discoveredthat the decree in her favor had been

Shesaidto him:Mylord,doesmysilverlampnotradiatefromyou? reversed. He said to her:The goldenass came andoverturnedthe silverlamp. (Pesiqta deRav Kahana, Lamentation 9).37

All the charactersin the narrativeare anonymous,but it is obviousthatthis storyservedas the basis for the BabylonianTalmud'snarrativeaboutImma ShalomandRabbanGamaliel. Anotherstageof the story'sdevelopmentmusthavebeenthe introduction element.Insteadof a lawsuitof no relevanceto the story, of the anti-Christian the issue underdiscussionis the inheritanceof women.Accordingto Jewish 37. B. Mandelbaum ed., pp. 260-261.

16

TALILAN

law, daughtersdid not inherittheir fathers,38but among the neighboring peoplesthe Jews met cultureswherewomendid inherit.39Christianityhadto decide which of these bodies of law to adopt.Obviously,the compilerwho introducedthe anti-Christianelementinto the storywas not of the opinion that Jewish law was just with regardto the inheritanceof daughters,since he puts the words of the injuredpartyhere in the mouthof the woman. It is probablethata stronganti-Christian polemicwould have been composed in Palestine,where Christianswere a real problemfor Jews, ratherthanin Babylonia,wheretheyconstitutedonly an academicquestion.However,there is no Palestinianor otherevidence for this in the narrative,and it can only be gleanedfromthe last stage of the story'sdevelopmentthatis availablein the BabylonianTalmud.In this stage,too, the identitiesof ImmaShalomand RabbanGamalielare superfluous.Any brotherand sistercould equallywell have discreditedthe new dictaof Christianity.40 In the last stage ironyis introduced.The brethrenarenot realrivals.The sister accepts and reveresJewish law. She is only partyto a practicaljoke playedon the Christianjudge. Althoughthe frameof the two previousstages is maintained,theirpoint is almosttotallylost. The storyno longernarrates the predicamentof a poor woman facing a corruptjudge, nor the injustice in Jewishlaw pertainingto daughtersinheriting.DiscreditingChristianityis now the only aim of the story.However,even for thispurpose,the identityof the adversariesis not vital.I thereforeconcludethathere,too, the Babylonian Talmudaddeda historicalidentityto the charactersin orderto makethe story moregossipy andentertaining. To sum up, ImmaShalomis mentionedin the tannaiticsourcesas Rabbi Eliezer's wife. In the BabylonianTalmudshe became RabbanGamaliel's sister.Thedifferencebetweenthe two groupsof sourcescanbe solvedby assumingthatthe BabylonianTalmudcreatedan imaginaryfamilyrelationship betweentwo importantcontemporary sages.

38. Numbers27:1-11. On the Sadducee-Pharisee polemic over this, cf. yYadaim2:20, yBaba Batra 8:1, 16a. 39. See particularly Roman law: Sarah B. Pomeroy, Goddesses, Whores, Wivesand Slaves

(New York:Schocken,1975),pp. 161-163. 40. For a connectionbetweenthis traditionandChristianityon a differentlevel, see B. L. the Lamp,"Journalof JewishStudies38 (1987):72-80. Visotzky,"Overturning

THE HISTORICALBERURIAH,RACHEL,AND IMMA SHALOM

17

Conclusion InthisarticleI havediscussedcertainliterarytendenciesof theBabylonian Talmud'streatmentof the threemostprominentwomenit mentions:Beruriah the Scholar,the wife of RabbiAqiva, and ImmaShalom,the wife of Rabbi Eliezer.Two repeatedliterarypracticesmakethe historicityof the narratives suspect,and thus renderthe BabylonianTalmud'saccountof these women unreliable.These are: (1) The creation of fictitious family relationships betweenthe sages, andbetweensages andimportantpersonagesof theirday; sometimes,when scannedthoroughly,the sources yield alternativefamily relationshipswhich contradictthese. (2) Anonymouscharactersmentioned in literarycompositions,in the formof a moraltale foundin the Palestinian aggadic corpus,and sometimeseven in the BabylonianTalmuditself, are replacedin the BabylonianTalmudwith historicalcharacters,in orderto transformthem into fictitioushistoricalevents. These two criteriaprobably would servejust as well to discreditand cast doubton talmudicstoriesin which men are the centralfigures,but I have chosen to concentrateon the women storiesbecause,in theirscarcity,they have more often been treated as historicallytrustworthydocuments.

He Said, She Said: A Woman Teacher in Twelfth-Century Cairo Author(s): Reneé Levine Melammed Source: AJS Review, Vol. 22, No. 1 (1997), pp. 19-35 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486865 . Accessed: 15/07/2011 10:30 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

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

http://www.jstor.org

HE SAID, SHE SAID: A WOMANTEACHER IN TWELFTH-CENTURY CAIRO by RENEi LEVINEMELAMMED Rabbinicresponsacan at times furnishan entree into the privateand publiclives of individualsinvolvedwith thejudicialsystem.The case under discussionprovidesan in-depthportraitof a marriagein twelfth-century Cairo and of a woman's life-in this instance,a woman strugglingto maneuver withinthe stricturesof Jewishlaw and contemporary Judeo-Arabicsociety.' of the two The originalJudeo-Arabic responsaunderdiscussion,as well as the Hebrewtranslations,are,no doubt,well knownto Judeo-Arabic,Geniza, and Maimonideanscholarsalike, as are the basic details to some English

These texts were firstbroughtto my attentionby my husband,Uri Melammed,who had he graciouslypassedon studiedthemwith ProfessorJoshuaBlau in a coursein Judeo-Arabic; his knowledgeto me. I used the Hebrewversionin class for some years,but then foundan Englishversionnecessaryfor use in the Americanclassroom.I could not have completedit withoutthe aid of my husband,who diligentlycheckedeverywordof the originalresponsaand andprecision;my heartfeltthanks laterporedoverthe entirearticlewithhis usualthoroughness withwhomI co-taught to my partner.I mustalsothankmy pedagogicpartner,Ross S. Kraemer, a courseon women in Jewishhistoryat Franklinand MarshallCollege.This translationwas preparedfor that class. She encouragedme to write up the materialfor publication,but I untilI was stronglyurgedto do so by SethWardas well. Thefirstdraftwas read procrastinated by DavidKraemer,who checkedthe rabbinicsources,andalso by Ross S. Kraemer,who made manyhelpfulcomments. 1. This is what S. D. GoiteintermsGenizasociety in A MediterraneanSociety,5 vols. (Berkeley,Calif., 1967-88). The responsatreatedin this articleare from the Cairo Geniza collection.

AJS Review 22/1 (1997): 19-35

19

20

RENEELEVINEMELAMMED

readers.2 Nevertheless,the case is certainlyworthyof a separatestudyof the text in conjunctionwith a detailedanalysis. Responsahave alwayspresentedcertaindifficultiesas a sourceof social history,and these Maimonideandocumentsare no exceptionto the rule.3

Precisedatingis difficult,althoughit is knownthatthe questionsin the to theBethDinbetween tworesponsatreatedin thisarticlewerepresented available theanonymous 1167and1204.4Thereis noinformation concerning individualsinvolvedotherthanwhatemergesin the contextof the legal A maritalconflictwasclearlythecentralissue,andas a result presentation.' andreceiveda ruling.Thecasebecamequiteunusual thehusband requested oncethewifedecidedto askfora rulingon "her"situation, which,as willbe 2. Thebest-knowneditionof theseresponsaappearsin a collectionthatdisplaystheoriginal Judeo-ArabicalongsideHebrewtranslations.See JoshuaBlau, TeshuvotHa-Rambam,4 vols. (Jerusalem,1957-86), vol. 1, pp. 49-53, 71-73. The correctedJudeo-Arabiceditionappears in idem,Judaeo-ArabicLiterature:SelectedTexts(Jerusalem,1980),pp. 223-228. Blaubased his readingson MS SimonsenB in the Royal Libraryof Copenhagen;see entryfor David J. Simonsenin BenjaminRichler,Guideto HebrewManuscriptCollections(Jerusalem,1994),p. 176. Thedatingof thesecopies is difficultanduncertain,andmightbe as late as the fourteenth Ha-Rambam, century;fora discussionof thecollectionas well as thedating,see Blau,Teshuvot vol. 3, pp. 3-6. They, togetherwith a Hebrewtranslation,were also found in abbreviated formin the A. H. Freimanncollection(Jerusalem,1934).Heretoforethesetextshavenot been availableto the Englishreader,althougha summaryof themappearsin Goitein,Mediterranean will appearin JoelKraemer'sforthcoming Society,vol. 3, pp.344-346. An annotatedtranslation collectionof translatedworksof Maimonidesin the YaleJudaicaSeries. 3. One often has to take into accountthe fact thatmost (published)responsawere edited, and in the processdetailsthatmighthave helpedto recreateor enrichthe social or historical contextwere sometimeseditedout. In addition,whencopiesweremade,therewas alwaysthe pitfallof humanerroron the partof the scribe."Thecopyistswere infamousfor deletingall of the datawhich they consideredhalakhicallyirrelevant,exactlythatinformationwhich the social historianfinds most meaningful."MordechaiA. Friedman,"Responsaof R. Abraham Maimonidesfrom the CairoGeniza:A PreliminaryReview,"Proceedingsof the American Academyfor Jewish Research56 (1990): 32. See also the commentsin the (unpaginated) introductionto Blau, TeshuvotHa-Rambam,vol. 1, abouttranslatorsnot includingcertain details. 4. Maimonideswas bornin 1138 and died in 1204;hence the latestpossibledate for the responsa. 5. Needless to say, thereonce must have been documentsthatwould have been of great use, such as the marriagecontract,perhapsa divorcewrit,propertyownershippapers,wills, andthe like, but nonewere foundor identifiedamongthe Genizafragmentsandpapers.Some may no longerhave existed,for paperswere often discardedafterthe conditionsof a divorce werecarriedout.

IN TWELFTH-CENTURY CAIRO A WOMANTEACHER

21

demonstrated,was substantiallyat odds with the situationdescribedearlier of the by her husband.6However,in orderto enablea fullerunderstanding both translation of an will further situation, English responsa precedeany commentsor analysis. 457 Responsum

QUESTION Our rabbi will teach us concerning[an incidentwhereby]a Jew had a wife who had been with him for a numberof years.And in one of these years, he happenedto take a tripin connectionwith personal mattersand for businessreasons,and he was absentfromhis city on and off for fouryears.8 Whenhe returnedhomeafterwards,he foundthathis brother-in-law, his wife's brother,had become a teacherof children;andhis wife, the brother-in-law'ssister,was sittingwith him and teachingthe children; this was due to the factthatherhusbandhadtaughther someTorahand she had learnedthe rest [of the Torah]while herhusbandwas absent. Her husbandsaid to her: "It is not at all properfor you to teach [these] children,for I fear that their fathers,who will come to visit the children,and you will be in an embarrassingpositionbecauseof

6. D. H. Baneththoughtthatit was the wife's relativesratherthanthe wife who turnedto vol. 1, p. 71, andJudaeo-Arabic thecourt;see note on Arabictext,Blau, Teshuvot Ha-Rambam, Literature,p. 223, n. 1. However,the Genizadocumentsmakeit clearthatwomenfrequently appearedin court(exceptthe ratherwealthyones);thusit cannotbe assumedthatshe couldnot havebeen the petitioner. 7. Eachresponsumin TeshuvotHa-Rambamwas assigneda numberaccordingto the order while the secondresponsumis number34 (and52 in in which it appearedin the manuscripts; the manuscript),it was presentedto Maimonidessometimeafterthe questionnumbered45 (no. 63 in the manuscript).Scholarshave assumedthatthe intervalbetweenthe two was a matter of years;Banethestimatedthatit was "a few years,"TeshuvotHa-Rambam,vol. 1, p. 71, and Goiteinassumedthatthe lawsuit"probablywent on for some time,"MediterraneanSociety, vol. 3, p. 345. Bracketsareused to insertwordsthatmakeit easierto understandthe text but werenot partof the original. 8. Goitein wrote that "absenteeismof the husbandwas the most widespreadcancerof maritallife as knownto us fromthe Geniza."Mediterranean Society,vol. 3, p. 155.

22

RENEELEVINEMELAMMED

them,9andI do notwantthis,neitherformy sakenorforyoursake."'1 wife heardthisfromhim,she irritated Andwhenthe aforementioned fromdoingherduties--thosewhichthe daughters him by refraining of Israelmustperformfor theirhusbands: kneadingandcookingand the the bed and house; cleaning washingclothesandfulfilling making herdutiesto her sons-but she persistedin teachingthe childrenat thathe herbrother'sfrommorninguntilevening.Andif it happened to for his own cook or to knead or to launder neededsomething needs, or thelike,he hadto hiresomeonewhowouldcomeandsatisfythese thiswayfor needs,payingthefullcost.Themanandwomancontinued

fouryears,andhe is now wearyof it. This woman has part-ownershipjointly with her sister and her mother-in-law,the motherof her husband;and he is afraidto divorce her, lest she take the aforementionedportionand sell it, and, as a result, the sons he had with her will be destitute,for she will give it to a differenthusband.And this womanhas [it] writtenin herketubba [marriagecontract]concerningherhusband: "He may not wed anotherwoman,and he may not allow a maidservantwhom she despises to stay with him. And if he shouldmarry another,or if he permits a maidservantwhom she despises to stay with him, he takes it upon himself to pay [her]the me'uhar[delayed marriagepayment]"in full andto writeher [a bill of divorce],[so] that

see Y. Qafih's 9. This word is also translatedas "exposed"ratherthan "embarrassing"; commentin TeshuvotHa-Rambam,vol. 3, p. 120. 10. Goiteinpointedout thatin B.T., Kiddushin(4:13) 82a, it is writtenthatbachelorsand womenmay not teach.He stressedMaimonides'additionto this restrictionin MishnehTorah, Studyof Torah2:4, wherebythe bachelor'slimitationis becauseof the motherswho would bringtheirsons to class, and the women'slimitationis becauseof the fathers.Mediterranean Society,vol. 3, p. 504, n. 155. 11. Accordingto a customthatbeganin the gaonicperiod,severalpaymentswereinvolved in marriagecontracts,eachbeingmadeat a differenttime.Themoharwas the(cash)paymentby the groombeforethemarriage.Theadditionalpaymentwas dividedintotwo parts,themuqdam andthe me'uhar.The muqdamwas usuallymadeimmediatelyafterthe wedding,butcouldbe given any time betweenthe makingof the matchand the wedding.The me'uharor delayed marriagepayment,was given to the wife if her husbanddied or if a divorceoccurred.Thusit servedas a guaranteeof supportif the husbanddecidedto divorcethe wife withoutcause.See the discussionin S. D. Goitein'sHebrewarticle,"ThePositionof the WomanAccordingto the GenizaWritings,"Proceedingsof the FourthWorldCongressof JewishStudiesB (Jerusalem, 1969), pp. 177-179, and in greaterdepthin M. A. Friedman,"Divisionof the MarriageGift

A WOMAN TEACHERIN TWELFTH-CENTURYCAIRO

23

she may be rid of him [herhusband]by this means,despitethe factthat she wantsto divorcehim andhe does not wanta divorce."'2 Your eminence, decide for us: Does he, or does he not, have permissionto undertakea secondmarriage,so thatthe other[the new wife] will remainunderhis authority,in orderto preventher [the first wife] fromhastily selling the portion?And make clearto us what the requirement[of the law] is in regardto everysingleissue as an absolute answer;may yourcompensationbe doubled. ANSWER He may not make a second marriageunless he has her [the first wife's] permissionor unless he redeems the me'uhar.And he may preventher from teachingthe children,and the court is requiredto admonishher and to deterher fromdoing this. If she sues for divorce becauseherhusbandpreventsherfromteaching,herrequestwill not be granted;on the contrary,all doorsarelockedbeforeherandall pathsare to be obstructed,and her affairswill be delayedfor as long as it takes until she withdrawsandagreesto behaveproperlytowardherhusband. ThuswroteMoshe. Responsum34 QUESTION: Concerninga man who marrieda nine-year-oldand she had a portion in common propertywith her mother-in-lawand her [own] into ImmediateandPostponedPaymentsin the GenizaDocuments"[Heb.]Proceedingsof the SixthWorldCongressof JewishStudies,vol. 3 (1977), pp. 377-387. 12. This clause is extremelyinteresting,and has been discussedby variousscholars.The earliestknown"monogamyclause"is datedto 1125/26and is includedamonga numberof in Medieval conditionsin themarriagedocument.See MarkR. Cohen,JewishSelf-Government Egypt (Princeton,N.J.: PrincetonUniversityPress, 1980), p. 257. Many Geniza marriage contractsfrom this periodhave such clauses;see MordechaiA. Friedman,"TheMonogamy Clausein JewishMarriageContracts," Perspectivesin JewishLearning4 (1972): 20-40. For additionalreading,see idem, "The Ethics of MedievalJewish Marriage,"in Religion in a ReligiousAge, ed. S. D. Goitein(Cambridge,Mass., 1974),pp. 83-102 andJewishPolgynyin theMiddleAges: New Documentsfrom the CairoGeniza[Heb.](Jerusalem,1986).

24

RENEE LEVINE MELAMMED

sister,and they all live in one courtyard.The motherof the aforesaid manobligatedherselfin writingto supportthe aforesaidwomanfor ten years,anddid supportherfor sevenyears.And afterthose sevenyears, the aforementionedmother-in-lawsaid to her:"I am unableto support you [plural]."And the husbanddoes not have enough[to supporther] even for an hour,andhe supportedher for two months.The younggirl became pregnantand gave birthto a male child. And when he [the husband]saw that it was difficultfor him to supportthe household, he left the child with its motherwhen it was nine monthsold, and he traveledand was absentfor threeyears in the Land of Israeland in Damascusandelsewhere,andhe did not even leave heranythingto eat for dinnerthatvery evening,not for herandnot forthe baby.Andwhen he returnedfrom his journeyhe had nothingof value on his person. The clerkwho collects the head tax [entrytax] caughthim, for he did not have the half-dirhemto pay it, untilhis fatherpaidit for him.'3And wife andhis motherhadto pay the poll tax for him, his aforementioned for fear he would be takento jail; and he enteredthe courtyardand is completelydestitute. He stayedin the city for two years.The wife becamepregnantand gave birthto anotherson. And he [thefather]left him withherwhenhe was a yearanda half,andreturnedto travelinga secondtime,andhe did not leave her with even an hour'sworth[of support]and disappeared for anotherthreeyears.The aforesaidwoman'sage becametwenty-five years [old], and she was in utterdegradationfrom poverty,with two sons whose hungeroutweighedtheirsatiation.And all the timethatshe was with him, he did not provideher with oil for light,not duringthe week or on the Sabbathor on the holidays;andshe couldneverbenefit from the light of a lamp unless she enteredhis mother'shome or his brother'shome, since she lives with them in the courtyard.And she was "burnedout"by the povertyandthe terriblesituation[in whichshe foundherself]. And she has a brotherwho teacheschildrenBible, andthe woman has knowledgeof the Bible. She askedher brotherto let her teachthe childrenBible with him, so thatshe wouldhave a meansof sustaining 13. The Arabicwordtranslatedas "father"is not clearin the manuscript.Blau pointsout see TeshuvotHa-Rambam, vol. 1, p. 49, thatit could easily have been the wordfor "brother"; n. 3.

IN TWELFTH-CENTURY A WOMANTEACHER CAIRO

25

herself and her sons, since she was alreadynear to death from the miseryin which she was enveloped,andhe [thehusband]was absent. And he [the husband]returnedfrom his travels and found her teachingchildrenBible at herbrother's.And she hadbeen teachingthe childrenwithherbrotherfor six years.Later,as it happened,herbrother went on a journey.She sat in his place and receivedthe childrenand taughtthemBible, andcontinuedso doing for fouryears.Herfirstborn son grew,andwhenhis age was seventeenyears,she tookhim with her to teachBible for the aforementionedfouryearsin her brother'sstead, so as to talkwith the men whose sons [werestudying]withher,andshe was [there]for the women comingto get theirchildren. And since the day the aforementionedsons were born,theirfather never paid the poll tax for them or their school fees'4 for the House of Torahstudy,nor did he did clothe them at all, neitherclothingnor turbannora shoe for theirfeet. And the womanwas underhis authority twenty-fiveyears,andhe neverboughta mat to spreadout underthem but once, and did not buy a bed-coveringor pillow or any household goods; even the linseed oil that she lights, if she did not buy it on her own, she would neverhave been able to light a lamp.Neithershe nor the childrenhave had any pleasurefromhim, not even verbally,except for cursesand foul language. He told her: "Eitherlive in your house like everyoneelse or give me the right to wed [anotherwoman]."The aforesaidwoman said to him: "I am sick andtiredof poverty,which I had at first,and my sons and I have only been able to survivesince the day I beganteachingthe children."And she said to him: "If you want a divorce,I will release you and not detainyou. But let you marry[anotherwoman]?!I shall neverdo that!" 14. This term is also unclear;the Arabicword is khamis.Baneththoughtthat fees were customarilypaid on Thursdays,which would explain the referenceto five or the fifth day, TeshuvotHa-Rambam,vol. 1, p. 50, n. 4. Goiteinconfirmedthis whenhe wrotethatThursday was the day on which fees were normallypaid; see MediterraneanSociety,vol. 3, p. 188. A similarusage of a differentterm is found in the well-establishedSephardicommunityin Jerusalem.The first line of Psalm 81, recitedon Thursdays,is "Singjoyously to God, our strength;raisea shoutforthe Godof Jacob."Thefirstword,harnenu("singjoyously"),cameto signifythe day thatwouldbringjoy to the Torahteacherbecausehe wouldreceivehis weekly salaryandthusbe ableto purchasefood forthe Sabbath.See DavidBenveniste,HebrewWords in Judeo-Spanish[Heb.](Jerusalem,1984),p. 31.

26

RENEELEVINEMELAMMED

Despite the fact thathe is at his mother'sday andnight,and if he buys somethingfor a pittance,it is for him andhis mother,andhis wife knowsnothingof it; laterhe complainsto everyonein the city thatshe [the wife] is not fulfillinghis needs andis not sleepingat home. She told him: "Wehave no need of such shame;come, I will take you fromyourmother's.I will not preventyou fromsleepingat home. And if you want, come and live with me at the school, rent out the with yourmotherandmy sister, portionthatis mine in the partnership and take the rent for yourself,for I am split in two courtyards[i.e., I have propertyin one courtyardbut rent in another]and pay fourteen dirhemrentto the school;" andI get no profitfromthe partthatis mine in the courtyard,not for the apartmentnor for the rent,in thatI forfeit my profitfromit out of generosityto you andyourmother." He said to her: "I will not rent it, and I will not take the rent,but you will eitherlive in yourhouse like the restof the daughtersof Israel or grantme the rightto marryanother." Laterhe made a pretextand said to her: "I will borrowa dinar and buy you wheat, and you will sit [live] at home."She said to him: "My living is not like otherprofessions,so thatI can pick it up again tomorrowif I abandonit today.If I abandonmy studentseven for one day, I will not find them when I returnand seek them out, for their parentswill take them to otherschools. And the people do not bring theirchildrento the aforesaidolderson, but [come]becauseof me, for sonshaveno tradein which he is buta lad.Andthe two aforementioned to workexceptTorahstudy.And if I discontinueteachingthe children, I shall lose the childrenand therewill be no wheat [bread],16and you will travelandgo off as is yourcustom,andI will remain,the boys and I, andwe will be lost, for they have no trade." Holy eminence,may the Lordglorifyyou: Does she have to leave her professionandreturnto [whatshe had]in the beginning?And does she have to fulfill his needs and serve him, when he does not provide her with food or drinkor clothesanddoes not do a thingfor herthatis 15. Thispassagegives us some ideaof the value of the dirhem.Earlierit was saidthatthe husbanddid not have the half-dirhemnecessaryto pay his tax;herewe see thata half-dirhem wouldhavebeen one twenty-eighthof a month'srent,clearlya pittance. 16. Accordingto S. Abramson,this referenceis to the Hebrewword for "flour,"in this vol. case meaning"food,"ratherthanthe Arabicwordfor"wheat."See Teshuvot Ha-Rambam, 3, p. 154.

IN TWELFTH--CENTURY A WOMANTEACHER CAIRO

27

And is she requiredto give himpermissionto marry saidin the Torah?'7 informus, whatis the legal obligationin all that And [anotherwoman]? is writtenabove?Make it clearto us, as we have been accustomedto yourmercy.May your compensationbe doubledfromheaven. ANSWER The law'8requiresthatthe husbandbe forcedto satisfyhis wife's needs, such as clothes and expenses and the like [otherobligations], andthis is whathe mustdo; andif he is prevented[fromdoingso] or is unable,he is forced[by the court]to divorceher andpay the me'uhar, if he has it. And the husbandmay preventhis wife from teachinga craftor reading.'9And the way of circumventionfor this woman,if her and leave withoutthe words are words of truth,is for her to "rebel"20 me'uhar;and he is then forced [by the rabbiniccourt]to divorceher and she will be her own woman,[freeto] teachwhomevershe pleases and do whatevershe pleases. And thuswroteMoshe. Withouta doubt,the two petitionerstell quite differentstories.21Yet it is clear that the two stories deal with the same family and situation:the time, place, and complementaryand overlappingdetailsof each versionare 17. These dutiesare only alludedto brieflyin the Torah.See Exodus21:10, wherethree obligationsarespecified:food, clothing,andsexualobligations. 18. In additionto the threeobligationslisted in the Torah,seven morearespecifiedin the rabbinicsources.See Maimonides,MishnehTorah,Lawsof Marriage12:1-2. 19. This contentionprovidedthe basis of the firstresponse. 20. Thisis the translationof the termmoredet,designatinga rebelliouswomanwho refuses to engagein sexualrelationswith herhusband.Whena wife behavedin this manner,this gave the husbandacceptablegroundsfor divorce;the wife's ketubbawouldbe reducedweeklyuntil nothingremained,at whichtime she couldbe divorced,unableto claimherketubba.See B.T., Ketubbot(5:7) 63a. The husbandalso has conjugaldutiesto his wife (ibid. 61b), and if he "rebels,"an additionis madeto his wife's ketubba(ibid.63a). 21. It must be pointed out that these petitionswere not made personally,but through rabbis,judges,or halakhicallyknowledgeableindividuals; intermediaries, legalrepresentatives, this was the normalpracticeanddoes not necessarilymeanthatthe petitionerwas illiterateor formulatedthepetition,hopefullyto the benefitof ableto readbutnot write.Therepresentative or even the petitioner,sometimesrecordingeverythingandothertimes editing,reformulating, shorteningthe queryas he deemedfit. Thefinalformof the petitionwas tailoredto presentthe consideredto be mostbeneficialto his client'scase. picturethe representative

28

RENEELEVINEMELAMMED

While each side only presentedfacts that far morethanmere coincidence.22 supportedits own contention,the husbandobviouslylimitedthe information he volunteeredto an absoluteminimumso as to emphasizethe detailsthat mighthelp him to get the rulinghe wanted. One is immediatelyimpressedby the amount of travelingin which membersof this family engaged. Both the husbandand the brotherwere quitemobile,with the formertakingnumerousandratherlengthytrips.23As a matterof fact, these travelsareone of the firstdetailsrelatedby the husband. The firstissue raisedby the wife is the factthatshe andherhusband'sfamily own propertyin common.Thissituationprobablyprovidedthe initialimpetus for the marriage.Both partiesmentionthe propertyas an importantfactor, and lateron the wife offers to let the husbandrenther propertyas a source of income. The husbandclaimed that a divorce was not a feasible option becausehe wantedto protecthis sons' inheritancerights,but aside fromthis statementthereis no evidencethathe ever displayedany concernfor them or theirwelfare. The next issue concernsthe wife's meansof supportingherselfand her sons. In herhusband'sabsence,she studiedTorahandjoinedherbrotheras a teacher.Whenher husbandreturned,he was perturbedby this development andcontendedthatthe wife's occupationwas outsidethe boundsof modesty expectedof a marriedwoman, for she inevitablyhad to have contactwith the fathersof herpupils;this was entirelyunacceptableto him. Onenaturally wonders whether teaching was a common professionfor women in this society. Thereis little evidence available,aside from a referenceto female teachersin eleventh-centuryCairo as well as a synagogueknown as the "Synagogueof the WomenTeachers,"wherereadingandwritingweretaught

22. While the anonymityof the responsamay cast a shadow of doubthere, it is very unlikely that two differentfamilies in the same area would simultaneouslyhave had such similarlives (i.e., traveldetails,familysize, occupations,propertyownership,familystructure, financialsituation,etc.). Blau firstwrotethatQuestion34 hada certainsimilarityto Question 45, althoughBanethbelievedthatthe samehusbandandwife wereinvolvedin bothcases;see TeshuvotHa-Rambam,vol. 3, p. 71. Goiteinneverdoubtedthe fact thatthe same couplewas Society,vol. 3, pp. 344-346. strugglingwiththese issues;Mediterranean 23. Thisis compatiblewith Goitein'sdescriptionof this societyas beingextremelymobile, with mobilitynot being limitedsolely to the wealthy.See MediterraneanSociety,vol. 1, pp. 42-59.

A WOMAN TEACHERIN TWELFTH-CENTURYCAIRO

29

to childrenaged four throughthirteen.24 But this makes it evidentthat the wife in this case was not the only Jewishwomanin the Islamicworldto have chosena careerin education. Accordingto the husband,the wife reactedbadlyto his objections.Since she refusedto do herwifely duties,he was compelledto hireotherwomenin orderto obtainthe numerousservicesnormallyperformedby a wife. Finally he decided to take a second wife, but here he encounteredlegal barriers. He includedthe clause from their marriagecontractin full in the original Aramaic,and as can be seen, it grantedthe wife final say shouldhe desire to marrya second wife or take a concubine.25 In short,he could not do so withoutherpermission;if she objectedandhe still wantedthe otherwoman, he would have to divorce her and provide the appropriatepayment.The husbandclaimed that he wantedto marrya second wife ratherthan get a divorceso thatthe propertywouldremainin the family. Maimonides'firstreplywas a straightforward legal responseformulated on the basis of the circumstancesdescribedby the husband'srepresentative. He ruledthat the clause in the marriagecontractconcerninga second wife was binding,but that the husbandcould obtain a court injunctionfor his wife to cease the teachingactivitiesto whichhe objected.He agreedthather behaviorseemed to be unacceptable,and said that if she were to requesta divorce,it shouldnot be granted. The seconddocument,whichpresentsthe wife's versionof the situation, gives a much more detailedpicture,beginningwith the facts that she had been marriedat the age of nine and thather mother-in-lawhad not kept her promiseto supportthe youngcouple.Whenthe husbandabsentedhimselffor threeyears,leavinghis wife with a nine-month-oldinfant,he didnot provide for his family in any way. Upon his returnhome, he was unableto pay his own entrytax or poll tax, for he was virtuallypenniless.26 24. See Jacques Hassoun, "Un Judaisme au feminin," Les nouveaus cahiers 86 (Autumn

1986):7; these womenwere specificallyreferredto as mu'allimdt,the femininepluralformof the Arabicfor "teacher." 25. Polygamywas an acceptedpracticein Orientaland Sephardicommunitieseven after AshkenaziJewry had compliedwith the ban againstit decreedby R. Gershomben Judah (960-1028) of Germany. 26. Varioustaxes, such as the entrytax, were incumbentupon all residentsof Moslem lands;certainothers,such as the poll tax, were paid only by membersof toleratedreligions (dhimmi),i.e., Jews,Christians,andZoroastrians.

30

RENEE LEVINE MELAMMED

Two years afterthe husband'sreturn,the couplehad a secondson. Less thantwo yearslater,the husbandagainset forthon a journey.Thisone lasted threeyears,andduringthis time, as before,he did not providefor his family in any way. The documentstresses that he never once paid his family's taxes or the children'sschool fees, and did not clothe, feed, or otherwise providefor them in any way whatsoeverfor twenty-fiveyears. Only after the descriptionof the family's economicplight is thereany mentionof the wife's need to obtain employment.In his accountthe husbandclaimedto havetaughthis wife "someBible,"althoughapparentlynot enoughto enable her to teach professionally.However,the wife says nothingabout having learnedthe rudimentsfromherhusband.Perhapshe was tryingto takecredit for her accomplishments,or perhapshe blamedhimself for having opened his claim,it may not even the doorto her,but since she does not corroborate be true.27 Thewife, who was rentinga roomat the school,refusedto abandoneither her place of residenceor herjob and returnhome, and the husband,living withhis mother,refusedto renthis wife's propertyforhis ownprofit,insisting thathe wanteda wife, eitherhis firstor a second,living with him. Whilethe wife was willing to divorcehim, she declaredthat she would never permit him to marryanyoneelse while he was still marriedto her. The husband's desireto takea secondwife seems to have stemmedfromhis hope of having a womanto attendto his personalneeds,since his wife was not satisfactorily performingthe expectedduties.Becausethe marriagecontractvery clearly prohibitedthe husbandfrom takinga secondwomaninto his home against his wife's wishes, therewas no chanceof a rabbinicdecisionin his favoron this count. Whilethe husbandwas quickto pointouthis wife's failureto performher wifely duties,the secondresponsumturnsthe whole situationupsidedown.28 The husband'sdutiesseem to havebeen moreweightythanthe wife's, for as the breadwinnerhe was responsiblefor supportingher andthe children.The 27. The husband'sstatementis usuallytakenat face value;Goiteinremarkedthat"shehad madegood use of her loaferof a husband,"Mediterranean Society,vol. 3, p. 345. 28. Discussionsof the dutiesof husbandto wife and of wife to husbandare interspersed throughoutthe fifthchapterof tractateKetubbotof the BabylonianTalmud.Forexample,there is a list of the kinds of work that a woman must performfor her husband(fol. 59b). An exampleof the husband'sobligationsemergesin a discussionof the dutiesincumbentupona man who maintainshis wife througha trustee(see fol. 64b). This list mentionsmanyof the itemsincludedaboveby the wife.

IN TWELFTH-CENTURY CAIRO A WOMANTEACHER

31

wife's detailed,heartrending descriptionof thepovertyandneglectwhichshe and her sons had struggledto overcomeclearly outweighsany complaints by the husbandthat she was not performingher duties to his satisfaction. As alreadypointedout, both complainantschose theirwordscarefully,andit was in the husband'sinterestto say only whatwould strengthenhis case. In orderto justify her devotionto teachingand her refusalto give up herjob, the wife explainsthat studentscame to studywith her specifically becauseof herreputationandavailability.Nevertheless,if she were to absent herself, therebydisruptingtheir course of study,their parentswould seek anotherteacher.The consequenceof any interruptionwas inevitable:she wouldlose herincome,the only meansavailablefor supportingherfamily.In addition,neitherof her sons was trainedfor any othertrade.Whileher older son assistedher, it was becauseof her qualifications,and not his presence, thatparentsbroughttheirchildrento the school. The situationoutlinedabove involves two issues: modestyand the acceptabilityof a woman acting as a teacher.The proprietyof a man and a womanbeing alone togetheris discussedin the Talmud:"A manmay not be alonewith two women,butone womanmay be alonewithtwo men.""29 In the case discussedin the question,whereparentsaccompaniedtheirchildrento the school, the husbandalleged,in effect, thathis wife mightoftenbe alone withthe fatherof one or anotherof herpupils,an unacceptableandimmodest situation.However,in herpresentation,the wife pointsout thatherelderson is presentat the school specificallyin orderto serveas the secondmanwhen she had to meet with a pupil's father,and thus no compromisingsituation wouldarise. Thisleavesus withthe questionof theacceptabilityof a woman'steaching Torah.Before commentingupon the legal aspects,we mustnote thatif any objectionsto the wife's teachinghad ever been raisedin the communityin which she lived, they had not been strong enough to deter her. We may assumethatthe local parentsdid not objectto a womanteacher,since if they had, they could have taken their childrento anotherschool. The fact that otherschools were availableis evidentfromthe wife's claim thatshe could not leave her post withoutlosing her clientele. It is apparentfrom all this that she was a competentteacherwith a good reputation,and, by the time 29. B.T., Kiddushin(4:12), 80b. Implicitin this statementis the assumptionthat it was unacceptableat any time for a man and a womanwho were not marriedto one anotherto be togetherwhile unaccompanied.

32

RENE'iLEVINEMELAMMED

sheappeared beforethecourt,wasno newcomer to teaching.WhileGeniza no otherwomen societyboastedsomeunusualwomenin otherprofessions, teachershavematerialized as yet in the documents.30 the fact Nevertheless, thatthe wife was functioning as a teacherwithno mentionof anyprotest in thismedieval excluded)atteststo thehighlevelof tolerance (herhusband as to her well as obvious society competence. BecausetheTalmud objectsto singlemenandwomenactingasteachers,3' twicestatedthata husband Maimonides maypreventhiswifefromteaching a craftorreading,andinhisfirstdecisioninformed thehusband thathe could her from He his teaching. strengthened rulingby pointingoutthat prevent the wife wouldhaveno groundsto sue for divorceif the husbandcarried andthe courtwouldsupporthis actionsto thepointof outthisinjunction, as well as deterring thewife. Thisdecisionwas madeon the admonishing basisof a strictreadingof the law in the lightof theinformation provided and,as a result, by the husband,which,as we haveseen,was incomplete misleading. The questionthatarisesis whetherMaimonides actuallyobjectedto a he saidthatthehusband womanteaching.In theresponsum, "may"prevent to engagein teachingor that his wife, butnot thatthe wife was forbidden to preventher.In discussingMaimonides' overall thehusbandwasrequired womenstudyingtexts,W.Z. Harveyclaimsthathe "does stanceregarding requirethem[women]to studyWrittenTorahand OralTorah(andeven perhapsto be 'expert'in these disciplines)with the immediatepurpose thatis, withthe immediate of attaininghokhmah, purposeof enteringthe

Pardes,"namely,to attaineternallife.32Whilethis does not addressthe issue

of teachingdirectlyenoughforthepurposesathand,it doesshedsomelight inclinations. on Maimonides' andrepliesin theseresponsa. Nowwe needto lookagainatthequestions a second if he could take wife andwhatthelawadvises Thehusbandasked in this matter.Maimonidesdoes not stray from the clause in the couple's

30. See n. 24 above for mention of women teachers.The best-knownwoman in the S. D. Goiteinwroteabout Genizacollectionis WuhshaAl-Dallala,an agentor businesswoman. her frequently;e.g., see his "A Jewish Business Womanof the EleventhCentury,"in The Seventy-fifthAnniversary Volumeof "TheJewish Quarterly Review" (Philadelphia, 1967), pp.

225-242. 31. See above,n. 10. Maimonidesoverlookedthis contentionin his secondresponse. 32. WarrenZev Harvey,"TheObligationof Talmudon WomenAccordingto Maimonides," Tradition19, no. 2 (Summer1981): 128.

IN TWELFTH-CENTURY A WOMANTEACHER CAIRO

33

marriagecontract,but focuses on her teachingand how the husbandcan preventher from continuingor seeking a divorce on this basis. While the husband'squestioncenteredon the issue of the second wife, Maimonides' reply revertedto the statusof the firstand only wife and how she could be legally coercedto returnto live with herhusband. In her petition,the wife asked whethershe indeedhad to abandonher job and returnto a life of poverty,performingher wifely duties when her husbandhadneverfulfilledany of his obligationsas mandatedby the Torah, andto give him permissionto marryanotherwoman. Accordingto Jewishlaw,husbands(andnotjust wives) have obligations and if man does not fulfill them, he can when a marriageis contracted,33 be forced to granthis wife a divorce and make the appropriatepayment. However,said Maimonides,the husbandin this case may indeedpreventhis wife fromteachinga craftor reading.Thus,if the factspresentedby the wife were true,she shouldobtaina divorcefromher husband.As a divorcee,she would become an independentwoman, free to teach if she so desiredand basicallydo as she pleased. WhenMaimonidesmadehis seconddecision,basedon the fullerdetails providedby the wife, he clearlydidnot objectto the factthatshe was actually teaching.On the contrary,by suggestingthat she seek a divorce, thereby changingher statusfromthatof a marriedwomanunderthe authorityof her husbandto thatof a divorceefree fromsuch authority,he offeredan option by which she could continueteachingor do whatevershe wanted.In Jewish and many other traditionalsocieties, widows and divorceescan achieve a degreeof independenceunknownto most marriedwomen.Maimonideswas not obliviousto this;in fact,thatis preciselywhy he madea recommendation thatwould free her "if herwordsarewordsof truth." Once again, the rabbiniccourtwas called in to take action.In the first round,it had been instructedto supportthe husbandin preventinghis wife from teaching; in the second, it could be told to force the husbandto divorcehis wife preciselybecausehe hadnot fulfilledany of his obligations. One assumes that the situationof this couple was no secret to the Jewish 33. The husbandhas obligationsto his wife while residingat homebut also while out of townor abroad.Thereis a discussionin B.T.,Ketubbot(13:1) 107a,aboutwhetherornot a wife can claimmaintenancefroma husbandwho went to a countrybeyondthe sea. This reflectsa concernfor the womenand childrenleft behind,who were not necessarilyproperlycaredfor whenthe husbandswent abroad.

34

RENEELEVINEMELAMMED

community;at the very least,theirneighborswereawareof it. Consequently, the wife's statementcouldbe easily verified,if need be.34AfterMaimonides explainedthatthecourtcouldbe instructedto enforcethedivorceproceedings, he addedthatthe husbandwouldbe requiredto makethe me'uharpayment, ironicallyadding,"if he possessesit."This clarifieshis reasonfor suggesting that the wife forgo the paymentin orderto obtaina divorce;undoubtedly boththe wife andthe decisorknew thatthe husbanddid not have it. Once Maimonideshad assessedthe case, the aim of his decisionwas to enablethe womanto obtaina divorcefroma husbandwho, as we have seen, primarilywantedpermissionto marrya secondwife. TheoptionMaimonides suggested,thatthe wife becomea moredet,or rebelliouswoman,was a means of circumventingthe legal technicalitiesof the situation.If the wife behaved unacceptably,the courtcouldforcethe husbandto divorceher;underthe law a moredetforfeitedthe paymentdue her,but in this case, in any event,there was no chanceof the wife obtainingit. Thus we see that Maimonideswas seekingto providea legal meansfor the womanto extricateherselffroman impossiblemaritalsituationandemergeas an independentwoman.35 When these two documentsare joined together,they clearly represent a tremendousfind. Not only did Maimonidesultimatelynot object to a woman servingas a teacher,but he helped to providea way for her to be gainfullyemployedin the teachingprofession.The misleadinginformation in the husband'squestioncoloredhis firstdecision;once a fullerpicturewas painted,the solutionto the dilemmawas changedjust as significantly.Lastly, Cairois quitean the fact thattherewas a womanteacherin twelfth-century unexpecteddiscovery.Moreover,she was not a wealthyyoung womanwho hadbeeneducatedby privatetutors,or the daughterof a rabbiwho hadtaught herbecausehe hadno sons to whomhe could imparthis Torahlearning.On the contrary,she rose fromdirepovertyand,on her own initiative,foundan honorableprofession.Buildingon what her husbandapparentlyhad taught her,she had gone on to acquiremoreadvancedknowledgefromher brother as well as on her own. The end resultwas a competentteacherwith a strong 34. The commentby Maimonideshere,"if her wordsare wordsof truth,"makesit clear thatverificationis necessary,as it shouldbe in a case in which two conflictingversionsare presented. 35. See S. D. Goitein,"TheJewishFamilyof the High MiddleAges as Revealedby the Documentsof theCairoGeniza,"GliEbreiNell'altoMedioevo2 (1980):713-733; he discusses divorce as a means to gain freedomand commentsthat "even in upper-classor scholarly familiesdivorcewas preferredto a badmarriage"(p. 732).

A WOMAN TEACHERIN TWELFTH-CENTURYCAIRO

35

following; a solutionwas found which allowed her to supportherself and her sons as well as to pay the rentfor lodgingsconvenientlyadjacentto the school. In addition,andwhile last, most definitelynot least, this womanhad the innerstrengthto bringhercase to the rabbiniccourt.Herhusband,who went to the courtfirst,returnedwith a rulingauthorizinghim to preventher from workingin her profession;essentiallyhe had a courtinjunctionto support his position.Unwillingto acceptthis unjustruling,she appealedto the court, presentingher case with a muchfullerversionof the story.Maimonideswas consultedagain,andthis time he issueda decisionin favorof the wife. This alreadyindependentmarriedwomanwas now ableto gainlegalindependence husband;as the greatrabbi by meansof a divorcefromhergood-for-nothing fromCairosaid,then"shewill be herown woman,[freeto] teachwhomever she pleases anddo whatevershe pleases." Ultimately,the main point here is not whetherthis womanwas allowed to teach or not, but how a woman,having chosen a path that was fraught with difficulties,couldmaneuverwithinthe limitationsimposeduponherby Jewish law. In the long run, Maimonidesenabledthe woman in this case to maintainher identity,her sourceof income,andher independence.Other women no doubt faced similar obstacles and restrictionsin other periods and cultures,for the need to maneuverwithin societal boundsis a reality of women'slives. Yet these two responsauncovera specificand fascinating situationin which an intelligentand determinedwoman in twelfth-century Jewish Cairowas able to supportherself and remainwithin the boundsof propriety;needlessto say,one of the mosteminentscholarsin Jewishhistory adjudicatedher case andmadeit possiblefor her to prevail. TheSeminary of JudaicStudies Israel Jerusalem,

From Theosophy to Midrash: Lurianic Exegesis and the Garden of Eden Author(s): Shaul Magid Source: AJS Review, Vol. 22, No. 1 (1997), pp. 37-75 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486866 . Accessed: 15/07/2011 10:30 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

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

http://www.jstor.org

FROMTHEOSOPHYTO MIDRASH: LURIANICEXEGESIS AND THEGARDENOF EDEN by SHAULMAGID I

Until now, the academicstudy of Lurianickabbalahas largelypursued threeroadsof inquiry.The first, following Scholem,has been the study of Lurianickabbalaas a mysticaland eschatologicalresponseto the historical events of the Jewish expulsionfrom Spainin 1492, an event viewed as the root of the mysticalheresyof ShabbtaiTzvi.1The secondpathwayhas been the scholarlyanalysisof Lurianicteachingas the most extremeexampleof Kabbalain kabbalistictheosophy,surpassingboththeZoharandCordoverean its intricateandcomplexdelineationof the cosmicworld.2Thethirdapproach Thispaperis in lovingmemoryof my father,GershonHayyimben Schmuel,who left this worldthe 28th of Tishrei,5756. Mayhe restin peacein the upperGardenof Eden. 1. The messianismof Lurianickabbala,accordingto Scholem,is what may be called a temperatemessianicutopianismagainstthe apocalypticmessianismof SolomonMolkho(ca. 1500-1532)andDavidReuveni(d. 1538?).Scholemdevotednumerousstudiesto thetyplogies of Jewishmessianismandtheircentralityto Judaism,particularly throughthe studyof Lurianic texts. See G. Scholem, "Towardan Understandingof the Messianicidea in Judaism,"in TheMessianicIdea in Judaism(New York, 1971), pp.1-37; idem, "TheMessianicIdea in Kabbalism," ThroughSin,"pp. 78-141. Fora generalevaluation pp. 37-48, and"Redemption of these typologies, see J. Dan, "GershomScholem and Jewish Messianism,"in Gershom Scholem:TheMan and His Work,ed. P. Mendes-Flohr(Albany,N.Y., 1994),pp. 73-86, esp. 82-86. 2. See I. TishbyToratHa-Rave Ha-Kelippahb 'KabbalatHa-Ari(reprinted., Jerusalem, 1991);RonitMeroz,"Redemptionin the LurianicTeaching"(diss., HebrewUniversity,1991). AJS Review 22/1 (1997): 37-75

37

38

SHAULMAGID

has addressedthe unusuallycomplicatedtask of deciphering,categorizing, and pointingout the voluminousmanuscriptsof Luria'sstudents,a literary oeuvrewhichis as diverseas it is complex.3 Whileall of theseare important and contributeto the overall understandingof what is the most influential kabbalisticdoctrinesince the Zohar,4I would like to approachthe Lurianic materialfroma differentperspective. While R. Hayyim Vital's Etz Hayyim5has justifiablybeen considered the foundationalpresentationof the Lurianicsystem, its popularityhas overshadowedvariousotherLurianictextswhichofferuniqueandinnovative approachesto kabbalistictheosophy,particularlyin the area of scriptural interpretation. Anyonewho entersthe complexworldof the EtzHayyim,and its compendium"EightGates,"will quicklyrealizethatthesearetextswhich have little regardfor Scriptureand are not foundedon what we may call normativerabbinicand/orthe earlytheosophickabbalistictradition.6 By thisI meanthattheosophickabbala,fromthe schoolof GeronathroughtheZohar,is Thisfocus wouldalso includethe effectof Lurianickabbalismin Europe.Onthis see J. Avivi, "TheWritingsof the Ari in ItalyBefore 1620"[Hebrew],AleySefer 11 (1984): 134-191, and M. Idel, "Perspectivesof Kabbalain the SecondHalf of the 18thCentury," Journalof Jewish ThoughtandPhilosophy1 (1991):55-114. 3. This field of inquiryhas been the majorfocus of JosephAvivi's workBinyanAriel: Introductionto the Homiliesof R. Isaac Luria [Hebrew](Jerusalem,1987) and the firstpart of RonitMeroz'sdissertation.See also M. Pachter,"Katnutand Gadlutin LurianicKabbala" 10 (1992): 171-210. [Hebrew],MehkareiYerushalayim 4. Scholemarguesin "Traditionand New Creationin the Ritualof the Kabbalists,"On KabbalaandIts Symbolism(New York,1965),p. 135,thatLurianickabbalachangedthe face of Judaismin all its aspects,theoreticalas well as practical.Even in light of Moshe Idel's critiqueof Scholem'semphasison the overarchinginfluenceof Luria'steachings,I thinkthis asssertionstill stands.Cf. Idel in Hasidim:BetweenMagic and Ecstasy (New York, 1995), chap.2. 5. The Etz Hayyimhas a complexand somewhatdubioushistory.Althoughit consistsof R. HayyimVital'swritings,it was collectedandeditedby his son R. ShmuelVitalin Damascus afterR. Hayyim'sdeath.Thereare two editionsto this work,"theearly edition,"calledEtz Hayyimmadurahkama,andthe lateredition,calledmadurahbatra.Fora comprehensive study of the bibliographicalhistoryof Vital'swritings,see Avivi, op. cit., and R. Moshe Ya'akov Hillel'sprefaceto R. Ya'akovHayyimZemah'sKehillatYa'akov(Jerusalem,1992),pp. 11-60. Cf. YizhakIsaacben Ya'akov,'OzarSeforim(Vilna,1880),p. 446, # 514. 6. I refer specificallyto theosophickabbalato exclude the ecstaticschool of Abraham Abulafiaand Josephibn Gikitillia,whose writingsare not foundedon Scriptureor framed midrashically.Moshe Idel addressesthis issue in his study of kabbalistichermeneutics.Cf. Kabbala:New Perspectives(New Haven, 1988), pp. 215 ff. This is not to say that both Abulafiaand Gikitilliawere not interestedin exegesis. This is surelynot the case. Abulafia's

ANDTHEGARDENOFEDEN EXEGESIS LURIANIC

39

structured usingScriptureas a basisforits kabbalisticexegesis. midrashically, on the it based theosophicsystem of the Zohar,the Etz Hayyim Though is of quotesthe Zoharinfrequentlyand cannotbe viewed as an interpretation the Zoharin the way we normallythink of commentary.Even as we have to the Zohar,7the Etz Hayyim Lurianictexts which are quasi-commentaries of them. Not as one be included cannot only is the Zoharabsentfrom corpus the Etz Hayyim,Scriptureitself rarelyentersinto the purviewof Lurianic discourse,and when it does, it is adducedonly to illuminatea point in the theosophicsystem. It is perhapsno wonderthatLurianickabbalamet with so muchcontroversyamongtraditionallyeducatedJews. One well-equipped with the tools of TalmudandMidrashwill findhimselfhopelesslylost in the Lurianicmaze of termsand conceptswhich indeedseem extraneousto any normativeunderstandingof Torah.8One enticed by an interestingreading of a verse or a zoharicpassagewill soon be throwninto the darkabyss of Lurianiclexicography. more popularwork, ShevahNetivotHa-Torah,publishedby Adolf Jellinekin Philosophie undKabbala(Leipzig, 1854) is devotedalmostentirelyto the elucidationof Abulafia'sseven See the analysisin M. Idel, Language,Torah,and Hermeneutics methodsof interpretation. in AbrahamAbulafia(Albany,N.Y., 1989), pp. 82-125. On the lack of hermeneuticstudies in kabbala,see Y. Liebes,"New Directionsin the Studyof Kabbala"[Hebrew],Pe'amim50 (1992): 159-161. see Vital'sSha'arMamareiRashbi 7. Inparticular, (Jerusalem,1898)andZoharHa-Rakiyah (Koretz,1785),whichis a muchlatercollectionof Lurianicmaterialon zoharicpassages.Recent scholarshiphas dividedLuria'screativeoutputinto two periods.The earlyperiod(while he of zoharicpassages.The later still lived in Egypt) was comprisedlargelyof interpretations period(his final two years in Safed)producedanotherelementof his teachingconsistingof the developmentof his overarchingtheosophicsystemandits relationshipto the humanrealm. Cf. Y. Liebes,"Mythvs. Symbolin the Zoharand in LurianicKabbala,"in EssentialPapers in Kabbala,ed. L. Fine (New York, 1995), p. 228. Variouspupils of R. Moses Cordovero who were influencedby Luriadid composecommentariesto the Zohar.See, for example,the commentariesof R. AbrahamAzulia and R. AbrahamGalante,collectedin the four-volume 'Or Ha-Hama (Parmishlan,1896-98), and R. ShalomBuzalgo'sMikdashMelekh,5 vols. (Amsterdam,1750). 8. David Weiss-HaLivnitheorizesthat"MidrashrepresentsdistancefromGod,a clinging to wordsof the past at a time when the living presentword is not forthcomingany longer.It substitutesdivine intervention,througheitherrevelationor prophecy."See Midrash,Mishnah, and Gemara(Cambridge,Mass., 1986),p. 16. If this is so, whatarewe to do withthe Lurianic in that tradition,which,accordingto ourworkinghypothesis,may indeedbe "post-midrashic" it no longer feels obligatedto justify its understandingthroughmidrashicmeans?Can we posit that the Lurianists,at least some of whom believedthey were standingon the cusp of the messianicera,viewed theiractivityas a returnto the "pre-midrashic," propheticmode of

40

SHAUL MAGID

Yet, while the systematicpresentationof Lurianiccosmology in Etz Hayyim,Sha'ar Hakdamotand Mevo Shearimis void of any systematic exegesis, variousotherLurianictexts use the impressivetheosophicformulations of the Etz Hayyimcorpus as a theosophicmeta-textas they once again turn to Scriptureand rereadthe biblical narrativein light of these Lurianicassumptions.The meta-textis the Lurianicsystem itself, born independentof Scripture9yet commandingthe authorityof revelation.The Lurianicmeta-textis not a symbolicreadingof Scripturebut is posited as the contentof revelationwhich is embeddedin the narrativeof the Bible, YehudahLiebes has noted that now viewed as its symbolicrepresentation. variousfundamentalcomponentsof the zoharic/Lurianic theosophicsystem mayhavebeendrawnfromearliermythicconstructs,someof whichmayhave The interestingelementhere is that the zoharic been rootedin Antiquity.10 of these models cosmic becomes,fortheLurianists,anindependent adaptation text, one whichrepresentsthe fully revealed"textof revelation"necessaryto bringaboutredemption." Even when Lurianickabbalafunctionsexegetically,it does so in an unconventional fashion.WhereastheZohar'stheosophicalworld-viewlargely Lurianickabbalaimposestheosophyon arisesfromits readingof Scripture,'2 discourse?A moredefinitiveconclusionto this querywouldrequirea morein-depthanalysis at thisjuncture. of the materialthanI haveundertaken 9. The Lurianicsystemitself emergeslargelyout of the Lurianicreadingof Zohar,which itself is often basedon Scripture.Y. Liebesnotes,"TheAri'sprocedureis to juxtaposemyths thatareto be foundscatteredthroughoutthe Zoharandto combinetheminto a completeand all of them[theZohar'smyths]in one overarching complexsystem.... he [theAri]incorporates structure,througha mutiplicityof fine detailand a successionof stages."See, Liebes,"Myth vs. Symbol,"pp. 225, 226. 10. See YehudahLiebes, "TheKabbalisticMyth as Toldby Orpheus,"in his Studiesin Jewish Myth and Jewish Messianism (Albany, N.Y., 1993), pp. 65-92, esp. pp. 84-87.

11. TalmudTorah(Torahstudy) as a redemptiveact is a centralpart of the Lurianic discussion.In this sense, a distinctionmay be drawnbetweenearlierkabbalistichermeneutics (e.g., SeferHa-Bahir,Nahmanides,Abulafiaandperhapsthe Zohar)andthe Lurianists.Forthe Lurianists,kabbalisticexegesis (accordingto the principlesset up by Luravia his disciples)is a messianicact, the finalact of redeemingScripturefromits concealedstate. 12. This ideahas beenrecentlydevelopedby E. R. Wolfsonin "BeautifulMaidenWithout Eyes: Pesah and Sod in Zoharic Hermeneutics," in The Midrashic Imagination, ed. M.

of VisionaryExperience: Fishbane(Albany,N.Y., 1993),pp. 155-204 idem,"TheHermeneutics in the Zohar,"Religion18 (1988) andE. Segal,"TheExegetical RevelationandInterpretation Craftof the Zohar,"AJSReview(1992): 31-48. "TheZoharis, of course,structurednot as a treatiseon mysticismor the theoryof the sephirot,but as a talmudicmidrash,distinguished

ANDTHEGARDENOFEDEN EXEGESIS LURIANIC

41

theosophyout of it. WhereastheZoharmay Scriptureratherthaninterpreting its framework from midrash,Lurinaickabbalareverses develop theosophic the zoharicprogram:Lurianickabbalamoves fromtheosophyto midrash.'3 As Elliot Wolfsonhas recentlyargued,zoharichermeneuticsengage in the classic midrashicinterplayofpeshat anddrash,oftenusingrabbinicmidrash intertextuallyas it weaves its theosophicworld-view.14Accordingto Wolfson,

I (p. 33). Althoughthis may be an overstatement, by its use of the classicalpetiha structures" thinkthat,particularlyas.comparedto Lurianickabbala,the Zoharstill residesin the frameof midrashicthinking.A morenuancedapproachmay be thatof Scholemwhen he says, "Here again the Zoharstrikesa differentnote: throughoutit reflectsthe homileticviewpointand remainsclosely boundto the Scripturaltext. Oftenan idea is not so muchextrapolatedand projectedintothe Biblicalwordbutratherconceivedin the processof mysticalreflectionupon the latter."See Major Trendsin JewishMysticism(New York,1961),p. 205. Wolfsonmakes a moreradicalclaim thatthe Zoharis actuallyfar more concernedwithpeshat thanclassical midrash.See Wolfson"BeautifulMaidenWithoutEyes," pp. 185-190. On the midrashists relationto peshat, see W, Braude,"Midrashas Deep Peshat,"in Studiesin Judaica,Karaitica and IslamicaPresentedto LeonNemoyon his EightiethBirthday,ed. S. R. Brunswick(Ramat Gan:1982),pp. 31-38, MenahemHaran,"MidrashicExegesisandthe Peshat,andthe Critical Approachto Bible Research"[Hebrew],in Studiesin Judaicaed. M. Bar-Asher(Jerusalem, 1986),pp. 75 ff. 13. Joseph Dan recently argued that Kabbalain general is far less systematicin its hermeneuticsthanrabbinic(midrashic)exegesis. Cf. Dan, "TheLanguageof Creationand Its in Traditionund Translation:ZumProblemder interkulturellen Ubersetzbarkeit Grammar," religioserPhanomene,ed. C. Elias(BerlinandNew York,1994),p. 56, "Eventhemysticspicked and chose; commonmisconceptionnotwithstanding, some of the most importantkabbalistic schoolsandworksdidnotuse manyof themidrashicexegeticalmethodologies,includingthatof gematria.The identificationof Jewishesotericismandmysticismwith midrashichermeneutics is a partialone, and the Sefer Yezeriais the earliestexpressionof the selectivityemployedby Jewishthinkersin theiradoptionof theirown traditionsconcerninglanguage."AlthoughDan is correctvis-a-vis Sefer Yezeriaand the Hekhalotliterature,the kabbalistsin Geronaandthe Zohardo indeedemploymanyof the exegeticaltools of the TalmudandMidrash.Dan'spoint is importantin thatthe kabbalistsdid not feel boundby those rules even when they adopted them.In Lurianickabbala,we see a moresevereabandonment of thoseexegetcialtools which I believe is partiallydue to the fact thatthe trueTorah(the Torahof the Treeof Life) is not embeddedin the Garmentsof Torahbut exists outsideit. 14. Wolfson'sargumentis even furthernuancedin the following statementconcerning earlier mystical literature:"While Scholem's observationthat the Hekhalottexts are not midrashicexpositionsof biblical passages is basically correct,his furtherclaim that these texts are descriptionsof a religiousexperiencefor whichno sanctionis soughtin the Bible is questionable."Cf. Wolfson,Througha SpeculumThatShines (Princeton,1995), p. 123. For Scholem'sposition,see MajorTrendsin JewishMysticism,p. 46.

42

SHAULMAGID

it is not that the sod interpretation is in contradistinction to the peshat in the Zohar, but it is rathera deepening of the peshat or, as he puts it, In any case, it appearscertainthat the Zoharread a "hyperliteralism."'5 Scripturequite seriouslyand thatit thus constitutesa kabbalisticmidrashof sorts. Whateverthe relationshipbetweenpeshat, drash and sod may be in the Zohar,it utilizes classic exegeticaltools which are deeply rootedin the rabbinictradition.16 15. See Wolfson,op. cit., p. 167 andZohar2.257b,"[Mishnais the] secretwhichis within, for one learnstherethe essenceof everything,"quotedin Wolfson,"BeautifulMaidenWithout Zohar Eyes,"p. 197,n. 105. Thisis, of course,opposedto the laterstrataof theZohar,Tikkunei and the peshat are indeedadversarial. and Ra 'ayahMehemna,where the sod interpretation On this see P. Giller,TheEnlightenedWillShine (Albany,N.Y., 1993), pp. 59-81. Although the Lurianistsrarelytake a positionon these purelyideologicalissues, R. HayyimVital, in his Introductionto Sha'ar Ha-Hakdamot,seems to adoptan adversarialstancecloser to the is TikkuneiZoharthanthe one suggestedby Wolfsonin the Zoharitself. Vital'sIntroduction Etz Mekor edition As we will see the in the in of (Jerusalem). Hayyim, Hayyim printed body thispaper,Vital'sstanceon therelationshipbetweenpeshatanddrashmayindeedbe a window intothe attitudeof LurianiststowardreadingScripturein general. 16. Perhapsthe most classic exampleof this is foundin Zohar3.152a,wherethe "stories of the Torah"are the garments,the precepts(mitzvot)are the "bodyof Torah,"andthe "soul of Luria of Torah"or the "realTorah"is the esotericteachingsof the Zohar.Contemporaries Safed often take a more soberview of the relationshipbetweenpeshat in sixteenth-century and sod, similarto the view espousedby Wolfsonvis-a-vis the body of the Zohar.See, for example,R. ShlomoAlkabez,AyeletAhavim(Venice, 1522), p. 8b, "Thereis nothingin the allegoricallevel of meaningwhich denies the literalor the secretor the homiletical.All are one, as illustratedby the imageof the treeemployedby Rashbi."Alkabezis referringto Zohar 3.202a, wherethe authorof the Zoharuses the image of a tree to describethe four levels of meaningin the Torah."... one who busies himself [with Torah]continuouslyis likenedto the verse in Psalms 1:2, Ratherthe teachingof the Lord is his delight,and he studies that teachingday and night.Not like dry wood but like a treeplanted beside a streamof water. (Psalm1:3). Justas a tree has roots,bark,pulp,branches,leaves, flowersandfruit. .. all the wordsof Torahhavepeshat, drash,hints [remez]of the heightsof wisdom,gematria,hidden secretsand secretsthatare morehidden.Non-kosherandkosher,impureandpure,forbidden andpermitted.Fromhereandoutwardthe branchesspreadout to all sides like [thebranches] of a tree. If it were not [like this], the Torahwould not be the Wisdomof Wisdom."The as well as the image of the tree in this passageunifiesthe variousmethodsof interpretation muti-layeredmessagein the Torah.It appearsfromherethatpeshatandsod arecomplementary ratherthancontradictory, reflectingan integrativerelationshipratherthanthe adversarialone to Sha'arHakdamot.For more and in R. HayyimVital'sIntroduction we see in the Tikkunim SafedkabbalistsotherthanVital and Luria,see M. Pachter, on this amongsixteenth-century "TheConceptof Devekutin the HomileticalEthicalWritingsof 16thCenturySafed,"Studies in MedievalJewish Historyand LiteratureII, ed. I. Twersky(Cambridge,Mass., 1984), pp.

LURIANICEXEGESISAND THE GARDEN OF EDEN

43

While deconstructionistand intertextualistreadingsof midrashmay be appliedin the case of the Zohar,they cannot,in my view, be invoked as Even as the Zoharstill the basis for the study of Lurianichermeneutics.'7 uses categoriesof peshat, drashandsod, only minimallyseeingthe threeas adversariesratherthanpartners,thesecategoriesareovercomein the Lurianic corpus.Thereis little sense of an open-text,"deepeningof peshat"or hyperliteralismin Lurianicexegesis. On the contrary,Lurianickabbalaimposesan independenttheosophicalsystem on Scripture(albeitone developedlargely by the Zoharitself), and thus claimsto rendera closed-textreading.WhatI meanby "closed-textreading"is thatthe Lurianistsofferus whattheybelieve to be a fully revealedor uncoveredtext. Mysticallyunderstood,midrashic and kabbalisticreadingis orientedtowardrevealingthe concealedlayersof meaningembeddedin Scripture.While the "hyperliteralism" suggestedby WolfsonregardingtheZoharmayindeedserveas thebasisof Lurianicreading and may still appearin some form, I would suggest that Lurianickabbala seeks to go beyondeven the zoharicdeepingof peshat to presenta mythic renderingof Judaismwhich is all but independentof Scripture.Following this theosophicsystem, which is the body of Vital'sEtz Hayyimand most of the compendium"EightGates,"the exegeticalportionsof the Lurianic to show how Scriptureis, in corpususe whatI have deemedthis "meta-text" essence, a symbolicrenderingof this theosophicconstruct.In this light, the of Scriptureis not boundby the midrashicmethodof Lurianicinterpretation a of as way attaininglegitimacyand acceptance.Daniel Boyarin, exegesis his of in thesis intertextuality, arguesthatthe midrashicenterpriseis thatof "fillingin the gaps" of the narrativeby infusingother verses which yield various"new"readingsof the verse in question.In Boyarin'swords,"The 171-230, esp. 177-185. For a morecomprehensivediscussionon Alkabez,see B. Sack,"The MysticalTeachingof ShlomoAlkabez"(diss., BrandeisUniversity,1977). 17. I am referringto Daniel Boyarin'sIntertextuality and Midrash(Bloomington,1991), SusanHandelman'sTheSlayersofMoses (Albany,N.Y., 1982),pp. 51-83, andStevenFraade's From Traditionto Commentary (Albany,N.Y., 1989). I do not intendto take a stanceon the viabilityof such an enterprise,only to point out that Lurianicmaterialcannot,in my view, be readusing these methodsas they are now. As to otherimportantsourcesfor the rabbinic of Scripture," in (midrashic)readingof Scripture,see S. Lieberman,"RabbinicInterpretation Hellenism in Jewish Palestine (New York, 1950), pp. 47-82, reprinted in Essential Papers on

the Talmud,ed. M. Chernick(New York,1994),pp. 429-459; JonahFrankel,"Hermeneutical Questionsin AggadicStories"[Hebrew],Tarbiz47 (1978): 139-172;andidem,"BibleVerses 22 (Jerusalem,1971). Quotedin the Talesof the Sages,"ScriptaHierosolymitana

44

SHAULMAGID

midrashrealizesits goal by meansof a hermeneuticof recombiningplaces of the canonizedexemplarinto a new discourse."'8This is not the case in Lurianicexegesis. In this case, the theosophic"text"perceivedas the fully uncoveredesoteric Torahof Sinai filteredthroughthe Zohar,fills in the gaps of Scriptureby placing scripturalpassages in the the framework shevirah-sin-tikkun of its non-scriptural modality.'9To fully understandthe intent of Lurianickabbala,one must accept that its mythic and symbolic as the Sinaiticrevelationitself. ThisTruthcannotbe worldis as authoritative challengedby exegeticalflaws or misreadings.The body of knowledgethat serves as the intertextfor Lurianickabbalais not a text in the conventional sense nor is it the productof scripturalexegesis the likes of which we see It is presentedindependentof traditionand, as such, cannot in the Zohar.20 be challenged by tradition.21 In Sha'ar Ha-Pesukim, Sha'ar Ha-Likkutim and LikkuteiTorah,22the texts which serve as the focus of this study,the

"new"meta-text,presentedas the text which has been illuminatedby the andMidrash,p. 40. 18. Boyarin,Intertextuality 19. By this I meanthatthe backboneof Lurianickabbala,i.e., the creationof the world throughzimzumand its rectificationthroughthe gatheringof the divine sparkswhich are embededin the kelipot,has no scripturalbase, nor do the Lurianistsappearinterestedin justifyingthis processthroughScripture. 20. It is interestingto note that even as the mythicmodels in Lurianickabbalalargely emergefromthe Zohar,the Lurianicauthorsdo not frequentlyreferto the zoharicdiscussion wherethey arerooted. 21. See, BettyRoitman,"SacredLanguageandOpenText,"in MidrashandLiterature,ed. G. H. HartmanandS. Budick(New Haven,1986),p. 75, "This[thekabbalistic]readingpresents itself thenas radicallyseveredfromany context;it is autonomousandinvariable,chosenfrom amongwhatthe kabbalahconsidersthe values foundingthe world"(pp. 166-167). Roitman's idea of kabbalaas "autonomousexegesis"is well taken,althoughI thinkin this presentation to Scripture.Hernotion she is not sensitizedenoughto thedifferencesin kabbalisticapproaches of takingthe verticalframeworkof emanationfromthe Infiniteto the finite and applyingit horizontallyto the textualdiscourseof Scriptureis trueboth in the Zoharand the Lurianists in varyingdegrees.For moreon this type of approach,see R. Schatz,"Kabbala:Traditionor Innovation"[Hebrew],in Masu'uot:Studiesin Kabbalaand Jewish Thoughtin Memoryof ProfessorEphrayimGottlieb(Jerusalem,1994). 22. The compositionand authorshipof these texts are difficultto determine.The texts authoredby the circle of R. IsaacLuriacan be largelydividedinto two maincategories.The Etz Hayyimand the "EightGates"are collectedteachingsof R. HayyimVital which were editedandcompiledby his son, R. ShmuelVital,in Damascusafterhis father'sdeath.These comprisemostof the textswhosetitlebearsthewordSha'ar(gate).Theothercategoryof early Lurianicmaterialare texts composedand/orcompiledby a varietyof students,R. Ya'akov HayyimZemah,R. Meir Poppers,R. JosephIbn Tabul,R. IsraelSaruk,R. NathanShapira, R. BenjaminHa-Levi,R. MosheZakutoandR. MosheYonah(amongothers).Manyof these

LURIANICEXEGESISAND THE GARDEN OF EDEN

45

is now integratedintothe"Garment theosophicsystemof shevirah-sin-tikkun, of Torah," i.e., the narrativeitself. Scriptureis now viewed as a symbolic of the mythicworldof Lurianiccosmology,whichnow serves representation as the text itself.23Whereasthe Zoharmay be viewed as a symbolicreading of Scripture,I would suggestthatLurianickabbalatransformsScriptureinto a symbolicrenderingof the realityof the cosmic universe.I am not aware of any otherinstancein the historyof Jewishliteraturewherea commentary on Scripture(in this case, the Zohar)becomesso powerfulandauthoritative thatit replacesthatwhich it interprets(the biblicalnarrative).I do not mean that Scriptureis overcome,but that it is eclipsed by the Zohar's cosmic renditionas formulatedandconcretizedby the Lurianicschool.24In a sense, the LurianicauthorsreadScriptureas a symbolicrenditionof theirmeta-text, texts begin with the termSefer (book) in theirtitle ratherthanSha'ar. This is a generalrule, althoughthereareexceptions.The text Sha'arHa-Pesukimis thusseen as partof the Vitalian is a bit more complex.R. Meir Poppers,in "EightGates."The origin of Sefer Ha-Likkutim DerekhEtzHayyim(Karetz,1782), p. 69, calls SeferHa-Likkutim andSeferDerushimpartof the "earlyedition"of the Lurianiccorpus.We knowthatthe firsteditionof SeferHa-Likkutim (publishedunderthattitle) was editedby R. BenjaminHa-Levi,a studentof R. HayyimVital and R. ElishaGavashtala.See R. MeirPoppers,"Introduction" to DerekhEtzHayyim,p. lb. LikkuteiTorah,firstprintedin Zalkawain 1775, consistslargelyof the second sectionof R. MeirPoppers'NofEtz Hayyimin combinationwith portionsof Poppers'DerekhEtzHayyim, which itself includespartsof R. Ya'akovHayyimZemah'sOzrotHayyim,AdamYasharand SeferDerushim.In sum, the threetexts which will serve as the basis of our analysisemerge fromthreedifferentsourcesin the Lurianiccircle.Sha'arHa-Pesukimis fromR. HayyimVital via his son R. Shmuel.SeferHa-Likkutim is a collectionof Palestinianmaterialeditedby R. BenjaminHa-Levi,andLikkuteiTorahis the productof R. MeirPoppers.Eachtext exhibitsa slightlydifferentpersonality.Sha'ar Ha-Pesukimis very detailedand is largelycaughtup in the endlessminutiaewhicharecharacteristic of Vital'sEtzHayyimandthe"EightGates."Sefer Ha-Likkutim is clearlya collectionof variousauthorsin thatthe drashotare not consistentin eitherstyle and/orcontent.LikkuteiTorahis the most ordered,systematicand exegetical.It does not dwell on the detailsof the systemitself as muchas theverse it seeks to interpret.In a of R. Meir sense, it is the most accessibleto a non-initiateinto the system,very characteristic Poppers'otherwritings(excludingperhapshis editingworkin Pri EtzHayyim). 23. IsaiahTishbyseems to have been awareof this move when he says, " In Lurianic kabbala,on the otherhand,the tendencyis to accommodatethe Biblicalstoryto the mythof thebreakingof the vessels andthe fall of the sparks."I. Tishby,"GnosticDoctrinesin Sixteenth CenturyJewishMysticism,"Journalof JewishStudies6-3 (1955): 151. 24. See M. Idel,Kabbala:NewPerspectives(NewHaven,1988),p. 217, "MosesCordovero and Isaac Luria,the two great expertson zoharicliterature,succeededin combiningthese disparatesymbols into relatively comprehensiveand coherentconceptualsystems, whose influenceon Jewishtheosophywas tremendous."

46

SHAULMAGID

which itself is built on zoharic exegesis. Their project is to begin where the Zohar left off; to completely subsume the biblical narrative into the cosmic meta-text it receives from the Zohar. This point is structurally crucial and must now be fleshed out. Alfred North Whitehead, in a discussion about the relationship between symbol and language, states as follows, Why do we say that the word "tree"--spokenor written-is a symbolto us of trees?Both the word itself and trees themselvesenterinto our experience on equalterms;and it wouldbe just as sensible,viewingthe question,for the treesto symbolizethe word.25 Whitehead's point here is important for our understandingof symbolic interpretationin general. It has often been suggested that the symbol functions to represent something which could not otherwise be known.26This is often contrastedwith metaphor,which uses one representationto expose something which may be difficult to understand but is not by definition unknowable.27 Hence, it has been argued that metaphorical interpretationis preferred by 25. AlfredNorthWhitehead,SymbolismandIts Meaning(Virginia,1927),p. 11. 26. This is close to the definitionofferedby I. Tishby.See his "Ha-Semalve Ha-Dat b'Kabbala"in NetiveiEmunahu 'Minut(Ramat-Gan,1964),p. 13. 27. To a largedegree,this is thepositionon metaphorwhichMosheIdeladoptsin his study of kabbalistichermeneuticsin Kabbala:New Perspectives,pp. 200-249. See, for example, p. 203, "As we know, symbols are intendedto help one perceive that which is difficult to comprehend."Idel contendsthat symbolic interpretation, i.e., theosophicKabbala,uses symbolsto attaina "gnosisof higherdynamics,"while "ecstatickabbalastrivesto attainan experienceof the Divine."To a largedegree,Idel drawshis positionon symbol fromErnst Cassirer'sfour-volumemagnumopus, ThePhilosophyof SymbolicForms(New Haven,1955). Using sucha formulation,Idel is correctin assertingsymbolicrenderingas non-unitiveandthe ecstaticnon-symbolicrenderingas unitiveexperienceor uniomystica.Idelarguesthatsymbolic interpretation preventsthe individualfrommovingbeyondthe symbolicframeworkhe creates. However,I thinkthis limits considerablythe experientialcomponentin Lurianickabbalaand the access to the transcendentone receivesthroughthe theosophicapproach.An alternative modelfor the use andplace of symbolismappearsin the workof KarlJaspers,whose studyof worldas Cassirer.See "ciphers"has not receivedas largean audiencein the English-speaking his Philosophy111(Chicago,1971), especiallyfromp. 113.Forexample,"Incipherscriptthe to mind... I symbolis inseparablefrom thatwhichit symbolizes.Ciphersbringtranscendence buttranscendence wouldcomparea cipherwith transcendence, only appearsto me in a cipher script;it is not the cipherscript"(p. 124)UsingJaspers'model,the symbolbecomesthe cipher it symbolizes.Withoutthat,it is just a symbol. whenit containsandtransmitsthe transcendence This differsfromIdel (and Cassirer)in that(1) symbols(whenproperlyreadas ciphers)are and(2) as Jaspersnotes, "It not tools of communication--theyare carriersof transcendence,

ANDTHEGARDENOFEDEN EXEGESIS LURIANIC

47

is preferredby the mystics. The philosopherswhile symbolicinterpretation of to reveal in experience the divineas Absoluteandthus mystic, attempting mustyieldto symbolas a modeof at least or non-communicable, unknowable, In the case of a kabbalisticreadingwhichis exegeticalin nature,I discourse.28 wouldagreein partthatthe symbolicframeworkis theproductof the exegete (i.e., the result of the act of reading)and does not replace the narrative. However,as I arguedabove, in Lurianicexegesis the cosmic world is not readout of Scripturebut imposedon it. In the contextof symbolicreading, one might say that Lurianiccosmology views Scriptureas the symbolic renderingof itself.29Drawing upon Whitehead'sexample, this would be tantamountto regardingthe actualtree as the symbol for the word "tree". This patternis especiallytrue in non-exegeticaltheosophicKabbala,where little attemptis made to detect the theosophywithin Scripture.Symbolic reference,which occurs when "some componentsof [an] experienceelicit consciousness,beliefs, emotions,and usages, respectingothercomponents of experience,"30is differentin Lurianicexegesis thanit is in the exegetical kabbalaof Geronaor theZohar.Onecouldarguethatin the Zohar,thereading takes realityto reveal transcendence." Fundamentally, Jasperswould probablydisagreewith Idel that any unitive experienceis possible withoutciphers.I thinkthatwe shouldconsider whetherJaspers'modelbetterrepresentsthe theosophicworldof the ZoharandLuriathanthe Cassirermodel suggestedby Idel. For a readingof Scholem'sapproachto this issue, see N. On Some PhilosophicalAspects of Gershom Rotenstreich,"Symbolismand Transcendence: Scholem'sOpus,"Reviewof Metaphysics124 (1978):604-614. 28. On this see FrankTalmage,"Applesof Gold:The InnerMeaningof SacredTextsin MedievalJudaism,"in JewishSpiritualityI, ed. ArthurGreen(London,1986),pp.313-355, and Task:A Reinterpretation MichaelFishbane,"TheTeacherandthe Hermeneutical of Medieval Exegesis,"Garmentsof Torah(Indiana,1989),pp. 112-120. 29. YehudahLiebeshas recentlycounteredScholemandTishby'sdescriptionof Lurianic "symboliclanguage"andarguedthatLurianickabbalais largelymythicratherthansymbolic. His defintionof myth is as follows, "[mythiclanguageis] the directreferenceto the divine entity itself, which is availableon the same plane of awarenessandmeaningas are all other observablephenomena."Cf Liebes, "Mythand Symbol"p. 213. I agree in principlewith Liebes thatLurainiccosmologyis not symbolicin the way it is definedby Scholem,Tishby andrecentlyby Idel (in a criticalvein). I believethatthe Lurianicsystemis presentedin a way in which it becomes accessibleto humanexperienceand inviteshumanparticipation. In this essay,I have retainedthe word"symbolic"ratherthan"mythic"yet I view the symbolin light Thatis, the of Jaspersciphermodel as opposedto Cassier'smoreconventionalunderstanding. symbolis not divorcedfromhumanexperiencebut is the conduitforthatveryrealmwhichthe symbolrepresents. 30. Whitehead,SymbolismandIts Meaning,p. 8.

SHAULMAGID

48

of Scriptureelicits componentsof experiencewhich motivatethe authorto of a verse or narrative.31Even if this is the offer theosophicinterpretations zoharic case, theosophyemergesnaturallyfromthe depthsof Scriptureitself. the Zoharis a pious readerof Scripture.Therefore,its point Fundamentally, of departureis the text itself, and symbolicreferenceoccurswhen the text elicits statesof consciousnesswhichemergeas a theosophicalinterpretation. Lurianicexegesis does not function in the same way. If anything,the Lurianistsarereadersof the Zoharas text,whichthey equatewith Scripture. R. HayyimVital, in his Introductionto Sha'ar Ha-Hakdamot,stressesthat it is only throughthe Zohar(as the authenticKabbala)that the Torahcan be understood.Vital does not adoptthe integrativestancevis-at-vispeshat andsod which is presentedin the body of the Zohar.Followingthe position of TikkuneiZoharandRa 'ayahMehemna,Vital arguesthatsod andpeshat He states explicitly that those who do not learn the are irreconcilable.32 wisdom of Kabbalahave no portionin the Worldto Come, and repeatsthe positionof the TikkuneiZohar,which likens the studentsof "Mishna"(the exoteric Torah)to slaves, and the studentsof Kabbalato Adam (men).33 However,unlikethe Zohar,the Lurianists,at least of the Vitalianschool,are not readingthe Zoharas the Zoharreads Scripture.The Zoharviews the biblicalnarrativeas the Garmentof Torahand its readingas the Soul that Thusthe symbolic(kabbalistic)readingdoes not lies withinthatGarment.34 oppose the exotericTorahbut is concealedwithinit.35The Zohardoes not to peshat.36 It believedit had achieved need to see sod in contradistinction the highestpossiblelevel of exegesis by penetratingthe exotericGarmentof 31. This is whatScholemimpliesin MajorTrends.See above,n. 14. 32. R. Hayyim Vital, Introduction to Sha 'ar Ha-Hakdamot, Etz Hayyim, Mekor Hayyim

ed., p. 4. 33. Ibid.,p. 3a, "Behold,it is impossibleto rise to the highestrealmwithoutthe studyof the Zohar,accordingto one's capabilityandlimitations."Cf. Tikkunei Zohar,p. 13a 34. See DanielMatt,Zohar:BookofEnlightenment(New York,1983),Introduction. 35. This seems to be implicitin Scholem'sassertionthat"TheTorahis conceived[by the of thathiddenlife in Godwhichthe theory Zohar]as a vast corpussymbolicumrepresentative of the Sephirot attempts to describe." See Major Trendsin Jewish Mysticism, p. 209.

36. This is largelybased on Elliot Wolfson'sthesis concerningthe relationshipbetween peshat and sod in the Zohar.I believe that the discussionin Vital's Introductionto Sha'ar Hakdamotin lightof thepositionpresentedby Wolfsonvis-i-vis the Zohardrawsan important parallelbetween the two bodies of literature.That is, Lurianickabbalais a new phase in kabbalistichermeneuticsbasedon theprinciplesof the Zoharbutmovingbeyondthem.Thisis also the positionof Liebesin his, "Mythand Symbol,"pp. 223-226.

ANDTHEGARDENOFEDEN LURIANIC EXEGESIS

49

The Lurianistsno longerhave to Torah,illuminatingthe "Soul of Torah.""37 readScriptureas did the Zoharbeforeit. In inheritingthe theosophicsystem whichis the Soul of Torah,the Lurianistsarenow left withboththe Garment and the Soul, and must impose the Soul on the Garmentto attainits final illuminationand redeem the Torah,as it were, from its final bondageas symbol.38 The distinctionbetweenthese two posturesmay be seen in the two very differentmessianicvisions in the Zoharand Lurianickabbala,and the part each playedin the messianicdrama.Whereasthe Zoharbelievedthatit had revealedthe Soul of Torahfromwithinthe garment,anotherdimension(the Soul of the Soul of Torah-the messianicTorah)still neededto be revealed. R. Shimonandhis circlemayhaveviewedtheircreativeproductas thebridge betweenthe torahof the rabbisandthe messianicTorahwhichwouldemerge later.39The Lurianicschool was far more messianicin its presentation.Its intentwas to completetheprocesstheZoharhadbegunandredeemor perhaps nullify Scriptureby viewing it exclusively within its theosophicconstruct. AlthoughVital never says so explicitly,it appearsthat the Lurianiccircle understoodits torahto be the Soul of the Soul of Torahalludedto in the Zohar.40 In an attemptto put kabbalistichermeneuticsin dialoguewith medieval philosophicaland midrashicexegesis, scholarshave suggestedthatmystical exegesis arises out of a conflictbetweenliteraland theosophicaltruthjust as philosophicalexegesis arises out of the conflict between literal and

37. See Zohar 2.99a and the discussion on the term "garment"in the Zohar in D. Cohen-Alloro, The Secret of the Garment in the Zohar [Hebrew] (Jerusalem, 1987), pp. 69 ff.

to Sha'arHakdamotprintedin EtzHayyim,p. 4d, 38. See R. HayyimVital'sIntroduction "When[the Torah]is in the Worldof Emanationit is calledKabbala,for thereit is removed fromall the garmentswhich arecalledpeshat. This [is the meaningof] the verse (Cant.5:3)I1 have takenoff myrobe."See also E. Wolfson,"MaidenWithoutEyes,"p. 198 n.116. 39. Fora comprehensivetreatmentof this issue, see Y. Liebes,"TheMessiahof the Zohar: On R. ShimonbarYohaias a MessianicFigure,"in Y Liebes,Studiesin the Zohar(Albany, N.Y., 1993),pp. 1-85, esp. pp. 43-63. 40. R. HayyimVitalstatesexplicitlythatone shouldrefrainfromall kabbalisticliterature afterLuriaandonly studyhis writings,whichare"afullandcompletetransmission," as opposed to kabbalisticliteraturefromNahmanidesonward,whichareonly "partialtransmissions." See Vital'sIntroduction to Sha'arHakdamot,pp. 4a-b.

50

SHAULMAGID

philosophical truth.41 The metaphorical and/or symbolic method enables the reader to alleviate the apparent discrepancy between Scripture and Truth by regarding Scripture as, in some sense, a vessel whose content is not immediately visible. While this formulationdescribes pre-Lurianicexegetical kabbala, I would suggest a different model for Lurianic kabbala exemplified in the following text. Why does the Torah start with a beit and not an aleph? 42 Behold, the Ten Commandmentsbegin with an aleph-anochi--to teach that there are two dimensions(behinot),peshat and sod. The Torahthat God "delightsin" (mishta'ashea)43 and thatwhich the righteouslearnin the Gardenof Edenis the realmof sod. This is the first Torahwhich was placedin the Gardenof Eden. This is to teach you that "Zotha-Torah"44 is the second Torah,which 41. On this see R. Schatz,"Kabbala:Traditionor Innovation"[Hebrew]andA. Altmann, AnAnthology AttitudeTowardJewishMysticism,"in Studiesin JewishThought: "Maimonides' ,of GermanJewishScholarship(Detroit,1981). 42. This questionoriginatesin rabbinicliterature.See, for example,in Genesis Rabba 1:10, "R. Yona states in the name of R. Levi, 'Why was the world createdwith a beit and not an aleph?Just as a beit is closed on the side and open in the front,so too we have no permissionto searchafterthatwhich is above,thatwhich is below,thatwhich is in the front [or, inside], and thatwhich is behind."While the midrashuses the formof the letterbeit to argueagainstesotericism,the Lurianictext citeduses the numericalvalue of beit (2) to argue for the authenticityof esotericism,suggestingthat another"hidden"Torahwas also given at Sinai. 43. Theuse of this termin the ZoharandLurianickabbalais highlyambiguous.Theinitial treatmentof the word ignoredthe apparentsexual implications.Cf. Scholem,Kabbala(New York, 1974), p. 132 and idem, "TheName of God and LinguisticTheoryof the Kabbala," Diogenes80 (1973): 181. YehudahLiebessuggestedthe possiblyeroticimageryof the termin Sarugiankabbala.Cf. "ZaddikYesod'Olam-A SabbateanMyth"[Hebrew],Da 'at 1 (1978): in the Lurianic 105 n. 167. This was furthersubstantiated by RonitMerozin her"Redemption of the termin Lurianickabbalahas beenposedby E. R. Teaching,"p. 93. A recentreappraisal Wolfsonin Circlein the Square(New York,1995),pp. 69-70 andn. 173, 175. I wouldlike to thankProf.Wolfsonformakingme awareof thebreadthof thisdiscussion.Thistermalsoplays an inportantrole in Cordeveriankabbala.See B. Sack,Sha'areiHa-Kabbalashel Ha-Ramak (Jerusalem,1995),pp. 73-77 andn. 82. 44. This is a referenceto the verse"Thisis the Torah[ZotHa-Torah]whichMosesplaced beforethe Jewishpeople."By the wordzot, this text impliesthatanotherTorahexists beside the one mentionedin the verse. The wordzot and its derivationsalso referto God Himself in kabbalisticliterature.See R. Ze'ev Wolf of Zhitomir,'OrHa-Meir(Karetz,1798 reprint Jerusalem,n.d), vol. 1, p. 119a,"God[Ha-KodeshBarukhHu] is namedzeh (lit. this), as it is written,Therezeh (He) standsbehindour wall"(Song of Songs 2:9) andthe discussionin BettyRoitman,"SacredLanguageandOpenText,"pp. 159-178.

ANDTHEGARDENOFEDEN EXEGESIS LURIANIC

51

theTorahbeginswitha beit,whichis thesecondTorah, embodiesit. Therefore inpeshatlikea beit,whichis secondin thealephbeit.45 whichis embodied Thatthereare two Torahs,46 one exotericand one esoteric,is alreadyfound in the Zohar.47Ideationally,the Lurianistsdo not differfromthe Zoharin this regard.However,whereasthe Zoharfocused on the two-Torahtheoryand soughtto elucidateone with the otherby readingthe Soul of the Torahout of the Garmentof Torah,the Lurianistsattemptto tranformthe Garmentby de-symbolizingthe narrative,i.e., to subsumethe beitof Bereshitin the aleph of Anochi.To de-symbolizethe text in this sense is to reversethe midrashic enterprisewhich opens the text to a pluralityof readings.The Lurianists claim to have attainedthe definitivereadingof Scriptureby havingrevealed its theosophicmeaning(also revealedat Sinai or before)48 by imposingthat which is our the exoteric biblical narrative. For the onto symbol meaning Lurianists,the two Torahshave become one, not by readingone out of the other,as may be the case for the Zohar,but by infusingthe essence (the 45. LikkuteiTorah(Vilna,1880),p. 4b. Therearemanyrabbinicparallelsto the use of the lettersaleph and beit. Cf. GenesisRabba1:4, wherethe second letter,beit, is used to create this world and the letteryod (the tenth letter)is used to createthe Worldto Come. For an alternativekabbalisticreadingwhichmay be basedon the abovepassage,see R. YizhakIsaac Haver,"Drushle ShabbatTeshuva"in 'OzrotR. YizhavIsaac Haver(Jerusalem,1990), p. 1, "Thereforethe versebegins,Bereshit[two beginnings]Godcreated... Theversebeginswith [the letter]beit to hint that the creationwas dividedinto two realms;that God createdtwo beginnings.These [two] are the two roots,one the root of goodnessandthe otherthe root of evil. Theyarethe heavenandthe earth.Theyalso lightanddarkness,the good inclinationand the evil inclination." 46. Thetwo-Torahtheoryis rabbinicin origin,althoughit is radicallyreformulated by the mystics.Cf. Avot d'RebbeNatana 15, b 29, B. TalmudShabbat31a and SifreiDeuteronomy 351, "ThusAgnitusthehegemonaskedRabbanGamlielandsaidto him:HowmanyTorotwere given to Israel?He answered:Two, one in the mouth(b 'alpeh) andone in writing(b 'chtav). For a laterversionwhich addsa midrashicelementto this discussion,see MidrashHa-Gadol, (Jerusalem,1972),Deuteronomy,p. 764. 47. Fora discussionon this,see G. Scholem,"GoodandEvil in theKabbala,"TheMystical Shapeof the Godhead(New York,1991),pp. 56-88; idem,"TheCrisisof Traditionin Jewish Messianism,"The MessianicIdea in Judaism(New York, 1971), pp. 68 ff., and P. Giller, The EnlightenedWillShine (Albany,N.Y., 1991), pp. 59-81. Scholem'sdiscussionfocuses particularlyon the way the pristineTorahof the Treeof Life is interpretedby the Sabbatean school. 48. Of course,it makesa significantdifferencewhetherthe esotericTorahwas revealedat Sinai or before.In eithercase, however,for the Lurianiststhe biblicalnarrativeserves as the symbolicmanifestationof the esoterictheosophicteaching.

52

SHAUL MAGID

esotericTorah)intoits symbolicformulation(theexotericToral-the biblical narrative).In a sense, the Lurianistsdo not readScripturebutrewriteit, as it andthus were, by de-symbolizingit in orderto completethis transformation hastenthe redemption.The processof de-symbolization beginsby accepting the Zoharas the authoritativereadingof Scripture,as the finalphasein the historyof exegesis which buildsthe cosmic meta-textby meansof reading. The Lurianickabbaliststhus begin with these two distinctnarratives:(1) the exoteric biblical narrative,which the Zohar itself calls the "Garment of Torah,"and (2) the mythic world createdby the Zohar'sreadingof the biblical narrative.The Zohar becomes the fully "revealedtext," and the The final stage of redemptivereading Torahis its symbolicrepresentation. is then to read the concealed/symbolicnarrativesolely throughthe lens of its revealedcounterpart.This process,which I have suggestedis the nature of Lurianicreading,I have called de-symbolizingwhich is reversingthe midrashicenterprise. Accordingto this formulation,thereis no longeranydiscrepancybetween peshat and sod. Even when Vital argues that they are irreconcilable,I w6uld suggest that his stance is post-polemical,for it emerges from a in whichpeshat has been overcomeby sod and subsumed Weltanschauung within it. The Bible as narrativehad alreadybeen transformedby the Zoharinto the map of cosmic process. For the Lurianiccircle, the Zohar had reconciledthe incongruitybetweenthe esotericand exotericTorahthat servedas the initialimpetusfor exegeticalkabbalism.However,themidrashic methodof the Zoharstill leaves the Bible intact,i.e., the Bible is still an open-text.Althoughits soulmayhavebeenrevealed,its garmentremains.For of Scripturehad not been completed the Lurianists,the full transformation It is contention the zoharic that Lurianicexegesis views my by program. itself as coming to completethis transformation, achievingthe final tikkun of Scriptureby "redeeming"it fromits symbolicgarb.Beforeshowinghow this takesplace in the Lurianicreadingof the sin of AdamandEve, we must become acquaintedwith some of the essentialcomponentsof the Lurianic system.

The complexityandmulti-variant natureof Lurianictheosophymakesit a difficultif not impossibletask to summarize.However,I will attemptto

ANDTHEGARDENOFEDEN LURIANIC EXEGESIS

53

brieflymap out certainkey "movementsand players"in the system which will become exegetical tools when the texts in questionturnto Scripture. These movementsand playersare the characterswhich act out the rupture of creationand its restitutionin tikkun.In orderto understandhow Lurianic kabbalasoughtto close the text by de-symbolizingit, an understanding of the cosmicmeta-textwhichachievesthisfinaltikkunmustfirstbe known.Lurianic kabbalagenerallyworks on two planes and in two modes simultaneously. Thereis a verticalplanewhich can be seen in the emanationisttheoryof the four worlds and its sephiroticcounterpart, which it adoptslargelyfrom the Zoharand earlierKabbala.However,the emanationistnatureof the vertical mode is complementedby a horizontalset of relationships,largely in the areaof yihudim,or the erotic union of the maleparzufimwith theirfemale counterparts.49The structureof parzufim,which is largelyLurianicin origin, also containsbotha verticalas well as a horizontaldimension.Overallthere are twelve parzufim,only six of which are central.Threeof the parzufim, ArikhAnpin,Abba and Imma,do not exist in all four worlds,although,as will be explainedlater,they extendto the lower worlds.5" The threehigher 49. Althoughthe sexual characterof the cosmic world is centralin the Zohar,Lurianic kabbaladevelopsthis notionmuchfurther.Theparzufimaresephiroticconstructswhich form the backboneof the Lurianicsystem. Each world containsvariousparzufim,most having male and femalecounterparts which facilitatetikkunthrougheroticintercourse(yihudim)and subsequentlyfilterdivineeffluenceintothe supernalworldbelow it. Fora morecomprehensive definition,cf. G. Scholem, Kabbala (New York, 1974), pp. 140-144, and L. Fine, "The in LurianicKabbala,"in JewishSpiritualityII ( New York, ContemplativePracticeof Yihudim 1989), pp. 64-98. See also Mevo Shearim,GateII, Part3, chap.4, pp. 13a-d,andR. Joseph Hayyim of Baghdad'sDa 'at Tevunot(Jerusalem,1965), pp. 46a ff. On the developmentof in Spanish yihudimin KabbalabeforeLuria,see MarkVerman,"TheDevelopmentof Yihudim Kabbala," Mehkarei Yerushalayim8 (1989): 25-41. 50. The parzufim of Atik Yomin(or Atika Kadisha) and Arikh Anpin are the most nuanced

andcomplexas they areenvelopedin AbbaandEmmafromAziluton down.Themostconcise introductionto theseparzufimcan be foundin OzrotHayyim(MakorHayyimed. Jerusalem), Sha'arAtik,pp. 18c-22b.Cf.EtzHayyimII Gate12, chap.5, pp. 51d ff. Thetwo lowerportions on Abba and Immaare viewed as separatecomponentscalledIsrael Saba and Tevunah.See Ozrot Hayyim, pp. 23c-24d, and Etz Hayyim I Gate 14, chap. 1. Cf. Sha 'ar Ha-Kavannot, p.

23d, whereR. HayyimVitalviews the split of AbbaandEmmain the contextof the split of ZeirAnpinto twoparzufim(IsraelandJacob)andNukvaas RachaelandLeah.Apparently,all of thepazufimwhichare solidly in Azilut(excludingAtikandArikh)havetwo components,an upperhalfanda lowerhalf. Thisis largelydueto the factthattheupperhalf servesto carrythe everflow(shefa)fromwhatis aboveit, andthe lowerhalffiltersthatshefa intowhatis belowit.

54

SHAUL MAGID

sephirotofKeter,HokhmaandBinahcorrespondlooselyto thethreeparzufim in worldswheretheseparzufimarenot present.51 Eachparzufor sephirahcontainsbothlightandvessel, bothof whichare mobile. However,and this is a centralidea in the entiresystem,the vessel can exist withoutthe light but the light cannotexist withoutthe vessel. The descent,contaminationor shrinkingof a vessel forcesits corresponding light to find anotherhome. This is usuallyaccomplishedby ascendingto a realm above where it can be contained,safe from the kelipotwhich (as we will see) threatenthe entire system.52Even when sparksof light descendwith the vessel, they cannot functionactively in any frameworkof tikkun,but remainlargelyinactiveuntil redeemedin the processof tikkun.53However, the influenceof a higherparzufon a lower spherecan be accomplishedby a thirdelement,the elementof ha 'arot,which are hints or reflectionsof light whichcan exist in the vessel of a lowersphere.Whereaslightascendsas the resultof some changein the vessel, the ha 'arahoften descends,creatinga protectivelayerin the lowerworldsagainstthe infiltrationof kelipot.54What 51. Accordingto the Lurianicmodel, the three higher sephirot (Keter,Hokhmaand Binah)are the componentswhich receivemohinfromthe realmabove and injectthathigher consciousnessintothe restof the cosmicbody.Theplaceof thesephirahDa 'at,forexample,is complexin thatit is the catalystwherethe mohinflow fromthe higherthreeto the lowerseven. Thus,in a propertransference,the five hasadimfirstflow throughDa 'at andleave a remnant of theirlight in Da 'at,whichthen servesto sweetenthe five gevurotwhenthey descend.The resultof the sin is viewed in this contextas causingthegevurotto descendthroughDa 'atfirst, thus servingas a destructiveforce nullifyingthe possibilityof completingthe tikkun.Cf. Etz HayyimII Gate25, Drush2, pp. 2c-6b, andSha'arHa-Kavannot,Drush7 of Passover(which is DrushI of SephiratHa-Omer),pp. 83d-84a,"Thedaysof theOmerarethedaysofjudgment (in the stateof smallness)descendinto the body of Zeir (dinim).Therefore,the dinim/gevurot Anpinduringthe seven weeks of the Omer.Afterward,on Shavuot,whichis the day of Matan Torah,the hasadim(whichwere still in Da 'at of ZeirAnpin)finallydescendinto the body of ZeirAnpin[andthussweetenthegevurot--myaddition]."Accordingto this reading,the realm of judgmentonly exists whenthe gevurotdescendwithoutfirstbeingaffectedby the hasadim. 52. The realm of Azilutremainsabove the power of the kelipot.Thus any light which remainsthereor ascendsto Azilutis consideredsafe. Cf. Mevo Shearim,p. 12b, "However, thereis also a birrur(clarification)in the lightsof the 288 sparkswhichdescendintothe world of Beriah with their vessels . . . But this is not the case of light which remained in Azilut.

Understandthis well andalwaysrememberit, for it is a fundamental principlein all of Azilut!" 53. The light and/orsparksare in need of mayyimdehurinfromabovewhichcan only be activatedby mayyimnukvin(frombelow) resultingfromhumanaction. 54. For an interestingrenderingof the notionof ha 'arotand reshimu(remnantof light), see R. Moshe HayyimLuzatto,"Klah"(138) PitkheiHokhma(Bnei Brak, 1992),pp. 16-17 and69.

ANDTHEGARDENOFEDEN EXEGESIS LURIANIC

55

is importantin the Lurianicschemeis not to see theparzufimas independent bodies of divine light, but to show how each parzuf is the carrierof a higherlight,filteringthathigherlightto the lowerworlds.Thisis particularly parzufimofAtik YominandArikhAnpin. importantregardingthe trans-Azilut are these higherparzufim too pureto descendinto the fourworlds Although beginningwith Azilut,it is imperativethatthey are carriedinto the realmof creationand become part of the creativeprocess of tikkunwithouthaving sufferedany damagein the ruptureresultingfromzimzum.55Thiscanbe seen in the following reasongiven to the classicalquestionas to why the Torah beginswith the letterBeit; Thefirsthead(Ha-RoshHa-Rishon)is not embodiedat all in Azilut.It (Azilut)

As a result,theTorah onlycontainsthesecondhead,theexistenceof Hokhma. hint thateventhoughthe to with "Bereshit" B-Reshit--two heads) ( begins FirstHeadin notincluded(inAzilut)andthusnotReshit,it toois includedin AzilutonlybeginswiththeSecondHead(Hokhma).56 it [increation]. The interfaceof all of the dimensionssolidifies the continuumwhich safeguardsthe entire system againstdualism.Yet, the realmof divine life aboveAzilutandthusabove creationmustalso be maintainedas a safeguard against the claim of pantheism.The above text from Sefer Ha-Likkutim continuesto readthe doubleuse of the letterAlef in et Ha-Shamayimve et Ha-Aretzto mean thatthatwhich appearsto be two (i.e., land and heaven) really both contain the One (K). Read back into the system, this reading impliesthatHokhmaandBinah,whichcorrespondto heavenandearthin the narrative,appearas fragmentsin the systembothof which emergefromthe trans-Azilutcharacterof the One. Thus, althoughthe parzufimare separate components,they functionas carriersand catalystsof a higherrealm,one which,due to its purityand sanctity,couldnot even takean activepartin the creativeprocess.Lurianicemanationismdoes not focus solely on the building of one from the other but ratherthe constructionof the lower realm as it interfaceswith the higher. The parzufimare by nature static ratherthan dynamic, althoughthe worldsandthe variouscomponentsin each worlddo indeedinteract.In fact, 55. The statusof these trans-Azilut parzufimis complex.SomeLurianictexts suggestthat the ruptureof shviratha-kelimcauseddamageeven in these higherparzufim.However,most texts suggestthat,even if they wereaffected,the damagewas minimal. 56. SeferHa-Likkutim, Zohar,tikkun5, p. 19a. p. 2a. Fora similarformulation,cf. Tikkunei

56

SHAULMAGID

interactionandinterfaceis the backboneof the entiresystem.Thisinteraction has both a verticaland a horizontalcomponent.The verticalinterfacetakes placeby the descentor ascentof a particularpartof aparzuf neverthe entire parzuf as a responseto a changein the cosmic structurebroughtaboutby The normalflow from one realmto the next is mitzvahor transgression.57 carriedby two sets of dynamicor fluid components.The firstis inherentin the natureof the system,calledthe five hesadimandthe five gevurot(zoharic in origin;see sources).Thesecomponentswhichcarrydivineeffluencefrom one worldto thenextandfromoneparzuftothenextare,in a sense,theblood of the cosmic body.The correspondingverticalflow of "masculinewaters" (mayyimdekhurin) and "feminine waters" (mayyimnukvin) flow between the

supernalworld and our world.The latterarousesthe descentof the former by its elevation,which is the consequenceof cosmic sexualunion (yihud). This union, which is facilitatedby prayerand the performanceof mitzvot, elevates the mayyimnukvin,which then initiatethe descentof the mayyim dekhurin from above.

The overarchingconceptin Lurianickabbalais the notionof yihudim,or sexual unions, throughwhich divine effluenceis transferredfrom the male to the female.Afterthe properperiodof gestation,this effluenceemerges(is born)and facilitatestikkun.Lurianickabbalahas an impressivelyoptimistic The past, i.e., that which was damagedor vision of history and nature."5 for reenters the womb a periodof gestationandemergesrevived, blemished, strongerthanit hadbeen priorto the damage.Unionhappensbothvertically 57. Therearethreetermsin Lurianickabbalato determinedamagein the cosmos,blemish (p 'gam),nullification(bitul),and death(mitah).Blemishandnullificationusuallyreferto the downwardmovementof a partof a parzufwhichnonethelessremainsin its indigenousworld, usuallyin Azilut.Deathoccurswhenan elementdescendsinto a lowerworld.It is thusunable to be retrievedwithoutthe processof humanaction.For example,the termused for the effect of the rising kelipot in Keter is blemish (p 'gam), in Abba and Emma it is nullification (bitul) and in Zeir Anpin and Nukva it is death (mitah). Cf. Mevo Shearim, Gate II, Part I, chap. 4, p.

7a-b. 58. See G. Scholem,DevarimbeGo,vol. 1 (TelAviv, 1976),"Afterthe Exile FromSpain" [Hebrew],pp. 262-270; E. R. Wolfson,"FromSealed Book to Open Text:Time, Memory and Narrative in Kabbalistic Hermeneutics," in InterpretingJudaimfor a Postmodern Age, ed.

Steven Kepnes(New York, 1996), pp. 145-178; and Moshe Idel, "Kabbalahon History:A presentedat the conference"JewishAttitudesTowardandConceptions Varietyof Approaches," of History,"HarvardUniversityCenterfor Jewish Studies,October4 and 5, 1994. But see Tishby,"GnosticDoctrines,"pp. 151-152, wherehe suggeststhatLurianickabbalais, in many respects,morepessimisticthanthe ancientgnosticdoctrinesit resembles.

LURIANICEXEGESISAND THE GARDEN OF EDEN

57

and horizontally.The horizontalunion reflectsthe sexual act. The vertical union of inter-parzufianinterfacemirrorsthe union of parentand child, where a certaindimensionof divine effluenceis transferredverticallyfrom one realm to another.In both cases, union is the sourcenot only of tikkun but of shevirahas well. This happensessentiallyfor two reasons.In the case of the horizontalsexual union, damageoccurs from the change in position of the partnersin the act of union. When not in a state of union,parzufim standbackto backas to protecteach otherfromthe kelipot,for the backside of each cosmic componentis that which is most susceptibleto the kelipot. Sexualunion,however,is itself predicatedon vulnerability.Paradoxically,in Lurianickabbalathe transmissionof influencefromany realmto thatwhich is below it can only take place in a state of its nakedness(m'guleh). As long as any parzuf is embodiedor enveloped,it is inaccessibleas well as not vulnerableto any destructiveforces. Thus the consciousnessof Abba, which descends to Zeir Anpin, enveloped in Imma, cannot complete the constructionof ZeirAnpinthusnecessitatingthe activityof AdamandEve.59 Anothercritical element here, one which will be pivotal in the Lurianic readingof the firstsin, is time. Timefunctionsas a naturalprocessof tikkun, creating"safehavens,"as it were, for the interfaceof parzufim.Sin is largely the result of miscalculation,desire being the elementwhich challengesthe constructiverole of time. If the kelipot have not been adequatelypurified or theparzufimadequatelystrengthened,the kelipotwill attackthe exposed back of the parzuf duringthe face-to-faceencounterof sexual union and subsequentlybecome empoweredby the holiness it would receive from its attachmentto thatparzuf Thus, as the parzuf, throughunion, attemptsto createand extendtikkundownward,the kelipotseek to ascendandto extend the damageof shevirahupward.In its naturalstatethe cosmicworldcontains the staticdimensionof the worldsand the parzufimalong with the dynamic dimensionof hasadimand gevurot,mayyimnukvinand mayyimdakhurin, each set carryingthe necessary componentsof tikkunto their respective destinations.The mobility of the parzufimthemselves,manifest as either blemish, nullificationor death, is the sign of cosmic dysfunctionresulting fromtransgression,exposingelementsof the divineworldwhich are preyed uponby the kelipot. As noted earlier,althoughthe Lurianicsystem is orientedtowardthe delineationof a cosmic map, its symbolic constructshouldnot be seen as 59. See Sha'arHa-Pesukim,p. 4b-c.

SHAUL MAGID

58

divorcedfrom humanparticipationand experience.As opposedto various formsof ecstatickabbalawhich abandonedthe symbolicsystemin favorof a directexperienceof the divinerealm,I believe thatthe Lurianickabbalists use the symbolicsystemas a conduitfor mysticalexperience.The fluidparts of the system(mayyimnukvinandmayyimdekhurin)flow freelybetweenthe divine realm and the mundaneworld. YehudahLiebes has recentlyargued thatthedirectencounterwiththe divinerealmin Lurianickabbalapointsto its mythicratherthansymboliccharacter.Althoughthis may be the case, I have chosento retainthe symbolicstructure,using the ciphermodel suggestedby KarlJaspers,whichviews the symbolas the vehiclefor the experienceof the of thatwhichis beyondhuman transcendentandnot merelya representation experience.60

III The above synopsisonly refersto the centralconceptswhich will come into play when we turnto the biblicalstoryof AdamandEve. As is the way of Lurianickabbala,at least in its Vitalianpresentation,each componentand conceptcontainsendlessdetails,so thatany attemptto offera comprehensive overview is by definitionflawed. As we will presentlysee, the Lurianic exegetes begin theirreadingof Scripturewithin its full-blownmeta-textual cosmic system.No attemptsaremadeto verifycomponentsof thatsystemby meansof readingScripture.It is this unabashedconfidencein the authority of its theosophicsystem which suggeststhat Lurianickabbala,built on an of the Zoharas the sole exegeticalauthority,movesbeyondthe understanding it turns to redeemScripturefromits statusas a garment,embodying Zoharas the soul of the soul of Torah;the Torahof the messiah. The mechanicsmentionedabove also relateprimarilyto the natureof the world and its relationto the cosmos afterthe Sin. Lurianickabbalasees cosmic history in three phases. The first phase of the process of creation is the initial emanationand rupturein the form of zimzumand shevirah. Thisyieldeda flawedcreationthatshouldhavebeen rectifiedduringthe first week of Creation.The secondphase is introducedby the sin in the Garden of Eden,an act which transformedthe alreadydeficientcreationby causing dysfunctionin the cosmos. The damagecausedby this event surpassedthe 60. See above, n. 27.

ANDTHEGARDENOFEDEN EXEGESIS LURIANIC

59

fragmentationresultingfrom the zimzum,for it could no longerbe restored by means of a naturalprocess.61 The differencebetween Creation1 (the firstweek-before the sin) and Creation2 (ourworld)is thatthe processof restitutionor tikkunin Creation1 was woven into the fabricof natureitself. The unfoldingof the creativeprocessas it is depictedin the firstchapterof Genesiswas a processof tikkunwhich,hadAdamandEve not sinned,would have culminatedon the first Shabbat.The second stage of transformation, the firstSin, moved the worldto a statewhereit couldno longerproceedon of this transformative the pathof tikkunnaturally.Humanity,the perpetrators act, becamethe essentialcomponentin undoingthe naturalstateof tikkunby meansof the six days of Creationandits culminationin Shabbat.62 One very the distinction between shevirah and sin is the of important telling example Lurianicresponseto the classic questionof how Adam,beforethe Sin, could have had the desire (YezerHa-Ra) to eat from the tree. This is addressed by makinga fundamentaldistinctionbetweentwo formsof the demonicin Lurianiccosmology: Dinim, and Kelipot, and their companionwithin the humanbeing, the YezerHa-Ra. Know:Before the sin of Adamtherewas no YezerHa-RaandKelipahin the world, only Dinim which emergedas the result of SheviratHa-Kelim.The Dinim found that the body of the serpentwas preparedto house them after they departedfrom Zeir Anpin . .. and descendedbelow. They did not find anyplaceto restuntilthe emergenceof the serpent,who was willingto receive them, as it is written in Etz Hayyim ... Those powers of Dinim were connected

to ZeirAnpinandNukvain orderto be purifiedand sanctified.They departed (as the resultof the shevirah),were sent downwardand only founda place of restin this serpent.It was the resultof theseDinimthatthe serpentwasjealous of Adambecauseof Eve andplacedpoisonin herafterwhichshe ate fromthe tree.. .63

61. For more on this, see Tishby,ToratHa-Rave Ha-Kelipah,p. 91, "Thestartingpoint of the changeswhich occurredin the first sin must be understoodunderthe assumptionthat the firstdamagein the Life of God was not causedby man but beforeit and even beforehe was created."I agreewith Tishby'scontentionhere andonly wantto elaboratethatLurianists want to drawa strongconnectionbetweenthe zimzumto which Tishbyrefersand the sin, a connectionwhich Tishbyimpliesbutneverfully develops. 62. See EtzHayyimI, Gate36, chap. 1, p. 45d. 4a. 63. SeferHa-Likkutim

60

SHAULMAGID

Here we are introducedto the directrelationshipbetweenthe shevirah the Lurianicreadingof Genesis and the sin which is vital in understanding the distinction between three is made elementsof evil, only one of First, 3.64 which (Dinim)existed before the sin as the resultof the shevirah.Kelipot, the post-sin form of evil externalto man as well as the YezerHa-Ra, evil that is within man as the result of the sin, were both activatedby the sin itself.65However,a moreprovocativesuggestionis madehere.It appearsfrom this text and othersupportingmaterialthatthe serpent'sevil natureresulted fromthe Dinim which founda restingplace in him. TheseDinimcame into existenceas the resultof the shevirah,which occuredbeforethe creationof the Garden.Shevirahresultedin sendingthe five gevurotawayfromkedusah, thusyieldingDinim.Wearenot privyhereto the natureof the serpentbefore thatmoment,nor do we know whatmadethe serpentfit to shelterthe Dinim. The importantnotion here is thatthe possibilityof the sin is a directresult of the shevirah,which caused the separationof Nukvafrom Zeir and sent the Dinimto rest in the body of the serpent.The entirenotionof Dinimhere of Nukvawhen she is no longerprotectedby her male is the transformation As we will see below, this processrepeatsitself as the result counterpart.66 64. Scholemalludesto this importantconnectionwhen he says, "Accordingto Lurianic Kabbalah,it is true,the breachdid not originatewith man,butwas inherentin the structureof divinebeing (andhenceto an immeasurably greaterdegreein the structureof createdbeing)." Cf. "Tradition andCreationin the Ritualof the Kabbalists,"p. 127. Buberalso understoodthe significanceof this point in Lurianickabbalawhen he said, "Inthe historyof man the history of the worldrepeatsitself. Thatwhich has becomefree overreachesitself. The 'Fall into Sin' correspondsto the 'Breakingof the Vessels.' Both are signs of the necessaryway."See his "SpiritandBody of the HasidicMovement,"TheOriginandMeaningofHasidism(Princeton, N.J., 1988), p. 123. Althoughboth Scholemand Bubernever fully developedthis point, it is how thezimzumandsheviraharethe groundwork forAdamandEve's pivotalin understanding sin. 65. This phenomenonin Lurianickabbalawas noted by MartinBuber when he said, "Latekabbalisticteaching,within the frameworkof which hasidismdeveloped,removesthe penetrationof evil backintothe eventof creationitself.Thefire-streamof creativegracepours itself out in its fullness over the first primalshapes,the 'vessels'; but they do not withstand it, they 'breakin pieces'--the streamshowersan infinityof 'sparks',the 'shells' grow around them,the lack, the uncleanness,the evil has come into the world."Buberuses this imageto suggestthatfor the kabbalistsandthe hasidim,it was not man alonewho neededredemption buttheworldas well. Cf. M. Buber,"Spinoza,SabbataiZvi, andthe Baal-Shem,"in TheOrigin andMeaningof Hasidism(Princeton,N.J., 1960)p. 101. 66. She is protectedby being attachedto her malepartner.Thus,beforethe Sin, the world of Asiah is called Nukvaof Yesirah.Her independenceis the sign of her vulnerability.It is interestingto note thatthe tikkunservesas the reversalof this independence.Afterthe tikkun,

ANDTHEGARDENOFEDEN EXEGESIS LURIANIC

61

of the sin. The Dinimin the serpentcouldnot surviveindependentlybecause they needed to be fed by the divine element (kedusha)in Adam. Hence, they rested in the serpentbut could not thrive and influencethe creation. In a sense, Adam, by eating from the tree, reversedthe resultof shevirah. UnlesstheseDinimcouldbe somehowreunitedwiththeirdivinesource,they would remainstagnantand inactive.By ingestingthe fruit,Adam and Eve ingestedthe Dinim, empoweringthem,as it were, and allowingthemto act as an independententity.The result of the sin was the transferenceof the Dinim from the serpentthroughEve and then into Adam,wherethey were empowered.67The natureof the Yezerha-Raandthe Kelipotareactiveforms of the Dinimonce they are ingestedinto AdamandEve.68 Seeing how much the shevirah(which has no precedentin the biblical narrative)is integralto thenotionof sin in Genesis,it is no surprisethatalmost every Lurianictext, exegeticalor not, begins by describingthe zimzumand shevirah,bothof whichoccurredbeforeGenesis1:1.Withoutthis, according The natureof to the Lurianists,the entireTorahremainsincomprehensible. sod here carriesa differentnuancefrom that which is suggestedby those who have writtenaboutzoharichermeneutics.For the Lurianists,a proper understandingof the true meaningof Torahrequiresthe knowledgeof an event thatnot only takes place beforeGenesis 1:1 but is in no way implied in the narrativeitself. There can be no exegetical methodto uncoveran event which occurs before the adventof the text itself! As far as I know, the Lurianictexts do not even attemptto offer any exegeticaltools to get at zimzum.Yet whatis impliedhere is thatwithoutzimzum,the serpent,the sin andsubsequentlythe entireTorahcanneverbe de-symbolizedandthusnever fully revealed.Thus Lurianickabbalabegins with the event beforeGenesis 1:1, i.e., zimzumandshevirah,andpicks up againdescribingthe sin andthe she is called ateretba 'alah. The word crown(ateret)is not used here to imply the headbut ratherthe final adornment.Thus the sephirahmalkhutis often called ateretyesod. Whatis implied is that she becomes subsumedin her male partner,losing her statusas a separate component. 67. See EtzHayyimII, Gate34, chap.2, Principle17, p. 47a. 68. Whatis impliedhereis thattheunion(yihud)of AdamandEve (whichwas, in essence, the sin itself) was necessaryto empowerthe dinim,which remainedinactiveas long as they were not in contactwith humanbeings. However,whereasEve ingestedthe dinim,or as the Lurianicexegetes would have it, was inseminatedby the serpent,she alone did not have the creativeforce to empowerthem. This only occurredas the resultof her sexual union with Adam.

62

SHAULMAGID

banishmentfromthe Garden.In a sense, the entirenarrativeof the six days of creationin Genesis 1:1-31 serves largelyto presentthe orderof nature whichwas the processof tikkun,a processabortedas the resultof the Sin. It is thus not surprisingthatLurianictexts which deal primarilywith exegesis spendfar less time on Genesis 1 thando othercommentaries.Forthem,the beginningof the process is zimzum,which is not exegesis at all, since it occurspriorto Genesis 1:1 and continueswith Adam,Eve and the serpent, the threeagentsof the secondprocessof creation.Theremainderof Scripture mapsout the processof tikkunas it unfoldsin Genesis,the dramaof human civilization,and subsequentlythe Jewishpeople. Followingthis line of thinking,the Jewishpeoplewere presentedwith a symbolicrenditionof this map of tikkunin the formof Scripture.However, many classical kabbalistictexts suggest that the meaningof the symbolic i.e., the doctrineof Kabbala,was a traditionthatpredicated representation, back eitherto Abraham,Enochor Adam.69 Sinai,going Therefore,according to somekabbalistictheories,the Kabbalais not like the OralLaw,whichwas traditionallyunderstoodas being revealedconcomitantlywith the Written Law.Rather,the entireRevelationwas the symbolicencodingof the ancient esoteric traditionof tikkun.Whateverwe may conclude from a historical perspective,phenomenologicallymany Kabbalists,the Lurianistsincluded, workedunderthe assumptionthattheirteachingprecededthe Torahas we know it and believed that the Pentateuchwas its symbolicrepresentation. Whenthey turnto exegesis, theirintentis to de-symbolizeScripturein order to revealits truenatureandthusfinalizethe processof tikkunby enlightening the garment,as it were, andthusrenderingthe garmentas symbol,obsolete.

IV The natureof Lurianicreadingis subtlein at least two ways. Differing from classicalmidrash,includingthe Zohar,the Lurianistsdo not begin by explicitlyaskingexegeticalquestions.Thatis, they do not beginwith a verse 69. See, for example,in R. MeirIbnGabbai'sAvodatHa-Kodesh(Jerusalem,1973),p. 77, andR. AbrahamIsaacof Granada(?),BritMeukha(Jerusalem,1958/59),pp. 2a-b. Vitalargues in his Introduction to Sha'arHa-Hakdamot thatLuriareceiveda directrevelationfromElijah which hadnot beeen transmittedin full since Nahmanides.Hence,he warnsagainststudying frompreviouskabbalisticsources(excludingNahmanides)to avoid confusion.The Zoharis, of course,consideredthe productof R. ShimonbarYohai.

ANDTHEGARDENOFEDEN LURIANIC EXEGESIS

63

or a phraseandthenpointouttheproblemswhicharisefromthatverseor phrase.However,as we will see, theirquestionsaresimilarto thoseasked textsin onewayanddifferent in another. As we arguedabove, by midrashic to de-symbolize the Torah.In doingso they are attempting the Lurianists thateverything in its presentformneeds appearto beginwiththeassumption Thereis nopeshatorclarityin anydimension of thenarrative. interpretation. need to in do not out difficulties the Therefore, point they waythatmidrashists their is that because unclear. is, by definition, do, Yet, assumption everything we see thatLurianicexegetesdo addressissueswhichalso appearto the as problematic. midrashists As statedabove, Wemaybeginwiththeunderlying purposeof creation. readGenesis1:1asaneventwhichwaspreceded theLurianists bytherupture of the vesselsresultingfromzimzumandsheviratha-kelim.Followingthe the Lurianistsacceptthatthe centerof normativeline of interpretation, whocan,throughfreewill,repairthe creationis thecreationof humankind, it to and its fruition.70 world thisquestion unfoldsin However, bring damaged mannerby introducing one of themostcontroversial a theosophic concepts in kabbalisticthought:the existenceand statusof the sephirahKeter.7' to thethreetextswe will discuss,theentiretikkun of according Surprisingly, inthecompletion beforethesinis subsumed of thehighestdimension creation (keter)of thelowestcomponent (nukva)of ZeirAnpinin thelowestworldof As we statedearlier,theinterface betweenparzufim embodiesthe Yesirah.72 70. The notion of zimzumas the distancingof God from creationis viewed by many kabbalistsas the foundationof free will. Cf. R. YizhakIsaac Haver'sPithei Shearim(Tel Aviv, 1989), pp. 4a-b. Haver,a studentof the Gaon of Vilna and the kabbalisticschool of R. MenahemMendelof Sklov,appearsto readthe zimzumas literalratherthanmetaphorical. Haver'sposition on zimzumis largelyan adaptationof R. Moses HayyimLuzatto.See his Kelah(138) PitheiHokhma(BneiBrak,1992),especiallynos. 24, 25, 26, pp. 59-72. Theearly Hasidicrendering,whichsoughtto stressthe immanenceof GodratherthanHis transcendence, opts for a moremetaphoricalreadingof zimzum.This would excludeR. Nahmanof Bratzlav, who also renderszimzumin a literalfashion.See his LikkuteiMoHaRan(Jerusalem,1976) 1:64andII:12. Formoreon this, see TamarRoss, "TwoInterpretations of Zimzum:R. Hayyim of Volozhinand R. SchneurZalmanof Liady"[Hebrew],MehkareiYerushalayim 2 (1982): 153-169. 71. On this, see Moshe Idel, "On the Conceptof Zimzumin Kabbalaand Research" [Hebrew], Mekharei Yerushalayim 10 (1992): 59-103.

72. It is not at all clear whetherwe are speakingof Keter of Nukvaor Zeir Anpinof Yesirahof the entire Nukva of Zeir Anpin. In Sha'ar Mamrei Rashbi (Jerusalem, 1991), parshat

kedoshim,p. 36b, we have the followingdescription,"YoualreadyknowthatNukvaof Azilut is called the Gardenof Edenand only his [Adam's]throat[garon]was in the Garden.Below

64

SHAULMAGID

entirefabricof a coordinatecosmicworld.TheLurianicassumption,whichis now usedto answerthe questionas to why humankindwas created,is thatan essentialdimensionof the consiousnessof parzufAbbacouldnot decendto complete the construction of Keter of Nukva of Zeir Anpin. The completion

of this tikkunhad to include a descent into the netherworld(the world of Asiah below Yesirah)to upliftthe mayyimnukvinwhich existedthereas the resultof the shevirah.It was only AdamandEve who, as the lowest partof the cosmic world,could accomplishthis. The seven kings [who died] areten, which is like the seven palaceswhichare really ten. The upperpalace embodiesthree,and the lower palaceembodies two, as was explained.Afterward,whenZeirAnpinandits Malkhutarepurified ...

the portion attributed to Malkhut will be purified and repaired. Behold:

Malkhutwill still remain"backto back."The reasonis that the otherparts above did not requirethe actions of humanbeings but could be repaired throughthoughtalone. But the sod of the mayyimnukvinof Malkhutneeds humanaction,since it is in the depthsof kelipot,the secretof Asiahwhich is the secretof Malkhutand harshDinim. It is therethatthe kelipotare rooted. The mayyimnukvincould not be repaireduntil Adamcame and, throughhis actionsand prayers,sifted the thornsfromthe vineyard.Throughhim all the mayyim nukvin was elevated.73

InthistexttheworldofAsiah (action)is theplacewhereonlyactionrather thanthoughtcanupliftandrepairthe damageof the Sin andtheshevirah.For this reason,the Lurianistsmaintain,the bodiesof AdamandEve (thepartof

that [i.e., the rest of his body] was outsidethe Gardenin this way. His entirebody was in the lowersephirotof Yesirahand the firstfour sephirotof Asiah."However,as we will see later, the worldof Asiahbeforethe sin was calledMalkhut(Nukva)of Yesirah.whichseparatedfrom Yesirah(its male partner)as the resultof the sin. The importanceof Adam'salreadybeing in Asiah, even thoughit had yet to descendinto the kelipot,is thathe had to be rootedin that worldin orderto be able to functionthereafterthe sin. See also the differentdescriptionsof this realmin Sha'arHa-Pesukim,p. Id [middle]andSha'arHa-Likkutim, p. 9a. 73. SeferHa-Likkutim, p. 51 bottom.In this text I intentionallytranslatedthe term(birrur) in a numberof ways. I used either "purified,""cleansed,""sifted"or "elevated."In truth the termencompassesall four meanings.I used them interchangeably dependingon what I determinedbest representedthe meaningof its usage in thatparticularcontext.For Scholem's andNew Creationin the Ritualof of birrurin Lurianickabbala,cf. "Tradition understanding the Kabbalists,"On theKabbalaandIts Symbolism(New York,1965),p. 129.

ANDTHEGARDENOFEDEN EXEGESIS LURIANIC

65

in themwhichacts)mustbe rootedoutsidetheGarden(i.e.,belowYesirah) theirtask. orderto accomplish ofZeirAnpinandNukva) TheunionofAbbaandIma(thesupernal parents as the resultof the shevirah,andthusthe consciousness was interrupted (mohin)of Abba which is embodiedin the womb of Immacould not reachits final destination.74 The six days of creationare viewedas a afterwhichthe unioncouldhavebeenresumed, processof strengthening via theproper the consciousness missingcouldhavereachedits destination andcreationmightthushavereachedits conclusion. interface, how the exile fromthe Gardenis in some to understand In attempting the the for a sin, Lurianic readingagainbeginsin a purely way punishment before theSinwascomprised The world of three manner. cosmic theosophic considered and was Beriah four andnot Yesirah, Nukva worlds,Azilut, (Asiah butis imposed Thefirstworldis notreadoutof thenarrative, of Yesirah). aredrawn on it. The termsfor the two lowerworlds,Beriahand Yezirah to describethecreativeactandtransformed fromtheverbsusedin Scripture intopropernouns.The missingworldof Asiah(actionas an independent entity)playsa crucialrolein the Lurianicsolutionto the exile fromEden. The questionas to whetherEdenwas a physicalpartof creationis never FortheLurianists, Asiahas takenseriouslyamongtheLurianickabbalists. anindependent entityemergedas theresultof thesin.It is theworldoutside It is exile-andpunishment Eden,the Gardenbeingthe worldof Yezirah.75 AdamandEvearecalled becauseAdamandEvewerecreatedin Yezirah.76 to denotethattheystandon thecosmicborder,as it were, Nukvaof Yezirah

74. The reasonthatAbbacouldnot integrateintothe consciousnessof ZeirAnpinwas that it neededto enterthe middle channelof Zeir, throughDa 'at, Tiferet,Yesod.This could not be done becauseImma(who carriedAbbawithinher)was only embodiedby the firstthirdof Tiferetof Zeir. Below that she would be exposedandthus be vulnerableto the Dinimwhich resultedfromthe shevirah.ThusAbbaremainedinsideImmauntilthe sin thatresultedin the artificaland ill-timedexposureof Abbato the Dinim,which causedthe descentof Asiah from its place as Nukvaof Yesirahto the depthsof the kelipot. 75. In LikkuteiTorah,p. 13b, it is calledNukvaof Azilut. 76. Note in the text from Sha'ar MamreiRashbi,p. 36d, quotedabove that they were createdin YezeriahandAsiah, althoughthe text in questiondoes not mentionAsiahuntilafter the sin. This is probablydue to the factmentionedabovethatAsiahwas Nukvaof Yezeriah(or, in some texts,Azilut)andthus not independentuntilafterthe sin.

66

SHAULMAGID

and are thus the only dimensionsin Yezirahwhich are directlysuseptibleto the sourceof Dinimwhichresultedfromthe rupture.77 The world of Asiah beforethe Sin is called Nukvaof Yesirah,denoting thatit is not an independententityandis sustainedby its male counterpart.78 Thus, even as Adam and Eve are bornin the world of Asiah (while it was still a partof Yesirah),it is still not a worldwhichis embeddedin the kelipot and is thus not called exile.79 The sin results in a comprehensivecosmic shiftdownward,beginningwith the separationof Nukvaof Yesirahfromthe body of Yesirah,makingit into the independentworldof Asiah.80Adamand Eve, whose birthplaceis in thatvery realm,descendwith it and thus leave the Gardenof Eden.81More accurately,the Gardendisappearsonce Nukva 77. It is also significantthatthe serpent(calledin EtzHayyim,Shadai)was also rootedin this realmandthusservedto housethe Dinim.Cf. EtzHayyimII, p. 47a. 78. The notionhere thatAsiah (malkhut,the feminine)is independentonly as a resultof the sin andthatthe femininewill be subsumedin the male afterthe tikkunreflectsa trendin earlierkabbala.Thishas recentlybeen arguedby Wolfsonin his study,"Women---Feminine as Otherin TheosophicalKabbala:Some PhilosophicalObservationson the DivineAndrogyne," in The Other in Jewish History and Thought, ed. L. J. Silberstein and R. L. Cohn (New York,

1994), pp. 166-204. Wolfsonarguesthat in medievaltheosophickabbala,the ideal state is whenthe femaleis integratedintothe male,and"inthemomentof union,[thefemale]is turned aroundso that she standsface to face with the masculineattributeof mercy.In this regard, however,her othernessis effaced as she becomes reintegratedinto the male"(p. 190). The Lurianistshave a slighly differentlocutionin thatbothmale and femaleare equally"backto back"and simultaneouslyturntowardeachotherin union.However,I thinkWolfson'stheory holds up in the Lurianicrenderingin the case thatNukvaof Yesirahis an appendageof the male Yesirahandonly independentas the resultof sin. Thus,the independenceof the feminine in this case is not desirednor is it permanent.For a furtherdiscussionof this in medieval theosophickabbala,see Wolfson,"Erasingthe Erasure:Genderandthe Writingof God'sBody in Kabbalistic Symbolism," in idem Circle in the Square: Studies in the Use of Gender in

KabbalisticSymbolism(Albany,N.Y., 1995), pp. 49-78. I would like to thankProf.Wolfson for providingme with the manuscriptbeforeits publication. 79. See LikkuteiTorah,p. 13b, whereAdam'sbody partsare decribedas encompassing Eretz Yisrael (Yesirah), Babylonia and "faraway lands." Cf. Sha 'ar Mamrei Rashbi, p. 37b, on

the talmudicstatementin Sanhedrin38b thatmost of Adamwas bornin EretzYisraelbut his buttockswere fromoutside(Hutz1'Aretz). 80. This somewhatreflectsthe stanceof the Bahir,wherethe femaleis a partof the male bodyof Adam.Cf. SeferHa-Bahir,ed. R. Margaliot(Jerusalem,1978),pars 168 and 172. 81. The biblicalGardenof Edenis dividedinto two theosophicalrealms,the uppergarden and the lower garden.The uppergardenembodiesthe world of Beriah (more specifically yesod of Beriah) and the lower gardenis malkhutof Asiah. Thesetwo realmsare centralin the Lurianicnocturnalritualof tikkunhazot. Cf. Pri Etz Hayyim,pp. 81d-82b, R. Ya'akov ed.),p. 12, andR. EmmanuelHaiRikki,Mishnat HayyimZemah,Nagidu Mitzvah(Parmeshlan

ANDTHEGARDENOFEDEN EXEGESIS LURIANIC

67

of Yesirahbecomes an independentfeminineentitycut away fromher male Thisreadingof the exile fromEdenin Genesis2 froma theosophical partner.82 perspectiveyields a frameworkwith which to understandthe transformation of creationand the challengeof humanityin its "BraveNew World."The Lurianistsdo not offer a midrashistunderstandingof the narrativein this particularreadingbut ratherde-symbolizethe narrativeby infusingit with theosophicalmeaning.Thatis, the biblicalnarrativeis understoodonly as a of the cosmic map. The essence behindthe symbol symbolicrepresentation becomes illuminedas the Lurianicexegetes read the narrativethroughthe prismof theircosmic world. The paradoxicalnatureof humanity,standingbetweenheavenand earth, as it were, is the sourceof manydiscussionsamongkabbalists,philosophers, andmidrashistswho derivetheirworld-viewfromtheirreadingof Scripture. TheLurianistsareno different,althoughtheyonly use Scriptureto illuminate the problem(in a symbolicway) and then proceedto "reveal"the paradox as it unfolds in their theosophicworld-view.This next text, a classic case in Lurianicproblem-solving,addressesthe questionof the paradoxof the cosmicrootof AdamandEve andthe reasonwhy they representthe pivot of creationandthe sourceof its demise. Therefore[as the resultof the rupture]Zeir Anpinand Nukvawere back to back. If they were face to face, the kelippotwould have grabbedonto their backs. The mayyimnukvin[thatwhich is elevatedas the resultof the sexual act] wouldhave been elevatedas the resultof the strengthof the dinim,which wouldhave takenwith themthe kelippotas wel.1... However,for ZeirAnpin

andNukvato unifyandthusgivebirthto Adam,theyhadto be faceto face, . . . Whatdid they yet this was impossible[forthe reasonjust explained]. do ...

they passed on their mayyim nukvin to their respective malkuiot [the

lowestportionof eachparzufwhichhasno activeelementandthusremains androsetotheirpalaces[therootof theirexistence, i.e.,theplaceof stationary] theparzufim AbbaandImma].Theyroseto theirchuppahin thepalaceof Abba Hasidism(Jerusalem,1985), pp. 67b-70a. Cf. my "ConjugalUnion, Mourningand Talmud Torahin R. IsaacLuria'sTikkunHazot,"Da at 36 (1995):xvii-xlv. 82. This is touchedupon by YoramJakobsonin "TheAspectof the Femininein Lurianic Kabbala,"in GershomScholem s "MajorTrends":50 YearsAfter (Tubingen,1994), pp. 239-255. However,I thinkthat Jakobsondid not adequatelyaddressthe fact that, fromour texts, the independentstaus of the female only emergesas the resultof the sin, even though Eve was createdbeforethe sin.

68

SHAULMAGID and Imma, where the kelipot have no power. There they united [face to face], as it is said, "And the Lord God fashioned the rib [zelah]" (Genesis 2:22).83This whole episode can be understood with the introduction [just explained].84.. Behold, before the birth of Adam and Eve the mayyim nukvin of malkhut [of Zeir and Nukva] were not sufficiently pure. Therefore the mayyim nukvin of Binah were used for the union in the palace of Abba and Imma. .... However, as a result [of the use of that higher mayyim nukvin], Adam and Eve would have emerged too pure and elevated [and thus unable to perform the tikkunin the kelipot below Yesirah].Therefore, Zeir Anpin and Nukva had to descend to their original place in order to bring down the souls that would be Adam and Eve [and thus humanity]. As a result, they had to return back to back to give birth to Adam and Eve. This is what it means when we say that the souls of Adam and Eve emerged from Zeir Anpin and Nukva back to back. If they were able to generate Adam and Eve face to face [in the palace of Adam and Eve], Adam and Eve would have emerged complete and all of the worlds would have been perfected... 85

83. See also Sha'ar Ha-Pesukim,p. 4a; Sha'ar Ha-Kavannot,Drush Rosh Ha-Shana1, p. 91; and 'Olat Tamid(Jerusalem,n.d.), "DrushRosh Ha-Shana."This verse is also used to describethe need for sexualunion and the recitationof tikkunhazot only aftermidnight. Adam'ssleep is understoodas the elevationof his consciousnessto theparzufof ArikhAnpin in orderto createEve. Cf. Pri EtzHayyim,p. 81c, andSha'arHa-Kavannot, p. 52a.Foranother of this versewhich introducesthe two wives of Adam(LilithandEve), the first interpretation basar(flesh-Eve and ezem(bone-Lilith andLeah)andthe secondrepresenting representing 61a. The correlation between the two wives of Gate see Etz 2, 39, chap. p. Rachel), Hayyim, Adamandthe two wives of Jacobis an importantmotifin Lurianicreading.Cf. ibid. 60d and EtzHayyim,Sha'arHa-Kelallim,chap. 13. For earlierconceptionsof Lillith,see JosephDan, "Samael,Lilith,andthe Conceptof Evil in EarlyKabbala,"reprintedin EssentialPapers on Kabbala,ed. L. Fine (New York,1995),pp. 154-178. 84. The sleep which Adamexperienced(Genesis2:21) is readby the Lurianiststo mean thatAdamwas, in a sense, re-createdin the palaceof AbbaandImmaconcomitantwith Eve. 85. For otherreadingssimilarto this, cf. Etz HayyimII Gate36, chap.4, Gate39, chap. 1, Sha'arMamreiHazal, Sha'arHa-Kelipot,chap.3, andthe importantdiscussionin Sha'ar Ha-Kavannot, pp. 57b-58a. Thedistinctionbetweenthe temporalunionof ZeirandNukvaand the continuousunion of Abba andImma(in thatthey are above the powerof the kelipot)is highlynuanced.Cf. Sha'arHa-Kavannot,"DrushLayla3,"pp. 53a-b, wherethisdistinctionis seen throughthe eveningprayerservice(ma'ariv)."Whenthe Templeexisted,the upperunion [AbbaandImma]was "face to face" in orderto bringforthnew souls. After its destruction, to bringforthnew souls 'backto back.' ourprayerscan only [reinstatethatunion]temporarily Therefore,we say the Shemaprayerduringthe eveningprayerto unify AbbaandImmaand throughthatunionunifyZeirAnpinandNukva.Afterward,duringthe EighteenBenedictions, theirchildren[i.e., ZeirAnpinandNukva]areunified,as is known."

ANDTHEGARDENOFEDEN EXEGESIS LURIANIC

69

This descriptiveanalysis, couched in the complexjargon of Lurianic theosophy,implicitly offers an explanationfor the paradoxicalnatureof humanity,which is rooted in the mysteryof the birth of Adam and Eve. AdamandEve neededsimultaneouslyto containthe sanctityof divinityand to be able to descend and elevate the sparksof holiness embeddedin the shardsof creationresultingfromsheviratha-kelim.Thisis a classickabbalistic formulationdeveloped,amongotherplaces,in the Zohar.Herethe paradoxis readintothenatureof theirbirth.It is not insignificantthatthebirthformulais usedthroughout,even as thebiblicalnarrativeonly uses the term"formation" (yesirah).While non-kabbalisticexegetes may feel uneasy aboutusing the terminologyof birth to describecreation,which implies two parents,the Lurianistsare not botheredby the apparentlydualisticimplications.86 From their perspective,the very languageof the Torah'sopening verse, which beginswith a beit ratherthanan aleph,justifiesa dualisticontology.87 The Lurianiccontributionto the zoharic reading is that humanity's paradoxicalstatusis perchedbetweenthe fruitof the cosmic sexual union and gestationwhich producedhumankind.The union and conceptiontook place in an unnaturalrealm(thepalaceof AbbaandImma).In orderto avoid the destructiveelement of the kelipot, the birthtook place in the proper location,but the parents(ZeirAnpinandNukva)were "backto back,"and thus not conventionallyunited.The lofty natureof Adam and Eve results fromtheirconceptionin the sanctifiedpalaceof the higherparzufimof Abba andImma,while theirimperfectnatureand,of course,the sin resultfromthe imperfectcouplingof theircosmicparents,ZeirAnpinandNukvaat the time of theirbirth.AdamandEve thusembodythe paradoxof creationitself:the sanctityof union which cannotbe sustained.To understandthe paradoxical natureof the sin, the Lurianistsfirstneed to describethe paradoxicalnature of AdamandEve emergingfromtheirconceptionandbirth.Eventhoughthe humaninclinationfor sin (yezer hara) does not emergeuntil afterthe sin, 86. Thenatureof maleandfemalecosmicintercourseis farmorecomplexthanstatedin the see G. Scholem,"TheFeminine treatments, bodyof thepresentstudy.Formorecomprehensive Elementin Divinity,"in TheMysticalShapeof the Godhead(New York,1991),pp. 140-196; E. R. Wolfson,"FemaleImagingof the Torahi: FromLiteraryMetaphorto ReligiousSymbol," in FromAncientJudaismto ModernIntellectin Questof Understanding: Essaysin Honorof MarvinFox (Atlanta,1989), vol. 2, pp. 295-305; and YoramJacobson,"TheAspect of the Femininein the LurianicKabbala."Directlyrelevantto ourconcerns,see Sha'arHa-Pesukim, p. 5a. 87. See above,p. 63.

70

SHAULMAGID

the cosmicroot of theirsouls leaves openthe potentialfor improperaction.88 This is not only a psychologicalanalysis,as some have suggested,but an ontologicalone as well. In Lurianickabbala,this bifocal cosmic root sets Adam and Eve on the marginof creationeven as they carrythe weight of creationon their shoulders.Nothing in this readinghas any foundationin the biblical text. Beginning with the use of the term "birth"ratherthan "formation,"the Lurianistscreate a scenariowhose formulationis outside even the widest Whilemuchof the theosophicstructureused here readingof the narrative.89 the and is adoptedfrom Bahir, even moreso fromtheZohar,Scriptureplaysa morepronouncedrole in bothof theseearliertexts,eachultimatelyreadingits theosophicframeworkbackintothe biblicalnarrative.Butwhereasthe Bahir and the Zoharexhibit allegianceto the text and to the midrashicmethod, neitheris evident in the Lurianicmaterial.Yet the Lurianistswould claim that withouttheir reading,the entire story of the Gardenof Eden and the Sin cannotbe understood.Whereasthe kabbalisticmidrashistof the Bahir and the Zoharmay still believe thatthe answersto the questionswhich the Torahraises are embeddedin the narrativeandhave to be revealedthrough 88. The natureof evil and sin is a highly complexnetworkof ideas in Lurianickabbala. Fora comprehensivetreatment,see Tishby,ToratHa-Rave Ha-Kelipah.As is well known,the Sabbateanhereticsbasedtheirstanceof thenecessityof sin to facilitatetikkunon Lurianictexts, and indeeda precedentfor such readingsdoes exist. The need to descendin orderto repairis of the creation(birth)of AdamandEve a fundamental principlein the Lurianicunderstanding andthe fulfillmentof mankind.Cf. MevoShearim,pp. 15c-d. Obviouslythe Sabbateansread it quiteliterallyandthusmay have fallenvictimto the dangersof kabbalisticliteralismwhich so manywarnedabout.See Scholem,"RedemptionThroughSin,"in TheMessianicIdea in Judaism(New York, 1971), pp. 78-141. The notionof descentfor the sake of ascentis also quite commonin Hasidicreadingsof Lurianicmaterial,althoughthe Hasidicrenderingdoes not practicallytakethe individualout of the halakhiccontextas it did in radicalSabbateanism. Ha-Kelaliof R. Nahmanof BratslavandIts Sabbatean On this see YehudaLeibes,"Ha-Tikkun Links,"in Studiesin JewishMythandJewishMessianism(Albany,N.Y., 1993),pp. 115-150, esp. pp. 128-150 89. The use of the termbirthin medievalkabbalavis-a-vis cosmogonymay be founded on Sefer Yezera3:2, "ThreeMothers:Aleph,Mem,Shin, A greatsecretcoveredand sealed with six rings. And from them emanatedair, water,fire. And from them born fathers,and fromthe fathersdescendants."Comparewith Sefer Yezera6:1. This imagemay be rootedin ExodusRabba15:22,"Thewatersconceivedand gave birthto darkness;fire conceivedand gave birthto light;spirit(ruah)conceivedand gave birthto Wisdom."For an explanationof the midrashicimageof birth,see R. Azrielof Gerona,PerushHa-Aggadotle-RavAzriel,ed. I. Tishby(Jerusalem,1943),pp. 86-91.

ANDTHEGARDENOFEDEN EXEGESIS LURIANIC

71

a theosophicrenderingof the text itself, the Lurianistsdo not seem to feel the need to justify theirtheosophicreadingby midrashicallyreadingit back into the text. They do not wish to revealthe text, they seek to transformit. The theosophicframeworkwhich they inheritedfromthe Zoharis the Text, Theirreadingis not sod contra Scripturebeing its symbolicrepresentation. or sod as the of is sod as peshat. peshat-it deepening peshat V The meaningascribedto the two trees in the Gardenof Eden similarly reflectsLurianickabbala'sunderstandingof biblical objects as symbols of the theosophicworld. The dichotomybetweenthe Tree of Knowledgeand the Treeof Life is used as a leitmotifin the Zohar,particularly the Tikkunim, to differentiatebetween the exoteric Torah(Tree of Knowledge)and the esotericTorah(Tree of Life). 90 The Lurianictexts devotedto exegesis are not as interestedin how these objects (the two trees in the Garden)were used for polemicalpurposesbut ratherhow they were definedas partof the Lurianicworld-viewandthenreadbackinto the narrative.91 In the following two Lurianicexamples,the Tree of Knowledgeis radicallyinterpretedin 90. See TikkuneiZohar,pp. 99a, 106c and 107a/b. Cf. P. Giller, The EnlightenedWill Shine:Symbolizationand Theurgyin the LaterStrataof the Zohar(Albany,N.Y., 1993),pp. 59-80. On the two trees as symbolicof the unredeemedworld andthe redeemedworld,see of the MessianicIdeain Judaism,"in TheMessianicIdea Scholem,"Towardan Understanding in Judaism,pp. 22-23. 91. See Vital'sIntroductionto Sha'arHakamot,p. Id, "Tothose hokhmeiha-peshatwho are not interestedin the 'truewisdom' which is calledEtzHayyimandEternalLife andbusy themselvesonly withpeshat, sayingthatthe Torahdealsonly withpeshat, God forbid,which is calledEtzHa-Da'at Tovve Ra. On themthe sages say thatthey knowneithergood norevil. Becausethey arenot interestedin EtzHayyim,God does not help them.Theystudythe simple Etz Ha-Da'at Tovve Ra, turnit into evil, makingthe impurepure,forbidthe permissibleand make that which is not kosher,kosher.Many mistakescome from them."See ibid., p. 4d, "ThusI have calledthis workaccordingto my namethe book of EtzHayyimandalso on this awesomewisdom,thewisdomof the Zohar,whichis calledEtzHayyimandnotEtzHa-Da'at." This startlingreformulationof the anti-peshattraditionof TikkuneiZoharis strikingin that R. HayyimVitalwas not living in a polemicalage vis-a-visthe statusof Kabbalah.It is also worthnotingthatVital,beforemeetingLuria,composeda bookentitledEtzHa-Da'at,although its title may have come only afterhis "conversion"to kabbala.Also, as Elliot Wolfsonhas pointedout in "MaidenWithoutEyes,"the positionof the mainbody of the Zoharis farmore integrativevis-a-vispeshat andsod. Therefore,sucha severepositionwas not necessaryto be a devotedfollowerof the Zohar.In light of my contentionregardingthe way Lurianictexts

72

SHAULMAGID

orderto put it in directrelationshipwith AdamandEve, the serpent,andthe of the Gardenof Eden.The deficiencyin the cosmos reflects transformation the inabilityof the consciousness(mohin)of Abbato enterandbecomea part of Keter of Nukva of Zeir Anpin (some say just Keter of Zeir Anpin) which impedes the completion of creation. Adam was commandednot to do anythingbefore its propertime but only accordingto the orderof time (seder ha-zemanim).This is what is [meant when it is] written,Do not eat from the Tree of Knowledge-Good and Evil ... (Genesis 2:17). This is the explanation:The natureof the Tree of Knowledgemustfirstbe known.KnowthatDa 'atitself is the middlebetween Hokhmaand Binah.92 The Tree of Life is [the realm]of Zeir Anpinwhich takes its consciousness(mohin)from Hokhmaand Binah, which are called Life (Hayyim)as it is known.However,the Treeof Knowledgeis [therealm] of Zeir Anpinwhich receives its consciousness(mohin)from [the sephirah] Da 'at.YoualreadyknowthatHokhmaandBinahof ZeirAnpin[i.e., the mohin fromImma]descendwithinit (ZeirAnpin)throughits [rightandleft] channels, HokhmathroughtherightchanneluntilNezah,andBinahthroughthe left until [thesephirah]of Hod. These two [streams]of mohinare envelopedin Nezah and Hod of Immaand are closed withinthem.Consequentlyno partof these mohin emanatesout, and the externals[the kelipot]cannotgain sustenance from them. . . . However Da 'at of Zeir Anpin is exposed because Yesod of

Binah [themiddlechannel]only reachesto the breastof Tiferet[thefirstthird of Tiferetof ZeirAnpin].Below thatthe hasadim[of Imma]are exposedand thus are vulnerableto the externals[kelippot]who take from them and grab onto them. Therefore,therewas no fear abouteatingfrom the Tree of Life, only from the Tree of Knowledge. . . . Therefore at that time [the sixth day of

creation],when the mohinof Abbahad not yet enteredinto ZeirAnpin,there not to eat of the Treeof Knowledge...93 was a commandment

I thinkthemoreradicalTikkunei ZoharpositionmakesmoresenseforVital. readScripture, to thisassumption, sourceswhichworkaccording see Sha'arHa-Mitzvot ForotherLurianic (Jerusalem,1980),p. 83, and R. MeirPoppersed., Pri EtzHayyim(Jerusalem,1980),p. 356.

see 'OrYakar to Ra'ayaMehemna Forthemoresynthetic positionof R. MosheCordovero, Without 1987),p. 5:87,andWolfson"Maiden (Jerusalem, Eyes,"p. 172. 92. It is not unusualfor the sephiroticterminologyof HokhmaandBinah to be used to representtheparzufimAbbaandImma. 93. LikkuteiTorah,p. 4d.

ANDTHEGARDENOFEDEN EXEGESIS LURIANIC

73

This explanationraises certainquestionswhich need to be addressed. First, the Tree of Knowledge is envisionedas the very dimensionof the cosmic worldwhich is in need of repair.As mentionedabove,the nakedness or exposureto the elements is the realm where dangerlies. The Tree of KnowledgebecomesNukvaof the worldof Yesirah,the potentialityof Asiah which has yet to become manifest.By interpretingthe Tree of Knowledge as the middle channelof ZeirAnpinwhich is in the state of vulnerability,94 the authorsets the stage for the relationshipbetween Adam, Eve and the Tree even before there was a commandmentnot to eat from it. Whereas non-Lurianicreadingsview this episode as a test of man's obedience to God'sWill, the Treeof Knowledgehere is viewed ontologicallyas the "soft spot" of the entire creationin need of rectificationin its propertime (in the seder zemanim).The deficiencyin the Tree of Knowledgeresultsfrom havingbeen exposedfrom TiferetthroughYesod.In this renderingthe entire creationrevolvesaroundthe Treeitself and not aroundGod'scommandnot to eat of it. There appearsto be a strikingsimilaritybetweenthe Tree of KnowledgeandAdamandEve. As we statedabove,humankindcontainsthe inherentcontradictionof havingbeen conceived"faceto face"in an artificial place and birthed"backto back"in the properplace. Thus they containan inherentdisunitywhile also being the resultof cosmic unity.The dangerous but necessaryconfrontationbetweenthe Treeof Knowledgeand Adamand Eve resultsfromtheirsimilarcompositions.95 The statusof the Treeof Life is highlyambiguousin thisnarrative.There is no commandmentnot to eat of the Treeof Life, thoughI am unfamiliar with any traditionthatsays explicitlythatit wouldhave been permissibleor even desirableto have eaten fromit. In our text, the Treeof Life represents the "safe haven"of the successfulemanationof life fromthe parentto the 94. As statedearlier,the vulnerabilityis the resultof its being exposedto the kelipotby not being embodiedby the sephirotof ZeirAnpin.Theparadoxicalnatureof the entiresystem is thatthe shefa fromabovemustenterinto thatwhichis below it, butmustdo so in a manner in which it is protected.However,if it is protectedit cannotfully faciliatetikkun.Thus the light musteventuallyventureout but do so when the kelipothave been adequatelyweakened and/orthe light becomes strongenoughto remainuntainted.This entireprocesswould have been completedthroughtime but,afterthe sin, mustbe aidedby humanaction. fromourLurianictexts 95. Cf. Zohar1.27a.In this regardthe Zohardiffersfundamentally in thatthe Zoharunderstandsthe middlechannel(Da'at-TRferet-Yesod)as the Treeof Life. Zohar,the middlechannelis representedby the PatriarchJacob,who is Moreover,in Tikkunei deemed"shalem"(complete).

74

SHAULMAGID

child (Immato Zeir). Protectedby the garments(levushim)of Imma,this Tree poses no threatto the restitutionof the world, nor is it vulnerableto the destructiveelementsof the outsideforces (dinimand kelipot).Thus,the authorof our text can state explicitly,"Therewas no fear of eating from the Treeof Life."In fact, the Treeof Life in kabbalisticpolemicalliterature is the Kabbala(for Vital, the Zohar),which shouldbe ingested.The Tree of Knowledge,the serpent,and Adamand Eve all sharesimilardimensions of deficiency,which is not the case with the Tree of Life. Yet the verse which follows the accountof the sin justifiesmovingAdamand Eve out of the Garden,which implies that,as a resultof the sin, the Treeof Life now presentsitself as a danger.Andsaid YHVHELOHIM,manis now like one of us to knowgood and evil. And now,perhapshe will send his handand take alsofrom the Treeof Lifeand eatfrom it and liveforever(Genesis3:22).Did the Treeof Life pose a dangerin the Gardenpriorto the sin?AlthoughI have foundno Lurianicreadingof Genesis3:22, a numberof possibilitiesexist. The Treeof Life was describedas the full integrationof Immainto Zeir Anpin.Hadthe sin not occurred,the Treeof Knowledge(thedeficientmiddle channel)would have assumedthe same statusas the Treeof Life (the right and left channels).Indeed,lest they liveforever (Genesis3:22) impliesthat the Treeof Life representsthe finaltikkunof creationandthe full unionwith God.However,couldthe warningagainstAdamandEve attainingeternallife have impliedthatthe Treeof Life itself was now vulnerable?Onepossibility, accordingto the Lurianicexegetes, is thatthe sin affectedthe entirecosmic orderup to ArikhAnpinof Azilut.It was not only thatthe exposedelement of Imma(andAbbawithinher) was preyeduponby the kelipot,but thatthe entiresystem,eventhe Treeof Life, cametumblingdown.Anotherpossibility is the fear thatAdamand Eve would have eatenfromthe Treeof Life and, as a result,achievedimmortality.This immortalitywould have made them unableto facilitatethe tikkun,for deathas a formof descentis an integraland necessaryelementin the entireLurianicprocess.96Deathimpliesembedding the divine sparkinto the place of its absencein orderfor rebirthto occur.97

96. Luria'spositive view of deathreflectsand deepensthe rabbinicview. See R. Meir's drashon me'odandmavetin GenesisRabba9:5. Cf. a similarreadingin ExodusRabba31:10. 97. Thus, the notion of multiplepregnanciesand rebirthin the form of gilgulim are so importantin Lurianickabbala.For an analysisof ibur in Lurianickabbala,see M. Pachter, "Katnutand Gadlutin LurianicKabbala"[Hebrew],pp. 172-184.

ANDTHEGARDENOFEDEN EXEGESIS LURIANIC

75

If deathis removedfromthe life of AdamandEve, as Genesis3:22 implies, tikkunbecomesimpossible.98 In sum, I have triedto show how the natureof Lurianicexegesis begins with a body of knowledgeindependentof Scripturewhich I have called its meta-text.The meta-textneeds no exegeticaljustification,as the Lurianists maintainthatit was revealedconcomitantwiththeexotericTorahat Sinai.The implicationhere is thatthe biblicalnarrativeis the symbolicrepresentation of this meta-text.The definitivemeaning of the exoteric Torahdoes not lie within the narrativeitself, as was suggestedby the Zohar.Rather,the Lurianicmeta-textstandsoutsidethe exoterictext, yet only by meansof its integrationintothenarrativecanthetruemeaningof thenarrativebe revealed. Moreover,the implicationof this theory is that withoutthe meta-text,the Torahcannotbe understoodat all! Using the eschatologicallanguageof this circle,by imposingthe meta-texton the narrativethe Lurianistsclaimto have redeemedthe text by havingde-symbolizedit. Thistheoreticalconstructwas exhibitedas it unfoldedin the paradoxicalnatureof Adam and Eve, their ontologicalsymmetrywith the Treeof Knowledgeand theirrelationshipto the Serpent.The meta-textwas imposedon the biblicalnarrativeto close the text by offeringwhat the Lurianistsdeterminedwas, dareI say, its final reading. JewishTheological Seminary NewYork,NY

98. The imageof deathis viewedaccordingto Lurianickabbalaas the centralmotifforthe prayerof supplication(tahanun)which follows the EighteenBenedictionsin the morningand afternoonprayers.Cf. Sha'arHa-Kavannot,p. 47a. The Zoharspeaksof the "Treeof Death" which the Zaddikmust surrenderto in the momentof supremeecstasyin orderto completea particulartikkun.Cf. Zohar3.120b. See also Y. Liebes,Studiesin the Zohar,pp. 63-74, and M. Fishbane,TheKiss of God: Spiritualand MysticalDeath in Judaism(Seattle 1994), pp. 106-120.

Review: The Dead Sea Scrolls Reclaimed Author(s): Moshe J. Bernstein Source: AJS Review, Vol. 22, No. 1 (1997), pp. 77-93 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486867 . Accessed: 15/07/2011 10:30 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

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

http://www.jstor.org

REVIEWESSAY THE DEAD SEA SCROLLSRECLAIMED by MOSHE J.BERNSTEIN LawrenceH. Schiffman.Reclaimingthe Dead Sea Scrolls:TheHistory the LostLibraryof Qumran. of Christianity, of Judaism,the Background JewishPublication Society,1994.xxvii,529pp. Philadelphia: newbookon theDeadSeaScrollsandthepeople Lawrence Schiffman's now alsoavailablein paperback fromtheAnchorBible of Qumran (whichis of ReferenceLibrary)is reallyseveralbooksin one, and its multiplicity one of the book'svirtuesandflaws.It is at once goalsis simultaneously of the scrollsandthe community a comprehensive syntheticpresentation to haveproduced whichis presumed atbotha them,directedsimultaneously of a an academic Dead Sea Scrolls and audience;history scholarship; popular for the needto readthe scrollsin andan at timesimpassioned argument the contextof Jewishantiquityratherthanas precursors to, antecedents Thewealthof photographs andthe of, or analoguesof earlyChristianity. tone,as well as theabsenceof footnotesand autobiographical occasionally oversizedformat,mightwellmisleadsomepotential to thesomewhat readers thinkthatthisis justanotherpopularbookon thescrollsandnota scholarly hasproduced a comprehensive treatment. But,in reality,Schiffman popular whichshouldalso be of interestto scholarsof the scrollsand treatment of Schiffman's relatedfields.Oncethe a priorisandperspective approach we areleft withthe mostimportant broadtreatment arediscounted, of the witha fewusefulcaveats, scrollsin recentyears,onethatcanbe employed, as a textbookin coursesfocusednotonlyon theDeadSeaScrolls,butmore in antiquity. broadlyon Judaism AJSReview22/1 (1997):77-93

77

78

MOSHEJ. BERNSTEIN

Othersurveys of Qumranmaterialsand issues have been publishedin recentyears:new volumes by EdwardM. Cook, Solving the Mysteriesof the Dead Sea Scrolls: New Light on the Bible, and JamesC. VanderKam, The Dead Sea Scrolls Today,and a revised edition of Geza Vermes,The Dead Sea Scrolls:Qumranin Perspective.Theyareall introductory surveys, touchingon the high points of Qumranscholarship,giving summariesof texts and issues, withouthavingthe latitudeto dwell in muchdetailon any of them.Schiffman,on the contrary,triesto covermanyaspectsof the scrolls in some depthand to presentmore than a surfacesummaryof a spectrum of issues pertainingto them. In this way, Schiffman'sbook representsa returnto the approachemployed in the earlierdays of Dead Sea Scrolls scholarship,when therewere far fewer texts to discuss and fewer years of scholarshipto digest. I cannotthinkof any otherbook in Englishover the last twenty-fiveyears that tries to presentas comprehensivea pictureof Qumranstudieswith as muchdetail.Becauseno Qumranscholartoday,and Schiffmanis no exception,can controlwith equalfacilityall aspectsof this diversematerial,certainaspectsof the subjectaretreatedwithmoreauthority than others, and the book's comprehensivesweep leaves room for some disagreementon particularaspectsof the broadrangeof issues involvedin Qumranscholarship. One of the factors that contributesto the perceptionthat Schiffman's book is to be locatedin a popular,ratherthana scholarly,arenais its lack of footnotes,which have been replacedby extensivereferencenotes, including bibliography,at the backof the book.Additionally,a crucialdecision,which the authorclearlymadein orderto keep the lengthof the book manageable, is likely to be uncomfortablefor the scholar,althoughit may sit well with the lay reader,and that is the avoidanceof discussionof scholarlyopinion that differs from his own. Thereis little dialoguewith opposingviews or alternativeswithin the body of the text. Schiffmanhas chosen the option of a single, fairly integratedportrayalof the subject,ratherthan one that highlightsthe many scholarlydisagreementsthat the study of all aspects of the scrolls has engendered.This occasionallygives the impressionthat the interpretationSchiffmanis offeringis the standardor undisputedone. In a book intendedto have a popularappeal,such an approachis perhaps but it can be off-puttingto scholarswho are moreawareof understandable, the rangeof learnedopinionson manyof the issuesthatSchiffmandiscusses. Thereferencenotes,wherethe opinionsthatSchiffmanrejectsarementioned, alleviatethis difficulty,althoughnot fully.

THEDEADSEASCROLLS RECLAIMED

79

Schiffman,one of the leading interpretersof Qumranlegal texts, has createda stir in Dead Sea Scrollsscholarshipin recentyearsby challenging the once generally accepted view of the Qumrangroup as Essenes, and claiming,primarilyon the basis of halakhictexts such as 4QMiqsatMa'ase ha-Torah(4QMMT),'thatthe grouphad "Sadducean" origins.It is truethat virtuallyeverygroupof whichwe know fromSecondTempletimeshas been identifiedas the source of the Dead Sea Scrolls over the last half-century, and Schiffmanis not the firstto claim Sadduceanoriginsfor the group.But thereis a differencebetweenearlierassertionsthatthe sect was Sadducean and Schiffman's,a point overlookedin some of the earliercriticalreviews of this volume. Schiffman'sSadducees,a hypothetical"pious"branchof the movement,are quite differentfrom the Sadduceesof H. H. Rowley, for example.This differenceis due largelyto Schiffman'sdefinitionof the Sadducees,not on the basis of theology or politics, but on the basis of legal practice.His emphasison the legal materialfrom Qumranreflectsan attemptto locate the Qumraniteswithin a Jewish context and presentsa ratherdifferentperspectiveon the sect fromthe formerlyregnantone, which was foundedprimarilyon nonlegal, "theological"material,and was often associatedwith an attemptto study and analyzethe texts as antecedentto, analogousto, or pertinentto earlyChristianity.2 1. Texts from the Judeandesert (including,but not limitedto, the Qumranscrolls) are identifiedby a siglum indicatinglocation, in this case Cave 4 from Qumran,and title. E. Qimronand J. Strugnell(in consultationwith Y. Sussmannand with contributionsby Y. Sussmann and A. Yardeni), Qumran Cave 4,

Miqsat Ma'ase Ha-Torah, Discoveries in the

V: JudaeanDesert 10 (Oxford:Clarendon,1994) is the recentlypublishedtext of this so-called "halakhicletter,"the delay in whose publicationcauseda good deal of the stirwhichresulted in easieraccess for all scholarsto the scrollsin the early 1990s. Survivingin six fragmentary copies fromCave 4, it containsa selectionof halakhotwhereinthe authorof MMTdisagrees with unnamedopponents,and a sectionwhereinthe authorexhortshis addresseeto adopthis halakhicpositionsandjoin forceswith him in opposinganother,unnamed,group.Justwho the as authorand the unnamedgroupsare is the subjectof muchdebateamongQumranologists, are many otherunsettledissues regardingthis fascinatingtext. For preliminaryobservations basedon panel discussionsat the 1994 annualmeetingsof the Society of BiblicalLiterature and the Associationfor Jewish Studies,see J. Kampenand M. J. Bernstein,eds., Reading 4QMMT: New Perspectives on Law and History at Qumran (Symposium 2; Atlanta: Scholars

Press, 1996). of the groupto 2. Schiffmanexaggeratesonly a bit whenhe linksthe Esseneidentification of the Scrolls"(p. 17). The Essenetheorydoes not implythatthese are the "Christianization not Jewish documents,and they may very well furnishus with precursorsof Jewishelements which ChristianityinheritedfromcommonSecondTempleJudaismor Essenism.The neglect by manyscholarsof workby Jewishscholarson the scrolls(p. 19) was probablyas muchan

80

MOSHEJ. BERNSTEIN

It is clear that one of Schiffman'sgoals is to provide a systematic presentationof a Jewishcontextfor the Dead Sea sect (andwhetherwe call themEssenesor pious Sadduceesis not reallythe criticalissue for him). The titles of the firstsubchapterin partII, whichbeginsthe realdiscussionof the scrollscommunity,"Judaism,Hellenism,and Sectarianism," andof the final of "The the Decline of Sectarianism and the Emergence book, subchapter of RabbinicJudaism,"highlightthis intention.The startingpoint informing much of Schiffman'sanalysis is that much of what is found at Qumranis of SecondTempleJudaismas a whole, andnot typicalof one representative isolatedgroupalone. Therefore,in his locationof the Qumransect within the environsof SecondTempleJudaism,Schiffmanmakesmuchgreateruse of rabbinicmaterial,particularlylegal texts, thandid most otheranalysesin the past.Thiscontextualapproachis no longeruncommonin the morerecent surveysof the scrolls,which, even if less comprehensivethanSchiffman's, acknowledgethe significanceof the complexJudaismof the SecondTemple for our understandingof these texts, but it is more crucialto Schiffman's identificationof the sect with analysis.He follows up the Zadokite/Sadducee a thoroughreading of the scrolls as texts of Jewish history,and this is the drivingforce behindthe book. Despite the presenceof the words "the backgroundof Christianity"in the title, virtuallyall aspectsof Schiffman's treatmentdeal with the scrollsas they relateto the historyof Judaism. The largerdivisions that make up the book are, on the whole, what we shouldexpect, but thereare some surprises.The openingtwo chapters, "Shepherdsand Scholars"and "Scholars,Scrolls and Scandals,"copiously decoratedwith photographsof many scrolls researchers,past and present, show how the history of Dead Sea Scrolls scholarshipper se has become a topic of interest.For the nonspecialistreader,this historicalreview may titillateby revealingthe occasionallyseamy side of academicscholarship, but the scholarof Qumranwill realizethatit serves Schiffman'sagendaby explainingthe difficultyin the Jewish contextualizationof the scrolls. The historyof scrolls scholarshiphas a role to play for him in the justification claim"thatthe of whathe calls, with some exaggeration,the "revolutionary" scrollscanbe understoodonly in the contextof Jewishhistory"(p. xxiv). It is certainlytruethatthe halakhicmaterialin the scrolls,even those discovered in the 1950s, was little studiedby non-Jewishresearchers,who were neither avoidanceof Israeli scholarshipwrittenin modemHebrewas of Jewishscholarship.As we all know,thatis not a problemlimitedto the scholarshipon the Dead Sea Scrolls.

THE DEAD SEA SCROLLSRECLAIMED

81

competentto study it nor interestedin its ramificationsfor the history of Judaismin the Second Templeperiod.Texts like 11QTemple,obtainedby YigaelYadinin the aftermathof the Six-DayWarof June1967,and4QMMT could only be read and interpretedby scholarstrainedin the analysis of Jewishlaw, and such interpreterswere few and far betweenin the camp of the originalQumranexperts.It was the work of scholarslike Yadin,Joseph M. Baumgarten,and Schiffmanhimself thatplaced Qumranhalakhahfront andcenteras one of the majorareasof Qumranresearchandperforceopened up researchin the scrollsto classicallytrainedJewishscholars. Schiffman'ssummaryof the archaeologyof Qumranis derivative,but balanced.In the absenceof official excavationreports,which are only now beingpublished,manytheorieson the natureof the Qumransettlementhave been proposedwithoutsoundevidence.Schiffmanpointsout the difficulties of some of the more outlandish,arguingfrom what we do know aboutthe archaeologyof the site. Since what we know or want to know about the settlementcanbe separateda good dealof the time fromwhatwe knowabout the texts in the scrolls,researchon the documentscontinueswhile we await the long-delayedrevelationof the excavationresults. Becausethe book attemptsto createan all-encompassing picture,thereis to fill in with data that are not times a need at gaps fully proven.Relianceon debatablehypotheticalreconstructionscan be a bit misleadingto the lay readerand disconcertingto the scholar.Schiffmanat timeswriteswith what appearsto be certaintyabout mattersthat are debatableor unprovable. History is far more difficult to reconstructthan practices and beliefs, especially when detailed argumentationand evidence are omitted, and Schiffman's introductorybackgroundchapter,"Judaism,Hellenism and Sectarianism,"is a good illustrationof the problem. The summaryof the confrontationbetween Hellenism and Judaismis brief and perhaps oversimplified.There may be justificationfor such abbreviationin light of the book's primary focus, but should one write that "The earliest attempts at organized rebellion were probably led by the Hasidim, a group of pietists who found the religious compromisesin Hellenistic Jerusalemtotallyunacceptable"(p. 70)? Canwe be certainthatthe Hasidim were already"capitalized"?Likewise, the assertionthat in the Hasmonean period "we first meet . . . the three major sects of the period-Pharisees, Sadducees,and Essenes. The group that collected the Dead Sea Scrolls also arose at that time" (p. 72) is too strong (implying that there clearly were four distinct denominations)and could be misleading to a

82

MOSHEJ. BERNSTEIN

reader unaware of the hazard of such labeling of the diverse groups in the Maccabeanperiod, whether according to Schiffman'stheory or any other. reconFinally,one of the cornerstonesof Schiffman'shistorico-religious struction,the secessionof a piousgroupof SadduceanpriestsfromJerusalem to Qumranto establishwhat becamethe Qumransect, is one of those very debatableissues expressedvirtuallyas factas if it weremorewidelyaccepted. of the earlyhistoryof thegroupbasedon 4QMMT Schiffman'sreconstruction andCD3is possible,butis farfrombeingthe only optionavailable.Schiffman reads4QMMTas the "foundationdocument"of the sect, but drawingfirm conclusionsfrom it is hazardousin light of the fact that the identification of the variousgroups implied in 4QMMT.is still very much a subjectof contentionamongstudentsof this recentlypublishedtext.4AlthoughI tendto agreewith Schiffman'sidentificationof the Qumrangroupas relatedto the Sadduceeson the basis of theirlegal system,thereare still some very large questionsaboutthe interfaceof theologyandhalakhahthatmustbe answered like Schiffman'scanbe endorsedwithoutreservation. beforea reconstruction Schiffman'swork does not merely summarizethe documentsfrom the cavesof Qumran,butuses themsmoothlyin a synthesisof thehistory,beliefs, andpracticesof theirauthors.In attemptingto depictthe organizationof the sect, Schiffmandrawson both CD and 1QS,5of course,and then proceeds to comparethe resultswith Josephus'descriptionof the Essenes and with the Pharisaichavurahdescribedby the rabbis.In particular,he employsthe 3. This work, variouslyknown as the "DamascusDocument,""DamascusCovenant," "ZadokiteDocument,"and "ZadokiteFragment,"was first publishedin 1910 from two fragmentarycopies discoveredby Solomon Schechterin the Cairo Geniza underthe title Fragmentsof a ZadokiteWork.Its centralityto the Qumrancommunitywas revealedwith the a morecompletetextthanthe medieval copies,representing discoveryof some ten fragmentary ones, in the caves at Qumran. 4. Cf. the discussionsin Qimronand Strugnell'seditionand in Kampenand Bernstein, Reading 4QMMT.The readershould also be awarethat 4QMMT,despite its survivingin andits restoration debated.Schiffman's is stillveryfragmentary fragmentsfromsix manuscripts, quotationon p. 85, "theywill repentin Isra[el]for[ever]"shouldalmostcertainlybe read"they shallreturnin Isra[el]to the T[orah]"(reconstructing lat[orah]ratherthanlat[amid]). 5. Serekh Hayahad,usually referredto as the "CommunityRule" or the "Manualof Discipline,"is one of the "complete"scrollsdiscoveredinitiallyin Cave 1 in 1947.It contains both theologicallyinstructivematerialas well as regulationsfor conductwithin a sectarian framework.Severalcopies of the work,which demonstrateits complexliterarydevelopment, havebeen foundin Cave4.

THE DEAD SEA SCROLLSRECLAIMED

83

detailsof the laws in CD to extrapolatethe social structureof the sect, on the reasonablegroundsthat those laws are more likely to reflecta realitythan some other Qumranlegal texts. He plausiblyconcludesthat the observed commonalityof practiceis furtherevidencefor sharedmoresamonggroups in SecondTempleJudaism. But at times Schiffman'sanalogiesfrom the contextof Second Temple Judaismarenot convincing.Theexampleof thePhariseesbecomingtalmudic rabbisis not a satisfactorymodelforthe move frompriestlyto lay leadership, as claimedfor the sect (p. 113).And, althoughSchiffmanlays out the textual evidence for the variousleadershippositionsof the groupquite well, I am not certainthat "the maskilclosely resemblesthe lay Pharisaicsages who eventuallybecamethe teachersof the Mishnah.Themaskilim,like the earlier Pharisaiclay sages,wereexpertsin the law andits interpretation and,in some cases, involvedthemselvesin its dissemination"(p. 126). Schiffmanstrains to show the similaritiesbetweenQumranandrabbinicleadershipstructures, but the effortis one of his less successfulandthe resultsrathertenuous. By its very presence,Schiffman'schapter"Womenin the Scrolls"moves away fromsome of the earlierdepictionsof the sect as virtuallywomanless.6 Schiffman'sexaminationof a fairly broadrange of materialin the scrolls aboutwomenandmarriageshowshow wrongheadedwerethe earlyattempts to makethe Qumrangroupinto a monastic,celibatecommunity.Onthe other hand, Schiffmanrelies too heavily in his discussionof "Faithand Belief' on the ThanksgivingHymns(Hodayot)as interpreted by H. Ringgren's1963 The the The Faith Dead Sea book Scrolls.Inthisarea, ofQumran: Theologyof a new synthesis,such as his treatmentof subjectof women at Qumran, th'. if it had utilizedtexts published would have been very welcome, especially more recently than the Hodayot.In his brief summaryat the end of this betweenJosephus' section,Schiffmanattemptsto resolvethe contradictions accountof the Sadduceesand the beliefs of the Qumrangroup,which, in his view, were also "Sadducee."His position,thatthe HellenizedSadducees and the Qumrangroup("perhapsincludedin the term 'Essenes"' [p. 157]) 6. Schiffman'smaterialshouldnow be supplemented by EileenSchuller'simportantarticle "Womenin the Dead Sea Scrolls,"in MethodsofInvestigationof theDead Sea Scrollsand the KhirbetQumranSite:PresentRealitiesandFutureProspects,ed. M. O. Wiseet al. (New York: New YorkAcademyof Science, 1994),pp. 115-131, which appearedtoo late for its resultsto be included.Also to be addedto the bibliographyof this sectionis S. J. D. Cohen,"TheBeauty of Floraandthe Beautyof Sarai,"Helios 8 (1981):41-53, a comparisonof the descriptionof Sarai'sbeautyin 1QapGenwith a Hellenisticanalogue.

84

MOSHEJ. BERNSTEIN

developedtheologicallyin differentdirectionsafterthey separated,mayneed refining,but indicatesthathis view of the Qumrangroupas Sadduceanhas becomemorenuancedin responseto muchof the obviouscriticismto which it was subjectedwhen firstpromulgated. The sequenceof the chapters,which moves frommattersof theologyto the topic of the Bible at Qumran,is not obvious at firstglance, althoughit servesto highlightthe broadimportancethatbiblicalmaterialof all sortshad for Second TempleJudaism.Schiffman'sdiscussionof the distributionof biblicalmanuscriptsat Qumranandthe questionof canonis clear,adoptinga fairlyconservativeview of rabbiniccanonicalactivity.inthe firstcenturyC.E. The evidence points to a body of authoritativeliteraturecontainingTorah, Prophets,andothermaterialnow includedin the Hagiographa.But it should be noted that the "allusionto the tripartitecanon"(p. 166) is based on a of threejuxtaposedfragmentsfrom plausible,butnot definite,reconstruction 4QMMT,beyondwhichthereis no evidence,in my view,of a tripartitecanon at Qumran.Regardlessof the natureof the "canon,"it is also possible, as Schiffmansuggests,thatworkslike the AramaicLevi DocumentandJubilees mighthave been "canonical"at Qumran,basedon citationsof themin other Qumrantexts. Schiffman'sview on the natureof the biblicaltextat Qumrandiffersfrom theregnantposition,whichsees muchgreatervarietythanhis does, andneeds to be modifiedin termsof statistics,takinginto considerationEmanuelTov's material recalculationswhich reduce the percentageof "Proto-masoretic" in the scrolls. Since Schiffinanadmits that he holds a minorityview, the referencenotes to this section shouldhave been more expliciton the views of otherswhose theorieshe rejects.On the otherhand,the presentationof the evidenceforthe divergenceof some of the biblicalscrollsfromthe Masoretic text is quiteforthright.One of the strikingpassageswherein4QSama differs from MT is adducedin detail (althoughI should have liked a couple of more examplesas well), and the dataregardingJeremiah,the paleo-Exodus scroll, and 11QPsa are presentedwith textualexampleswherepertinent.In the final analysis,however,the issue of whetheror not the Masoretictype was "dominant"in the Dead Sea Scrolls may not be as importantas the of which we had no inklingbefore evidenceof a processof standardization the Qumrandiscoveries. Schiffmanhas long assertedthatthe literaturefoundin the Qumrancaves representsSecondTempleJudaismandnot only the Qumransect. Although terms like "canonical"and "apocryphal" beg the questionsomewhat,they

RECLAIMED THEDEADSEASCROLLS

85

are convenientways of referringto works that are or are not part of the MasoreticHebrew Bible, a convenienttouchstoneor point of reference. Schiffmandevotes much more space to the nonbiblicaltexts than to the biblical,a position easily vindicatedby the greaterfamiliarityreadershave with the latter.He gives the most space to Enoch, Jubilees,and Ben Sira (Ecclesiasticus)as texts which appearat Qumran,althoughhe does not deal with the date of Enoch, and his date for Jubilees(pre-168 B.C.E.)is a bit early accordingto most scholars.I note in passingthat the so-called textsmaynotbe as closely relatedto Jubileesas Schiffman "Pseudo-Jubilees" suggests, althoughhe bases his remarkson the work of VanderKam,who recentlypublishedthem. In my view, there is still much work to be done on the genericclassificationand filiationof many of the biblicallyoriented worksfromQumran,andprematureassociationsvia nomenclatureare to be avoidedif possible. In the context of Ben Sira, Schiffmandrawsour attentionto the newly released wisdom literaturefrom Qumran,texts referredto as "Sapiential Works"and"Bookof Mysteries."Thesearevaluableadditionsto thetradition of wisdomliterature,whichbeganin the ancientNearEastandrunsthrough Proverbsand Ecclesiastes to rabbinicworks like Pirqei Avot. Schiffman stresseshow these new texts have muchin commonwith the alreadyknown wisdomtradition,but also differfromit significantly.Since these texts have not yet been integratedinto studiesof Qumrantheology,Schiffman'sefforts in thatdirectionareparticularlywelcome.He also brieflydiscussesTobitand of these the Testamentsof Levi, Naphtali,andKohath.His characterizations for students of the scrolls who have not yet found works will be valuable literatureof theirway to the studyof the apocryphaland pseudepigraphical the SecondTempleperiod. Fromworksthatsupplementor complementthe Bible, Schiffmanmoves to worksthatinterpretit, presentingtwo chapterson differentmodesof biblical fromtranslationand commentaryto retellingto harmonizing interpretation, and legal exegesis, on the one hand, and to the uniqueform of prophetic calledpesher, on the other.7His point, and I believe thatit is interpretation as reflectedin the Qumran quite well taken,is that scripturalinterpretation on in Second TempleJudaismmore scrolls is a mirrorfor what was going 7. Add to the bibliographyandthe referencenotes on Aramaictargumthe valuablePh.D. in 11QtgJob: A PreliminaryStudy" thesisby BruceE. Zuckerman,"TheProcessof Translation (YaleUniversity,1980).

86

MOSHEJ. BERNSTEIN

broadly.A survey of the interpretivedocumentsfound in the caves shows how broadwas the spectrumof types and genres availableto the student of Scripturein this period.Both for narrativeand legal pentateuchaltexts, Schiffmanshows the arrayof exegetical methodsready for the Qumranic I believe, however,thathe goes too farwhen he claimsthat"this interpreter. formof interpretation [inthesectarianlegalcorpus]togetherwithharmonizing typifies the Sadduceantrendof biblical expositionalludedto interpretation in rabbinicsources"(p. 222). This assertiondemandsmore evidence;the rabbinicsourcesare far from explicit, and Schiffmanwould certainlyagree thatwe are still workingwith insufficientdatain this area,and Jhateven the exegeticalmethodologyof the Dead Sea Scrollslegal textswhichwe do have requiresfurtherstudy. Unsurprisingly,Schiffman'sdiscussionof law andrelatedissues (Pt. IV) is probablythe strongestsection of the book. It is here that the difference betweenSchiffman'sapproachandthatof most otherscrollsscholarsis best highlighted,since it is, of course,fromlegal materialthathe has derivedhis reidentificationof the groupas Sadducean.He stresses,quite correctly,that the significantcorpusof legal materialfrom Qumranteaches us, not only aboutthe law as observedin thatcommunity,but aboutvaryingattitudesto andpracticesof the law in the SecondTempleperiodas a whole.He maintains his long-held,althoughdebatable,position that "the legal materialsof the an activitythat sect areto a greatextentderivedfrombiblicalinterpretation, sessions as of sectarian took place at regularstudy life, most probably part at the main centerat Qumran.The decisionsreachedat such sessions were recordedin lists of sectarianlaws called serakhim"(p. 247). In the interest of locating Qumranhalakhahwithin a context, and of contrastingit with its rabbiniccounterpart,Schiffmangatherswhat he believes to be allusions to the Phariseesin the scrolls, and stressesthat many of them focus on a critiqueof the theoryof Pharisaichalakhah.Thematerialin 4QMMTandthe TempleScroll (11QT) for the firsttime furnishhalakhicviews that are of a natureand give us a means of access to the outlookof the near-Sadducean that has not been filteredthroughJosephusor the rabbis. Sadducees The longest of the Qumranscrolls, 11QT,merits an entire chapter, although,like a numberof other scholars,Schiffmanbelieves that it may very well be pre-Qumranicin origin, and that the ideas reflectedin it are not yet those fully developedby the Qumransect. Schiffmnan, drawingon the many studies which he has publishedon specific aspects of this text, presentshis views on its relationshipto otherQumranmaterial,an outline

THE DEAD SEA SCROLLSRECLAIMED

87

(but not a detailedsummary)of its contents,and importantremarkson the theologyof this utopian,althoughnot messianic,legal document.In addition to characterizingthe harmonisticexegesis which characterizesthe Temple Scroll,he highlightsseveralspecificgroupsof laws, suchas thosepertaining to the centralityof the Temple in the ideal Land of Israel, and the law of the king, an assortmentof nonbiblicalregulationsfor the king and his army,which imply a critiqueof the Hasmoneanrulers.Schiffmancompares the critiqueof Pharisaiclaw and Hasmoneanpolicy in this text with the analogouspolemic in 4QMMT,concludingthat they imply that "Pharisaic rulingswere being followed in the Templein the earlyHasmoneanperiod" (p. 271). The importanceof this point is not limitedto Qumranstudies,but has ramificationsfor SecondTempleandrabbinichistoryandhistoriography. Thedevelopmentof thelaw of the sect,accordingto Schiffman,proceeded fromthose two documentsto otherhalakhicworkswhose legal views do not remainpurelySadducean,althoughtheyclearlymaintainSadduceanqualities in both contentand method.A work like the ZadokiteDocumentcontains bothlegalmaterialanda historyandtheologyof thegroup.It is quitepossible, as Schiffmantentativelysuggests, that the laws in such a text might have been acceptednot only by the inhabitantsof Qumran,butby otherJewswho maintainedSadducean,priestly,halakhictraditions.He proceedsto list the otherQumrantexts thatcontainhalakhicmaterial,concentratinghis analysis on two areason which he has writtenin the past, Sabbathlaw andcivil law. His treatmentof the formercontraststhe Qumranrulingson a numberof specificissues with the Sabbathlaw as it is reflectedin rabbinicliteratureand in the New Testament.Likewise,in reviewingthe detailsof certainaspectsof civil law, Schiffmanis able to stressboththe centralityof law in the various manifestationsof Judaismin the SecondTempleand the ways in which the laws of the Qumransect differedfromthose of otherJews in sourceand in practice. In discussing"Prayerand Ritual"Schiffmanmakes the importantpoint thatthe Qumranlibraryenablesus to see the movementtowardprayeras a formof divineservicethatreachesits culminationwithrabbinicJudaismafter the destructionof the Temple.One of the best-represented literarygenresat find of in we and a is variety subcategories the hundredsof Qumran prayer, nonbiblicalpsalms, poems, and prayersin varyingdegreesof preservation. Schiffmanquotesfreely from a varietyof prayertexts thatare often among the less well knowndocumentsfromthe caves. It is clearthatcommunication with the divine was a majorconcernof the Qumranites.Not only did they

88

MOSHEJ. BERNSTEIN

face the same "Temple-less"Judaismthatthe rabbislaterdid, but we find in theirliturgiesa varietyof texts which remindus, to say the least, of certain rabbinicprayers. This similarityin prayerpatternsstandsin sharpcontrastto mattersof the calendar,in which, as is well known, the Qumransectariansdifferedfrom the rabbis.Schiffmanmakesthe interestingobservationthat4QMMT,which challengesthe halakhicpracticesof the opponentsof its author,does not containany polemic aboutcalendricalchanges;this indicates,he concludes, thatit is the Pharisaiclunarcalendarwhichwas ancientandtraditional,while the priestlysolar one was innovative.8If his inferenceis correct,much of our understandingof Jewish calendricalactivity in antiqtiitywill have to be revised.The archaeologicalremainsof tefillinandmezuzotindicatethat the Qumrangroupdid not have a uniformpracticeregardingthese religious obligations,with some of the survivingmaterialconformingto what later becamerabbinicstandards,while otherremainsdo not. Becausethe Qumrandiscoveriesfurnisheddataon Jewishmessianismin messianismin the scrollshas been the periodpriorto the rise of Christianity, one of the prominentareasin Dead Sea Scrollsresearchfromthe beginning. Schiffman'sdiscussionof messianicandeschatologicalissues is fairlyclear, as, followingtheby-nowstandardparadigmestablishedby GershomScholem, he characterizesmessianictrendsin SecondTempleliteratureas restorative andutopian.Furnishinga briefsketchof messianictrendsin thisera,he notes the connectionbetweenthe utopianview and dualism,the view thatthereis an ongoing strugglebetween good and evil in the world that will only be resolvedat the end of time. This feature,of course,is of greatimportwhen evaluatingthe Qumranviews of messianism. One of the truetruismsof Dead Sea Scrollsresearchis thatthe Qumran sect "placedgreat emphasison eschatology"(p. 321). A broadvarietyof texts from the caves, both familiarand recentlypublished,focus on what will happenin the end of days and who will lead the communityof the elect at that time. The range of evidence,which need not have come from one source or one time, createsa tension in the Qumranmaterialbetween a one-messiahparadigmand a two-messiahpattern.'Schiffmanis careful 8. The presenceof a "sectarian"calendarat the beginningof one of the manuscriptsof 4QMMTis explainedby Schiffman,quiteplausibly,as theaddendumof a copyistwho,knowing the significanceof the calendarin the sect's disputeswith its opponents,addedit to the original "letter." 9. See, most recently,Dead Sea Discoveries 2, no. 2 (June 1995), an issue devoted

THE DEAD SEA SCROLLSRECLAIMED

89

not to try to assimilateall these texts to one another,referringinsteadto "twocompetingmessianicideas:the notionof a single, Davidicmessiahand notion of two complementarymessiahs-the Aaronide,priestlyleaderand the lay messiahof Israel"(p. 326). Schiffmanpointsout correctlythatit is not even clear whetherthe nonpriestlymessiah in the two-messiahportrait is always Davidic. What is clear is that the presenceof these conflicting trends-restorativeand utopian/apocalyptic, Davidicanddual-side by side at Qumranshould affect our analysisof the messianismof othergroupsin late antiquity,includingrabbinicJudaismandearlyChristianity. But there is more to the end of time than messianism,and the views in the scrolls of how the communitywould operatein the eschatological era, the wars which it would wage, and the ensuing eschatologicalmeal are summarizedby Schiffman.He arguesquiteplausiblythatthe communal meal of the Qumransect is a foreshadowingof the eschatologicalbanquet and is not to be viewed as "sacral";this, of course,underminesthe position of those who drew analogiesbetween it and the early Christianeucharist. Neither the participationof priests nor the requirementof ritualpurityis "sacral"for Schiffman,nor is the recitationof blessings upon partakingof food. All are characteristic,to greateror lesser degrees,of Second Temple therespectof thecommunityforthe "common"Judaism,whichdemonstrated the to maintain laws of ritualpurity,andperhapsrecited priesthood,attempted benedictionsbeforeandaftereating.Thereflectionof the eschatologicalmeal in ordinarycommunalmeals,suggestsSchiffinan,is partof the way in which the sect linkedits presentandits future. Thereare texts fromQumranwhose importance,especiallyin the public to theirsize. Two of themarediscussedby Schiffman eye, is disproportional in the contextof messianismand eschatology:the "sonof God text"andthe "piercedmessiahtext."The first is a genuinelycomplex document,as it is not clear whetherthe term refersto a messianic(positive) or arrogantand boastful(negative)figure. If the former,then the Christianemploymentof this termin the firstcenturyC.E.may have derivedfromits usage in a group like that fromwhich this text derives.But as is frequentlythe case with the of the firstportiongenerates Qumranmanuscripts,the disputedinterpretation completelyto "Messianism,"especiallyMartinG. Abegg, "TheMessiahat Qumran:Are We Still Seeing Double?"pp. 125-144. For a broaderperspective,cf. J. J. Collins, TheScepter and the Star: The Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Ancient Literature (New York:

Doubleday,1995).

90

MOSHEJ. BERNSTEIN

confusionin the readingof laterportions.Schiffmanacceptsthe messianic of the "sonof God"becausethe descriptionof the Endof Days interpretation in the lattersectionof the documentcoheresbest with suchan interpretation. But he insists correctlythat, despite our initial surprise,the term "son of God"does not precludethe text's fittingin well with Jewishdoctrinesof the SecondTempleperiod. The"piercedmessiah"text, on the otherhand,owes its significancein the public arenato claims made in the popularpress thatit containsreferences to an executed,even crucified,messiah.But the documentis partof a text family as the WarScroll. With its other fragments belongingto the same. describingthe eschatologicalbattle in terms familiarfrom other Qumran texts, the key phrasein the so-calledmessianicfragmentmustbe understood to read "the Prince of the Congregationshall kill him" ratherthan "they shall kill the Prince of the Congregation."It took a series of tendentious misreadingsof the Hebrewto turna passageaboutthe eschatologicalvictory of the sect over (perhaps)the Romansinto the descriptionof somethingthat These examples would, once again,serve as analogueto earlyChristianity.'0 of the scrolls,the shouldserveto indicatethatalthoughthe "Christianization" indiscriminateand undisciplinedexploitationof the scrollsto "foreshadow" early Christianity,has been abandonedby the academicmainstream,it can still be found on the periphery.More responsiblescholars,Christianand Jewishalike,have stressedthe elementsin earlyChristianitywhichfindtheir the rich rootsin the Judaismof the SecondTempleperiod,and,in particular, the which the of Dead Sea Scrolls has made contribution ongoingpublication of these elements. to ourunderstanding Since Schiffman'sgoal is to be as comprehensiveas possible in his treatmentof the scrolls material,he includes treatmentsof less-discussed aspects of Qumran,such as mysticismand magic. In this areaas well, the Qumrandocumentsfurnishan early Jewish sourcefor the developmentof thesethemesin laterJudaism.Aramaicfragmentsof 1 EnochdescribeGod's throne,and the "Songs of the SabbathSacrifice"furnishan angelic liturgy. For Schiffman,this is "a speculativedescriptionof whatgoes on in heaven" reference 10. Likewise,the "MessianicApocalypse"(4Q521),whichhas an unmistakable to resurrection,has been "Christianized" by the probablymistakensuggestionthat it is the messiah,and not God, who will resurrectthe dead. AlthoughSchiffman'stone occasionally becomes stridentin disputingsuch readings,his argumentis correcton its merits,that such messianictexts are best read in the context of ancientJudaismand as "the backgroundto of his title. Cf. his remarkson p. 404. Christianity"

THE DEAD SEA SCROLLSRECLAIMED

91

(p. 358), not yet the experientialmysticism of later Jewish traditions,and althougha direct line need not lead from Qumranthroughthe Hekhalot literatureof the earlyMiddleAges, the Qumrandatafill in a formerlylacking piece of the puzzle. In this section, as in many others,Schiffmanfurnishes sizable blocks of materialfrom the scrolls in English translation,so that the readercan get a sense of the primarytexts on which his discussionis based.His brief discussionof texts dealingwith magic is a good exampleof the synthesisof scholarshiptogetherwith an appealto popularinterestthat heightensthe awarenessof the lay readeraboutthis somewhatmysterious topic. The last unit of Schiffman'svolume is also generatedby his insistence on locatingthe scrolls in a more Jewishmatrix.The chapterson "Israeland the Nations"and "Jerusalemthe Holy City" are not typical of the rubrics underwhich the Qumranscrolls were discussedin the past. In discussing the relationshipof Jews andnon-Jewsin the scrolls,Schiffmanstressesonce again (and probablyoveremphasizesby this point in his discussion)that But whatis important nothingin the scrollsrefersspecificallyto Christianity. is the natureof the referencesto non-Jews.In additionto laws derivedfrom Scripture,we find laws againststealing from non-Jews(becauseit reflects badly on the Jewish people), explicit regulationsregardingcommercewith Gentiles, in particularselling them animals,produce,and slaves, and the prohibitionof the employmentof non-Jewsto do work forbiddento Jews on the Sabbath.The treatmentof non-Jewsin the legal texts from Qumran is analogousto, althoughoften stricterthan,theirtreatmentin laterrabbinic literature.Severalsignificantsectionsof the TempleScrollthatarenotdirectly groundedin Scripturefocus on the interfacebetweenJewsandnon-Jews,and Schiffmansuggeststhat in the Hasmoneanperiod,issues of Jewish-Gentile interactionmay have been of particularsignificance.The greaterexclusivity of the Qumranitesvis-a-vis the rabbis can be seen in the limited access which proselyteshave to the ritualsof the sect. Extrahalakhically, too, the in with consonance other documents of a stance Jewish scrollsmaintain quite antiquity.They referto the nationsof the worldprimarilyas opponentsto be utterlyvanquishedin the eschatologicalbattlesthatwould take place at the end of time, andthe chosennessof Israelis stressedin termsthatare familiar from the Bible, on one side, and from rabbinicliteratureand liturgyon the other. Schiffmanuses the chapteron Jerusalemas a vehicle to drawtogether a potpourriof texts that allude, in diverse ways, to the holy city, ranging

92

MOSHEJ. BERNSTEIN

from the pesharim to the HalakhicLetterto the Psalms Scroll. The sect held an ambivalentrelationshipto Jerusalem,which they longed,to see attainits ideal state,but the governanceof which they abhorred.The future Jerusalemis describedin a varietyof works,generallyemployinglanguage andmotifsborrowedfromthe Bible, with the most strikingpassageprobably being the so-called"Apostropheto Zion,"an acrosticpoem yearningfor the redemptionof the city andthe fulfillmentof the propheticdreamsaboutit. A very fragmentaryAramaictext, whose significancemay be inferredfromthe factthatat leastfive copies of it survive,describesthe idealplanof the "New Jerusalem,"a title borrowedby its editorsfromthe Book of Revelation.The descriptionof the city in ratherminutedetailindicatesthe importancewhich Jerusalemplayedin the aspirationsof SecondTempleJudaism,includingthe Qumransect. Finally,by concludingthe volumewith "TheDeclineof Sectarianismand the Emergenceof RabbinicJudaism,"Schiffmancloses the circle wherehe began.He startedby assertingthatthe scrollsmustbe readfirstandforemost as the productof SecondTempleJudaism,andhe endsby linkingthe end of the DeadSea sect, andconcomitantlySecondTemplesectarianismin general, with the survivalof Judaismin its rabbinicform.By examiningbrieflyother documentsoften associatedwith the Dead Sea Scrolls, the CopperScroll foundin Cave3, as well as the texts fromMasadaandthosefromthe Judaean Desertin the Bar Kokhbaperiod,he arguesthata consensuswas gradually emergingat the time of the two greatrevoltsagainstRomethatculminatedin the appearanceof rabbinicJudaismas the focalpointof Jewishactivityby the mid-secondcenturyC.E.But MasadapreservesBen Siraandthe Songsof the SabbathSacrificeside by side with biblicaltexts of a muchmorepronounced Masoreticnaturethanthe scrolls fromQumran,and it is temptingto believe that we can observe here the beginningof the traditionswhich preserved some of theseworksintothe JewishMiddleAges despiterabbinicopposition to the apocryphalandapocalypticliteratureof the SecondTemple. Schiffmanis correctin assertingthatone of the factorsthat"encouraged the shift from sectarianismto Jewishconsensusin the firstcenturyC.E.was the rise of Christianity"(p. 404). It is quitepossiblethatthe absorptionand integrationof certainsectarianJewishideals into earlyChristianityvirtually guaranteedthat they would not find a place in the Judaismwhich survived this period;and in the aftermathof the Bar Kokhbarevolt,the split between Judaismand the new religion became unbridgeable.Schiffmansketches very brieflythe ways in which he believes thatthe Bar Kokhbadocuments

THE DEAD SEA SCROLLSRECLAIMED

93

point towardthe nascence of rabbinicJudaism,stressingthe well-known phenomenonthat with the destructionof the Templeand the Bar Kokhba revolt Jewish sectarianismseems to come to an end, to be replacedby the conflictbetweenthe Synagogueandthe Church. The lengthof this reviewessay is due bothto the richnessof Schiffman's book, the topics of which have not been exhaustedin this survey,and to its importanceas having establisheda clear and coherentstance for the interpretationof the scrolls in the context of Jewish history and thought. Thereis no doubtthat any reviewerwill find one or anotherchapterof the book deficientfrom some specific perspective;this will always be the case when a broadsynthesisof the Dead Sea Scrolls is writtenby virtuallyany scholar,for no one is equallycompetentin all the complexfieldsof Dead Sea Scrollsscholarship.WhatSchiffmanhas done is to contextualizethese texts andthatis moreimportantthanhis particularinterpretation for interpretation, of any specific issue. Any furtherbroaddiscussionof the scrollsis going to have to deal with the matrixin which he has locatedthem,andto rejectthat matrixin favor of anotherif Schiffman'sis found wanting.Even scholars who disagreewith Schiffman'sbroadsynthesiswill be able to employit as a touchstonefor debate.And the laypersonwho approachesthe volume with the caveatswhich I have suggestedin mind will come away with a deeper of the scrolls,the sect whichproducedthem,as well as Second understanding in general. Judaism Temple YeshivaUniversity NewYork,N.Y.

Review: [untitled] Author(s): Joshua Levinson Source: AJS Review, Vol. 22, No. 1 (1997), pp. 95-102 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486868 . Accessed: 15/07/2011 10:31 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

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

http://www.jstor.org

REVIEWESSAY THEMIDRASHICPROCESS by JOSHUALEVINSON Irving Jacobs. The MidrashicProcess. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press, 1995. xiii, 218 pp. Over the last decade a plethoraof books and monographson various audience. aspectsof rabbinicmidrashhasbeenofferedto theEnglish-language is from manyof thesebecause IrvingJacobs'sTheMidrashicProcess different of its focus and erudition.In this studythe authorgrappleswith one of the fundamentalissues in rabbinicpoetics, the choice of biblicalprooftextsin midrashichomilies. Besidesthe firstchapter,whichpresentsitself as a generalintroductionto midrash,the followingsevenchaptersmaybe seenas a sustainedinvestigation of exegeticaltraditions,by whichJacobsmeans"patternsof exegesis,"or the consistentapplicationof certainbiblicalversesor contextsto specificbiblical personalities.Chapters2 and 3 are concernedwith exegetical traditions connectedto the book of Job. Chapters4, 5, and 6 are centeredaround Abrahamtraditions,especially as realizedin Genesis Rabbah39. The last two chaptersare slightlydifferent,which is not surprising,as they appeared as separatearticles.The firstattemptsto uncoverexegeticaltraditionsin the book of James, and the last chapterdiscusses Near Easternmythological elementsin rabbinicaggadah.The book as a whole can be seen as an attempt to uncoverpopularexegeticaltraditionsthatact to bothunderpinthe textual mechanicsof the midrashand connectthe preachingsage with his audience. The openingchapter,"Whatis Midrash?",is to my mindbothmisnamed andmisdirected.It is misnamedbecauseit does not supplythe readerwith an AJSReview22/1 (1997):95-102

95

96

JOSHUALEVINSON

introductionto the natureof midrashin general,as its title may lead one to believe. Moreimportantly,it is misdirectedbecauseit does not deal in-depth with the actual issues it raises and addresses.In this introductorychapter Jacobsdefines midrashalong the exegeticalaxis. In his words:"in simple terms,Midrashis the oldest form of Biblicalinterpretation" (p. 3). As with muchof this book, I findmyself takingissue morewith whatis not saidthan whatis said. Thereseems to me to be a doublelack in this openingposition. Firstly,Jacobs has committedwhat Steven Fraadehas felicitously called the "hermeneuticistfallacy"'by ignoringthe culturalintertextsof midrash as a discursivepracticethat could substantiallyenrichhis own exegetical readings.Forexample,his approachcouldbe enhancedalongthe lines of the culturalmodelsproposedby DanielBoyarin.2Secondly,thereis no sustained discussionof exegesisperse, neitherhistoricalnortheoretical.Letme enlarge upon this point. In Jacobs'ssearch,mostly successful,after the exegetical traditionspresupposedby the midrashictexts he considers,he makes no distinctionsbetween inner-biblicalexegesis, Second Templeliterature,and earlyor late rabbinictexts. He collapsesall distinctionsbetweenthe various modes of exegesis and composition.Here,he could take a clue fromJames Interestinglyenough,Jacobs Kugel'selegantbook on the Josephtraditions.3 does not mentionthis book, whichdealsprimarilywith the sameissue as his own. On the otherhand,thereis no protracteddiscussionof the theoretical importof such terms as "exegesis,""plainmeaning,"and "audience.One cannotstatethat"midrashicexegesis operateswithinthe parametersof plain meaning"(pp. 3, 7) withoutattemptingto grapplewith these problematic terms.4Similarly,the authorplacesgreatimportanceon the intendedaudience of the texts he considers;however,there is no sophisticatedconsideration eitherof actualaudiencesor of reader-reception theory. In this openingchapter,Jacobsstatesthe centralquestionthatgovernsall of the ensuingchapters:"whatwere the criteriauponwhich the selectionof the proemicaland proof-textswas based?"(p. 1). Muchof the earlierwork 1. StevenFraade,From Traditionto Commentary (Albany:StateUniversityof New York Press, 1991),p. 14. 2. Daniel Boyarin,Intertextualityand the Reading of Midrash (Bloomington:Indiana UniversityPress, 1990). 3. JamesKugel,In Potiphars House,(New York:HarperCollins, 1990). 4. In all fairness,Jacobsdoes recountin this chapterthe well-knownpositionson "plain meaning,"citing mostly Loewe and Weiss-Halivni,but the importof this controversyfor the restof the book is unclear.

PROCESS THEMIDRASHIC

97

on the genre of the proem posited that variousrhetoricaltechniques,such as paronomasiaand word-links,guide the choice of the proemtext. Joseph Heinemannposited that rhetoricalsurprisewas one of the markersof this genre.The preacherchose a versewhose connectionto the lectionaryportion was not at firstapparent,thuscreatingsurpriseand suspensein his audience. Jacobs addresseshere a fundamentalissue, which to my knowledge has receivedonly limitedattention.He is certainlyto be praisedfor attempting to close one of the importantgaps in a descriptivepoetics of midrash. He points out that "thereis substantialevidence in our sources to show that the early preachers,when dealing with certainpentateuchalthemes, resortedconsistentlyto the same specific sections of other biblical books for their proemical and proof-texts.This would suggest that there were exegetical traditionslinking pentateuchalwith prophetic,and particularly hagiographictexts,whichwereacknowledged,presumably, by bothpreachers andaudiencesalike"(p. 22). Certaintexts werechosenbecauseof the shared exegetical traditionswhich linked aspects of pentateuchalnarrativeswith specific sections of otherbiblicalbooks. This is the main thrustof Jacobs's argument,andone thatis basicallyconvincing,at least to this reader. Regardingthe proem,Jacobsclearlystateshis position,followingHeinemannnandothers,thatthe midrashin generalandthe proemin particularare "derivedfromhomiliesandexpositionswhichwere actuallydeliveredto live audiencesin theancientsynagoguesandstudyhousesof theHolyLand"(p.2). He grudginglyadmitsthatmuchof the extantmaterialbeforeus hasnot been preservedin uneditedform, and many proemsare defective and truncated. forhis wholeproject,and Thisassumptionis one of themajorpresuppositions as such shouldnot be left unexamined.All the moreso becausethis position has been underattackin recentyearsfromvariousquarters.5 He compounds this problemby takingthe suspectpositionthatmost midrashicdiscoursein generalis of a popularnature,provenance,andorigin.However,Jacobsnever gives us the impressionthatthis underlyingassumptionmay be problematic. 5. E.g., see AvigdorShinan,"LeToratHaPetihta," JerusalemStudiesin HebrewLiterature 1 (1981): 133-143; RichardSarason,"ThePetihtotin LeviticusRabbah:'OralHomilies' or RedactionalConstructions?", Journalof Jewish Studies33 (1982): 557-567; MartinJaffee, "TheMidrashicProem:Towardsthe Descriptionof RabbinicExegesis,"Approachesto Ancient Judaism 4 (1983): 95-112; Avigdor Shinan, "Sermons,Targums,and the Reading from Scripturesin the AncientSynagogue,"in TheSynagoguein LateAntiquity,ed. L. I. Levine, (Philadelphia:AmericanSchools of OrientalResearch,1987), pp. 97-110; Yona Fraenkel, DarkheiHaAgaddahVeHamidrash, (Givataiim:YadLeTalmud,1991),pp. 443-452.

JOSHUALEVINSON

98

He continuallystressesthatthe proemswere the creationof the synagogue and intended for a popular audience. Unfortunately,there is no serious examinationof this very problematicalcategory---thepopular,as thereis no considerationof the complicatedtrajectoriesof transmissionand redaction whichwe findin all of rabbinicliterature.Likewise,no distinctionsaremade between the proems found in differentrabbiniccollections. Certainlythe proemsof GenesisRabbaharedifferentfromthoseof LeviticusRabbah.Not only does Jacobsignorethesepatentdifferences,buthe actuallycollapsesthe differencesbetweenthesetwo collections.In a movewhichis questionablein my eyes, he stressesthe essentialidentificationof GenesisRabbah,Leviticus Rabbahand PesiktaDeRav Kahanain termsof both theircompositionand their audience.It is especially disappointingto find no discussionof these issues, becausethey may have significantramificationsfor his argumentas a whole. The author'sahistoricalapproachpreventshim frominvestigating centralaspectsof his own thesis,suchas possibledifferencesbetween"real" and"artificial" proemswhich seem to be the creationof an editoror editors. Ina similarvein, he is likewisepreventedfromexploringdistinctionsbetween the exegeticaltraditionsunderlyingthe proemsof GenesisRabbahandthose foundin the seemingly"literary"creationsof LeviticusRabbah.6 Ina moregeneralvein,theexistenceof exegeticaltraditionsis certainlynot confinedto proems,andthereforeto approachthe subjectfromthis limiting perspectiveis perhapsmisleading.Jacobs'sargumentcould be augmented and refinedby connectingit with Kugel'sthoughtson a Glossa Ordinaria.7 Onewouldexpect,accordingto Jacobs'sapproach,thatthe popularnatureof the proemswould makethemmoreproneto be builtuponsharedexegetical traditions.Yet nowheredoes he ask whetherthe proemas a genre is more dependentupon these traditionsthan other genres. Moreover,it would be an importantcontributionto know if the proemsof GenesisRabbahand/or LeviticusRabbahcontainmore popularexegeticaltraditionsthanthe other, nonproemicalsections of these texts. Unfortunately,the theoreticaland historicalpositionsassumedby the authorpreventhim fromaddressingthese issues. 6. Thereare some minorobjectionswhich shouldbe mentionedhere. For some reason Jacobsrefersto the amoraicmidrashiccollectionsGenesisRabbahand LeviticusRabbahas (pp.2, 16).Likewise,he refersto ExodusRabbahI as a collectionof similarage "post-talmudic" as GenesisRabbah(p. 7), insteadof the accepteddatingof this collectionto the tenth-eleventh Dvir, 1984),p. 23. centuries.A. Shinan,MidrashShemotRabbah(Jerusalem: 7. Kugel, In Potiphar ' House, p. 266.

THE MIDRASHICPROCESS

99

While Jacobs has convincingly shown that a rich exegetical tradition connects the book of Job to the story of the flood, the reason he posits for this connectionis inadequate.He attemptsto prove that the presumed Mosaic authorshipof the book of Job "wouldsuggest that the main factor which influencedthe developmentof this exegeticaltradition,was the basic notion that Moses wrote not only the Torah,but also the Book of Job. As the Pentateuchrevealsso little regardingthe circumstanceswhich led to the Deluge,the earlyrabbinicexegetessoughtthis informationspecificallyin the detaileddescriptionsof the archetypalwicked, recordedby the Law-giver himself' (p. 42). Chapters4, 5, and6 area sustaineddiscussionof the exegeticaltraditions foundin the proemsof chapter39 of GenesisRabbah.Onceagain,Jacobsis attemptingto uncoverthe traditionsthatformthe exegeticalgridfor these six proems.These exegetical traditionswere popularizedat an "earlyperiod"' throughweekly homilies which "have providedmuch of the materialfor our extant midrashicworks"(p. 79). "In due course, this continuousand widespreadpracticeof publicly expoundingthe Scripturesin the ancient synagogues,gave rise to a considerablecorpusof popularknowledge,not only of the contentsof the biblicaltext, but also of the numeroustraditions andlegendswith which it was embellished"(p. 80). The preachercouldrely upon this assumedpopularknowledge,not only to establisha rapportwith his audience,but also to surpriseandchallengethem.Thus,the proemverse was selected "becauseit containsone or more elementswhich he expected his audienceto recognize as an allusion to some aspect of the patriarch's life or characterin populartradition"(p. 81). It is here that Jacobs has most forcefullyaugmentedHeinemann'sposition,by highlightingboth the traditionalandthe creativeaspectsof the rabbinicreadingformation. In this sectionthe authorpresentsa numberof interestingreadingswhich succeedin motivatingandelucidatingthe choiceof specificproemicalverses. At the sametime, it becomesmanifestthattheseexegeticaltraditionsarenot necessarilyrelatedto public sermons,and one couldjust as readilysay that theyoriginatedin the study-houses.Thisissueis one of thecardinaldisputesin

8. Thishistoricalobfuscationdoes not help his argument.Likewisehe uses the term"great antiquity"a numberof timeswithoutinformingthe readeraboutwhichperiodhe is concerned. Fromfurtherdiscussionsit would seem thathe is referringto prebiblicaltraditions(p. 168), buthe is neverpreciseon this crucialpoint.

100

JOSHUALEVINSON

the modem studyof midrash.9Jacobs'sargumentwouldnot be substantially differentif the assumed Sitz im Leben for these midrashimwas the beit midrashand not the synagogue.There is certainlyas much, if not more, evidencefor a sustainedstudyof biblicaltexts in the study-housesthanthere is for an earlyhomileticalcontext.Not only does he not marshalany actual evidence for the "popular"natureof this material,but his argument,which positsa richlayerof intertextualallusions,wouldcertainlybe applicablein the audience.Intruth,I believethetimehascometo contextof a more"informed" andpopular/scholastic abandonsuch dichotomiesas synagogue/study-house as unproductive,naive, andultimatelyinadequate. One otherproblemwhich appearsthroughoutthis study is the author's of the sourceshe disalmost cavalierattitudetowardthe tradition-history cusses.Forexample,Jacobselucidatesananonymousproem(GenesisRabbah 39:4) on Abrahamwhich openswith a text fromQohelet(7:19). He astutely points out that what connects these two points is the exegetical tradition which relates wisdom to Torah and Abrahamto the sage (p. 81). "We would suggest, therefore,that the applicationof the termtrn to Abraham was based upon a broaderbackgroundof populartraditionrelatingboth the activitiesof the patriarch,and the specific meaningof the biblicalepithet" (p. 82). However,thereis little to be gainedby bolsteringthis argumentwith proof from MidrashHaGadol,whose sources and creativityare avowedly problematic.Furthermore,this same "proem"appearsearlier in Genesis Rabbahin connectionwith Noah.'oJacobsdoes not discuss the possibility thatthis proemis only secondarilyrelatedto Abraham.In addition,the same verse from Qoheletis appliedto Jacob"and Joseph,'2while the additional proofhe cites for this tradition(Proverbs10:8)is appliedin the Mekhiltato Moses.'3Whilethese texts do not substantiallyunderminehis centraltheses, they do call for a more subtle use of such terms as "exegeticaltradition" and their development.14In general,his use of supportingmaterialcreates 9. MarcHirshman,"Onthe Formsandthe Methodsof Midrash,"JewishStudies:Forum WorldUnionof JewishStudies32 (1992):83-90. the of 10. GenesisRabbah34:5, 315. 11. Tanhuma,Buber,Miketz7. 12. TanhumawaYigash4. 13. MekhiltaBeshallah1, 78. 14. Likewise,theproembasedon Songof Songs8:8 to whichhe devoteschapter6 appears in Song of Songs Rabbahnot as a proemat all but as a petira. It is not clearif this changein genreaffectshis argument.

PROCESS THEMIDRASHIC

101

a chronologicalcocktail, citing with little distinctiontexts from Tanhuma, Avotd'RabbiNatan,andMidrashPsalmsas proofmerelyby statingthatthey "presumablydrawtheirmaterialfrom earliersources"(p. 99). This attitude towardchronologydoes not permitthe authorto engage in any diachronic studyof the developmentandtransmissionof the traditionshe discusses. This same weakness can be seen in his final chapter,"Elementsof Near-Eastern Mythologyin RabbinicAggadah."Variousauthorshavepointed out thatrabbinictexts remythologizethe Bible." In his attemptto show that "therabbisexhibita remarkabledegreeof accuracyin associatingtheirstore of mythologicaltraditionswith the fleeting,and often obscurereferencesin biblicalliterature"(p. 155) he at times greatlyexaggerates.For example,in discussingthe Ugariticmythologicaltexts of theprimordialstrugglebetween the Creatorand the genius of the sea, Yam,he statesthat"Ravwas not only familiarwith the cosmogonicevent to whichthe biblicalauthoralludes(Job 26:12) he actuallyemploys an epithetfor the genius of the sea, for which thereis no counterpartin biblicalsources,but which is comparablewith the 1v, 'Princeof the sea'"(p. 155).16 For some reason UgariticZBL YM,tvt •' the fact thatthis epithet(sarsel) is a ubiquitous to mention he has forgotten rabbinicterm for designatingthe celestial powers of the nations and the naturalworld."7He attemptsto strengthenhis argumentthat"fromPalestinian Midrashimit is clearthatthe earlymythpresupposedby the biblicaltext was known among the early rabbinicexegetes"(p. 156) by citing as proof the use of a particularverbfor God'stramplinguponthe seas (0a) "whichdoes not occur in biblicalallusionsto this event, but which has an exact parallel in the EnumaElish epic, where the cognate root, KABASU is used" (p. 156). However,the text he cites as proof appearsin an anonymousmidrash in Tanhumaand NumbersRabbah!What are we to understandfrom such Not only are these two collectionsby no meansexamples parallelomania?"8 15. See BernardHeller, "EgyptianElements in the Haggadah,"in Ignace Goldziher Memorial Volume,vol. 1, ed. S. Lowingerand J. Somogyi (Budapest:Globus, 1948), pp. 412-418; LouisGinzberg,OnJewishLaw andLore(New York:Atheneum,1955),pp. 62-63. Neitherof these two classical studies is cited by Jacobs.For more recentdiscussions,also uncited,see Boyarin,Intertextuality, p. 93; and MichaelFishbane,"TheHoly One Sits and Roars:Mythopoesisand the MidrashicImagination,"in TheMidrashicImagination,ed. M. Fishbane(Albany:StateUniversityof New YorkPress, 1993),pp. 60-77. 16. BT Bava Batra74b. 17. See E. E. Urbach,TheSages (Jerusalem:MagnesPress, 1975),p. 137. Journalof Biblical Literature81, no. 1 (1962): 18. Samuel Sandmel,"Parallelomania," 1-13.

102 102

JOSHUA JOSHUALEVINSON LEVINSON

of "early but to compound rabbinic exegesis," actual early "early rabbinic exegesis," but compound his problem, problem, the actual early uses a different rabbinic source uses different verb verb altogether!" rabbinic source altogether!" In conclusion, MidrashicProcess Processraises The Midrashic and addresses raises and addresses some some interestinterestconclusion,The and fundamental issues. Jacobs the with reader some and providesthe readerwith some strong ing ing and fundamental issues. Jacobs provides strong and and future on researchers these fruitful would fruitful readings, well any future researchers these topics readings,and any topics would be well advised take his positions into account. account. Unfortunately, advised to take this book book is marred marred positions into Unfortunately,this number of theoretical theoretical and and methodological blemishes which which the the author author by a number methodological blemishes able to avoid. was well well able avoid. was Hebrew HebrewUniversity University Israel Jerusalem, Jerusalem,Israel

19. GenesisRabbah5:2, 33 uses the verb jar, jr?, as Jacobshimselfnotes (p. 157, n. 15)?! Interestingenough,this earlyrabbinictext uses the imageof inflatedskin bottlesto describe Job (Jerusalem:Kiryat God'sconflictwith the sea. As N. H. Tur-Sinaishowedin TheBookof ofJob Sepher,1957),p. 383, this image(a bag or net) appearsin Job26:13 andthe AkkadianEnuma Elish. See also EdwardGreenstein,"TheSnaringof Sea in the Baal Epic,"Maarav3 (1983): 195-216.

Review: [untitled] Author(s): Scott B. Noegel Source: AJS Review, Vol. 22, No. 1 (1997), pp. 103-105 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486869 . Accessed: 15/07/2011 10:31 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

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

http://www.jstor.org

BOOKREVIEWS David Marcus.FromBalaamto Jonah:Anti-PropheticSatirein the Hebrew Bible. BrownJudaicStudies301. Atlanta:ScholarsPress, 1995. xiii, 214 pp. This workexaminesfour storiesin the HebrewBible which appearto be satires"(p. vii). "criticalof prophets,andwhichmay be calledanti-prophetic UnderDavid Marcus'smicroscopeare four biblicalnarratives:Balaamand his donkey(Numb21:21-35), the boys andthe baldprophet(2 Kgs 2:23-25), the lying prophet(1 Kgs 13), andJonah. Marcusdefinessatireas a storythathas a recognizabledirector indirect "objectof attack"(p. 9) and that containsan overwhelmingabundanceof satiricalfeatures,including"amixtureof unbelievableelements(absurdities, fantasticsituations,grotesqueries,distortions),ironies,ridicule,parody,and rhetoricalfeatures"(ibid.). As to why thesetexts(andmanyothers)havenotbeenexaminedas satires previously,Marcuscreditsthe generallack of referencesto biblical stories in standardtextbookson satire,the humorlessreverencefor the Bible held by generationsof faithgroups,andchangingsocial andhistoricalconditions which led laterreadersto becomeunawareof the targetsof biblicalsatire. Marcus's argumentsare lucid and convincing, and his examination containscopious insightfulphilologicalnotes and supportingreferencesto talmudicandmedievalcommentaries. In additionto demonstratingthe presenceof each of the characteristic features of satire, Marcus shows how only satire can explain the more problematicaspects of the four texts. For example,the horrificaccountof Elisha summoningwild bearsto maul forty-twochildrensimply for calling him "baldy"(2 Kgs 2:23-25) cannotbe explainedsimplyby sayingthatGod hasa severeattitudetowardprophet-mockers. Similarly,we cannotunderstand fast and don sackcloth cattle the Ninevite (Jonah3:8) withoutappealing why to the notionof satire. This work is so well arguedthat it naturallyspursthe questionwhether otherpropheticsatirescan be foundin the Bible. For example,if we employ 103

104

BOOKREVIEWS

Marcus'scriteria,we mightaddthe storiesaboutElijahin 1 Kings17-18. They containall of the requisitesatiricalelements,includingirony(e.g., Yahweh bringsthe rainforwhichthe prophetsof Baalprayed[1 Kgs 18:45]),fantastic situationsinvolvinganimals(e.g., ravensbringingElijahhis breakfast[1 Kgs 17:6]), grotesquerie(e.g., Elijah slaughtersfour hundredprophetsof Baal who have just gashed themselveswith flints [1 Kgs 18:40]),vulgarityand ridicule(e.g., Elijahusing the word "pissing"Iwhile mockingthe prophets widow'sunendingsupplyof [1 Kgs 18:27]),distortion(e.g., the Zarephathite oil andflour[1 Kgs 17:16]),parody(e.g., Baal'sprophetsproclaimYahweh as the only God [1 Kgs 18:39]),andnumerousrhetoricalfeatures. Thereis, however,one problematicaspectof thiswork:Marcus'sassertion thattheprincipalmessageof thesetexts(withthepossibleexceptionof Numb 21:21-35) is not an ideologicalone, but solely the negativeportrayalof the prophets'behavior(pp. 157-158). Thetwo typesof messagearenotmutually exclusive, for as even Marcusnotes, beneaththese satires "therelies the unspokenwish of whatthe properbehaviorshouldbe"(p. 170).In addition,it is doubtfulthatthe authorsof these storieswouldhavedistinguishedbetween ideological and behavioralassessment.Witness,for example,the story of David and Bathsheba(2 Sam 11-12), which is at once criticalof David's behaviorandyet neverthelessstill conveysa theological/ideological message: "even the king, if he sins, cannotescape God's punishment."It is difficult to see how the propheticsatiresdiffer in this regard.Moreover,the notion that ideology lies beneaththese satiresconcurswith what Marcuscites as the most frequentform of irony in the Bible, "measurefor measure"irony (p. 16). This form of irony,which also obtainsin the four stories,is clearly ideological.2Thus,the distinctionraisedby Marcusremainsunclear. Onelastcomment:Thoughhe does notmentionit, Marcus'sdiscussionof the Transjordanian the Balaamnarrativeraisesthe issue of how to understand Balaamtexts fromDeir 'Alla. Are they satirestoo, or the sourcematerialfor the Bible's satire?One would like to see Marcus'sview on this, at least in a footnote. These minorcriticismsaside, this is a fascinatingand convincingbook. ThoughI expectthatsome mightwantto takethe authorto taskfor laughing at the prophets(for which wild she-bearswill be summoned!),this reviewer 1. See GaryRendsburg,"TheMockof Baalin 1 Kings 18:27,"CatholicBiblicalQuarterly 50 (1988):414-417. 2. On this point see Philip J. Nel, "The TalionPrinciplein Old TestamentNarratives," Journalof NorthwestSemiticLanguages20 (1994):21-29.

105

BOOK REVIEWS

feels that Marcushas uncovereda hitherto-unrecognized sophisticationthat the a the stories of Hebrew Bible on some of at least parwith the great places satiresof EgyptandMesopotamia. ScottB. Noegel RiceUniversity Houston,Tex. HerbertJ. Levine. Sing Unto God a New Song: A Contemporary Reading Indiana in Biblical Literature. Indiana Studies Psalms. the Bloomington: of 279 1995. xvi, Press, pp. University The IndianaUniversityPress is to be commendedon anotherbrilliant study in its IndianaStudiesin Biblical Literatureseries. HerbertJ. Levine studies Psalms employingmethodologiesthat recognizeboth the aesthetic and the ritualnatureof these prayer-poems.The psalmistsessentiallyspeak and sing to an unseen listener.Levine, therefore,bringsthe studyof orality andspeechacts to bearon the psalmsanduncoversthe conventionsof human speechandcommunicationthatshapedthosecreations.And,in orderto better understandthe relationshipto the "UnseenAuditor,"Levinetakesadvantage of findingsfromthe studyof anthropology, religion,andreligioussymbolism and conventionsof the ancientNearEast. Among the discerningdiscussionsin this volume is a section entitled "TheWorldof the Psalms:The Perspectiveof Ritual."Levinehereexamines how societies define their purityrules, and how they use ritualsand ritual languageto effect transitionsfrom states of impurityback to purity.The Psalms, argues Levine, are ritualutterancesparallelto the ritualsacrifices offered in the JerusalemTempleand describedin Leviticusand Numbers. Both the words and the rites symbolicallyconcretizefor worshiperstheir statusas vulnerablecreaturesdependenton God's grace. Thus, the Psalms accompaniedthe Temple offerings and drew out the implicationsof the sacrifices. Several of the Psalms, for example, feature a "sheep"metaphorfor the people of Israel.Levine arguesthat sacrificeis a dramatizationof this metaphor."Boththe nietonymandthe metaphorof animalsacrificeconverge in the people's experienceof itself as innocentlamb, dependenton God's protectinglove, or utterlyvulnerableto its seeming absence.In the act of sacrifice,the people align themselveswith God'spowerover life and death.

Review: [untitled] Author(s): Daniel Grossberg Source: AJS Review, Vol. 22, No. 1 (1997), pp. 105-106 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486870 . Accessed: 15/07/2011 10:31 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

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

http://www.jstor.org

105

BOOK REVIEWS

feels that Marcushas uncovereda hitherto-unrecognized sophisticationthat the a the stories of Hebrew Bible on some of at least parwith the great places satiresof EgyptandMesopotamia. ScottB. Noegel RiceUniversity Houston,Tex. HerbertJ. Levine. Sing Unto God a New Song: A Contemporary Reading Indiana in Biblical Literature. Indiana Studies Psalms. the Bloomington: of 279 1995. xvi, Press, pp. University The IndianaUniversityPress is to be commendedon anotherbrilliant study in its IndianaStudiesin Biblical Literatureseries. HerbertJ. Levine studies Psalms employingmethodologiesthat recognizeboth the aesthetic and the ritualnatureof these prayer-poems.The psalmistsessentiallyspeak and sing to an unseen listener.Levine, therefore,bringsthe studyof orality andspeechacts to bearon the psalmsanduncoversthe conventionsof human speechandcommunicationthatshapedthosecreations.And,in orderto better understandthe relationshipto the "UnseenAuditor,"Levinetakesadvantage of findingsfromthe studyof anthropology, religion,andreligioussymbolism and conventionsof the ancientNearEast. Among the discerningdiscussionsin this volume is a section entitled "TheWorldof the Psalms:The Perspectiveof Ritual."Levinehereexamines how societies define their purityrules, and how they use ritualsand ritual languageto effect transitionsfrom states of impurityback to purity.The Psalms, argues Levine, are ritualutterancesparallelto the ritualsacrifices offered in the JerusalemTempleand describedin Leviticusand Numbers. Both the words and the rites symbolicallyconcretizefor worshiperstheir statusas vulnerablecreaturesdependenton God's grace. Thus, the Psalms accompaniedthe Temple offerings and drew out the implicationsof the sacrifices. Several of the Psalms, for example, feature a "sheep"metaphorfor the people of Israel.Levine arguesthat sacrificeis a dramatizationof this metaphor."Boththe nietonymandthe metaphorof animalsacrificeconverge in the people's experienceof itself as innocentlamb, dependenton God's protectinglove, or utterlyvulnerableto its seeming absence.In the act of sacrifice,the people align themselveswith God'spowerover life and death.

106

BOOK REVIEWS

Thoughmute, the sacrificialact is saying, in effect, 'We can be like you in killingthis sheep,which standsin for us; do not be this kind of God to us' "

(p.58).

"FromHere to Eternity:The Perspectivesof Time and Space"is the mostenlighteningchapterin a fully insightfulandinformativebook.Leaning heavily on MirceaEliade,Levine distinguishesbetweenhumanand divine time-frames.Ordinarytime, as seen by humans,is continuous,flowing,and irreversible,whereassacredtimerecovers,repeats,reverses,andreactualizes. Throughritual,humanscan reverse the course of time. The Sabbath,for of the primordialrest of God following example,is a weekly reactualization the Creation.Throughparticipationin religiousritual,humansconnectthemselves to the divineperspectiveon time. Timeflowingever onwardcan also be defeated,as manyreligiousculturestriedto do, by invokingan afterlifefor the individualor for all humanhistory.The afterlifeis an end-timeparallel to the primordialbeginningtime. In a conceptionof humanhistoryas linear but stretchingbetweentwo atemporalstates,"themost distantpast in effect becomesthe future.At the momentof transition,the presentera endswith a greatdestruction,presagingthe beginningof a new era"(p. 133). The poetic language in Psalms vividly depicts God's eternal,cosmic time-space.Levinerecognizesthe humanneed of the psalmiststo bridgethe gap betweenthe humanand the divinerealmsthroughdiscourseaboutGod. Thepsalmistspraiseandinterprettheworldtheyexperience,thusestablishing a relationshipto that which is beyond their limits. The awesome heavens depictedin Psalm8, for example,testifyto God'sbeing,buttheyalso pointto the insignificanceof humankind."Whatis manthatYouhavebeenmindfulof him,mortalmanthatYouhavetakennoteof him?"(8:4-5). "Thehumantask, writesLevine,"is to acknowledgethe truerelationbetweenthe accordingly," incommensurable partnersin dialogue:'YHWH,our Lord,how majesticis Yournamethroughoutthe earth!'(8:2, 10)"(p. 139). The readingsof the Psalmsthroughthe variouslenses of contemporary rhetorical,linguistic,religious,historical,andanthropological scholarshipare sensitiveandconvincing.Levine'sbookis a valuableadditionto the literature on the Psalms. DanielGrossberg of NewYorkatAlbany StateUniversity Albany, N.Y.

Review: [untitled] Author(s): Scott B. Noegel Source: AJS Review, Vol. 22, No. 1 (1997), pp. 107-109 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486871 . Accessed: 15/07/2011 10:31 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

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

http://www.jstor.org

BOOK REVIEWS

107

HectorAvalos.IllnessandHealthCarein theAncientNearEast: TheRole of the Templein Greece,Mesopotamia,andIsrael.HarvardSemiticMonographs 54. Atlanta:ScholarsPress, 1995. xxv, 463 pp. This work differs from previousstudiesof ancientNear Easternhealth care in two importantways. First,it approachesthe subjectfrom a modem medical-anthropological perspective.Thus, it attemptsno diagnoses, but rather it examines the socioreligious dynamics that determinedGreece, Mesopotamia,and Israel'sown conceptionsof illness. Accordingto Hector Avalos: "It is often more importantto understandwhat an ancientculture definedas an 'illness' than what the actualcause might have been from a modem scientificstandpoint"(p. 27). Second,this work focuses on the role of the templeas a healthcareprovider.ForthisAvaloslimitshis comparisons to threepossiblemedicalfunctions(i.e., petition,therapy,andthanksgiving) of the templesof Asclepius in Greece,Gula/Ninisinain Mesopotamia,and Yahwehin Israel. His comparisonsreveal significantdifferencesbetween the temples' functions: ". .. the temple of Gula was a resource center that stored and

to thehealthconsultants.It also had distributedinformationandparaphernalia a thanksgivingfunction,andperhapspetitionaryandtherapeuticfunctionson a limitedscale. In Greece,the Asclepieionwas a locus which definitelyhad petitionary,therapeutic,andthanksgivingfunctionsfor patients"(p. 395). Avalos attributesthe lack of an infirmaryin the temple of Gula to a of Mesopotamianmedicaltheologyin whichnumerous"senders/controllers" for of an illness were essential therapy."Thus,regardless the existenceof a healing deity, ultimaterelief was centeredin contactingand entreatingthe of an illness,andnotthehealingdeity"(p. 227). By correct'sender/controller' contrast,Avalosattributesthe prominencewhichthe Jerusalemtempleplaced on its thanksgivingfunction(at the expenseof the petitionaryandtherapeutic functions)to socioreligiousfactorsresultingfrom the centralizationof the cult. One of Avalos'smost interestingdiscussionsconcernsthe associationof healingwith temple dogs. He examinestheirpresenceat the Asclepieiain Greece, at the temple of Gula in Isin, and in burialsboth in Egypt and at Ashqelon,and concludesthat the relationshipemergedfrom the view that dogs were "'helper(s)/defender(s)'of humans"(p. 414). ThoughAvalos's connectioncertainlyis correct,one mustquestionhis conclusion,fornot only were negativeviews of dogs prevalentin Mesopotamiaand in Israel,but, as

108

BOOK REVIEWS

notedby B. J. Collins,theremighthave been ritualuses for the dog as well, at least in Mesopotamia.' Nevertheless,the connectionmadeby Avalosstands,andthoughhe does not mentionit, his observationinformsus of a possiblyironicallusionto the associationof dogs with healingin 2 Kgs 9:36-37, wherewe hearhow dogs lickedup the blood of Jezebel(the etymologyof whose nameAvalosrelates to zbl "disease"[pp.281-282]). Similarly,we also mightlook to the Ugariticepic of Kret,which tells us how king Kret,strickenat the suddenloss of his family and wealth,enters the templeof the chief god, El, sobbing: Like a dog in yourhouse,we pass the time Like a cur,at yourentrance. (UT 125:2-3, 16-17) Not only does the text mentiona dog in relationto El's temple,but, to use Avalos'sterms,Krethereutilizestheprimaryhealthcarelocus forpetitionary purposes. Though this work offers many contributions,it also warrantsseveral critical remarks.Foremostis Avalos's frequentuse of the Documentary Hypothesisas a stable base on which to build his arguments.By drawing distinctionsbetweenbiblicaltexts assignedto the P (Priestly)sourceand to the D (Deuteronomist),Avalos concludes:"By the time that the laws in P were implemented,the petitionaryand therapeuticfunctionsof the temple were, for most practicalpurposes,eliminated"(p. 379). WhetherAvalos is correctherewe probablyshall neverknow,for P andD do not exist outside the world of scholarlyconstructs.To build additionalhypothesesupon this questionableconstruct,in this reviewer'sopinion,considerablyweakensthe thesis. Also notableis Avalos'slack of attentionto distinctionsin literarygenre that affect his arguments.As an exampleI offer the Mesopotamiantale of the Poor Man of Nippur.This text, which Avalos gleans for meaningful is well knownfor its satireand referencesto the asa2"medicalpractitioner," humor.2YetAvalosstatesthat"thestoryis consistentwith the factthathome Studies 1. See, e.g., Billie JeanCollins,"ThePuppyin HittiteRitual,"Journalof Cuneiform 42, no. 2 (1990):211-226. 2. E.g., see J. S. Cooper,"Structure,Humor,and Satirein the Poor Man fromNippur," Journal of Cuneiform Studies 27 (1975): 163-174; for another doctor of Isin satire, see E.

109

REVIEWS BOOK

care is centraleven to the extent that it was not regardedas unusualfor physicians(in this case unsolicited)to come from Isin to see patientsin Nippur"(p. 177).By overlookingthe genreof the text,Avaloshasmissedthe humorouspoint of the as2i'shousecall.It is preciselybecauseit was unusual for a doctorfromIsin to visit the mayorof Nippur(who, as Avalosadmits[p. 177], doubtlesshad Nippurianmedicalpractitionersat his disposal)thatthe mayorshouldhavebeen suspiciousof the poorman'sruse.(He was disguised as a doctorin orderto get the mayoraloneto beathim.) One also wonderswhy thereis almosta completeabsenceof references to the Ugaritictexts, despitethe author'sassertionthatIsraelemergedfrom a Canaanitematrix(pp. 403-404). I have remarkedon the possible literary referenceto dogs in El's abode, but doubtlessone also could study the petitionsof King Kret, El's temple, and the Ugariticmagical incantations fromthe perspectiveof medicalanthropology. Thereare also numerouseditorialinfelicities,includingan inconsistent spelling of Bullutsu-rabi,incorrectHebrewword order(p. 315), unfinished sentences(p. 89), discontinuedfootnotes(pp. 389-390), andpartialduplication of paragraphs(pp. 391-392). Addingthe numeroustypographicalerrors would lengthenthe list considerably. Finally,andthis is intendedmorefor the publisher:the fontsused in this monograph,especiallythe Hebrew,are nearlyillegibleand seriouslydetract It is difficultto believe thata betterfont was fromthe book's marketability. not availablein today'sage of advancedcomputertechnology. Avaloshas collectedand anaThese criticalcommentsnotwithstanding, lyzed numerousand diversetextualsourcesas well as datafromthe field of medicalanthropology,and in so doinghas createdan impressiveandunique contributionto biblicalandNear Easternstudies. ScottB. Noegel RiceUniversity Tex. Houston,

Reiner, "Why Do You Cuss Me?" Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 130 (1986): 1-6.

Review: [untitled] Author(s): Leonard J. Greenspoon Source: AJS Review, Vol. 22, No. 1 (1997), pp. 110-112 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486872 . Accessed: 15/07/2011 10:31 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

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

http://www.jstor.org

110

BOOKREVIEWS

LawrenceM. Wills. TheJewish Novel in the Ancient World.Ithaca,N.Y.: CornellUniversityPress, 1995. xi, 279 pp. If I did not fear incurringthe reader'swrath,I would begin this review by noting that LawrenceWills (who teaches Biblical Studiesat Episcopal DivinitySchool)has developeda "novel"approachto an importantbody of ancientJewish literature.As it is, I can commencewith the commendatory commentthathis approach,howeverwe characterizeit, succeedsto a large degree in makingsense out of the presentstructureand probablebuilding blocksof the booksof Daniel,Tobit,Esther,Judith,andJosephandAsenath. Wills's rathervague description(a bettertermthan definition)of these works as novels is admittedlysomewhatproblematic.However,his efforts shouldbe understoodnot as a comprehensiveattemptto captureall of this literaryform's salient features,but as an effortboth to distinguishit from the historicalnovel andto defineits social function.In the firstinstance,the novel proper-as opposedto the historicalnovel-should be understoodas a fictitiousnarrativethat "is not about any situationthat really existed or any event thatreally occurred"(p. 2). In antiquitythe "novelisticimpulse" reflectsthe move fromorallycomposedto writtenliteratureandpresupposes the graduallywideningpresenceof an audiencethat could appreciatethe latter. The movementfrom Daniel to Joseph and Asenathentails, in Wills's typology, increasinglysophisticatedliterarydevelopments,though never attainingthe heightsachievedby the somewhatlaterandhigher-classGreek novels. For one of Wills's most engagingexegeticaltools is the insightthat these Jewishworks functionedat the level of popular literatureand should be evaluatedin much the same way as today's lowbrow,but widely read, productsof the same level. Wills postulates,but falls shortof proving,the existenceof a mass Jewishaudiencereadyandable to devoursuchmaterial. Wills'sgeneraldescriptionof the definingfeaturesof thisliterarycategory encompasseswhatI wouldtermboththeoreticalandpracticalconsiderations. I foundthe latterto be moreclearlyandconvincinglypresented.Amongthe specificsare (a) a heightenedinterestin the emotionsandthe interiorlife of leadingandeven minorcharacters;(b) a greaterfocus on womenas primary actorsandas importantfiguresin andof themselves;(c) a delightin narrative description,whetherit entailsmovementfromone placeto anotheror details elementsof bureaucraticorganizationset withinexotic backgrounds;(d) an emphasison Jews and Judaismas functioningwithinan extended,but still

REVIEWS BOOK

111

close-knit family; (e) an intentionallyflippantattitudetowardhistory that both authorand initial audiencewould have appreciativelyunderstoodas irony and satire.It is of coursethis latterpoint, as much as any other,that has caused concern,if not outrightconsternation,to commentators.On the one hand, many have sought to rewriteor ratherradicallyreinterpretthe "historical" extrabiblicalrecordto make room for some hitherto-unknown havedeterminedthattheir characters.On the other,some modeminterpreters were at least on occasionconfused,mistaken,or sloppy ancientcounterparts in their"historical" analysis.In Wills'sview, neithergrouphas gottenit right. with I tend to agree him, althougheven he is forcedto admitthatthe irony inherentin these novels (assumingthat is what they are) has managedto escapethe notice of almostall readersof these texts. It is not possible here to go into the detailsof his carefulbook-by-book analysis of the five above-listedworks or the more truncated,but no less valuable,surveyof fourhistoricalnovels (SecondandThirdMaccabeesand Josephus' Tobiad Romance and Royal Family of Abiabene), all of which

treat in an admittedlynovelistic way of historicalcharactersfrom a time periodrelativelyclose to thatof theirauthors.Sufficeit to say thatI foundthe chapterson EstherandTobitto be especiallysatisfying;forthe formerI would only add bibliographicalreferenceto an importantwork that appearedtoo late for Wills's notice: Karen Jobes, The Alpha-TextofEsther: Its Character and Relationship to the Masoretic Text (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996). In

the case of Daniel, I like what Wills says aboutthe compositionof the first six chapters,and his commentson the Greekadditions,especiallySusanna and Bel and the Dragon,are insightful.But I am still at a loss as to how, when, and exactly why the apocalypticvisions of Daniel 7-12 came to be attachedto the other "Daniel"materialand the degree to which the final product(in its Hebrewor Greekform) can be designateda novel. As for Judith,I do not objectto the thrustof Wills'sremarks,andI am even able to follow him when he speaksof the anatomicalimageryinherentin the narrow pass leadingto Judith'shometownof Bethulia,or "Virgin."But he loses me when he speaksof vaginalconnectionswith Holofernes'tent, which Judith so effectivelypenetrates.Enoughis enough! Overall,I thinkWillshas got it right,andthis carriesoverto the appendix as a satiricalnovel.Even in which TheTestament ofAbrahamis characterized when I find Wills unconvincing,he neverfails to be intellectuallysatisfying and theologicallystimulating.It may be too much,but I feel as if I used to read this materiallike a Tobit,whose vision was obscuredby (proverbial)

112

BOOKREVIEWS

birddroppings.Now, like Estheror Judithor Asenath,theseworkshave shed theiralluringbut false fineryto revealthe strengththatlies at theircore. Leonard J. Greenspoon Creighton University Neb. Omaha, Menahem Stem. Hasmonean Judaea in the Hellenistic World: Chapters in

Political History.Editedby Daniel R. Schwartz.Jerusalem:ZalmanShazar Centerfor JewishHistory,1995. 298 pp. (Hebrew). On the morningof June22, 1989, MenahemStem left his hometo walk, as was his practice,to the GivatRamcampusof the HebrewUniversity.He never arrived.The terroristswho murderedhim deprivedthe world of its leading scholaron the history of the Jews in the Greco-Romanperiod.In the sixty-fouryears thatwere allottedto him, Stem made a series of major contributions.After completinghis doctoratehe helpedpreparethe Corpus Papyrorumludaicarum(1957-64), appearingas a co-authoron the third and final volume. In 1965 he published The Documents on the History of

the HasmoneanRevolt(in Hebrew;a second,revisedand expandededition appeared in 1972), and his magnum opus, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews

and Judaism,appearedin three volumes between 1974 and 1984. As the latterprojectnearedcompletion,Stem turnedhis attentionto a new task. He planned a multivolume,detailed survey of Jewish history in Second Temple times. This was to be the overview which would synthesizethe resultsof his decadesof researchon the sourcesanddocuments.In fact,Stem alreadyhad publisheda large body of synthetichistoricalstudies.Anyone who has used his books knows how much historiographyis containedin the introductionsand commentariesto the sources.For example,his notes on Cassius Dio, Historia Romana LXIX, 12:1-14:3 in Greek and Latin

on the Bar Authors,vol. 2, pp. 393-405, constitutea "mini-monograph" Kokhvarevolt. Further,he produceddozens of scholarlyarticles,collected and published posthumously in 1991 as Studies in Jewish History: TheSecond

TemplePeriod. Finally,he contributedsurveyarticlesto varioushandbooks publishedbetween 1969 and 1983. Nevertheless,the loss of his projected multivolumehistoryis a grievousone. Following Stem's death, his widow, Havah, invited Daniel Schwartz of Hebrew Universityto examine the manuscriptmaterialleft behind in

Review: [untitled] Author(s): David Goodblatt Source: AJS Review, Vol. 22, No. 1 (1997), pp. 112-114 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486873 . Accessed: 15/07/2011 10:31 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

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

http://www.jstor.org

112

BOOKREVIEWS

birddroppings.Now, like Estheror Judithor Asenath,theseworkshave shed theiralluringbut false fineryto revealthe strengththatlies at theircore. Leonard J. Greenspoon Creighton University Neb. Omaha, Menahem Stem. Hasmonean Judaea in the Hellenistic World: Chapters in

Political History.Editedby Daniel R. Schwartz.Jerusalem:ZalmanShazar Centerfor JewishHistory,1995. 298 pp. (Hebrew). On the morningof June22, 1989, MenahemStem left his hometo walk, as was his practice,to the GivatRamcampusof the HebrewUniversity.He never arrived.The terroristswho murderedhim deprivedthe world of its leading scholaron the history of the Jews in the Greco-Romanperiod.In the sixty-fouryears thatwere allottedto him, Stem made a series of major contributions.After completinghis doctoratehe helpedpreparethe Corpus Papyrorumludaicarum(1957-64), appearingas a co-authoron the third and final volume. In 1965 he published The Documents on the History of

the HasmoneanRevolt(in Hebrew;a second,revisedand expandededition appeared in 1972), and his magnum opus, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews

and Judaism,appearedin three volumes between 1974 and 1984. As the latterprojectnearedcompletion,Stem turnedhis attentionto a new task. He planned a multivolume,detailed survey of Jewish history in Second Temple times. This was to be the overview which would synthesizethe resultsof his decadesof researchon the sourcesanddocuments.In fact,Stem alreadyhad publisheda large body of synthetichistoricalstudies.Anyone who has used his books knows how much historiographyis containedin the introductionsand commentariesto the sources.For example,his notes on Cassius Dio, Historia Romana LXIX, 12:1-14:3 in Greek and Latin

on the Bar Authors,vol. 2, pp. 393-405, constitutea "mini-monograph" Kokhvarevolt. Further,he produceddozens of scholarlyarticles,collected and published posthumously in 1991 as Studies in Jewish History: TheSecond

TemplePeriod. Finally,he contributedsurveyarticlesto varioushandbooks publishedbetween 1969 and 1983. Nevertheless,the loss of his projected multivolumehistoryis a grievousone. Following Stem's death, his widow, Havah, invited Daniel Schwartz of Hebrew Universityto examine the manuscriptmaterialleft behind in

REVIEWS BOOK

113

his files. Schwartzdiscoveredfull or partialdraftsin varying degrees of readinessof some fortychaptersfromthe projectedbook,coveringthe period fromAlexanderthe Greattill Augustusand Herod.The earlierperiod,from AlexanderthroughJudahthe Maccabee,andthe careerof Herodhadalready been surveyedby Stem in print.Consequently,it was decidedto publishthe draftsof the chapterswhich deal with the intermediateperiodfromJonathan the Hasmoneanthroughthe conquestof Jerusalemby Herod,i.e., fromabout 158 to 37 B.C.E.The resultis the book beforeus, whichcontainstwenty-one chapters,an introductionby the editor,a select bibliography,andan index of personsandplaces.In his introduction,Schwartzshareswithus the dilemmas he faced in preparingthe materialand the solutionshe adopted.On rare occasions some sentenceswere rearranged,but generallySchwartzlimited himself to brief additionsin the text for purposesof clarityand additional bibliographyin the notes, both in brackets.He is also responsiblefor the into fourunits.In addition,each orderof the chaptersandtheirarrangement brief with a summaryby Schwartz,printedin smallertype, chapterbegins and a general orientationto the subject of the which provides continuity chapter. As the subtitle indicates,the subject of the book is political history. Stem's interestsextended beyond this, as illustratedby his 1968 article, "TheHasmoneanRevolt and Its Place in the Historyof JewishSociety and Religion."In the book beforeus, however,at least half of the chaptersfocus not on the history of Judah,but on that of the regionalpowers and the neighboringstates:the SeleucidandPtolemaickingdoms,Rome,Parthia,and the Itureans.And even the chapterswhich deal directlywith the Hasmonean stateconcentrateon foreignrelations.International politics,of course,forms boththebackdropandat leastpartof the explanationfortheriseandfall of the Hasmoneandynasty.The more seriouslimitationsof this book arethreefold. The surveysof Hellenistichistoryrepeatwhatis readilyavailableelsewhere, the bibliographyis not up to date, and much of the specificallyHasmonean historywas alreadytreatedby Stem in his publications.In mitigation,such surveys are less available in Hebrew,Schwartzhas partiallyupdatedthe bibliography,andnew materialdoes appear.Thuson pp. 73-75, Sternmakes the case that Jonathanwas the "mostpracticeddiplomat"producedby the Hasmoneandynasty.And on pp. 195-199, Stem commentson the parallel accountsin Josephusand the BabylonianTalmudaboutthe rift betweenthe Phariseesandthe Hasmoneans. Despiteall the limitationsresultingfromthe circumstancesof publication,

114 114

BOOK REVIEWS BOOK REVIEWS

this The Hebrew-reading will benefit benefit from welcome. The from a detailed detailed book is welcome. this book Hebrew-readingpublic public will Hasmonean history. The scholarly the Hellenistic Hellenistic background history. The background to Hasmonean scholarly study of the study can be be learned learnedfrom from the the master's will appreciate whatevercan world will master's Nachlafi. world appreciatewhatever Nachlafj. be grateful such a worthy both groups found such that he he found editorin shouldbe And both And gratefulthat groupsshould worthy editor Daniel how much much we book reminds reminds us once once again Schwartz. Reading Daniel Schwartz. again of how Reading the book lost with the murder of Menahem Stern. DavidGoodblatt Universityof Californiaat SanDiego La Jolla,Calif. ininto to Palestine: AAn n Womeninin Greco-Roman Greco-Roman Palestine: Jewish IIlan. lan. Women Inquiry Inqui ry Image Image Jewi sh TTal al . . . BB. zzum urn Anti Antiken ken Judenturn Studien uund nd Studi en TextTexte e aand nd StStatus. atus. Ttibingen: Tilbingen:J.J. CC. Judentum444. 2 270 7 0 1995. 1995. Mohr((Paul Mohr x xiii, i , Siebeck), Siebeck), ppp. . Paul ofof aall l ththe e "makes "makesuuse worwork k se nist whiwhich ch intendedasas aa femifeminist ThiThis s bookbook isis intended

inin aa well-balanced nd well-balancedaand be describe source-criticaltechniques nd source-critical sources sources aand techniquestoto descri

wsomen womenin Palestineduringa periodof Sthorough thoroughmannerthe historyof Jewish detailed led resresult ult isis aa detai ThThe e vicissitudes"(p(p. soso many iinterest nterest aand nd ssuch uch 1). . 221). manyvicissitudes" grgreat eat of issues, such as sexuality(e.g., virginity, uissues, study studycovering a broadrange status (e.g., testimony,inheritance),and social chastity,pregnancy),legal statuso f individual individual numberoof considers considersa a number nd institutions institutions((e.g., divorce),aand marriage, marriage,divorce), e.g., a section Eac Each h a and n d Matrona. Matrona. Beruriah as such description provides sect i o n provi d es a description Beruriah such as fifigures, gures, interactionwiwith th inin ssome interaction ome aand nd nd, cascases, es, sources, sources,aand, scholarly scholarly mary anal analysis ysis ofof priprimary opiopinion. nion. rabbinic f rabbi nic inin itits s detai detailed led lilies es f tthis his ThThe e presentation presentationoof sstudy tudy strengthoof strength examinesttexts exts f inheritance inheritanceexamines e discussion discussion oof or sources. sources. FFor example, ththe frfrom ~om example, aand nd Jerusalem JerusalemTalTalmud, ththe e mud, mud, Tosefta,Babylonian Mishnah,Tosefta, Mishnah, PesiPesiqta qta BabylonianTalTalmud, aand nd ssuch uch asas JudiJudith th nonrabbinicttexts, considers considersnonrabbinic nd de-de-Rav Rav exts, Kahana,aand Kahana, bribriefly efly aa hat al IIlan lan basbasis is oof f tthese hese n ththe e oof f Josephus. ththe e sources,TTal sources, arguestthat argues Josephus.OOn wriwritings tings wiwife fe tto o hhis is r o o transfer s oor r husband ffather ather transferproperty husbandwawas daughters daughtersoor permitted propertytto permittedtto tthe he ""all al tthis his hhis is f lliving aafter fter ensure standardoof reasonablestandard ensureaa reasonable deatdeath, h, despi te quiquite te despite iving women" a n d inheritance l a w s bi b l i c al women" and inheritance laws biblical ownership b y property ownership by agai n st property against speci fic specific ththe e relrelevant evant ot f Beruriah ThThe e discussion Beruriahnnot discussionoof priprimary mary oonly nly gatgathers hers 170)170).1 .' ((p. p. he ssome ome tthat hat tthis his statement ththe e bibiblical blical ddata ata 1. 1. OOf f statementrequirequires cours e, qualification. res qualification.TThe course, ssuggest uggest ould women tthat hat aand nd 336 6 demonstrates 7 inin Numbers oof f ththe e womenccould demonstrates Numbers227 Zelophehad daughters daughtersofof Zelophehad epiepisode sode aand nd ththe e transaction 1:16 statement aand nd ththe e tthere here wewere re nno o atat lleast east whewhen n transaction statementinin Proverbs Proverbs331:16 ssons; ons; iinherit, nherit, ssell el aand nd ould 44 demonstrate tthat hat women th recorded womenccould oown, wn, demonstrate recordedinin RuRuth propert y. property. bbuy, uy,

Review: [untitled] Author(s): Adele Reinhartz Source: AJS Review, Vol. 22, No. 1 (1997), pp. 114-116 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486874 . Accessed: 15/07/2011 10:31 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

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

http://www.jstor.org

114 114

BOOK REVIEWS BOOK REVIEWS

this The Hebrew-reading will benefit benefit from welcome. The from a detailed detailed book is welcome. this book Hebrew-readingpublic public will Hasmonean history. The scholarly the Hellenistic Hellenistic background history. The background to Hasmonean scholarly study of the study can be be learned learnedfrom from the the master's will appreciate whatevercan world will master's Nachlafi. world appreciatewhatever Nachlafj. be grateful such a worthy both groups found such that he he found editorin shouldbe And both And gratefulthat groupsshould worthy editor Daniel how much much we book reminds reminds us once once again Schwartz. Reading Daniel Schwartz. again of how Reading the book lost with the murder of Menahem Stern. DavidGoodblatt Universityof Californiaat SanDiego La Jolla,Calif. ininto to Palestine: AAn n Womeninin Greco-Roman Greco-Roman Palestine: Jewish IIlan. lan. Women Inquiry Inqui ry Image Image Jewi sh TTal al . . . BB. zzum urn Anti Antiken ken Judenturn Studien uund nd Studi en TextTexte e aand nd StStatus. atus. Ttibingen: Tilbingen:J.J. CC. Judentum444. 2 270 7 0 1995. 1995. Mohr((Paul Mohr x xiii, i , Siebeck), Siebeck), ppp. . Paul ofof aall l ththe e "makes "makesuuse worwork k se nist whiwhich ch intendedasas aa femifeminist ThiThis s bookbook isis intended

inin aa well-balanced nd well-balancedaand be describe source-criticaltechniques nd source-critical sources sources aand techniquestoto descri

wsomen womenin Palestineduringa periodof Sthorough thoroughmannerthe historyof Jewish detailed led resresult ult isis aa detai ThThe e vicissitudes"(p(p. soso many iinterest nterest aand nd ssuch uch 1). . 221). manyvicissitudes" grgreat eat of issues, such as sexuality(e.g., virginity, uissues, study studycovering a broadrange status (e.g., testimony,inheritance),and social chastity,pregnancy),legal statuso f individual individual numberoof considers considersa a number nd institutions institutions((e.g., divorce),aand marriage, marriage,divorce), e.g., a section Eac Each h a and n d Matrona. Matrona. Beruriah as such description provides sect i o n provi d es a description Beruriah such as fifigures, gures, interactionwiwith th inin ssome interaction ome aand nd nd, cascases, es, sources, sources,aand, scholarly scholarly mary anal analysis ysis ofof priprimary opiopinion. nion. rabbinic f rabbi nic inin itits s detai detailed led lilies es f tthis his ThThe e presentation presentationoof sstudy tudy strengthoof strength examinesttexts exts f inheritance inheritanceexamines e discussion discussion oof or sources. sources. FFor example, ththe frfrom ~om example, aand nd Jerusalem JerusalemTalTalmud, ththe e mud, mud, Tosefta,Babylonian Mishnah,Tosefta, Mishnah, PesiPesiqta qta BabylonianTalTalmud, aand nd ssuch uch asas JudiJudith th nonrabbinicttexts, considers considersnonrabbinic nd de-de-Rav Rav exts, Kahana,aand Kahana, bribriefly efly aa hat al IIlan lan basbasis is oof f tthese hese n ththe e oof f Josephus. ththe e sources,TTal sources, arguestthat argues Josephus.OOn wriwritings tings wiwife fe tto o hhis is r o o transfer s oor r husband ffather ather transferproperty husbandwawas daughters daughtersoor permitted propertytto permittedtto tthe he ""all al tthis his hhis is f lliving aafter fter ensure standardoof reasonablestandard ensureaa reasonable deatdeath, h, despi te quiquite te despite iving women" a n d inheritance l a w s bi b l i c al women" and inheritance laws biblical ownership b y property ownership by agai n st property against speci fic specific ththe e relrelevant evant ot f Beruriah ThThe e discussion Beruriahnnot discussionoof priprimary mary oonly nly gatgathers hers 170)170).1 .' ((p. p. he ssome ome tthat hat tthis his statement ththe e bibiblical blical ddata ata 1. 1. OOf f statementrequirequires cours e, qualification. res qualification.TThe course, ssuggest uggest ould women tthat hat aand nd 336 6 demonstrates 7 inin Numbers oof f ththe e womenccould demonstrates Numbers227 Zelophehad daughters daughtersofof Zelophehad epiepisode sode aand nd ththe e transaction 1:16 statement aand nd ththe e tthere here wewere re nno o atat lleast east whewhen n transaction statementinin Proverbs Proverbs331:16 ssons; ons; iinherit, nherit, ssell el aand nd ould 44 demonstrate tthat hat women th recorded womenccould oown, wn, demonstrate recordedinin RuRuth propert y. property. bbuy, uy,

REVIEWS BOOK

115

sources but also debunkspopularmyth by arguingthat "the great Torah scholarwho was the amoraicBeruriahwas the productof the imaginationof the amoraim" (p. 200).

Interestingand informativeas the specificdiscussionsare, however,the bookas a whole falls shortof being a "well-balancedandthorough"feminist historyof Jewish women in Palestine.Many points warrantcomment,but I restrictmy remarksto three. First, despite the subject matterand the author's claims in the preface (p. xi), this is not a feminist work. Ilan uncriticallyassumesthe outmodedoppositionbetweenfeministscholarship and proper"objective"historicalscholarship,and aligns herself with the latter,althoughshe appearsto be awareof the strongfeministchallengeto this dichotomy(p. 13). For example,she lauds RachelBiale's Womenand JewishLaw (New York,1984), which, "despiteits clearfeministaims,"has nevertheless"managedto establishcertainunmediatedfacts" (p. 16), but dismissesfeministscholarshipon halakhah(in which Biale's workis surely included)becauseof its concernwith contemporaryissues (p. 176). Worse, this principleis not appliedconsistently.Forexample,she cites L. J. Swidler extensivelyto supporther own analysesof New Testamentpassagesdespite herjudgmentconcerningthe apologeticnatureof Swidler'swork(p. 11), and whose work servesa drawsfrequentlyupon the studiesby B. Witherington, values" conservative Christian agenda.Ilan'sblanket "family contemporary dismissalof currentfeministscholarshipcuts her off frominsightsinto her issues (e.g., same-sex sourcetexts as well as into a rangeof gender-related to current Jewishfeminist central friendshipand sexuality)thatare not only butpresentin the sourcesunderconsideration.Also jarringis historiography theuse of masculinelanguagein speakingof historians(pp. 1,43). Thesecond problemrelatesto methodology.Ilanrecognizesthe need for cautionbothin using sources writtenor redactedoutside the Landof Israelto reconstruct the situationin Palestine,and in tappingfifth-centuryand later texts for information withinher chronological framework (ca. 300 B.C.E.to 200 C'.E.). Nevertheless,some of her methodologicaldecisions are questionable.It is not madeclear,for example,why an aggadahin whichthe womanis integral to the story is "of less historicalvalue" than an aggadah"whose central figurecouldjust as easily be a male"(p. 35). Further,havingestablishedthis criterion,Talherselfdoes notabideby it. Forexample,she considersthemany storiesin whichrabbinicauthoritiesallow widowsto remarry--storieswhich have women as integralfiguresand addressexceptionalcircumstances-to demonstratethat"notmanyJewishwomen remainedwidows for very long"

116

BOOK REVIEWS

(p. 151). Also problematicis Ilan's use of early Christianmaterials.She argues,for example,that the neutraltone of Acts makes it a more reliable historicalsource than the Gospel of John (p. 180), yet scholarshave long been aware that the authorof Acts, like the FourthEvangelist,had his own particularideological and theological agendas which influencedhis presentationof the earlydecadesof the Christianmovement.Elsewhere,she cites John4 as evidencethatJesuschallengedthe "rabbiniclaws of purity"by drinkingfromthe cup of the Samaritanwoman(p. 105). HereIlanmisreads boththe contentandthe theologyof the text. ThoughJesusrequestsa drink, he does not partake.Rather,his requestserves a rhetoricalpurpose,which is not to challengefirst-centurypuritylaws butratherto contrastwell-water, which slakes only temporarily,with the living waterof eternallife (4:14). could have been avoidedby consulting These and othermisinterpretations standardNew Testamentcommentaries. Finally,the book focuses on a period of approximatelyfive centuries, duringwhichJudaism,in Palestineas in the Diaspora,was influencedby the Greeklanguage,andby Romanas well as Hellenisticculture,literature,social institutions,andpractices.Yet apartfromrecognizingthe vicissitudesof this period,Ilan says little aboutthe changingrole of womenover time, or about the influenceof Hellenismon the statusof women and on the sourcesfrom which the roles of women are constructed.At the very least, such questions shouldhave been raisedin the conclusion,which is too briefto providethe to so broada historicalstudy. syntheticanalysisappropriate the book, andthe impressive These and otherproblemsnotwithstanding, amountof data it contains,is a valuableresourcefor the study of Jewish womenin Greco-RomanPalestine. AdeleReinhartz McMaster University Ont. Hamilton,

Jeffrey L. Rubinstein. The History of Sukkot in the Second Temple and

RabbinicPeriods.BrownJudaicStudies302. Atlanta:ScholarsPress, 1995. xiv, 361 pp. Jeffrey L. Rubenstein's The History of Sukkot in the Second Temple

and RabbinicPeriods is not only an exampleof qualityscholarship,but it

Review: [untitled] Author(s): Alan J. Yuter Source: AJS Review, Vol. 22, No. 1 (1997), pp. 116-121 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486875 . Accessed: 15/07/2011 10:31 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

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

http://www.jstor.org

116

BOOK REVIEWS

(p. 151). Also problematicis Ilan's use of early Christianmaterials.She argues,for example,that the neutraltone of Acts makes it a more reliable historicalsource than the Gospel of John (p. 180), yet scholarshave long been aware that the authorof Acts, like the FourthEvangelist,had his own particularideological and theological agendas which influencedhis presentationof the earlydecadesof the Christianmovement.Elsewhere,she cites John4 as evidencethatJesuschallengedthe "rabbiniclaws of purity"by drinkingfromthe cup of the Samaritanwoman(p. 105). HereIlanmisreads boththe contentandthe theologyof the text. ThoughJesusrequestsa drink, he does not partake.Rather,his requestserves a rhetoricalpurpose,which is not to challengefirst-centurypuritylaws butratherto contrastwell-water, which slakes only temporarily,with the living waterof eternallife (4:14). could have been avoidedby consulting These and othermisinterpretations standardNew Testamentcommentaries. Finally,the book focuses on a period of approximatelyfive centuries, duringwhichJudaism,in Palestineas in the Diaspora,was influencedby the Greeklanguage,andby Romanas well as Hellenisticculture,literature,social institutions,andpractices.Yet apartfromrecognizingthe vicissitudesof this period,Ilan says little aboutthe changingrole of womenover time, or about the influenceof Hellenismon the statusof women and on the sourcesfrom which the roles of women are constructed.At the very least, such questions shouldhave been raisedin the conclusion,which is too briefto providethe to so broada historicalstudy. syntheticanalysisappropriate the book, andthe impressive These and otherproblemsnotwithstanding, amountof data it contains,is a valuableresourcefor the study of Jewish womenin Greco-RomanPalestine. AdeleReinhartz McMaster University Ont. Hamilton,

Jeffrey L. Rubinstein. The History of Sukkot in the Second Temple and

RabbinicPeriods.BrownJudaicStudies302. Atlanta:ScholarsPress, 1995. xiv, 361 pp. Jeffrey L. Rubenstein's The History of Sukkot in the Second Temple

and RabbinicPeriods is not only an exampleof qualityscholarship,but it

REVIEWS BOOK

117

presentsthe readerwith a method and message about how contemporary criticalscholarshipis to be done. UnlikeBaruchBokser'sTheOriginsof the Seder,which focused only upon the literaryform of the Seder,Rubenstein integratesall the relevant informationinto a full portrayalof the Sukkot festival. Rejectingthe paths definedby earlierrabbinicscholars,both the approachof explainingwhatthe rabbiswroteaboutthis or that,andBokser's "historyof the tradition"reconstructionof the theologicalunderpinningof his materials,Rubensteinapplies several methodologies,as well as any informationthat he can bring to bear, in orderto explainhow the Sukkot festivalwas understoodin ancientJudaism. To accomplish this end, Rubensteinexamines the sources regarding Sukkot with the academic tradition,methods, and orientationof Bible scholarship,which focuses upon words, ideas, documents,and any and all sourcesthat define historicalsettings.Rubensteinbegins and concludeshis monographby affirmingthe popularscholarlyview thatthe popularSukkot traditionsof J and E coalesced into D and were edited into a final Torah documentby P; his summaryof the materialsin Exodus,Deuteronomy,and Leviticus,in thatorder,reflectsthis view. Consequently,the Ezra-Nehemiah report,which for Rubensteinreflectsthe ideologicalworldviewof P, "is not a descriptionof a Sukkotcelebrationbut thatof a communitythathearsthe laws and obeys" (p. 35). Rubensteinshows that this accountrequiresthe dwellingin sukkot,whichpresupposesthe existenceof the "HolinessCode." He arguesthat by Nehemiah'stime the Torahdocumentwas complete.It should be noted that this summaryadds nothingto Rubenstein'sfindings. One gets the impressionthatRubensteinis layingthe polemicalgroundwork for the methodologicalredirectionin whichhe believesrabbinicscholarship oughtto move. Just as studentsof ChristianScripturebuild on the findings of Hebrew Scripturecriticism,Rubenstein'smonographapplies the same methodto rabbinicliteratureandinstitutions,andbecauseso manymoredata are extantthan with the biblical materials,the findingsare so much more fertile. of Rubensteincorrectlyobservesthata phenomenologicalunderstanding the Sukkotfestivalcannotbe definedon the basis of the Pentateuchalrecord alone. For the purposeof his monograph,it would have been sufficientto outlinethe Pentateuchalmaterialsextantin the time of the Second Temple period, for early Judaismwas respondingto a Torahbook. Rubenstein's introductionand comments regardingthe Torah'sauthorshipare not, at first glance, relevant to the texts on which he focuses. In point of fact,

118

BOOKREVIEWS

or religious"canon," Rubensteinreadsthe rabbinicmaterialsas a "scripture," in its own right. And unlike the situationregardingbiblical Israel, the canonical,extracanonical,and epigraphicrecordsare sufficientlyabundant Whenrelyinguponhis ownjudgments, to justify significantreconstructions. Rubensteinis thorough,careful,andjudiciousin his evaluationsas well as in his conclusions. Everthe carefulempiricalscholarof thetextualrecord,Rubensteinavoids theoriesand conjectureswhich cannotbe justifiedon the basis of his data. After analyzingthe materialsin Ezra and Nehemiah,Rubensteinturnsto Zechariah14, which he assigns to the Hellenisticperiod,for a confirmation that the ancientjoyous festival retainedsome of its ancientIsraeliteflavor in the impoverishedPersianprovinceof Yahud.Due attentionis given to the Sukkotof Jubilees,which projectsupon Israel'spatriarchsthe concerns of their day, accordingto which Abrahamobservesthe festival with great joy, builds the booth, circles the altar,and wears a wreath on his head. This last practice reflects Roman victory celebrations,not the usages of Israel'santiquity.In light of Zechariah,which sees Sukkotas the occasion for the eschatologicalvictory of the Lord over the unfaithful,Rubenstein demonstrateshow Jewishfolk religionand rabbinicreligionunderstoodthe Sukkotfestival. Rubensteinproceeds to show how, in Second Commonwealthtimes, Sukkotwas seen as the festivalof renewingthe sacredspaceof the sanctuary. He also showshow, in Qumran,the verywordlulavwas usedandindividuals madetheirown sukkot,indicatingthatthe festivalenjoyeda popularas well as a publiccharacter.WhilePhilo does not mentionthe lulavandetrog,note is madeof thepracticeof EgyptianJewryto dwellin sukkotin SecondTemple times. Josephusaddsthatthe lulav was used only in processions,as a cultic wand,parallelingthe Greekusage.Althoughnot so statedby Rubenstein,this phenomenonmay explainwhy rabbiniclegislationordainedthe benediction of the fourspecies on the most visible of the fruits,the lulav,becauseit was takento be a culticwand. When showinghow the rainmotif of Sukkotappearsboth in Zechariah and in ChristianScripture,Rubensteindemonstratesthat on a folk-religion level, Sukkotwas the time when Israel acceptedGod as king duringthe assemblyand asked for life-giving rain. Duly noted is the fact that Jesus is taken to have recited Hosanna (M. Sukkah3:19!) and Hallel (Psalm 118), which have remainedpart of traditionalJewish liturgyto this day. He concludesthat Sukkotwas the most widely observedfestival in Jewish

REVIEWS BOOK

119

andthatthe lulavandits bundle/bouquet wereobserved,at this antiquity, in the His time,only Templeprecincts. painstaking studyof the Mishnah confirmsthe findingsof RaphaelPatai,who arguesthatthe shakingof the the fertilityof lulavsymbolizesjoy andfertility,the greenaltarrepresents ritualportrays a pleaforfertilityandrainmaking. plantlife,andtheencircling TheWaterLibationfestivalis takento be an expressionof thetouchingof thecosmicwaterswiththehumanwaters,so thatthroughcultthewatersat the earth'sepicenterwouldbe movedto gushforthandfructifytheworld, givingtherebylife andfertilityto theworld'sinhabitants. By thetimeof the motifs in the found Zechariah andin writingsoutsideof Judaism's tannaim, canonpointto a discreteworldview.Withthe destruction of the Temple, Judaismhadto be redefinedso thatthe Temple,andits epicenter,or axis Without a systematic mundi,couldbereplaced. theologyandwitha historical the resurfaced. thepopular impulse, popularfertilitymyth By appropriating which had from the rabbis exhibited grown mythology antiquity, continuity withthepastin a timeof theradicaldiscontinuity of destruction. Rubenstein noteswithapproval thattherabbisrestoredthelifegivingjoy of thefestival, whichreflectsa personalratherthananacademicresponse. Rubensteinis at his best when he tracesthe Sukkotritualsthrough

tannaiticmaterials,alwaysfocusingupona carefulreadingof the best textual witnesses.He shows how the Sukkotseasonwas seen as partof a New Year renewal,and demonstratesfromZechariah14 how the mishnaicconcernfor rainreflectsthe abidingconcernsof SecondTempleJudaism.He findsin the post-destructionSukkotritualsan attemptto preservewhathadbeen lost in the destruction,andto enableJudaismto functionafterthe loss of its central shrine.Rubenstein'stracingof the lulavritethroughthe tannaiticgenerations is analyticallypainstakingand convincinglyconcludesthat a folk practice was firststandardized andthen,at the end of the tannaiticperiod,refined.He the that argues literaryorderlinessof the concernstestifiesto the accuracyof in to JacobNeusner'smethodologicallycynical contradistinction attribution, view thatall attributionsmustbe suspectuntilprovenotherwise. The conclusionof Rubenstein'sanalysisof the rabbinicaggadahprovides a masterfulcorroborationof his findingsregardingthe rabbinichalakhah. The symbolismof the sukkahprovidesa manifestationof God'sglory,divine protection,intimacy,and love, and he shows how the same culturalvalues thatareembodiedin the halakhahareexplicatedin the aggadah.Forexample, one must sleep in a sukkahin which the shadecast by the coveringsekhakh is greaterthan the light, so that one is symbolicallydwelling underdivine

120

BOOKREVIEWS

providentialcare.And it is this shade,takenfromplantlife thatis no longer alive, and not frombricks,plaster,trees,or blankets,thatis acceptable.The motifsof Zechariah14 resonatein bothaggadahandhalakhah. For Rubenstein,Sukkotwas, in its historicalorigin, a Temple-centered cultic festival, as deduced from canonical sources (biblical as well as rabbinic)and externalsources.The presentationof the fruitsrepresentedthe rebirthof nature,but withoutthe paganmythologicalovertones.Rubenstein concedes that the biblical legal texts do not provide any hints as to the life-situationorigins of the festival rituals.However,in talmudicliterature, Sukkot is connected with rain and rebirth,and is associated with the judgmentseasonof Rosh HashanahandYomKippur,andwith the Temple's destructionand the apparentabsence of the Divine Presence-a season construedto be anticipatoryof an eschatologicalSukkot. According to of this impliedrabbinicmyth,the Sukkotrituals Rubenstein'sreconstruction in the Temple stirredthe axis mundi,which would excite the primordial waters to come forth and fructifythe world. This hypothesisis presented forcefullyand, for the most part, convincingly.Rubensteinconcludeshis study with the hope that his monographwill providea model and method for tracingthe developmentof Judaismfrom SecondCommonwealthtimes to rabbinicJudaism. Since RubensteincastsBokser'sworkon the Sederas his foil, a methodological observationis in order.Bokserand Rubensteinare doing different things in their scholarship.Bokser focused on the literaryevolution of a ritual and based himself only upon literarymaterials.Rubensteinis an historianof religion and employs the methodsand concernsappropriateto the discipline.He also exploits the rich datathatare availableto him. The real test of Rubenstein'smethodologywould come in a study of Passover parallelinghis study of Sukkot, especially if he were to revise Bokser's resultsor significantlyexpandthe field of inquiryin a fashionthat would of the assembleddata.The one areaof yield significantnew understandings canon/culturescholarshipthatRubensteindid not fully exploit is philology. reflectthe popularIsraelidialect,and of Hebrew/Aramaic His transliterations 'imor geminateletters,as is the to shewa attention he does not pay consistent practicein philologicalscholarship. JeffreyRubensteinhas made a very significantcontributionto rabbinic scholarshipas well as to the historyof religion.His carefulliterarystudies reveala folk-religionworldviewthathas,to date,goneunnoticedby scholars, andthe methodologyhe suggests,whichis the comparativeliteraryapproach

REVIEWS BOOK

121

commonto Bible scholarship,is a very fertileavenuebecausethe available literarydatain this areaaremuchmoreextensivethanin biblicalstudies. AlanJ.Yuter TouroCollege NewYork,N.Y. N. A. von Uchelen. Chagigah.:TheLinguisticEncodingof Halakhah.Publicationsof the JudaPalacheInstitute10. Amsterdam:JudaPalacheInstitute, 1994. ix, 107 pp. Thisis a book for linguisticspecialistsin general,andespeciallyfor those who specialize in MishnaicHebrew.For generalistsit offers insighton the juristicencodingof language.Forexpertson MishnaicHebrew,it is, to date, the mostdetailedandcarefulexaminationof the legalstatementsencodingthe so-calledoral law in its writteninstantiationof the earlythirdcentury.N. A. von Uchelenrunsus througha seriesof grammatical aspectsof thetext'smain clauses and subclauses.He analyzessuch issues as mood, function,syntax, semantics,assertions,opinions, and more. The authorsteadily guides the readerfromformalisticaspectsof grammarthroughto pragmatic,functional, and intercolnectivecommunicativeaspectsof grammar.He concludeswith some sociolinguisticand sociohistoricalobservations. to Jewish It is at the latterlevel thatthe workalso servesas a contribution nature studiesin general.Upon carefuldemonstrationof the argumentative of Mishnah,it becomesmorethanevidentthatthe transferenceof the notion and of apodicticlaw frombiblicallaw to mishnaichalakhahis inappropriate a misnomer.Thoughnot statedby von Uchelen, biblical law is constantly framedin a theologicalinclusio which serves as the sourceof its authority. Hencethe law itself may be statedin a declarativeauthoritativestructureas its mythos (Avot 1:1), but there is no constantreminderof such. It comes, then, as no surprisethat von Uchelen demonstratesthis in the microscopic not apodictic.This is a details of the text's grammaras argumentational, severeblow to David Halivni'sthesis, as put forthin his Midrash,Mishnah and Gemarah(see von Uchelen, pp. 3 and 58-59, n. 11). It also interfaces with the work of severalotherscholars,includingJacobNeusnerandDavid M. Goodblatt. The work is well boundin soft covers,pleasantlylaid out, andprovided with bibliographyand indices. Unfortunately,it does not provide readers

Review: [untitled] Author(s): Harry Fox Source: AJS Review, Vol. 22, No. 1 (1997), pp. 121-122 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486876 . Accessed: 15/07/2011 10:32 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

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

http://www.jstor.org

REVIEWS BOOK

121

commonto Bible scholarship,is a very fertileavenuebecausethe available literarydatain this areaaremuchmoreextensivethanin biblicalstudies. AlanJ.Yuter TouroCollege NewYork,N.Y. N. A. von Uchelen. Chagigah.:TheLinguisticEncodingof Halakhah.Publicationsof the JudaPalacheInstitute10. Amsterdam:JudaPalacheInstitute, 1994. ix, 107 pp. Thisis a book for linguisticspecialistsin general,andespeciallyfor those who specialize in MishnaicHebrew.For generalistsit offers insighton the juristicencodingof language.Forexpertson MishnaicHebrew,it is, to date, the mostdetailedandcarefulexaminationof the legalstatementsencodingthe so-calledoral law in its writteninstantiationof the earlythirdcentury.N. A. von Uchelenrunsus througha seriesof grammatical aspectsof thetext'smain clauses and subclauses.He analyzessuch issues as mood, function,syntax, semantics,assertions,opinions, and more. The authorsteadily guides the readerfromformalisticaspectsof grammarthroughto pragmatic,functional, and intercolnectivecommunicativeaspectsof grammar.He concludeswith some sociolinguisticand sociohistoricalobservations. to Jewish It is at the latterlevel thatthe workalso servesas a contribution nature studiesin general.Upon carefuldemonstrationof the argumentative of Mishnah,it becomesmorethanevidentthatthe transferenceof the notion and of apodicticlaw frombiblicallaw to mishnaichalakhahis inappropriate a misnomer.Thoughnot statedby von Uchelen, biblical law is constantly framedin a theologicalinclusio which serves as the sourceof its authority. Hencethe law itself may be statedin a declarativeauthoritativestructureas its mythos (Avot 1:1), but there is no constantreminderof such. It comes, then, as no surprisethat von Uchelen demonstratesthis in the microscopic not apodictic.This is a details of the text's grammaras argumentational, severeblow to David Halivni'sthesis, as put forthin his Midrash,Mishnah and Gemarah(see von Uchelen, pp. 3 and 58-59, n. 11). It also interfaces with the work of severalotherscholars,includingJacobNeusnerandDavid M. Goodblatt. The work is well boundin soft covers,pleasantlylaid out, andprovided with bibliographyand indices. Unfortunately,it does not provide readers

122

BOOKREVIEWS

with the completemishnaictext of Hagigahfor easy reference.In addition, since it is based exclusively on the printededitions,it becomes inaccurate when textualvariantsaffect the grammaticalfeaturesof the text's sentence structureas analyzed. For example, on pp. 48-49, the "simple dispute pattern"is consideredto be "joinedadversatively"by means of a waw. As in his dissertationon MishnahSukkah(1979),but this reviewerdemonstrated as couldbe surmisedalreadyfromJ.N. Epstein'sMavo'le-Nusahha-Mishnah (Jerusalem,1964), this constructionis a featureof the printededitions,and the bettermanuscriptsdo not bringthe disputeformwith waw construction linkage.Happily,the overallprogramdoes not fall on text criticism,though the projectis therebyput at risk. Given the fact that facsimile editionsof MSS Kaufman,Parma,etc., are readilyavailable,in fact, it may not be too late to producean insertof the mishnaictext to accompanythis otherwise carefulstudy. HarryFox of Toronto University Ont. Toronto, JohnY. B. Hood.Aquinasand theJews. Philadelphia: Universityof Pennsyl145 1995. vaniaPress, xiv, pp. This book triesto rescueSt. ThomasAquinas(1225-74) somewhatfrom the deplorabletraditionof ChristianhostilitytowardJewswhichthe medieval Churchencouragedoff and on in word and deed, most egregiouslyduring and afterthe Crusades.Hood's rescue is only half-hearted,it seems, partly becauseof his evidentmoralrevulsionat the long shadowof Church-related Jew-hatred(whoseoriginshe tracesbrieflyto the GospelsandPaul'sLetters), andpartlyalso becauseof his evidentintellectualimpatiencewith medieval theology in general (and so with Aquinas in particular).The result is an unevenaccount,whose manyfine andsensibleinsightsareall too frequently mixedwith carelesserrorsof fact anddubiousideologizinginterpretations. Thechief documentarysourcesforAquinas'view of Jewsarehis remarks on the Old Law (Summatheologiae I-II.98-105), his considerationof the generalquestionof religious unbelief (II-II.10), and his responsumto the duchessof BrabantconcerningJews andusurers(the so-calledDe Regimine Judaeorum),as well as his passingtreatmentsof the crucifixionin his various biblical commentariesand in SummatheologiaeIII. As for this last, Hood

Review: [untitled] Author(s): Martin D. Yaffe Source: AJS Review, Vol. 22, No. 1 (1997), pp. 122-125 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486877 . Accessed: 15/07/2011 10:32 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

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

http://www.jstor.org

122

BOOKREVIEWS

with the completemishnaictext of Hagigahfor easy reference.In addition, since it is based exclusively on the printededitions,it becomes inaccurate when textualvariantsaffect the grammaticalfeaturesof the text's sentence structureas analyzed. For example, on pp. 48-49, the "simple dispute pattern"is consideredto be "joinedadversatively"by means of a waw. As in his dissertationon MishnahSukkah(1979),but this reviewerdemonstrated as couldbe surmisedalreadyfromJ.N. Epstein'sMavo'le-Nusahha-Mishnah (Jerusalem,1964), this constructionis a featureof the printededitions,and the bettermanuscriptsdo not bringthe disputeformwith waw construction linkage.Happily,the overallprogramdoes not fall on text criticism,though the projectis therebyput at risk. Given the fact that facsimile editionsof MSS Kaufman,Parma,etc., are readilyavailable,in fact, it may not be too late to producean insertof the mishnaictext to accompanythis otherwise carefulstudy. HarryFox of Toronto University Ont. Toronto, JohnY. B. Hood.Aquinasand theJews. Philadelphia: Universityof Pennsyl145 1995. vaniaPress, xiv, pp. This book triesto rescueSt. ThomasAquinas(1225-74) somewhatfrom the deplorabletraditionof ChristianhostilitytowardJewswhichthe medieval Churchencouragedoff and on in word and deed, most egregiouslyduring and afterthe Crusades.Hood's rescue is only half-hearted,it seems, partly becauseof his evidentmoralrevulsionat the long shadowof Church-related Jew-hatred(whoseoriginshe tracesbrieflyto the GospelsandPaul'sLetters), andpartlyalso becauseof his evidentintellectualimpatiencewith medieval theology in general (and so with Aquinas in particular).The result is an unevenaccount,whose manyfine andsensibleinsightsareall too frequently mixedwith carelesserrorsof fact anddubiousideologizinginterpretations. Thechief documentarysourcesforAquinas'view of Jewsarehis remarks on the Old Law (Summatheologiae I-II.98-105), his considerationof the generalquestionof religious unbelief (II-II.10), and his responsumto the duchessof BrabantconcerningJews andusurers(the so-calledDe Regimine Judaeorum),as well as his passingtreatmentsof the crucifixionin his various biblical commentariesand in SummatheologiaeIII. As for this last, Hood

BOOK REVIEWS

123

rightly shows how Aquinas moderatesor softens the harsh view handed down from patristic and other authorities,that all Jews (not just Jesus' wereguiltyof Jesus'death;Aquinason the contraryrestricts contemporaries) Jewish guilt to the leaders of Jesus' generation,and then too only on the groundsthat they were familiarwith the signs of Jesus' divinityand acted againsthim out of envy. Here as elsewhere,Aquinas"typicallyopted for Hooddoes not alwaysnoticethe textual compromise"(p. 73). Unfortunately, subtletieswhich are indicative of just how far-reachingthat compromise may have been. For example,in the passagejust referredto (111.47.5),Hood paraphrasesAquinas unsubtlyconcerningthe Jewish leaders' purportedly sufficient"evidenceto know"the signs of Jesus' divinity(p. 74), whereas Aquinas(followinghis sourcescarefully)uses a Latinverbmoresuggestive or "acquaintance" of "recognition" (cognoscere),thoughin anycase Aquinas maintains(in agreementwith 1 Cor.2:8) thatall of them"ignored,"orperhaps "remainedignorantof' (ignorebant),the mysteryof his divinity. As for Aquinas'remarkson the Old Law,Hood is instructivein pointing of to Maimonides'Guideof thePerplexedas the sourceforhis understanding the literaldetailsof the biblicallegislation;hereAquinas"consciouslychose to follow Maimonidesratherthanthe patristictradition"(p. 52). But Hood fails to considerthe full implicationsof Aquinas'Maimonideanism--say, by between Maimonides' contention the that biblical exploring pertinentanalogy law, unlike the nomoi of other nations,aims at the well-being of the soul over and above thatof the body,andAquinas'defenseof the Church'sview thatover andabovethe literal(i.e., strictlyhistorical)meaningof each of the variouslaws are symbolic meaningswherebythe laws prefigureChristian eventsandteachings.Generallyspeaking,Hooddoes not give Aquinascredit for discerningin Maimonideset al. a philosophicalprudencewhichunderlies his softeningof the excesses of the patristictradition.InsteadHood commits such howlersas to claim that Maimonides,lackingAquinas'literaryaccess to Aristotle'sPolitics, was "unableor unwilling"to understandthe Bible's judicial preceptsin their political context as part of "a civil and criminal code"(p. 57)-as if Maimonideshad not readPlatoor Farabiandhad never writtenMishneh Torahor indeed Guide111.26ff.! Similarly,in a different but related context, Hood states peremptorilythat for Aquinas the Jews' continuingpracticeof the ceremoniesof the Old Law,being tantamountto a denialthattheirsymbolismhasbeenfulfilledin Christandthatthe ceremonies are thereforesuperseded,is a mortalsin-without noticing, however,that Aquinaslater in the passage in questionindicatesin his statesmanlikeway

124

BOOKREVIEWS

thatthe sin appliesonly to Christians,not to Jews, with the implicationthat Jewish worship ought to be tolerated(Summatheologiae 1-11.103.4ad 2, with II-II.10.11). for Aquinas' quasi-Maimonidean statesmanHood's underappreciation is doctrine likewise evident in his confusions Church in reformulating ship abouttheSumma'streatmentof Jewsunderthegeneralheadingof unbelievers. Hood admiresAquinas'argumentsagainstforcedconversions,etc., but sees them as rathereclectic and idiosyncratic,without any solid basis in the theologicaltradition(as if this werenot the veryproblemAquinaswas trying to correct!),and thereforein the long runpoliticallyineffective.Indeedthis last is Hood's most frequentlyleveled criticism:in lookingat Aquinasas a kind of retaildistributorof the wholesalegoods of Churchdoctrinesuch as he takes them to be, and so judging him, as it were, by the standardsof an efficiency expert,Hood underestimatesthe importanceof Aquinas'having inheritedas well the deep resourcesof the traditionof pre-Christian political appeal philosophy.He does takenote of Aquinas'elaborate"nontheological" to "natural justice"(pp. 89-90), thoughwithoutreflectingfurtheron how that appealmight be integralto theologicalconsiderationswhich are guided,as Aquinas'are,by the principlethatgracedoes not destroynaturebutperfects it (cf. I.1.8 ad 2, 60.1 ad 3). Onlyin passingdoes he touchon the crucialpoint thatthe distinctivedifficultiesAquinasfaces or is forcedto face concerning Jews come up underpolitical circumstanceswhich no longerobtaintoday, namely,"ina Christiansociety"(p. 93), thatis, whereChurchdoctrinequand memeis held to be the social bond.Hood crudelymistakesAquinas'abiding cautionandconservatismin thesemattersas a naiveandnarrowlyaristocratic class-interest(cf. p. 66). He might have been betterled by his own bons mots to the effect thatAquinas'overallpositionin favorof toleratingJews "is more like a determinatio,the act of makingthe best possibleprudential deductionfrom judgmentgiven the circumstances,than a straightforward firstprinciples"(p. 92), andthat"Asusual,if [Aquinas]haddoubtsaboutthe Churchpolicy,he kept themto himself' (p. 88). Finally,a gem of Aquinas' statesmanlikerhetoricis his responsumto Marguerite,daughterof King Louis IX of Franceand duchessof Brabant. HooddescribesMargueritesimplyas a powerfulpatronessof the Dominicans, but she also seems to havebeen a ladyof remarkable presciencefor directing herpracticalquestionsaboutJews andrelatedmattersto Aquinasin the first place. From his responsum,we gatherthat she has asked eight questions, five of which concern the Jews in her duchy,but that the generalworry

BOOK REVIEWS

125

promptingher inquiryis financial--morespecifically,the financialabuses of her own tax officials and the widespreadfinancialcorruption,of which toleranceof usuryis a symptom-for her threeotherquestionsconcernthe sale of public offices, the taxing of Christiansubjects,and the extortionate practices of her tax-collectors.Aquinas answers her first four questions (which concern receiving monies from usuriousJews, whetheras taxes, fines, gifts, or restitutionsto victims of usury) by indicatinga need for close financialsupervisionof those whom she delegatesto administerthe recoveryof usurers'illegitimatelyacquiredprofits.Among otherthings,he repeatedlycounsels the duchessto seek legal guidancefrom long-standing precedents,i.e., from the time before her duchy fell into its presentmoral abuses;he seems ever alertto the dangerthatJewswill be usedas scapegoats to excuse those abuses, and his advice if followed would in every case circumventthat danger.Aquinas thus practicestheological conservatism for the sake of political moderation.Throughouthe applies two implicit is neverjustified.(Thus,usuriousprofits maxims.First,wantonexpropriation from Jewish usurers be only if they are restoredto the expropriated may sudden despoliationsare improper.(Forexample, originalvictims.) Second, usurersmustnot lose all meansof livelihoodbut shouldbe directedto other occupations,etc.) Pace Hood,Aquinas'pellucidcasuistryhere,as elsewhere, combinesimpeccablelogic with a gentlerhetoricdesignedto allay potential predatorsamonghis coreligionists. MartinD. Yaffe of NorthTexas University Denton,Tex. Maimonidesand St. Thomason the Limitsof Reason. Idit Dobbs-Wettstein. State Universityof New YorkPress, 1995. x, 278 pp. Albany: Moses Maimonides(1135-1204) and ThomasAquinas(1225-1274) not only came from and indeedhave since representeddifferentreligiouscommunities,as Judaismand Christianitybecame over history,but also lived in quite different culturalworlds. We normally associate Aquinas with Aristotelianrevival in Paris,while Maimonideswas the thirteenth-century into what MarshallHogdsoncalled"theIslamicate." assimilated thoroughly of Islamic So muchso, indeed,thathe couldbe classedamongthepractitioners philosophyin a currentanthology,for all of his reservationsaboutmuchof it

Review: [untitled] Author(s): David B. Burrell Source: AJS Review, Vol. 22, No. 1 (1997), pp. 125-127 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486878 . Accessed: 15/07/2011 10:32 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

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

http://www.jstor.org

BOOK REVIEWS

125

promptingher inquiryis financial--morespecifically,the financialabuses of her own tax officials and the widespreadfinancialcorruption,of which toleranceof usuryis a symptom-for her threeotherquestionsconcernthe sale of public offices, the taxing of Christiansubjects,and the extortionate practices of her tax-collectors.Aquinas answers her first four questions (which concern receiving monies from usuriousJews, whetheras taxes, fines, gifts, or restitutionsto victims of usury) by indicatinga need for close financialsupervisionof those whom she delegatesto administerthe recoveryof usurers'illegitimatelyacquiredprofits.Among otherthings,he repeatedlycounsels the duchessto seek legal guidancefrom long-standing precedents,i.e., from the time before her duchy fell into its presentmoral abuses;he seems ever alertto the dangerthatJewswill be usedas scapegoats to excuse those abuses, and his advice if followed would in every case circumventthat danger.Aquinas thus practicestheological conservatism for the sake of political moderation.Throughouthe applies two implicit is neverjustified.(Thus,usuriousprofits maxims.First,wantonexpropriation from Jewish usurers be only if they are restoredto the expropriated may sudden despoliationsare improper.(Forexample, originalvictims.) Second, usurersmustnot lose all meansof livelihoodbut shouldbe directedto other occupations,etc.) Pace Hood,Aquinas'pellucidcasuistryhere,as elsewhere, combinesimpeccablelogic with a gentlerhetoricdesignedto allay potential predatorsamonghis coreligionists. MartinD. Yaffe of NorthTexas University Denton,Tex. Maimonidesand St. Thomason the Limitsof Reason. Idit Dobbs-Wettstein. State Universityof New YorkPress, 1995. x, 278 pp. Albany: Moses Maimonides(1135-1204) and ThomasAquinas(1225-1274) not only came from and indeedhave since representeddifferentreligiouscommunities,as Judaismand Christianitybecame over history,but also lived in quite different culturalworlds. We normally associate Aquinas with Aristotelianrevival in Paris,while Maimonideswas the thirteenth-century into what MarshallHogdsoncalled"theIslamicate." assimilated thoroughly of Islamic So muchso, indeed,thathe couldbe classedamongthepractitioners philosophyin a currentanthology,for all of his reservationsaboutmuchof it

126

BOOK REVIEWS

(sharedby al-Ghazali,afterall) and despitehis being staunchlyJewish.Yet for all that,theirdistinctivegoals of reconcilingfaithand reasoncoalesced on many a neuralgicpoint of medievalphilosophicaltheology,as Aquinas was quickto acknowledge.This well-craftedstudyby IditDobbs-Wettstein, which traces its origins to the PontificalInstitutefor MediaevalStudiesin Toronto,amply demonstrateshow these two majormedievalphilosophical theologiansilluminatedeach other,and can now serve to guide us in the crucialyet relativelyunchartedareaof comparativephilosophicaltheology. In doingthis, she offersa realassistto currentthinkersattemptingto respond to KarlRahner'sinsistence(in his 1979 Westonlectureon "world-church") thatChristianitynow standsvis-iA-visotherglobalreligions. of Scriptureof thesetwo medievalthinkers, Comparingthe interpretations on Job, exploringtheir intertwined commentaries their respective notably treatmentsof creation,and their differingyet complementaryexploration of human aspirationsand the role of divine law in directingthem, the authorclearlyandcogentlysummarizestheirrespectiveapproachesin a form availableto nonspecialistreaders.As well, she advancesthe understanding of many who have studiedone or anotherof them quite closely. Focusing on the "limitsof reason"gives her a strategicway of showing how each of them cannily uses reason to delineate its own limitationsin dealing with the One who is source-of-all,as well as to show the relativeutility of the "parabolic"languageof Scriptureto speak of what must transcend philosophicalassertion. straightforward Those more familiarwith Aquinaswill receive a reliableand thorough purviewof Maimonideson these matters--nomeantask, and also come to appreciatewhy Aquinasso often used him as a model for his inquiry.They will also discovera freshAquinasin theprocess-anothersignalachievement. Moreover,the author'sconcludingpages on theirrespectiveuses of Being and Good suggest a fruitfulway of respondingto some recentproposalson these mattersby Jean-LucMarion,a currentFrenchphilosopherwho has challengedsome traditionalreadings.And her findingswill not be without profitfor politicalthinkersas well, so long as the role of practicalreasonin orderingthe body politic remainsa topic of debate.Finally,in the current climateof civilizational(or cultural)conflicts,this carefulcomparativestudy offersus a way of learningfromthe pastto negotiatethepresent,by showing us howto retrievea medievaltraditionthatwas alreadyinterfaith,intercultural in perspective.It is perhapsthis fruit of the study-one which transcends its carefulanalysisbut clearlymotivatesit throughout-whichrecommends

127

BOOK REVIEWS

is scrupulously it to comparativethinkersin any field. Idit Dobbs-Wettstein faithfulto the text of each of her authors,and thoroughlycognizantof the relevantcomparativestudies publishedin Israel and Franceas well as in this country.Comparativeassessmentinevitablydemandsjudiciousreading Thatthe which engages both writerand readerin a task of understanding. authoris able to carrythis off, againandagain,in her inquirytestifiesto the meritof the study.It provesin the end to be as rewardingas it is demanding. DavidB. Burrell Universityof NotreDame NotreDame,Ind. Yochanan Silman. Philosopher and Prophet: Judah Halevi, the "Kuzari," "Kuzari, and the Evolution of His Thought. Albany: State University of New York 370 pp. 1995. x, 370 Press, Press, 1995. pp.

Yochanan JudahHalevi's Halevi's Kuzari Kuzari "as "as an autobiographical Yochanan Silman Silman presents presents Judah autobiographical of in which Halevi described the evolution his work markedby which Halevi described the evolution his thought, work thought, marked by which are in the vacillation and contradictions, the course course of the vacillation and the contradictions, which are expounded expounded The Kuzari thus thatties ties the the book book together" thusrecapitulates, viii). The together"(p. (p. viii). dialogue recapitulates, dialogue that indeed order in which which speakers and positions the very are presented, indeed in the speakers and positions are presented, very order Halevi's and for Silman Silman this this journey intellectual autobiography, Halevi's intellectual autobiography, and journey proceeds proceeds first distinct The and earliest three of these is first distinct The and earliest three these stages. (strictly) stages. (strictly) through through the Aristotelian Aristotelian philosopher and his positions represented by the philosopher and philosophical, positions philosophical, represented aboutwhich, reservationsby in the Kuzari,about had reservations the Kuzari, which,according Silman,"[Halevi] "[Halevi]had accordingto Silman, The second in wrote the book" Halevi's the time he wrote the book" (p. 11). intellectual the time 11). The second stage stage Halevi's intellectual Karaism. Here Here Halevi Halevi is critique of Karaism. exemplified by his critique development development is exemplified Judaismand committed and Aristotelian the essential essential harmony Aristotelianphilosophy committed to the harmonyof Judaism philosophy (p. Karaismhas has the the effect the (rabbinic) effect of slowly but surely but the 162), (rabbinic) critique 162), but slowly but critique of Karaism surely of that harmonization Judaism into and that harmonization Judaism into and very philosophy. calling question very philosophy. calling question this second, intermediate stage Halevi's intellectual intellectual second, intermediate Silman, this stage in Halevi's According According to Silman, in Kuzari and 11. 1-7. In is with III,1.68-79, I.68-79, and II.1-7. agreement development presented Kuzari III, agreementwith development presented III and the D. H. Baneth, Silman views anti-Karaite Baneth, Silman views part part and the anti-Karaitecritique critiqueas constituting constituting the the Kuzari, the earliest earliest stratum stratumof what edition of the what in time time became first edition became the the the first Kuzari, the work now have. should note that what of the we finaltext text the work we now have. (We even at final (Weshould note thatwhat emerges emergeseven this that the the "autobiographicality" Silman's schema schema is that the Kuzari, this point Kuzari, "autobiographicality"of the point in Silman's with and their theirrespective out of sync artfulordering with its artful speakers and respective positions, positions, is out sync orderingof speakers with the history, that is, the the [purported] the actual actual order, with the order, the composition; that history, of its composition; [purported]

Review: [untitled] Author(s): Daniel H. Frank Source: AJS Review, Vol. 22, No. 1 (1997), pp. 127-129 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486879 . Accessed: 15/07/2011 10:32 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

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

http://www.jstor.org

127

BOOK REVIEWS

is scrupulously it to comparativethinkersin any field. Idit Dobbs-Wettstein faithfulto the text of each of her authors,and thoroughlycognizantof the relevantcomparativestudies publishedin Israel and Franceas well as in this country.Comparativeassessmentinevitablydemandsjudiciousreading Thatthe which engages both writerand readerin a task of understanding. authoris able to carrythis off, againandagain,in her inquirytestifiesto the meritof the study.It provesin the end to be as rewardingas it is demanding. DavidB. Burrell Universityof NotreDame NotreDame,Ind. Yochanan Silman. Philosopher and Prophet: Judah Halevi, the "Kuzari," "Kuzari, and the Evolution of His Thought. Albany: State University of New York 370 pp. 1995. x, 370 Press, Press, 1995. pp.

Yochanan JudahHalevi's Halevi's Kuzari Kuzari "as "as an autobiographical Yochanan Silman Silman presents presents Judah autobiographical of in which Halevi described the evolution his work markedby which Halevi described the evolution his thought, work thought, marked by which are in the vacillation and contradictions, the course course of the vacillation and the contradictions, which are expounded expounded The Kuzari thus thatties ties the the book book together" thusrecapitulates, viii). The together"(p. (p. viii). dialogue recapitulates, dialogue that indeed order in which which speakers and positions the very are presented, indeed in the speakers and positions are presented, very order Halevi's and for Silman Silman this this journey intellectual autobiography, Halevi's intellectual autobiography, and journey proceeds proceeds first distinct The and earliest three of these is first distinct The and earliest three these stages. (strictly) stages. (strictly) through through the Aristotelian Aristotelian philosopher and his positions represented by the philosopher and philosophical, positions philosophical, represented aboutwhich, reservationsby in the Kuzari,about had reservations the Kuzari, which,according Silman,"[Halevi] "[Halevi]had accordingto Silman, The second in wrote the book" Halevi's the time he wrote the book" (p. 11). intellectual the time 11). The second stage stage Halevi's intellectual Karaism. Here Here Halevi Halevi is critique of Karaism. exemplified by his critique development development is exemplified Judaismand committed and Aristotelian the essential essential harmony Aristotelianphilosophy committed to the harmonyof Judaism philosophy (p. Karaismhas has the the effect the (rabbinic) effect of slowly but surely but the 162), (rabbinic) critique 162), but slowly but critique of Karaism surely of that harmonization Judaism into and that harmonization Judaism into and very philosophy. calling question very philosophy. calling question this second, intermediate stage Halevi's intellectual intellectual second, intermediate Silman, this stage in Halevi's According According to Silman, in Kuzari and 11. 1-7. In is with III,1.68-79, I.68-79, and II.1-7. agreement development presented Kuzari III, agreementwith development presented III and the D. H. Baneth, Silman views anti-Karaite Baneth, Silman views part part and the anti-Karaitecritique critiqueas constituting constituting the the Kuzari, the earliest earliest stratum stratumof what edition of the what in time time became first edition became the the the first Kuzari, the work now have. should note that what of the we finaltext text the work we now have. (We even at final (Weshould note thatwhat emerges emergeseven this that the the "autobiographicality" Silman's schema schema is that the Kuzari, this point Kuzari, "autobiographicality"of the point in Silman's with and their theirrespective out of sync artfulordering with its artful speakers and respective positions, positions, is out sync orderingof speakers with the history, that is, the the [purported] the actual actual order, with the order, the composition; that history, of its composition; [purported]

128

BOOKREVIEWS

earliest stage of Halevi's thought, the Aristotelianstage, representedby the philosopherand his positions, was written subsequentlyto the stage which succeeded it. Such an anachronismshould alert us to the possible ahistoricityof the work as a whole, and to skepticismabout its assumed And finally, Silmanpresentsa thirdstage in Halevi's autobiographicality.) the rabbinicstage,representedby the positionsof intellectualautobiography, therabbiin thetext.Thisstagepresentsa critiqueof the earliest,philosophical (Aristotelian)stage and "accordsa prominentrole to the problemposed by the actualpresentsituationof the Jewishpeople"(p. 171).In sum,for Silman, Halevi'sintellectualdevelopmentpassesfromabstract,general,anduniversal andnationalistic-historical sensibility. theorizingto a concrete,particularistic, as "the this Silmandescribes journey spiritualdevelopmentof a humanbeing frompaganismto Judaism"(p. 338). There are problemsI think, with Silman's developmentalscheme. He presentsit as historicaland chronological,as the diachronicdevelopmentof Halevi'sthoughtfromphilosophyto prophecy,"frompaganismto Judaism." But, baldlyput,thereis not a shredof evidencefor the firststagein the story Silmantells. Again, thereis no evidencethatHaleviwas ever committedto Aristotelianism.And such evidencesas Silmanpresents(pp. 9-10) fromthe Kuzariitself (from 5.2 and 4.15) are spectacularcases of specialpleading, which will only convince those who alreadybelieve that Halevi started out as a committedAristotelian.ContraSilman,thereare only two stagesin to Silman'ssecondandthirdstages, Halevi'sintellectualcareer,corresponding and a lateranti-Aristotelianstage. And an anti-Karaite stage namely, early even this way of puttingthe matteris a bit dubious.Whynot simplysuppose that Halevi is throughoutcommittedto rabbinicJudaismand allow this andhis anti-Aristotelianism? commitmentto accountforbothhis anti-Karaism is not ipso It shouldperhapsbe notedherethatHalevi'santi-Aristotelianism facto a generalcritiqueof philosophy;there are, afterall, non-Aristotelian philosophicalpositions.Silman,however,seems to slide fromthe particular to the general,and in so doing overlooksthe possibilitythat Halevi's very rabbinismis compatiblewith some sort of philosophicaloutlook, one not offensive to his rabbinicsensibilities.And on this assumptionone might well concludethatthe harmonyof Judaismandphilosophy,the hallmarkof Halevi'santi-Karaitestage,is never,pace Silman,forsaken.Haleviis not the thatSilmanin the finalanalysismakeshim out to be. anti-philosopher The "earliest"stage in Halevi'scareer,then, is a myth,ultimatelypostulatedto supporta Straussianreadingof the Kuzariand Halevi'sintellectual

BOOKREVIEWS

129

developmentwhichsees it as a progressionfroma philosophicalpositionto an rabbinicpositioncommittedto the view thatno roadleads anti-philosophical, fromAthensto Jerusalem.But in questioningsucha developmentalscheme, andappreciatethe (purported) one canbeginto understand foundationalstage, as well as the very orderin which speakersand their respectivepositions are presented,as nothing but a literaryartificeagainstwhich Halevi can effectivelypresentthe truthas he perceivesit. In brief,the Kuzariis art,not And the tip-offis the aforementioned asymmetrybetweenthe autobiography. actualorderof its compositionand the final text we have before us. If in fact the Kuzaristartedout as a rabbiniccritiqueof Karaism,then we might well supposethat this representsthe terminusa quo of Halevi'sintellectual life, one superseded(or perhapsbetter,amplified)by the (further)rabbinic critiqueof Aristotelianism.Sucha storyof Halevi'sintellectualdevelopment is credible, for its plausibilitydoes not dependupon a period for which we have no evidence, and it also has the virtue of allowing the historical compositionof the work, ratherthan the artfulnessof the final product,to dictatethe courseof Halevi'sintellectualdevelopment. DanielH. Frank of Kentucky University Lexington, Ky. David Novak. The Election of Israel: The Idea of the Chosen People. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress, 1995. xv, 285 pp. In this wide-ranging,deeply learned,and carefullyarguedbook, David Novak aims both to elucidatethe doctrineof the election of Israel and to "explicateits truthfor our time." The very first tasks necessitatedby this agenda are, accordingto Novak, a confrontationwith Spinoza's "radical inversion"of the traditionalmeaningof this doctrineand an "overcoming" of it. In this setting of priorities,Novak is reminiscentof no one so much as Leo Strauss,one of his own earlyteachersand a thinkerwhose views on mattersJewishhave for a long time continuedto concernhim. Novak echoes Straussnot only in his identificationof the principal opponentwith whom modernJewish thoughtmust grapplebut also in his dismissalof manypriorattemptsto meetthis archenemy'schallengeas being, at bottom,too deeplycompromisedby theirconcessionsto him.LikeStrauss, Novak believes that an intellectuallycoherentovercomingof Spinozamust

Review: [untitled] Author(s): Allan Arkush Source: AJS Review, Vol. 22, No. 1 (1997), pp. 129-132 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486880 . Accessed: 15/07/2011 10:32 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

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

http://www.jstor.org

BOOKREVIEWS

129

developmentwhichsees it as a progressionfroma philosophicalpositionto an rabbinicpositioncommittedto the view thatno roadleads anti-philosophical, fromAthensto Jerusalem.But in questioningsucha developmentalscheme, andappreciatethe (purported) one canbeginto understand foundationalstage, as well as the very orderin which speakersand their respectivepositions are presented,as nothing but a literaryartificeagainstwhich Halevi can effectivelypresentthe truthas he perceivesit. In brief,the Kuzariis art,not And the tip-offis the aforementioned asymmetrybetweenthe autobiography. actualorderof its compositionand the final text we have before us. If in fact the Kuzaristartedout as a rabbiniccritiqueof Karaism,then we might well supposethat this representsthe terminusa quo of Halevi'sintellectual life, one superseded(or perhapsbetter,amplified)by the (further)rabbinic critiqueof Aristotelianism.Sucha storyof Halevi'sintellectualdevelopment is credible, for its plausibilitydoes not dependupon a period for which we have no evidence, and it also has the virtue of allowing the historical compositionof the work, ratherthan the artfulnessof the final product,to dictatethe courseof Halevi'sintellectualdevelopment. DanielH. Frank of Kentucky University Lexington, Ky. David Novak. The Election of Israel: The Idea of the Chosen People. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress, 1995. xv, 285 pp. In this wide-ranging,deeply learned,and carefullyarguedbook, David Novak aims both to elucidatethe doctrineof the election of Israel and to "explicateits truthfor our time." The very first tasks necessitatedby this agenda are, accordingto Novak, a confrontationwith Spinoza's "radical inversion"of the traditionalmeaningof this doctrineand an "overcoming" of it. In this setting of priorities,Novak is reminiscentof no one so much as Leo Strauss,one of his own earlyteachersand a thinkerwhose views on mattersJewishhave for a long time continuedto concernhim. Novak echoes Straussnot only in his identificationof the principal opponentwith whom modernJewish thoughtmust grapplebut also in his dismissalof manypriorattemptsto meetthis archenemy'schallengeas being, at bottom,too deeplycompromisedby theirconcessionsto him.LikeStrauss, Novak believes that an intellectuallycoherentovercomingof Spinozamust

130

BOOK REVIEWS

involvethe unqualifiedreaffirmation of the truthof divinerevelation.Where he refuses to follow Strauss,however, is down the road to Maimonides. Opposedfor quitecogentreasonsto such a move (see pp. 237-240), Novak chooses a differentpath,one thatis arguablyjust as rationalisteven though it hews more closely to boththe letterandthe spiritof biblicalandrabbinic texts. This path leads to a theology of election that is noteworthyfor its high degree of success in reconcilingwhat its authorregardsas the claims of reasonand revelation.WhetherNovak has really demonstratedthat this teachingis also as morallyefficaciousas he wishes it to be is the question with which The Election of Israel ultimately leaves us.

As Novakshows, Spinoza'sinversionof the doctrineof electionproceeds from the denial of divine revelationto the identificationof "the covenant presentedin the Bible as an essentiallyhumandevice designedby the Jews to relatetheir society properlyto God and to each other"(p. 42). Spinoza thus replacesthe God who elects Israelwith an Israelwho elected God. In this he is followed, in Novak's opinion,by all too many subsequentJewish thinkers.Even HermannCohen,for all his oppositionto Spinoza'sdepiction of Judaism,agreeswith him on this point.It is only in the thoughtof Franz Rosenzweig,accordingto Novak,thata productiveturningpointis reached. Where Strausshad faulted Rosenzweig for his unwillingnessto turn his Novak back on the Enlightenmentand to go all the way in his "teshubah," him to for done the work his that having philosophical expresses gratitude overcomesSpinoza'sattackon revelationandtherebypaves "a good partof the way"towardthe "retrievalof the biblicaldoctrine"of election. Novak's own work representsanythingbut a "simplereturnto biblical theology."He worries,in particular,that an unphilosophicretrievalof the biblical doctrineof election "will inevitablypresent it as some form of tribalismor chauvinism"(p. 78). This is a hazardhe seeks to avoid through the a treatmentof the doctrineof election that begins by "appropriating worldlinessof rationalistphilosophyand the theologybased on it and then overcomingit by constitutinga more theologicallycogent worldlinessof its own" (p. 111). In carryingout this programhe has recourseto a Bible but by means understoodnot in isolationfromany traditionalinterpretation of "a reaffirmationof Pharisaism,"i.e., throughreadingit in the light of rabbinicexegesis. This importantaspectof his theologicalendeavorrequires, as Novak accuratelyobserves,yet anotherkind of overcomingof Spinoza, the natureof whichhe does not fully elucidatebeforeproceedingas if it has alreadybeen accomplished.

BOOK REVIEWS

131

WhatNovakderivesfromtraditionalJudaismis a doctrineof electionthat does not lose sight"of the factorof the world'srelationto God"(p. 111).This doctrineconnectsAbraham'sacceptanceof God'selectionwith his desire"to imitatein microcosmthe way Godrelatesto the whole worldin macrocosm." As a result of being "known-and-chosen by God,"Abrahamis "concerned with the earthandespeciallywith all the peoplesin it."Whatmattersto him "is thatmishpatbe done."And the fact thatthis is his concernis evidenceof his tsedaqah(p. 136). ThusAbrahamis, and Israelshouldsubsequentlybe, morallyinvolvedwith the rest of the world.Beyondthis, however,election entailsa "covenantalintimacy"with God thatis not shared(in premessianic times, at any rate)with the rest of the world, a relationshipthat is entirely embodiedin cultic acts thatare performedonly by Israel,andthatprovides, in addition,the ultimate(butnot the indispensable) justificationfor morality. This doctrineof election,accordingto Novak, It doesnotsaythatIsraelis somehow of chauvinism. removesthetemptation morehumanthananyoneelse.It doesnotplaceIsraelabovethenationsof the It saysthatIsrael'selectionis worldin anyareaof purelyhumaninteraction. theentireTorahto an intimatematterbetweenherandGod.By notreducing butratherby emphasizing its universalaspectsas well, the thisrelationship, in those doctrineof electionenablesJewsto functionas equalswithnon-Jews areat areaswherecommonhumanissuesof peace,justiceandrighteousness stakebetweenthem. (pp. 254-255)

The doctrineof election, thus understood,evidentlysuppliesthe theological underpinningsfor the kind of ecumenicalendeavorsin whichNovak himself has been actively engaged for many years. It is difficultto see, however, why it could not likewise furnishthe basis for a much more reclusive Jewish attitudetowardthe outside world, or even for something perilouslyclose to the kind of chauvinismthatNovak so stronglydeplores. Employing a minimalist understandingof the requirementsof tsedaqah and mishpat,someone who is otherwisein completeaccordwith Novak's theology of election might still considerhimself to be underno obligation to be more than tangentiallyengaged with the non-Jewishworld. And, under certaincircumstances,a person who adheresto somethingakin to of Israel'sintimacywith God mightdrawdangerous Novak'sunderstanding conclusionsfromit. The limitationson the utility of Novak's theology as a remedy for

132

BOOK REVIEWS

chauvinismbecome particularlyapparentwhen one considersits possible implicationsfor the areain whichsuchchauvinismis most likely to manifest itself, i.e., the land of Israel. This is a territoryabout which Novak has relativelylittle to say in TheElectionof srael, which is rathersurprising,in view of the fact thatthe landis, as he notes, "atthe sametime as Abraham's electionitself electedto be the homeland,the dwellingplace of his people," of Godandhis people"will take where"themostcompletedwelling-together place (p. 134). One need not, of course,resortto one's imaginationin order to visualizepeoplewho conclude,with significanthalakhicsupport,thatthis for "Jewsto special characterof the land of Israelmakes it inappropriate functionas equalswith non-Jews"in the Jewishpolityestablishedon its soil. And while Novak himselfhas elsewhereexpressedhis principledopposition to any such line of reasoning,'it cannotbe said thathis theologyof election, by itself, sufficesto cut out the groundfrombeneathit. It may be too much,then, to claim thatthe argumentof TheElectionof Israel "removes"the temptationof chauvinism.Yet it certainlyprovidesthe foundationfor an attractivealternativeto it. It is not unreasonableto hope that in the years aheadthis alternativewill obtaina betterhearingthanthe optionswith which it will no doubtremainin competition. AllanArkush StateUniversity of NewYork N.Y. Binghamton, Marc Richard Wagner and theAnti-Semitic Anti-SemiticImagination. Lincoln: Marc A. Weiner. Weiner.Richard Wagnerand Imagination. Lincoln: 1995. xv, 439 439 pp. Nebraska Press, Press, 1995. University pp. University of Nebraska What music sound sound like? like? According does antisemitic Marc A. Weiner, What does antisemitic music Weiner, According to Marc were sensitive sensitive and and receptive audiences were the racist racist "Nineteenth-century receptive to the "Nineteenth-century audiences musical material material for for the the Nibelungs" And 140). And implications Wagner's musical Nibelungs" (p. 140). implications of Wagner's Weiner explains, were there there audiences audiences sensitive sensitive to? Weiner "The what, what, exactly, explains, "The exactly, were Jewish speech that Wagner 'Das and gurgling' speech that Wagner emphasizes emphasizes in 'Das 'hissing 'hissing and gurgling' of Jewish Musik' is discernible violent interlocution interlocution of the Judentum Judentum in der Musik' discernible in the violent because much much of their their exchange staccato part because exchange is set to a staccato Nibelungs Nibelungs in large large part of their vocal half anddissonant their vocal music in the upper half dissonant music registers" (ibid.). upper registers"(ibid.). Weiner audiences." Without Without an Weiner is careful careful to specify "nineteenth-centuryaudiences." specify "nineteenth-century no other than an aesthetic can have music extramusical aesthetic have extramusical context, context, music meaning meaning other than his JewishSocial Ethics(New York,1992),pp. 187-205. 1. See, in particular,

Review: [untitled] Author(s): George Jochnowitz Source: AJS Review, Vol. 22, No. 1 (1997), pp. 132-135 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486881 . Accessed: 15/07/2011 10:32 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

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

http://www.jstor.org

132

BOOK REVIEWS

chauvinismbecome particularlyapparentwhen one considersits possible implicationsfor the areain whichsuchchauvinismis most likely to manifest itself, i.e., the land of Israel. This is a territoryabout which Novak has relativelylittle to say in TheElectionof srael, which is rathersurprising,in view of the fact thatthe landis, as he notes, "atthe sametime as Abraham's electionitself electedto be the homeland,the dwellingplace of his people," of Godandhis people"will take where"themostcompletedwelling-together place (p. 134). One need not, of course,resortto one's imaginationin order to visualizepeoplewho conclude,with significanthalakhicsupport,thatthis for "Jewsto special characterof the land of Israelmakes it inappropriate functionas equalswith non-Jews"in the Jewishpolityestablishedon its soil. And while Novak himselfhas elsewhereexpressedhis principledopposition to any such line of reasoning,'it cannotbe said thathis theologyof election, by itself, sufficesto cut out the groundfrombeneathit. It may be too much,then, to claim thatthe argumentof TheElectionof Israel "removes"the temptationof chauvinism.Yet it certainlyprovidesthe foundationfor an attractivealternativeto it. It is not unreasonableto hope that in the years aheadthis alternativewill obtaina betterhearingthanthe optionswith which it will no doubtremainin competition. AllanArkush StateUniversity of NewYork N.Y. Binghamton, Marc Richard Wagner and theAnti-Semitic Anti-SemiticImagination. Lincoln: Marc A. Weiner. Weiner.Richard Wagnerand Imagination. Lincoln: 1995. xv, 439 439 pp. Nebraska Press, Press, 1995. University pp. University of Nebraska What music sound sound like? like? According does antisemitic Marc A. Weiner, What does antisemitic music Weiner, According to Marc were sensitive sensitive and and receptive audiences were the racist racist "Nineteenth-century receptive to the "Nineteenth-century audiences musical material material for for the the Nibelungs" And 140). And implications Wagner's musical Nibelungs" (p. 140). implications of Wagner's Weiner explains, were there there audiences audiences sensitive sensitive to? Weiner "The what, what, exactly, explains, "The exactly, were Jewish speech that Wagner 'Das and gurgling' speech that Wagner emphasizes emphasizes in 'Das 'hissing 'hissing and gurgling' of Jewish Musik' is discernible violent interlocution interlocution of the Judentum Judentum in der Musik' discernible in the violent because much much of their their exchange staccato part because exchange is set to a staccato Nibelungs Nibelungs in large large part of their vocal half anddissonant their vocal music in the upper half dissonant music registers" (ibid.). upper registers"(ibid.). Weiner audiences." Without Without an Weiner is careful careful to specify "nineteenth-centuryaudiences." specify "nineteenth-century no other than an aesthetic can have music extramusical aesthetic have extramusical context, context, music meaning meaning other than his JewishSocial Ethics(New York,1992),pp. 187-205. 1. See, in particular,

BOOK REVIEWS

133

one. This is paradoxical,since musichas enormousemotionalpower.Indeed, AyatollahKhomeinibannedWesternmusic fromIranianradiostations,and Plato'sRepublicwouldnothavetoleratedthemanufacture of thefluteorother instruments"capableof modulationintoall the modes"(BookIII:398-400). As for Wagnerhimself, it would have been wrong not to have an extramusicalcontext.Wagnerfelt thatseparategenres,such as architecture, music, and poetry,were the result of a breakdownof the original Greek (and Indo-European)world that supposedlyexisted before the rise of the individualismso characteristicof modem society,a worldhe hated.Wagner calledhis operas"musicdramas"becausehe wantedto recreatein Germany the organiccommunitythathad supposedlyexistedbeforeRome andChristianity."Accordingto Wagner,in classicalantiquitythe artswerenot divided into separategenres as we know them today but were merged into one, organicallywhole, single aestheticunity,and thatunity mirroredthe bonds holdingtogetherthe communitythatbeheldit" (p. 42). Needless to say, the communitythat Wagnerwas trying to recreate throughhis music dramaswas a world without Jews. Wagnerwas open abouthis views. Among the many quotationsWeinercites from Wagner's essay "Das Judentumin der Musik"is the following:"In everydaylife the Jew strikesus firstof all by his externalappearance,which,no matterwhat Europeannationalitywe belong to, has somethingunpleasantlyforeignto this nationality:we desireinstinctivelyto have nothingto do with/nothingin common with a person who looks like that" (p. 57).

An antisemitewould logically want to defame Jews. The creatorof a post-Jewish,pure, Germanicart, on the other hand, cannot have any Jews-discordant,foreignelements-in his artisticcreations.PerhapsWagner was unawareof this paradox.Or perhapshe was quite awareand tried to expresshis hatredfor Jewsby projectingtheirtraitsontofigureswho weren't Jewish--a way of eating his cake (or his antisemitism)and having it too. Both in the world of operaand in the real world, antisemitismcan survive withoutthe presenceof Jews. Wagner'sworks looked forward"to the establishmentof a unified, homogeneoussociety,to the rebirthof the Greekspiritin a futureGermany rid of the foreignelementof the Jew"(p. 53); nevertheless,he includedthe antisemiticmusic that Weinerdescribes,the music that accompaniessuch and charactersas theNibelungsin theRing,Beckmesserin Die Meistersinger, for in "who mocked Christ and is Indeed, except Kundry, Kundry Parsifal. of with the fate Jew himself the characterized Wandering (as Wagner punished

134

BOOK REVIEWS

her)"(p. 239), these figures could not possibly have been Jewish. Weiner himselfmakesthisclear:"animpossibility,givenBeckmesser'ssocialposition within sixteenth-century Nurembergand the timeless,mythicsettingof the Ring"(p. 327). The case of Beckmesseris particularlyrelevanthere. This Wagnerian villain was modeledon the criticEduardHanslick.Accordingto RobertW. Gutman,'"[Hanslick]was a Jew, and Wagnertook specialpains to expose the culprit .... Apparently, Hanslick's mother descended from a prosperous

desirousof havingthefact Jewishmerchantfamily,andhe wasnotparticularly known."Hanslickwas invitedto the home of a mannamedDr. Standhartner "tohearWagnerrecitethe Meistersingerpoem (November23, 1862).At this characternow knownto the world as Beckmesser time the narrow-minded in underthe name of Hanslich.Wagnerhad manuscript appeared Wagner's in a the critic Weiner, barbarouslycontrivedsituation."2 maliciouslytrapped he this cites in his book. not mention Gutman does incident,although curiously, A modem audience,to be sure, does not thinkthat Beckmesseror the operalovers Nibelungs"look Jewish."On the the hand,twentieth-century do often think of Siegfriedand sometimesof Parsifalas embodimentsof Wagnerianracial ideals. AlthoughWagner'santisemitismis implicitin his racism,his music dramasdo not succeed as antisemiticworks. Thereis a certainlogic to the fact thatWagner'sGermanscome acrossas Germansto us, while his characterswith Jewishtraits,who couldnot have been Jews in the times and places where the actionoccurs,do not today come acrossas Jews. Even when the operaswere firstwritten,even amongaudienceswho understoodWagner'smusicalcode,the absenceof Jewsshouldhaverendered the musicdramasineffectiveas antisemiticpropaganda. We may legitimatelyask, however, whetherthis message was in the originalat all. Wagnermay well have intendedhis operasto be antisemitic, but he failed. In an importantessay, M. K. Wimsattand MonroeBeardsley state:"Judginga poem is likejudginga puddingor a machine.One demands that it work. It is only because an artifactworks that we may infer the intentionof the artificer."3 1. R. W.Gutman,RichardWagner:TheMan,HisMind,andHisMusic(SanDiego:Harcourt BraceJovanovich,1968, 1990),p. 221. 2. Ibid.,p. 219. 3. M. K. Wimsattand MonroeBeardsley,"TheIntentionalFallacy,"in W. K. Wimsatt, The VerbalIcon: Studiesin theMeaningof Poetry(Lexington:Universityof KentuckyPress, 1954),p. 4.

BOOK REVIEWS

135

Wimsattand Beardsleyarguethatit is a fallacyto considerthe author's intentionwhen the intentionhas not been realized.If Weineragreed,perhaps he would not have writtenRichard Wagnerand the Anti-SemiticImagination. But Weineragrees that Wagner'sintentionsare no longerrelevantto contemporarymusic lovers. Let me give him the last word:"Personally,I refuseto receive Wagner'sworksas he would have had themreceived,and the fact that our cultureis not Wagner'smay constituteour redemption(to use one of his favoriteterms) from the Wagnerianagendaand may allow us to experiencehis breathtakinglybeautifuland stirringmusical-dramatic accomplishmentsas worksthatcan be enjoyeddespitetheirinitial,intended messageof racialexclusion"(p. 29). GeorgeJochnowitz of NewYork Collegeof StatenIslandof theCityUniversity StatenIsland,N.Y. Christoph Gassenschmidt.Jewish Liberal Politics in Tsarist Russia, 1900-1914: The Modernizationof RussianJewry. New York:New York UniversityPress, 1995. xviii, 244 pp. JewishLiberalPolitics in TsaristRussiafills ChristophGassenschmidt's an importantlacuna in the historiographyof late ImperialRussianJewry. Dispellingthe commonplacenotionthatJewishliberalswere merelyassimilationists,concernedonly with the developmentof a Jewrymoreacceptable to Russiansensibilities,he develops the thesis that Jewish liberalismwent throughthreedistinctphases:until 1904, traditionalshtadlanut,or intercession with the Russianauthorities;from 1904 to 1906, in the contextof the convocationof thefirstDuma,openpoliticalstruggleforJewishrights;finally, from 1906 to 1914, with the failureof the Russianparliamentary experiment, retreatto "organicwork."The discussionof organicwork,the development of grass-rootsJewishinstitutionsthatcoincidedwiththe liberalagenda,is the best partof this work. Gassenschmidtalso outlinesthe extensiveinfluence liberalJewishpolitics and strategieshad on Zionismand Jewish socialism, of somethingwhichhas not receivedadequateattentionin the historiography the period. Jewish Liberal Politics demonstratesthat it is not impossibleto write decenthistoryon the Jewsof RussiawithoutusingJewishlanguages.Gassenschmidt'steacher,Heinz-DietrichLoewe, wrote an impressivestudy based

Review: [untitled] Author(s): Henry Abramson Source: AJS Review, Vol. 22, No. 1 (1997), pp. 135-136 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486882 . Accessed: 15/07/2011 10:32 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

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

http://www.jstor.org

BOOK REVIEWS

135

Wimsattand Beardsleyarguethatit is a fallacyto considerthe author's intentionwhen the intentionhas not been realized.If Weineragreed,perhaps he would not have writtenRichard Wagnerand the Anti-SemiticImagination. But Weineragrees that Wagner'sintentionsare no longerrelevantto contemporarymusic lovers. Let me give him the last word:"Personally,I refuseto receive Wagner'sworksas he would have had themreceived,and the fact that our cultureis not Wagner'smay constituteour redemption(to use one of his favoriteterms) from the Wagnerianagendaand may allow us to experiencehis breathtakinglybeautifuland stirringmusical-dramatic accomplishmentsas worksthatcan be enjoyeddespitetheirinitial,intended messageof racialexclusion"(p. 29). GeorgeJochnowitz of NewYork Collegeof StatenIslandof theCityUniversity StatenIsland,N.Y. Christoph Gassenschmidt.Jewish Liberal Politics in Tsarist Russia, 1900-1914: The Modernizationof RussianJewry. New York:New York UniversityPress, 1995. xviii, 244 pp. JewishLiberalPolitics in TsaristRussiafills ChristophGassenschmidt's an importantlacuna in the historiographyof late ImperialRussianJewry. Dispellingthe commonplacenotionthatJewishliberalswere merelyassimilationists,concernedonly with the developmentof a Jewrymoreacceptable to Russiansensibilities,he develops the thesis that Jewish liberalismwent throughthreedistinctphases:until 1904, traditionalshtadlanut,or intercession with the Russianauthorities;from 1904 to 1906, in the contextof the convocationof thefirstDuma,openpoliticalstruggleforJewishrights;finally, from 1906 to 1914, with the failureof the Russianparliamentary experiment, retreatto "organicwork."The discussionof organicwork,the development of grass-rootsJewishinstitutionsthatcoincidedwiththe liberalagenda,is the best partof this work. Gassenschmidtalso outlinesthe extensiveinfluence liberalJewishpolitics and strategieshad on Zionismand Jewish socialism, of somethingwhichhas not receivedadequateattentionin the historiography the period. Jewish Liberal Politics demonstratesthat it is not impossibleto write decenthistoryon the Jewsof RussiawithoutusingJewishlanguages.Gassenschmidt'steacher,Heinz-DietrichLoewe, wrote an impressivestudy based

136

BOOK REVIEWS

almost exclusively on Russian-languageprimarysources.'Nevertheless,it is troublingthat in his preface Gassenschmidtstates that "it did not seem necessaryto includeHebrewsources..... All sourcesof immediateinterest to this study were published in Russian"(p. xvii). This statementmay be entirelytrue, but even Loewe-whose work concentratedon the tsarist perceptionof Jews ratherthanthe Jews themselves-investigatedHebrewlanguagesecondarysources with the help of other scholars.2Some use of Yiddishsources is evident, but the blanketexclusion of Hebrew-language scholarship,particularlysince muchof the book dealswith the conflictwith the book does not Zionism,leaves this readeruncomfortable.Furthermore, take advantageof archivalresources,somethingwhich was more easily acceptedbeforeglasnostandthe fall of the SovietUnion. The publisherhas not donejustice to this importantstudy.Poor editing makestheworkseemrushed,andit readsmorelike a Ph.D.dissertationthana polishedmonograph.It is addressedrathernarrowlyto specialists,presuming readers a broad familiaritywith late ImperialRussia that undergraduate wouldnot have. The notes are overly long-76 pages of notes in smalltype accompany141 pages of text-and includemany detaileddiscussionsthat information shouldhave been editedinto the body of the text. Furthermore, in the notes is not includedin the index.The copyeditingis atrocious,leaving many foreign terms untranslated(malenkiedela, grodnonachalnik,gvirim, etc.) and with inconsistentusage (e.g., the Russianshtadlantsvois used with the Hebrewshtadlanut;the modemzikhronutis used in interchangeably a Yiddishcontextdespitethe usage of TiferesbokhurimandKnesetIsroel). Readersnot familiarwith both languageswill be unnecessarilyconfused. LiberalJewish Politics in TsaristRussia is a valuablemonographthat This hastehas limitedthe utilityof the work,but was publishedprematurely. it tool forunderstanding the dynamicsof Russian will find a useful specialists turn of the at the Jewishpolitics century. HenryAbramson FloridaAtlanticUniversity BocaRaton,Fla. Daniel Carpi. Between Mussolini and Hitler: The Jews and the Italian 1. H.-D. Loewe, TheTsarsand theJews (Chur:Harwood,1993). 2. See ibid.,p. 23, n. 10.

Review: [untitled] Author(s): David Weinberg Source: AJS Review, Vol. 22, No. 1 (1997), pp. 136-139 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486883 . Accessed: 15/07/2011 10:33 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

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

http://www.jstor.org

136

BOOK REVIEWS

almost exclusively on Russian-languageprimarysources.'Nevertheless,it is troublingthat in his preface Gassenschmidtstates that "it did not seem necessaryto includeHebrewsources..... All sourcesof immediateinterest to this study were published in Russian"(p. xvii). This statementmay be entirelytrue, but even Loewe-whose work concentratedon the tsarist perceptionof Jews ratherthanthe Jews themselves-investigatedHebrewlanguagesecondarysources with the help of other scholars.2Some use of Yiddishsources is evident, but the blanketexclusion of Hebrew-language scholarship,particularlysince muchof the book dealswith the conflictwith the book does not Zionism,leaves this readeruncomfortable.Furthermore, take advantageof archivalresources,somethingwhich was more easily acceptedbeforeglasnostandthe fall of the SovietUnion. The publisherhas not donejustice to this importantstudy.Poor editing makestheworkseemrushed,andit readsmorelike a Ph.D.dissertationthana polishedmonograph.It is addressedrathernarrowlyto specialists,presuming readers a broad familiaritywith late ImperialRussia that undergraduate wouldnot have. The notes are overly long-76 pages of notes in smalltype accompany141 pages of text-and includemany detaileddiscussionsthat information shouldhave been editedinto the body of the text. Furthermore, in the notes is not includedin the index.The copyeditingis atrocious,leaving many foreign terms untranslated(malenkiedela, grodnonachalnik,gvirim, etc.) and with inconsistentusage (e.g., the Russianshtadlantsvois used with the Hebrewshtadlanut;the modemzikhronutis used in interchangeably a Yiddishcontextdespitethe usage of TiferesbokhurimandKnesetIsroel). Readersnot familiarwith both languageswill be unnecessarilyconfused. LiberalJewish Politics in TsaristRussia is a valuablemonographthat This hastehas limitedthe utilityof the work,but was publishedprematurely. it tool forunderstanding the dynamicsof Russian will find a useful specialists turn of the at the Jewishpolitics century. HenryAbramson FloridaAtlanticUniversity BocaRaton,Fla. Daniel Carpi. Between Mussolini and Hitler: The Jews and the Italian 1. H.-D. Loewe, TheTsarsand theJews (Chur:Harwood,1993). 2. See ibid.,p. 23, n. 10.

BOOK REVIEWS

137

Authorities in France and Tunisia. Hanover, N.H.: University Press of New

England,1994. 341 pp. The subjectof the responseof Italianmilitaryanddiplomaticofficialsto the fate of the Jews in southeasternFranceandTunisiaduringWorldWarII has beentreatedbefore,mostnotablyby LeonPoliakovandmorerecentlyby SusanZuccotti.DanielCarpi'sstudybreaksnew groundin the thoroughness of its researchand in its penetratinganalysis. Drawing upon previously unexamineddocumentsin Italiangovernmentand militaryarchivesand at the Centrede documentationjuive contemporainein Paris,Carpicontends that, in the period from November 1942, when the Germanoccupationof all of Francegave Italy controlover the southeasternpartof the country,to May 1943, when Mussoliniwas deposedand Germantroopsreoccupiedthe region,Italianofficialswere able to preventarrestsandmass deportationsof the kindthatwere occurringelsewherein France.A similareffortwas made in Tunisia,even after it came underthe joint authorityof Axis forces in November1942. Carpiarguesthat the actionsof Italianofficialsto protect Jews had an indirecteffect on the Vichy government,strengtheningits stand to carry in 1942 and 1943 in the face of the unbendingGermandetermination out the Final Solutionin France.Thanksto the actionsof a groupof daring and courageousItalianbureaucratsand militaryofficers,the percentageof Jewish survivorswas higher in southeasternFrancethan in France as a whole, while Jews in Tunisiagenerally escaped the ravages of the Final Solution. Before 1942, Italy appearsto have paid little attentionto the fate of Jews in France.With the exception of the issue of the propertyheld by ItalianJews, Italiandiplomatsand militaryofficersseemed little concerned with the wave of anti-Jewishmeasuresenactedandcarriedout by the Vichy regime in the SouthernZone and by Germanauthoritiesin the Occupied Zone. To have protestedsuch actions would have been hypocritical,given Italy'sproclamationof its own antisemiticlaws in 1938. It was the growing realizationin the fall of 1941 of the developmentof a more radicalNazi policy thatspurredItalianofficialsto act on behalfof ItalianJews in France. Fascist Italy now realized that preservingits internationalposition and demonstratingits role as an equal partnerwith Nazi Germanynecessitated upholdingthe rights of all its citizens abroad.Italianofficials were also undoubtedlyinfluencedby reportsof gassingsandotheratrocitiescommitted against Jews who were deportedto the East after 1942. As Carpinotes,

138

BOOK REVIEWS

there is ample evidence that by the end of 1942, disgust with German policies towardJews had affectedeven high-rankingItaliandiplomatsand hadspreadamongbroadsegmentsof the army.It is not surprising,therefore, thatby the time Italy gainedcontrolover southeasternFrance,government and armyofficersin the areahadbecomecommittednot only administrators to protectingItaliancitizensbut all Jews undertheirauthority. In the case of Tunisia,the concernsof FascistItaly were less lofty but the resultswere similar.Carpidescribeshow the fate of the Jews in Tunisia became embroiled in a larger struggle-the unceasing effort by Italian officialsto preventthe Frenchfromgainingan advantagein the competition betweenthe two countriesfor controlof the NorthAfricancolony. In this context, the ItalianJewish populationwas seen as an importantpolitical and economic force that could bolster Italy's imperialistdesigns. Without the supportof the Jewish communityof Tunisia,the delicate numerical balancebetweenItaliansandFrenchin the colony,whichhadalreadytipped in favor of the latterin the early 1940s, would be utterlydestroyed.As a result,the ItalianauthoritiessuccessfullythwartedVichy effortsto applyits race laws in Tunisia.Even after the Axis occupationin November 1942, Germanofficials proved unable to enforce discriminatorypolicies against ItalianJews. The result of Italy's efforts to protect its nationalinterests was that Jews holding Italian citizenshipin Tunisia enjoyed preferential treatmentandwere protectedfromdecreesimposedon the restof the Jewish communitythroughoutthe periodof Vichy controland Germanoccupation. In his discussion, Carpi places special emphasis on the role of a numberof outstandingindividuals,including Giuseppe Bastiannini,who replacedCountCianoas deputyforeignministerin February1943, andwho successfullypleadedthe case of the JewsbeforeMussolini;Police Inspector General Guido Lospinoso, who thwartedGermanand French efforts to deportJews fromsoutheasternFranceby makinghimselftotallyunavailable; FatherMarie-Benoit,a Capuchinmonkbased in Marseilles,who organized an extensive networkto aid persecutedJews in southeasternFrance;and Angelo Donati, a bankerresidingin Nice, who workedactively to aid his fellow Jews. Unlike otherhistorians,Carpigives shortshriftto Mussolini, concern however,who he claimslackedbothsophisticationandhumanitarian in his negotiationswith Germanyover the fate of the Jews. By far the most controversialpart of the book is the conclusion, in which the authorattemptsto briefly examine the reasons for the Italian government'sdefense of Jews. In contrastto those who would arguethat

BOOK REVIEWS

139

antisemitismwas alien to Fascist ideology,Carpicontendsthatanti-Jewish sentimentwas clearly evident in the radicalantibourgeoisfactions of the early movement.In passing race laws in 1938, Mussolinithus embraced Thedesireto manyof the earlyidealsof manyof his mostferventsupporters. defendJews, Carpiconcludes,thus did not arisefromthe natureof Fascism butratheras a resultof oppositionto it. In an argumentwhich,unfortunately, he fails to developadequatelyin the body of the work,Carpiclaimsthatthe armyofficersand diplomatswho helpeddefendJews were generallydrawn from more conservativeelements in the Fascist movement.Thus, Carpi maintains,theirunwillingnessto cooperatewith Germansecurityforces in the roundupand deportationof Jews was part of their oppositionto the radicalizationof the regimeas a whole. It is a tantalizingargumentthatflies in the face of more standardviews. One can only hope thatthe authorwill developthis thesis in more detailin a futurestudy. DavidWeinberg WayneStateUniversity Detroit,Mich. Lance J. Sussman.Isaac Leeser and the Making of AmericanJudaism. AmericanJewishCivilizationSeries.Detroit:WayneStateUniversityPress, 1995. 311 pp. An early historianof the AmericanJewishexperienceonce wrote, "the history of American Judaismand that of Isaac Leeser are one and the same."In this thoroughlyresearchedandmeticulouslydetailedbiographyof a nineteenth-century "hazzan,"Lance Sussmanreinforcesthe credibilityof that statement.ThoughLeeser is little known in the late twentiethcentury and barelymentionedin the literatureof AmericanJewish history,he had an importantinfluenceon AmericanJudaism.Indeed,Sussmanconvincingly arguesthat Isaac Leeser was the most outstandingreligious leader in the UnitedStatespriorto the Civil War. Leeser's extensive publications,including the monthly Occidentand AmericanJewish Advocate (1843-69), the first successful Jewish serial periodical in America, helped mold American Jewry into a culturally independentgroup with a communal consciousness.He also did many other things to promoteunity and communalresponsibilityamong Jews, includingadvocatinga nationalecclesiasticalorganizationas earlyas 1841,

Review: [untitled] Author(s): Gerald Sorin Source: AJS Review, Vol. 22, No. 1 (1997), pp. 139-142 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486884 . Accessed: 15/07/2011 10:33 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

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

http://www.jstor.org

BOOK REVIEWS

139

antisemitismwas alien to Fascist ideology,Carpicontendsthatanti-Jewish sentimentwas clearly evident in the radicalantibourgeoisfactions of the early movement.In passing race laws in 1938, Mussolinithus embraced Thedesireto manyof the earlyidealsof manyof his mostferventsupporters. defendJews, Carpiconcludes,thus did not arisefromthe natureof Fascism butratheras a resultof oppositionto it. In an argumentwhich,unfortunately, he fails to developadequatelyin the body of the work,Carpiclaimsthatthe armyofficersand diplomatswho helpeddefendJews were generallydrawn from more conservativeelements in the Fascist movement.Thus, Carpi maintains,theirunwillingnessto cooperatewith Germansecurityforces in the roundupand deportationof Jews was part of their oppositionto the radicalizationof the regimeas a whole. It is a tantalizingargumentthatflies in the face of more standardviews. One can only hope thatthe authorwill developthis thesis in more detailin a futurestudy. DavidWeinberg WayneStateUniversity Detroit,Mich. Lance J. Sussman.Isaac Leeser and the Making of AmericanJudaism. AmericanJewishCivilizationSeries.Detroit:WayneStateUniversityPress, 1995. 311 pp. An early historianof the AmericanJewishexperienceonce wrote, "the history of American Judaismand that of Isaac Leeser are one and the same."In this thoroughlyresearchedandmeticulouslydetailedbiographyof a nineteenth-century "hazzan,"Lance Sussmanreinforcesthe credibilityof that statement.ThoughLeeser is little known in the late twentiethcentury and barelymentionedin the literatureof AmericanJewish history,he had an importantinfluenceon AmericanJudaism.Indeed,Sussmanconvincingly arguesthat Isaac Leeser was the most outstandingreligious leader in the UnitedStatespriorto the Civil War. Leeser's extensive publications,including the monthly Occidentand AmericanJewish Advocate (1843-69), the first successful Jewish serial periodical in America, helped mold American Jewry into a culturally independentgroup with a communal consciousness.He also did many other things to promoteunity and communalresponsibilityamong Jews, includingadvocatinga nationalecclesiasticalorganizationas earlyas 1841,

140

BOOKREVIEWS

participatingin the foundingof the firstJewishdefense organizationin the United States, the Board of Delegates of AmericanIsraelites(1859), and promotingthe B'nai B'rithlaterin his life. In Philadelphia,whereLeeserlived duringmost of his active career,he was amongthe firstto recognizethe need for eleemosynaryinstitutions,such as Jewish hospitals,orphanages,and federationsof charitableinstitutions. He played a critical role in the creation of the Jewish Sunday school (1838), the firstHebrew"highschool"(1849), andthe firstAmericanJewish theologicalseminary,MaimonidesCollege (1867). The untimelycollapseof the college after Leeser's death does not diminishthe significanceof his accomplishmenthere. MaimonidesCollege establishedthe basic model for the educationof rabbis in the United States, and many of its supporters subsequentlyhelped found the Jewish Theological Seminaryof America (1886). the informal, In religiouslife, Leeserplayeda majorrole in transforming traditionaloffice of hazzaninto an AmericanJewishministrybased on the Protestantmodel, and helped set the groundworkof the modem rabbinate in the United States. Throughhis preachingand the publicationof his sermonsandthose of otherleadingreligiousleadersin AmericaandEurope, Leeser,nearlysingle-handedly,establishedthe sermonas a basic featureof the synagogueservice in America.And in an age when ReformJudaism was beginningto find fertile soil in the United States, Leeser served as the leading spokesmanfor Orthodoxy.He wanted to help constructan version of Orthodoxy,with emphasis Americanized,or "Protestantized," on English and decorumin services, and educationfor women as well as men. As Sussmanmakes clear throughout,Leeser, though frustratedin his attemptsto "reform"Orthodoxyand stem the growthof ReformJudaism, remainedoptimisticthatin the freeatmosphereof America,a new Orthodoxy would arise.Leeser"hadno patiencewhatsoeverfor the reformersand was increasinglyfrustratedby the traditionalists,especially those who were unwillingto changeany aspectof theirsynagoguesbut failedto live within the bordersof Halachah outside of their houses of worship. 'One party,' Leeserwrote in May 1850, 'called out, "Touchnot the sacrededifice!"The other exclaimed,"Pull down the rottenfabric."We honestly dissent from bothopinions,'he added.If Judaismwere truly'reformed,'Leeserbelieved, it would become a decorous,modem, unified,and vibrantOrthodoxy"(p. 162), one thatwould unify the vast majorityof AmericanJews.

REVIEWS BOOK

141

But the Orthodoxyhe championed,althoughrelativelymodemcompared to its EasternEuropeanvariant,was strictlytraditional,as Leeser'ssermons, writings,and argumentswith IsaacMayerWise, the leadingreformerof the day, demonstrate."We believe in common with all orthodoxJews in the literalfulfillmentof Scriptures,"Leeser was wont to reiterate.In an open, democratic,and vastly ChristianAmerica,Leeser's hope for unity under religious Orthodoxyseems naive, though Sussmanstops short of taking this position. Leeser's AmericanizedOrthodoxyfailed to unify American Jewry,and it failed to survive the nineteenthcentury,not because it was overwhelmedafter 1881 by an Orthodoxyprimarilyfashionedin Eastern Europe,but because it could not attractan Americanconstituency. Still, Leeser's contributionsto a thriving AmericanJewish press, to Jewish educationalinstitutions,and to the defense of the rightsof Jews in the United Statesand aroundthe world,were centralto, and representative of, the earlyhistoryof the Jewishpeople in America.Evenhis never-ending struggleswith his Philadelphiacongregation,MikvehIsrael,were, and continue to be, representativeof the relationshipbetweenJewish communities and their spiritualleaders. There are a numberof weaknessesin the book. No doubtthe paucity of evidence has somethingto do with the fact that we never get to know Leeser all that well. It is refreshingthat Sussmanhas not overindulged here in psychologicalspeculation,but we hungerto know more aboutthe personwhose books were commercialfailures,who was often brusqueand difficultin relationships,who suffereda brokenheart and never married, whose youngerbrotherdied, whose strugglewith smallpoxas a young man left him "physicallyand emotionallyscarredfor the rest of his life" (p. 74). The book is also somewhatrepetitious.Unnecessarilylong quotations appearwith annoyingfrequency,and several are repeated,at least in part, more than once. Sussman also unfortunatelyrelies on textbook rather than monographmaterialfor Americancontext,and much of that material is pedestrianand outdated. The reader is also distractedby too many unilluminatingtextual referencesto what other historianshave said about one point or another. More editing of what appearsto be a doctoral dissertationwas required. These complaintsare minor,however,in light of the majorcontribution that Sussmanhas made in giving us the most comprehensivestudy of one of the most importantJewish leadersin pre-Civil WarAmerica.The book reveals not only the full scope of Leeser's public life but also tells us

142

BOOK REVIEWS

much aboutthe conditionof AmericanJewry,and the challengesto Jewish communityand identity,in an importantformativeperiod. GeraldSorin StateUniversity of NewYorkat NewPaltz New Paltz,N.Y. MichaelRagussis.Figuresof Conversion:TheJewishQuestionand English NationalIdentity.Durham,N.C.: Duke UniversityPress, 1995.vi, 340 pp. Readerswho keep up with researchon Jewishlife in nineteenth-century to previewMichaelRagussis'sFigures Englandhavehadseveralopportunities "The Jewish Conversion: of Question"and EnglishNationalIdentity.In a series of articles published in the journals Critical Inquiryand English LiteraryHistorybetween1989and 1994,Ragussisconstruestheperpetuation of antisemiticattitudesin Britishsociety and the representation of Jews in Britishliteratureas interrelatedprocesses.These articlesexaminenovels by MariaEdgeworth,Sir WalterScott, AnthonyTrollope,and George Eliot, and are consistentin their identificationof "conversion"as an historical phenomenonand literarytrope.Figuresof Conversionrevises,expands,and synthesizesthe individualargumentsof these separatearticlesinto a book thatcontributesto bothJudaicstudiesandnineteenth-century literarystudies. There is new and interestingmaterial:a fresh readingof MariaEdgeworth'sHarrington,deservedattentionto neglectedworksby GraceAguilar, IsaacDisraeli,and BenjaminDisraeli,and an interestingtake on often-read texts by Trollope and Eliot. The book, part of a series entitled "Postoffers good, old-fashionedclose readingsand Interventions," Contemporary bringstogetherinterestingbiographicalinformation: Edgeworth,likeDickens, was criticizedforheranti-Jewishcharacterizations; Byronwas IsaacNathan's secondchoice(afterScott)to writethelyricsforhis HebrewMelodies;Sharon Turnerwas IsaacDisraeli'sgodfather.Suchfactsareavailableelsewhere,but Ragussisinveststhemwithnew significanceas partof his ownnarrativeabout Englishliteraryhistory.Figures of Conversionis readableand engaging,of interestto both specialistandnonspecialistin the areaof nineteenth-century Britishliterature. While the book is not explicitlytheoretical,its overallconceptionconformsto currenttrendsin academicwritingandpublishing.Theterminology usedto describerelationshipsof poweris familiarto readersof contemporary

Review: [untitled] Author(s): Nancy Henry Source: AJS Review, Vol. 22, No. 1 (1997), pp. 142-148 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486885 . Accessed: 15/07/2011 10:33 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

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

http://www.jstor.org

142

BOOK REVIEWS

much aboutthe conditionof AmericanJewry,and the challengesto Jewish communityand identity,in an importantformativeperiod. GeraldSorin StateUniversity of NewYorkat NewPaltz New Paltz,N.Y. MichaelRagussis.Figuresof Conversion:TheJewishQuestionand English NationalIdentity.Durham,N.C.: Duke UniversityPress, 1995.vi, 340 pp. Readerswho keep up with researchon Jewishlife in nineteenth-century to previewMichaelRagussis'sFigures Englandhavehadseveralopportunities "The Jewish Conversion: of Question"and EnglishNationalIdentity.In a series of articles published in the journals Critical Inquiryand English LiteraryHistorybetween1989and 1994,Ragussisconstruestheperpetuation of antisemiticattitudesin Britishsociety and the representation of Jews in Britishliteratureas interrelatedprocesses.These articlesexaminenovels by MariaEdgeworth,Sir WalterScott, AnthonyTrollope,and George Eliot, and are consistentin their identificationof "conversion"as an historical phenomenonand literarytrope.Figuresof Conversionrevises,expands,and synthesizesthe individualargumentsof these separatearticlesinto a book thatcontributesto bothJudaicstudiesandnineteenth-century literarystudies. There is new and interestingmaterial:a fresh readingof MariaEdgeworth'sHarrington,deservedattentionto neglectedworksby GraceAguilar, IsaacDisraeli,and BenjaminDisraeli,and an interestingtake on often-read texts by Trollope and Eliot. The book, part of a series entitled "Postoffers good, old-fashionedclose readingsand Interventions," Contemporary bringstogetherinterestingbiographicalinformation: Edgeworth,likeDickens, was criticizedforheranti-Jewishcharacterizations; Byronwas IsaacNathan's secondchoice(afterScott)to writethelyricsforhis HebrewMelodies;Sharon Turnerwas IsaacDisraeli'sgodfather.Suchfactsareavailableelsewhere,but Ragussisinveststhemwithnew significanceas partof his ownnarrativeabout Englishliteraryhistory.Figures of Conversionis readableand engaging,of interestto both specialistandnonspecialistin the areaof nineteenth-century Britishliterature. While the book is not explicitlytheoretical,its overallconceptionconformsto currenttrendsin academicwritingandpublishing.Theterminology usedto describerelationshipsof poweris familiarto readersof contemporary

BOOK REVIEWS

143

literaryand culturalcriticism:a hegemonicforce (the Englishimagination) is presentedas appropriating,coercing, and remakingan oppressedbut threateningminority(the Jews). "Englishnationalidentity"is describedas undergoinga "crisis,"andthis crisisshapesthe uniquelyVictorianexpression of a transhistorical,always static force (antisemitism).Ragussisclaims that the stakesin his projectare much higherthanthose in more modestearlier works, such as EdgarRosenberg'sFrom Shylockto Svengali(1960). They were lookingonly at stereotypes;he is analyzing"discourse,"the continuous reinventionof the "rhetoricof conversion." Figuresof Conversionassumesthe enduranceof "theideologyof conversion"in Christianthoughtandpractice,anddetailsthe specificmanifestations of this ideology in the attemptsby nineteenth-century English(and Scottish Jewishidentity."Theproblemsin thisbookare andIrish)authorsto "represent less with the individualclaims aboutspecifictexts thanwith the conceptual Jewishidenglue. The phrases"the ideology of conversion,""representing even national are as and "English identity" presented timeless,enduring tity," categorieswhich find differingexpressionsat differenthistoricalperiods. So the Victorianform of "the ideology of conversion"is the Evangelical of ConversionSocieties and the literaturethey influenced."Representations Britishnovelistcreates Jewishidentity"occurwhenevera nineteenth-century a Jewish character,and "Englishnationalidentity"is apparentlysomething thatall Britishauthorswantedto define,whethertheywrotehistoryor fiction. Ragussishas dressedup fairly traditionalliterarycriticismin the popular, elevatedterminologyof sociologicalanalysisand culturalstudies.The need to insist on the "world-historical" (to use GeorgeEliot'sphrase)importance of individualplots and charactersmars an illuminating,if flawed,work of criticism.The interpretativeoverstatementabout both history and literary history is, I think, symptomaticof some strandsof contemporaryliterary criticism,while the particularview of literaryhistoryelaboratedby Ragussis as the "restoring"of "the rhetoricof conversion"to its social contexts is, perhaps,distinctlyhis own. Ahistoricalcategories,such as "theideologyof conversion,"will always be found whereverthey are sought;minutetextualexamplesare atomized samplesof the tired, old "spirit"of the respectiveage. Despite Ragussis's protestsaboutthe historicityof his study,his literaryhistory--theexcavation of ongoingtropesandthemes-is dubious.He declares,withno realevidence, thata singletext, Shakespeare'sTheMerchantof Venice,is an "ur-text"forall of Jews; thereforeevery representation of Jews, subsequentrepresentations

144

BOOKREVIEWS

or as he would have it, Jewish identity,is a rewritingof Shakespeare's text. Ragussisthinksthat TheMerchantof Venice"invadesthe novel from Harringtonto Ulysses,"and that "no portraitof a Jew can exist in English withoutreferenceto it, and the English imaginationseems unableto free itself of Shakespeare'stext"(p. 58). But is thishow imagesandideasaretransmitted generationto generation? texts ratherthaninquiring on a of texts, metaphor begetting Ragussisdepends into how differentculturesproduceddifferentkindsof literature,or how the same cultureproduceddifferentkinds of texts over time. Or he dependson variedmeansby other,even more obscuringmetaphors:"theextraordinarily which Shakespeare'stext invadesthe novel may suggestthe capaciousness and subtletynot only of the invading,parasitictext, but of the host text; each invasionmay in fact signal a deliberateintroductionof the disorderin orderto trapit and therebymasterit" (p. 58). In otherwords,to accountfor referencesand allusionsto Shylock, Ragussisprovidesfancifulmetaphors which confuse allusion with originationand make texts into autonomous each other. and"mastering" agentscapableof "invading,""trapping," "WritingEnglish Comedy:PatronizingShylock"(chap. 2) jumps from Shakespeareto Edgeworthto "The ChurchFathers"to Freud and back in the attemptto establish a traditionof conversionliterature.Since the texts Ragussis examines do not all deal with literal conversion,he must definewhat happensin them as "figurativeconversion."AlthoughRagussis himself has inventedthis term, he attributesa consciousnessof it to his authors:"Edgeworthtries to take the sting out of conversionby making it only figurative"(p. 80). In other words, he will find conversioneven where it does not exist, and worse, constructa figurativehistory for the categorieshe has imagined.Of these, he writes:"Theoriginsof figurative conversionreturnus to the historicmomentwhen the Christiancommunity was formulatingand constitutingJewishidentityfor publicconsumptionfor the first time. This period runs from the first centurythroughthe fourth century,when the battle for hegemonybetweenChristiansand Jews ended at last throughthe establishmentof Christianityas the religionof the state" (p. 81). But the treatmentof "thefirstthroughthe fourthcentury"is limited to a two-pagediscussionof Eusebius,and it is hardwork imaginingwhat public,as possibleconnectiontheremightbe betweenthe nineteenth-century it "consumes"Jewishidentity,andthe consumingpublicof someunspecified Christianpast. The interestingreadingof Harringtonin this chapteris only weakened

BOOK REVIEWS

145

when Ragussis places the novel in his own tradition:"By recognizing figurativeconversionas a textualstrategywhose forefatherswerethe Church Fathers,andwhose modemdescendantsincludeFreud,we can situateEdgeworth'snovel within the literaryand culturaltraditionsthat constitutethe of Jewishidentityboth inside and outsideEnglandin ancient representation andmodemtimes"(p. 86). This dizzyingstatementcancelsthe morecareful historicizingof the previouschapteron conversionsocieties,andleadsme to IrishreformingeducatorMaria ask: why must the early-nineteenth-century Edgeworthbe situated(because one of her many works of fiction has a Jewish hero) in a traditionwith ChurchFathersand Freud?The clumsy areevidentthroughout mechanicsof tradition-making Figuresof Conversion, and whereverRagussisuses genealogicalmetaphors,such as "forefathers" Forall of the potentialcomplexityof his intertextual "descendants." readings, his methodrequireshim to isolate and exclude,as any genealogistmust, in orderto drawa straightline from TheMerchantof Veniceto Ulysses. The dedicationto "ideology,"a termleft undefinedby Ragussisdespite his dependenceon it, leaves the authorstrainingto find coherencewhere his own readingsrevealcontradiction.Edgeworthis laudedfor "subverting" and "rewriting"habitualantisemitictropes in English literature(including those in her own earlierwork), but when Harrington'sending is less than subversive,Ragussis absolves Edgeworthof responsibility:"WhileI have been demonstratingthe ways in which Harringtonseeks to expose and subvertthe comic formulaof TheMerchantof Veniceand the conventional stereotypingof Jewishidentity,I am now suggestingthatBerenice's'conversion' in Harringtonmay be a sign of Edgeworth'ssubmissionto the ruling ideology"(p. 79). Selectivelyand inconsistently,Ragussisblamesthe ruling ideologyfortrappingandsubduingthe author'sindividual,resistantimpulses. Edgeworthis a helpless woman "caughtbetweenher own convictionsand the ideology of her culture"(p. 80). But is her culturethe same as that of her"forefather" Scott,or herAustrianJewish Shakespeare,hercontemporary Freud? "descendant," Just as The Merchantof Veniceis an ur-textthat Harringtonrewrites, so Ivanhoe becomes a sub-ur-textthat rewritesShakespeare,but which is itself so powerfulthat subsequentauthorsmust rewriteit too. "Eachof the historicalromancesI examine-Leila; or, the Siege of Granada(1838) by EdwardBulwer-Lytton;The Valeof Cedars;or the Martyr(1850) by Grace Aguilar,anEnglishJew;andTheSpanishGypsy(1868)by GeorgeEliot--can be readas a directresponse,even a sequel to Ivanhoe"(p. 128). Ragussis's

146

BOOKREVIEWS

construction,"canbe read,"alreadysuggestsan inclinationtowardallegorical But why anyone would want to read them this way? When interpretation. Ragussistracesgenealogicallines, he seems to forgetaboutideologyandthe broadersociological context. One authorsimply rewritesanother,and it is muchsimplerto speakof rewritingwhenthe ideologyof conversionremains constant,ratherthan fluid and distinct at differenttimes and in different places. The terms Ragussis uses to talk about Fedalmain George Eliot's The SpanishGypsyand the otherdaughtersin questionare mystifiedin a way which seems at odds with his historicistclaims: "The converted(Jewish daughter)and conquered(Moorish son) function under the sign of the feminine in Leila" (p. 141). The issue in this chapteris race ratherthan religion.Fedalma,for example,is a daughter,but she is not Jewish;she is a Gypsy,and she is not converted.Ragussisreveals that for him "Jewish" has come to be inseparablefrom "race,"so that it does not really matter whetherFedalmais a convertedJewish daughteror an unconvertedGypsy daughter.She is womanand she is not white, andthereforewhathappensto heris conversion.Muchas I welcomethis attentionto Eliot'sfascinatingbut neglectedpoem,its relativeobscurityallowsRagussisto rideroughshodover the detailsof the text. The facile conflationof Jewishnessand racial"otherness"implies that conversion(the changingof one's religion)includesthe potentialto change of "the ideology of conversion" one's race as well. The institutionalization conversion in the societies, Ragussis argues, indicatesthat at least some ChristiansconsideredJudaismratherthanJewishnessto be the definingcharacteristicof Jews. Sometimesconversion(oftenreallybaptism)is enoughto makea personof the Jewishraceacceptableto Christiansociety;sometimes, obviously,neitherformalbaptismnorgenuinespiritualconversionis enough. "Figurativeconversion"does not accountfor all of the multipleideologies that may be at work, for the presenceof variousand irreduciblemultiple attitudes,beliefs, prejudices,and perceptions.As Ragussisuses the terms "ideology,""conversion,""the feminine,"he expandsthem beyond historically specifiablesignificance.Eventually,the multiplicationof ideologies causesterminologicaltrafficjams andcollisions:"theideologyof conversion once againmergeswith the ideologyof the feminine:the ductilitythatmakes womanthe perfectcandidatefor conversionis equalto what is seen as her sexualweakness,her sexualsubmissiveness,hersexualusefulness"(p. 144). Whatdo we get fromthis coupling?I'm not surewhose views or ideologies

BOOK REVIEWS

147

these are, and the agentless,passive voice Ragussisemploys("whatis seen as") is telling. Does Aguilarbelieve these things about"woman"(or even some women)?Does Eliot?Who is doingthe seeing? In "Mosesin Egypt:The SecretJew in England,"Ragussisdescribesthe importanceof the crypto-Jewto Spanishhistoryandthe fascinationof some Victorianhistoriansand novelists with fifteenth-century Spain.He goes on to identifya paranoiaaboutcrypto-Jewsin late-nineteenth-century English in and "Moses the fear on in becomes "Moses England," Egypt" society. the part of ChristianEnglishmenthat Jews might be passing as Christians is recordedin many novels of the period.Ragussisfocuses on a numberof Trollope'sworks, especially The WayWeLive Now, in which a numberof charactersaresuspectedof beingJewish,andin whichone definitivelyJewish character,Brehgert,is a victim of Christianprejudice.But Ragussisdoes not discussBrehgert,or otherworksof Trollope'swhicharesympatheticto Jews, such as Nina Balatka (1867). Instead,he arguesthat Trollope"produced a series of novels whose anti-Semitismis unparalleledin the nineteenth century,"contrastinghim to GeorgeEliot, who "wrotethe most celebrated philo-Semiticnovel writtenin England"(p. 234). He connects Trollope's antisemitismto his hatredof Disraeliand to a generalculturaldis-easewith Disraelias a Jewishconvertto Christianity. Ultimately,this chapter,like the book as a whole, suffers from the determinationto let isolated examples stand in as evidence for sweeping historicalclaims. "Englishnationalidentity"in the nineteenthcentury,if it existed,wouldbe discernibleto Americanreadersat the end of the twentieth centuryonly throughan analysis and familiaritywith multiplediscourses. Thereis no documentationof, for example,Disraeli'sor Trollope'spolitical views, no sense of Englandexcept as a countryof Christiansobsessedwith convertingJews, and only a dislocatedsense of medievalismas identifiedin a handfulof texts. Trollopewrotedozens of novels on manytopics, and the novels with Jewishcharactersalso containdozens of othersympatheticand portrayedcharacters.ThoseJewishcharactersthemselves unsympathetically and varied are rarelycentralto the main narrative.Ragussisis, in the end, doingwhathe saidhe wouldnot:he is documentingstereotypesandincluding texts in his literaryhistorymerely because they have Jewish charactersin themor seem to him to be antisemitic. Whateverelse Ragussisis doing,he is not illuminating"Englishnational identity"for us. The phrase is popular,what we would expect from a intervention."But the belief that such an identity is "post-contemporary

148

BOOKREVIEWS

anythingotherthan a fractured,conflictedmix of "ideologies"can only be the result of a disciplinarydrive to find coherencewhere none exists, to find a single explanationfor the coexistenceof antisemitism,philosemitism, tolerance,andgeneralEnglishdiscomfortwith any discussionof Jewishness. I can recommendFigures of Conversionas a provocativeintroductionto a fascinatingcollectionof literarytexts,but I remainskeptical,even fearful,of its distorting,homogenizinggeneralizationsaboutthe fixity of both"English nationalidentity"and"Jewishidentity." NancyHenry StateUniversity of NewYorkatBinghamton N.Y. Binghamton, Robert Liberles. Salo WittmayerBaron: Architect of Jewish History. New

York:New YorkUniversityPress, 1995. xiii, 425 pp. A measure of irony informs Robert Liberles'sengaging and incisive biographyof Salo WittmayerBaron,the firstprofessorof Jewishhistoryin an Americanuniversity.LiberlescharacterizesBaronas a pioneerin "building a place for Jewishhistorywithinthe universityworld"(p. 357), but he was equallya transitionalfigure.Bornandraisedin Tarnow,educatedatuniversity in Vienna,Baronemigratedto theUnitedStatesin 1926to teachattherecently establishedJewish Instituteof Religion.Withinthreeyears he receivedhis appointmentto ColumbiaUniversity'sfirstendowedchairin Jewishhistory, religion,and institutions,located,somewhatto Baron'sinitialdiscomfiture, in the departmentof history.Fromthis singularpositionfor overthirtyyears, Barontaughta cadreof graduatestudentsandencouragedthe normalization of Jewishhistoricalstudy.Both his studentsandhis methodologyeventually madehis own approachto Jewishhistoryirrelevant,specificallyhis devotion to writinga multivolumehistoryof the Jews. Baronhopedto transcendhis two toweringpredecessors:HeinrichGraetz,whose extraordinarily popular and Simon into the was translated Jews Dubnow, languages, many Historyof who achieved renown despite the relativelylate publicationof his World Historyof the Jews. AlthoughBaronpublishedthe first editionof his The Social and Religious History of the Jews in 1937 when he was only forty, he

is largelyknowntoday for a handfulof influentialessays. Indeed,I suspect thatmanyyoungerscholarsof Jewishreligionandhistoryareunfamiliarwith Baron'sworkanddo not recognizehis name.

Review: [untitled] Author(s): Deborah Dash Moore Source: AJS Review, Vol. 22, No. 1 (1997), pp. 148-150 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486886 . Accessed: 15/07/2011 10:33 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

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

http://www.jstor.org

148

BOOKREVIEWS

anythingotherthan a fractured,conflictedmix of "ideologies"can only be the result of a disciplinarydrive to find coherencewhere none exists, to find a single explanationfor the coexistenceof antisemitism,philosemitism, tolerance,andgeneralEnglishdiscomfortwith any discussionof Jewishness. I can recommendFigures of Conversionas a provocativeintroductionto a fascinatingcollectionof literarytexts,but I remainskeptical,even fearful,of its distorting,homogenizinggeneralizationsaboutthe fixity of both"English nationalidentity"and"Jewishidentity." NancyHenry StateUniversity of NewYorkatBinghamton N.Y. Binghamton, Robert Liberles. Salo WittmayerBaron: Architect of Jewish History. New

York:New YorkUniversityPress, 1995. xiii, 425 pp. A measure of irony informs Robert Liberles'sengaging and incisive biographyof Salo WittmayerBaron,the firstprofessorof Jewishhistoryin an Americanuniversity.LiberlescharacterizesBaronas a pioneerin "building a place for Jewishhistorywithinthe universityworld"(p. 357), but he was equallya transitionalfigure.Bornandraisedin Tarnow,educatedatuniversity in Vienna,Baronemigratedto theUnitedStatesin 1926to teachattherecently establishedJewish Instituteof Religion.Withinthreeyears he receivedhis appointmentto ColumbiaUniversity'sfirstendowedchairin Jewishhistory, religion,and institutions,located,somewhatto Baron'sinitialdiscomfiture, in the departmentof history.Fromthis singularpositionfor overthirtyyears, Barontaughta cadreof graduatestudentsandencouragedthe normalization of Jewishhistoricalstudy.Both his studentsandhis methodologyeventually madehis own approachto Jewishhistoryirrelevant,specificallyhis devotion to writinga multivolumehistoryof the Jews. Baronhopedto transcendhis two toweringpredecessors:HeinrichGraetz,whose extraordinarily popular and Simon into the was translated Jews Dubnow, languages, many Historyof who achieved renown despite the relativelylate publicationof his World Historyof the Jews. AlthoughBaronpublishedthe first editionof his The Social and Religious History of the Jews in 1937 when he was only forty, he

is largelyknowntoday for a handfulof influentialessays. Indeed,I suspect thatmanyyoungerscholarsof Jewishreligionandhistoryareunfamiliarwith Baron'sworkanddo not recognizehis name.

BOOK REVIEWS

149

How did it happenthat one of the toweringfiguresin JewishAmerican academia,a prolific scholarand communalactivist, a reveredteacherand influentialhistorian,has so quicklybeen forgotteneven as Jewishstudiesand Jewishhistoryareflourishingin Americanuniversities?Liberlesunderstandably does not makethis the centralquestionof his excellentstudy,nor is his intellectualbiographyan effortto rescuea neglectedfigure.Liberlesbeganhis researchwhile Baronwas still alive (he livedto the age of ninety-four)andhis presencestill felt;he completedit afterBaron'sdeathin 1989.Yethis account is sobering,for it suggestshow pioneersor transitionalfigurescanbe eclipsed by the new worldthey help to produce.Baronsucceededin legitimatingthe social-historicalstudyof Jews withinthe academyand provideda model of communalactivismpracticedby many AmericanJewish academicstoday. His success reveals both possibilitiesand limitationsinherentin practicing Jewishhistoryin the academy. Liberles interweavesBaron'sbiographywith criticaldiscussionof his intellectualheritage.Ironically,Liberlesreturnsrepeatedlyto one of Baron's first essays, "Ghettoand Emancipation:Shall We Revise the Traditional View?"publishedin 1928 in the MenorahJournal, a Jewish intellectual and literarymonthly.Here Baronanswershis own questionwith a ringing affirmative,presentinginterpretationsof Jewish history that would guide his subsequentwork. Liberlessingles out Baron'sinfluentialattackon the lachrymoseview of Jewishhistory,the notionthatJewishhistorycomprises sufferingandscholarship.Liberlesalso pointsto Baron'simportantchallenge to the unrelievedlynegative portraitof the Middle Ages as a period of "persecutionand wretchedness"in contrastto the wildly optimisticimage of emancipationas ushering in an era of "equalityand opportunity"(p. arguingthatthe Middle 40). Baronrevisedboth ends of this interpretation, for their and so bad not were Jews, legal status not quite so quite Ages substantialdifficulties contained the while debased, years post-emancipation his how Baron illustrates for Jews. The essay brought scholarshipto address issues relevantto a popularaudience.Liberles'sanalysisplaces the essay in its intellectualand biographicalcontext, includingBaron's demanding negotiationswith the MenorahJournal's editors,which reveal unpleasant aspectsof his character.Baron,the man, appearsto have been a rathercold fish to all excepthis circle of intimates. Liberles chooses, at times, to speak to his readersin the first person, expressinghis own opinionsas a biographerand as a contemporaryJewish historian,an American-educated,Israeli scholar.I found that a welcome

150

BOOK REVIEWS

changefromthe postureof omniscientcontrolnormallyemployedby biographers.Thusthe volume gives us severalvoices, most notablyBaron'sand in the carefultreatmentof theprocessbehind thoseof his contemporaries---as the fatefulchoice of Baronfor the Columbiachair,but also Liberles's.His personalreflectionsadd immediacyby insistingon the continuingrelevance as of suchissuesas whethera world-historical approachto Jewsis appropriate local to a conditions. He invites comparativeapproachemphasizing opposed us not merelyto learnfrom Baronbut also to engage the questionsthathe faced. As an AmericanJewish historian,I appreciatedthe attentionLiberles gave to Baron'sgraduallygrowinginterestin AmericanJews in the wake of the destructionof EuropeanJewry.Baronincreasinglysaw AmericanJewish historyas an ideal researchsite for his theoriesof the mutualinfluenceof socialandreligioustrendsin Jewishhistory.AlthoughAmerica'svoluntaristic Jewishcommunitydisturbedhim, he cameto recognizethatan open society hadsomepositivebenefits.It is thusnot ironicthatthe firstchairin American Jewish history at an Americanuniversitywas establishedat Columbiaby membersof Baron'sfamily. Deborah DashMoore VassarCollege Poughkeepsie, N.Y. AnthonyJulius. T S. Eliot, Anti-Semitismand LiteraryForm. Cambridge UniversityPress, 1995. xii, 308 pp. Admirersof T. S. Eliot and Ezra Pound have reacted to the overt antisemitismof theirpoemswith responsesrangingfrompainedindifference to furyand outrage.The coexistenceof prejudiceandpoetic geniusin these figureshasbeen debatedforhalf a century,andnow AnthonyJuliusoffersthe mostthoroughstudyandthemostmercilessevaluationof Eliot'santisemitism thatwe have seen. JuliusattacksEliot's texts with a fury of analysisthat far surpassesthe forceof theircasualantisemiticallusions-which are,no doubt,all the more forbeingcasual.It is a case of pre-Holocaust bigotryscrutinized reprehensible by post-Holocaustindignation.Observingthatthe discourseof antisemitism is rich in impliedcalumny,Juliusexposes the heavy freightof malevolent suggestionin Eliot'sallusionsto Jewsby penetratinganalysis.His exhaustive

Review: [untitled] Author(s): Jacob Korg Source: AJS Review, Vol. 22, No. 1 (1997), pp. 150-152 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486887 . Accessed: 15/07/2011 10:33 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

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

http://www.jstor.org

150

BOOK REVIEWS

changefromthe postureof omniscientcontrolnormallyemployedby biographers.Thusthe volume gives us severalvoices, most notablyBaron'sand in the carefultreatmentof theprocessbehind thoseof his contemporaries---as the fatefulchoice of Baronfor the Columbiachair,but also Liberles's.His personalreflectionsadd immediacyby insistingon the continuingrelevance as of suchissuesas whethera world-historical approachto Jewsis appropriate local to a conditions. He invites comparativeapproachemphasizing opposed us not merelyto learnfrom Baronbut also to engage the questionsthathe faced. As an AmericanJewish historian,I appreciatedthe attentionLiberles gave to Baron'sgraduallygrowinginterestin AmericanJews in the wake of the destructionof EuropeanJewry.Baronincreasinglysaw AmericanJewish historyas an ideal researchsite for his theoriesof the mutualinfluenceof socialandreligioustrendsin Jewishhistory.AlthoughAmerica'svoluntaristic Jewishcommunitydisturbedhim, he cameto recognizethatan open society hadsomepositivebenefits.It is thusnot ironicthatthe firstchairin American Jewish history at an Americanuniversitywas establishedat Columbiaby membersof Baron'sfamily. Deborah DashMoore VassarCollege Poughkeepsie, N.Y. AnthonyJulius. T S. Eliot, Anti-Semitismand LiteraryForm. Cambridge UniversityPress, 1995. xii, 308 pp. Admirersof T. S. Eliot and Ezra Pound have reacted to the overt antisemitismof theirpoemswith responsesrangingfrompainedindifference to furyand outrage.The coexistenceof prejudiceandpoetic geniusin these figureshasbeen debatedforhalf a century,andnow AnthonyJuliusoffersthe mostthoroughstudyandthemostmercilessevaluationof Eliot'santisemitism thatwe have seen. JuliusattacksEliot's texts with a fury of analysisthat far surpassesthe forceof theircasualantisemiticallusions-which are,no doubt,all the more forbeingcasual.It is a case of pre-Holocaust bigotryscrutinized reprehensible by post-Holocaustindignation.Observingthatthe discourseof antisemitism is rich in impliedcalumny,Juliusexposes the heavy freightof malevolent suggestionin Eliot'sallusionsto Jewsby penetratinganalysis.His exhaustive

REVIEWS BOOK

151

reviews of the antisemiticparallelsand historicalprecedentsthey recall are crushinglyconvincing,althoughthe connectionsaresometimesstrained,and readersmay find some of thembothtediousanddepressing. In Eliot's poetry,the antisemiticthemeis generallyconfinedto his short earlylyrics. Juliushas little to say aboutThe WasteLandor Eliot'splays or Four Quartetsin this connection.However,he comes down very hardon Eliot'sproseallusionsto Jews, anddeals at lengthwith the notoriousremark in the ideal society Eliot that "free-thinkingJews"would be "undesirable" envisioned.Thishasbeena favoriteopeningamongEliot'scritics,butit is not really a good point of attackon his antisemitism.In this and othercontexts, Eliot, demonstratinga quixoticindifferenceto social reality,was sketching the conditionsof an orthodox,authoritarian High Churchcommunitythat couldneverreallycome into existence,in whichliberalthinkersof any kind, even Protestants,wouldbe "undesirable." Juliusilluminatesthe natureof Eliot'santisemitismby comparingit with the views of numerousantisemitesandphilosemites,exploringits intellectual backgroundin areasonly remotelyrelatedto it, such as the Oresteia,French Symbolism,andlinguisticandaesthetictheory.Inthesediscussions,he brings a staggeringwealthof ancillaryinformationto bearon the problem,so that his studyapproachesthe conditionof a generaloverviewof the questionof antisemitismin literatureand art. His documentationis both generousand informative;nearlya hundredpages, or one-thirdof the book, aredevotedto notes andbibliography. Juliusperceivesa parallelto Eliot's antisemitismin his misogyny,while specifyingthathis antipathyto womenwas basedon fear,while his aversion to Jews was toned by contempt.He suggeststhat Eliot, dividedboth from his nativelandandthe faithof his family,identifiedhimselfin some respects with Jews, and that his hostilitytowardthem was a form of self-hatred,as well as a defenseagainstit. In the post-HolocaustyearsEliot expressed,or seemedto express,regret for his antisemiticpoems, but Julius is unconvincedby these statements, and presentsevidence showing that Eliot never repentedthe prejudicehe had displayed.He reviews and repudiatesthe arguments,many offeredby Jewishcritics, intendedto exculpateEliot's poems (if not Eliot himself)by holdingthattheirpoetic meritneutralizesthe prejudicethey express,thatthe antisemiticsentimentsare only those of characters,thata workof art,by its nature,cannotbe antisemitic,thatrejectingthe bigotryof Eliot'spoemsmust involve a rejectionof modem literatureitself, and even that his comments

152

BOOKREVIEWS

aboutJewsarenot entirelywrong.He remindsus thatEliotreadat the Poetry Centerof the YoungMen's HebrewAssociationin New Yorktwice before any questionwas raised, and that objectionsto his thirdappearancewere easily overcome. Whatattitude,then,arewe to adopttowardEliot'sworkand,by implication,towardthemanyworksof staturethathavea componentof antisemitism? Julius'sanswer is intriguing.He maintainsthat while the antisemitismof Eliot's poetrycan do harmand instill hatredin its readers,it is nevertheless essential, a vitalizing imaginativeresource,"positively empowering"(p. 28). He declaresthat Eliot's poetryis "one of anti-Semitism'sfew literary triumphs"(p. 33), and that "theexploitationof anti-Semiticdiscourseis an inseparablepart of his greaterliteraryundertaking"(p. 29). Referringto the way in which Eliot compressedthe libelousbanalitiesof the antisemitic traditioninto a single line about"Rachel,nee Rabinovitch,"Juliusmarvels, "Withgreat virtuosity,Eliot turns that materialinto art" (p. 91). Again, "Anti-Semitismdid not disfigureEliot's work, it animatedit. It was, on occasion, both his refuge and his inspiration"(p. 173). It was even, on occasion, his "muse"(p. 77). It seems, then, that no simple reactionwill do, that if literatureand art are to be taken seriously,we must accept the fact that they can express vile feelings as well as noble ones without compromisingtheir aestheticvalue. As Juliussays of Eliot's poetry:"One canteachanti-Semitismfromsuchtexts;one canalso teachpoetry.Onereads them,appalled,and impressed"(p. 40). JacobKorg of Washington University Seattle,Wash.

Collected Studies Source: AJS Review, Vol. 22, No. 1 (1997), pp. 153-160 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486888 . Accessed: 15/07/2011 10:33 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

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

http://www.jstor.org

COLLECTEDSTUDIES Emil L. Fackenheimand RaphaelJospe, eds. Jewish Philosophyand the CenterforUniversityTeachingof JewishCivilization. Academy.International Madison,N.J.: FairleighDickinsonUniversityPress, 1996. 255 pp. Emil L. Fackenheim, "Jewish Philosophy and the Academy." CONTENTS:

RaphaelJospe, "BiblicalExegesis as a PhilosophicLiteraryGenre:Abraham Ibn Ezra and Moses Mendelssohn."Andrey V. Smirnov,"Toward a ComprehensiveView of Jewish Philosophy:The Middle Ages and the Modem Era."GershonGreenberg,"Nineteenth-Century JewishThoughtas SheviratHa-Kelim(Shatteringof the Vessels)."RichardA. Cohen,"Levinas, Rosenzweig,and the Phenomenologiesof Husserland Heidegger."Johanan E. Bauer,"ANote ConcerningRosenzweigandLevinason Totality."Ephraim Meir,"Levinas'sThinkingon Religionas Beyondthe Pathetic:Reflectionson theFirstPartof DifficultFreedom."GillianRose,"JewishEthicsandtheCrisis of Philosophy."MichaelL. Morgan,"TeachingLeo Straussas a Jewishand GeneralPhilosopher."Emil L. Fackenheim,"PhilosophicalConsiderations and the Teachingof the Holocaust."Steven T. Katz, "A Responseto Emil Ze'ev Mankowitz,"AResponseto EmilFackenheim." DanielJ. Fackenheim." Civil L. Elazar,"PoliticalPhilosophyandIsrael's Society."Emil Fackenheim, "TheJewish Returninto History:PhilosophicalFragmentson the State of Israel."Emil L. Fackenheim,"A Retrospectiveof My Thought." MichaelV. Fox, VictorAvigdorHurowitz,Avi Hurvitz,MichaelL. Klein, Baruch J. Schwartz, and Nili Shupak, eds. Texts, Temples,and Traditions:A

Tributeto MenachemHaran.WinonaLake:Eisenbrauns,1996. xlii, 438 pp. (English),133 pp. (Hebrew). Part 1. Thepriests and their sphere. SaraJaphet,"The Distribution CONTENTS:

of the PriestlyGiftsAccordingto a Documentof the SecondTemplePeriod." JamesKugel,"TheHolinessof Israelandthe Landin SecondTempleTimes." Carol Meyers, "Realmsof Sanctity:The Case of the 'Misplaced'Incense 153

154

COLLECTEDSTUDIES

Altarin the TabernacleTextsof Exodus."H. G. M. Williamson,"Hezekiah andthe Temple."ZionyZevit,"The EarthenAltarLawsof Exodus20:24-26 and RelatedSacrificialRestrictionson TheirCulturalContent."Part 2. The Torah.MordechaiCogan,"TheOtherEgypt:A WelcomeAsylum."GrahamI. Davies,"TheCompositionof the Book of Exodus:Reflectionson the Theses of ErhardBlum."RichardElliot Friedman,"SomeRecentNon-Arguments Concerningthe DocumentaryHypothesis."BaruchJ. Schwartz,"ThePriestly Accountof the Theophanyand Lawgivingat Sinai."J. A. Soggin, "Sonsof God(s),Heroes,andnephilim:Remarkson Genesis6:1-4." JeffreyH. Tigay, "The Significanceof the End of Deuteronomy(Deuteronomy34:10-12)." Part 3. TheProphets.Sa-MoonKang,"TheAuthenticSermonof Jeremiahin Jeremiah7:1-20." FrangoisLanglamet,"LeCadrealphabetiquedu 'Livrede Jonathan'(1 Sam 16:14-2 Sam 1:27)."WilliamMcKane,"TheComposition of Jeremiah30-31 ."R. J. Tournay,"LeCantiquede Deboraet ses relectures." Part 4. The Writings.R. E. Clements,"TheConceptof Abominationin the Book of Proverbs."MichaelV. Fox, "The Social Locationof the Book of of the Speech Proverbs."EdwardL. Greenstein,"A ForensicUnderstanding from the Whirlwind."Rolf Rendtorff,"Chroniclesand the PriestlyTorah." MagneSaebo,"Onthe Canonicityof the Song of Songs."NahumM. Sarna, "Notes on the Use of the Definite Article in the Poetry of Job."Part 5. Languageand writing.ChaimCohen,"TheMeaningof mni?* 'Darkness':A Studyin PhilologicalMethod."FrankMooreCross,"A PapyrusRecordinga Divine Legal Decision and the Root rhq in BiblicalandNear EasternLegal Usage." John A. Emerton,"Are There Examplesof Enclitic mem in the HebrewBible?"Moshe Greenberg,"Noisy andYearning:The Semanticsof 1p~vandIts Congeners."WilliamW.Hallo,"Bilingualismandthe Beginnings of Translation."Victor Avigdor Hurowitz,"ThreeBiblical Examples for Being Mercifulin the Light of Akkadianand Aramaic."ShalomM. Paul, "PolysemousPivotalPunctuation:MoreJanusDoubleEntendres."Henning GrafReventlow,"ParticipialFormulations: Lawsuit,Not Wisdom---AStudy in PropheticLanguage."EmanuelTov, "ScribalPracticesReflectedin the A Comparative DocumentsfromtheJudeanDesertandin RabbinicLiterature: Study."Hebrewessays. ShmuelAhlituv,"King Solomon'sDesignationfor YairahAmit, "ImplicitRedactionand Kingshipin BiblicalHistoriography." LatentPolemic in the Story of the Rape of Dinah."GershonBrin, "The Date and the Meaningof the ProphecyAgainst 'ThoseWho Live in These Ruinsin the Landof Israel'(Ezekiel33:23-29)."Avi Hurvitz,"TheOrigins

STUDIES COLLECTED

155

and Developmentof the Expressionnim nria: A Study in the History of Writing-Related Terminologyin Biblical Times."MeirWeiss,"'And I Will Tell of All YourWork':FaithandBelief in Psalm77."YairZakovitch,"The Book of the CovenantInterpretsthe Book of the Covenant:The 'Boomerang Phenomenon'."ShemaryahuTalmonandIsraelKnohl,"A CalendricalScroll from QumranCave 4: Mi'marotBb (4Q321a)."ZiporahTalshir,"Towards the Structureof the Book of Kings: FormulaicSynchronismand Story Synchronism(1 Kings 12-2 Kings 17)."BustenaiOded,"Cushan-Rishathaim (Judges3:8-11): An ImplicitPolemic."MichaelL. Klein, "Complementary Fragmentsfrom the Cairo Genizah."AlexanderRof6, "Ruth4:11 LXX: A MidrashicDramatization." Nili Shupak,"The Joseph Story:Legend or History?" MauriceFriedman,ed. MartinBuberand theHumanSciences.Albany:State Universityof New YorkPress, 1996. xvii, 415 pp. Maurice Friedman,"MartinBuber's 'NarrowRidge' and the CONTENTS: HumanSciences."ArthurS. Lothstein,"To Be Is to Be Relational:Martin Buber and John Dewey." ManfredVogel, "Is a Dialogical Theology Possible?" S. Daniel Breslauer,"Into Life: The Legacy of Jewish Tradition in Buber's Philosophyof Dialogue."RichardA. Freund,"MartinBuber's Biblical and Jewish Ethics."Donald J. Moore, "MartinBuber and Christian Theology: A ContinuingDialogue."G. Ray Gordon,"Buber,the Via Negativa, and Zen." JonathanR. Herman,"I and Tao: Buber's Chuang Tzu and the ComparativeStudy of Mysticism."SeymourCain, "Dialogue and Difference:'I and Thou' or 'We and They'?"John Stewart,"Two of to Contemporary HumanScience:Textas Spokenness Buber'sContributions and Validity as Resonance."Steven Kepnes, "MartinBuber's Dialogical KennethN. CissnaandRob Anderson,"Dialoguein BiblicalHermeneutics." Public:LookingCriticallyat the Buber-RogersDialogue."VirginiaShabatay, "Deceptionand the Relational:MartinBuberand Sisela Bok-Against the Dimensionof Generationof the Lie." Aslaug Kristiansen,"TheInterhuman Ethical Goutam "Martin Buber's Some Biswas, Aspects." Teaching: Concept of Art as Dialogue." Pat Boni, "MartinBuber and King Lear" Robert C. Hoover, "Buber'sWay TowardSustainableCommunitarianSocialism: EssentialRelationshipBetween the Political and Bio-Economy."MarkA. Lutz, "The Relevance of MartinBuber's PhilosophicalAnthropologyfor Economic Thought."Michael Keren, "MartinBuber's Impacton Political

156

COLLECTEDSTUDIES

Dialogue in Israel."JerryD. Lawritson,"MartinBuber and the Shoah." JamesV. Deleo, "Whatis-Psychotherapy?"Rose Graf-Taylor, "Philosophy of Dialogueand FeministPsychology."TamarKronand MauriceFriedman, Rich Hycner,"TheWisdom "Problemsof Confirmationin Psychotherapy." A Resistance: of Dialogical PsychotherapyApproach."MauriceFriedman, "Reflectionson the Buber-RogersDialogue:Thirty-fiveYearsAfter."Ivan "RelationalEthicsin ContextualTheology:Commitment Boszormenyi-Nagy, to OurCommonFuture."BarbaraR. Krasnerand AustinJ. Joyce, "Ethical Imagination:Repairingthe Breach." M. J. Geller,J. C. Greenfield,andM. P.Weitzman,eds.StudiaAramaica:New SourcesandNewApproaches.PapersDeliveredat the LondonConferenceof the Instituteof Jewish Studies,UniversityCollege, London,26th-28thJune 1991. Journalof Semitic StudiesSupplement4. Oxford:OxfordUniversity Press, 1995. viii, 262 pp. JonasC. Greenfield,"Aramaicand the Jews."EleonoraCussini, CONTENTS: "A Re-examinationof the BerlinAramaicDocuments."HanJ. W. Drijvers, "Greekand AramaicPalmyreneInscriptions."S. Fassberg,"Lamedh-Yodh Verbsin PalestinianTargumicAramaic."TapaniHarviainen,"PaganIncantationsin AramaicMagicBowls."EricaC. D. Hunter,"CombatandConflict in IncantationBowls: Studies on Two AramaicSpecimensfrom Nippur." Andre Lemaire,"Les inscriptionsarameennesde Cheikh-Fadl(Egypte)." AlasdairLivingstone,"New Light on the Ancient Town of Taimi'." Alan Millard,"CognatesCan Be Deceptive:Some AramaicDistinctives."Christa "NeueMaterialienzum Christlich-Palistinisch-Aramiischen MUiller-Kessler, LexikonI." RobertMurray,"Aramaicand SyriacDispute-Poemsand Their Connections."Michael Sokoloff, "The Dictionaryof Jewish Babylonian Aramaic-Progress and Prospects."R. C. Steiner,"PapyrusAmherst63: A New Source for the Language,Literature,Religion, and Historyof the Aramaeans."AbrahamTal, "Some Observationson Word Formationin Pattern."M. P. Weitzman,"LexicalClues to SamaritanAramaic:The qi.tt.l the Compositionof the Old TestamentPeshitta."

COLLECTEDSTUDIES

157

Annette Levy-Willard,"VichyDid the Workof the Nazis: An CONTENTS: Interviewwith RobertPaxton."AnnetteLevy-Willard,"FifteenYearsof an InterminableAffair."Denis Peschanskiand HenryRousso, "Did Bousquet FalsifyHistoryin His Defense Plea?"RobertO. Paxton,"DidVichy France ProtectFrenchJews?"Denis Peschanski,"WasThereMassiveCollaboration PierreLaborie,"Wasthe Franceof 1940-42 Antiof Top Administrators?" Semitic?"Henry Rousso, "Why Did the High Court Acquit Bousquet?" HenryRousso,"Didthe PurgeAchieve Its Goals?'?Jean-DenisBredin,"The TouvierAffair:HistoryandJusticeAbused."TzvetanTodorov,"TheTouvier Affair."AnnetteLevy-Willard,"The Trialof Paul Touvier:Personalities." Sorj Chalandon,"The Trialof Paul Touvier:Proceedings."HenryRousso, "TheTrialof Paul Touvier:Reflections."BertramM. Gordon,"Afterword: Who Werethe Guiltyand ShouldThey Be Tried?" John Kampenand Moshe J. Bemstein, eds. Reading 4QMMT:New Perspectiveson QumranLaw and History.SBL SymposiumSeries 2. Atlanta: ScholarsPress, 1996. xii, 169 pp. Elisha John Kampenand Moshe J. Bernstein,"Introduction." CONTENTS: of Text the Reconstructed of "The Nature 4QMMT." Composite Qimron, FlorentinoGarcia Martinez,"4QMMTin a QumranContext."Moshe J. of Scripturein 4QMMT: Bernstein,"The Employmentand Interpretation Hanan Eshel, "4QMMTand the Historyof the PreliminaryObservations." HasmoneanPeriod."DanielR. Schwartz,"MMT,JosephusandthePharisees." LawrenceH. Schiffman,"ThePlace of 4QMMTin the Corpusof Qumran YaakovElman,"SomeRemarkson 4QMMTandthe Rabbinic Manuscripts." Tradition;or, When Is a ParallelNot a Parallel?"JohnKampen,"4QMMT andNew TestamentStudies." SandraB. Lubarskyand David Ray Griffin.Jewish Theologyand Process Thought.SUNY Series in ConstructiveModem Thought.Albany: State Universityof New YorkPress, 1996. xii, 316 pp. Levi A. Olan,"The.Prophetic SandraB. Lubarsky,"Introduction." CONTENTS: Faith in a Secular Age." Sol Tanenzapf,"A Process Theory of Torah and Mitzvot." SandraB. Lubarsky,"Judaismand Process Thought:BeWilliamE. Kaufmann,"Judaism tween Naturalismand Supernaturalism." and Process Theology:ParallelConcernsand ChallengingTensions."Lori

158

COLLECTED STUDIES

Krafte-Jacobs,"The 'Essence' of Judaism:A ProcessRelationalCritique." HaroldS. Kushner,"Wouldan All-PowerfulGod Be Worthyof Worship?" David Ray Griffin,"ProcessTheology,Christology,and the ImitatioDei." NorbertM. Samuelson,"Theodicyin JewishPhilosophyandDavidGriffin's ProcessTheology."Hans Jonas,"TheConceptof God After Auschwitz:A JewishVoice."JohnB. Cobb,Jr."HansJonasas a ProcessTheologian."Clark M. Williamson,"Reversingthe Reversal:Covenantand Electionin Jewish Process Thought."Anson Laytner,"In the Presenceof Mystery:Process Theology and InterfaithRelations."Peter W. Ochs, "RabbinicText Process Theology."WilliamA. Beardslee,"BiblicalHermeneuticsand Process Thought."NahumWard,"LivingTorah:A Responseto WilliamBeardslee." DavidRay Griffin,"ModemandPostmodernLiberalTheology:A Response to Alvin Reines." Peter Y. Medding,ed. Values,Interestsand Identity:Jews and Politics in a Changing World.Studies in ContemporaryJewry 11. Oxford:Oxford UniversityPress, 1995. xiv, 366 pp. MichaelWalzer,"Liberalismand the Jews:HistoricalAffinities, CONTENTS: ContemporaryNecessities." Gideon Shimoni, "Reformulationsof Zionist Ideology Since the Establishmentof the State of Israel."PierreBirnbaum, "FrenchJews:BetweenCitizenshipandCommunity." AndrisKovacs,"Jews and Politics in Hungary."Geoffrey BrahmLevey, "Towarda Theory of AmericanJewish Liberalism."DeborahE. Lipstadt,"The Disproportionate Movementon AmericanJewishLife: An Overview of the Women's Impact Years." After Twenty GeoffreyAlderman,"The Political Conservatismof the Jews in Britain."Haim Avni, "JewishLeadershipin Times of Crisis: ArgentinaDuringthe EichmannAffair(1960-1962)."Zvi Gitelman,"Jewish CommunalReconstructionin the FormerSoviet Union."3 Review Essays, 75 Book Reviews. Ira Robinsonand Mervin Butovsky.RenewingOur Days: MontrealJews in the TwentiethCentury.Dossier QuebecSeries.Montreal:V6hiculePress, 1995. 187 pp. Ira Robinson,"Towarda Historyof Kashrutin Montreal:The CONTENTS: Over Municipal By-Law828 (1922-1924)."JackJadwab,"ThePolitics Fight EffortsBetweenJews and FrenchCanadians, of Dialogue:Rapproachment

STUDIES COLLECTED

159

1936-1960." WilliamShaffir,"Safeguardinga DistinctiveIdentity:Hasidic Jews in Montreal."JosephLevy and YolandeCohen,"MoroccanJews and Their Adaptationto MontrealLife." Simcha Fishbane,"A Female Rite of Passage in a MontrealModem OrthodoxSynagogue:The Bat Mitzvah Ceremony."RachelFeldheyBrenner,"A. M. Klein's TheRockingChair:A Re-Visionof Quebec."MichaelBenazon,"ThePolitics of (Dis)integration: MontrealJewishFictionin English."MervinButovsky,"IrvingLayton:The Inventionof Self." JeffreyRubin-Dorskyand Shelley FisherFishkin,eds. People of the Book: ThirtyScholarsReflecton TheirJewishIdentity.WisconsinStudiesin American Autobiography.Madison:Universityof WisconsinPress, 1996. x, 507 pp. CONTENTS: JeffreyRubin-Dorskyand Shelly FisherFishkin,"Reconfiguring JewishIdentityin the Academy."SusanGubar,"Eatingthe Breadof Affliction: Judaismand FeministCriticism."Paul Lauter,"StrangeIdentitiesand JewishPolitics."ShellyFisherFishkin,"Changingthe Story."Alicia Ostriker, "Backto the Garden:Readingthe Bible as a Feminist."GarySaul Morson, "Apologeticsand Negative Apologetics;or, Dialoguesof a Jewish Slavist." DavidA. Gerber, Riv-EllenPrell,"TerrifyingTalesof JewishWomanhood." I How Learned about American and PluralismBefore "VisitingBubbe Zeyde: Assimilating Writingabout It." Rachel Blau DuPlessis, "Circumscriptions: T. S. Eliot's Sweeneys." Nancy K. Miller, "HadassahArms." Laurence MordekhaiThomas,"Strangerin Paradise:EncounterswithAmericanJews." Bonnie Zimmerman,"The Challengeof ConflictingCommunities:To Be Lesbianand Jewish and a LiteraryCritic."Emily MillerBudick,"Exodus, Discovery,andComingHome."MichaelR. Katz,"OnceMoreon the Subject of Dostoevsky and the Jews." Doris Friedensohn,"Yom Kippurat Yum Lak:Reflectionson Eating,Ethnicity,and Identify."RuthBehar,"TheStory of Ruth, the Anthropologist."Eunice Lipton, "The Pastry Shop and the Angel of Death: What's Jewish in Art History."RaphaelSassower,"The 'Jew' as 'Postmodem':A PersonalReport."OliverW. Holmes,"Perceptions of of 'Otherness':Isaac de Pinto, Voltaire,and a PersonalInterpretation Jewish Experience."Seth L. Wolitz, "Using Proust'sJews to Shape and Identify."Elaine Marks, "'Juifemme.'" HerbertLindenberger,"Between Texts:FromAssimilationistNovel to ResistanceNarrative."MariaDamon, GertrudeStein, Allen Ginsberg,LennyBruce."Joel Porte, "Word-landslayt:

160

COLLECTEDSTUDIES

"Chederas Chaos and Chazon:The Exampleof Call It Sleep."MichaelS. Roth,"Shoahas Shivah."NormanFinkelstein,"'Masterof Turning':Walter Benjamin,Gershom Scholem, Harold Bloom, and the Writingof Jewish Life." MarilynYalom, "CynthiaOzick's ParadoxicalWisdom."Miriyam Glazer,"'Crazy,of Course':SpiritualRomanticismand the Redeemingof Female Spiritualityin ContemporaryJewish-AmericanWomen'sFiction." JeffreyRubin-Dorsky,"Perversionor Perversity?WoodyandMe." KennethR. Snow, ed. Jewish History.Vol. 10, no. 1 (Spring 1996). Haifa: HaifaUniversityPress, 1996. 127 pp. (Englishwith Hebrewsummaries). AlbertI. Baumgarten,"TheTempleScroll,ToiletPractices,and CONTENTS: the Essenes." Isaiah Gafni, "Conceptsof Periodizationand Causalityin Nissan Rubin,"Copingwith the Valueof the pidyon TalmudicLiterature." ha 'ben Paymentin RabbinicLiterature:An Exampleof a Social Change Process." Moshe D. Cherman,"Strugglefor Legitimacy:The Orthodox America."HillelJ. Kieval,"Deathand Rabbinatein Mid-Nineteenth-Century the Nation:RitualMurderas PoliticalDiscoursein the CzechLands."Robert S. Wistrich,"Zionismand Its ReligiousCriticsin Fin-de-SiecleVienna."6 Book Reviews.

Books Received Source: AJS Review, Vol. 22, No. 1 (1997), pp. 161-164 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486889 . Accessed: 15/07/2011 10:33 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

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

http://www.jstor.org

BOOKSRECEIVED Antonelli, JudithS. In the Image of God: A Feminist Commentaryon the Torah.Northvale,N.J.: JasonAronson,1995.xlviii, 558 pp. Barclay,JohnM. G. Jews in the MediterraneanDiaspora:FromAlexander to Trajan(323 BCE-117 CE). Edinburgh:T & T Clark,1996. xvi, 522 pp. Benjamin,Sandra.The Worldof Benjaminof Tudela:A MedievalMediterraneanTravelogue.Madison,N.J.:FairleighDickinsonUniversityPress, 1995. 325 pp. Berg,Nancy E. Exilefrom Exile: Israeli Writers from Iraq. SUNY Seriesin IsraeliStudies.Albany:StateUniversityof New YorkPress, 1996. xvi, 212 pp.

Bonfil, Roberto.Tra Due Mondi: Culturaebraica e culturacristiana nel Medioeva.Nuovo Medioevo47. Naples:LiguoriEditore,1996. xi, 308 PP. Boyarin,Jonathan.Thinkingin Jewish. ReligionandPostmodernismSeries. Chicago:Universityof ChicagoPress, 1996. ix, 218 pp. Cheyette, Bryan. Constructionsof "the Jew" in English Literatureand Society:Racial Representations,1875-1945. Paperbacked. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversityPress, 1995. xvi, 301 pp. Davison, Neil R. James Joyce, "Ulysses," and the Constructionof Jewish Identity.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress, 1996. xi, 305 pp. Drachler,Norman,ed. A Bibliographyof Jewish Educationin the United States.Detroit:WayneStateUniversityPress, 1996.xxvi, 727 pp. Galchinsky,Michael.The Originof the ModernJewish WomanWriter:RomanceandReformin VictorianEngland.Detroit:WayneStateUniversity Press, 1996. 275 pp. GarciaMartinez,Florentino,and Julio TrebolleBarrera.ThePeople of the Dead Sea Scrolls: TheirWritings,Beliefs and Practices.Trans.Wilfred G. E. Watson.Leiden:E. J. Brill, 1995. lx, 269 pp. 161

162

BOOKSRECEIVED

Ginor,Zvia Ben-Yosseph.Beyond the Legend:A Studyof Abba Kovner' Poetry.Tel Aviv:HakibbutzHameuhad,1995. 319 pp. (Hebrew). Goldberg, David. Yidish af Yidish: Gramatishe,leksishe, un shmuesmateryalnfarn tsveytn un dritn lernyor Yale LanguageSeries. New Haven:YaleUniversityPress, 1996. xvi, 271 pp. Green,HenryA. Gesher Vakesher-Bridgesand Bonds: TheLife of Leon Kronish. South Florida Studies in the History of Judaism.Atlanta: ScholarsPress, 1995. xvi, 287 pp. Koehler, Ludwig, and Walter Baumgartner,eds. Hebraisches und Vol.5: AramdischesLexikon. AramdischesLexikonzumAltenTestament. Leiden: Newly revisedby JohannJakobStammandBenediktHartmann. E. J. Brill, 1995. xxiv, 141 pp. Lapin,Hyam.Early RabbinicCivil Law and the Social Historyof Roman Galilee: A Study of Mishnah TractateBaba' Mesi'a'. Brown Judaic Studies307. Atlanta:ScholarsPress, 1995.x, 368 pp. Laqueur,Walter.Fascism:Past, Present,Future.Oxford:OxfordUniversity Press, 1996. viii, 263 pp. Marcus,JacobRader,ed. TheJew in the AmericanWorld:A SourceBook. Detroit:WayneStateUniversityPress, 1996. 663 pp. Morris,Katherine,ed. andtrans.Escape ThroughtheBalkans:TheAutobiographyof Irene Grunbaum.Lincoln:Universityof NebraskaPress, 1996. xxiii, 191 pp. , ed. Odysseyof Exile: Jewish WomenFlee the Nazis for Brazil. Detroit:WayneStateUniversityPress, 1996. 263 pp. Olitsky,KerryM. TheAmericanSynagogue:A HistoricalDictionaryand Sourcebook.MarcLee Raphael,advisoryeditor.Westport,Conn.:Greenwood Press, 1996. xiii, 409 pp. , andRachelT. Sabath.PreparingYourHeartfor theHighHolyDays: A GuidedJournal.Philadelphia:JewishPublicationSociety, 1996. xxv, 100 pp. Patai,Raphael.TheJewish Mind.Paperbacked. Detroit:WayneStateUniversityPress, 1996. xi, 634 pp. . TheJews of Hungary:History,Culture,Psychology.Detroit:Wayne StateUniversityPress, 1996. 730 pp. Century,1918-1983:Patterns Plaut,JoshuaEli. GreekJewryin the Twentieth Provinces in the Greek Survival BeforeandAftertheHolocaust. ofJewish Dickinson N.J.: Madison, University,1996.220 pp. Fairleigh

RECEIVED BOOKS

163

Ravitzky,Aviezer.Messianism,Zionism,andJewishReligiousRacism.Trans. MichaelSwirskyandJonathanChipman.ChicagoStudiesin the History of Judaism.Chicago:Universityof ChicagoPress, 1996.303 pp. Rosman, Moshe. Founder of Hasidism:A Questfor the HistoricalBa 'al Shem Tov.Berkeley:Universityof CaliforniaPress, 1996.xi, 303 pp. Saperstein,Marc. "YourVoiceLike a Rams Horn": Themesand Textsin JewishPreaching.Monographsof theHebrewUnionCollege Traditional 18. Cincinnati:HebrewUnionCollege Press, 1996.xix, 522 pp. Vol. 7: Theodor Schaifer,Barbara.ed. TheodorHerzlBrief and Tagebiicher. Berlin: 1904. 1903-Juli 1996. 958 pp. HerzlBriefe, Propylaien, Sherman, Moshe D. Orthodox Judaism in America: A Biographical Dic-

tionaryand Sourcebook.Jewish Denominationsin America.Westport, Conn.:GreenwoodPress, 1996. xi, 291 pp. Sicher, Efraim.Jews in Russian LiteratureAfier the OctoberRevolution: Writersand ArtistsBetweenHiopeand Apostasy)CambridgeStudiesin RussianLiterature.Cambridge:UniversityPress, 1995.xxiv, 282 pp. BerkeSorkin,David.MosesMendelssohnand the ReligiousEnlightenment. 1996. 214 xxv, pp. ley: Universityof CaliforniaPress, in and Thorns Wine Zahava Szisz. Stessel, Tokay Valley:Jewish Life F. Yoseloff Memorial Sara in Hungary-The History of Abat jszaint6. Publications.London:AssociatedUniversityPresses,1995. 341 pp. Stillman,NormanA. SephardiReligiousResponsesto Modernity.Sherman LectureSeries.Luxembourg:HarwoodAcademicPublishers,1995. xiii, 99 pp. Tigay, Jeffrey. The JPS Torah Commentary:Deuteronomy.Philadelphia: JewishPublicationSociety, 1996. xlix, 548 pp. Toaff,Ariel.Love, Work,andDeath:JewishLifein MedievalUmbria.Trans. JudithLandry.London:LittmanLibraryof JewishCivilization,1996. ix, 297 pp. Trunk,Isaiah. Judenrat: The Jewish Councils in Eastern Europe Under Nazi Occupation.New Introductionby StevenT. Katz.Bison Books ed. Lincoln:Universityof NebraskaPress, 1996.xlvii, 663 pp. Tryster, Hillel. Israel Before Israel: Silent Cinema in the Holy Land. Jerusalem:StevenSpielbergJewishFilm Archive,1995.xiii, 226 pp. Weil,DanielMeir.TheMasoreticChantof the Bibhl.Jerusalem:RubinMass, 1995. 397 pp. (English),31 pp. (Hlebrew).

164

BOOKSRECEIVED

Zimmer,Eric.SocietyandIts Customs:Studiesin theHistoryandMetamorphosis of Jewish Customs.Jerusalem:ZalmanShazarCenter,1996. 327 pp. (Hebrew).

?‫האם יש מקור אחר לתוספתות התרגום לנביאים‬ Author(s): ‫רימון כשר‬ Source: AJS Review, Vol. 22, No. 1 (1997), pp. 1-21 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486890 . Accessed: 15/07/2011 10:33 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

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

http://www.jstor.org

t6N

l

SflK?

agn-1-1

*lnltm

fnmx-11

lyw

lr-rsS?

JIS)

,(S"S'

I=

ON61

tV)

117P

tr

.1

U11111

'7131'

trwrinn ~~9'K; ~29'~'n;

wirl

U.11.1OK?1 1'MX11 111 11111n.1 M'1=1'j7

u-9.1=12 n1.K11 ,!)t-1 E'O1'n

"l'u

U111.

Min=b

,-ixn N

T'

K1 'If11

1

'-Ini

mv.x 51I

1 7'-9'17 faqX.K"3?

O2 1TK 111 .2 l1 Kt ?021 f31 D1' 3?"1l ? % V nn N 3. j 01 ) ND wrin lt J- 1-1 lint '9yp tfjj1-jn1-1 rr091h lh y 01r10 1' 3 111=1 U1 1 1 u-911-7-91 rAN .(n"n ' 0 w r i n nn!0l n ' 1, ' 8 IX1D1 .9up :*J5rS) jin .-rK hamiw nx1?jq ChiltonTargum Approache to theGospel(Lan 169-170B.D 111,

.

986) 11pp..1 .M" 1d 9322 nV 0n01 9nmn 13( 1Ri : 211/2n1wqpm?6151' n?793Y .AJS199

i 3rn1 ,7i10 ,'rnTlWInJfD,l01? 319'5r ornnS .0

131-2na.11-ri-m-1

n-1 073

mnlrin

31713WO

n

01D~I

3

1

t*182 SDN'Ik Dipb2.D~iti III-10100 Iona x5 =? 0= 93 pn"X~n? ?V

01p

0n

m-9311108

-9T

-qy-

7 'N

ua

-9TD

11*19171

0M

OD-01 T37.1

MR-1-12=

7

".1-911.2

t 11i~bbit Sn9320nx O-DW'33 W9.1* t09tln rnllnrin 0tDW31 .117371 1 7351

..3 3

VD'tn IM ')?=Wl

?V

,0tr39-11

-10- 0T7

S1 l

tri

t'xq13;x

Dm-19-aW .1 31V

mmp 169-170

NY

.ID-

B.

. r1tmm

m-9

Chilton, 1-2

7%31

snzsh

?YX

n

1 21

.1

-.

tl11QDD

Approaches

Targumic n

nIncomnn

,1131Inn

x

1-

)nm

on.

01in00

mo0lrn

AJS

-.1;

Review

the

to

c

,nlm

1

ny

nmon?

*p19

21/2

(W-11 Gospel

13

w0

X

;3 ?0-?

I

I-

1p

x1

.Md.

y1y;*

) (31Y

-

ri-Ni

5YK aniz

Il-

7}-.*3

(1996):

U

(Lanham, ;

9mv

I'9

X

2

.

.4

trmn

1986), 7n.13V

169

p.

m1yn

nXI

:?nn (Urtradition)neesonnon ', gPr.,*n

Vlnbl'

'ri1S

,T"W5I

10

1 v5

,

nv98

ix

,

1]9 trinv

m

'ati

"

1892 m

03

(Urtext)

*2 :1-17 1 1K 7 5 tYp tt%1-i)O Njn mV 01V 91 -(2329 YTj16.-) 'I rin-1 ,mT"ln1t loy trwl99 11jK T Tu v -In :ii?. K10p' f fl lnnr)7542Ny

P. S. Alexander,"Jewish Aramaic ;6s '?3 ,1973>'-K 7n ,rn01n1 11" DN 9~7fl ,0121ln 11"0 Translationsof Hebrew";Scripture,"in Mikra, ed. M. J. Mulderand H. Sysling (Assen, 1988), p. 224, R Le Deaut, "The Targumim,"in The CambridgeHistory of Judaism, vol. 2, ed. W. D. Davies and L. Finkelstein(Cambridge,1989), p. 582. Gesellschaf 28 zum Prophetentargum,"Zeitschrft der Deutschen Morgenltrandischen n(1872) 1-72: ni :U1Grelot,'1. 's "Une P. ?)an'Kf "K1ry "1't 11r n 1fnlw ,ni ,t,3 RB 73 sur Zacharie, II, 197-211; idem, "Deux (1966): Tosephtatargoumique 14-15," Tosephtastargoumiquesin6dites sur Isaie LXVI," RB 79 (1972): 511-543; idem, "Le

"-Biblique Revue dans ses diverses X. 32-34 Recensions," r y tn r(1983): a a mEn ?n ,np 1n)7542 Targoum Ip90202-228. d'Isaie, 'r' "pn? n012r n nx nn1.I-rtf•mvi II M.1 nn1? 1"1 Kritische Untersuchunge •,1V -12*nWr .7 ,?V opnnnt Nlam -11n-1 n 1oin 4 :mlnK. in de Richteren en 5 F. -1-tnW rrn Smelik, Targum expansie "parafraserende 1tr W. en," in: Dutch Studies in the Targum,ed. I.E. Zwiep and A. Kuyt (Amsterdam,1993), pp. w 0 Tn1nn nincon • 39-77 nX Eveline van Staalduine-Sulman, ,n:r' lID iY,, n"ipnn "The Aramaic Song of the Lamb," in Versein Ancient Near Eastern Prose, ed. J. C. de Moore and W. G. . Watson(NeukirchenVl(Cambridgeuyn, 1993), pp. 265-292. .8 P. de Lagarde, Prophetae Chialdaice Leipzig, utschen Mogenindischen Gesel schaft Revue Biblique d1962-134959 'ions," Targoum nn 90 (1872) ,dansses,diverses Recens Y MIMI 1 -32 Imn .1962-1959 13n-l nm(1872) tDimn V-T ,2-n m 7t"r

I

01r1nn

?vrNwm?

nE in rat ~

'Inn ,9 1tIP PT itl•"1,3-

"I

1

?y ni 0m"'nni, 3p"mn ,;n",r, ;I"11pi 11-9-91Y .TrN ItM8 111* 1pbm

I-qNWv

9,3

Y"r'l-

in IniTm1 •tn 11. tDl"Why1

tIM

mnwln0S

""M i-9t2WI

013,3'91n1

D

loI 0

=

tDm P

-i1pW

.mpb2,1

atraw t1 ND T:n13K" 1-qyt0 nx npN

It

mimn-11

oviinmiorm wrin -IT 10,121 •u', -9,+ -'r-,• 0121qn,-9min 091pb 1-1 10 t1WhI,lnlx1nt•t,m )-,iom,"t,ni-n"tm frolm.-31 Ix r-,in•, x

'

- r.1

rim ",tint nn niw in lint -'m1 0• y,, I8,mn-" .':i , 1 00I m10 n lt mi1 mitv ni 1.tn inx nmbY ztvn 1nn •w ?t n1iron1m 1iN Dt 12 n ibw n ?t N-moS 11" ntx np l1o" ni : -,,1,21 ,' :1: ," nb"'n .0'310-mv ,1 j1i10 ppnB Psr1io

p -iy•nn,

wri3 P:,.' n'3 In1

n mrii mm.

n*1:a3?m Irmn D02130)

.(y"n11,1

m10on

U031tv

Ptrwimnn

ninn

210

po0y11

,Ni:nn fxn**Ig2"?n?

0121 0 flpi tpN , Nil p 812:,•t01

xminpn

wim~

n-9

wsrl

rnywx

r?

T 0 th

m1

100 mn, pl n i intn-i wn

jin

Y-12N2

-r-giz-9m

JO8B

w

aq5 P'91D

tnvS

.91t

.9yup

x NW13

mt-irwr

,1

YU-j

?Y

*

,!)

-in

Yup 10IN

:* tV

,2

T

9?1

?Y

"D

YUi)

'"3 .10

rY

? In

r

?ix

nmi

.85%D

13" It

,1l

NTMIZ

In

,0173997~11'llib

0I1K

1 t31D

1-3

;.1r1n

mr'9

Iml x

rrqnvqnSi

nn-rrmnn 0n 1x

tv

ip1 olmn

-i

pN

,zinmix3N

1XNtI

?tv

ytrAN

7W31V

,pulm

,lK'NT'n'

8

1m

97i

01210 0100010

xr

milt

ntuN

avlpt

rrmnnk

1

.1"Da

131

9-

1-i yim

1rnnYYn

rrmn?

mKNum

v

rx

1-

nil

vm

In m1

0150*

1n

?D

3 1

.9

iD $V 0100 DDl a0010181 ti; S*D t rall,~9~n trvftz aryop~i 10 0 ..D?011,7110031

,a

2

'17 2

n "m91 DAt

a

agn-9

-1

I1

x1 ut

-in

r"

-

<-1>wlN

1u1-n

lo[rv]lp

7-9.

-n

.myn

K1i

:•**"q.

01001

'

-i

Tr1NT

n-9

.9yup

-rvln

nnx-

91 =;7.1

-l l th

SNx0n

qbtvwri 3

Dyn

;*n1nb

?y

)!

-It

13

:3!) 5y

Yup pD "D

N

I'I"

1 NmTN m i Tiiln r$nOT' :(512~'11S"3ZD5y) 10NtVSW1'2y TlT~3nb)?

NT

In ,1

Pt~•1• •

X?-

n?~

x1100t

.n17w

:(099.'1a) 1-9-m prxKr

wn

tl

lNW1

1 x T nNvit (2 tr 3 01,100 n,,nn b13'3'97 n

Y2

SN-11nKnDn

rrminp

1wxtv-9

?tv

wrn

tV•

wim

I ni

xn!00ln 0180;. ,2

S-.6K1a N

8

1

l

910? p1m

r

111

xmn13

=3VT N12 n-9m

In

wrin

0'phi $V,81891#00" Jbp

1jvp3u

agn-9.

N3 S .9n

2 V'2 1xrl nx' N vN 1X•1,3•"

.%1 '1N ,vlxt12

,

-19

nlwl?

nx

1m.9

1amn

13tV

D0W1311 1tv

Drl-3

.Nx

DPi,,1 SD up 'i itvyup rrlnn,?

'D

5y .P'ftPi); 51Dn13100;DPSiMb2b,;18~13$DB,PC'2y3193SNp'577

-q!)

?y mltrim tNi

n.rm5

'ntl

m'inN

nw.1

Y1.7n

up;

D Mi ?1%v1111W ,MT1m?J-1X0t

vwn

it

nT1n

-32

n

nf,

1"

1

-vqnolrK';1

t$

12.0

n

b

1a11MY

11MMI

tri-t

xW

?y

t

lntV 711;1v

.

.

nx '0

-r519r1l131N,i

mIl ; olttvrtv

Itrpi

-.1n

1N71

,~nrv

.1 1tv

lixD)

In) jy

fN

ml~nV

In njtJ1%V

81

i

'9128i lll Ti

1

10o

?1w? 157

nan~ KJS0190 ?n

??r1tvq

wr0121r

lel

In

ag'plim

row

mw~~1

x

?

')

zlvlnnS

Din

i wrnw

i

triv

,p310

,1~312'00

n1315y11;

'3n

XVI

-017?

7-13

W-1 '.1

,;ltl 07 TSY2 D'm3K 7$1 ~tV($K rp11

?V

:-

IDTTI

?X?3 n

.'I7pfitnn

tvpt'7 3

1n

I

.u i13irp

flolim

,n~10

,1r

,.6n

tritrimnln

zlD'3ln

iaun

0121000100010 73l $VYI ,13nnK pil ,3'1

f'3n1~lNTiNV t3')V3?t

ivr!)

1i, nvm ,-i)

xN:m

irirr

pri

7-9-917)

",n-'

(t)'Nw

nx

1

;1S21S1K~Nl'tl

,in)

nimn

nalon

'# .9n

plow.1

(on:i-nnD

.?mlmvn~ni

nwi

ninw

ouNn

nrwrmq-x1n

1

r -m

yvftn

agn-i-m

'-67orT

-n3

n1 N

'>i

2"?nn

Nc:*

nx

Kxm

In ri -1m1rn

I-qx -9N

t1~in~3~F1K1S

3

13-.)n

V

-.1

1

m

.

o

.xftn

.

nx DlVrll

l

1 -.I~ ltn't-11111%Vn~i 13,-13;

1r4N

2.9=081

IxN-91.

-12p

?:)

-)n

ninno

nx

i

N

rarm

'InV iV1'3Y'38 lpj!)?

n~n ."

mlo01n

nil.1-ft 1

,"

1-9

n1moln

,;1N'Ei11n

n mNi

ox

nimt

IN-gi

1

13111-11

ONtr'

Im

t'iralIlim

?1*n

rarin2

-91%V?

.9yu01

10

,nn-9tv1-m

f t3*tV

oln

0121m0

.91

Innin

51

t,Il

i;lit

oy

ipT77-

JVND

Y11

YV'9?X

IIWYb

nXT

tra

In

tN

t0y

u1*%

In

n 1nYyi

YtrSNx

?

Y"O

DvKTN

Il 't~

-girmn12b

l

rW

v

rli x

;1nnin

I ,01tl*%

5y1mil

081.01'1;Cl N 1;V'51' $SY; nigi

?0#19 ;

?%v

2 19N

V

;1Y trylyl

,?n

n, n

N

,I? ItS 'l $ rnlp-77 512-u*%v r q!5 :1818 Nlyi *10) N.1 111 :I'ntl nt tIm.v 15 ST =mt Igty 3'1"

tpy

irl

SW

189

n3) p

,:

lVt

ty

.

p1wr:in

-I3D,00

7.1m V

?

.1

2"b

.Y

'D

.1

V~ 13111~ ,5Kn 520r?V P1907 i' 1:29'7' '1D5Y .12

1 t iIm 12 ,55xD irily v v? .0 ND1,7 31 .13 DI .In 7b?,ll1001 ,7180 ;NW$~ ,'110:0,5~DTY$1V21 D*Dy$N5K'1 O'flDio D*,1Xt) f1781070pl xnon-1-237,1-Tyit Dv ?1y ?1 t ."wnn1 1-1 1-173-HO7 lT'31K DI- 1*1TIY 11 .01-ID 1n-M1173 win 1"73D 7.onrmp 0

1- 373

Kll

*21 9

:fln

102

,"zy

m~.3

7 -3

63

rlvli p-mr

1

q)-itmou-71VI

10

0

l ,-IDO)

I"ni

m-

non)71159 To) .377-363'erf,1"31Dn pa'nl ,(fttP)1owe~lryi ~9,, ,mw~Im

;1fll'0 1fl ,fK1Ntr

1NKMfl198KItri12p Dt]

,D ,,9-•-,,

,"i ,

n-n"n

. 0r110 fl01l001l? .Mjimri

n .2 t:r tr' 0n 9-W, n~i~p

" ,D n-n",

I•100M, 0V10' 0m11i

1' T f'1= nK1( =3917

7545

1(

' 1' Kl_.)

j Kn

2243 111ll ltMarsha

'(1m'o=1i)

(Exeter,1977), pp. 140-145. Studies 1(1992): 108-115.

P. V. M. Flesher,"Exploringthe Sources of the Synoptic Targums,"

unin n o'on1 ,

?ii

'n

nn i=.5

=321101O1."KTH Poc. 18(192:1 '

nnt n .K'1K

16

," 'Nw TestamentInterpretation,ed.H.l' ;rt91 , '.14 ,"D.Wenham, "Source Criticism -)I-)13n aD•, 3, ,' o10 11 innti Poc. .16 nin• 184 ,": Kin•X,"3 .,min-)bI-)1,-I w• .mign

Textus-n

mrb=

irr

17

mr

oloni5

fly

.

173

71i-I

1

UK 3

U11=DS

01,31,

M1'

013=1

"KnI.InNKilt"

1 3n "in

.9yp

.1

UK

091

7-2

xNi'9%v

-.INx

61M0

N

'-In

1-9

'.1

13-

nfn

W'".1

nSNw-

nlmlt?.1 J01220 N$ n

S1r9012

a

."39 ,tIDn

,

0009 nmI

;~l fSTY

:NT11

m

0

N1

wri98

m2wBN

xN"

.inb

1

-.1-mvp

1

Ai~n.t1N

u'njln.

n1

n, n

1'1

trnb

nr'n'313N

1uy 0 mon00 N PD'3011D'~ith i"3D~

mNl

?6

13mi0mwn n

.13-.

w'21*1xNi

%"

n plti

,fIMMIXII

lo l-

wrD i

59yn

313l

imn-.18

tv'

r

20.I1n39

1n5l

13

9

1131%V

?v

13tv

N,",

wTil"

N)N

yn1

yup WaD

x

r"117mi

91:VnVn

000$20i'SDS ,nailb n'2191N'D m19tWB nS992,;IS i3D tiNK

"n

'"Mmm1

1198 n

13:

01

V?

-0N11V K

It

3

R.)"-N N'

01%1vS 5519'ti

$V

titvNurl

0912

vw:

."K'3121

I

nX

V-%V-9

rftn

):

;.1ni

?%v

t0

MXT

".219

lit1131%V

ih l"'

'5'in0

010'm

phin

1'pi

b

In

"$817'~D'ST .~~ .It'ri NV"~~mEpi tDND'"D

"Nmmv?

Jnm

V,'

0U1

n

11110Nm

12bi53 N ,I0'lN? 111D ,$ngTNlN

5K7?

PSNft

5y

m19

,NE(00 012102'l~n 09'00 ;r193,t a10D .;lliT i'#$ 0121 020n~0991210 013'l9710 ,r'i9Y* 31

11.11,01

,T11*xn

7-y 1'vinn

%v

0-?) .DIS'N .tW1

01310

n95"n1tV

011,

lo12-n-N'"n

01

;'w1ri9 nx

,vj?-r-T-na

,;rlut

.'

im0 nph-tl"n D*D'11N1 lx'1N't

0 1012

01r1nn

N1DN

01

Nx-bnN"n;Slim 0t*112

~lollalInn y

051 N

.0 ix1m009 t

31t-

lvi-nl-l1

ram3l

nTM

i10p .*ln

01o2 -

Io01n

1-

S13i

P-TlnI

lo 01

'lthn

-am

IT

mim)

n-11.1

nimn ,1x'3vx % PV D;1 1nN1b 9 313w1 ND nx ,Xl'xm N a12

mimntv

,N1DN

nxi

an~r

1

3,0

21

nrlynn

lol -Inn

K10

lnwn?

ninly-IbN

flnm

10'OlYl plm) p100$ 0l

yn

rm?

13 lo1v3 .0000

:S13,U

1

nintrD 1 51b 9lw92

113-nil-I0m -1

llttN1

n

Ion

:M131tv

n??nm

%v

Iy

517v?'

im

0'13Ut91 DNT

1

910-D'N

0p

flom

Kin

vynU?

13t -t3n

3r90

,

j?0=

Sv

nil1

N

:qn1wn Yi?ninw1t00 ?Ix nilbin nn8 w, V' ,-TlN m,0'it 'rm .xwm In ,f-Imnn"'n In 3 1 I}nD ahi 001 '3 ;IN13.1013Sn1mb'1311,;I831 33D tl 8003;ln3n0,MNn ns'0D m0110 13'3CV 1 ,0f jo10811 13n .0,13VII nyl8 in 1 '31V 9

r i)?

Ni

2'.;lmlt

13091

,tr'ltoi ln "im

12

10S

n

N

,13'

Otrnnhrmw310

l

.

orn

9?12'

nr11vN

5w10nN

nbD-?w

5ru nlnbTO9 ,11'IYi51DMt18253 PS'tWNI

P'N'239

01210

in

015;

1 n'9111 ;ti7btlV

9913;11 ,'1100

i

p

in

Nq"mSw

v,

nngn-?5

,x-93wrin

u

nf

vq"mw0

N-ro

0117 13ND'11 O 'l 0821X00 5t ;IllV ?'10

01N9

?Ynti

11

T'

.17

9n3

il 1 f 59 anul10,n0199908121m01

mat2;171nbN .b'"3%a "nnOV$ Nni'97" 1'9 "MDltoa" }*1'9 00'2fini~ 51;N17 ,jN.1 S1 1031D$N

.1533

."mpi M.

wr9o 1 w0 TN/1winh Goshen-Gottenstein, n

0'90

1N-"

"The

'Third

? 1v

18n

Targum'

1

,wwxD on

m1mN

Esther

-o

m'

a9 0

nD

g10Dm 1,101,

im

?1v

-71

nineat

.20

31m'

?y

.21

?I' t

r3m

0 13

1'12W,

'WV0

,A:0 1

iol -Inn

ra1t

?%v

N'l

Mol

1331112-12

DTimi

n-lin

-1nin

x

1i'm-1

Nv'310v

n1-9

ENX

Stv

TmOl

'3

n

n DInrlltv

tio-)?-

n1ix

.-jrm

m

-ix 0N

wrinn

rnri?

x?NY

I'l

1f12,,ntv

nx

1n

Ix

nw

lN

win

.

0nDol b

iy

Inx

ioinin'l 1

-SN.

.

'l

Y1

.'89

Iso jx~1 vNlni

-w-jr.1 -9wri

'MN" -=xbv

omn

nx

0rn912100

? ix

io1'wrintmv

0130 .0'290180~91a2188 11'31011N D'tib 1980"t 13'TNDr

i, 1 n

.r1f mN ;1u amini n wn01 n in l-ivn i~n riN o -.1"m 90 01r1nn av ,?tvWIn 00x-in l N vjivt 002}N 1p ?*v jx il'W ' 10p } ,"$817''898'1357131BTN111 (2va tv5209 n t'"0 nlnl001)Y0 loll-.nn

l"

9nN

0-

n~no~n

"

r

n

".attil 733130JD91 ,nl01n310 rv?"0'9519 trND

i'BY

Y

1

n in

tilbio

JxN

In=

jiln

no013

1io

in

13-1n in

2jP

io

nl1b

i -)im-in

.-gymn inin-

tv

.it lol -i

,rrNDm mp 7"131

1

-Iixynt p D'irzlbv Pwivri -,?-I

0 $'bb5nll '10 flyKlV iNi)n 1phib~VNn20

111;S;1

'nio n

n

xv

fuWl ,01l1in 2 ninr11108 "li

-

nnbvi)pr

rrntxn ix

I=3

ni

yd1

m

,-

K10'x 0

:13 n1D 1Tv

TnN"

v'"wn1

,"m

u

rini-T

.9n

:ixN

",Nmvph

%,D

inixiiiYn

iD-12

Iw'"i'"

jiyu3

nri

tin

inirp

rftn

-)n'3

nDgrtv

ipb2 .DT2

iox

wN

Mol

-IT l

in nrnin

iD

i 1i-pr

X)

i,;r

rN

-vxi

'tNKx

-TND

vl'"n5

K93rr

0 1 oy

."N*1"0K

13ipb2nn

in

nx our

;1-12inir

w1r1n

pio!)?

:* w

lo"ntit

In

n

$B1p 5 1-

nnizin In001

,0,wrin 1in 010o 13

-.

NzvWn

n nbilop

a13

-1on

InovT.

-

NV

n-i

i

?tv

in

mm

i"

yinri

120

n3inin

rvnynn

vvn-n5

.

xvi

-1 1 1

1itv

N'Dib

inNT

0t9

N

X1120

N'281 niTin

DT.) tnp

01

? nx rn1%1$N fru-11

pon-11

thix

.1

1noii 01

Ph'bM

Ix

1vil jn-

rivininn-11-111

-1.T

m

, 1-1r

22.tVl"n??n

lDN

]01 .9n

lol -In

)

Nwft

)Tn

M1X1V2

,

08.0

tvtvx?

nr1VDN

i"21

w1v'0

Nwv?

'17'T

v'

Tx-11p

,1

"1

rl"Y

:(1517) t'r

nlnwln

01r10n

brft

31x "-.6 .?,

N

-rnx

TANx?

rt1 2a ix

?N

I,-?

w

lw?

n1 r

ti

71

t33'In"--.6q7

':oix

ninw

)

0y1r

'115S'm"

:"5N817' -

N

l-1

')ix

"-.6

N

)

"n

i

(1)

NN $1$Dti3 081232illST N1BNttt'"n KNASV23 -gi9

xix

nnnwn

o-r j

rorinx

rirnr

rinxii1i

x-g~

Ni'9 N)N~7NTS)S0'llST lbSND" '*' DPfif NnOuKn1V$

B.

B.

Levy,

?v

rmn-in

rinilvn

Targum

Neofiti

?Y

niin

1:

A

Textual

and

Ms.

Study,

Neofiti vol.

1," 1

Biblica

50

p.

54-76.

7ND

.2

"

"

.1 "HO1

301-329

(1975): 1988),

Md.,

(Lanham, :00Z"nll

",'l1M

';IS ';IS IbTNb"n (2) 5K7t'VS

nlv7'D

Ptrwimn

:N*.I

.v

1in

1

?%V

tr?-=rwl C

Itvx:N

"Ittln

n

agriT

,"nilDi

.(1)0

TV*%Vl

9.'1

0n'-

2

IrDon

1xqz?%V

p10o

ni v

%V0

,21

nxN

q10-192nn

n;il .Deborah speaks in prophecy before the Lord: "I am praising" ?%V nx N'"32 lfT .1I70'0, l I 3 N" lx: jN (1 ylK?1??'biT 1 q

Mn1n1

181'~K Deborahspeaksinprophecy:"Iampraisingbefore: a-9 , nv2,w * ?y it-in l .the m Lord" j ;It 1:)nat',rwip ~,•; "r•" w, •r•,m,, have been ,• ~v "IDeborah spoke inprophecy

n,~iranin•,• :,iinfr sent to praise r Lord". beforethe-,•nv fli•inr ;v ,nin-nrv'r'vtvrnttrwn i

,n,

n'"~ n,,,tnjrx,)NAdd. 26, Nl•)879 litnuv 0

1 '-l

'ri

-)

w1rin 21 ,"rin1rr

-

-

5

rqxt?n-go-on

'8

-inyn

ruNn

1"f r nr'921m

'"n

;75

MWbXNVM

'btDn

(D

)"D

n n

p

X71nn

xf19--.;

n-nti)

,(E

?

t

-)"D

"

n,

aline)

-

iNW

,wr"

.q

ix

l"3

,(187

Add.

lftpe

4to

;(1532

trw=

15 ;mt'3

xfwr

xKin n

,1-2-'nn l qn-ijt 1KrAd -in

-9yu

r ir-gy

?*rny

X71bb

't9M

tr31rNi

-.6:=B

1

nffns nx1b

fx-,Nf"3nW

01wi

K ,f,,•nn-• ib

$,v•K,1

"-n*Sn

r1ir5

;1494

no n

nnwip

Ix io , -inx ,wrolovinN "'z;(9--68 n ,n"','"n *(69-68 ,VID

p,•ir , ,r7? ;1000

nnxnq'in mvni .23

n1

DNu2

-"nl

lornb

JD1

9p

W100

inN

) b:a9

-9-i

rnnip? vfm"1m

Nwri

J1 31

ntnly

nxT

:

*"DS1t

P3Yb

'3tz

"x

n

879

26, "

0

,yt

bri0031o

Opp. ,0pmbD

m:1

Add.

I19gu) 1o21n

,f100m

nx

-1w

-rinnmrm x i109 Im inn n-9n r1n nw ,Nm•-rn n.": 1209 .9: mlo0n ni0 l3 ;m1inmtV

'"vf=

,'-'9ruir

n-m1i

.i'1nnimt

-1w

x'01y1n2

f li2 ,(E ,p',,V n ,D-n mItwrin

p0nyr1

"t V'"l'

,u

-

01r1n5

1'ElJh17)

.'l,,

xm1iN.

u5i

,-n?b 1btm N" 'IS

? in 'S1-YN1t 4y.zq rNw'OPj ST1N" ?11'ti :PC"$N1VY'YT;1N '-7i 1)(D ?~:1tN

fI ,m

0l1"•vD"wgnr•r

12

nmm

n

.23

,(FF "D 7np' lphn-in) DP=12-rnini ,-16x0uj10O='1tN'3r3 71 ,(W -"D79-pn-lin) RD:1= 91"D)ND,N:1u .(K133 j21ODW'pt

t3

:a1112 rIt

t

wr-DS

5DS

.09!)13

c1linn,

'"Y.m'

lp19m$

5

1n1

v11l 69

.-m*S

i'3i

n")

p3rb

D 13. N .:'J

IKY1 v

mmo01

nn2tln

~~3Y n im;r5

5 '1

13

')WS~

PC)Sft

t1

rt'

?y

9S trDy

If -.It

-Im-9

;D .

xylvn

-r9

1

5y

y,'22ik

.09lv;I"W9V

.ltW

iNT

.-rly

lNE

-

r 19

IDN

92nmJ

J1S871'

'3t

.0933y

nxTu.9my.931

2= -"T 215(-I=)n

j")

rlp3n3

NW;

1NT)

Kim

K~~~a

Xts

0019(~

7-9.1-Im-

.1

-tV!K

1 1X

-ry

98100

'N

.3

X .N11mvD3PDii$ PD3'tit? P'91T2 DATE~ r txqnll lvqt3r aq?;rl 1

3t3"Iln

MlDb=

n0 13

26(evat=) (t)")=)

xlD53;1nfx5

nv)?u

Xnl

7flIb9 K17

l'in

732

-InPt

7'97

n

I17

Un'

i'$1N1

DO1

3'

1Vt- $ 1

i'TiKT

X3311

27 Sn'tl

i'

li'T'

ID nS2031

Niu1 n20

;sns

nSS '21

A`-In=

P~Yl

~D13f;lK~;15~ 010

fl'lN

n-

7D171tn 61

88*

271 nS Sn'tl

7nT 7n5'51Sn

'In

'$D1

0 ~391

Nbyi finN

*

n-1-7IY-

7I~ny

X.1-171

3 It 11 110in 090180,ilDD*

-.IT

-1-1

-71

M-1-13n~~3~nn .7)

t InD

1

I

1909

D'31781I

DW'mb3

5 0.1321 .1532

M

13 n3tD2

lnT 011880

-1

~

*T

nn!Dtln

-il"Ilun

DWC'0731 3135K

"D13.26 ')!D

nK 1ST'

.24

InD

7D

01

MY)OW.1

.870 il

MI-n 17

-Ilton 5y

,5

W"3

t-31mr01tv

9wlvqY817

DN PK

T

't33NS

1v3qm?%

Ix

jriorb

1N21bW

it9

7b

lint)

ml-pon

t830lx p n~o In

In-91

24.tEWND

31

10

tN ,Ix

mg1ytmn'-T

-

)

.im

1N

12ti

ir

t

;r

Tin~ ip~

012100~ 0100010$

?D'N'235

i20910

,

,n'3'09)

@

ln-3DS

1"3 itllin

.25 .26 0812101

lim 21)l linl 7l

)B

D

}*$

p1

?Z

09

1

N?yl

DP

pN

i'~ t$at

xnl

XI

N'13YD

xr n* T91

lfDlN

Si 'Ti~5)~t NEP 3

NW 1;15

KY71

9X1

N37tlr

NPINT

n31

mi

?D

i.

lo9 0(

N'13YD

NP'INT

1?lu

OP8

lYIK7

DY

X NIDN

r1lK1

.)'n))Ir1 p3w XliRT nY2281

51N,

t

p1r

N21pi; 13X-P? 810

'89

1

v*1

01

in

,1 "m

~12

;1$5 11(

imv

Vw

Dt3 C

n178o nSW1061D

7,2

-*")DpD m

;It

NS

im) rmDnNrl

74H

1111nn :wImnNm

?

%)

0mi90

4D0,6N1

rN

09tn

Inlon

r

$ 112

atS

5

nl5l

'-.I

7l

In

12

trn

v'D

1N

mr.1

-.It

"IV

trP'12p

nllnw? M1N 1

0

,I"N J-4

1)T

'-111

1

Ptro7D (wr

(N:Tty l D

LC

1N rainnn

Iw2n

Di'2 t r 1o81992pbb In"D

rln

n,)? -rty

.71.1mr11ND

n

11CV?

ow

tu

nl1in" /,"l?w* 1mmi

t3n1 On'iM19b .1tnmr1

rol

#"'I*1

.l

orm

nl

nXT

12M-18

183

TriN

tr PD-1

Inl1n

MUM

on0

b

tnx

Dwnl

tr3115y IN

JD

I 1n00

1w

7x :) trlp(mD-

7"Y-1

%

1NV$ fSw r

17

WHYl

o"Inn-oDImn

D'l r

nN

tr0I

bi

mroW

mol

fIn

1t"w 0000

,I=

?:

trMT;

$N1 .1'MSSbl'2

110)nnW

K81227

DW1w7n) X3

W1

D'tr

.)-m

7'Yn188

?nr9uipl n D'912btrDown

tvN

INil AN rl9

2 N$N Him"Xr;

19"D

m

1 7 InX N?I'x nl 13KIKf~Z

08]

m110uPCMft

n'tlKN1

Rit

'l7

5

1fD

nln.)

02l

.139

7TW

)t

1n.

N-1. .1 ?3I3x t~n~x

PC1?1w1 111$P-m*'CD''#

-.

-my

[pn1

,"Dll

01r1n0

iN

KlI; at90

nlni)

otWl by

12 132DNV Y }18

.1

KIM

IV7YD

~12

InKPK

1 rin'1

'

12

1929

at90

,fi nN1"

1

y

NW

51itD i1t

1D398 Un'

S

5 11N

K71Di?7)v

nl1

l~3

KOK

1N l ? Ixw3 ;l' nynln-b ta5iY

Ph 11N

;~n pr y

(151;1

Kr~illulut)"K X X 139 XDST

.1-11

rl?

5B

nx

7"m

l

nil-n M ,'114114n 0V

w

"l? 1-NV

.N flibin nw't1b I1V7 rK"'m V -V1 1,Y Y9 1" 3-nmj •no1.. 2r,9• (b'") 1 "I 0190. •'?

'19"• zi? "t?v

.~~~~•v"•N

5y

1? flfl" 1flflw l171iK8

K (1-) "V1v (71:)' "9

-

WV11=2

,I?-)nn

M

)WtDl

E lY9; '17b "anN" y ' 1t fii.,T1p2411" .nr1N', ,l 12u~:N lInn8lv," 13.'1 'D trntvt•,l n n j )10 1 'I -'•r .r12r)1' " 0= P(mI-) (

Srri

Mipn

.121

nt

X51NW b

N

.) "

1 xl-

rat

n-"I

-

E

ni l

r

-

5x

N

N7

m

n'12'I

-12172

13W-)?jM

"1-

S1N

zi)1

?v

'89WY

InyI

l 27 "bbWor

V1

mbNmr.i 1

Ion.)

prrn?

N"

-121 O"O01*

IN

n-1

,-1-2

;

TD-11=2

,I?"),

W.)

91W? rt-lN

7110 1- 1

41-1

urm

m1011O

Inw

28,Cwtoin

molv zm)W

,

I"Vt

IVI-7

ME

V-119 M

M -108

0

"r

.iN

1 -M

,5"3"1

,IT

W1DVX

013

in

.0'"%~ ."IM

W"("=)

Iwlo

,-'1I

)lno

5D

0

"

,C'T wvit

,)-:Dn

."MVIV"

In

U1Cm

01i100

-I=

1

onl2n"

tlrt

wml

mY*C ?NT

1 t-Y.

;1Sslam

.1

4

:t0l3yi

?W

MOTb

p

ioN1;N

nx'rp

yS rnty 1 iD

I-rl D)

-121M

15rm

D

1013

(rn*,n-j81)

m

13 ')X

ln8Irl

rm1989

-

1 N

nvpl

1v

n n-)

1

TlrK

?v

-'0I

1"

.)iDD

1N

D

Win ?v

1:

.N

mbN

,-Inx1

Kim

-21:

I

nXT

lin -

zi)2

K

1r111r

wn'9l -

'9

h'nD2 7-.1

nin-mi

ni-IO

1*1?

'CDi

'-.

"

m01n

W9n

I-

,'10m

Ixlnn:) x

i

1 2"

ril

nlyyx1n

)Ito

f1 2

-)

nx mN

1

1r mb

,11bND

NIv

D'

9)93

).In

nN

N"bnon

01 61

:#1NWI M-

1

v-)

Int.1u

lnnmr

mn?

P "

M"1210 lit .

* 51

my0r

1in-mi

."f~ ~'i '-.

Ixv18

.

n-)?l

Ip n

Kim

-

min',

min

wyi171

nwy?

nXT

ww"n

niNm

"WWm

0*I1"

mm"

n-m9i

?61

r53m

1i

'N

ml8

.178

."K2.imr )l

I'p

P

.

19I1

0.3o Ji2

nxN -,r1ap-t,oif-inrmn11DDi•2l ."nD10 Nlox N y9 S nl:) .

nXT M

1-2 r

i

)n.)y0b?"Tn

'W~

.

D4"n21

,?:):

rm

,'Nmm-I

PS5n

,1i

l~ l.28

.2 1'" f

"iovI :1n71

i

nx 1" .0'-r m

n•-TD

)x 1., '0 :'mn I no$ 1f'N D'$*ti nio710zi

r'10n

;Ib":llK 1 b)lt

4(040 N"bX ) "13TW lI

MY=

ItInb

f"KT-N

mtb mf rtn nTn1 nT~n .0,-n, n1Ybtyw In ;1obx) nmn "'PTl" ,npnmi

nwipn "0)x m 1.12."

1rn

5Nlt~s ~'l~tTL9t02 N$ ,';

1n

Tn1 11i? M V 0M

? 1W31 mnl'=ln'

f1-In.

X-

.27

5DM

,1n1

nb

now 01

Kim

0

: nl :*IN

n013

.28

n013

.29

Di i 00191 ,f:: wN'bW ni1n1v r1n3t Dnitno inm# fl '10 Drnti

'

}

rn

T?r I (-) "'n'L: Ni1 rwfl "Ir0 t0 wVNrimr fl T15n ? . : . :0 NV .(I1) ,t1,. 2i11? r .Gr" ".K. .1 K19WnIvw ' 1w1w blTKI"n? nV 5 vDb) 1-2 x1"$ D1r;1-r l?i1b X .w'wnwtDr N%f lK) -.131o zi52 * W"nXT l %) nn9 VK1 nvt 31n'.(fNlK1w=) pX mrIr X1-1nl5 ""Dv :bW.1 3n nDn"

T'-) 1K'2"N'

nr

imny ,?wln =) ?"N691tDO9 otrr (im1 ni 26, 879 nu E , 87m%3 wn'v.vnnI iAdd :O'or M) . I ? 32019 X I . ) : nD2 nnMT -1IX n-)a 3? Dn"yo -r1 n 0 $ 1 . I T 'm 1 n11u 71 $7~'1Tw ;1K~impw X:)?n K.1 "1 "i' 'lN vI1 Tih T5 -my

p S 1,rn '17(1T IN

1

,J9n 123

n'53

~'Im$

$3

N

o:

Ninb-.

51

Ny

.1-pl 1

;

)IV

.n x

1 ?w

n'913900r

,L8Vn

"

ITI )

n"I.N

rimin

n4421V)

t15ln-

181

Dil

1r

2i1

Pl "12

inrimorm

~il ~2? .1p

:$Nl)N1"

?5:B)

" :101

,MN n x

NX

$

1=807

01MV

?13' v

Kh=)

"

)-m'p

l

)?t

V"

'K.)

T

26,

'"lyn2

menton

7n

nx

im'm

7

')

30

.

.31

p~lbl arr "M

,111315

D

W

l en

T nS

,-13n.03 1 315yik

!DEvn

,117 .1

:-01v I

n013.1

P7

iY)i) ,D'"D

1

1

I'

1708

nED

1 ?m1w7

0

?6 '

51?

p-IS

rm

,-. -.IT

-DmorT

?60

D

n013-.1

.32

N

011839 '

th

-r

zniS

.".)Xnw

MVp)

?

r

vw"=2

n"7s-M

X N"nw

rarn-mv

pInD?n

Inlo

S-n-in

xwlp

mbiol 010

Imi girm

" "-r

lT(:t

r

ml

NIi1 b 1

879

.tw

-

wimb-iint

uvp*

Sa on1

Pir

1 3"XI

?6NS1"

MD'

.10n

? ?"m

".?N

71-IX"

NX

nv'pw

VDIM mr.N1; 1'TIr

'r

nlnbinb W

,1959 Add

alby

"131=

nx

Wuli

"i Itrv

wnwWtC

zi

,ny

nishim

:(187

'li ,v1r"=

MID"m

.]mann~

51nab."

b10"**

Nil-IN"

0n

jiw? lint m1nb

pNin ?r l

17r

.234

Then

I'r

-j"Tl

INV

V1DIM

""'IlT

nv

-

.

w

wN"

Trim"

-il

-

5?w

1 1

?w -

4

*3mm

w

jiw? )?i

zi

rwynn

lrmt

.0,1lxN

ON:)

N

-Ilwon C'D2

33viriN -

DN

mith

"ln

?w

?X-

wl

M.-n,1:7Ns~bw I I:) DNT 819 (l,N:;1 ,2',N' n nnly? .ay :ND ,t3"T' t123)

IlN"

12

0

1

NM41-1

:O1NW1

"3I

x

trim-110nbt1

1*-)N

nlm?D

l 13N Wm

x0""1

DnXT

7161m"

1

w

.91n

Ib"

t93l

mr1

'"Ilyn)

1w

?y

l

Plt

n

01r1im

N-

0m0%

}2ti .m-3r9n

731

1vli,VDIC'wim21 JI,

lx"V

"'0

nN

'w1pl'

rD

,-rly9

TrN flx"? Vw;I 90D'D1 tllN"KilKi1;11711"11=1 11~; ~~1.1-2 IN

"IV

7512 m*2

010*.

'019907

v

IN niN 6):

.29Dny

nl110b

"

Dl

MO1IV

61

y'3

.i mili

y

1

mr

Tim

r

M0131 6):

w'ovD

"NfnK'S

Dxm'NN

j21

)nN

-

,1'"D2

01'")

D1,1

31

nimolzin

wrin-.1

lNIl

-

N SSxb)

X

018

l om

n ib W

molin

fl N ?6b"h Nmi .31t 0tI"I V712 .3yn

.1

.3

mu .(Dmi'nn

12

1

?Yl

1-

01-In.1

?PWK.3?

flV n NKx ,f'wl Innom

0nV00 9r'

.I NK1" : nO1V2fl nn11n , n-ai)nljDo-) '3 $1200 Dj31j ,13D-)J3I

, lp

-)njyWn-.

Yi2l-.I

cm

TY

X??

53t

41wy

,'J5nnrl?

Mt 11NX

,"in

MK10I

-N1X?b ".Wp'TN 1,11W" N 'tl']K';1

I

mr1110w

Wpm

mw003

D4.'12W

IlCS

N1100 y".

,0?D1n17

3530;0

0m ."Dhlx

039

?w

) Add.

26,

879

71-15

.9"130

o

.

D1

nmnlrl . .~n1 . ('1) ,1K"i "?".( K$Nl •"i 0 "' nfKnV1?f1? .T 35nJ•l N

nrsrm

,

13W'

012 1 -

10

: nt '

-

Or.

1.471

.

.18

bl-Wi.

I01to

3 g

1

m

1

1? l3C"

17

-.1VDlnS

0134

rn

n

naMI)5-

2

mmI'rW

,

T3ND11330 :gl

nP r -04I: 18rnrw71-73* ,'yo 0

4t?

-

W

1

nlK

.36

i

11s0w

.34

,(187

42=12

I7- Ml

11?

njy

%

ID .ITv rrg ,(187

In

o ,o,'1i ,Wftv

-,n4"orn

l

MTI

nol.12

m11 ';1

10

Lro

7yD0b

7 ?ly V'9

13 71••2 0

It

.

l

D'"DDW

'n

.nln!D0.

S '9b

r

-mlym m1W

nl2-

l9it

Uthp)

-myD

q:9)PI %)

W2

.019l

WM1

tr00128

NyTnn

?

,(130

-1

D01-

fl2 I? -'ITn't so

i15ou,

03-.

nin1'91 yN r %)T'rb '3 '5 iTn on o y ,'? Kw 1Kl n1 - 'VK IWTK KV f1VX ffV,'x trw-)?X1o lDB -TANrnx ?y rl imnb1r , 1m3; 91011 ,Y'rnbyl r1xE3 " r 7 y 1 2,(130mn'~ 0v12) Or. 1471 lTf :n in T ,• p.

np (1) "1Add. 26, 879l ":

4

.

lY r'nfll ,h"Y1 Ni? J " :031101 K02Xf12 t KnlY3l • , ,nl0DIV103112 wri n bli IN Dwy nt lnr5

nln:)7X0m

21V'

1 p2

mbni o1n 1n,n1n liTrn11 nnpl n: .0,,n 34". .-XW i

,N1QN

KD',,, "*

?w

-Tn

flflnbib K-, :1-i0 ,".0 .1N4t41.

D? NipQm" 1n~V K1N)'3 :n00•o 11"4 "KYl NSi• " L 1 'n ". . .N K l

C'11111V

nln!Mln

Ml45lfti i1

M

.35

.36

r "nn v" ,(179 ,Im orio 13 l7Stp) Laud. Or. 326 ,n"' Ip .37 n;•r~ ,,o 1'•i~ ,1•"•911i 0 1flup) 26,879 11315"3 ,1 1ITn ,'0 , 11~1?'"3 ,(187 mn'lrS ,4 ~1n ',- ni,1 ,"" i"1,ID .18 n'lr5nr 4"3 1D .38 4to Add. 1 Opp. IlUp) 4"3 ,(69-68 'I'm111o nmxrn Nwilxw, ,n• , n,,non;,'.1494 nim n ,(7542 m01? ,~3tNDNW,'3 7m ,7 901x ,'hitp '113"1D n-,n"v

.4 3'D:23 'D'IVrnJ ,(v=)

pi"Tl

Knl" aC31

Nnl~" P31

31

Nn71 rr

nil

NJ',

7•Dn~31 r

nr

1•31

Moll,Kyll

Kn'i

"p"l

(3-"r'"=)

p'iTY

082"""•"n7<1>a K1 88O nrlml 1

r1im

IM

18 1 Z11K

.1

1026i'p

n! 13'K1 1" ',1

1'$ 31" 1""dx 1

x X1 r "r"

'mIW1

217Y.3

-1?Z

il

K81

wr'*il

NyN

1301D.

1w.1

a1Nw1

?D

3

K 1 lflK'3 1731=t •1'

'91 017 p1nni

n

VIVV1

-ir•x vptwlm

", !K nl <x>"jpPw rl

-I'1 Tn

v

-T

.71

7-121M1

'"D

ID

.39

I!=

lu

mlinn

?miWinh

5121

Nn~)nibb

1

1979Y

1my-i

iownb

umn

vS

1 pt

17K

'0119

12'1

x?-7

mntwlin

yi

1291

IV1

1

] 897D0771D

0l i 117D

KN

O1N

'li

D4?4;nImn'w

7D

,r"Dn

n r rm?

01r1in

N

w4by

n

mpt p 89ti*3p'9ikfIn'1'")'9102~ Jtpih~ip n"O 5a,1"MN t10 .10nr 5uTW11'2 ("Tl7 '7PP'1N ,1'$NED1iyn0139IN)0'"095;IAt 13WWtt 01210lpi~5 nNipl I"YS'llm$NE

I 11,13YUK

InK

4yun

91m1

.}

mrinn0121

1?

n9

w-T-ibri

-

mytom? .

I ?w

(M)'1D)

"YN" "Illm

.(1)

lib

TDM21=1

,I-

f:) In

W"

t

Inan

ni

mmn vw"09

120,12

"N;1

nyCvi

I1I .=

li Innpn

nx

n jrly? 1m'tl5

D$

"N-)1*n

511:f b ) i

WO$

-.I

It

,1v'

}D

W

PDlt

mip'l y1

"

r m9n

nx

nr1nb

p*,m) n

nXI11w.12

n xpir 40-0+-nylM i

In:)

Ib~

12n

.T':ND2"8795012100innt

mTr

rIb

Inb

ni

ml?w

n-1 2

rblt

%)

vtp ,n'Z1*1xNv

:O11'ri1

nim 1J

"

'N'2pm ?

mrin

wr~ n

019022

xN

nIi

In

im NW)Y~l

nr3r

ClN

mrinnb 010

,?Ynw

nl mtom?

lINs:) ny09 rnnrn 1pWW ;I1I3,1'1121 i(ti'bQ vrply

.1pWrt

(O'"D) r nw

N0190110%n

m

wwpnn

IN

(1P"

WWI?

n n 11m? 0b 1p

wnon

'-

?4?vnv~5tl~

o'$'bt

orDi

w1rinn mv?

ml52nip -

n

nb82

1P'92

pD3 1

ior.1rr1$

-1po

m

w

n J0

-mm

mn ?

t9 107 i mT

lr=351 v C

towD it IT r a

Di'2

rnlrrl -

n123.7 X.13r m

-1vwx

in

ni

012189

:'9159988

wsDmmm

nr5 pti

w

nmnrr?

1r0

nim

To1 -

nX12

0u00n? IrT

?Xrlr Timv

r*

-Ty

H4,174

PC31"

,"Nn1ll

w?trn nyYnnng

J

1po

01m1vm

192bN2 iMOM= MlN .'IS Nirinbb

o

1mrnD-m

lD

p

nyy2.6

rivi

wjrnf

ljrl"in

1w3ra D'it

,"plC3"

"T'2'1"Yr

nn?101 up

tnp

1-423

In

93

mv.1p'91

rlam /

v*

nn?4

-In?uxni

Mx:)~jrTy434

i'$*ti

-nyl

.7:)

In

-1nx

ur n

nnorn

nj-pj?

nillVimn l1 0 1Yb ;It 1i 20V14

.40

11m~it n3nint !,nn

',

.C''Ts Anla)9rr C'1DTV YY3 x 02rvu01)**r00

,1)nw

nni

,

w11208DN'

w

1-,

lil'W-Imn

.ID66)n}D-TIY

-

6)

• fu T

.Vn

' Wimit2~; 123 ni~lSlltlibi t123DN'S']onT1 w 01a 6) moil lrm

TO nx n1bfin-whInr 119021 0i wrm .nyyn }*DW 53 "n 8 l ytti ;1rvmro r om 1 3 rm rr0 0121 DI"I!DkWy wrinW 112)=0 )-l: 5Yn 11i;() ibi".iTi ni10

*3

PC39

Nw1mi

n

","NSPW"'=II• rm01w0010 9w001 *I" 1114: moirB 1"y ?w win

T T r il ,C:"Ib'I wn 17"I' ]V14:

mijm

41

Hyinnol

ft

6121"

2 "InT .4 T'#:

'-:)*

tr:o

-r

nt:T

$#w

p-imN

wr:i n1T01

n*-ipm

nim1m0

10

r'yrm

nN

m1i001 n

1i

irinn

,7ninviin

b 942 to

flln

4

D3

?wm

01in

rm1

Nx

31

5

Mi301nin

09100 0120 9p (10CV~; ~ nl10iZ'*M2t n1'31'fin11N19000%'TDDiDlt' ; itl3 1 m 1 I 1 ml i n n 1 Jl n 11-11ow1 1 0b 51o 0 3 .4t1 1 ,-T-im ,721=3 n'to0wito '"M 116-Z-39 "11b

555 WDq1'") )

43(•3,~=r

1 ? *I

N

ln,',, xr.6'y

xrI6? X-12

71nx

In

t

(1)

5D3

1,767' T

MI

Kn13113Y

lDn'

-pl]

n012

1-

wiry

162Y

1llitb

w"'l9

,,=)

nnnl n,'

7n ?tY-ID

Iminp

['Iml

192n

712 (ir

72vin

71DSI71Y

(11)

Ni""-p

Krim

42(

flinatC32 110~ltT ; Milk 1 101 MI,.111,"I (X2)

MI, 11'11 ,1I (.2)

I=0

128

nin1

,I71-vo

3

8

J*oIC

,;1-MI-n8

.Mt

Il nT

081=11M

1'31Mlnt

WMIX1.h

,(2329

10

7 15 1n m1 1nn ,Iyn n p10 nnn1!V1

1XV.1113

:

K11.-

1",

MT10

ilrn 01313 X,3WN1 109 31

MU10bM-93Y2

IW'1t

.153

(1218•:i'31)1)3nr rn

I"=n

-7ico0x

312'3p

I*D

'0

.41

71 YI

n013n"n? 31n-n 1 ' 6 . 03 0n? n!DD n n."3K ,,nnn1n .,,~ Imt TIr Nil-Yt7 .7D9 .JD 19nyl o

tN ,"01* Ut$

Dl, 1t , ,116-Z-39

I1M9 ?W

D

9n ? 1

013-

5

Ift-j?)

,1-

7

n3=

IMIMM)

I1

C

13

n

,IW?6-.1

UIN"1

i'91000

1031!*?

I

-

L/Y

nYl-

."3

'"D1$ NIV

,1

.42 MVUS

I ?M "3 .43 555 "3 nID"30'D• n tMMU 19tl) 1=2 X"1'111 I03 .7-0t,t i 1x 111Mnn pln, .2"''I

,(1854'001-1't nin '1'913

1-

2134 ?lt ?P'

5

013100

TM

1 ph

10

080

Y -Ilf1' (13) NS~'21 ItbYN1 (?3) Nt3n'

yl

n

nw

74wrinnn?

?y1 l3

41

*bDn

?Y18

5y1

N•nlluS Dbk 5yVS

-7

7?vtr

?y

71-Dm3

591

532

7'iV7innn 91 xnllfyu 171

1

Nrlh97

Nw-1 1

4

.l4CD03

?6 ' St ?6 (.4)

7fl

101 N~r9 xr(m5) 15- •N4a?

44 171 0W? n (s5) -•3 np3 X-

4'1Z ( NT'O(N4)

nz• ••' f,•n N.•P,71r

'-1nT

N4tIp

(.6)

Di

lw

*6

'3D123:

ww?

1Yb ,1i-Dpo

Ty

-.1217InTD,29'2p W?'t

M018

M

?I'3 ,Imi

jiwn%

PwnrD (5m3

M1i01'D)

nmN

=

:so

WIY')-

0I900

nnwrn?

nx

-rbn

.swoat

it3lb

nxI1K

,'0

(DNKT)

N1x2 DN

51nin

1irW

:wpn1V

Pr;ig

trol

WYplS

;ISN

P~tD'W$ND5.5

Im

?T17r mlWC

-(6

DN

p0 XD

,t-m

1n I

(2

nln ,'"M

-i.D'D)VI

N)

-1

DIy '

In

ln-19

53

Nxy

1

N)TDIY

,7

l

090

"M'TD

TW-tYbb

n) 13.12

pin

tVb WltN

trlDvirm

tr310o

'93D

D$1N

mVwDy

Im3pa

.IpD-2)

?t

Im7N

b ,-l.;ltNn

x$N

DI

rpo"D2 , 7-5000WOO

-:)}IT tr

%)T$

2-153 ,3

46%

m'lm

j1 2

7r-m

71"1DWI

02121

5Db

TO0MOM

0

iN

iNt

0098

lin

p

Y

181 nl

'1min'v' -

1nx

D'jnlVWhI C'D

.4

.nri

piln

2

-

-1 ,:W":)2D 3m r

36%

n10001nni

wrin

7 .1

V

pw?

1mxp

mn n

ni1p09i

x

:1VN

$ Db

I1nv pW IND

INmn

,n x

27

0000OOM

.D'"

DY

11-7nn1((18

I*

7-7Y.1

U=1

.*Inn

x?

innip

I'

IY3

?S

71rp f

X31341

DN

il it

innip

-IN

$>in

wN*p'Tn1

1pw

')ITD

,,

O4 (x6)

ID1n'

1 l7n

,innip xnn*ilryl

n t,

:Vt

"

Y

13"

I

.N

.555 Nbit Z"327, .44 5Y~ati n0122 t31,"$91":~11Pm

-I -

0n0

,tiN In-THV1

)1n

4'=

?:10)

-in

'hi

-1

6-1

5

26-1

*(Ml

n

0or"-

014-

IN'ti

00u'r

90om0

1r1yn

n91 ?y1i wrnlbv

?

-

9

01D1-n

24

I NT

f*Xb ,I3= .1

jLrnn

fND

"K~SL

'32"

mmW1

:orn'oSx

.24.N imwn

WIt

pb2W 01w101

'41?*4n

01-10 1 09im

-D

wrin

6t9$

;T11

r

n 751

nnnn

w

1w9.v"nn 0 n4b

r:N

i1in83

0 lbNi"

2

D Cl'

14 nx

'

m

01w10.

'DyS?

jl ?

h

IN

j1u1120

".1y0o1" 4'ww"

m."NN

w

N

nr

?i

?:)

m

i

?N

4wYw 'mtx

0vCNm 1 7iD

.$DD

9

rmpov)

".1Y01"

MipD20

w1in

Wn1 1:)n0'1,}'Ti (23

5-3

wwn9n

w4

3'")

?%0

w?

)-.44

'4-

m

.-10o

nil-in

W

NT

n1 ENx

?x5N

1imin0mu

wu13 '"2

4M

fND;

n

D44bn

jiwri 01w10

"' il

Dipbn

nxi

.n13

.'r

nivinn

"45."4

'

"2-."12

,'rN C

10

ni

x

nx

vi=

;(

41y n

2 3-2nipov

h

w pC-Tinmm x10r 'lint

9rrion

lo=b

ripDow

urv

('on-rm)

II-Wn

N

M4

D"":'12

IMCMID

.1410*?I

N3

KIM

r

?y

n'wimm

41W?

M"M22

D121"n

3

ND0 412

,

mn

.-

romr

C in C'111m blwwrv-4wiw

rim$ lx

)

?

nwT

01

1:)

10 0

w-rnym

m

D WxvpI

*

,1y1n D)

rb

41. 74y? w-ib 1 ,4mr-Im" tipt?"

1 orm

w

'4i

1

ni

2llib

01310

ITDI2a C1N2

i roan1

nx

21-2

i3m01

vlin

'1

M-12OV2

ro

wnrrm

w'?4?

mo0v1

25

I

IrW

5

?x$N

-)1

1NvtWx

0108 :11Wpi);L 1139 'IS*3 DNnlbi 5Wli 03n119-012102 'IND ;i)D'CDW in~lNmi C'"DDWU h 74mv r ,o1r D -in 21 m n x vwm 42 082812?wkW nEii' b nniyn N '17175 SNW %)Im$ ,01rw0I 1N 2

D1

4i)D'D 5 ; 71:' ?y

0 1n

wiD1

mNt

iD"Pt

i:1

1W

D$1N

7'4N

=3 1 )

n*2 '19=

ni'vin

X".1

-

i 19 2

17,1YI

-7.1

97*w

-,D'T

.N" ?6

N

'Tn

D5l

1in

MI

E312T

2

l"1

w9

lx

'?.=-

r9 nn n nm!

'1 p

311 2-1

178*7

0

ND

-.I

m

87nn1I

,(xvil

x

1

x

1 .1"y

"V

nJDt

1U

DI7p

1 10 xvil

,?rlvr

al71.

?

nlrip

) In 1

.1Sw

1

K

1:71

.45

'I

T

XCD

-

1-i'3CS Y".'

0

7WV-1

mm13 .

ltr'-

JItM.1J1

-P1i-M

1 r3moIv'1

xnl

Tr:o

D0r1i

,'jP 13100MUM

-

1?

xv*75

roVimrt

V

JIM 1

71

it mo0v

r im

:12

Y13

?w *W01112

)

lDbn

CS1D0Y

Mil

Ih

8ID

o

MD10

7n'

IND

.25

,C'9 W1M

vmm

111.N1

1 m909

HTD11

DY

nXT *li

-2

D14

,74Ti

n007

p

D417

25

p 141 W

,01

r mlrlriN

xm

26

)lI

":

nftm?

? MB,`IWI D

N-IDTn

3

w

jIr-w

;}'t70

.1

ltvnh.i

Y2'P7

.

p-tgi 7y 031?w 5W P.wil

1

71l7l,0m9

X110

W-11=)2 .

-.,o70

n1M110

?12-.

M9120D

xvi

N21,0 1=n

?w

thU

9

91VPI U1,

nw9

m89n

1 2M

1

142

.

742

5

N? 25

nlbm

01 2

?w

X I1NU

.*1341Y

M7D

(46"M1114

11

ri

D142 mv192

T .21:N '3Po

10

#1211

:O-1

91-114Y

1T

D111

n1"n

DIM=02

A130

n5

0137n7

'3.)

,pD

-ion 10

C'9

n

ninsp

712

M-i2041

.18992pb2

r11

.DTi)~tlt?l

X4

.ip'Cw 14D :I= 1 : D3. 01 :om$N

-iMb*

-TYYb

-.1-141tMIl

0

N5

MPH

n

M5

wyW-1

4n

X5

03'mbn r

lolt~b

nX D.0I

m0ran

t~7n

w?l*4b

vwn2

'bIDM)YWM1o

1 1s

y

n 'V

lp5rm -

mnlph ?Y

.46

1

U-9

013100

?W'NT3.M

m100%

2"

11,1112'

TWWN:TH

-11;nD1)

1r015i*prx?

m

n2

y"0

nbi Djiwn

nlm

S'Dlb m

,IND

w'"m3

3D

a1nyw

n1 ,vin

wiww?9

it 'iIpi1

11

n1 1 =1

linyton

?w

1?i

:oo9npi"Y

It

".?

lr

4N

0"

}'WI

'Il y3 ,b

1-' -.I nx N

1b=1

"11121, 4 7

j-.ij

nx

n -1?

>"D.!D'"D?

,jv3nn lt

lwWty?

r

mi

,1 p

ml;I nn? }n fS

Orrin

)

WtDS

nm?6i t3lpDL(X4-?111-120M) 7:)}n 1001,N4"1

,N6-1

mM5

,(X21

17i1D)

11'70M) 1112rifi

"D

?"Y?

-.1;Y

10@~mii

Vb

St?-lin 19099 ."5520'"mn

lN1

'

"'$>N" ,"w1r10'"n fs3

n

innm

b

)nyn mrin2.

Iy.

v1w3 ,7,1

MD :?-Tnmm

nmw?

Ii'3

,C'31ttl

Dv2119

:f)v15'mS

nDx

132

7"'3ly

xnV

?y1

?1r51353

pim

1n

N1

1N

n7- 121Y

M1Y

1-(X6 ?V

m100

n"

- 12"Y21

0109 n-i7

-tnn.1

nex-1

IN

m .10

1311

-PIn.

mnlnMln

Oncom

nD"n

13ri

n

.-1YlY

-

13N2'

(1 ron

myr

1m

:6NW

vny m92 0

D

ri

-Y

?9I12

-.I

8

v1in12

?y

nx

limliv.1W

oin

W1

nx

mo1i

m1bNxn,11pii~bn-

1It

"

In

rIrmbinp

*

w~S1n .)

,5'35

,(24 '")

'"pw

1

t00o0um

n-121Y

Y

n

01

13mi1r

;Noi

wto90mor

inn~~n

n~n

n

n

v112n

?w?'Inpnmi

nx

nMT

;IMnt7blN ;'ILbNWW; .C'N'239)01210 0100010 90u mn121!~~ i~i 01100 n 'T- rmr'n io01n0 ornr wCpirm tI' DN ,ta.I '1'2? i

.1wx

mrin-.1

DD'Wb ;1N7 Whi nx n"O --o"Wnt

nXT

po .ni1n1wi ?1w01 }C

wri"100"n

w1r1in

p10m?

mmii

JVW31

miiv

?:

"

Itomm

"p2l10

wi

m1li

'-Dyn

'ni

,'

,:

1'120M?) .T:N

nin31w

n" n

li

?w -

i1132

w1vm

C'"DDW

3

-1

.'1o

,llnn1

13bD9

1impt

Pi

,W'r5"nb

10M0MI

10

X4

mrin311

01Y1Y0

nipD'C) nN

trT-Tnm,y

.0n1p

)03

mio1n

n'1lD

riln-m

1w9* 13n 10tp

INT

W"' -I

1

91m Op 9 ~i)1 (~10D Y L01390 OD -IM 1111MI;l-M

111-120-V3Y

wo'lo

-nown .00010

1 1"m

(TS

wplmb3

n

,(23-2 4(26-25

=

p1V

13iv1r

p100l

LbN

-1=1008

nil-i2

29

1

'1.

-

.1*w

n

1

no-'fz

rip

,9')Y

;DnrLB

mm

?6m

r'YTy

13

wp210om

'3"

N wnon0b ?N

n-r=-M Dt1b-TibX2)

-

YU7

WbMYY

IMi7D0C) j-.

21 10)

n

-v

1?

91-rNyT

Imp2 nib-min

DI

mit3IND

21

milin l

1n0y

nwmi

pim

nb"DbS

'-DS

7 .N"1 013m

nil-n

'in5

p

r3

-12?2

I

w

24

121121

IN Cl'

DTP

1i59l

,-r 'im wi

M-C20'D

0110

h

" ,,:2

pin b

Jilin ,2

"-1T9

-I.

lo

mIrt-

9"DD "';2

n

1 1w

1v30

'n

mr.1

lwj ?6m

.o"li'n

"3

wtoomo

4

9

41

om

s

l

U

W"

Nbpa)Ta1"

? or$r

n1n3o1inn

t' .xi

YNt 90

mi N1

A,fb'"DDW

MnM11

N ,xNrWm nibv

13'3=3D1w

O1

012nmi;1

1011Ni

Nw9y

r1oir

mnlDM

iN

13 ,IID t?:2'ytD 5y 53

'31= 000''@ 'niomtl'

110M'

""waNliowm

.(2?DD

TM

InK

nln!Wln

-)nlm

*113 .S2

TID .I

Df

.47

r

,6

;n9m.

n r1xn)w pmwnnmInp

)

r.

A wr011flO1 IN 1it blv inv vny 1 nII W f,1T?1 it 101f1WD I1fl1Kn' nlNw x? rnurw IN 011N 1wTm* lw1r j2IOD ir mpnn0 m.fllV ?0 y1Om 19 1 yn ?TnN'W W11= DI,(N-:2 X"Ib) 'obND42112t t,1 fK MTn1n1 ,wnomb

' nmnfwlol nyrnn

irm

013;1

i ,9V1Kp171V

rmmm?

2N

m21u

II0-00jV

1y

m

nIKnjI-r-.j

?y

)-r )

.1vini28n

ninwin

WW

)

-)E

*h

.1D

0%

v

Knirm

1,

52D2

liN

mol

7xml:91

Ni1rm OI,

11211=

,-tIwyn

-

:in

fli J=2

$1 ,?rrl1 p1o00 P D tWN

.N:N

Mt3=1

71

'n17i I311-I

o1

N

T ?:) Tibp5

mNm

P:S)m

w-Tilnm

IN

n

1

no0

pi

nln!X)In0

)"yn

O0 n'.

1920 1-

i)WxN -r

,gmmwtxrK

)":)n

TANn

MOII

'3).

1W1bN

5P

1n

n- w-wrin = a0mlown

-D0

'w

011VMS .4

Pnn:)

kw

moil

19951

1r1w

90

D'311pi

01

X=-1*1

-TN

1

Knir

,

mr1-1-pli

?y

mlpt

D-mol2 W

fioil Il 92

D1a"Inn,

IJmy n

i

-

1":)

.1*

-wm392!

W.)x

12: 1 21

jnipIN

W

n,mPoi 03 wi

i1 1 ,

l ynvS I1)52

)n :

,1t1,M)W

Ilm

,gp5npn

-r -

aiNml

wrin0.1

vpNh239

2rp

)nn%

-r

)"rm1 :)

WW)

5CV

Ilryn

wD

ni01in

'nym

zm-TrvD

zm-r'v1o

1*-)XI

.onzt13

0

WW,lnblv)

?w

,wiliv

4yuptt

mrin-.1

KniNbmrr

Dlwy '91.1'i 01

-t)'t3DnN

TA

wmW

CV?

.1* 0

1:1)x

)Iyn

rin

Dimpb1 Irml

D-.1

KNirn1

ym

21ro

IT

wiT211

wiliv

nrmnnt

l*p-1

Il

.Wn -

,1m

0

y t9

I"w

,

-.1mun

W)W

WWE)S

1

.4

ylrn?

In21n

ym9921

nN

4,lDWI

pny-?

I1 lrn

mv

'Iy

,1):.9

,nm013 o'l

Nr1rm

i-p-Im'p2

D

IV=

,'1 NM

D**1100

1ly2n

nurrimn

IN

nviirpn

l

wilivwwln

Xluo:)Url

113,111VI

11:,1 "N"I

n?

txWW

n-)

5?w

)IV

mion

21w

134

IN% f'3

01r1l

Iwim-lmSlinn

4":=1

n9von

n5m1m-0b

'W nI-IVE)X p iy

- 48.1

'

n091pt *1

.nlyl

,141Yth

,Dnrim

D?IN

b 49-)n j1- 'n,niStIk

Do'vmm5 In018

000108 W1 5"0NtI1

7l mtr 1f11up n1Vm p3KVtT bN-n 13TV Ci Mb211M MIb1 ?W-fl19tn9 ft 2n, T2V iv*1 miK

Ilo

?y

f.I1 ;

~

,

tD~31YY3 INI

' V~1- oi~rQ 100 T? 1

-

,nti

-

1-W iT N1

liV?

* 1~53L m nn nyl~ 1T V~UK? m~b 3lO1? ~L~;AT'l ninwin nimm IjN n1~i)13 P~~'1K'; nx y nfit nx ; i; flO1 w1nnb~D 1 I on K14tm

-i

-

Ki flj5mt30Ot3 fIn

52 ~l~,a5~ib~ I-ImmD

umu-1'1~1

4.11-Im-11

--

ihf Kflmn iT %) ,lK

.48

0D

.49

P. Schifer, "Research into Rabbinic Literature:An Attempt to Define the •nI .50 Status Quaestionis,"Journal of Jewish Studies 37 (1986): 139--152;idem, "Once Again the Quaestionisof Research in Rabbinic Literature:An Answer to Chaim Milikowsky," Journal ofJewish Studies40 (1989): 89-94. 2 ,(50 ?1V? .93 'ZY ,1989n3t= 1M .51 I"b-1 ,1731) 13CV