Ajs Review, Volume Four (1979)

Front Matter Source: AJS Review, Vol. 4 (1979), pp. i-xi Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Assoc...

Author: Frank (Ed. ) Talmage

12 downloads 1236 Views 20MB Size Report

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

Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

Front Matter Source: AJS Review, Vol. 4 (1979), pp. i-xi Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486295 . Accessed: 26/06/2011 20:24 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

AJSreview VOLUME FOUR 1979

Editor FRANK TALMAGE University ofToronto

AssociateEditor BENJAMIN RAVID Brandeis University

ManagingEditor CHARLES BERLIN Harvard University

EditorialAdvisoryBoard ALEXANDERALTMANN

Brandeis University

ARNOLD J. BAND

of California University at Los Angeles

LAWRENCEV. BERMAN

Stanford University

DAVID R. BLUMENTHAL EmoryUniversity

ROBERTCHAZAN

OhioStateUniversity

HERBERTDAVIDSON

of California University at Los Angeles

MARVIN HERZOG Columbia University

STANLEYISSER

StateUniversityof New York Albany

MICHAELA. MEYER HebrewUnionCollegeJewishInstituteof Religion

Cincinnati

ALAN MINTZ ColumbiaUniversity

HARRY M. ORLINSKY HebrewUnionCollegeJewishInstituteof Religion New York

RAYMOND P. SCHEINDLIN

MARVIN FOX

JewishTheologicalSeminary of America

LLOYDGARTNER

JewishTheologicalSeminary of America

Brandeis University TelAviv University

SHELOMODOV GOITEIN Institutefor AdvancedStudy

Princeton

DAVID WEISSHALIVNI

JewishTheologicalSeminary of America

ISMAR SCHORSCH

MARSHALLSKLARE BrandeisUniversity

HAYMSOLOVEITCHIK YeshivaUniversity

JEFFREYTIGAY

Universityof Pennsylvania

A

JSreview VOLUME FOUR 1979

ASSOCIATION FOR JEWISH STUDIES CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS

? COPYRIGHT1979 ASSOCIATIONFOR JEWISHSTUDIES

Publicationof the AJSreview has beenmadepossibleby a grantfromthe NationalFoundationforJewishCulture.TheAssociationis gratefulforthe Foundation'ssupportandencouragement.

ISSN 0364-0094

MANUFACTUREDIN THE UNITED STATESOF AMERICA

TABLEOF CONTENTS A Minorfor Zimmun(Y. Ber.7:2, 1Ic) and Recensionsof Yerushalmi ....... Baruch M. Bokser ....................................

1

On the Origins of the Office of Head of the Jews in the Fatimid Empire Mark R. Cohen ..................................................

27

"Meeting in Jerusalem":Messianic Expectationsin the Cairo Geniza Shelomo Dov Goitein ......................................

43

The Meaning of 'Ein Lo Domeh and Similar Phrasesin Medieval Biblical Exegesis FrederickE. Greenspahn ........................................ Guenzburg,Lilienblum,and the Shape of Haskalah Autobiography Alan Mintz ........................................... ............ HermannCohen's Perceptionsof Spinoza:A Reappraisal Franz Nauen ........................................................ Trends in the Study of Medieval Hebrew Literature Dan Pagis ......................................

125

Three ContemporaryPerceptionsof a Polish Wunderkind of the SeventeenthCentury David Ruderman ......................................

143

Observationson Three War Poems of Shmuel Ha-Nagid: A Study in InternalPoetic Cohesion David Segal ......................................

165

Rabbinic Notes to Graeco-Coptica Daniel Sperber ......................................

205

The Household Table in Rabbinic Palestine Joseph Tabory ...................................... nv rarf't i 'n0ito* 5Y Irnm Moshe Idel ni. ........................................ ... a... .l K. . .inovn ........... .. V

59

71 ll

211

K

NOTES FOR CONTRIBUTORS 1. All scholarly articles directly bearing on some aspect of Judaica will be considered for publication in AJSreview. Two copies of each manuscript should be sent directly (no prior inquiries are necessary!) to the Editor, AJSreview, Widener M, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA. All correspondence should be directed to that address. 2. No article accepted by AJSreview may appear in any other publication, in whole or in part, in its original language or in translation, before its appearance in AJSreview. 3. Manuscripts must be submitted on regulation weight and size (81/2X I 1"-not legal size) paper. Xerox copy or photoreproduction of equivalent quality is acceptable. 4. ALLMATERIAL, including footnotes and indented quotes (extracts), must be typed in DOUBLESPACE.Leave wide margins on every page. 5. A manuscript should be submitted only in its final, completed form. The cost of author's alterations made in galleys will be charged to the author. It should be remembered that a very slight change may result in the resetting of As a matter of policy, AJSreview IS COSTLY! many lines of type. TYPESETTING will not publish lists of corrections. Authors should be as conscientious about the format of their articles as they are about the content. No author's alterations may be made in page proofs at all. Any alterations in the original manuscript must be made by typewriter and not by hand. If a manuscript is not neatly presented, it may be returned to the author for retyping. Standard American proofreaders' marks, as found in any style manual and many dictionaries, should be used for making changes or corrections. 6. The general guide for style is A Manual of Style, 12th ed., published by VII

VIII

NOTES FOR CONTRIBUTORS

the Universityof Chicago Press.The authorityfor Englishusageand spelling is Webster's Third International Dictionary of the English Language.

While fine writingand eleganceare to be prized,excessivelyrhetoricalor exotic languagedetractsfromthe flow of an argument.Faddishor pseudotechnicallanguageshould be avoided. While a writershould not referto himselfexcessively,when he does so, the pronoun"I" shouldgenerallybe used. The Editorsreservefinaljudgmenton all mattersof style and usage. 7. Assemblefootnotesin separatesheetsat the end of the article.TYPEFOOTNOTES IN DOUBLE SPACE AND LEAVE WIDE MARGINS. Footnotes must be numberedconsecutively:1, 2, 3, 4-not 1, 2, 2a, 3 or 1, 1*, 2, 3. Please recheckmanuscriptto see that all footnote numbersand all footnotes are presentand correspondappropriately. 8. Give place and date of publication(but not publisher)of all workscited exceptcommonhandbooks.Fullfirstnamesof authors,unlesstherearetwo initials,shouldbe used:AndreDupont, not A. Dupont;S. W. Baron,not S. Baron.The form of a name as listedby the Libraryof Congressis generally to be preferred.Place names are given in their customaryEnglish form. 9. In referringto publicationspreviouslycited in a footnote, short title and not "op. cit." or "loc. cit." should be used. 10. Use Arabic numeralsin all references,includingvolume numbersof periodicalsand multivolumeworks,unlessthere is a specificreasonfor using Roman numerals(as in page numbersof a preface).Dates should be written in the traditionalfashion: December 12, 1956-not 12 December 1956.

11. Crossreferencesto pages within an article cannot be given. One may make a crossreferenceto a footnote (see above, n. 23) or to a sectionwithin an article(see below, sec. 12).If an authorfeelshe mustuse crossreferences, he shouldwritehis articlesin numberedsectionsso as to makethispossible. A few simple"see above" or "see below" referencesare acceptableas well. Please use "above" and "below" ratherthan "infra"and "supra." 12. Worksin manuscriptshould be cited by libraryshelfmarkand not by catalog number:MS Bodley Opp. Add. 4to, 38-not Neubauer 1373.The rectoand versoof a folio are indicatedby r and v respectively;columnsby a and b: fol. 27va;fols. 16r, 17v.This does not applyto referencesto the Talmud or other printedHebrewworks, e.g., B.T. Sabbath 14b.

NOTESFOR CONTRIBUTORS

IX

13. Referencesto a passage extendingover severalpages should give the first and last page numbers.Do not use f., ff., or et seq. 14. In articlesin English,words in Hebrewor other non-Latincharacters should not be used unlessit is essentialto do so. Transliterationor translation is to be preferred.Foreign language materialshould be confined to footnotes. 15. Articlesin Hebrewshould follow the formatof the Hebrewarticlespreviously publishedin this journal. 16. The transliterationschemefor Hebrewis as given below. Dagesh b.azaq is indicatedby doublingthe letter(exceptfor sh and afterthe definitearticle or a preposition):ha-bishuvimve-ha-shiqqulim While it is ba-sefer. recognized that some fields employ their own systems of transliterationwith many diacriticalmarks,authorsare kindly requestedto adhereto our system wheneverpossible.

CONSONANTS

quiescentX not transliterated

?3bv

3

n m

3n 0

I, g

s

'

,•, d nh

a p of

Tz

p q

1 v (wherenot a vowel)

nb

oV t Sy D .k

D kh

"Ir

I

n, n

sh s t

X

NOTES

FOR CONTRIBUTORS

VOWELS

a a

e

o

e e

Su 0

oa

ei vocal sheva-e silent sheva-not transliterated

The transliteration scheme for Yiddish follows. Hebrew words in Yiddish are to be transliterated according to standard Yiddish pronunciation, e.g., noln = toyre. K not transliterated

N a K o b v g r d ,nh 1, 1

u

,1 I

oy z

Mt zh n kh t t Wtu tsh (consonant) y (vowel) i i

ey ay - k a? kh ", m1 p, n m o

s

Y e p D, f ts y, k p 1

r

sh Ss r t n

s

17. The Editors make every attempt to have manuscripts appraised as expeditiously as possible but no guarantee can be given concerning the amount of time required before a report can be returned to an author. AJSreview draws upon a wide, international body of manuscript appraisers

NOTES FOR CONTRIBUTORS

XI

who may or may not be membersof the EditorialAdvisoryCouncilor, indeed, membersof AJS.All manuscriptsare read anonymously.The anonymity rule requiresthat no readermay know the name of the authorof a manuscriptnor may the author know the names of the readers.To ensure this, authorsshould avoid revealingtheiridentityin a manuscript.Do not use such phrases as "See my article . . ," "I thank my teacher, John Doe,"

etc. No authornor anyoneacting on his behalfmay approachthe Editorsor any otherperson to ascertainthe identityof manuscriptappraisers. 18. Upon acceptanceof theirarticles,contributorsare requestedto submit an abstractof approximately300 words in English. Short articles(appearing in the "Notes" section)should be accompaniedby abstractsof approximately 100 words.

AJSreview VOLUME FOUR 1979

A Minor for "Zimmun" (Y. Ber. 7:2, 11c) and Recensions of Yerushalmi Author(s): Baruch M. Bokser Source: AJS Review, Vol. 4 (1979), pp. 1-25 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486296 . Accessed: 26/06/2011 20:35 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

A MINOR FOR ZIMMUN (Y. Ber. 7:2, 11c) AND RECENSIONS OF YERUSHALMI by BARUCH M. BOKSER University of California at Berkeley

I The literary and historical study of rabbinic literatureincreasesour understandingof rabbinictexts and enablesus to isolate differentstages in the historyof traditions.Amoraicteachings,in particular,haveundergonea complexprocessof enunciation,interpretation,transmission,adaption,and applicationprior to their incorporationinto their present contexts. They have likewise received literary enrichmentand suffered recasting in the courseof theirintegrationinto widerunitsand of the overallcompilationof gemara. Accordingly,the extant versionsmay not reflectthe most fundamental or originaluse and import of a tradition.Once awareof these processes we can, moreover,betterappreciatethe concernswhich elicited and shaped the early stages of the teachingsas well as the laterones whichmay have contributedto the transformations.' 1. See the works of ChanochAlbeck, J. N. Epstein,Joseph Heinemann,Hyman Klein, Saul Lieberman,Jacob Neusner,E. S. Rosenthal,AbrahamWeiss, David Weiss Halivni,as well as of MosheAssis, M. S. Feldman,ShammaFriedman,IsraelFrancus,DavidGoodblatt, AbrahamGoldberg,David Rosenthal,and others. For referencesand full bibliographysee ShammaFriedman,"A CriticalStudy of YevamotX with a MethodologicalIntroduction," Textsand Studies.AnalectaJudaica,ed. H. Z. Dimitrovsky,1 (1977):275-321; David Goodblatt, "The BabylonianTalmud,"Aufstiegund Niedergangder R6mischenWelt[= ANRW], 1

2

BARUCHM. BOKSER

The present paper focuses on one set of teachingswhich have undergone such changes.It dealswith one traditionwhichis attributedto Samuel and which originallyglossed Mishnahbut which laterwas appliedto a different, Palestinianamoraic,issue. The traditiontreatsa minor'sobligation to participate in the zimmun,the "Invitation" to Grace After Meals.

of Mastersin bothPalestineandBabyloniadifferedin theirunderstanding

severalaspects of this issue and their diversestancesaffectedtheir evaluation and understandingof Samuel'sopinion. The examinationof the pericope is particularlynoteworthyas the resultsof the internalanalysisfind confirmationin a differentand earlier recension of the text, in Genesis Rabba. We thus have the unusualopportunityto verify what some might call "speculative"talmudic criticism.The study also throws light on the question of the nature of recensionsof the PalestinianTalmud and the meaningof the scribalnotationrun,found in Genesis Rabba manuscripts. II MishnahBer. 7:1-2 rules that three individualswho eat togethermust prefacetheirGraceAfter Mealswith an "Invitation"to say the Grace.This Summonsconsistsof a seriesof refrainsby which a leaderinvitesothersto Praiseand say Graceand the listenersrespond.2MishnahBer. 7:3 gives the opening formula of the Summons. With three individualsit opens with "Let us praise ... ." Mishnah 7:1-2 lists those counted and excluded from

the quorumto make up the three.A commentin y. Ber. 7:2, Ilb attributed

2.19 (Berlin,in press),especiallychap.4; and BaruchM. Bokser,"AnAnnotatedBibliographical Guide to the Study of the PalestinianTalmud,"ANRW, 2.19, especiallychaps. 8-13. See also BaruchM. Bokser,"TwoTraditionsof Samuel:EvaluatingAlternativeVersions," Cults.Studiesfor MortonSmithat Sixty, ed. in Christianity, Judaismand OtherGreco-Roman JacobNeusner,4 vols. (Leiden,1975),4: 48-52 [N.B.:on pp. 52, 1. 12, 53, 1. 12, and 54, 1. 18 on theMishnah,Its Nature,Forms, read"Tefillah"for "Shema'"];idem,Samuel'sCommentary and Content(Leiden,1975);and AnthonyJ. Saldarini,"'Form Criticism'of RabbinicLiterature,"Journalof BiblicalLiterature96 (1977):257-74. Judaica,s.v. "GraceAfter 2. On GraceAfter Mealsand the "Summons"see Encyclopedia to the Textof the Meals,"and the literaturecitedthere;M. Ber.7:3;J. N. Epstein,Introduction Mishnah,2d ed. (Jerusalem,1964),pp. 430--31;ChanochAlbeck,ShishahsidreiMishnah,vol. 1: SederZera'im(Jerusalem,1959),pp. 27 and 336-37; Saul Lieberman,Toseftaki-fshutah,8 vols. (New York, 1955-73), 1: 8-9 [= TK];Joseph Heinemann,Prayerin the Periodof the andthe Amora'im(Jerusalem,1964),chap.4, pp. 67-77, especially73-77; andGary Tanna'im G. Porton,TheTraditions of RabbiIshmael,pt. 1 (Leiden,1976),pp. 13-15. See below,text to nn. 40-43.

3

A MINOR FOR ZIMMUN

to Samuel focuses on the exclusion of "minors."The most fundamental formulationof the traditionconsistedof a Mishnahcommentarybut it has become somewhat obscured by its presentation within a sugya that responds to a different, though related issue (A-D). M. Ber. 7:1-2:3 Threewho ate togetherarerequiredto summonGrace. (M. Ber. 7:1A) and minors slaves and Women, (u-qelannim)--theydo not summonGrace with them. (M. Ber. 7:2A) y. Ber. 7:2, 11b:4 A. It was taught,a minor(qalan),and (ve-)the Scrollof the Torah-they count as an adjunct(senif) [to make up the ten]. B. Said R. Yudan,Thus is the teaching[in A]: A minorfor the Scrollof the Torah-they count as an adjunct.5

4. rwi ru)'xr tr iPr vmrmmn m*

x'n' rn'n

nntz izxv povw m

p'

in 1 rl 'n,x 'xK rn''X?" 1' 1m111n ;n'irim ;:v'1 )7w"' xr•'ro 'Dx"in ,iKnr5 ov1D:prin T rm 1 r mn i '~3n' '0K. -rnl K1'1 .)x"rv On the y. see (a) the MSS: ThePalestinianTalmudLeidenMS. Cod.Scal. 3. A Facsimile with Introductionby Saul Lieberman(Jerusalem,1970),vol. 1 [abbreviatedas = L MS]; TalmudYerushalmi. CodexVatican133. Indexby A. P. Sherry(Jerusalem,1971)[= V MS];MS of y. with Commentary of Solomonben JosephSirillo, ed. Ilayim Yosef Dinkels(Jerusalem, 1967)[I thankthe BritishMuseumfor providingme with a microfilmof MSS 403-405 = Or. 2822, 2823, 2824, and BibliothiqueNationale, Paris, for MS Hebr. 7389, both of y. with Sirillo'sCommentary][= S]: Louis Ginzberg,Yerushalmi Fragmentsfrom the Genizah(New York, 1909;reprinted., Jerusalem,1969)[= YFG];(b) the specialeditionswithmoderncommentaries:ZachariasFrankel, TalmudYerushalmi,Seder Zera'im, 'AhavatSiyyon, vol. 1: Berakhotand Pe'ah(Vienna, 1874;reprinted., Jerusalem,1971);Dov BaerRatner,Ahawath Zion We-Jeruscholaim. Berakhot(Vilna, 1901;reprinted., Jerusalem,1967);A. M. Luncz, TalmudYerushalmi, vol. 2 [= Ber.chap.6-Pe'ahchap. 1](Jerusalem,1909);and(c) the critical notes in MordechaiYehudahLeb Sacks, Diqduqeisoferimla-Talmudha-Yerushalmi, vol. 1: Berakhot(Jerusalem,1943),p. 33; and J. N. Epstein,Introduction to AmoraiticLiterature[= IAL] (Jerusalem,1962),p. 364. In additionto the commentariesin the Vilna 1922(reprinted., New York, 1959)editionof TalmudYerushalmi,I haveconsultedthe numerouscommentaries to M. Ber.7:2 and b. Ber.47b-48a and codifiersof the law of GraceAfterMealswho cite and explainpartsof y. Ber.7:2. Ratnerprovidesan indexto manyof theseworks.See nn. belowfor specificreferences. 5. Frankel;Ratner,pp. 166-67; and ChanochAlbeck,in MidraschBereschitRabba.eds.

BARUCHM. BOKSER

4

C. From when do they count as an adjunct (me-'eimatai 'osin 'oto senij)?6

D. 1. R. Avinasaid, R. Ijuna and R. Yehudah,both of themin the nameof Samuel,dispute [the matter]: 2. One says, When he knows the characterof the blessing(kedeisheyehe yode'a tiv berakhah).7

3. And the othersaid, Whenhe knowsto whom he says a blessing(she-

yehe yode'a le-mi mevarekh)8.

Women, slaves, and minors are required to say Grace After Meals (M. Ber. 3:3) but may not be counted to make up the number to summon Grace and thus say Grace communally. Samuel's comment, D, defines the category of a minor. We shall now review the tradition's present location, A-D, and trace how it has been reworked.

As most commentatorsexplain Samuel'scommentin termsof the preceding pericope, we review A-B. A deals with a case in which the full number of people are not present. The baraita may be understood in several

JuliusTheodor and ChanochAlbeck (Berlin, 1903-1929;reprinted. in 3 vols., Jerusalem, 1965),3:1112,in his notes [continuationof p. 1111, 1.3]to the GenesisRabbaparallelto our sugya[discussedbelow],cite earlymedievalauthoritieswho apparentlydo not includeB. Some of their referencesneed revision in light of improvededitions of the medievalworks; for example, R. Meshullamben Moses, Sefer ha-hashlamah,in Ginzeirishonim,Berakhot,ed. MosheHershler(Jerusalem,1967),p. 245, in contrastto Ratner,containsa versionof B. Other recentcriticaleditionsconfirmtheircitations;e.g., YalqutShime'oni,basedupon the Oxford MS, ed. Isaac Shiloni,2 vols. to date (Jerusalem,1973-), 2: 783, to Gen. 42, #247, lacks B. Whilewe remainunsurewhetheror not the y. text used by each authorcontainedthe clause, some explicitlystate that differentreadingsexist. Perhapsone of the variantsconsistedof the "adjunct"(senifor use of singleor pluralformsof the pronoun('otoor 'otan)andobject, senif, senifin).See Judahben Isaac,Sir Leon, Tosefot... 'al MasekhetBerakhot,ed. Nisan Sachs,2 vols. (Jerusalem,1969-1972),2: 533-34, and R. Asherben Jebiel [=Rosh], to Ber. Chap. 7, #20, in Vilnaeditionof BabylonianTalmud,againstwhichI checkedthe firstedition(Venice, 1520),and cf. TosefotR. JudahSir Leon,2: 524,n. 452. The differencemightimplywhetheror not the vav,"and,"is disjunctive,conjunctive,or explicative.See below nn. 9 and 11 and the text thereto. 6. So = L, V, S, and others:'admatai'osin'otosenif = YFG, p. 293. Someearlymedieval authoritiesincludingR. Meshullam,p. 245, lackthis line.See belownn. 19and27 andthe texts thereto. 7. So = L, V, S, YFG and Isaacben Mosesof Vienne,'Orzaru'a(Zhitomer,1862;reprint ed., Brooklyn,n.d.) #197, 1: 30d (who supposedlycites R. JudahSir Leon);kedeishe-yihyeh = Rabadin Natmanides, Novellae(Jerusalem,1928)to b. Ber.48a; keshe-yeda'= Sefer kedeishe-yeda'= TosefotR. JudahSir Leon. ha-hashlamah; 8. So = L, S, and Rabad cited in Nabmanides,Novellae;keshe-yeda'= Sefer hahashlamah; kedei she-yeh ...

Leon.

= YFG, V MS, and OZ; kedei she-yeda' = Tosefot R. Judah Sir

A MINORFOR ZIMMUN

5

ways. A vavusually translatedas "and,"joins the entriesof "minor"and "Scroll of the Torah."If the vavis disjunctive,viz., means "or," the text asserts that we may count either one to make up the requirednumber. Alternatively,if the vav is conjunctive,viz., means "and,"the baraita requiresboth, e.g., a minorwith the Scroll.The traditiondoes not identifythe referentto whichthe minorand/or the Scrollis added.Commentatorssuggest it refersto a quorumof ten, the requirednumberfor sayingthefull or expanded Summons to Grace which mentions the Lord's name, "Let us bless our God ... " (so M. Ber. 7:3). This number elsewhere makes up the

standardquorum for communityliturgicalpurposes.9 The meaningof the word "adjunct"is made clear by its use at the very beginningof y. Ber.7:2. A traditionattributedto RabbiJudahthe Patriarch as well as to R. Yehoshuaben Levi, a first generationPalestinianAmora, statesthat we may count a minoras an adjunctto make up the ten. Accordingly, the simplemeaningof "adjunct,"senif,in A, supportsthe interpretation that the clause as a whole refersto "adjunctto ten."'0 In B, Yudan, a fourth generation Palestinian Amora, clarifies the baraitaand apparentlytakes the vavas an explanatoryvav,a usage found elsewhere.' We should thereforerenderthe baraitathus:"a minor,that is, for the Scroll . . . ," which means, following many commentators, that a

child may count as one of the seven individualscalled to the TorahScroll when it is read on the Sabbath.12 C employsthe same languageas A-B, 'osin'oto This suggeststhat senif. C deals with a quorumof ten, or following the interpretationof Yudan's explanation,a quorumof seven.The questionin C thus raisesa matterrele9. See EleazarAzikri, Sefer haredim,in Vilna edition of PT; Joshua Benvenisti,Sedeh

Yehoshu'a,vol. 1: Zera'im (Constantinople, 1662), reprinted in YerushalmiZera'im (Jerusalem,

1972);and TosefotR. JudahSir Leon to b. 47b-48a. See Albeck,in BereschitRabba3:1112, notes. 10. At one point in the sugyaan anonymousauthoritycomparesthe cases of "ten"and "three"and employsthe term "adjunct"for both. The formerusagehas generatedthe latter formulation. 11. See ZachariasFrankel, Mevo ha-Yerushalmi (Breslau, 1870;reprinted., Jerusalem, 3 vols. (reprinted., Jerusalem, 1967),p. 95a; Aaron Hyman,ToledotTanna'imve-'Amora'im, 1964), 2: 616-17; Michael Higger, 'OSarha-baraitot,10 vols. (New York, 1938-1948), 4:

418-19; Mordechai Margalioth, Encyclopedia of Talmudic and Geonic Literature (Tel Aviv, n.d.), pp. 476-77; and Chanoch Albeck, Introduction to the Talmud,Bavli and Yerushalmi(Tel

Aviv, 1969),p. 332. See Bokser,Samuel'sCommentary, p. 27, n. 56, and the referencesthereto Epstein,Kutscher,and especiallyLieberman.[Thepage referenceto Kutschershouldbe to p. 1602and not 1595.]See also TK, 5: 1273. 12. See, e.g., Sirillo, Tosef R. JudahSir Leon, and Benvenisti.

6

BARUCHM. BOKSER

vantto the concernsof A-B: Whenis a minorcountedto makeup a requiredquorum? D contains Samuel'stradition. Avina, a third generationBabylonian

to Palestine,transmitsit in the nameof two second Amorawhoemigrated generationBabylonianAmoraim,Huna [IHuna= Huna]and Yehudah.

Eachof the lattertwo, studentsof Samuel,had reportedthe master'stradition in a differentversion.Avina, however,apparentlydid not know which tradent had transmittedwhich version.'3Both versionsof Samuel'scom-

mentlack a referent,makeup balancedglosses,and offercriteriawhich qualifya person. i.e., Accordingto the firstview,D.2, a minorwhoknowsthecharacter,

practicesand makeup,of the blessingmay be counted.'4The secondmaster claims that the requirementis for the minor to know the referentof the benediction,the One Addressed.The first, D.2, thus employs a technical ability, or knowledgeas a criterion,while the second, D.3, an abstractor theoreticalone. the tradition- with Assumingthe criteriafit the matterbeingdefined,"5 its presentconjunction-sets out whena personmaysay some type of blessing. The tradition itself does not say which. As Mishnah deals with the exclusionof an individualfrom sayingthe blessing,Mishnahcannot supply the subject.Can A-B, the immediatelyprecedingpericope,clarifythe subject? Yudan'sinterpretationof the baraita,B, cannot constitutethe subject 13. Cf. Albeck, Introduction, p. 524.

On Huna and Yehudah,see Bokser,Samuel'sCommentary, pp. 216-17. That Huna = Huna,see Frankel,Mevo,p. 73a, and E. Y. Kutscher,Studiesin GalileanAramaic,Translated and Annotatedwith AdditionalNotes by MichaelSokoloff[Bar-llanStudiesin Near Eastern Languagesand Culture](Ramat-Gan,1976),pp. 67-96, 103-5, especiallyp. 70. On Avina, see Frankel,Mevo,p. 61b; Hyman, 1: 97-98; Margalioth,p. 41; and Albeck, Introduction, pp. 274-75.

Mishnae,4 vols. (Jerusalem, 14. See the usageof tiv elsewhere;C. Y. Kasovsky,Thesaurus 6 1957-1960),2: 766, e.g., M. Ket. 1:8and B.M. 1:8;C. Y. Kasovsky,ThesaurusThosephthae, vols. (Jerusalem,1932-1961),3:350,e.g., T. Sot 4:7, ed. Lieberman,p. 173, 1. 146;and C. Y. Kasovsky,ThesaurusTalmudis,39 vols. to date (Jerusalem,1954-),15:85-86, and especially note the instancesin b. B.B. 155band A.Z. 57a-b [forwhichsee DS, 120:6] bothprecededby the verbyd', "to know,"and used to definea "minor"in termsof certainmatters:businessknowledgeof the practicesof business;idolatry-knowledgeof the practicesof idolatry.See also Frankel,'AhavatSiyyon,ad loc., and cf. Benvenisti,ElijahBen LoebFulda, TalmudYerushalmi[=Zera'imand Sheq.](Amsterdam,1710;reprinted., Jerusalem,1971),and Albeckin Bereschit Rabba, 3:1113-14, note to 1. 4.

15. See below nn. 32 and 45-50 and the texts thereto.See Saul Lieberman,SiphreZutta ha-Ritba,Masekhet (New York, 1968),pp. 15-16, TK, 1:84.Cf. Yom Tov Ishbili, 29a = cols. 260-61. Sukkah,ed. EliyahuLichtenstein(Jerusalem,1975)to b. Suk.l-iddushei

A MINOR FOR ZIMMUN

7

of D, for Yudanlived afterSamueland the masterswho, in D, transmithis tradition.'6 On the other hand, if A representsa tannatic baraitaSamuel

theoreticallycould directlyreferto it. As it ostensiblydeals with the Summons to Grace, Samueltoo could deal with that issue. This would accord with the sugya'swidertopic of Graceand the Summonsthereto.But, as we shall see, while Samueldoes referto the "Summons,"he does not treatit in terms of the issue as presentedin A.'7 To recapitulate,Samuel'scomment refersto the Summonsfor Grace. In termsof the wordingof D we are not informedwhetherthis refersto the version of the Summons for three people or the expanded one for ten people. Certainlythe questionin C wants us to understandthe traditionin the lattertermsand takes Samuelas commentingon "adjunctfor ten." But the question is secondaryand postdatesthe tradition.As we have already seen, it accordswith the problematicof the widersugyaand accordinglyfulfills redactionalneedsto applySamuel'scommentto the issueof "adjunctto ten." In general,such anticipatoryquestionsare late and postdatethe traditions whichthey introduce.'sWe now turn to concreteevidenceto support the suggestionthat Samuel'stradition,with a differentconjunction,referred to Mishnah. First,while C appearsin most texts of y., at leasttwo medievalworksin their-citationsof A-D lack C or an analogueto it.~9Whetheror not these 16. Naturallyif B is not originalto the text,we wouldhavean additionalfactorprecluding it as Samuel'sreferent.See above, n. 6. 17. If D concerns"Grace,"that would accordwith the use of the word senif, "adjunct," whichin our contextis usedto referto the expandedSummonsto Grace,whenten peopleare present.See n. 8 and the text thereto.Amongthe severalreasonswhichprecludethe view that Samuelrefersto A one may includethe observationthat only Palestiniansare associatedwith the termsenif,"adjunct."The factthat A-B immediatelyprecedesC-D does not pose a problem. In y., traditionsoften do not referto theirimmediatelyprecedingpericopes.See Bokser, ANRW,"Guide,"chap.9, B. andthe literaturecitedthere.Accordingly,thereis the possibility that the formulation,if not the teaching,of the baraitais amoraic.On amoraicbaraitot,see BenjaminDe-Vries,"Baraita," EJ, 4: 189-93; Goodblatt,ANRW,chap. 4.1a;and Bokser, ANRW, "Guide,"chap. 8, D.3, and the literaturecited there,especiallyLieberman,Higger, Epstein,Goodblatt(1975),and Moreshet.On our passagesee furtherbelow,n. 33 and the text thereto. 18. See Bokser,Samuel'sCommentary, pp. 107, 116,and also AbrahamWeiss,Studiesin the Literature of the Amoraim (New York, 1962), pp. 33-34, especially Studies in the Talmud

vol. 2: Seder (Jerusalem,1975),pp. 236-37, and David WeissHalivni,Sourcesand Traditions, Moed From Yoma to Hagiga (Jerusalem, 1975), pp. i-xii.

19. R. Meshullamin Seferha-hashlamah, and Abrahamben David, in Temimde'im(Warsaw, 1897), #1, p. la. Nabmanides in his Milbamotha-shemon Isaac Alfasi, Hilkhot, lacksB andC, thoughin Novellaeto b. Ber.40a presentsC-and interestinglyenoughas partof a citation of Abrahamben David.

8

BARUCH M. BOKSER

worksrepresentan actualliterarytraditionof yerushalmi,theydo reflectthe fact that to understandSamuel'scomment one need not rely on C. Second, our suggestedreferentdoes not demandan extraordinaryreadingof the pericope. It is assumed, for example, in Maimonides'and Sirillo's commentariesto M. Ber. 7:2 which employ the two versions of Samuel's commentsin D and set them out as definitionsof Mishnah'smentionof a "minor."20Third, a differentrecensionof the sugya, in Genesis Rabba, providesa text free fromthe abovedifficultiesand in whichSamuelexplains Mishnah. III Genesis Rabba 91.4, eds. Julius Theodor and Chanoch Albeck, 3:1111-1118, contains a sugya parallel to y. Ber. 7:2. The two versions exhibit severaldifferencesin wording,in formulation,especiallyin clauses whichbridgeor spell out implicationsof the traditions,and in the sequence of the materials.Such differencesare common between PT and Gen. R. analoguesand scholarsargue that they are due to the fact that each text representsa differentrecensionof y. Many scholarsfurtherclaim that Gen. R. used y. in a state priorto its completionas representedin PT MSS and editions,i.e., a recensionof y. earlierthanthat of the PT itself.Severalof the differencesin the y. Ber.7:2 sugyaaccordwith the latterargumentand confirm our analysisof Samuel'scomment.As we shall see, Gen. R. presents Samuel'scomment in a state which has not been redactionallyand completely incorporatedinto its y. context.2' The sequenceof the sugya in Gen. R. justifies our focus on Samuel's traditionand its introductoryquestionalone and not in termsof whatin PT precedes, i.e., the baraita and its interpretation,A-B or an equivalent thereto.22We, therefore,first turn to the sequenceof the materials.

20. Sirillocommentson Mishnahas part of his commentaryon y. For Maimonides,see

Mishnah 'im perush Rabbenu Mosheh ben Maimon, ed. and trans. Yosef Qafih, 7 vols. (Jeru-

salem, 1963-1968), 1: 82, and cf. Maimonides,MishnehTorah,Berakhot5:7. 21. As to recensionsof y., and the bibliographythereto,see nn. 54-57. Albeckin his notes to the passage,3: 1111-12, 1. 3, and 1112-13, 1. 3 [especiallytop of p. 1113],specificallyrelates severalof the differencesto differencesin recensions. 22. Our discussion is based upon Midrash Bereschit Rabba, Codex Vatican60. A page index by A. P. Sherry (Jerusalem, 1972). Albeck, in Bereschit Rabba, 3:1111-1118, prints the London MS and records variants from other MSS [but not Vatican 60] and early printed editions. Vatican 30, generally today considered the best MS of Gen. R. includes only the opening and clos-

A MINOR FOR ZIMMUN

9

Gen. R., in contrast to PT, does not juxtaposeA-B and C-D. It presents A-B, with slight variation in wording, earlier in the sugya and Samuel'scomment later. The latter ends the section of y. Ber. 7:2 which focuses on the minor. Samuel'scomment has thus reversedplaces with a "story"in whicha Palestinianmastertells of his childhoodand whichexplicitly avers that a minor-without the two hairs of physical maturitycannot count to make up the numberto summonGrace. In PT, Samuel's traditionis at the penultimateposition and the story at the ultima;in Gen. R., Samuel-preceded by a questionbut not A-B-stands ultima and the story penultima.23

ing phrasesof the sugyaand notes that the sectionin extensionis in y. Ber.See Albeck'snotes, ad loc., and his "Introduction,"Einleitungund Register zum BereschitRabba (Berlin, 1931-1936),printedwith Theodorand Albeck,BereschitRabba,2d ed. (Jerusalem,1965),vol. 3, Introduction,pp. 107-8; E. S. Rosenthal,"Leshonotsoferim,"in YuvalShay. [A Jubilee Volumededicatedto S. Y. Agnon],ed. BaruchKurzweil(Ramat Gan, 1958),pp. 293-324, especially312-13. As the sugyain a recensiondifferentfrom PT appearsin Vat. MS 60 and substantivelyin the remainingMSSotherthanVat.30, the sectionrepresentsnot merelya late additionto the text. See below. On VaticanMS 30, availablein photographicreprint,MidrashBereshitRabbaMS. Vat. Ebr.30. Withan Introductionand Indexby MichaelSokoloff(Jerusalem,1971),see Sokoloff's "Introduction,"and his referencesto other literature,especiallyhis articlesin Leshonenu33 (1969):25-42, 135-49, 270-79, and Kutscher,Studies;and LewisM. Barth,An Analysisof Vatican30 (Cincinnati,1973),and the literaturecitedthere.Vat.MS 60 is consideredan important early witnessto the text of Gen. R., inferiorto Vat. 30 but superiorto the Londonand other MSS. See Kutscher,Studies,pp. 12-13, n. 6; Barth,pp. 83-84; and MichaelSokoloff, "TheGeniza Fragmentsof GenesisRabbaand Ms. Vat. Ebr.60 of GenesisRabba,"Ph. D. diss., HebrewUniversity,1971;rev. ed. (in press) [not seen]. The printededitions,basedupon Venice,1545edition,as well as the firstedition,Constantinople, 1512,on the basis of the PT add C-D afterGen. R.'s versionof A-B and "correct" Gen. R.'s actualcitationsor analoguesof A-B, wheretheylaterappearin Gen. R. See the list of variantsin Albeck,and "Introduction," pp. 113, 126,especially128.A YemeniteMS which accordswith the readingsin the printededitions,does not representa manuscriptsupportfor these readings,as the MS copies the Venice, 1545edition. See Albeck, "Introduction,"pp. 115-17, and 117, n. 2. 23. The variationin sequencemay be highlysignificant.The arrangementof materialin y. is a productand a reflectionof its editing.The placeof Samuel'scomment,in Gen. R., at the end mayaccordwithour observationelsewherethatin y., Babyloniantraditionssometimesare appendedat the end and thus do not makeup an integralpartof the y. sugya;Samuel'sCommentary,pp. 77-80, esp. 79-80 and n. 216. The Palestiniancircles who placed C before Samuel'straditionand placedboth, C-D, in the midstof the sugya,apparentlysee the issues throughwhat may be calleda Palestinianperspective:"A minorcannotserveas an adjunctto three."See SaulLieberman,Talmudof Caesarea[Supplement to Tarbiz2] (Jerusalem,1931),pp. 20-25, especially22-23, fromwhomI quote:"Thatarranger[ofy.] choseanddeletedwhatever did not fit the approachesof the yeshivotof the land of Israel;he is the one who deletedthe Babylonianapproachesto the explanationof Mishnah..... And the arrangerpartiallychanged

10

BARUCH M. BOKSER

The following chart lays out the sequenceof y. in both Gen. R. and PT: PT

1. Yehoshua b. Levi and Rabbi: minor as adjunctto 10. 2-3. Questionand answeron #1. 4. Traditionre 9 as 10. 5-6. Questionand answeron #4: 9 "with a minor."24 7. If minor for 10, why not for 3? 8. Answer. 9. Minor and Torah Scroll. [=A] 10. Explanationof #9. [=B]

Gen. R.

1'. same [= #1] 2'-3'. same [= #2-3]

4'. same [= #9] 5'. same [= #10] 6'. as #4 7'-8'. as #5-6

11. Introductoryquestion. [=C] 12. Samuel'stradition.[=D]

9'. as #7 [with variationand addition25] 10'. Story [= #13] 11'. Introductoryquestion. [as #11, but differs] 12'. same [= #12 with different conjunction]

13. Story:Personwith two hairsand no young minors.

The sequencethus provesthat Samuel'scommentis not integrallyconnectedto the baraitain A and its explanation,B. Moreover,Gen. R.'s ver-

the language of R. Yermiah [ in a pericope Lieberman immediately above reviewed] in accord with the approach of the Land of Israel." See also Bokser, Samuel's Commentary, pp. 152, n. 467, 156, nn. 475-476, and ANR W, chap. 12. On the presence in our context of a "Palestinian approach" see nn. 39 and 52 and the texts thereto; the fragment of the "Ma'asim li-venei 'Eres Yisra'el," published in Mordechai Margalioth, Hilkhot 'Erey Yisra'el min ha-genizah (Jerusalem, 1973), p. 44, 11. 13-15, and in Z. M. Rabinowitz, "Sepher Ha-Ma'asim Livnei Erez Yisra'el-New Fragments," Tarbiz41 (1972): 275-305, 285, especially Rabinowitz's footnote, pp. 285-86; and Goldberg, cited in n. 39 below. As to implications of this suggestion, see below. 24. See Sacks, Diqduqei, p. 32, n. 2; Albeck, Bereschit Rabba, 3:1112, n. 2; Epstein, IAL, p. 364, n. 7, and Rabinowitz, "New Fragments," p. 286. 25. See Albeck, Bereschit Rabba, 3:1112-13, n. 3; see also Sacks, Diqduqei, p. 32, n. 4, and Epstein, IAL, p. 364, n. 10.

11

A MINORFOR ZIMMUN

sion of the questionthat introducesSamuel'straditiondiffersfrom that in PT. We must now examine that question and Samuel'stradition.

IV Gen. R. 91.426

A'. And untilwhenis he counteda minor(ve-'ad'eikhanyihyehqatan).27 B'I. Said R. Avina, R. Hunaand R. Yehudah,in the nameof Samuel,dispute [the matter]: B'2. One said-Until he may know how to say a blessing ('ad she-hu yode'aie-varekh).21 B'3. And the other said-Until he may know the characterof the blessing ('ad she-huyode'a tiv berakhah).29 The attributions in the Gen. R. and PT versions match. The traditions themselves, however, open differently. In PT, we have, "When he knows ." which sets forth the definition of the new status or change in status, as 26. Gen. R. #91 [Theodorand Albeck,3:1113-141,accordingto VaticanCodex60, p. 332: p r,'m T,'K wm

m XIV '1 m 'x minm 13 in' n 'in-p21 n 'ix1'n ?'ix r ,Xvlbv•' pnirin nar •13-n n "- "bin 3VYMInn' X11v wy.

27. So Vat. 60. Relyingon Albeck'slist of variants:ve-'adkammahyehe qore = London MS; ve-'ad'eimatai[or: matai]yehe qore = correctionin London MS and YalqutShime'oni [for the latterAlbeck reliedon the earlyeditions,the readingsof whichare confirmedby the Oxford MS, in Yalqut Shime'oni(Jerusalem,1973), p. 783]. The latter mistakenreading probablywas generatedby an incorrectfillingout of an abbreviationq'. For example,the q' in a readingsuchas ve-'adkammah[or 'eikhan]yihyehq' was takenas qore,"to read"in placeof qalan,a "minor."The authorof this mistakemay havebeen motivatedby an interpretationin y. that Samuel'scommentrelatesto a minorwho is calledup to the readingof theTorahScroll. See the abovediscussionon the meaningof B of PT,andAlbeck,in BereschitRabba,3:1113,1. 4, for an examplehow one may mistakenlyjustify the readingqoreand for his citationof an interpretative gloss fromthe LondonMS'smargin.SomelaterMSSconflateboth "readings": ve-'adkammahqatan[or yehe qatan]qore.The printededitionshave been "corrected"on the basisof the PT:u-me-'eimatai huqoreba-torah.See above,n. 22. Note the readingin Zedekiah b. AbrahamAnav, Shibboleiha-leqefha-shalem,ed. SolomonBuber(Vilna, 1886);reprinted. with notes by YerubamLiner(New York, 1959),#153, p. 60 [= p. 119],'ad kammahyihyeh niqraqatan"Untilwhenis he calleda 'minor'?"The latter'ssequenceandwordingof thewhole sugya indicatethat it cites Gen. R. and not PT. 28. So Vat. 60 in additionto two readingswhichAlbeckcites. Londonand otherscontain variationsthereof,all with 'adshe-with the exceptionof the printededitionsand YemeniteMS which were "corrected"to accordwith the PT: mi-shehuyode'a. See n. 22. 29. So Vat.60. Londonand otherwitnesseshavevariationsthereof,all with 'adshe-.Again printededitionsand YemeniteMS are correctedto accordwith PT,(she-yode'a)le-mimevarekhin. See n. 22.

12

BARUCH M. BOKSER

when a minor may be counted for the Summons.In Gen. R., on the other hand, we find, "Until he... " whichsets forth untilwhen a personremains in a given state, as when a minoris excludedfromthe Summons,the issueof M. Ber. 7:2. We find additionaldifferencesas well. While one of each pair employs the verb, "to know," follows with an object, and offersthe same criterion, the "characterof the blessing,"in PT this versioncomes first,and in Gen. R. second. The other traditionin each pair employsthe verb "to know" and then the prefixle-, "to," before the object. In one case we find, "to know to whom he says a blessing,"and in the other, "to know how to bless." Evidentlythere has been some confusionin the transmission.30If the Gen. R. versionrepresentsthe fundamentalformulationof the traditions,the differencesbetweentheircriteriaare insignificant.One refersto a child'sphysical abilityor knowledgeof how to bless,whilethesecondto thecharacterof the blessing.In the PT,on the otherhand,the differencesare sharpand, accordingly, that version probablyis closer to the original." If we assume that the types of criteriaformulatedfit the context into which they are used,32Samuel'straditionin Gen. R. sets out until when someone remainsin his or her presentstatus and unableto say a certain blessing.This is inappropriateto the statusof an adult, for then the person has becomepartof the groupthat is liableand able to say the blessing.But it does accord with M. Ber. 7:2's referenceto a "minor."Thus in Gen. R., Samuel'scomment explains M. Ber. 7:2. We also have additionalevidence to exclude an "adult" as Samuel's referent,to preferGen. R.'s formulation,and to accept our analysisof y. PT'sversionof Samuel'scommentand especiallythe introductoryquestion assume that Samuel refersto an "adjunctof ten." But in the context of Summonsto Gracethis termappearsonly in traditionsattributedto Pales-

30. In this regard, we do not consider the readings in the printed editions and Yemenite MS. See nn. 22, 28, 29. 31. The argument in the text holds unless one understands liv in a different way. See Maimonides to M. Ber. 7:2 and Albeck, in Bereschit Rabba, 3:1114, notes. The usage elsewhere of tiv, however, supports our comments. See above, n. 14, and the text thereto. Moreover, as we shall see, D.2, accords with a tradition in b. attributed to Nabman, a master who had access to Samuel traditions. It requires a minor "to know to whom they bless" before he can be counted, yode'a le-mi mevarekhim.See below nn. 35-38, and the text thereto. Of course, the b. tradition may have generated the "correction" of y. If so, the version in Gen. R. would constitute the original reading. See below, the analysis of Tus. Ber. 5:18 which relates to M. Ber. 7:2. 32. See nn. 17 and 33.

13

A MINOR FOR ZIMMUN

tinians. In PT we find it in a baraitathat lacks a b. parallel,in traditions attributedto Palestinians,and in anonymouspartsof y. gemara.One of the y. traditions does appear in BT but, significantly,attributedto the first generationPalestinianAmora, Yehoshuaben Levi.33On the basis of usage, it is thus highly unlikely that Samuel focuses on the issue of "adjunctto ten." Given the above observations,a referentappropriateto Samuel'scomment could be a "minor,"qatan,who is excludedfrom participatingin the blessing,whichis exactlywhat we find in M. Ber. 7:2. Samuelthus refersto Mishnahand its mentionof minorswho areexcludedfromthe Summons.34 If Gen. R.'s formulation of Samuel's comment preservesthe literary form of his comment, the traditionhad circulatedas a gloss to Mishnah. Indeedthe use of the formulationas a gloss withoutan explicitreferentand not as an autonomousstatementcan account for the history of the tradition. Someonecould have easily reappliedthe gloss to anothertext without violatingthe substanceof the comment.He had to changeonly the conjunction, from "until" to "when." Our analysishas offeredboth negativeand positiveproofto supportthe notion that Samuelglossed M. Ber.7:2.We now turnto four supplementary observationswhich confirm Samuel'sinterestin the Summonsfor Grace and which indicatethat it was appropriatefor someone to definethe term "minor"in M. Ber. 7:2. V First, b. Ber. 48a, in its analogoussugya to y. Ber. 7:2, cites a tradition which is attributedto Naihmanand whichis veryclose to one of the versions of Samuel'scomment: And the halakhah doesnot followall these[above]traditions. Ratherit follows what R. Nablmansaid, A minor who knows to whom they bless, They summon Grace with him.35 33. See TK, 1:84,and n. 38. 34. See Samuel Jaffe b. Isaac Ashkenazi, "Yefeh to'ar," digested in Midrash Rabba (Vilna, 1878; reprint ed. Jerusalem, 1961), loc. cit., and Maimonides' and Sirillo's comments to M. Ber. 7:2. We note, it is not unprecedented for a tradition to be formulated in terms of "Until ... " See b. Yev. 107b, a tradition of Samuel's opens with 'ad she-, "Until"; and in a purported citation of y., which Lieberman argues is a Gaonic gloss, TK, 5:1273-74, "'A minor, qafan, does not ...' Until when, 'ad 'eimatai, ... " xx DD 35. 1r• rT'n rTrn'l'•v5 nM. "n33-1"nx' Xtl,n tnnybv ,n,• mtnr' mn,,To; Tnm

14

BARUCH M. BOKSER

Nahman'scommentdelineatesthe statuswhich qualifiesone to participate in the Summons.This accordswith the perspectiveof PT's versionof Samuel'scomment-vis-a-vis that of Gen. R. Its criterionis identicalwith that of D.3., the secondversionof Samuel'straditionbut, in contrastto the latter, it is formulatedas an autonomousstatement.It makes use of the languageof M. Ber. 7:2, into which is glossed the phrase,"Who knows to whom they bless," ha-yode'a le-mi mevarekhin. The negative is removed

from Mishnah'sformulation,"They(do not) summonthe Gracewith him." The context clearlyis definedby Mishnahand thus agreeswith Gen. R.'s recension,"Summonsfor three,"and not PT's-reworked-"adjunct for ten." To judge fromthe languageof the commentitself,Nahmanprecludes other criteriaand avers that his is sufficient.36 Nahlman,a second-thirdgenerationAmora,had accessto Samuel'straditions,37and it is possiblethat he drawsupon Samuel'steachings.Whilewe remainunsureas to this possibility,Nahman'straditiondoes attest to the beliefsof those responsiblefor the sugya. They associatean early Babylonian with a version of the traditionwhich y. attributesto Samuel.38 The placing of Samuel's comment in the context of "Summonsfor three"or "adjunctto ten,"may reflectdifferingBabylonianand Palestinian notions. If so, it is not insignificantthat the autonomousauthoritywho reworkedb. 47b-48a cites Nahman'scommentas if it should be authoritative.39

36. In addition to Rashi and Tosf. ad loc., see B. M. Lewin, ed. Otzar ha-Gaonim, 13 vols. (Haifa and Jerusalem, 1928-1943), vol. 1: Tractate Berakhoth, "Commentaries," pp. 82-83; Isaac Alfasi, Hilkhot; Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, "Hilkhot Berakhot," 5:7; NaImanides, Novellae to b. 48a; especially Isaiah the Elder, The Rulings of, Pisqei ha-Rid, 7 vols. to date (Jerusalem, 1964-), vol. 1: Berakhot; and Lieberman, TK, 1:84-86. See Meyer Berlin, Shlomo Josef Zevin, and Jehoshua Hutner, TalmudicEncyclopedia, 15 vols. to date (Jerusulem, 1947-), s.v. "Zimmun," 12: 284-90, especially 286, for a survey of authorities who discuss the sugya and Nahman's comment, and especially Abraham b. Isaac of Narbonne, Sefer ha-'eshkol, ed. Shalom and Chanoch Albeck, 2 vols. (Jerusalem, 1935-38), 1: 41, n. 3. 37. See Bokser, Samuel's Commentary, p. 218 and nn. 3-5. 38. On the association of the comments of Samuel and NaIman and M. Ber. 7:2, see R. Meshullam, pp. 244-45; R. David b. Levi of Narbonne, Sefer ha-mikhtam, in Ginzei rishonim, pp. 91-92; Pisqei ha-Rid, cols. 140-42; Dinkels, 'Emunat Yosef, in his edition of Sirillo, to y. Ber. 7:2, s.v. "nashim va-'avadim," Sachs notes to R. Judah Sir Leon, 2: 517, n. 398; and see NaImanides, Novellae, and Shibbolei ha-leqet, #153, p. 118. 39. The possibility that the sources reflect Babylonian and Palestinian perspectives may correlate with the place of a story in the b. and y. sugyot. BT to conclude the sugya presents after NaIman's comment a story about Rabbah, Abaye, and Rava bar R. HIIanan.[On the last name see DS, 253: 6, to which add Babylonian Talmud, Codex Florence, Florence National

A MINORFOR ZIMMUN

15

VI Second, in addition to the preceding confirmation of the second version of Samuel's comment, D.3., we also find attestation of the first one, D.2, as well as of Samuel's concern for the proper formulation of the summoning formula. This information is provided by a tradition of Samuel in b. Ber. 49b-50a and y. Ber. 7:3. The tradition relates to M. Ber. 7:3. Mishnah Ber. 7:3 lists the different formulae for different occasions of the Summons for Grace:40 M. Ber. 7:3A: How do theysummon[Grace]? In the case of three [people]-he [the summoner]says, "Let us bless." In the case of three and him [= in additionto the summoner]-he says, "Bless."41

LibraryII I 7-9, Introductionby David Rosenthal,3 vols. (Jerusalem,1972),1:99; andYosef David Azulai,Seferpetab 'einayim,2 vols. (Jerusalem,1959),1:35, col. b.] Thatstoryemploys the languageof Nabman'straditionand apparentlyattestsits point.See commentaries,ad loc., Berakhot,ed. ShmuelDaikman(Jerue.g., Menabemb. Shelomohha-Meiri,Beit ha-behirah, salem,1965),p. 180.As mentionedabove,PTendswitha storywhichconveysthe pointthatwe count only a "minor"with two hairs,i.e., who has reachedphysicalmaturity.Thusb. and y. each ends with a story which reflectsits perspective.This agreeswith the generalobservation that gemara'schoiceand formulationof storiesformspartof its arrangementandis shapedby redactionalconsiderations.See nn. 54 and 23, to whichadd AbrahamGoldberg,"R. Ze'ira and the BabylonianCustomin the Landof Israel,"Tarbiz36 (1967):319-41, especiallypp. 327-30. See also below, the referenceto TK, 5:1275,11.18-19; and my forthcomingarticle, "RedactionalCriticismof RabbinicLiterature:The Case of Hlaninaben Dosa." On b. Ber. 47b-48a, in addition to the aforementionedworks, especiallyNabmanides, Pisqeiha-Rid,and TK,see also Eliezerb. Joel Halevi,SepherRabiah,ed. ViktorAptowitzer,4 vols. (Jerusalem,1965),1: 112-15, #128, and note, p. 490;JonahGerondi,Novellaeto Alfasi; Aaron b. Joseph HaLevi of Barcelona,Perushha-Ra'H,in RabbenuYehonatanha-Kohen ve-ha-Ra'H'al MasekhetBerakhot,ed. M. Y. Blau (New York, 1957),p. 151;and Aaron b. Jacobb. David ha-Kohen,'Orbothayyim,[PartOne](Jerusalem,1956),"Birkhatha-mazon," #39-43, pp. 76-77; and AbrahamBaer Dobsevage,Seferha-meqaref (Odessa, 1871;reprint ed., Jerusalem,1970), pp. 16-17. See also DS, 251:100-253:8;especiallythe readingsin FlorenceMS;ChanochAlbeck,Studiesin theBaraitaandTosefta(Jerusalem,1944),pp. 96-97, and Introduction, pp. 524, and 565, n. 27. If Albeck, in Seferha-'eshkol,1:41, n. 3, is correct,one of the Gaonimaddedthe clause introducingand supportingNabman'scomment. 40. See above, n. 2. 41. w'in'nvwimn•: p=nr 'i•lan•: ,3ta *rz.

16

BARUCH M. BOKSER

b. Ber. 49b-50a: SaidSamuel,Leta personneverexcludehimselffromthe community.42 y. Ber. 7:3, 11c: Samuelsaid, I do not excludemyselffromthe community.43 In their discussions of the formulae in M. Ber. 7:3A, b. and y. cite Samuel's comment. Both Babylonian and Palestinian circles believed Samuel to be punctilious as to the appropriate formula by which to summon Grace. Given this concern it is understandable that he might employ the criterion of "one's knowledge of the character of the blessing" so as to evaluate a person's fitness to summon Grace.44 Both versions of Samuel's comment thus receive support. Nalhman's tradition demonstrates an early Babylonian interest in a definition of a "minor," mentioned in M. Ber. 7:2. It is formulated in terms of the second version of Samuel's comment, D.3., and defines the end of the disqualified stage. A second independent tradition of Samuel, in b. Ber. 49b-50 and y. Ber. 7:3, 1Ic, attests that the alternative version, D.2, fits within Samuel's concerns. VII The third item which confirms our suggestion as to the original form of Samuel's comment-as a gloss on Mishnah-lies in the history of the mishnaic category "minor." Often a reference to a minor (qalan or tinoq) is subject to a comment, definition, and limitation, both within Mishnah itself and Tosefta and within gemara. We find instances where one clause of Mishnah excludes a minor from liability or permission to perform some activity.45 V 42. 55wil701IOX nX1-TX"r-1' 5XK t0555X• 'OX. nXNXYnI 43. 55wil7 -IOXY ,3,K"IOK 5XIOV.

44. For further analysis of this tradition, see Baruch M. Bokser, Samuel's Commentaryon the Mishnah, Part Two (Leiden, in press). We note that Samuel's comment does not reflect an exceptional interest in "youth." See b. Nid. 52b, where Samuel takes a lenient position in the very definition of "two hairs," the signs of "physical maturity"; b. Shab. 137b, to which see TK, 3:252 and the alternative version of the pericope in a fragment of the She'iltot, J. N. Epstein, "Sheiltot Fragments. B," Tarbiz7 (1938): 15, 11. 12-14; b. M.Q. 14b; and b. San. 54b. 45. The reference often forms part of a list of "women, minors, and slaves," as in M. Ber. 7:2. See Kasovsky, Thesaurus Mishnae, 4: 1574a-b.

A MINOR FOR ZIMMUN

17

Butanotherpassagein thatsameMishnahor oneadjoiningit, or in Tosefta limits Mishnah's rule and defines what type of minor is so excluded. Likewise a ruling excluding a minor often includes a clause modifying or defining the type of minor. There is thus no single standard as to who constitutes a "minor." Moreover, the language of the definitions is generally formulated in terms of their application and context. These examples appear throughout Mishnah and Tosefta, including, as we shall see, one in T. Ber. 5:18 which deals with M. Ber. 7:2. M. Suk. 2:8 presents a general rule followed by a limitation-definition: Women, and slaves and minors (u-qetannim)are exempt from the [requirementto have a] sukkah. And every minor (qafan)who does not need his mother [= but moves about without her] is liable as to the sukkah.46 T. Hag. 1:2-3, pp. 374-76, 11.5-22, contains eleven distinct definitions

of a "minor"tailored to differentlaws and one definitionof "majority" comprehensively formulated. Note the pattern: [If one] knows how to shake (yode'ale-na'ne'a),he is liable as to lulav,; knows how to wrap [arounda garment]he is liableas to fringes..... Knows how to watchover phylacteries,his fatherbringshim phylacteries.... Knows how to slaughter-his slaughteris valid. .. 47 Tosefta's specific principles are thus formulated in terms of whether or not a minor knows how or is able to do something.48

See the use of this criterion in T. 'Eruv. 6:12, p. 121, 11. 38-41; and TK, 3:425, and 5:1268-69. See also the references to a minor in M. Ter. 1:1, which is limited by M. Ter. 1:3 and T. Ter. 1:4, pp. 107-8, 11. 12-14 [to which see TK, 1:295]; M. Sheq. 1:3, to which see y. Sheq. 1:3, 46a; M. Suk. 3:5, where a definition is incorporated into the reference to a minor [to which see y. Suk. 3:15, 54a, TK, 5:1273, and the formulation in T. Hag. 1:2, presented below, text to n. 47]; M. Meg. 4:6 and y. Meg. 4:6, 75b; M. Hag. 1:1; M. Ket. 1:3, defined by T. Ket. 1:2, pp. 56-57, 11.10-12, which contains the question: What is a minor (female) and what is a minor (male): A minor (male)-less than nine years and one day; a minor (female)-less than thirteen years and one day; M. Git. 6:2-3 and T. Git. 4:2, pp. 260-61, 11.13-15; M. Hul. 1:1, where the "minor" is defined and limited later within M. Hul. 1:1 as well as in T. Hul. 1:3, p. 500, 1. 23-24. See also M. Nid. 5:3-9. inn =35 ri' 47. -n, ....r•,• n ,f15onnpr•• ,"n rl•n6yrn, rp,1' "1=I 'n,... n r,,n '-n, 48. Additional toseftan examples include: T. Ber. 2:13, p. 9, 11.51-55; T. 'Eruv. 6:12, p. 121, 11.39-41; T. Ket. 3:8, p. 65, 11.36-39; T. Zev. 11:6, p. 496, 11.3-5 [to which see T. Hag. 1:3]; T. 'Oholot 18:6, 8, p. 616, 11.17, 35-36; and T. Nid. 5:4, p. 645, 11.28-31; and the above cited

18

BARUCH M. BOKSER

Samuel's definition of M. Ber. 7:3 thus prima facie is not unusual. It is natural to find a definition of Mishnah's rule and it is unexceptional to find it formulated in terms of the blessing and the youth's knowledge thereof. This suggestion finds confirmation in T. Ber. 5:18 which refers to M. Ber. 7:2's mention of a "minor." VIII The fourth supplementary evidence consists of T. Ber. 5:18, p. 28, 11. 36-38: 1. A minorwho is ableto eat an olive'samount-they summonGracewith him; who cannot eat an olive's amount [= the minimumamountnecessaryto become liable to say Grace]-they do not summonGrace with him. 2. [And] they are not exactingas to a minor. 3. Whetherhe says, "Let us bless,"whetherhe says, "Bless"--theydo not seize him on that. 4. The fault-finders (ha-naqdanin) seize him on that [if he says, "Let us bless"].49

Clause 1 defines the type of minor excluded and included. Tosefta thus follows the perspective of M. Ber. 7:2, which lists disqualifications, as well

examples which define M. Ter. 1:1 (T. Ter. 1:4); M. Ket. 1:3 (T. Ket. 1:2);M. Git. 6:2-3 (T. Git. 4:2); and M. Hul. 1:1 (T. Hul. 1:3). See also T. Nazir 3:17. Moreover, we have the example of T. Ber. 5:13, which deals with M. Ber. 7:2 and upon which we focus below, text to nn. 49-52. See also Sifre Dt. #46, ed. Louis Finkelstein, Sifre on Deuteronomy(reprint ed., New York, 1969), p. 104; Mekhilta, Pisha, Bo, #3, ed. H. S. Horovitz and I. A. Rabin, Mechilta D'Rabbi Ismael (reprint ed., Jerusalem, 1960), p. 12, 11.5-6; Mekhilta de-Rashbi, Bo, to Ex. 12:4, ed. J. N. Eptstein and E. Z. Melamed, Mekhilta D'Rabbi Sim'on b. Jochai (Jerusalem, 1955), p. 10, 11. 16-19; and Sifre Zuta, Shelab, ed. H. S. Horovitz, Siphre D'Be Rab 1. Siphre ad Numeron adjecto Siphre Zutta (reprint ed., Jerusalem, 1966), p. 288, 1. 20 to p. 289, 1. 1 [which like T. Hag. 1:23, has a cluster of references with the pattern, "Whoever knows how to ... , is liable as Kol she-yode'a le- bayyav le- and "Whoever knows how to . . . is responsible ...," Kol to she-hu ....,"yode'a le- ... 'alav]. See Lieberman, Siphre Zutta, pp. 15-16. I do not include a full list of amoraic instances of definitions of a "minor." See, e.g., above n. 46, and b. 'Eruv. 82a [to which see DS, 323:5] and b. Suk. 28b [to which see DS, 84:2]. -9 ' 'iq ~n 1"nY t ni 'g1K' 49. 79l'T 1' 7 K p . Vienna MS =] 'Kl i-fY , T 'i'vq n, •'? p r'iirp [ ErfurtMS and p.e.l~ r -2 n pwrn~in flK v mn 7-9m '13nlxv r 31-13) KV 1-3 Tup23 7-gr-m nI I nY

ifliK.

See The Tosefta, 1:29, Brief Commentary, 1. 38; TK, 1:85-86, and Lieberman's reference to Sirkis, and below n. 51.

A MINOR FOR ZIMMUN

19

as its opposite,those "counted."Whileit is not formulatedas a simplegloss, Tosefta does consist of what might have circulatedas a "compositegloss." Thatis, it employsthe languageof Mishnahwith a gloss interpolatedinto it. Clause 2 deals with examininga minor, probablyas to the presenceof two hairs.50If so, its principleaccordswith that of clause 1. When a person exhibitsthe qualificationsin clause I but not clause2, the individualmay be counted. While Samuel and Tosefta may offer differentconcrete criteria, they share the notion that a child who has reacheda certain stage, even before physicalmaturity,may be counted."5Moreover,Toseftaatteststhat Mishnah'sreferenceto a "minor"becamesubjectto explanationalreadybefore Samuel'sday.52 50. See The Tosefta, 1:29, Brief Commentary; TK, 1:85 to which cf. Albeck, Studies, p. 96. See also Yom Tob Ishbili, in Ginzei rishonim, p. 502, and Moses Margalioth, Mareh hapanim, in editions of y., to y. Ber. 7:3. 51. See TK, 1:84, 1. 36, where Lieberman suggests that the definition in clause 1 deals with the youth's "knowledge." Lieberman further explains that clause 2 is a general principle. If so, it applies also to the Summons to Grace. 52. We may be able to correlate two readings of the toseftan baraita with the two basic positions as to a "minor." First, if we assume that clause two of Tosefta refers to "two hairs," which Lieberman suggests and which my text follows, Tosefta supplies a general rule: "They are not exacting as to a minor's two hairs." This does not contradict Samuel's tradition. Clause 3 deals with the proper formula, the issue which Samuel addressed. It too is not necessarily inconsistent with Samuel. While it rules that the exact formula is not critical, it does not preclude one from having a preference. Second, the above reading of Tosefta, on the other hand, does contradict the y. notion that physical maturity determines and not the requisitive knowledge. But the latter position accords with a second reading of the baraita. Some texts of y. Ber. 7:3, which cites clauses 2-3, have in clause 2, "exacting as to the matter," ba-davar, instead of be-qalan, "as to a minor." As this reading is not supported by all the witnesses of y. [not in V MS, YFG], and poses other difficulties, Lieberman has argued that it is the result of a textual or scribal mistake. See TK, 1:85. But if the L and S MSS which do have ba-davar, "in the matter," reflect an actual literary tradition, the situation would be different. We would then read clauses 2-3 as, "They are not exacting as to the matter, whether a person says, 'Let us bless,' or 'Bless.'" This rendering more strongly states that the blessing formula is neither determinative nor significant. In addition, no longer does Tosefta preclude checking for "two hairs" or other signs of physical maturity. Both of these points are important to those masters, Palestinians, who hold that a youth remains a minor until he reaches physical maturity or hold that exceptions to Mishnah's exclusion of a minor applied not to the summons of three but of ten. In the latter case alone does the youth become an adjunct. Naturally while this position accords with the "Palestinian" one, it is inconsistent with Samuel's. If we assume Babylonians and Palestinians knew the baraita, people with different interpretations of Mishnah or autonomous positions could interpret Tosefta's baraita in different ways and each could find support in it. Our argument above may correlate with the beginning of y. Ber. 7:2 which cites clause 2, alone, contains the reading be-qajan, "a minor," and reinterprets the text. Moreover, it may obviate a difficulty in b. 47b-48a. Gemara cites a tradition attributed to Yobanan which offers

BARUCH M. BOKSER

20

IX We have thus tracedthe historyof Samuel'scomment.We focusedupon its wordingand its place within its context in y. The Gen. R. parallelto y. Ber.7:2 supportsthe internalanalysisand representsan earlyrecensionof y. and of Samuel'scomment.Alreadyin this "earlier"recensiona questionto introduceSamuel'straditionappears.In the later recension,as found in y. Ber.7:2, the editorof the sugyausedthe traditionto focus on an issuewhich slightly differsand which fits into the wider topic of senif, "adjunct"-all this despitedifficultiesin chronologyand usage.BT Ber.48a atteststhatthe substanceof Samuel'scommentcirculatedas part of an early Babylonian traditionrelatingto M. Ber. 7:2. Y. Ber. 7:3 and b. Ber. 49b-50a indicate that Samuel, indeed, was concernedwith the proper formulationof the Summonsand thus it is appropriatefor him to haveuseda blessingformula to determinewhetheror not to include a minor.The usage of "minor"in Mishnahand the need in Mishnahand Toseftato define that categoryin languageappropriateto the case at hand demonstratesthat such a definition of M. Ber.7:2 would be appropriate.T. Ber.5:18finallyprovesthat the word "minor"in M. Ber. 7:2 in fact did elicit a definition. Samuel'scomment thus forms part of a concern integralto Mishnahcommentary.Assuredly,a definitionwhich specifies the type of "minor" limits Mishnah,but such limitationsare found elsewhereas well. Samuel's a criterion of physical maturity, qajanporeab. BT then as a support, tanei nammeihakhei, cites a version of T. 5:18, clauses 1-2. While clauses 2 in both are the same, the criteria in clauses 1 differ. BT's version requires that the youth have two hairs. BT follows with a question which focuses on the contradiction between the two clauses. The resolution somehow supports Yobanan's comment. Commentators differ in their analysis of the pericope and its terms. If Yohanan's baraita had ba-davarand not be-qajan, the two clauses would not contradict each other, and then clause 1 by itself could supply the support. Cf. Albeck, Studies, pp. 96-97. This analysis assumes that b. contains the version of the baraita inappropriate to Yohanan. This mistake may have been produced as part of the adaption of Yobanan's tradition to Babylonian transmissional and redactional consideration. Alternatively, if the sugya was completed with only a reference to the baraita, those who supplied the full text may have included the inappropriate version. Either way, it is the present inappropriate text which causes the exegetical problems. See Lieberman, TK, 1:84, 1. 36. As to the presence of different version of baraitot, their effect on amoraic interpretations, and mistakes in their citations, see Bokser, Samuel's Commentary, pp. 101-2, n. 280, and "Guide," ANR W, 8. D. Saul Lieberman in particular has demonstrated this phenomenon in y., e.g., Hayerushalmi kiphshuto, 1 vol. to date (Jerusalem, 1934), pp. 121, 157, and David Weiss Halivni repeatedly for b., Sources and Traditions,2 vols. to date (Jerusalem, 1968-). Our argument here accords with the existence of different Palestinian and Babylonian perspectives as to "Summons to Grace." See nn. 23 and 39 and the text thereto.

21

A MINORFOR ZIMMUN

commentmay have originatedas a gloss to Mishnah."This would explain how once it no longercirculatedas a gloss onto Mishnah,it mightrequirea question to introduceit, how it could also be appliedto new contexts, and how the change of a prepositionmight yield a change in emphasis.

X This paperhas dealt with two recensionsof a y. sugyaand, accordingly, throws light on certainwider issues. The natureof recensionsof y. plays a role in the discussionof the relationshipof y. Neziqin and the restof y. and in the natureof variationsbetweenGen. R. parallelsto y. and the versionin y. itself. Israel Lewy, Saul Lieberman,J. N. Epstein,E. S. Rosenthal,and others have focused upon the distinctiveelementsof y. Neziqin and how that orderdiffersfromthe restof y. but differas to whetherthose variations are due to differencesin chronologyand place(Lieberman)or only location One aspectof the controversyhingeson the abilityto distinguish (Epstein).54 betweentwo types of recensions.Whenare recensionsproductsof two contemporarycircles and when the results of diachronicdevelopment?This study addressesthis questionand providesone answerin the evaluationof individualpericopes,viz., to focus on the natureof the variations.Specifically, does one versionemploy a more fundamentalform and formulation

53. See n. 20 and Bokser,Samuel'sCommentary, for examplesof such a formulation. 54. Whenwe need to differentiatebetweenpossiblerecensionsof Yerushalmiand the text as preservedin printededitionsand MSS we distinctivelyemploytwo differentabbreviations. "Y" [= Yerushalmi]refersto the formerand"PT"[= PalestinianTalmud]to the latter.Otherwise we use the abbreviationsinterchangeably. In general,see Bokser,"Guide,"ANRW,chap. 12,especially12. I.e., and 3; 4, D.4; and 10.A. and D. 1. In particular,I referto the following

works: Israel Lewy, Introduction and Commentary to Talmud Yerushalmi B.Q. I-6 [from Jahresbericht des jaidisch-theologischen Seminars Fraenckel'scher Stiftung, 1895-1914] (Jerusalem, 1970); Saul Lieberman, Talmudof Caesarea [Sup. to Tarbiz2] (Jerusalem, 1931), Siphre

Zutta(New York, 1968),especiallypp. 125-36, and "A Few Wordsby Julianthe Architectof Ascalon,The Lawsof Palestineand its Customs,"Tarbiz40 (1971):409-17; Epstein,IAL, pp. 279-87, and 287-90; and E. S. Rosenthal,"Concerningthe New MS to PT Neziqin,"Paper deliveredat The SeventhWorldCongressof JewishStudies,Jerusalem,Israel,August8, 1977. This SpanishMS is EscorialG-I-3. See also Albeck,BereschitRabba,3: Introduction:66-84, and Barth,pp. 60-65, especiallythe literaturecitedin n. 68, to whichadd BaruchM. Bokser, "Two Traditions," pp. 48-52; and cf. E. Z. Melamed, An Introduction to TalmudicLiterature

(Jerusalem,1973),pp. 573-75, and EdwardA. Goldman,"ParallelTextsin the Palestinian Talmudto Genesis Rabba"(Rabbinicdiss., HebrewUnion College-JewishInstituteof Religion, 1969),on whichsee the text to nn. 65-66 below. [I thankProf.Goldmanand the HUC Libraryfor providingme with a microfilmof the last item.]

22

BARUCH M. BOKSER

of a teachingand servea functionappropriateto an earlystageof the tradition? We found that y. Ber. 7:2 differsfrom its parallelin Gen. R. 91.4 in the formulation of several traditions and clarifying comments and in the sequenceof materials.As the Gen. R. versionrepresentsa morefundamental form of the traditionand is logicallypriorto that of PT it is preferable.It may, in addition, preserve the commentarygloss-form of the tradition whichcommenteddirectlyon Mishnahitself.We, therefore,concludedthat PT adaptedthe version preservedin Gen. R.55 Contemporaryteaching and literarywork theoreticallycould produce these differentversions.But the text in PT in formulationis a reworkingand developmentof the versionin Gen. R. If Gen. R.'s y. originatesat the same time as PT, its y. portionsneverthelessare phenomenologicallyearlierthan that of PT.Thus the presentstudysupportsLieberman'scontentionthat the PT (less Neziqin) in form constitutesa reworkedversion of the materials and that other, less reworkedand thus phenomenologicallyearlierversions could have circulated. This studysupportsan additionalsuggestionof Lieberman.The manner in whichSamuel'straditionis reworkedto fit what we describedas a Palestinian perspective-vis-a-vis a Babylonianone-accords with Lieberman's view that the editors of PT reworkedthe text of PT to excludeBabylonian interpretationsof Mishnah and to place material within a Palestinian Y. Ber. 7:2 provides framework,and even revisedtraditionsaccordingly.56 an exemplaryinstanceof this processand its existenceis confirmedby the Gen. R. version.As this Palestinian"reworking"occurredafter the formation of the Gen. R. version,this refiningmustderivefromthe latterstagesof compilationand redactionof the materials,as Liebermanfurtherargues.57 The concernfor the initial functionand most fundamentalformulation of Samuel'straditionhas enabledus to posit an earlystageof a teachingincluded within gemara and of gemara itself, and which to a significant degree Gen. R. preserves.PT used and adapted this traditionto its own problematic.Accordingly,whenone evaluatesdiscretetraditionsand variations in analoguesand parallels,one can employ means to transcendthe final product. 55. See nn. 21-54 and the text thereto. 56. Lieberman, Caesarea, pp. 20-25, especially 22-23, and the quotation cited in n. 24, above. 57. Ibid. See also Bokser, "Two Traditions."

23

A MINOR FOR ZIMMUN

XI A related issue concerns the manuscript and textual history of Gen. R. and PT and addresses the problem of whether one can distinguish between

the final redactionand early scribalactivityof the text. VaticanMS 30 to Gen. R., generally considered the best text of Gen. R., like the MSS of PT, contains sections with a notation via. Gen. R. 91.4 makes up one such text. Scholars discuss the meaning of this word and the nature of passages so annotated. The sections generally constitute sugyot which are found in full elsewhere, either in that work or in a different work, but only in part in the place so annotated. At times, though, scribes later filled in the passages.58 Lieberman believes the term means "abbreviated," and that scribes abbreviated the text, so noted it, and indicated that one can find it in full in another place. Later scribes generally filled in the deleted portions, sometimes incorrectly.59Epstein renders the term as "we learned," and considers it the work of early scribes who abbreviated passages.60 Rosenthal, in an examination of Vat. 30 to Gen. R., on the other hand, believes that the term constitutes a note added by "later editors" of the text to indicate that a relevant pericope in extenso appears elsewhere. Scribes later filled in the passages.6' Moshe Assis has tried to clarify the differences between these positions, examined parallels within y., and focused on the characteristics of these copyists.62 Gen. R. 91.4, as mentioned, constitutes an instance of a via passage. Vat. MS 30 opens and closes with the wording of the beginning and end of the wider sugya and refers to its location in y. Ber.63Vat. 60 contains the best and unabbreviated version of the sugya. As noted, this accords with the

58. See the referencesto Albeck and Rosenthalin n. 22, to which add Epstein,IAL, pp. 324-30; Barth,pp. 11-12, 19, 21, 53-54; and Bokser,"Guide,"ANRW,7. 2b, and 9.A. 59. Saul Lieberman,On the Yerushalmi (Jerusalem,1929), pp. 12-13; "Emendationsin

Jerushalmi, F.b," Tarbiz5 (1933): 107-10; and Hilkhoth Ha-Yerushalmi(The Laws of the Palestinian Talmud)of Rabbi Moses ben Maimon [Texts and Studies of the Jewish Theological Semi-

nary of America, 13] (New York, 1947),"Introduction,"p. 15, n. 128. 60. Epstein,IAL, pp. 324-30. See Melamed,pp. 578-79. 61. Rosenthal. 62. Moshe Assis, "ParallelSugyotin the JerusalemTalmud"(Ph.D. diss. HebrewUniversity, 1976),passim,especiallypp. 5-13.

63. R. Simon be-shem R. Yehoshu'aben Levi R. Yose bar Sha'ul be-shem R. tinoq ve- [word left incomplete at the end of a line] 'osin 'oto senif la-'asarah kol ;tu di-verakhotshenayim befat ve-'ebhad yereq mezammeninman tenateh Rabban Sime'on ben Gamli'el, in the Sokoloff (Jeru-

salem, 1971)reprint,p. 166b. See Rosenthal,especiallyp. 312.

24

BARUCHM. BOKSER

observationthat Vat. 60 representsan earlywitnessto the text of Gen. R., second only to Vat. 30 but superiorto the London and other MSS.64 Rosenthal's theory does not best explain what we have uncovered. Accordingto his approachwe would assumethe latereditorsof Gen. R., as reflectedin Vat. 30, noted the relevanceof y. Ber.7:2, and madean annotation thereto,and a scribelater filledin the reference.This later,scribalactivity would be reflectedin the text of Vat. 60. But followingour analysis,the extant PT could not have provideda model or sourcefor Gen. R. For if so, the latterversionwould have matchedthat of PT, and not constituted,as it is, an earlierversionof y. Accordingly,followingthis approach,the "later editors,"whose notes are preservedin Vat. 30, and even the scribeswho filledin the reference,e.g., those responsiblefor the traditionrepresentedin Vat. 60, would have had to predatethe editorsof PT.65Chronologicallythis notion involves a date prior to the end of the fourth century,the conventional date for y.'s completion,if not earlier. The above difficulty is obviated accordingto the alternativetheory. Samuel'scommentand the sugyain whichit appearsdoes not forman addition to Gen. R. first pointedto by late editorsand later filled in by scribes. Ratherit forms an integralpartof Gen. R. and derivesfroma text of y. differentfrom PT. It preservesan earlierversionor recensionof the text. The 64. See n. 22. 65. Thereis also the possibilitythatthe notationsin Vatican30 comefromthosewho relied on a textof y. whichoriginatedin the earlierperiod,andwhichpredatesthe text of y. thencurrent and which is preservedin PT. The text analyzedin "Two Traditions"providesan analogueto our findings.Therewe demonstratedthat Gen. R. preservesan earlierstage of a pericopethan in y. Ber. 8:3, 12b. Samuel'straditionis inappropriatelymade dependentupon the precedingpericopewith the introductoryword, "therefore,"lefikhakh.An examinationof the MSS thereyieldsadditional information.In two locationsin Gen. R. whereSamuel'spericopeappears,VaticanMS 30 lacksthe text butotherreadings,includingVaticanMS 60 havethe "earlierrecension."In Gen. R. #11, p. 90, VaticanMS 30 lacksthe sectionalongwith the surroundingportionof Gen. R. (sections7-16). VaticanMS 60 [Makored., p. 33] and otherreadings,however,containthe appropriate language to introduce Samuel's comment, 'atya ke-, "it accords with ...."

In

Gen. R. #82, p. 996, VaticanMS 30 [Makored., p. 147] deletes (or, following Rosenthal, abbreviatesa referenceto a parallel)with a amnnotation.AgainVaticanMS 60 [Makored., p. 307] and the texts and MSS cited by Albeck have the appropriatebridginglanguage,'atyeh ki-de-Shemuel.

VaticanMS 60 thuspreservesan earlyformulation,if not recension,of a tradition.Is it not more likely that VaticanMS 30 deletedthe portionwhich VaticanMS 60 (and others)preservedthan that VaticanMS 60 later"filledin" the referencefirstnoted by the circleresponvol. 2. sible for VaticanMS 30? See Samuel'sCommentary,

A MINOR FOR ZIMMUN

25

editor of Vat. 30 abbreviatedthe section, which Vat. 60, however, preserved.66

The presentanalysishas thus enabledus betterto understandthe textual historyof Gen. R. and the characterof sectionsmarkedby the notationvii. Form criticismmay accordinglyassist not only in the exegesisand study of the history of traditionsbut also in the evaluationof the documentsthemselves.67

66. Note that Vat. MS 60, though it represents a version later than the archetype of Bereschit Rabba, preserved in Vatican MS 30, may have been written a century before Vatican 30. See Barth, pp. 83-84, and Sokoloff, Geniza Fragments. 67. I thank Professors Joseph Dan of the Hebrew University, Jacob Milgrom of the University of California at Berkeley, Jacob Neusner of Brown University, and Gary G. Porton of the University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana for their critical comments on earlier drafts of this paper.

On the Origins of the Office of Head of the Jews in the Fatimid Empire Author(s): Mark R. Cohen Source: AJS Review, Vol. 4 (1979), pp. 27-42 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486297 . Accessed: 26/06/2011 20:28 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

ON THE ORIGINS OF THE OFFICE OF HEAD OF THE JEWS IN THE FATIMID EMPIRE by MARK R. COHEN Princeton University

I Studentsof medievalNear EasternJewishhistoryhave long recognized the immediaterelevanceof Islamic legal sources delineatingthe status of dhimmis(i.e., all non-Muslimprotectedpeoples)to understandingthe position of Jews in Islamicdomains.'Jews are rarelysingledout in the sources NOTE:This paper was read at the Associationfor JewishStudies RegionalConferenceon "Aspectsof JewishLife underIslam"held at Ohio State University,May 16-17, 1976and made possible by a grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities. The researchreportedin it waspartlysupportedby grantsfromthe NationalFoundationfor Jewish Cultureand the PrincetonUniversityCommitteeon Researchin the Humanitiesand Social Sciences. 1. Sourceson the statusof the non-Muslimminoritiesare collectedand analyzedby A. S.

Tritton, The Caliphs and Their Non-Muslim Subjects: A Critical Study of the Covenantof ' Umar

(London, 1930;reprinted., London, 1970), and by Antoine Fattal, Le statutldgaldes nonMusulmans en pays d'Islam (Beirut, 1958). See also Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2d ed., s.v.

"Dhimma."For some representativesourcesin Englishtranslation,see BernardLewis,ed., Islam: From the Prophet Muhammadto the Captureof Constantinople,2 vols. (New York, 1974),

vol. 2, nos. 74 and 75.

27

28

MARK R. COHEN

relating to the legal status of the religious minorities. For instance, the extant versionsof the so-called Pact of 'Umar, the documentwhich spells out the obligationsand privilegesof the dhimmrcommunities,specifyChristians as the recipients.Hence inferencesabout the position of the Jews in Islamiclaw haveperforcehadto be drawnfromrecordsreferringto dhimmis in general, or to Christiansin particular.In a similarvein, attention has properlybeen paid to the fact that such documentsas the importantCaliphal charterfor a twelfth-centuryNestorianCatholicos,head of the principal Christiandenominationin the easternIslamiclands, shed light on the administrativerelationship between the Islamic state and the Jewish minority.2 On the otherhand,littleconsiderationhas beengivento the comparative valueof sourcesrelatingto the innerlife of the Christiancommunitiesliving in the medievalMuslimorbit. To a largedegree,this is becauseJewishhistorians,rightlyconvincedof the essentialautochthonyof Jewishcommunal institutions, have not deemed Oriental Christianitydirectly pertinentto their concerns. Perhaps, too, the knowledge that in medieval Europe Judaismwas subjugatedby the Churchhas obscuredthe fact that, in the medievalIslamicworld,Jewsand Christianswerebrethrenin theirminority status, enduring identical statutory disabilities, suffering equally from periodic oppressive enforcement of these measures, and living in selfgoverningcommunitieswhich constituted somethinglike minority states within a state. It should be noted, too, that historiansof EasternChristianity, being primarilyinterestedin questionsof doctrine, faith, and liturgy, have not produced a significantliteratureon the internal politics of the Orientaldenominationsfrom which Jewish historiansmight have gained some comparativeinsight. In fact, the broad autonomywhich Muslimrulersconcededto the protected minoritiesencouragedthe growthof complexsystemsof Jewishand Christianself-governmentwith many parallelinstitutionalfeatures.3There is good reason, therefore,to expect the comparativestudy of non-Muslim communitiesto yield fruitfulresultsin selected areas. 2. Salo W. Baron, A Social and Religious History of the Jews, 2d ed., 16 vols. to date (New York and Philadelphia, 1952-), 5: 6-7. See Alphonse Mingana, "A Charter of Protection Granted to the Nestorian Church in A.D. 1138, by Muktafi II, Caliph of Baghdad," Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 10 (1926): 127-33. 3. See S. D. Goitein, A MediterraneanSociety: The Jewish Communitiesof the Arab World as Portrayed in the Documents of the Cairo Geniza, 3 vols. (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1967-78). 2: 1ff. (hereafter Med. Soc.).

HEAD OF THE JEWS IN FATIMID EMPIRE

29

II An opportunityto undertakesuch an inquirypresentsitselffor medieval Egypt. Under Islam, the governmentrecognizedthe Patriarchof Alexandria, whose office went back to early Christiantimes, as the head of the or Coptic,minority.His Jewishcounterpartfromsome Egyptian-Christian, time in the Fatimidperiod(969-1171) until the Ottomanconquestof Egypt at the beginningof the sixteenthcenturywas a dignitaryknownin Arabicas the Ra'is al-Yahfid,"Headof the Jews."Controversyshroudsthe originsof the office of Head of the Jews becausescholarshave tendedto confusethe institutionwith the Hebrewtitle of Nagid, "Prince,"by which the Heads were consistentlyknown after the Fatimidperiod, and becausethe Jewish sources which shed light on the genesis of the office are contradictory. The principal historical account of the origins of the "Nagidate" is found in the Hebrew chronicle of the seventeenth-centuryEgyptianJewishhistorian,Joseph b. Isaac Sambari.4A somewhatshorterversionof the same event exists in a legal responsumissuedby the chief rabbiof Cairo in the first half of the sixteenthcentury, R. David Ibn Abi Zimra.5This fancifuland stereotypicstory attributesthe installationof the firstEgyptian Nagid to a request by an Abbasid princess,the new bride of a Fatimid Caliph of Egypt, that her husbandimport from Iraq a Jew of Davidic descent to rule over the Jews of Egypt in the manner of the Babylonian Exilarch,that scion of the house of King David whom the Abbasidsrecognized as the chief of Jewryin their realm.6The traditionpreservedin these late sourcesfinds apparentsupportin the descriptionof Paltielb. Shephatiah, the trusted retainerof the Fatimid conquerorof Egypt, al-Mu'izz, which is found in the famousMegilla,or Chronicle,of (completed Ah.imaaS characterizes in 1054). This hagiographicportrait of Abimaa?'sancestor

4. Adolph Neubauer, ed., Mediaeval Jewish Chronicles, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1887-95), 1: 115-17. 5. David b. Solomon Ibn Abi Zimra, She'elot u-teshuvot ha-RaDBaZ (reprint ed., New York, 1967), vol. 3, no. 944 (509); cf. also vol. 2, no. 622. 6. The legendary character of Sambari's story was convincingly demonstrated by David Neustadt (Ayalon), "Some Problems concerning the 'Negidut' in Egypt during the Middle Ages" [Hebrew], Zion 4 (1938-39): 126-34. The motif of a Jewish noble summoned by a gentile ruler and invested with authority over a Jewish community in his realm appears in other medieval Jewish "religious foundation stories"; see Abraham Ibn Daud, Sefer ha-Qabbalah, ed. and trans. Gerson D. Cohen (Philadelphia, 1967), p. 79 and especially Cohen's comments on pp. 138-39 (supplementary note to line 297).

30

MARKR. COHEN

Paltielas the leaderof FatimidJewryand associatesthe title "Nagid"with his name in three places.7 The hithertoprevalenthypothesisaboutthe originsof the Nagidicoffice, as characteristicallyformulatedby Jacob Mann over a half centuryago, rests on the Sambari-IbnAbi Zimra narrativeand on the memorialpanegyric to Paltiel. It states that the Fatimidsfounded the institutionshortly after conqueringEgypt in 969 as part of their well-knownanti-Abbasid foreign policy. From his new capital of Cairo, the Fatimid sovereign decidedto appointa chiefover the local Jewishminoritywho would receive the homage formerlypaid to the Exilarchin Abbasid Baghdad.8 Voluminousdata on Jewishself-governmentin Fatimid Egypt is available in the documentsand lettersemanatingfrom the Cairo Geniza-that precioushoard of discardedpaperswhich has been so profitablyexploited by Jewish scholars since its retrievalfrom a medieval synagoguein Old Cairo at the end of the nineteenthcentury.Informationon the office of Head of the Jews in these recordscontradictsthe prevalenthypothesis.As S. D. Goitein has shown, prior to the emergenceof the prominentcourt physicianand Nagid Judahb. Saadyain the 1060s,fully a centuryafterthe Fatimid conquest, neither the title of Nagid nor a person exercisinghis powersappearsin the Geniza recordsfor Egypt. In additionto this revealing silence, positive Geniza evidence proves that originallythe Fatimids recognizedthe Gaon, or head, of the Jerusalemyeshivaas chief of the Jews in their empire. In the light of these findings,Goitein has arguedthat the officeof Head of the Jewsdid not come into beinguntilthe finalthirdof the eleventhcenturyand that it arose, not to servethe interestsof the Fatimid state, but ratherto replacethe PalestinianGaonate,whichentereda precipitous decline in the seventh decade of the eleventhcentury.9 7. The text of MegillatAbimaaSwas firstpublishedby Neubauerin his MediaevalJewish Chronicles,2: 111-32. The "life"of Paltielbeginson p. 125. "Nagid"passages:ibid., p. 125, line 26; p. 129,line 9; p. 131,line 1;cf. also p. 130,line4 andNeubauer'snote 2. For a critique of the Paltielevidencesee Neustadt,"Some Problems,"pp. 135-43. 8. Jacob Mann, The Jews in Egypt and in Palestine under the Fdlimid Caliphs, 2 vols.

(Oxford, 1920-22; reprinted., 2 vols. in one, New York, 1970), 1: 251-57. JewishQuarterly 9. S. D. Goitein,"TheTitle and Officeof the Nagid:A Reexamination," Review,n.s. 53 (1962-63): 93-119; Med. Soc.., 2: 23-40. The importantGeniza document provingthat the Fatimidsoriginallyrecognizedandcharteredthe PalestinianGaon as headof the Jews in their domain was publishedand analyzedby Goitein in Eretz-Israel10 (1971): 100-6, and translatedby him into Englishin "New Sourceson the PalestinianGaonate,"in Salo WittmayerBaron Jubilee Volume, ed. Saul Lieberman in association with Arthur Hyman,

3 vols. (Jerusalem,1974),Englishsection, 1: 523-25. Cf. also Med. Soc., 2: 16-17.

HEAD OF THE JEWS IN FATIMIDEMPIRE

31

Whilethe revisionisthypothesisdoes not excludethe possibilityof a role for externalinfluences,the characteristicallyfragmentaryGeniza information upon whichit is groundedfails to disclosewhat partcontemporaneous Fatimid realities might have played. Certainlythat is one of the reasons why, persuasiveas the theory is, especiallywith regardto its compelling chronologicalfindings, it has met with resistanceamong adherentsof the older hypothesis, who, clinging tenaciouslyto a "kernel of truth" in the Sambarisaga, havecontinuedto defendthe admittedlyplausiblereconstruction whichplacesinitiativesquarelyin the handsof the Fatimidconquerors of Egypt in the middle of the tenth century.'0 Reconciliationbetween these conflictingapproachesto the problemof the originsof the office of Head of the Jews might be achievedby considering Fatimidpolitical history duringthe latter part of the eleventhcentury and the early years of the twelfth. Islamic sources reveal that the very decadeswhichwitnessedthe erosionof the Palestinianacademyand the rise of the Headshipof the Jewssaw dramaticchangesin the Fatimidsetting-a decadeand a half of economichardship(includinga debilitatingseven-year long famine),politicalanarchy,and imperialattritionin the 1060sand early 1070s,followed by a dictatorshipof the strong-armedmilitaryviziers,Badr al-Jamali(1074-94), and his son, al-Afdal(1094-1121)." It is not unlikely that externalevents and the attitudeof the rulersof Egypthad some effect on the central administrationof Jewish affairs. For instance, as is well known,when the conqueringSeljukTurksended the nominalFatimidcontrol over the provinceof Syria-Palestinein 1071,the leadershipof the Palestinian yeshiva was compelledto flee from Jerusalemto Tyre. In this connection, it has not been previouslynoted that a year earlierthe important commercialport of Tyrehad successfullydivesteditself of Fatimiddomination. Indeed,from 1071until 1089,underthe ruleof a local familyof qadis, 10. See EliyahuAshtor, "Some Featuresof the JewishCommunitiesin MedievalEgypt"

[Hebrew], Zion 30 (1965): 141-47; H. Z. Hirschberg, A History of the Jews in North Africa, 2d

rev. ed. trans.from the Hebrew,1 vol. to date (Leiden,1974), 1: 205ff.Cf. also Encylopaedia Judaica(Jerusalem,1971),s.v. "Nagid":"Most scholarsacceptthe view that the firstnagidof EgyptianJewrywas Paltiel,an ItalianJew who was broughtto Egyptby al-Mu'izz,the Fatimid conquerorof Egypt(969), and was partof the ruler'sofficialdom.. .; it standsto reason that the Shi'iteFatimids,who decreedthemselvescaliphs,did not wish to dependin any way upon the SunniteAbbasidcaliphs,preferringto appointa separatehead for the Jews under their ruler,ratherthan have them acknowledgethe authorityof the Babylonianexilarch,an officialwho was part of the Abbasidhierarchy." 11. See, for instance, Stanley Lane-Poole, A History of Egypt in the Middle Ages, 2d ed.

(London, [1913];reprinted., New York, 1969),pp. 143-57, 160-65.

32

MARK R. COHEN

the seacoast town maintainedits independencefrom Cairo while paying tribute to the occupying Seljuk rulers.12 Presumablythe removal of the PalestinianGaonateto rebelliousTyrehad some effecton Fatimidthinking about the location and structureof Jewishcentralgovernment. III We are in a somewhatbetter position to assess the impact of current events on minorityself-governmentduringthis periodthanksto the availability of an extremelyvaluablesourcepertainingto the Egyptian-Christian community: the Christian-Arabicchronicle of the lives of the Coptic Patriarchs, Ta'rtkh baldrika al-kanmsa al-migriyya, the History of the Patriarchs of the Egyptian Church.'3Begun in the late tenth century by the

prolific bishop of Ashmunayn, Sawirus (Severus) Ibn al-Muqaffa' (d. between 979 and 1003), who traced the history of the Patriarchaloffice down to the year880, the workwas resumedby continuatorsin the eleventh century.'14Informationfor the secondhalf of the eleventhand the firstthree decadesof the twelfth centuriesis particularlyrich and reliable.The compiler of the vitae of PatriarchsChristodulos (1074-77) and Cyril II (1078-92) was a contemporaryof theirs, an Alexandriandeacon named MawhfibIbn Manfir. Mawhfibwas a retainerof Christodulos'5and also had reliableinformantsfor both his andCyril'sreigns.'6For the period 1092 to 1128, comprising the Patriarchatesof Michael IV (1092-1102) and MacariusII (1102-28), we have the words of anothereyewitness,John Ibn Sa'id al-Qulzumi,who was intimatelyinvolved in church politics of the 12. Ibn al-Qalinisi, Dhail ta'rikh Dimashq [History of Damascus 363-555 A.H.],ed. H. F. Amedroz (Leiden, 1908), pp. 98, 120. 13. The work is accessible in an excellent new edition by a team of learned scholars, published by the Society of Coptic Archaeology in Cairo. Relevant to our period are vol. 2, pt. 3, ed. and trans. Aziz Suryal Atiya et al. (Cairo, 1959) (hereafter Patriarchs, 23) and vol. 3, pt. 1, ed. and trans. Antoine Khater and 0. H. E. [Khs-]Burmester (Cairo, 1968) (hereafter Patriarchs, 3'). Citations below are to the pages of the English translation. Readers can locate Arabic passages easily by referringto the manuscript folio pages given in the margins. In quotations a few stylistic changes have been made where the printed rendition has appeared somewhat stilted. 14. On the work and its authors, see Otto F. A. Meinardus, Christian Egypt: Faith and Life (Cairo, 1970), pp. 203, 211. On Ibn al-Muqaffa' see Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2d ed., s.v. "Ibn Christian al-Mulaffa'," and F. R. Farag, "The Technique of Research of a Tenth-Century Arab Writer: Severus Ibn al-Muqaffa'," Le museon 86 (1973): 37-66. 15. Patriarchs, 23: 279-80. 16. Ibid., pp. 298, 303, 313, 351.

HEAD OF THE JEWS IN FATIMID EMPIRE

33

period. Ibn al-Qulzumi,who had also been close to PatriarchsChristodulos and Cyril II, even glossed the "history"of MawhobIbn ManSarin a few places,addingsupplementarydirecttestimonyto certainevents." Data from these contemporaryaccounts of the vicissitudesof the Coptic Patriarchatein the last part of the eleventhand the beginningof the twelfthcenturies offer valuableclues as to the externalcircumstancessurroundingthe establishmentof the new office of Head of the Jews and, at the same time, provide indirect corroborationof the late eleventh century dating of the origins of this institution."' Throughthe eyes of MawhobIbn Manfir and John Ibn $S'id we learn that the decadesbetweenabout 1050and 1130witnessedan historictransformation in the ruling institution of the Coptic church. External and internal factors precipitatedthe change. Until the middle of the eleventh century,the Patriarchgovernedthe Egyptianchurchfromhis ancientseatin Alexandria,the center of EgyptianChristianity.In the reign of Christodulos, however,the PatriarchabandonedAlexandriafor Cairo as a result of a concatenation of crises. Early in his reign, Christodulosfled from Alexandriato Damrfi,a city in the Delta, followingan unsuccessfulcoup by some bishops.'9During the 1050s,deterioratingrelationswith the Fatimid vizieral-Ydaziri(1050-58) createda new set of problemsfor the head of the Coptic minority.Accused of orderingthe King of Nubia, a countryunder his ecumenicalsway,to suspendtributepaymentsto the FatimidCaliph,the Patriarchwas for a time imprisoned.20Then, in 1057,a generalpersecution of Copts erupted when a vindictiveqadi libeled the Patriarchbefore the vizier,claimingthat the new Copticcapitalin Damri constitutedan ostentatious affront to Islam.21 Yazfiri'spassage from the scene in 1058 did not lessen Christodulos's tribulations.During the Fatimid crisis of the 1060s, law and order broke down in the EgyptianDelta underthe weightof raidsby maraudingLewiti 17. Ibid., pp. 369-70; 31: 12; cf. below n. 42. Glosses:ibid., 23:285, 365-69. 18. In the absenceof a substantialmoderntreatmentof the political vicissitudesof the Copticminorityunderthe FatimidCaliphs,the narrativepresentedbelowhas had to be reconstructeddirectlyfrom the primarysource.Reflectingin 1968on the state of Coptichistorical scholarship,Aziz S. Atiya (A Historyof EasternChristianity[London,1968],pp. 14-15) commented:"On the whole, it may be said at thisjuncturethat the definitiveand comprehensive historyof the Copticchurchis still pending.Its sourcematerialis only partlypublished,and Coptic archaeologicalresearchis in its infancy." 19. Patriarchs, 23: 260-62.

20. Ibid., pp. 263-64. 21. Ibid.,pp. 267-71, 303-4. On the persecution,see also Lane-Poole,Egypt,pp. 143-44.

34

MARKR. COHEN

Berber tribesmen. The large Coptic population of the Lower Egyptian countryside-the Rif-suffered particularlyseverely.Their farmlandswere plundered,Coptic monasterieswere pillaged, and monks were ruthlessly massacred.22PatriarchChristoduloshimself was kidnapped and cruelly tortured.23 Instilledwith an understandablesenseof insecurity,the Patriarch abandonedDamri for the relativesafetyof the Egyptiancapital.24His move took place around 1070,as we are able to inferon the basis of allusionsto datableIslamicevents.2sThoughthis changeof venuewould appearto have been intendedonly as a temporaryexpedient,it was soon convertedinto permanentreality as a result of outside pressures. At the close of 1073, not long after Christoduloshad arrivedin Old Cairo, Badral-Jamili was summonedto the Fatimidcapitalfrom his post as militarygovernorof Acre in Palestineto restoreorder to the tottering Fatimid Caliphate.After swiftly liquidatingthe sources of anarchy,Badr held on to the reinsof powerand ruledautocraticallybut effectivelyuntilhis death in 1094.26

The Coptic hierarchywas deeplyaffectedby the authoritarianregimeof

22. Patriarchs, 23:314-15.

23. Ibid., p. 279. 24. Ibid., p. v (editors'introduction). 25. The History of the Patriarchs (23: 312-13) describes an attempted coup against

PatriarchChristoduloswhich was perpetratedby a monk namedJacob.The latteris said to have solicitedand obtainedthe supportof NdSiral-Dawla Ibn Iamddn, the strong-armed of the Turkishregimentin the Fatimidarmywho virtuallyruledin the commander-in-chief Egyptiancapitalbeginningin 1067.In 1069internecineconflictwithintheTurkishranksforced NaSir al-Dawla to flee to Alexandria,where he openly rebelledagainst the Caliphate;see al-Maqrizi,Itti'd; al-bunafd',ed. Jamil al-Din al-Shayydl,3 vols. (Cairo, 1967-73), 2: 275-76, 278-97, 302-3; Ibn Muyassar, Akhbdr Migr (Annales d'Egypte), ed. Henri Mass6 source,the would-beusurper, (Cairo, 1919),pp. 17-20. Accordingto our Egyptian-Christian the monkJacob,diedin Alexandriawhileawaitingthe arrivalof NaSiral-DawlaIbn "so that he [i.e., Ndsir]mightdo for him [i.e., Jacob]what he had promisedhim"(Patriarchs, H.amddn 23:313).Shortlythereafterthe MuslimgeneralreachedAlexandria,where"hispositionbecame so greatthat he was addressedas our lordal-Nasir"(ibid.),an allusionto his openrebellionin 1069in the port city. Two paragraphslaterthe Copticchroniclerreturnsto his main subject: "As regardsthe fatherChristodulos,he went, after the death of Abba Jacob, the monk, to [Old] Cairo and remainedthere a long time until the honored Amir al-Juyfish[i.e., Badr reachedEgyptat al-Jamili]arrivedin Egyptfrom Acre"(ibid., p. 314). SinceBadr-al-Jamali the end of 1073 (Ibn Muyassar,pp. 22-23), we may confidentlyfix the date of Patriarch Christodulos'sarrivalin the Egyptiancapitalaround1070. 26. For two surveys of Badr's rule and accomplishmentssee Lane-Poole,Egypt, pp.

150-54, 161, and Gaston Wiet, L'Egypte arabe de la conquete arabe d la conquete ottomane 642-1517 de I'ere chretienne, vol. 4 of Histoire de la nation egyptienne, ed. Gabriel Hanotaux

(Paris,n.d.), pp. 245-54.

HEAD OF THE JEWS IN FATIMID EMPIRE

35

Badral-Jamili. A startlinginstanceof Fatimidinterventionin innerecclesiastical affairs occurredin 1086. Respondingto a petition to resolve a factional dispute in the church, Badr commanded the Patriarchand the Egyptianbishopsto assemblein the capital.The resultingconclavehad the appearanceof a veritablesynod. The viziersummonedthe delegatesto his residence outside the capital and upbraidedthem for quarrelingamong themselves.He then orderedthem to preparecanons for his perusal,evidently meaningto use them in adjudicatingthe conflict. Each of the rival factions dutifullywithdrewto formulateits precepts.However,when they reconvenedat the vizier'sresidence,Badr,apparentlyno longerinterestedin the details of their dissension, dismissedthem with a curt exhortationto makepeaceand to abideby the canonsthey hadjust compiled.27In fact,the set of ordinancesdrawnup by the PatriarchCyril at Badral-Jamali'sinstigation was subsequentlyincorporatedinto Coptic Canon Law.28 Foreigndifficultiesprovidedaddedpretextfor Badral-Jamali'sinvasion of the preserveof Copticself-government.Duringhis administration,Egypt was faced with anti-Muslimaggressionin the tributarykingdomsof Nubia and Abyssinia, Monophysite lands ruled ecclesiasticallyby the Coptic Patriarch.In 1076,for example,Badrreceivedword that the Metropolitan of the Nubian church, an appointee of Christodulos,had destroyed a mosque. In retaliation,the vizier had the Patriarchincarceratedand only releasedhim when the charge was shortly thereafterproven false.29 Evidently anticipating, or perhaps responding to, rebelliousnessin ChristianAbyssinia, Badr once pressuredChristodulos'ssuccesor, Cyril II, to consecrate as Metropolitanof the Ethiopian church a candidate namedSeverus,who had promisedthe vizierthat he would maintaina flow of gifts to the Fatimidcourt and encouragethe Abyssinianking to be loyal to Cairo.30Subsequently,the brotherof MetropolitanSeverusarrivedin Cairo with a present which failed to satisfy the vizier. Badr swiftly summoned PatriarchCyril and held him accountablefor this breachof good faith, notwithstandingthe protestationsof the Patriarch'secclesiasticalsecretarythat the incumbentMetropolitanhad beenappointedby commandof 27. Patriarchs, 23: 332-40. 28. 0. H. E. Burmester, "The Canons of Cyril II, LXVII Patriarch of Alexandria," Le museon 46 (1936): 245-88. 29. Patriarchs, 23: 316-18. The event took place "when Amir al-Juyfish was on his journey to Upper Egypt to conquer it," an allusion to Badr's punitive expedition in 1076 against rebellious Arab tribesmen. See Lane-Poole, Egypt, p. 151, and Maqrizi, Itti'd; al-bunafd', 2: 316. 30. Patriarchs, 23: 329.

36

MARKR. COHEN

the vizierhimself.Anotherproblemin the south, reportedattackson Egyptian merchantstraveling through the Ethiopian realm, particularlydisturbed the vizier. Accordingly,he demandedthat the Patriarchuse his influenceto put an end to such hostile acts.3' Badr al-Jamali's interventionist relationship toward the Coptic Patriarchderivedin part from principlesinherentin generalIslamicpolicy towardthe dhimmts.RespectfulconducttowardMuslimsand Islamwas one of the key obligationswhichthe Pact of 'Umarimposedupon the protected peoples.32Indeed, long before Badr al-Jamaliarrived on the scene, the Fatimidauthoritieshad translatedthis requirementinto a responsibilityof the Gaon of Jerusalem,one writteninto his governmentalletterof appointment.33At the same time, however,Badr'sunusuallydirectinterventionin ecclesiasticalaffairs doubtless had an immediate,pragmaticmotivation. Followingmore than a decadeof domesticanarchyand foreigncrisis, the man who single-handedlyhad restoredorder out of chaos was naturally anxious to exploit every opportunityto discouragediscord at home, even among his Christiansubjects,and to exploit the ecumenicalpower of the Coptic Patriarchateto check anti-Muslimsentimentsabroad. A by-productof the vizier'spragmaticpoliticswas the permanentestablishmentof the Coptic Patriarchatein the Egyptiancapital. Mawhib Ibn Manfir relatesthe followingabout PatriarchCyrilII: "He used to long to live in the Rif [i.e., the lower Egyptiancountryside]but was not able [to do so] on account of the many messengerstravelingto and from the lands of Abyssiniaand Nubia, and becausethe Sultan[i.e., Badral-Jamali]required that he should presenthimselfto him at all times."34Elsewhere,MawhCib recordsthat, beforeleavingthe Egyptiancapitalto consecratenewchurches in the Rif, Cyrilhad first to obtain the permission(istidhdn)of the vizier.35 Mawhib's reliabletestimonyindicatesthat the permanentemplacement of the Patriarchatein Cairohad its roots in Fatimidpolicy and, at the same

31. Ibid., pp. 347-56. 32. See the texts includedin Lewis'santhology,cited above, n. 1. 33. See the last three referencesgiven in n. 9, above. 34. Patriarchs,23:327-28. "Sultan"is used explicitlyof the vizier Badr al-Jamili,e.g., ibid., p. 337 (cf. p. 33). This Copticusageprovidesadditionalsupportto D. S. Richards'scontentionthat the title "Sultan"in a petitionto the Fatimidsfromthe monksof St. Catherine's monasteryin the Sinai peninsularefersto the vizier, ratherthan to the Caliph, reflecting popularparlance;D. S. Richards,"A FdtimidPetitionand 'SmallDecree'fromSinai,"Israel Oriental Studies 3 (1973): 145. 35. Patriarchs, 23: 334.

HEAD OF THE JEWS IN FATIMID EMPIRE

37

time,hintsat thereasonwhy.AfterarrivinginCairoaround1070,ecumeni-

cal contractsbetweenthe Coptic Patriarchand his Monophysitedaughter churchesto the south increased.Badr al-Jamili encouragedthis growth in diplomaticactivityin the interestsof Fatimidforeignpolicy. Evidentlywishing to institutionalizethis new-foundprocedurefor negotiatingwith Nubia and Abyssinia,the viziermadethe CopticPatriarcha regularmemberof the Fatimidcourt and, thereby,forced him to take up his permanentabode in Cairo.As a result,the Patriarchaloffice becamedissociatedfromprovincial Alexandriaand increasinglytied to the center of Egyptiangovernment. Under Badr al-Jamili's son and successor, al-Af4al, the Patriarchate became irreversiblyweddedto its new domicile.The viceroytook steps to assurethis development.In 1102, the newly-chosenPatriarchMacariusII was about to departfrom Cairo for Alexandriato participatein the traditional consecrationceremonyin the ancient PatriarchalSee. He appeared before al-Af4al in the companyof a prominentCoptic governmentofficial who, pleadingpovertyon behalfof the Patriarch,receivedfromthe vizieran exemptionfor the holy fatherfrom the taxes traditionallycollected by the governorof Alexandriafromeach new Patriarch.36 Obviously,Macariusfelt entitledto this reliefsincehe no longerresidedin the port city. For his part, al-Af4al was doubtlessinclinedto grantthe petitionerhis requestout of the same pragmaticconsiderationsthat had motivatedhis father to wean the Patriarchaway from his ancient seat. Like his father, al-Af4al, too, intervenedin ecclesiasticalaffairswhere Fatimid foreign policy was at stake. In 1101, when the King of Abyssinia dispatchedan emissaryto al-Af4alrequestingthat a new Metropolitanover the Ethiopian church be designated, the viceroy summoned Patriarch Michael IV and directedhim to comply at once. When, shortlythereafter, the newlyinstalledprelatefell into disgraceover some indiscretionand was sent back to Egypt by the EthiopianKing, al-Af4al summarilythrew the man into prison.37We may imaginethat al-Af4al took this action in order to cool the anger of the Abyssinian ruler and prevent the kind of antiEgyptian outbursts which had plagued the reign of Badr al-Jamaliand which certainlyhovered before the eyes of the latter's son. To judge from the History of the Patriarchs,the heads of the Coptic churchofferedlittle resistanceto the radicalalterationin their lives and to

36. Ibid., 3': 4-6. 37. Ibid., 23: 394-95.

38

MARK R. COHEN

the new relationshipwith the Fatimidauthorities.Presumablythey recognizedthat directaccessto the corridorsof Islamicpowerhad distinctadvantages. The Nestorian Catholicosand the Jewish Exilarchhad unquestionably moved their respectiveseats of governmentfromthe Sassaniancapital of Ctesiphonto the new Abbasidcapitalof Baghdadwith these very considerations in mind.38Similar strategy probably induced the head of the yeshiva of Pumbeditato imitatetheir exampleat the end of the ninth centurywhenthe AbbasidCaliphsreturnedto Baghdadaftertheirhalf-century So, too, with the Coptic Patriarchs.At a time long sojourn in Samarra.39 when Fatimid central governmentwas being restoredto vigor following years of impotence,the heads of the Coptic churchcould hardlyresistthe invitationto become associatedwith the architectsof Cairo's resurgence. As the relationshipbetweenthe Patriarchand the Fatimidviziersgrew closer, a significantrestructuringof politicalpowerwithinthe See of Cairo unfolded.Becausethe Patriarchhad alwaysresidedin Alexandria,the task of representingCoptic ecclesiasticalinterestsbeforethe Muslimauthorities had traditionallybeen sharedby the bishopof Cairo and the Coptic Kitibs (civil servants).As a result,the bishop of Cairoboastedan exaltedposition withinthe episcopalranks.In a letterto the Patriarchdefendingtheirspecial status amongecclesiasticaldistricts,the Copts of Cairo protested:"this See does not follow the same course as the other southernand northernSees, becausein it arethe archonsof Cairoand its leadersand the Copticnotables and chiefs [ru'asd;]who are the scribes of the state [kuttdbal-dawla]and the servants of the kingdom. In addition, their bishop must at all times be present in attendance on the reigning king."'40

Once the Patriarchbecameensconcedin the capital, however,and assumedhis new role as guarantorof Christianloyaltyto the Fatimidstate at home and abroad,it was inevitablethat the bishop of Cairoshould lose his former prestige. Indeed, John Ibn Sa'id al-Qulzumidescribesfrom first-

38. Baron, Social and Religious History of the Jews, 2d ed., 5: 7. 39. This suggestion about the return from Samarra is made by Heribert Busse, Chalifund Grossk6nig: Die Buyiden in Iraq (945-1055) (Beirut, 1969), p. 485, in his chapter on the Jews, noting that the head of the Nestorian church moved to Baghdad at that time (cf. also p. 455). As his source for the relocation of Pumbedita, Busse cites Jacob Mann, "The Last Geonim of Sura," Jewish Quarterly Review, n.s. 11 (1920-21): 420 and idem, "Addenda to 'The Responsa of the Babylonian Geonim as a Source of Jewish History,' " ibid., p. 435, wherein Mann comments only that "the reason for this change of residence is not known." Busse's plausible proposal demonstrates the usefulness of the comparative approach to non-Muslim communal history. 40. Patriarchs, 3': 13 (emphasis added).

HEAD OF THE JEWS IN FATIMID EMPIRE

39

handobservationa protractedstrugglefor powerwithinthe See of Cairo which ended in the triumphof the Patriarch.During his reign, Patriarch Michael IV (1092-1102) forced the bishop of Cairo into political exile at least twice and even attempted,albeitunsuccessfully,to subvertthe bishop's time-honoredprerogativeto be the patron of the venerableChurchof St. Sergius in Fustat.4'Upon the death of the incumbentbishop of Cairo in May, 1117,PatriarchMacariusactuallydelayeddesignatinga successorfor a year, rightlygeneratingsuspicionsthat he intendedto abolishthe bishopric altogether.42 Thoughhe was finallypressuredinto consecratingJohn son of Sanhuitas Cairenebishop in 1118, the appointmenthad little practical significance.By the time of the reignof Macarius,the bishop of Cairo had forfeited to the Patriarchall the trappingsof office which had once rendered his position special. Symbolically,it was the Patriarchand not the bishop who joined the Coptic katibs in payinghomageto al-Aft1al'ssuccessor as vizierin 1122.43If, as appearsto be the case, no voices of opposition wereheardin 1134when PatriarchGabrielIbnTuraikfailedto installa new bishop for Cairo upon the deathof John son of Sanhit in that year,44it was undoubtedlybecauseby then the Patriarchhad thoroughlysupplantedhim.

IV The history of the establishmentof the Coptic Patriarchatein the Fatimid capitalduringthe latterthirdof the eleventhcenturypresentsa remarkable parallelto the contemporaneousshift of Jewishself-governmentfrom Jerusalemto Cairo. It is difficultto imaginethat these two events are not related in some manner. To be sure, the initial stimulus for the transferenceof central Jewish administrationfrom Palestineto Egyptcame fromwithin.With the decline 41. Ibid., 23: 385-88, 395-97. On the Church of St. Sergius, see Otto F. A. Meinardus, Christian Egypt: Ancient and Modern (Cairo, 1965), pp. 188-90. 42. The correspondence between the Patriarch and the Cairenes concerning this matter, from which the passage quoted above was taken, has been preserved in the History of the Patriarchs of the Egyptian Church(3': 11-32). This is thanks to the happy coincidence that the compiler of Macarius's vita, John Ibn Sa'id al-Qulzumi, was also the scribe who wrote the epistles on behalf of the Cairenes and received (and preserved) the Patriarch's replies. Together, these letters provide a fascinating glimpse of inner church politics, one which is thoroughly reminiscent of the quarrels depicted in so many Geniza letters. Their data further attest to the possibilities inherent in the comparative approach to non-Muslim communal history. 43. Ibn Muyassar, p. 62 (top). 44. Patriarchs, 3': 43.

40

MARK R. COHEN

of the Jerusalemacademyin the 1060s,its exile to Tyre in the wake of the Seljukinvasionof 1071,and the immigrationof largenumbersof Palestinian Jews to Egyptduringand afterthe Seljukonslaught,EgyptianJewrynaturally began to assert its independence. WhenBadral-Jamilitook powerin Cairoin 1074,Egyptalreadyhad its first Nagid in the personof the court physicianJudahb. Saadya.Nevertheless, it is not at all certainthat Judahb. Saadyaheld the Fatimidtitle Ra'is This claim can, however,be made with confidencefor Judah's al-Yahfid.45 Mevorakh b. Saadya,who succeededhim around1078.46In fact, it brother, is unlikelythat an officiallyrecognizednew office, replacingthe Palestinian 45. The earliest dated reference in an Islamic source to the title rats al-yahad known to me is the above-mentioned (n. 43) passage in Ibn Muyassar's chronicle depicting the inaugural reception for al-AftIal's successor as vizier in 1122. The ra'Tsal-yahad and the Jewish kitibs followed immediately behind their Coptic counterparts in the procession of well-wishers. The only extant formulary for the appointment of a ra'Fsal-yahtid bearing an indication of date is from the Ayyubid period (cf. C. E. Bosworth, "Christian and Jewish Religious Dignitaries in Mamluk Egypt and Syria: Qalqa'shandi's Information on their Hierarchy, Titulature, and Appointment," International Journal of Middle East Studies 3 [1972]: 211-14). In the Geniza documents, the holders of many offices and leadership positions are designated ra'ts, reflecting the extreme flexibility of the term in Islamic society. Problematically, the Heads of the Jews in Egypt are almost always called in the Geniza by the nebulous shorthand, ra'Ts(or, as it is usually spelled, rayyis), which could allude to their official Fatimid title, to their leadership status in general, or to any one of a number of titles or categories with which ra'Tswas associated. In all the Geniza documents known to me to bear a reference to Judah b. Saadya, the title rats (rayyis) occurs only twice. The first instance dates from the period prior to his receiving the Hebrew title of Nagid and evidently alludes either to his Babylonian honorific, Rosh Kallah ("Head of the Kallah"), or to his status as a court physician; TS (Taylor Schechter Collection, University Library, Cambridge, England) 13 J 9, fol. 3r. The second occurrence is a docket on the back of an undated letter recording its receipt at the majlis (audience hall) of "our lord [Arabic: sayyidnd] the illustrious Rayyis Abfi Zikri [Judah's honorific byname, or kunya] son of lord Saadya . . . may God perpetuate his strength and increase the splendor of his power"; TS Box K 6, fol. 36v. Here Judah is obviously in a position of high authority, though we still cannot say for certain that the "Rayyis" in his name represents the Fatimid investiture as ra'is al-yahad. 46. In a Geniza letter alluding to Mevorakh's return to power in 1094, after some twelve years of political exile, the writer speaks of "the restoration of the riydsa (Headship) to him"; MS Bodl. Heb. d 66, fol. 79v, line 3 (no. 31 in Murad A. Michael, "The Archive of Nahrai ben Nissim: Businessman and Public Figure in Egypt in the I Ith Century" [Hebrew] (Ph.D. diss., Hebrew University, 1963). Furthermore, another Geniza document mentions a governmental decree interdicting prayers in the name of the deposed Rayyis, which was promulgated during the reign of Mevorakh's rival, the Nasi David b. Daniel (r. ca. 1082-94); TS 12.657, trans. S. D. Goitein, Letters of Medieval Jewish Traders(Princeton, 1973), pp. 173-74. Since it is difficult to imagine that the Fatimid authorities would have appointed Mevorakh raTs al-yahad during his political exile, he must have achieved this dignity during his first (albeit short) term, following his brother Judah's death in ca. 1078.

HEAD OF THE JEWS IN FATIMID EMPIRE

41

Gaonate,couldhavetakenroot in the Fatimidbureaucracy priorto the of politicalstabilityunderBadral-Jamili.Possiblythedefection restoration of the Gaonto Tyrein 1071put Badral-Jamaliinto a moodreceptiveto a in the Jewishcommunity whichhappenedto fit neatlyinto transformation his schemefor centralizing in the Fatimidcapital.For minorityleadership theirpart,the EgyptianJewswouldhaveneededsomeprecedentto which suchaninnovationfromthegovernment. theycoulddeferwhenrequesting of Copticleadershipin Cairoin the Verylikely,it was the centralization 1070swhichprovidedthe necessarypretext.Jewsin government haddaily contactwiththeirCopticcolleaguesandcertainlyheardof themomentous innovationin the Copticcommunity. the Jewishkatibs, Quiteconceivably, with halls outside the of that it was Jews concluded along government, essentialto havetheirown titularand administrative chieflocatedin the A fascinating Fatimidcourt,nextto hisChristian Genizaletter counterpart. fromthe beginningof the twelfthcenturyprovesthe Jewskeptabreastof of Egyptandmadeeveryeffortthrough privilegesaccordedthe Christians functionaries to duplicateCopticsuccesses.47 At thevery Jewishgovernment minimum,it seemsreasonableto assumethatat a timewhenthe rulerof Egyptwaspressingthe headof the Egyptian-Christian minorityto present himselfregularlyat court,his Jewishcounterpart wouldhavebeensubject to the samedemandand for similarreasons. V Thisventureintothefieldof comparative minorhistoryof non-Muslim ities would appear,therefore,to havebornefruit.Throughthe close studyof the chronicleof the lives of the CopticPatriarchswe havebeen able to arrive

at an awarenessof Fatimidpolicytowardthe chiefsof the non-Muslim communities duringa crucialtransitional periodin the structureof Jewish

self-governmentin the Fatimid state. Quite likely, Badr al-Jamaliand alAfdal, whose patronageof the Coptic Patriarchateemergesso plainlyfrom our Christian-Arabicsource,helpedacceleratethe evolutionof the office of Head of the Jewsas well. If upheld,our findingwould appearto providean additionalexplanationfor why the office of Head of the Jews emergedin

47. TS 18 J 4, fol. 6, the relevant section of which is translated by Goitein, Letters of Medieval Jewish Traders, pp. 253-55.

42

MARK R. COHEN

Egypt preciselywhen the chronologicalGeniza data indicateit did. At the same time, the suggestionthat late eleventhcenturyFatimidpoliticalrealities played a part in the origins of the new institutionwould constitutea refinementof the revisionistinterpretationand a partialsynthesisbetweenit and the older, but still dominant,hypothesis.

"Meeting in Jerusalem": Messianic Expectations in the Letters of the Cairo Geniza Author(s): Shelomo Dov Goitein Source: AJS Review, Vol. 4 (1979), pp. 43-57 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486298 . Accessed: 26/06/2011 20:28 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

"MEETING IN JERUSALEM": MESSIANIC EXPECTATIONS IN THE LETTERS OF THE CAIRO GENIZA by SHELOMODOV GOITEIN Institutefor AdvancedStudy Princeton,New Jersey To GershomScholem With the sure touch of the true historian(a raregift) GershomScholem has opened up for us new avenues toward the understandingof Jewish messianismand, in particular,its most fatefulmanifestationafterthe catastrophicBar Kokhbarevolt:Sabbatianism.Thereare no pseudomessiahs,he teachesus. For any attemptto translatethe idea of messianisminto realityis doomed to end in failure,but failureis not its end. This is demonstratedby the movementconnectedwith Sabbatai$evi, or, if one may associatetwo such incongruousphenomena,the death of Christ on the cross. The relationship between Kabbalah and messianism has occupied Scholem's mind throughoutalmost his entire scientificcareer.Naturally, the resultsof his researchon the subjectare embeddedin his majorworks. The relevantpapersincludedin his volume, TheMessianicIdea in Judaism and OtherEssays on JewishSpirituality,providea convenientintroduction to his thought on the matterand permitalso a glimpseinto his workshop,I 43

44

SHELOMO DOV GOITEIN

mean, how he proceededto ever widerviews and adoptedever stricterand bolder formulations.' Scholem is somewhatimpatientwith what he calls "laymen'smessianism," that is, personswho did not belong to the circlesof Jewishreligious scholarship,but tried to do somethingto bring about "the end of days." This attitude of the master is understandable.Those self-appointed medievalmessiahsor harbingersof good tidingshave left us no writings;we learn about them from the accounts of membersof the Jewish establishment, who mostly did not take them seriously,or fromnon-Jewishsources, whose informationwas necessarilylimited.Thus the natureof theirspirituality, the matterin which Scholemis mainly interested,escapes us. In the concluding section of this article a story from the Geniza about a "laymen's" messianicstirringis discussed,in which the narrator,who participated in the event, transformsfailureinto success by demonstratingthat "signs"of messianictimes had indeed been apparent. The mainpurposeof this paperis an enquiryinto the questionof how far an awarenessof the messianicsyndromewas presentin the minds of ordinarypeopleduringwhat I call the "classical"Genizaperiod,approximately the centuriesbetween Saadya Gaon (d. 942) and the son of Moses Maimonides, Abrahamha-Nagid (d. 1237).That was the time when classical Judaismin all its manifestationstook final form; consequently,attitudes apparentin the day-to-daycorrespondencepreservedfrom that periodare not without interestfor the knowledgeof its spirituality. The openingof an importantbusinessletter,senton March5, 1026from al-Ahwiz in south-westernIran to the capital of Egypt, contains this passage: "God knows the strengthof my longing for you-may He alwayssupport you. I ask Him to bringus togetherwhen His holy city will be built." The letterwas addressedto the threeseniorTustaribrothers,prominent Karaites,residentin the capital of Egypt. I assume that the senderswere Karaitesas well.2 1. The Messianic Idea in Judaism and Other Essays in Jewish Spirituality (New York, 1971). Attention is drawn to David J. Biale, "The Demonic in History: Gershom Scholem and the Revision of Jewish Historiography" (Ph.D. diss., University of California, 1977), and, in particular, to chapter 7: "Apocalyptic Messianism," pp. 249-86. R. J. Zwi Werblowsky's short, but penetrating paper "Messianism in Jewish History," in Jewish Society through the Ages, ed. H. H. Ben-Sasson and Shmuel Ettinger (New York, 1971), is recommended as an introduction to the subject. 2. Edited in S. D. Goitein, Letters of Medieval Jewish Traders T anslatedfrom the Arabic (Princeton, 1973), pp. 34-39: as'al alldh al-ijtimd' be-vinyan qudsih. I translated qudsih "his

"MEETING IN JERUSALEM"

45

Slightly later a Spanish Jew, Yehuda b. Isma'il (=Samuel), opens a businessmissivewith the wish:"MayGod uniteus soon in his holy city, He can be reliedupon for this and He has the power for achievingit." According to the productssent (1,000 poundsof shelledalmondsand 50 poundsof Sicilian silk) the letter was sent from Sicily.3 Of particularinterest is a letter from Sfisa, Tunisia, where, after the destructionof Qayrawanby bedouinhordesin 1057,the refugees,including the great Rabbenu Nissim b. Jacob, had found a temporaryshelter.The writer,Labratb. Moses Ibn Sighmdr(later dayyanin al-Mahdiyya,which replacedQayrawanas the capital)describesthe situationof the refugeesas hopeless:"death is preferableto life" (Jeremiah8:3), we "long for death, and it does not come" (Job 3:21),but goes on to writeeightylong lineson a great variety of business and family matters.The addressee,his younger brotherJudah,whom Labrathad broughtup (probablybecauseof the early death of their father) and for whom he harboredtender feelings (as did Moses Maimonidesfor his brotherDavid),was laterto becomea greatmerchant and renownedphilanthrophistin Egypt.4On 11.30-38 LabratcongratulatesJudahon his marriage,excuseshimselfthat, becauseof the state of his mind, he was unableto write to Judah'sfather-and brother-in-law, clearly personally known to him, and admonishesJudah to accept his mother-in-lawas a substitutefor his own mother(whose death is reported in the same letter) and his father-in-lawas a replacementfor himself,who had been to him like a father.He concludes:"I am writingthis letter,overwhelmedby tears,for this is a separationfor lifetime,and hereI haveno one on whom I can rely and with whom I can sharemy sorrowand myjoy. I ask God to unite us soon in his holy city, if God will."' It was customary in merchants'families that one member, mostly a

sanctuary," but now prefer "holy city." Even Heb. beit ha-miqdash could be understood in those days as meaning Jerusalem. On Karaism in southwestern Iran and the Karaism of the Tustaris, see Shaul Shaked, "An Early Karaite Document in Judaeo-Persian" [Hebrew], Tarbiz 41 (1971): 51, n. 13. 3. TS (Taylor-Schechter Collection of the University Library, Cambridge) Misc. Box 28, fol. 37; see S. D. Goitein, A Mediterranean Society, 3 vols. (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1967-1978), 1: 521. Similar wishes are found in letters written about 200 years later, such as TS 28.10, 1. 6 ("in Jerusalem, the seat of God's mercy") TS 32.10, 1.23, both addressed to a Nagid. 4. Other letters of Labrdt to his brother Judah are analyzed in MediterraneanSociety, 3: 17, 20, 161, 226. 5. ENA NS 18, fol. 35 (Elkan Nathan Adler Collection in the Jewish Theological Seminary, New York, New Series).

46

SHELOMO DOV GOITEIN

father or elder brother, was stationaryand others itinerant.Labrdtand Judah (like later Moses and David Maimonides)had divided the family businessbetweenthemselvesin such a way. Judah had alreadybeen on a businesstrip from Qayrawin to Egypt in the summerof 1048, about ten years priorto the writingof that letter.6Now that throughhis marriagehe had become,so to say, a memberof anotherfirm,therewas little likelihood that the two brotherswouldsee each otheragain.Onlya miracle,suchas the ingatheringof the exiled to the Holy City, could achieve this. In the first two examplesprovidedabove, the messianicreferencemight have had a similarmeaning.Desertsin one case and the MediterraneanSea in the other separatedthe sendersof the lettersfrom the recipients.To be sure merchantswere very mobile in those days. But for some reason or another, such as old age, the correspondentsmight have not expectedto meet again. At firstblushit appearssomewhatawkward,whena manin Yemen,who remarksin anotherletterthat he usedto visitAden only once a month,writes to Halfon b. Nathanel, a renownedIndia traveler,who sojournedin that south-Arabianport. "May God privilegeme to meet you in the courtyards of the Templein Jerusalem."The long letter shows that Halfon and the writerkneweach otherpersonallyand had manyinterests,communal,business, religious, and scientific, in common. However, that Yemenitehad greatvenerationfor the Holy Landand seeminglywishedto be buriedthere, for "its soil atones for its people" (Deuteronomy 32:43.) The letter to Halfon was writtenin the 1130s, duringwhich Halfon frequentedAden.' A more substantialhope for the restorationof Jerusalemis expressedin this passage of a letter sent from Old Cairo to Alexandriaby the schoolteacher,cantor,court clerk,and booksellerSolomon, son of the judge (and former physician)Elijah b. Zechariah,a prominentmemberof Abraham 6. TS 20.69v, 1. 27, where he is referred to by his Arabic designation Abat Zikri Ibn Sighmir. 7. ULC Or. 1080 J 255, 11.13-14 (a Geniza collection in the University Library, Cambridge not belonging to TS), no. 246 in my collection of Geniza papers connected with the India trade. The writer, Jacob b. Salim, had exiled himself from Aden to al-Juwwa, a three-day ride from there, because of strife in the Adenese Jewish community. He was very active in collecting donations for the Jerusalem yeshiva, which then had its seat in Cairo; see S. D. Goitein, "The Contribution of the Jews of Yemen to the Maintenance of the Babylonian and Palestinian Yeshivot and of Maimonides' School" [Hebrew], Tarbiz31 (1962): 368-69. The other letter, TS 20.173, was partly edited by Jacob Mann, The Jews in Egypt and in Palestine underthe Fatimid Caliphs, reprint ed. (New York, 1970), 2: 366-67 (quoted as Mann, Jews in the following). The understanding of the Bible verse is based on Ketubbot 11la; see Mann, ibid.

"MEETING IN JERUSALEM"

47

Maimonides'court:"MayGod bringus all together.May He not let me die in this place, but uniteus in our city wherewe will be safe,joyful, andhappy with one another. May He do so for the sake of His venerable,awesome name, as it is written:'Evenwhenyourexiledare at the ends of the sky, from therethe Lordyour God will gatheryou and fromthereHe will fetchyou'" (Deuteronomy30:4). During his childhood Solomon had lived in Jerusalem. His eldest brother Abfi Zikri was physician in attendance to the Ayyubid Sultan Muwaffar,who, in 1219,dreadinga Crusaders'attack,laidJerusalemwaste. At the writingof this letter,Jerusalem,with the exceptionof the Templearea and the Holy Sepulcher,was practicallyuninhabited.Why should it not be filled soon with the ingatheredof Israel?8 Solomon'smessianicoutburstwas inducedby a remarkmadein the preceding line, that a relativewas coming to stay with him over Passover.Any mentioning of a holiday requireda good wish, usually paired with the expressionof messianichopes. The standardwish was:"MayGod grantyou many years in happiness and joy, and may He grant you to behold the beautyof the Lord and to visit His Temple(Psalms27:4)."9Sincein ancient times a Jewishman was required"to appearbeforeGod" on a holiday,the addresseewas wished the same privilegeduringhis lifetime.This wish was expressedin many differentforms, often in rhymedHebrewprose. A commonplacejudicialreportsent from a smalltown to the futureNagid Mevorakh b. Saadya, at a time when he still was a kind of presidentof the supremecourt for his elder brother,the Nagid Judah(in the 1060s),ends with good wishesfor holidays:"And may He bringus andyou and all Israel togetherto His sanctuary[meaningJerusalem],when His congregationwill be assembledand His Templerenovated."'0 Each of the holidayshad, in additionto the generalwish,just discussed, a specific one, mostly connectedwith the Templeservice,on Passover,of course, the wish to partakein the sacrificeof the Passoverlamb and other 8. ULC 1080 J 28, 11.17-21. Details about Solomon's family in S. D. Goitein, Palestinian Jewry during the Arab and Crusader Periods (Jerusalem, 1979), pp. 97-105. 9. E.g., TS 13 J 14, fol. 11 (to Mevorakh b. Saadya, d. 1111, see next note), TS 13 J 15, fol. 3, 11.6-8 (written around 1110). 10. TS 10 J 11, fol. 15: wa-jama'and wa-iyydkum ve-khol Yisra'el le-veit miqdasho be-qibbu?qehalo u-ve-shikhlul heikhalo. Professor Mark R. Cohen of Princeton University is preparing a corpus of documents related to the Mev6rikh family. Another Hebrew rhyme: TS 12.386, 11.5-6: tizkeh le-vi'at go'el u-vinyan 'ari'el, ve-qibbu?kol Yisra'el. "May you witness the coming of the Redeemer, the erection of the Temple, and the ingathering of Israel."

SHELOMO DOV GOITEIN

48

to offeringsdueon thatholiday,andon Sukkot,the Feastof Tabernacles, witnessthe "rejoicingat the water-libation."" The wishfor Shavuotis a of Numbers14:14,referring combination to therevelationon MountSinai, andIsaiah52:10,God'sreturnto Zion,as forinstancein thisfragment writtenin largeletters:"Mayyou be grantedto seetheMessiah,sonof David, and to behold the Presenceof God face to face, as it is written,etc."'2 Hanukkahand Purim, which in their liturgy are describedas days of miracles,were rated in the miracle-riddenworld of the Geniza far higher than in AshkenaziJudaismof yesteryear.Both weredescribedas holidays, '[din Arabic,mo'edin Hebrew,and as "nobledays,"the sameexpressionas used for the most holy days of the monthof Tishri.'3One sent specialletters of congratulation.The standardwish was: "He who wroughtmiraclesfor our fathersin these days, may do the like for me and you and all Israel."l4 Occasionallyit was modifiedand enlargedto fill an entire letter,comprising ideas about exile and redemption,or wishingthe fulfillmentof Isaiah's prophecyon the new heaven and new earth (66:22).15On Hanukkahone traveledto stay with relativesor friends,as one did for Passover,or the Day of Atonement, and one would celebratePurim in Jawjar,a town whose synagogue,namedafter Elijah,the harbingerof redemption,was a goal of pilgrimage.'6

It is almost needless to say that letters and poems of congratulation

11. Passover: TS 13 J 16, fol. 9, end; TS 13 J 18, fol. 11, 11.9-13. Sukkot: TS 8 J 24, fol. 17. For the water-libation see Encyclopedia Judaica (Jerusalem, 1971), 15: 499-500. 12. Fragment: TS 8 J 23, fol. 27. Complete letter: TS 10 J 17, fol. 25. Both were written around 1200. The fragment also contained the wish: "May God make your sons Eleazar and Solomon great in knowledge ('Torah')." No doubt, the notable Meshullam b. Eleazar haKohen Kelil ha-Yofi ("Perfect Beauty," an honorific title) is addressed. In another letter of congratulation for a holiday TS 20.78, Meshullam is wished (by a dayyan, son of a "great rav") success, welfare, and a prominent position. The dayyan probably knew the addressee better than did the pious wellwisher cited above. TS 12.56, 11. 13-15: al-mo'ed al-purim 13. ENA NS 2, I, fol. 16, 1. 9: 'id al-.hanukka. al-sharifa (Hanukkah). al-sharif. ENA NS, I, fol. 5: hadhihi 'l-ayydm 14. TS 8 J 22, fol. 7; TS 10 fol. 14, f. 9; and the letters noted in the previous note. 15. TS 13 J 26, fol. 15 (letter of 25 11., Purim wishes addressed to Joseph b. Jacob Ibn 'Awkal). TS NS J 84 (India Book [see n. 7, above], no. 250): "The Galut does not let man reach his goals. May this Purim be a good sign for the coming redemption, yeshu'ah"; see n. 18, below. TS 13 J 11, fol. 7, ed. Mann, Jews, 2: 40-41: "May you witness the new heaven, etc." (Purim). The writer: Elhanan b. Shemarya Rosh ha-Seder. 16. Travel for celebrating Hanukkah: Westminster College, Cambridge, Geniza, Liturgy, II, fol. 140, Jawjar (pronounced Goger): TS 13 J 26, fol. 7, 1. 17; see Norman Golb, "The Topography of the Jews of Medieval Egypt," in Journal of Near Eastern Studies 33 (1974): 131. Perhaps Scholem's view of Purim as "the relatively least significant of all holidays" (Messianic Idea, p. 55) must be somewhat qualified.

"MEETING IN JERUSALEM"

49

occasionedby happyfamilyevents,such as weddingsor circumcisionfeasts, concludewith the good wish that the person addressed,or all those assembled, "maywitnessthe erectionof the House of God, the ingatheringof the people, and the advent of the Savior."'' When a Gaon or Nagid, that is, the head of the Jewishcommunityat large,was addressedor referredto, it was wishedthat his leadershipshould endureuntil "Salvation,"or "the Redeemer,"or "theTeacherof Righteousness" would come. His authority,so to say, was temporaryand derived from the real one whose appearancewas expected.'8Salvation,yeshu'ah, was the technicalterm for messianictimes, a usage foreshadowedthroughout the books of Isaiahand the Psalmsandconfirmedin the secondbenediction of the 'amidah,the dailyprayer.In its Palestinianversion,the one in use in the Genizasynagogue,the benedictionhad this form:"MayHe let Salvation sprout as quicklyas the blinkingof an eye," that is, with miraculous suddenness. How seriouslythis attitudewas takenmight be concludedfrom the way in which the Geonim, respondingin kind, signed their letters. Extended phraseswereimpracticable.The Gaon and nasi(memberof the familyof the Exilarch)Daniel b. Azaryah, head of the Jerusalemyeshiva (1052-1063), signed with one word: yeshu'ah,"Salvation."Hay Gaon of Baghdad(d. 1038) and his younger contemporarySolomon, Gaon of Jerusalem(d. 1051), signed: yesha' ray, "CompleteSalvation";Solomon's predecessor, and later also his own son Abraham:yesha' yubash "may Salvation be soon." Lesserdignitariesimitatedthis practice,using as signaturea phrase like "May Salvationbe renewed,"an allusion to Jeremiah31:30, or with direct referenceto that verse: "A new covenant!"'9 When a large communityaddressedanother,as when that of Palermo,

17. Wedding: Mediterranean Society, 3: 108, 118. Circumcision feast: TS 20.66; TS 20.111. Expressed in rhymed prose or verses. 18. TS 13 J 26, fol. 24, 11.33-34: wa-yuwagSilayydmuh bi-ayydm al-yeshu'ah (to the Gaon Solomon b. Judah in the 1030s): ULC Or. 1080 J 40 (go'el, written by Halfon b. Menasseh, 1100-1138); Mosseri Collection A-67.2 (moreh edeq, Damascus, eleventh century). For similar millennial attitudes in Christian Europe see Norman Cohn, The Pursuit of the Millennium (London, 1957), p. 20, and, for Islam, n. 26, below. 19. See Mann, Jews, 1: 179. For Hay Gaon: Jacob Mann, Texts and Studies in Jewish History and Literature, reprint ed. (New York, 1972), 1: 122-23. For Solomon b. Judah's predecessor: TS 24.43, ed. S. D. Goitein, in Salo WittmayerBaron Jubilee Volume(Jerusalem, 1975), pp. 517-23, 531-33. His son: ULC Or. 1080 J 265. References to "the new covenant": TS 13 J 16, fol. 1 (a head cantor), ULC Or. 1080 J 132 (an itinerant preacher), TS 13 J 15, fol. 8, 1. 11 (in a solicitation letter of a French [?] scholar).

50

SHELOMO DOV GOITEIN

Sicily, recommendeda meritoriousSpanishnotableto the communitiesof Qayrawin and al-Mahdiyya, Tunisia, or when that of Tyre, Lebanon, submitted a lawsuit to that of Aleppo, Syria, the good wishes that the addresseesmay soon be blessedwith the appearanceof the Redeemerare formulatedin a most elaborateand distinguishedstyle. The senders,one feels, expectedhim to be just aroundthe corner.20As we have read in the letter of Solomon b. Elijahwrittenin the 1220s,privatepersonsexpressed the desirenot to partthis life beforethe exilewas terminated.21Twohundred yearsearlier,in May 1028,a parnasfroma distinguishedfamily,whilesigning a court record,adds in minusculeswrittencrosswiseabove and beneath his name: "May God keep him [meaning:me] alive until the Redeemer comes."22The first of three signatorieson an old fragment,probablyfrom the tenth century,writescrosswiseabove and beneathhis name:"Salvation An inscriptioncontainingthe ancient duringhis [meaning:my] lifetime."23 when "Remember You show favorto Yourpeople and me, O Lord, prayer take note of me, when You bringSalvation"(Psalms 106:4)shows that the writerwas anxious not to be left out of an event which could occur any moment.24

Finally,attentionmust be paid to the numerousmessianicnamespopulating the Geniza scene. Names in those days were words which carrieda 20. Palermo: TS 24.6, ed. Jacob Mann, "The Responsa of the Babylonian Geonim as a Source of Jewish History," Jewish Quarterly Review, n.s. 9 (1918-19): 176 11. 10-11. Tyre: Bodleian Library, Oxford, MS Heb. a 3 (Catalogue 2873), fol. 37, see Shaul Shaked, A Tentative Bibliography of Geniza Documents (Paris and The Hague, 1964), p. 205. 21. See above, n. 8 and text thereto. 22. TS 18 J 1, fol. 6, 1. 13:yehayehu 'el 'ad yavo go'el. For the benefit of a future reader, who might try to decipher the manuscript I must note that before these minuscules others are written: hu IHalfonnin 'Efrayim, "identical with H. son of E." The name of the parnas was Aaron b. Ephraim, but on some occasion his name had been changed to Half6n, "Substitute," perhaps when his father was seriously ill, and his mother preferredto lose him rather than her husband (for, as a Yemenite woman once said to me, "children I can bear"). Aaron had long been known by his adopted name, but had returned to the original one. In Geniza letters a son regularly addresses his father with the words: "May I be your ransom," meaning, may all the evil destined for you come upon me. 23. TS 12.719: yesha' ravybe-hayyav. The name of the man was Job, rare in Geniza documents. 24. TS 12.459. As common in the Geniza, only the last word of the verse has been preserved. The script (square) is about six cm. high and put between borders above and below, consisting of a broader stripe in red on the outside and a narrower one in black from the inside. The inscription, as it stands, would be copied by embroidering or another technique, on a band of textile, to be fixed on one of the many hangings embellishing the walls of a house.

"MEETING IN JERUSALEM"

51

meaningand a message:they characterizedthe society in which they were used.25Messianic names such as Sar Shalom ("Prince of peace," Isaiah 9:15), $emah ("Sprout," Zechariah6:12, meaning "Sprout, progeny of David," Jeremiah23:5), or Mevasser("Harbingerof good tidings,"Isaiah 52:7),unknownduringthe Talmudicperiod,were alreadyborneby certain IraqianGeonim in pre-Genizatimes. Thus it is naturalthat their example was followed by the common people.26There were other messianicnames such as Meshullam(Isaiah42:19, meaningdoubtful),which is common,or simply Mashiah(Messiah),which is rare.27There might have been family traditionsin this matter,as when a man is called Mashiahb. Semab,28or Meshullamb. Mevasser,29or Meshullamb. Furqdn,the latter being the Arabic equivalentof Hebrewyeshu'ah,Salvation.30 Yesha'dh,which, we remember,is the technicalterm for the coming of the Messiah,is one of the names most frequentlyoccurringin the Geniza. Although feminine in form, it was given exclusivelyto boys. M. Steinschneider,in his trailblazingstudy on Jewishonomasticsin Arab countries thought that abstractnouns used as male names such as yeshu'ah,were found among Karaitesand Samaritans,but were not at all, or very rarely, met with among Rabbanites.Geniza researchhas changed this. Without makingany specialinvestigation,I have noted about ninetypersonsbearing that name, and, as far as I was able to ascertain,all were Rabbanites.One awaitedsalvationand wishedthe son to witnessit, or perhapseven take an active role in it.3' 25. Unlike our own times, where the meaning of a name is mostly unknown to the parents. Cf. Mediterranean Society, 3: 314-19, "The Message of Women's Names." 26. Mordechai Margalioth, Encyclopedia of Talmudic and Geonic Literature (Jerusalem, n.d.), pp. 630, 747-50, 874. This should not be regarded as an imitation of the regnal titles of the first Abbasid caliphs: (cf. Bernard Lewis, "The Regnal Titles of the First Abbasid Caliphs," Dr. Zakir Husain Presentation Volume [Delhi, 1969], pp. 13-30), for the names of the Geonim were given at birth, not at installation. But there was a connection: the messianic stirrings at the time of the advent of the Abbasids. 27. I do not believe that the very common name shylh, mostly spelled shlh, should be read Shiloh (Genesis 49:10), but its frequency might have been caused by the messianic meaning given to the name Shela in the Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 98b; see E. E. Urbach, The Sages [Hebrew] (Jerusalem, 1969), p. 617, n. 32. 28. See Mann, Jews, 2: 99 (1029 C.E.). 29. TS 8 J 9, fol. 6 (Spring, 1100). 30. TS 16.34 (1079). 31. Moritz Steinschneider, "An Introduction to the Arabic Literature of the Jews," Jewish Quarterly Review 10 (1898): 127. I do not believe that the name also implies thanks to God for the mother's safe delivery. At the birth of a girl the family was congratulated that everything went well, at the birth of a boy-that it was a boy; see Mediterranean Society, 3: 226-27.

52

SHELOMO DOV GOITEIN

Millennialconsiderationscould affect the decisionsof a practicalbusinessman.Shortlybefore the Muslimyear 500 (1111 C.E.,the beginningof the Crusaderperiod),a merchant,makingdispositionsin contemplationof death, appoints his only daughter as his sole heir and his wife as her guardianand executrix.He drawsup a long list of his possessions,assets, and liabilities,but at the verybeginningof the documenthe states:"Thegirl shall not marrybeforethe year 500 of the Arabs is out, which is the End of the Period."From the writingsof the Muslim theologian al-Ghazaliit is known that the turn of the centurywas expectedto bringabout "a renovation of the religion"(to which the theologian himself,who died in 1111, hoped to have contributed).From the very succintway in which the merchant referredto the End of the Period it is evident that everyoneunderstood whatthat yearmeant,as far as Jewishexpectationswereconcerned.32 The precedingsurveyhas demonstratedthat the beliefin the suddenand miraculousappearanceof the Messiahwas a factof life. Thegreateventhad to be miraculous,not natural,becausethus it was foretoldby the prophets and expoundedin great detail by the theologians,especiallySaadyaGaon, whosewritingsdominatedmost of the Genizaperiod.33Therewas, however, one greatdifference:popularmessianismwas optimistic;it looked forward to an aeon when Israelwould be united,safe and happy,beingdedicatedto the serviceof God, as laid down in the holy scriptures;the "Pangsof the Messiah,"the catastrophesforebodinghis appearance,as describedin the traditionaltheory, are not echoed in the day-to-day Geniza correspondence. The period did not lack Armageddon-likeevents, such as the destruction of Qayrawin in 1057, mentionedabove, or the conquestof Jerusalem by the Crusadersin 1099, terriblefamines, plagues, and complete breakdownsof authority;synagogueswere destroyed and Torah scrolls desecrated,but I have nowherereadthat suchoccurrenceswereregardedas

Because of its frequency, the name was abbreviated to Sha'a from which a form of endearment: Shuway' was derived. 32. TS 13 J 14, fol. 4, 1. 3, India Book (see n. 7, above), no. 259. 33. See his Book of Beliefs and Tenets, chap. 8 (superscribed Furqan, the Arabic equivalent of Heb. Yeshu'ah,see above). Cf. also the reasoning of the first Jewish theologian whose Arabic writings have come down to us, albeit in fragmentary state, the Karaite David Ibn alMuqammiS:miracles, such as performed by Moses, are a decisive proof of the truth of his sending; military success (as achieved by the Muslims) cannot serve as a proof; many pagans, who do not know God, have vanquished their enemies. See Georges Vajda, "La proph6tologie de Dwfuid ibn Marwin al-Muqammi$, thbologien juif arabophone du IXe siecle," Journal Asiatique 265 (1977): 227-33.

"MEETING IN JERUSALEM"

53

Signs of the End of Days. One mournedthe dead, organizedhelp for the refugeesand the hungry,and redeemedthe books whichhad falleninto the hands of bedouins or Crusaders.But the mood was not apocalyptic.The pressureof the Galut was alwayspresent.But on holidays,or, as one says in Hebrew,"good days,"one yearnedfor the day whichwouldbe "completely good." In cataclysmictimes one was not eager to be remindedthat even more terribleexperiencesmight be ahead. This attitudeexplainsperhapsthe strangeresponsefound in the Geniza to a most intensecrisisof Islamicmessianism,which affectedalso the Jews of Egypt and Palestinein a most tangible way: the reign of the Fatimid caliph al-Hakim (996-1021). Al-Hakim regarded himself, and was regardedby Isma'ilite(Shi'ite) theologians,as the Mahdi, the Savior, "who would fill the earthwithjusticeas it is now full of corruption."Some theologians even declaredhim to be the Presenceof God on earth,and he, at least for some time, did not object. A recent study by J. van Ess has clarified many aspectsof this dark period.34The caliphwas inspiredby high ideals, but his mind, as is provedby his bizarreedicts,was utterlyunbalanced.Acts of messianicself-humiliation(ridingon a donkey clad in wool, Zechariah 9:9), and attempts of enforcing sternjustice and chastity alternatedwith and endlessexecutions(the vexatiousprohibitionsimposedon his subjects35 with the breathof his mouth,"Isaiah9:4, as messiah"who smitesthe land one Isma'ilitheologianput it). All this was done in expectationof the critical Muslimyear400 (lunaryearsreckonedeitherfrom the beginningof the era in 622, or from Muhammad'sdeath in 632). As to Christiansand Jews, the Prophethad promisedthem protection.However,now that 400 years had passedwith neitherChristhavingreappearednor the Jewishmessiahhaving come, their time was up. They had the choice betweenconversionto Islam, expulsion,or death. Al-Hakim,the son of a Christianwoman, directedhis persecutionsespeciallyagainstChristians.In September1009(the beginning of the Muslimyear 400) the Holy Sepulcherin Jerusalemand many other Christianbuildingswere destroyed.However,as late as January1013 the caliph intervenedpersonally and saved the lives of twenty-threeJewish 34. Josef van Ess, Chiliastische Erwartungenund die Versuchungder Gdttlichkeit: Der Kalif al-flakim (386-411 H.) (Heidelberg, 1977). 35. One of the less obnoxious, but still troublesome, edicts was the prohibition of eating mulfkhiya, a mallow plant made into a dish which was as popular in Geniza times as it is in modern Egypt, or that of eating eels and other fish without scales (which is, of course, biblical; see Deuteronomy 14:10). However, when a man said a supererogatory prayer not approved by the Shi'a he was executed.

54

SHELOMO DOV GOITEIN

notablesfalselyaccusedof impugningIslam.This did not hinderhim from orderingsoon afterwardthe destructionof the synagoguesand applyingto the Jews the perniciousedicts inflicted on the Christians.Not long after, however, the fickle caliph permittedthe new converts to return to their originalreligion and to rebuildtheir houses of worship. What echo did these tremendousevents find in the Geniza?We read muchabout the endeavorsof the Jewishauthoritiesto replacethe destroyed synagogues,but practicallynothingis said about the persecutions.Instead, the Genizahas preservedseveralcopies(or fragmentsof them)of an "Egyptian Megillah,"or festivescroll,in whichthe deliveranceof the twenty-three notablesis celebratedas a miracle,and the caliphal-IHIkim,"wholovesjustice and hates iniquity"is extolledas a messiah-likeruler(see Psalms45:8). A yearlyfast and feastwereinstituted,on whichthat Megillahwas read.The persecutionswere forgotten; the miracle was remembered.The wishful optimismof the messianicmood, as describedabove, prevailed.36 The unforgettablePaul Kraus has shown that the Isma'ili theologian Kirmaninot only quoted the messianicpassagesfromIsaiahand Zechariah mentionedabove (and others)in Arabic,but reproducedthem in the HebJ. van Ess rew original,both in Hebrewscriptand Arabictransliteration.37 wonderswhetherthis was done to convincethe Jews."3I shouldnot be surprisedat all if it were discoveredsome day that Kirmini, who hailedfrom northeasternIran, was himselfa Jewishconvertto Islam, or a son of one. His excessiveuse of gematria,39althoughnot unknownin Islambeforehim, makeshim suspect.In any event,the GenizaindicatesthatJewsin Egyptdid read Shi'itebooks. I found an extensivepiece of admonitionsof a fatherto his son, in Hebrewcharacters,which is an abridgedversion of the caliph 'Ali's ethical will to his son IHusayn,taken from a Shi'ite treatiseof the fourth Muslimcentury.The piece consists of gnomes of pietist ethics, and

36. Mann, Jews 2: 432-36, formerly in Hebrew Union College Annual 3 (1926): 258-62. An additional fragment in ENA 4096a contains some better readings. E.g., Mann, Jews, 2: 434, 1.3 from bottom, for the second be-sahadutam, read with ENA be-'edutam. 37. Paul Kraus, "Hebriische und Syrische Zitate in ismaelitischen Schriften," Der Islam 19 (1931): 241-63. 38. Chiliastische Erwartungen(see n. 34, above), p. 62. 39. For the use of the numerical value of letters in homiletic or mystical interpretation, see Enc. Jud., 7: 370, 374, and Shmuel Sambursky, "The Term Gematria-Source and Meaning," Tarbiz45 (1976): 268-71. For instance, the Prophet has said that the Mahdi would come when the sun (shams in Arabic) would rise in the West (=Egypt): sb-rn-5 (only the consonants count)= 300+40+60=400.

"MEETING IN JERUSALEM"

55

containsnothingof esotericcharacter.40Butother,less"innocent"Shi'ite writingsmightbe found in the Geniza.Whenal-IHlkimwas murdered, Christiansand Jews could realizethat Muslim messianicexpectationsdid not farebetterthan theirown. But this did not discourageanyonewho was

inclinedto believefromclingingto the certitudeof an impendingadvent. This is beautifullyexemplifiedby the story of messianic stirringsin Baghdadin the years 1120-21, alludedto earlierin this paper.The historical

withnearlycontemof thatevent,especiallyin comparison circumstances me inconhave been discussed messianic movements, by extensively porary nectionwiththe editionof the text.Hereattentionis drawnto the wayin which the debacleof failureis overcomeby the deft expressionsof faith in the basicvalidityof messianicexpectations.41

In a nutshell,thestory,toldinArabic,42 wasthis:a womanfroma physician'sfamily,renownedfor herpietybothbeforeandafterhermarriage, had an apparitionfive days before Rosh Hashana 1120:the prophetElijah ordered her to appear in public43 and to announce in his name that yeshu'ah,Salvation,was near. In responsethe Jews assembled(what they did is lost; see below), and the SeljukSultan,the actual rulerof Baghdad, became paralyzedwith fright:"The Jews say 'our kingdomhas come; we shall not leave any other kingdomin existence"'(an allusion,of course,to Daniel 2:44). The caliph who was in charge of the affairs of the nonMuslimswas not less consternatedand ordered"the Jews"(meaning,their notables)imprisonedin the Mint (wherein any event many of them were active).Then he sent a letter to the chief qadi as follows: "The time of the Jewsis up.44 Eithera new prophet(=their messiah)appearsamongthem or they accept Islam. Otherwisethey are doomed. Do not stay in my way and in the way of all the Muslims."But the chief qadi, the keeperof the law, remainedadamant:"No one doing harmto that people has ever remained 40. TS 13 J 22, fol. 19, written on a piece of paper 24.5 cm. long and 8 cm. wide, as used in letters. The Shi'ite book: Ibn Shu'ba, Tubaf al-'uqil min dl al-rasal ("Precious Gifts to the Minds from the Family of the Messenger") (Beirut, 1969), pp. 64-67. 1 am indebted to Professor M. J. Kister for the identification. 41. S. D. Goitein, "A Report on Messianic Troubles in Baghdad in 1120-21," Jewish Quarterly Review 43 (1952): 57-76. On p. 75, the end of the line on the single leaf is to be read: wa-lak 'uluww al-ray, "yours is the final decision" (literally: the highest opinion). 42. Although the article is written, of course, in English, I provided the translation in Hebrew (opposite the Arabic text, written in Hebrew characters), to make the typesetter's task easier. 43. Which noble women did not do in those days. 44. It was now exactly 500 years after Muhammad's death. See above.

56

SHELOMO DOV GOITEIN

unpunished.Theirtime is not up. It is steadywith God" (Isaiah66:22).The caliph called Abfi Sahl Ibn Kammina (a man from a Jewishfamilywhose memberswere in governmentservicefor a period of 200 years and asked him to tell the storyof the apparitionandwho saw it.45Afterhavinglearned that a woman had originatedthe commotion,the caliph laughedand made fun of the Jews. "Theymust be fools to relyon the intelligenceof a woman. TomorrowI shall burn the woman and declarethe Jews' lives forfeited." This happenedlate in the evening,just before the vizierstook their leave. Hardlyan hour had passed when the caliph himselfwas honoredwith an apparitionof the prophet Elijah holding a pillar of fire in his hand. The caliph became frightened.As a result, Ibn Kammina and later also the other Jews were freed. Whatactuallyhappened,we learnfroma Muslimhistorian.The Jews,in their messianicexcitement,tore off the badges(yellow ones, as before imposed on non-Muslimsin Baghdad),which they were obliged to wear on their clothing, and, as is evident from the Jewish version of the story, apparentlyalso stopped to delivercertaincontributions,and even the poll tax. The end was that they had to pay a veryheavyfine,4,000 gold piecesto the caliph and 20,000 to the Sultan.The "Jilflt,"that is, the Rosh Galut, or Exilarch,collected the money.46 The story makes no mentionof these impositions.Thereis a faint allusion to the poll tax, optimisticallydescribedas a means of protection(as whichit is indeeddefinedin Muslimlaw).Otherwise,the reportis essentially a tale of a miraculousredemption,accompaniedby appearancesof the prophet Elijahand repletewith hiddenworkingsof the livingwordof God. The SeljukSultanis disquietedby Daniel 2:44, the chief qadi takes Isaiah66:22 literally,and the caliphreckonswith the possibilityof an impendingadvent of a new Jewish prophet.The popularmessianismof the Geniza writings was neitherapocalyptic,nor universalistic,and certainlynot antinomian.It was a burning desire for redemptionfrom a state of humiliationand a yearningfor beingwith God whereHe was nearest,in His sanctuaryin Jerusalem.(One lived in a Muslimenvironment,wherethe thirstfor seeingGod was quenchedby the pilgrimageto the holy sites of Mecca.) There was a third motive involved: because of the immense mobility of the Geniza society, membersof an extended family, who ideally should live in one

45. Ibid. (see n. 41, above), p. 76, fol. 17b, 1. 12; nprh is to be read as nararaha. 46. Ibid., p. 61, and in greater detail, Mediterranean Society. 2: 286-87.

"MEETING IN JERUSALEM"

57

place, or even one house, were often dispersed in different towns and countries,and formal friendship,too, counting almost as much as family The miraculous ties, if not more, was constantlydisturbedby separation.47 would of Israel about also the bring complete unificationof ingathering families and friends.48

47. S. D. Goitein, "Formal Friendship in the Medieval Middle East," Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 115 (1971): 484-89. 48. Attention is drawn to a colloquium, led by Moshe Gil, on "Jewish Immigration and Pilgrimage to Jerusalem in Early Islam (634-1099)," Cathedra 8 (1978): 124-44, which has some bearing on the topic of this article. The other participants: Samuel Safrai, Abraham Grossman, Haggai Ben-Shammai. The admonition "to eat onions in Jerusalem instead of chicken in Cairo" (p. 127; badvland tarnego'el rhymed, as in certain other Hebrew pronunciation groups) was not heeded by many. The writer certainly had in mind another rhyme also: 'ekhol basel ve-shev ba-sel, "eat onions and sit in the shadow [that is, be safe], and do not eat geese and chickens and have troubles" (b.T. Pesahim 114a).

The Meaning of 'Ein Lo Domeh and Similar Phrases in Medieval Biblical Exegesis Author(s): Frederick E. Greenspahn Source: AJS Review, Vol. 4 (1979), pp. 59-70 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486299 . Accessed: 26/06/2011 20:28 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 MEANING OF 'EIN LO DOMEH

AND SIMILAR PHRASES IN MEDIEVAL BIBLICAL EXEGESIS by FREDERICK E. GREENSPAHN Brighton,Massachusetts Medieval lexicographersand commentators frequently note unique wordsin the Bible. The descriptionsthey use for this purposeare regularly understoodto be equivalentto the modern term hapax legomenon.One exampleof this is Joshua Blau'sassertionthat in "Hebrewliteraturehapax

NOTE: Specialthanksare due to my teacherDr. NahumM. Sarnawhoseguidancewas invalu-

able in the preparationof this work. The followingabbreviationsare used in this paper: AFD DST

IJSh IKSh IQR IPM Lane

MM MM*

David ben AbrahamAl-Fasi, Kitdbjdmi' al-alfa@,ed. S. L. Skoss (New Haven, 1936-45). Dunash ben Labrat, Sefer teshuvot Dunash ben Labrat, ed. Herschel Filipowski

(London, 1855). Jonah ibn Janab,Kitdbal-usfal,ed. Adolf Neubauer(Oxford, 1873-75); Hebrew translationby Judahibn Tibbon,Seferha-shorashim, ed. WilhelmBacher (Berlin, 1896). Josephibn Kaspi, Sharsherotkesef,ed. Isaac Last (Jerusalem,1970). Judahibn Quraish,Risdla,ed. J. J. L. Bargesand D. B. Goldberg(Paris,1857). Solomon ibn Parbon,Mabberethe-'arukh,ed. S. G. Stern(Pressburg,1844). Edward Lane, An Arabic-English Lexicon (London, 1863-93).

Menabemibn Saruq, MabberetMenabem,ed. HerschelFilipowski(London, 1854). David Kaufmann,"Das W6rterbuchMenahemIbn Saruksnach Codex Bern 200," Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenldndischenGesellschaft 40 (1886): 367-409.

59

60

FREDERICK E. GREENSPAHN

legomenaarecalled 'enlo 'a4b,'enlo baver,'enlo re'aba-Miqra'."'Although

thereis not completeconsensusas to the definitionof the modernterm, is a wordwhich overallits meaningis clearandconstant:a hapaxlegomenon occursonly once withina definedcorpus;to identifya wordas a hapax is to makean assertionaboutits frequency of use.It is the purlegomenon MSh QG QSh SS

Moses ben Isaac ben Hanesi'ah, Sefer ha-shoham, ed. Benjamin Klar (Jerusalem, 1946). Joseph Qimbi, Sefer ha-galui, ed. H. J. Mathews (Berlin, 1887). David Qimbi, Sefer ha-shorashim,ed. J. H. R. Biesenthal and Fuerchtegott Lebrecht (Berlin, 1847). Sa'adia ben Joseph, Kitdb al-sab'in lafta al-mufrada, ed. Samuel L6winger (Jerusalem, 1958), 2: 146-79.

In addition to those commentaries which can be found in Rabbinic Bibles, the following editions were used: Aaron ben Elijah, Keter Torah (Eupatoria, 1866-67). Aaron ben Joseph, Mivbar yesharim (Eupatoria, 1766). Abraham ibn Ezra, The Commentary of Ibn Ezra on Isaiah, ed. Michael Friedlander (New York, 1964). Ibn Ezra 'al ha-Torah, ed. Asher Weiser, 3 vols. (Jerusalem, 1976). ---, Isaiah of Trani, Perush nevi'im u-khetuvim le-Rabbenu Yesha'ya ha-rishon mi-Trani, ed. A. L. Wertheimer, 3 vols. (Jerusalem, 1958-78). ---in Sefer 'asarah me'orot ha-gedolim, ed. Joseph Gad (Johannesburg, 1952). Jacob ben Reuben, Sefer ha-'osher (Eupatoria, 1766). Joseph ben Abba Mari ibn Kaspi, 'Adnei kesef ed. Isaac Last (London, 1911). Joseph ben Isaac Bekhor Shor, Perush 'al ha-torah, ed. Adolph Jellinek (Leipzig, 1856). Joseph Qimbi, Sefer buqqah, ed. Ber Dubrowo (Breslau, 1868). Judah ibn Bal'am, Gloses d'Abou Zakariya ben Bilam sur Isaie, ed. Joseph Derenbourg (Paris, 1892). Levi ben Gershon, Perush 'al bamesh megillot (K6nigsberg, 1860). Moses ben Nahman in Sefer 'lyyov (New York, n.d.). Sa'adiah ben Joseph, 'lyyov 'im tirgum u-ferush, ed. Yosef Qafib (Jerusalem, 1966). Tehillim 'im tirgum u-ferush, ed. Yosef Qafib (New York, 1966). ---, Samuel ben Meir, Perush ha-Torah, ed. David Rosin (Breslau, 1881). Schwartz, Israel, ed., Tiqvat 'enosh (Berlin, 1868) includes commentaries to Job by Isaiah of Trani and Moses Qimbi. Solomon ben Isaac, Parshandata, ed. Isaac Maarsen (Jerusalem, 1972). Rashi 'al ha-Torah, ed. Abraham Berliner (Frankfurt, 1905). ---, 1. Encyclopedia Judaica (Jerusalem, 1972), s.v. "Hapax Legomena"; see also Harry Torczyner, Encyclopedia Judaica (Berlin, 1931), s.v. "Hapax Legomena"; Leo Prijs, Die Grammatikalische Terminologiedes Abraham ibn Esra (Basel, 1950), pp. 24, 44; and Chaim Rabin, Ensiqlopediyamiqra'it (Jerusalem, 1962), s.v. "Millim bodedot." It should be noted that millah bodedet is not used in this sense before the modern period, although it is found with the meaning "intransitive," i.e., a verb without an object. See Simon Eppenstein, 'lyyun ve-heqer (Jerusalem, 1976), p. 200 as well as David Qimbi to Ps. 109:22 and QSh, s.v. 'RK.

THE MEANING OF 'EIN LO DOMEH

61

pose of this paperto demonstratethat the medievalreferencesdo not necessarily mean that words so describedoccur only once, but that, whatever their frequency,they lack cognateor relatedforms.The medievals'purpose in such commentswas to indicatewordswhichpresentedthemwith particular exegeticalproblems. The first indicationthat the Hebrewphrasescannot simplybe equated with the modernterminologyis their syntacticdisparity.Hapaxlegomenon is a nominalphrase;a word so designatedis a hapaxlegomenon.However, 'ein lo domehand the rest are predicates,fragmentsof a sentence;a word whichoccursonly once is not an 'einlo domeh.To be sure,thereare phrases such as millahyebidahwhich are closer to hapaxlegomenonin this regard; but theseare usedmuchless often andcan be evaluatedonly aftertheirplace within the largergroup of such terms has been assessed. A secondway in whichthese phrasesdifferfromhapaxlegomenonis the fact that there are so many of them. Whereasno modern scholar would describea uniqueword as anythingbut a hapaxlegomenon,Hebrewusage offers a varietyof alternatives,used in a seeminglyindiscriminatefashion. Whilethereis a logic to the use of thesevariousdescriptions,it is a function of style ratherthan meaning. Sa'adiah,the firstto have singledout uniquewords,describesthemwith the Arabic term mufrada,2derivedfrom a root meaning"to be single."It was used similarlyby Arab lexicographersand is found also in the worksof David Al-Fasi and Ibn Janab, where it was translatedby Ibn Tibbon as yebidah,a term used occasionallyby David and Moses Qimhi and somewhat more frequentlyby Ibn Parbon.3Ibn Quraishspeaksof al-nddira(rare words),4while David Al-Fasi describessuchwordsas laysalahunaprrmeaning that they have nothingsimilar,a descriptionalso rooted in Arabiclexicographyand used by Ibn Quraishas well.5OtherArabicexpressionswith similarmeaningsare la shabihfi -lugha6and laysa lanasawd'ahu.7 The ear-

2. To Ps. 64:2, 68:18, Job 30:13, 33:24; see also SS, pp. 146 and 170. 3. Lane, pp. 2363ff.; regarding the study of rare and unusual words in Arabic see John A. Haywood, Arabic Lexicography (Leiden, 1965), especially pp. 18-19, 42ff., 95-96, 105, and 113. AFD, s.v. 'LS; IJSh, s.v. 'BK; David Qimbi to Ps. 119:131; Moses Qimbi to Job 26:9; and IPM, s.v. RTPSh, SQD, ShNS, ShSh'. 4. IQR, p. 2 bis; see Lane, pp. 2780ff. 5. See Lane, p. 2813. AFD, s.v. TNF, 'BSh, SKT, SQ, SPD, RPQ, SQD, SQR, TZZ; SS, p. 145; IQR, p. 3; and Judah ibn Bal'am to Isa. 56:10. 6. IQR, p. 2 bis; see Lane, pp. 1499-1500. 7. AFD, L'T; see Lane. pp. 1479ff. s.vo

62

FREDERICK E. GREENSPAHN

liestHebrewequivalentis 'einlo dimyon,theregularformulation of Menaibn from whom to is used Rashi seems have taken It withsigit.8 hem Saruq less a of others The better known as well.9 nificantly regularity by variety lo is as ben but occurs most domeh found as Dunash Labrat, 'ein early in of of Trani who uses it later that Isaiah usage,particularly prominently almost exclusively.'0The Arabic phrases laysa ishtiqdqor laysa taprifli-

hadhihi1-lafra,whichreferto the absenceof relatedformsandseemnotto treatiseon Hebrewequivalents, occuralreadyin Sa'adiah's haveengendered the seventywords.1"A similargroup of phrases,based on the root ShNH, includes Moses Qimbi's 'ein lo mishnehand Aaron ben Joseph's me-'ein shenias well as Ibn Bal'am'sia thantlahu.'2IbnQuraishremarksconcerning one word that laysafti -miqraghayraha.'3 If much of the terminologyas well as the interestin this particularphe-

it is nonenomenonareto be tracedto theinfluenceof Arabiclexicography, thelessclearthat the uniqueflavorof severalof thesecommentsis indi-

genous to Hebrewusage, particularlythat of Abrahamibn Ezra. It is true

butit is IbnEzra thatDunashandperhapsMenabemhadused'einlo hzaver, Heis alsothefirst who,alongwithDavidQimbi,usesit mostextensively.14

8. MM, s.v. 'BH, 'BRK, 'GL, 'TWN, 'L$, 'PL, GLB, GB'L, GP, GRD, GRZ, DHM, ZBD, ZHM, ZNQ, Z'K, ZRB, ZRZYP, URG, T'H, TPSh, KSM, MHL, MRH, and MM*, s.v.'TM. In only two of the entries examined (PSM and SNM) is a different phrase used, viz. 'ein lo haver. See also Rashi to Gen. 41:45, Judg. 16:16, 1 Sam. 15:33, 1 Kings 18:46, Isa. 1:22, 9:18, 44:8, Ezek. 16:40, Hos. 11:3, Ps. 63:2, Job 6:10, Ruth 2:14, Lam. 4:8. 9. For example, DST, p. 57, QG, pp. 33 and 45. 10. DST, p. 33, Rashi to Exod. 16:14, Jacob ben Reuben to Isa. 3:16, 33:20, 44:8, Ibn Ezra to Isa. 9:4, Job 29:4, Cant. 3:9, 4:1, 8:5, IPM, s.v. SBT, Moses Qimbi to Job 6:10, 33:2, Moses ben Nabman to Job 6:10, and Isaiah of Trani to 1 Sam. 15:33, Isa. 3:16, 9:17f., 11:8, 18:6, 33:20, 44:8, 47:13, 56:10f., Jer. 14:9, Ezek. 16:40, 17:9, 39:2, Amos 5:11, 7:14, Ps. 55:9, 63:2, 68:17, 99:1, 119:103, 119:131, Job 17:1, 19:3, 26:9, 30:11, 33:26, 39:23, Ruth 2:14, Lam. 1:14, 4:8. 11. SS, pp. 151 and 170, AFD, s.v. ZRB, IJSh, s.v. BShS. See Lane, pp. 1577 and 1680-81, and Ibn Janab to Isa. 18:4 and Ibn Barun regarding HBR (both in Pavel Kokovtsov, Mi-sifrei ha-balshanut ha-'ivrit bi-yemei ha-beinayim [Jerusalem, 1970], pp. 19 and 168a). Ibn Tibbon translates Id ishtiqdq as 'ein gizrah (see also MM, s.v. 'PL). 12. Moses Qimbi to Job 39:23, Aaron ben Joseph to 1 Sam. 21:9, Judah ibn Bal'am to Isa. 3:1. 13. "There is no other [occurrence] in the Bible," IQR, p. 31; see Lane, p. 2315. 14. DST, p. 79; MM, s.v. SNM and PSM; Ibn Ezra to Gen. 25:30, 41:23, Exod. 12:9, 16:14, 16:31f., 32:16, Isa. 7:19, 48:19, Hos. 13:1, Joel 1:17, Amos 6:10, Ps. 63:2, Job 15:12, 21:32, 26:9, 30:25, 33:20, 33:24, 40:12, 40:31, Cant. 1:10, 7:2, 7:9, Ruth 1:13; David Qimbi to 1 Sam. 21:9, 2 Sam. 17:20, Isa. 9:4, 11:15, 33:20, 56:10, Ezek. 6:1, 21:20, 23:23, Joel 2:7, Amos 3:12, 5:11, Ps. 55:9, 63:2. See also Jacob ben Reuben to Isa. 1:22 and 50:4, Samuel ben Meir to Gen. 41:23 and Exod. 16:14, Moses Qimbi to Job 2:8, 9:3, 30:25, 40:12, Joseph ibn Kaspi to Amos 7:14, Aaron ben Elijah to Gen. 25:30 and 40:11, Levi ben Gershon to Cant. 8:5, and Joseph Bekhor Shor to Exod. 16:14.

THE MEANING OF 'EIN LO DOMEH

63

This last phraseis but to use 'einlo re'a and the only one to use 'einlo 'ahz.'5 one example of the metaphoricalplayfulnessin which Ibn Ezra indulged.

Amongthevariantshe employedare'einlo 'abot,'einlo 'avve-'em,andeven His sustaineduse of such imageryand exceptionalin'einlo mishpabah.'6

terestin this phenomenon alongwiththe lackof Arabicparallelsandthe factthat he is the only one or the firstto use mostof thesemetaphorical phrasessuggeststhat, with the possibleexceptionof 'einlo haverwhichmay have provided the impetus for such inventiveness,Ibn Ezra formulated them himself.He is also the only one to use otherunique,if less imaginative descriptions-'ein kamohu,'einlo 'aber,and shemlevado.'7Althoughaware of these more standardphrases,later authoritiessuch as Josephibn Kaspi seem often to have avoidedthem in favor of ratherfree descriptionsof the uniquenessof individualwordssuch as 'einlanube-yadeinuyoter mi-zehbeshoresh... .' In additionto the varietyof availableHebrewtermsis the freedomwith which the medievalsphrasedsuch assertions,suggestingagain that these were not fixed formulas, but living expressionsframed in large part by those who used them. This is in stark contrastto the modernhapaxlegomenon,a foreign phrase which never varies no matter who uses it or in which modern language he writes."9Thus examiningonly the case with 15. For 'ein lo re'a see Ibn Ezra to Gen. 26:20, 35:10, Exod. 29:20, Lev. 25:21, Deut. 22:8, 32:25, Isa. 10:15, 33:20, 44:8, 44:19, 47:2, Amos 5:11, Ps. 18:46, 60:4, 140:11, Job 41:14, 41:21; David Qimbi (e.g., to Isa. 1:22) and Aaron ben Elijah (e.g., to Deut. 27:9) also use this frequently. For 'ein lo 'ab see Ibn Ezra to Gen. 30:20, Lev. 6:14, Deut. 32:15, 33:19, Job 2:8, Lam. 3:16, 6:14. 16. For 'abot see Ibn Ezra to Lev. 14:37, Isa. 11:8, 14:23; for 'av ve-'em see to Lam. 1:14, and for mishpabah to Deut. 32:34. Note also his comments to Job 40:17 and Eccles. 10:8. 17. See comments to Lev. 19:19, Num. 11:2 (if not a textual error for 'ein lo 'ab), Isa. 3:19, Hos. 11:3, Job 17:1, Lam. 4:8. Michael Friedlinder translates Ibn Ezra's millah zarah, which would correspond to the Arabic al-alfd~ral-gharfb (Sa'adiah to Job 6:6, see SS, p. 164 and IQR, pp. 1, 2, 111), as hapax legomenon (at Isa. 9:17, 15:5), and in his comment to Isa. 50:4 it is joined with 'ein re'a lah (for an Arabic example see IQR, p. 110). It is not, however, clear that Ibn Ezra intended it in the same sense as the other phrases here treated (see comments to Esther 1:3 and Dan. 1:3). 18. To Isa. 9:17; see also to Isa. 1:22, 61:6, Joel 1:17, Amos 6:10 and IKSh, s.v. D WB and HZH. This apparent deviation from standard phraseology may be the result of Ibn Kaspi's desire to use rare words as evidence that only a limited amount of ancient Hebrew literature had survived in the Bible; see A. S. Halkin, "The Medieval Jewish Attitude Toward Hebrew," in Biblical and Other Studies, ed. Alexander Altmann (Cambridge, 1963). Not all freely phrased remarks are late. Sa'adiah makes a similar point in his comment to Ps. 80:14. Sometimes the lack of fixed phraseology is deceptive; lo masanu lo haver is repeated verbatim five times by David Qimhi (to Isa. 9:4, Ezek. 5:1, 9:4, 23:23, 33:20; see also to Amos 3:12). 19. In its original Greek usage, hapax legomenon seems subject to similar variability of formulation; see Franco Martinazzoli, Hapax Legomenon (Rome, 1953).

64

FREDERICK E. GREENSPAHN

regardto domeh,we find that the most commonformis 'einlo domeh;20this can, however,be invertedto 'eindomehlo, even by Isaiahof Traniwho uses the more common sequenceover thirtytimes,21or subjectedto variousinsertions such as 'ein la-millahha-zot domehor 'ein li-sheneihemdomeh.22 One finds also beli domeh,'eindomehla-millah,and 'ein lah domeh.23 This last formulationis especiallynoteworthyin that it is grammaticallycorrect-the antecedentbeing the femininenoun millah-and yet the greatest numberof these phrasesuse the masculineform o10.24 A similarvarietyof be can shown for the other as Sometimestwo or well. phrasing expressions moreof these phrasesarecombined,as if to suggestthat the meaningof one alonewould not necessarilybe clear.Thus Ibn ParlhonremarksthatRNH is a millahyeizidahshe-'einlah domeh.25 Thus far the diversityof phraseologyusedby medievalHebrewexegetes has been contrastedto the rigorous consistencyof modern terminology. Whilethis does makea cleardistinctionbetweenthe two kindsof usage,it is not adequateto negate the generallyacceptedequationof the meaningof these phraseswith that of the moderntermhapaxlegomenon.Seriousquestions about such a conclusionare, however,raisedby severalaspectsof the way in which these phrasesare used. First,by no meansall of the hapaxlegomenain the Bibleareso identified in medievalexegesis.Abrahamibn Ezranotes such words more often than any other of the medievalsand yet cites only 43 out of 140hapaxlegomenon verbsin the Bible;Isaiahof Trani,who also drawsattentionto this phenom20. E.g., DST, p. 33; Jacob ben Reuben to Isa. 3:10, 33:20, 44:8; Ibn Ezra to Cant. 3:9, 4:1; IPM, s.v. SBT; Moses ben Nabman to Job 6:10; Aaron ben Elijah to Gen. 41:23, and most often by Isaiah of Trani (see above, n. 10). 21. To Isa. 33:20. At Ps. 63:2 he uses the anomalous 'ein lekha domeh; see also Rashi to Exod. 16:14. 22. Ibn Ezra to Isa. 9:4; Moses Qimbi to Job 33:25; see Sa'adiah's description of RTPSh and PD' as mufradatan (to Job 33:24). 23. Ibn Ezra to Job 29:4; IPM, s.v. RSD (see also s.v. 'TM and RNH); Moses Qimbi to Job 6:10. 24. The criterion leading to the use of lah seems to be the closeness to the word millah itself. Menabem uses 'ein lo dimyon several times, except when preceded by a phrase such as la-millah ha-zot 'ein lah dimyon (MM, s.v. Z'K, ZRB, ZRZYP, KSM, MRfI). Most often, he uses neither, preferringinstead something like 'ein la-millah dimyon in which case the issue of gender is irrelevant. By the time of Rashi, the phrase was fixed as 'ein lo domeh, illustrating again that this was a formative period for these phrases although the tendency for them to become formulaic is apparent. 25. IPM, s.v. RNH, see also s.v. 'TM, RSD, and above n. 17. A similar conflation of terms

can occur in Arabic, e.g., hadhihi1-kalimamin al-kalimatal-mufradaal-gharibafi -'ibrant allati la nazfr lahu (IQR, p. 100, see also p. 2 bis).

THE MEANING OF 'EIN LO DOMEH

65

enon quite frequently,indicatesonly 31. Moreover,they agreewith regard to only 14.26The relativelysmall proportionof words so noted makes it abundantlyclearthat the medievalsdid not strivefor completenessin identifying such words.27The lack of consistencyin those words whichthey do describesuggestsfurtherthe possibilityof disagreementamong exegetesas to which words were in fact unrelatedto other biblicalforms. Thus Menabem includes GRZ in his list of words 'asher'einlahemdimyonand indeed cites the usage in Psalms 31:23 as its only attestationin the entry for that root in his Mabberet,whereasDunash objectsnot so much to Menahem's interpretation,which he does somewhatmodify, as to the characterization of the wordas uniquein lightofgarzenwhichDunashderivesfromthe same root.28To the extentthat therewas a lackof consensusas to a word'sroot, it is not surprisingthat exegetesdid not alwaysagreeregardingits uniqueness. This is especiallyclearin thosecommentswhichenumeratevariousinterpretations for an individualword, all based on relatingit to otherwords, only to rejectthose opinions and concludeinsteadthat the word in questionhas no domeh.Thus, for example,Ibn Ezrapoints out that thereare those who treatHRT as a dialecticvariantof HRSh,whileothersview it as a metathesized form of HTR, but that in fact the correctview is that it has no haver.29 By implicationthen, domehand the other terms refer to the existenceof relatedforms within the biblicalcorpus, and indeed these terms are occasionallyusedin a positivesensewith exactlythis meaning.30Remarkably,a 26. Viz. 'BK,BShS,HDH, HZH, Z'K, Y'B,KMH,MLS, NWT,PRShZ,S'N, SPD, RHH, SQD. Ibn Ezraalone notes GRD,DWS, HDK,ZHM, HTM, USPS, URG,URT, TPSh, Y'Z, KMS, KPSh,KSH, L'T, MHL, SRP, 'BSh,'GM,'GN,'WT,'ZQ, "R, 'SQ, PD', PSM, SNM, RZM, RPQ, SPN. Isaiah of Trani alone notes BLS, HBR, HKR, NTS, S'H, 'TM, SBT, RTPSh,RNH, RSD, SQR, TZZ,as well as BTQ, DHM, QSS, ShSP, and ShSh'whichare in books for which no commentary by Ibn Ezra was available. 27. It should be noted that in his famous treatise on the so called seventy hapax legomena, Sa'adiah makes no claim that his is an exhaustive list, nor really a collection of mufradit, but according to his title mufradat al-qur'an wa-sharbuha min takh~r$al-mishna, that is, words which lack related forms in the Bible but are known from rabbinic usage. In other words, the treatise is based on a subgroup of the mufradat, namely those with rabbinic cognates. The reason for this is now well known: Sa'adiah used the existence of such words to buttress his theological position as to the importance of rabbinic literature from a linguistic perspective; see Benjamin Klar, Mebqarim ve-'iyyunim(Tel Aviv, 1954), p. 260. That its contents are selective is therefore hardly surprising; his criterion is explicit from the very first line. 28. MM, pp. 22 and 56; DST, p. 57. 29. To Exod. 32:16; see also to Exod. 12:9, Deut. 32:15, Isa. 5:2, 9:4, 11:8, 25:11, 46:6, 47:2, Cant. 4:1 and Jacob ben Reuben to Isa. 50:4. 30. E.g., DST, p. 57 and Rashi to Isa. 33:20. 'Abot is similarly used by Ibn Ezra at Isa. 24:1 although the text of that comment is not entirely clear (see Michael Friedlfnder there). Ibn

66

FREDERICK E. GREENSPAHN

wordcould havea domehoutsideof the Bibleas well. Ibn Ezraremarksconcerning'SQ, yadu'abe-divreiqadmoneinu raqba-miqra'einlo re'a.31The use

of tannaiticformsto explainbiblicalwordsis foundevenamongKaraite who mightotherwisebe expectedto minimizethe imporlexicographers tanceof rabbinicliterature.32 A biblicalwordcanhavea domehin languages otherthanrabbinicHebrew. Aramaic is, of course, frequentlycited. Al-Fasi notes regardingthe

rootSLQ(Psalms139:8),laysafi -'ibrdnt and na;trlakinahu minal-surant, cites the usagesin the AramaicpassagesDaniel3:22and 6:24.33Joseph Qimhiis said by his son David to have found a baverfor MHL in Arabic, andAl-Fasinotesone for 'BSh.34WereAkkadianor Ugariticknownat the

to expectthatcognatesfromthesesourceswouldalso time,it is reasonable

have been included. The moderntermwhichaccuratelyrendersthe medievalusageof domeh

in thesecasesis theword"cognate," if onecanextenditsmeaning especially to includerelatedformsin the samelanguage.'Einlo domehtherefore referslessto theword'sfrequency in thebiblicaltextthanto themethodologicalproblemof findingsufficientevidencefromwhichto deriveits mean-

ing. This is clearfromMenalem'scommentto his list of uniqueforms wherehepointsoutthattheyareexplicable onlyto theextentthattheircontextis clear."3 Thisis consistentwiththemedievalmethodof interpreting a Quraish frequently uses the Arabic analogs of these terms in this way, e.g., natFr(IQR, pp. 11, 17, 18, 48, 107; see also p. 14) and ishtiqdq(see especially, pp. 107-15 which are designated alabraffallati laha ishtiqdqdtand also p. 27); most often he uses mithl in this sense, corresponding functionally and semantically to the Hebrew domeh. 31. To Gen. 26:20; see DST, p. 33 and Rashi to Lam. 3:16. It is such cases which Sa'adiah collected in his famous treatise; see above n. 27. 32. AFD, s.v. TZ and SPD. Comparison of biblically unique words with tannaitic forms can be found also in MM (s.v. 'PL, GB'L, GRD, TH, SLD, and SPD; see also s.v. GP), Rashi (to Job 6:10 and Ruth 2:14) and Isaiah of Trani (to Isa. 18:5). 33. AFD, s.v. SQ; see also s.v. SKT and Ibn Ezra to Hos. 13:1. Menahem's inclusion of DHB in his list of unique forms must therefore allude to the use at Isa. 14:4 rather than the frequently occurring Aramaic cognate of Hebrew ZHB (see MM, p. 23 and IQR, p. 2 bis), against Nehemiah Allony, "Hashqafot qara'iyyot be-mahberet Menabem," in 'Oyar yehudei Sefarad 5 (1962): 51. 34. AFD, s.v. 'BSh and David Qimhi to Isa. 1:22; see also Ibn Ezra to Hos. 13:1, Joseph Qimhli to Prov. 10:8, and Ibn Bal'am to Isa. 6:10. 35. MM, p. 56, see also s.v. 'BU. The medievals often combine assertions as to a word's uniqueness with the conclusion that it can be understood only from context, so much so in fact that it has been suggested that statements about contextual reliance are alone sufficient justification for the conclusion that the particular exegete believed the word in question to be unique; see E. Z. Melamed, Mefareshei ha-miqra (Jerusalem, 1975), p. 625.

THE MEANING OF 'EIN LO DOMEH

67

word on the basis of its usage in severalsettings,even if one must look to The true probcognate literaturein order to find additionalattestations.36 lem for the medievals was thereforenot the infrequencyof a particular word, but the lack of varietyin its usages,howevermany. Ibn Ezrasays as muchin his observationat Exodus 16:31that the wordgad has no haverin the Bible since it occurs only with regardto manna;a word which occurs twice still fits into this class becausethe two usagesare not sufficientlydissimilar to provide more informationthan is available from one alone.37 That these descriptionsare primarilymethodologicalis confirmedalso by other notations which identify words that occur twice3"as well as those limitedto particularsections of the Bible39or based on uniquemethodsof word formation.40This helps to explainwhy not all hapaxlegomenawere so described.Some words identifiedtoday as hapax legomenamay have been relatedto other biblicalforms,41while in othercases a word'srareness may not have posed any particularproblemof exegesis.Thus amongthose hapaxlegomenanot singledout by any of the medievalsas uniqueare NBI (Isaiah56:10)and TRGM(Ezra4:7),whichwereso commonin postbiblical usage that they were hardly deemed to be problematic.42 The most puzzlingaspectof this issue is the fact that some of the words describedwith phraseslike 'ein lo domehdo occur more than once in the Bible.The medievalinterpretationsof thesewordsmustbe closelyexamined in order to understandhow they were regardedas unique. Often the evi36. IPM, p. 74b. 37. The word occurs also in the nonparallel Num. 11:7, albeit in the same context. Ibn Ezra is also able thereby to describe tenukh as unique (at Exod. 29:20) although it occurs six times in the book of Leviticus. In this regard, see Ibn Ezra's observation at Gen. 40:12. Perhaps this accounts for those observations regarding unique words which lack any explanation as to their meaning (e.g., Ibn Ezra to Job 17:1 and Ruth 1:13; QG, p. 45 regarding KMH; and Joseph Bekhor Shor to Exod. 16:14) that the evidence in such cases was deemed inadequate to permit conclusive interpretation. 38. E.g., Ibn Ezra to Deut. 21:14 and Job 39:19. 39. E.g., Ibn Ezra to Gen. 7:4, Eccles. 2:16, Esther 1:3, 1:20, and Dan. 1:3;see also to Gen. 40:12 and Joseph Qimbi to Prov. 10:8. 40. E.g., Ibn Ezra to Isa. 64:5, Joel 1:11, and Lam. 4:17. 41. E.g., DGH (Gen. 48:16), HP' (2 Kings 17:9), Y'H(Jer. 10:7), S'S' (Isa. 27:8), RPP (Job 26:11), SWH (Gen. 24:63). 42. Similarly, the hapax legomena SMN (Isa. 28:25) and PNQ (Prov. 29:21) are identified as unique only by Sa'adiah for whom other factors clearly played an important part (SS, pp. 149 and 155, see above n. 27). KUL (Ezek. 23:40) and PShH (Lam. 3:11) are also never identified as unique although MSh (p. 81) relates the former to bakhlili (Gen. 49:12) by way of metathesis and Jacob ben Reuben (to Lam. 3:11) identifies PShU with PSUI on the basis of sibilant interchange.

68

FREDERICKE. GREENSPAHN

denceis insufficientto permitfirmconclusions.For example,Sa'adiah's treatiseincludeswithoutexplanation severalwordswithrabbiniccounterpartsfor whichthereis no extantcommentary by him.Evaluationof this problemis thereforelimited by the resourcesavailableto us.

In somecasesit can be shownthatwhilemodernscholarship relatesa to another biblical an word individual medieval form, particular exegete believedthem to be etymologicallydistinct.Thus althoughthe root 'RB is

its useat Psalms68:5to foundmanytimesin the Bible,Menabemregarded be unrelatedto otherattestations andthusappropriate for inclusionin his treatment of GLMand list.43Thisis alsothecasewithregardto Sa'adiah's QRS whichare both includedtwice in his list, but for separatebiblicalpassages each of which is then correlatedwith its own rabbinicparallel,the meaningof whichis distinctfromthat of the parallelcited for the seemingly

identicalroot.

Close scrutinyrevealsthat wordswhichoccurseveraltimescould also be

werelimitedto oneverseor regardedas uniqueif theirvariousoccurrences even one passage44or if they were found only in parallelor virtuallyparallel passages.45 Whilemodernscholarsmightdifferin theirtreatmentof such cases, no one would argue that inclusion of these words is dishonest or wholly unjustified.Thereremain,however,wordsclearlydescribedby individualexegetesas uniquewith multipleoccurrencesthat cannot be so justified. One could arguethat suchcasesare the resultof error,that the exegete simply forgot or was unawareof other occurrencesof a particularword. However,this kind of solution begs the question of the meaningof such phrases,assumingthemto be identicalwith our own hapaxlegomenon.Such a positionshouldbe only a last resortwhenno otherreasonableexplanation 43. Against Nehemiah Allony, "Hashqafotqara'iyyot,"p. 53. This is clear also from David Qimbi'scomment(to Ezek. 2:20) regardingTBY that 'einla-millahha-zothaverle-fi ha-'inyan.Similarcriteriamust have governedhis identificationof demeseq(Amos 3:12)and 'BT (Joel 2:7) as well as Menabem'sdescriptionof GPR, URK, TRP,'SH, SRK (MM, s.v. GLB)and Ibn Ezra'scommentsregardingkivrat(Gen. 35:16),na' (Exod. 12:9),ShQ' (Num. (Deut. 28:42,Job 40:31;see 11:2),'orbot(Isa. 25:11),bul(Isa. 44:19),shovel(Isa. 47:2), ,elayal also Isa. 18:1),and 'aman(Cant. 7:2). 44. For example, Sa'adiahnotes T'T' and sumponyah,while Menabemincludes 'RGZ, ZBD, PSL, QRM,SD YM, ShTY,and ShTM.In this category!bn EzraincludesZBD (Gen. 30:20),QRY(Lev. 26:21),TT' (Isa. 14:23),andGLSh(Cant.4:1)as wellas S'N (Isa.9:4)which is includedalso by David Qimbi. 45. Thus SS includestolafot,shetum,and ta'aruvotwhile Menabem'slist contains'eshpar, GLShand sha'alnezwhich Ibn Ezra(to Lev. 19:19)also considersunique.

THE MEANING OF 'EIN LO DOMEH

69

can be found.46It has been proposedthat Sa'adiahincluded some words which occur more than once in order to buttresshis argumentwhich requiredrarebiblicalwords that could be explainedfrom rabbinicHebrew.47 Since he includeslegitimatecases of isolatedwordswith rabbiniccognates, however,there would have been little reason to include inappropriateentries merelyto lengthenthe list; his point could have quiteeasilybeen made withoutresortto such artifice.Moreover,in at least two cases he lists multiple occurrencesof a particularroot in the same entry,hardlythe behavior of one who is trying to sneak somethingby an unsuspectingreader.48The existenceof this phenomenonin various medievalcommentariesand dictionaries for which the tendenz ascribed to Sa'adiah is not appropriate indicatesthe need to find some other explanation.49 In fact, theseproblemsexistonly so long as one is committedto equating 'einlo domehwith our own hapaxlegomenon,wherehapaxis the Greekword for "once."The Hebrewcontainsno such assertion.The inclusionof words occurringseveraltimes in nearbyor parallelpassagesalreadyprovidedone indicationthat frequencyof occurrencealone, whichhas been shown not to be the purposeof such notices,was also not the basic criterion.Thesecases serve quite forcefullyto prove that point. If one agreesthat the exegetedid not err, but intendedto identifythese words by 'einlo domehand recallsthat domehis to be understoodas meaning "cognate or related form," it will then become clear that these are words which, even though they themselvesmay occur more than once, are from roots whichhave no other attestationin biblicalHebrew.The word itself, no matter how often it occurs, is the only attestationof the rootnothingelse is relatedto it. Seenin thislight, the terminologybecomesclear. Domeh is to be taken literally:there is nothing similarto the word; the word has no relatives,only itself.

46. The possibility of error should not be gainsaid; cf. Menabem's inclusion of 'TNN, BG, GLM, ZRM, ULMWT, lLMYSh, PDR, $NU, RBK, and RGSh in his list of unique words (MM, s.v. GLB) for each of which several related usages are cited at the appropriate entries of the Mabberet. Internal consistency was not always the case; see, for example, QSh, pp. 37 and 50 where differing explanations of BShS are given. 47. Harold Cohen, "Biblical Hapax Legomena in Light of Akkadian and Ugaritic" (Ph.D. diss., Columbia University, 1975), p. 21. 48. SS, p. 154 regarding TPL and pp. 168-69 for 'SM. 49. Ibn Ezra thus includes gadish (Job 21:32) despite its occurring several times elsewhere; see also references pertaining to Ibn Ezra and David Qimbi in notes 37 and 43-45 above.

70

FREDERICK E. GREENSPAHN

We can appreciate nowthe difference of nuancebetweenthesephrases withwhichthey are so oftenequated. and the modernhapaxlegomenon Thesephrasesaredescriptive, not formulaic,intendedto pointout to the limitationswhichthe exegetebelievedhe conreaderthe methodological frontedin treatinga particularword:whereashe usuallylookedfor the semanticrangeof wordsbasedon a commonroot,in thesecasestherewas andwhereeventhat nothingrelatedexceptperhapsin a cognatelanguage; was lacking,he was forcedto relyon contextalone.Thusalthoughtheir andin practicethe wordsso meaningis similarto thatof hapaxlegemenon identifiedoverlapto a largedegreewiththoseproperlycalledhapaxlegomena,the phrasesare very differentin intentionfromhapaxlegomenon whichhasat its basetheassertionthata wordoccursonlyonce.Themedievals were not concernedwith word frequencyin these comments,but ratherwith the problemof findingsufficientbasis of comparisonfrom of wordsfor whichlimitedexewhichto derivea justifiableinterpretation getical resourceswere available.

Guenzburg, Lilienblum, and the Shape of Haskalah Autobiography Author(s): Alan Mintz Source: AJS Review, Vol. 4 (1979), pp. 71-110 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486300 . Accessed: 26/06/2011 20:28 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

GUENZBURG, LILIENBLUM, AND THE SHAPE OF HASKALAH AUTOBIOGRAPHY by ALAN MINTZ Columbia University

I Haskalah autobiography, as S. Werses has surveyed it, is a wide field which includes such well known figures as I. S. Reggio, S. D. Luzzatto, M. H. Letteris, A. Gottlober, S. Y. Fuenn, J. L. Gordon, M. A. Guenzburg, and M. L. Lilienblum.' The fact that these names are well known-and known to us from works other than their autobiographies-is significant. Most of these works are accounts of the author's literary and cultural activity, and they interest us now, if they do at all, as portals to a more complete comprehension of that activity. Reggio, for example, describes his call to Jewish learning and the progress of his career as a scholar; in provoking detail in the pages of Ha-maggid, Luzzatto gives an authorized version of the canon of his works; Letteris and Fuenn offer not so much portraits of themselves as reminiscences of such famous figures from the milieu in which they worked as Rappaport and Krochmal; and Gottlober deflects attention from himself in another way by confining himself to an ethnographic account of the Volhynia and Podolia of his youth. In contrast to this concep1. Samuel Werses, "Darkhei ha-'avtobiogerafyah bi-tequfat ha-Haskalah," Gilyonot 17 (1945): 175-83.

71

72

ALAN MINTZ

tion of autobiographyas reflectionson a public career,there are two outstanding exceptions: Mordecai Aaron Guenzburg's'Avi'ezerand Moses ne'urim.Thesetwo worksareconcernedwithwhat LeibLilienblum's .Haltot the personallife independentof, or intermixedwith, might be crudelycalled the public career;as texts, these autobiographiesask to be taken seriously for the intrinsictruth of the experiencethey portrayratherthan for their associationwith the famous, or not so famous, authorswho wrote them. And so it is: we now honor Guenzburgmore for 'Avi'ezerand less for his Devirand his historicalworks, and we honor Lilienblum'spublicisticactine'urim. vity becauseof the existentialauthoritygiven it by To sharpenthe distinctionbetween'Avi'ezerand .Hattotne'urimand the .Hattot own termsin the other autobiographies,we can profitablyuse Guenzburg's methodologicalpreface to his book. For Guenzburgthere are two ideal types, biographyand autobiography,which are distinguishednot so much by the point-of-view (whether one is writing about oneself or about another)but by the natureof the subject.Biographiesarewrittenaboutmen who have becomefamousbecauseof theirgreatspiritualpowersor because of the outstandingevents of their lives; it is the task of the biographer, accordingto Guenzburg,"to choose with wisdom and discriminationall that is lofty and preciousin theirlife histories,as well as the spiritthat urged them on to accomplishtheir wonderfuldeeds"2-in other words, to select from among a multiplicityof personal attributesthose special ones that conduce to greatness.The autobiographer,in contrast, is positively forbidden selectivity.He need not be a great man; what he needs instead of achievementsis comprehensiveself-knowledgeand a commitmentto truth so unflinchingthat therewill be no hesitationin confessingany sin or shortcoming. Of the biographytype, Guenzburgsays there are many examples in Hebrew-Nahmanides and NaphtaliHerzWessely,for instance(and, we would add, the self-told biographiesof Reggio, Luzzatto,and others);of true autobiography,there have been very few, or more precisely,none in modern times until 'Avi'ezer. These categories,it need hardlybe said, are not originalwith Guenzburg;the mention of confessingshould give away his indebtednessto the climateof assumptionsconcerningthe genrecreatedby Rousseau,the father of modernautobiography,whoseideasenteredJewishliteraturethroughthe conduit of Solomon Maimon'sautobiography.It is to Rousseau'ssimple 2. Mordecai Aaron Guenzberg, 'Avi'ezer (Tel Aviv, 1967, photoreproduction of Ist ed., Vilna, 1864), pp. 1-2. Page references are to this edition.

GUENZBURG, LILIENBLUM, AND HASKALAH AUTOBIOGRAPHY

73

but previouslyunacknowledgedassumptionthat childhood and youth are essentialto understandingthe maturepersonthat we owe the firstsubstantial accounts of those stages of developmentin Hebrew in the works of Guenzburgand Lilienblum.Rousseau'sprimaryinfluencewas, of course,in identifyingthe autobiographicalact with confession and sincerity-what our writerswould call "the love of truth"-and in creatinga literarynorm that requiresrevealingwhat is indiscreet,foolish, and shamefulin a life as well as what is noble, and that furtherrequiresthat no dimensionof the personal life remain above or beneath scrutiny.There are, however, two other conditionsof Rousseaueanautobiographywhich Hebrewwritershad much more difficultyin assimilating.One is Rousseau'sassertion,trumpeted in the famous openinglines of TheConfessions,of the absoluteoriginality and unrepeatabilityof his experienceand the literaryaccount of it. "I have resolvedon an enterprisewhichhas no precedent,and which, once complete, will have no imitator."3One need only mention the Haskalah writer'sbeliefin reason,reform,and the correctibilityof humanbehaviorto know that he had a greater interest in stressing the typicality of his experiencethan its originality.It is the actualcontent of the Rousseauean confession which presentedthe most difficultiesfor the Haskalah autobiographer.Whatis beingconfessedarethe passionsof the heart,the search for love, the continualattemptsto satisfya need for total intimatecompanionshipwhichincludesphysicalunion but goes far beyondit. In the face of confessionssuchas these,our autobiographers,Lithuanianscholarsmarried at the thresholdof puberty,must standwith emptyhands:therewas simply nothing in their experiencewhich answeredto Rousseau'spreoccupation with passionate intimacy. In contrast to the novel, whose melodramatic conventionsweresatisfiedby the most stylizedand stereotypedportrayalof male-femalerelations,the conventionsof autobiographyrequiredrealism,a demandwhichmeantin this case confessingthe inabilityto participatefully in this centralaspect of modernexperience.In this way, the experimental representationof absence,insufficiency,and frustrationin mattersof love and intimacyin such laterworksof fictionas "Ha-Siddah,""Ba-boref,"and "'Orvaparab"is a directlegacy of autobiography.Just as the problemof Jewish autobiographywas how to confess to sins that had not been committed, so the problem of the novel would later be how to write a novel without romance. It is in Lilienblum's ne'urimthat this set of problemsreceivesits .Hattot 3. Jean-Jacques Rousseau, The Confessions, trans. J. M. Cohen (Baltimore, 1975), p. 17.

74

ALAN MINTZ

fullest articulation, and it can be said with some certainty that of all works of Haskalah literature it was ne'urim-and perhaps it alone-that .Hallot as a living and inspiriting text. Precisely was returned to by the modernists because Lilienblum is so important, Guenzburg becomes crucial, for had it not been for 'Avi'ezer, Hattot ne'urim would have been, if not impossible, then at least a very different book, for in the opening chapters Lilienblum explicitly cedes to that earlier autobiography authoritative coverage of childhood and early adolescence and on that basis takes leave to begin his story with the years of youth. For this reason and for its very considerable accomplishments in its own right, I wish first to discuss 'Avi'ezer and then proceed to its successor. II Mordecai Aaron Guenzburg (1795-1846) was born in Salant, Lithuania and earned a living as an itinerant tutor until he settled permanently in Vilna, where with the poet Solomon Salkind he founded a modern Jewish school and became one of the leading spokesmen for the Vilna Haskalah. In addition to 'Avi'ezer and Devir, a miscellany of translated letters and travel accounts, Guenzburg was best known for a popular and stylistically influential series of histories of contemporary Europe, which included Toledot benei 'adam, 'Ittotei Rusya, and Ha-Sarefatim be-Rusya. 'Avi'ezer,which was begun in 1828 and published posthumously in 1864, is a statement about the ineluctable connection between impotence and apostasy. Impotence is viewed in part figuratively, as the enforced passivity inherent in the heder system of rote learning and in the enforced dependence on superstition and pilpul in matters of dogma and belief. But impotence is also taken very literally: as the sexual dysfunction resulting from the premature confrontation with sexuality enforced by the system of arranged early marriage. The cumulative effect of these varieties of impotence, Guenzburg argues, was to deny him the inner strength necessary to stand up before the onslaught of metaphysical questions which assailed him upon reaching maturity and which brought him to the verge of apostasy, of which he was finally cured, together with his sexual impotence, by an outside agency in the person of an aging apostate doctor. This thesis is realized in the book's four part structure: three sections devoted to different aspects of impotence and a fourth presenting the cure and the philosophical affirmations it made possible. In its proportions the book is laid out as follows: section one, chapters 1-16: the heder and the formal education; section two. chapters

GUENZBURG, LILIENBLUM, AND HASKALAH AUTOBIOGRAPHY

75

17-37: marriageand domesticpolitics;sectionthree, chapters38-41: faith and apostasy;section four, chapters42-54: the cure. If 'Avi'ezerwas concernedonly with the figurativeaspectsof impotence it would hardlybe distinguishedfrom other didacticliteratureof the Haskalah;but the depictionof real impotence,bearinga burdenof humiliation that is intenselyand inescapablypersonal,indicatesthe presencehere of a subjectivedimensionthat is strikinglynew. As a literarywork 'Avi'ezercontains two intentionsor functions:one didacticand one confessional,the two representingthe older and the newerautobiographicalnorms.The didactic intentionis evincedin the use of the experienceof the individualas an illustrationof the largerabusesof the community;the functionof discoursehere is to move the reader,who is palpablyapostrophized,to correctiveaction, and the rhetoricalmode is neoclassicalin its use of parable,generalization, and example.The confessionalintention,on the otherhand,is not to expose but to express;the functionof discoursein this modeis to effectreleasefrom a burdenof privatedistressand to gain sympathyfor the historyof a particularindividual;the rhetoricalmode is protoromantic:sincethe purposeis to tell the story of a life, emphasisis placedon the productionof a continuous narrative,to which such static elementsas digressionsand examples are subordinated.What is impressiveabout Guenzburgin 'Avi'ezeris his ability to manage both intentions,makingthem functiontogetherto produce a transitionwork of high importance. The didacticintentionis understandablymost in force in the examination of the hederyearsin the firstsection of 'Avi'ezer.The fact that this section consistslargelyof criticaldescriptionsof the pedagogicalmethodsof his several melamdimis very much in keepingwith Guenzburg'seighteenthcentury assumptionsabout education. After Locke Guenzburgbelieved, simply, that a child's mind is a clean slate that registerswhateverassociations are impressed upon it. The immense formative powers accorded teachersand parentsby this theoryput the childin a muchgreaterdangerof victimizationthan any romantictheorythat would have the naturalself of the child strugglingto emergeon its own. The kindof educationalvictimization Guenzburgdescribes-in addition to the unrelentingexposureto the capricesof adult will and to such idiosyncrasiesas one melamed'sobvious manic depression-involves the systematicdenial of cognitivefreedomand autonomy.As to method,the teachercan show the childhow to makesomething his own by understandingand reasoningit fromwithinor he can give him a cheap sense of masterythroughmemorizingand copying, the path Guenzburgcalls "living by theft" (p. 26). As to exegesis, the teachercan

76

ALAN MINTZ

demonstrate the use of reasonin extracting religioustruthfromfigurative and aggadic material or he can handicap the child's mind by leaving it forever chained to fancy and superstition. And as to curriculum, the teacher can nourish the soul with a mixed course of Bible, language, and Talmud, or he can leave the soul impoverished with an exclusive regime of Talmud study. When teachers refuse, as Guenzburg claims most of his did, to show the path to the true acquisition of knowledge and to its rational interpretation and thus relegate the student to imitation and superstition, the child is unmanned and reduced to unremitting dependence. To give legitimacy to his pronouncements-and to the audacity of the autobiographical act itself-Guenzburg frequently uses in this section some of the conventions of the Hebrew ethical will (the ?avva'ah). The presence of a hypostasized son or student to whom the work is addressed makes it a dramatic act of communication in the present as well as a narrative of events in the past. It justifies Guenzburg's interrupting the narrative to address to his reader-beneficiary advice for the future in the form of lessons reaped from the past and reflections on the enduring effects of early education.4 The narrative itself is of a certain kind which does not take on a continuous movement from the past toward the present. Rather, each chapter contains a generalized statement about one stage in life and then offers a dramatized illustration of it. In addition, each chapter contains a parable-usually an animal parable very much after the fashion of such writers as Erter-which expresses the truth of the chapter in compressed figurative form, as if to say that it is insufficient to rely upon statement and example alone to do the work of explanation. In concert these features constitute the very model of a neoclassical argument; first, a short parable whose relevance is at first not clear; second, the decoding of the parable in the form of a general statement of the subject's situation at a certain stage of childhood; third, a situational example; and fourth, a return to the present of the writing in which the author makes the reader-listener the recipient of the cautionary wisdom of his experience. Behind the story of marriage and impotence in the second section of 'Avi'ezer is the grand indictment of Eastern European society for collapsing the distance between childhood and adulthood and refusing to acknowledge the claims of adolescence. Guenzburg feels that by being asked to become a man overnight he was cheated of his youth, which survived only in occa4. Digressions, such as those on Christians and heretics (p. 44), class differences (p. 50), and marriage (p. 52), would seem to be modeled on Maimon's practice in the Autobiography.

GUENZBURG, LILIENBLUM, AND HASKALAH AUTOBIOGRAPHY

77

sional acts of petty rebellion and theft by which he symbolically repossessed what was taken from him. With a fine eye Guenzburg describes the work-

ings of the marriagesystemas a set of transactionsin whicheach familytries to maximize its three basic sources of "capital":learning, ancestry,and money. In Guenzburg's case, his father prided himself overmuch on the value of the family's ancestry and in his son's fame as a scholar, and while he bided his time in search of a stunning match, the position of the family was greatly shaken by the shame brought on it by the conversion to Islam of a relative of the father. As a consequence, the boy was sold into bondage to a family of wealthy but vulgar tailors. Being traded like chattel is disabling enough, but in this section Guenzburg's powerlessness takes on the additional quality of forced feminization. His transfer from the wise and benevolent supervision of his father and his deliverance into the collusive society of his new wife and mother-in-law are sealed by his inability to perform his duties as a man. The ordeal of humiliation comes to a climax when, in a perverse version of the solah ritual, he becomes dangerously ill after being forced by the women to drink a potion to restore his virility. He is finally rescued by his father, who sends for him to return to Salant. It is clear that what interests Guenzburg in these events is not the play of love and feeling, but the play of power and powerlessness to which human relations are reduced in the absence of other sentiments. Even the eventual reconciliation between the boy and his young wife is really a restoration of a balance of power which has nothing to do with romance. These scenes, highly dramatic and wonderfully executed, are, to the best of my knowledge, the first sustained treatment in Hebrew literature of the politics of domestic relations. Whether because of the dramatic interaction of these scenes, or because of the deep personal humiliation they explore, or simply because of the fact that there is a story pressing to be told, the effect is that the paraphernalia of neoclassical statement are swept away by the strong current of historical narrative. The conventions of the Savva'ahform with the frequent addresses to a son or student are conspicuously absent, as is the need to make generalizations and provide examples. A few parables do remain but they are used in a special way to control the flow of the story by heightening suspense at critical points. Later on in 'Avi'ezer Guenzburg recounts how the experience of reading the Josippon engendered a passion for history and a desire to make the writing of history his vocation. "And that is the only aspiration from all my youthful hopes," he writes with pathos, "that ever truly came to fruition" (p. 129). Guenzburg did indeed go on to become the writer who, more than

78

ALAN MINTZ

any other in the Haskalah, gave the Hebrew reader access to the drama of European history. Guenzburg's real contribution, however, was not as a historian but as a writer of history. The substance of his historiography is decidedly derivative, but his winnowing of the elevated diction of the middle Haskalah to make Hebrew a vigorous narrative instrument for dealing with war and political conflict was an immense achievement. What is exciting in reading the central sections of 'Avi'ezer is the sense that we are watching Guenzburg, under the pressure of describing the turbulent conflicts of his own history, forging that language which he will later use so effectively to describe the affairs of nations. The portrayal of apostasy in the fourth section is the most conventional: pilpul as a set of empty dialectics, Judaism's evasion of philosophical formulations, the stream of doubts that enter the mind once the first question is asked. What remains important here is the insistent analogy between this and the preceding section: just as the denial of feeling had led to dysfunction in the sexual sphere, so too the denial of spiritual nourishment has led to a breakdown in the sphere of faith. It is entirely uncoincidental that the man who cures one dysfunction should cure the other too. The author is put into the hands of a mysterious aged doctor, a convert from Judaism and a possible crypto-Sabbatean, who is well versed in modern medicine as well as in the alchemical sciences. The young Guenzburg is finally cured of his impotence, ending a long cycle in the book and causing great rejoicing in his household. But the spiritual cure takes much longer. It is a kind of talking cure, presented in a series of reconstructed Socratic dialogues in which Guenzburg is set on the right path concerning God and immortality in terms derived from Mendelssohn's Phaedon. The purpose of the dialogues is to relieve the metaphysical impotence of skepticism into which Guenzburg has fallen in his questioning of revelation and tradition. The aged doctor accomplishes his task by demonstrating that a belief in God and immortality can be secured through reason alone, and by understanding this the lad can become one of the enlightened, who know inner strength rather than emasculating dependence on received traditions. But to his credit Guenzburg realized that for his condition there is no full recovery. Just as he admits that his relationship with his wife will always be complicated and that he will always have to conserve his sexual energy, so he admits that the doctor's teaching has raised more questions than it has resolved and that his teaching will have to remain only a partial answer to be used alongside the tradition, which itself has not ceased to be compromised.

GUENZBURG, LILIENBLUM, AND HASKALAH AUTOBIOGRAPHY

79

III As a text Hattlotne'urim5begins by presenting itself as the completion of another text. Of the genre of autobiography, in which the story of a life gets told because of its intrinsic significance rather than its association (as in biography) with the name of a great man, Lilienblum holds that there is only one genuine example in Hebrew literature: Guenzburg's 'Avi'ezer. 'Avi'ezer was exemplary and exhaustive in its analysis of the years of the heder and the years of betrothal in the life of a Lithuanian boy, but its account had stopped short of the trial of experience which follows in the years of manhood and accomplishment. Now, fifty years later, as if there was to be told the story of a single collective life, another Lithuanian boy who has grown to a kind of maturity is prepared to complete the task. In a dozen pages, enough space to supply the relevant differentia of family background, Lilienblum dispatches the first fifteen years of his lifethe span of years to which 'Avi'ezer was devoted entirely. The ground has been ceded to Guenzburg; what is relevant was said by him. Even in the first period of life to receive serious treatment in Hattot ne'urim, the ages between fifteen and twenty-three (1858-1866), one finds the same thematics of insufficiency that preoccupied Guenzburg. Here too is the story of a young 'illui (talmudic prodigy) who is sold like chattel to a domineering and ambitious mother-in-law. Here too is the story of a mind which, parched by the aridity of Talmud study and strained by the extravagance of legend and lore, is forced to make its way from Maimonides to the more radical rationalists to the Haskalah writers and finally to apostasy. Here too the domestic theme and the educational theme are brought together in the figure of nocturnal emission. As the inevitability of apostasy becomes apparent, doubts are pushed back with redoubled piety; the young man attempts to rid himself of polluting thoughts so as not to endanger himself on the night of Yom Kippur, when a nocturnal emission is said to be a harbinger of early death. But on the morning of the holiest of days Lilienblum awakes to find that the dread event has taken place, a symbol for the eruption of irrepressible forces of both doubt and need. The 'Avi'ezer elements, however, are quickly left behind. A look at the disposition of the materials of Hattot ne'urim,expressed in terms of the ratio 5. Moses Leib Lilienblum, Ketavim 'otobiogerafiyim, ed. Shlomo Breiman (Jerusalem, 1970), 2: 109. All references are to this edition according to volume and page (e.g., 2: 109) and are translated by the present writer.

80

ALAN MINTZ

of years to pages, gives a sense of Lilienblum's priorities in presenting the story of his life. Section Days of Confusion

Numberof Years 15

Numberof Pages 15

Days of Darknessand the Beginningof the Transition

8 (to age 23)

40

Days of Apostasy

3 (to age 26)

80

Days of Crisis and Renunciation

4 (to age 30)

130

The Way Back

9

55

For Lilienblum, religious crisis is clearly no longer the central issue of autobiography. The loss of faith, which takes place in the "Days of Darkness" section, came to fruition over eight years, which are dispatched in forty pages, while the new life after heresy, spreading over roughly the same number of years, requires a treatment of two hundred pages. That a young man of active imagination and intelligence will, given certain circumstances, lose his faith is a fact altogether taken for granted; it is for some an event not nearly so catastrophic as it once was. The present question is the nature of experience in the aftermath of crisis and in the newly opened space of apostasy. Lilienblum calls this new space the 'olam ha-ma'aseh, the world of praxis and practicality; at issue is the passage from learning to doing and from religious mystification to acting in the world. The distinction between these two domains is rendered by Lillienblum's statement at the end of the work (2: 128ff.) that his life could be summarized by reference to four sins or failures. (The subtitle of Hatlot ne'urimis Viddui ha-gadol [The Great Confession].) Two were committed by his father: forced early marriage and a useless, impractical education. Two were committed by Lilienblum himself: uncritical devotion to the romantic Haskalah and a pointless involvement with a young woman. The domain of 'Avi'ezer is constituted entirely by the first two sins, and in as much as these are sins of the fathers against the sons the autobiographical discourse of 'Avi'ezer had to remain within the limitations of the Rousseauean ethic of sincerity. Rousseau was willing to confess his frailties and humiliations, but only the better to excoriate the society that had inflicted them and to defend his version of

GUENZBURG, LILIENBLUM, AND HASKALAH AUTOBIOGRAPHY

81

the essential self that had been thereby trodden down. In this version of autobiography confession and complaint are not exclusive. Similarly, we are persuaded by the sincerity of Guenzburg's story without ceasing to feel that this is sincerity for a purpose. The disclosure of impotence, in all its manifestations, is surely an act of sensitivity and courage, but it is also an act which, beyond any self-therapeutic function, serves to point the finger of guilt away from the speaking subject toward those who he feels bear final responsibility: through parents to Jewish society as a whole. Guenzburg's decision to end his narrative with adolescence allows him to remain within the protective innocence of childhood. In contrast, Lilienblum's determination to extend the autobiographical project into the years of moral autonomy, in which the consequences of the sins of the fathers persist but do not determine, offers no such cover. Because he acknowledges freedom over his own life, he must also accept accountability for it. In exchange for this burden it was given to Lilienblum to eclipse the older confessional ethic and produce a work that is an act of genuine self-confrontation.6 For Lilienblum the achievement of such authenticity means the acceptance of his failure to realize his freedom. He yielded to the blandishments of the Haskalah: he misspent his emotions in a confused attachment which was never consummated; he became obsessed with a fruitless fantasy of university study. In allttotne'urim Lilienblum intends us to see the unfolding of a path along which these delusions are recognized as such and discarded, until a point of existential purity is reached at which expectation is finally renounced. Like all autobiographies, the form of Hallttotne'urim is generated by the convergence of two axes of self: (a) the present self, which from a position of achieved knowledge, writes the text before us and creates (b) a series of past selves which change until they merge with the present of the writing. (That the time of the writing of the text is itself a duration during which the act of narration may alter the identity of the writing self is an actual possibility in Hattot ne'urim, one which will be returned to later.) Because in autobiography the present self has the authority to arrange the past and valorize 6. In Sincerity and Authenticity (Cambridge, Mass., 1971), Lionel Trilling describes the French conception of sincerity as "telling the truth about oneself to oneself and to others; by truth is meant a recognition of such of one's own traits or actions as are morally or socially discreditable and, in conventional course, concealed" (p. 58). See also, Henri Peyre, Literature and Sincerity (New Haven, 1963). I use "authenticity" here in the Sartrian sense of acceptance of responsibility for one's liberty through avoidance of bad faith.

82

ALAN MINTZ

it according to its priorities-to assume, in effect, a sovereign retrospective point of view-it is crucial to be sure of the identity of the finished self. In the case of Hallot ne'urim, knowing who Lilienblum is at the end of the work is complicated by the fact that there is more than one ending. In 1876 Lilienblum published a book called Hatlot ne'urim, which brought his life through his thirtieth year (1873). The retrospective voice is that of a man whose life has ended and who surveys a vast cycle of self-deception and renunciation from a point of view from which no further development can be expected. However, in the early nineties Lilienblum wrote another autobiographical document (published in 1899) which reopened the account of his life he had so dramatically closed many years before. This narrative, called Derekh teshuvah(The Way Back), picks up at age thirty and tells the story of how during the next eight years Lilienblum did indeed manage to pursue his secular studies in preparation for the university, only to have this enterprise undercut by the pogroms of 1881 and the new national consciousness they forced upon him. Derekh teshuvahends with a resurrection to life; Lilienblum has been quickened from the slumber of alienation and renunciation and given a vocation of leadership in the life of the people, which has itself been reinspirited with an idea of renewed possibility. The complications arise from the fact that Lilienblum did not allow Derekh teshuvahto stand on its own but called it in a subtitle "Part Three of the Book Hallot ne'urim," the work he had published twenty-three years earlier. Thus for generations of readers the whole work in its expanded form could be read as a story with a "happy ending," a story tracing a passage from negation to affirmation, which was an adumbration in miniature of the future direction of Hebrew literature and the national experience. At this point, however, complication can become confusion. It is not overly rigorous to point out that the ending of Derekh teshuvahconstitutes a retrospective point of view for that composition alone. In light of this later knowledge Lilienblum could have revised Hallot ne'urim proper, but he did not, and therefore that composition of 1876 remains an integral work to which Derekh teshuvahhas the force of an addition but not a reorganization. We ne'urimin its own terms and then are therefore required to deal with .Hattot its on to go sequel.

IV For some young men the onset of religious crisis resulting in apostasy must have been like the discovery of a dread disease which leaves nothing to

GUENZBURG, LILIENBLUM, AND HASKALAH AUTOBIOGRAPHY

83

look forwardto but the fatal spreadof infection;for Lilienblumit was like being born again. In the substantialsection, "Days of Apostasy,"which deals with his life between the ages of twenty-three and twenty-six (1866-1869), Lilienblumdemonstrateshow successfullythe Haskalahcould function,for a time, as a substitutereligion.The Haskalahgave Lilienblum a new set of dogmasin the tenets of rationalism,a new body of scripturein the writingsof Mendelssohn,Krochmal,and the late maskilim,a neweschatology in a vision of a society of enlightenedmanners and productive activity,in additionto a frameworkof social explanationwhichprovideda comprehensivecritiqueof Jewishsociety. Likesocialism,positivism,aestheticism, and many other nineteenth-centuryideologies that were in fact secularizedreligions,the Haskalahmade it possible for Lilienblum'sapostasy to be experiencedaftera certainpoint as an arrivalinsteadof a fall-a kind of successfuldeconversion. The Haskalahadditionallygave Lilienblumsomethingthat a prospective careeras a fixturein the local beitmidrashcould not match:an arenafor the dramatizationof self. In the society of Vilkomir-the Lithuaniantown of his inlaws in which his adolescencewas spent--Lilienblumassumesthe romanticrole of both rebeland martyr:the rebel,purchasingsuspectbooks, forming subversive societies, rallying the enlightened youth, and the martyr,insultedand persecuted,bravelyenduringall the afflictionsof ostracism, even to the point of being informedagainstto the Russianauthorities and risking arrest. Even more significantly, the Haskalah encouraged Lilienblumto become a writer.For him the new pantheonwas made up of writersand the new meansof transcendencewas writing.It was as a way of using his privileged individual talents in defending himself against his detractorsthat Lilienblumfirst took up writing,and it was the writinglife which providedhim with an alternativedimensionof being which, though not remainingunaffectedby the vicissitudesof the social life, would continueto provideLilienblumwith a measureof transcendence.In the Hebrew periodicalpress,in whichhis namebeganto be well known, Lilienblumhad achieveda kind of power and presencehe never attainedin his life. The subjectof Lilienblum'swritingin those yearswas religiousreform, the question, as he put it, of the "joiningof religionand life." Like other conservativeunbelieverselsewherein the late nineteenthcentury,Matthew Arnoldamongthem, Lilienblumknewthat the capacityfor beliefhad been permanentlyimpaired by modernity; at the same time he was deeply shocked at the prospectiveconsequencesfor the preservationof culture if disbeliefwas allowedto run unchecked.His solutionwas to arguethatif the

84

ALAN MINTZ

demandsof religiousobservancecould be lightenedby removingthe layers of rabbinicinterdictionsheapedupon the originalbiblicalcommandments, then observancecould be rationalizedand the wholesaleabandonmentof religion forestalled. For the purposeof his autobiography,the importantburdenof Lilienblum's writing at this time was the implicationthat the correctabilityof institutionsextendedto the correctabilityof individuallives,and specifically to his life. Lilienblumwas intoxicatedwith the possibilityof his own perfectibility.He trustedin the hope of undoingthe effectsof the educationhis fatherhad imposedon him by followingthe careerof the maskil,that is, by acquiringthe rudimentsof a gymnasiumeducation,studyingas an extern, and becominga merchantor enteringone of the useful professions. Such a careerwould requireleavinghis familyand his shtetl and going off alone to the big city; far from being painedat this prospect,Lilienblum was eagerto be translatedto a greatcenterof enlightenmentlike Odessaand to consummatethe role of rebel and martyrby becoming an exile. Just beforehe was about to leave Vilkomir,at a time when the entiretown had righteously cut off relations with him, Lilienblum found a source of sympathyand confirmationin the personof a young woman namedFeyge Novakhovitch (referredto throughoutas "N"). He was attractedto her companybecauseshe had maskilicleaningsand was the only personin the town who was preparedto regardhim as the persecutedhero he regarded himself,and also becausein his eyes herexistencewas touched with an aura of romanticlove and romanticindependence.To a man of twenty-fivewho had been marriedfrom the age of fifteenand had the burdenof threechildren, the idea that someone like Feyge could fall in love was moving and inspiring,all the more so becauseshe had survivedbeing disappointedin love, remainedsingle, and retained her sense of self-worthwithin shtetl society. It was to her room that he repairedduringthe days of his persecution to sit with her and read togetherMapu's 'AhavatSiyyon and 'Ashmat Shomeron,and it was to herthat he addressedan ode of gratitudeandpraise on the eve of his departurefor Odessa (1: 207-10) . It is importantto stressthat the portraitof the writeras a young hereticmartyris a reconstructionof Lilienblum'sexperienceof himselfduringhis lastyearsin Vilkomir.At the timeof the writingof Hallot ne'urimfour to six years later,however,afterthe existentialbaptismof the Odessaexperience, Lilienblumcame to repudiatecompletelythe personhe had been duringthe days of apostasy and to view this earlierself as saturatedwith self-intoxication and false consciousness.The problemof writingthe autobiography

GUENZBURG, LILIENBLUM, AND HASKALAH AUTOBIOGRAPHY

85

then became the problem of how to evoke the full poignancy of that self and its dramatizing ambitions and at the same time pass judgment on them and show the distance traveled to the present standpoint of achieved understanding; how, in other words, both to evoke and evaluate the past without losing the force of the disparity. If Lilienblum had chosen the conventional means of retrospective narration-the kind of story that inevitably reduces the past to variations of the sentence, "I mistakenly believed at the time that .. "-he would have granted the present the power and moral authority to vitiate the past even before it had been recalled to being. If, on the other hand, Lilienblum had bowed to the imaginative integrity of the past by allowing it to speak in its own voice dramatically through documents reprinted from that time, the opportunity for judgment would then have been lost. As a way out of this dilemma, Lilienblum chose to mix narrative and documentation, and the special disposition of these materials he arrived at served him well on several counts. Lilienblum, to begin with, was able to achieve a striking embodiment in language of his various selves by making maximum use of the stylistic gulf between the swelling voice of the young maskil and the illusionless voice of the mature autobiographer. A long letter dated Av 12, 1866 describes Lilienblum's attempt to establish a society for the collection of maskilic literature and his various persecutions for his efforts. He addresses his correspondent as follows: Now you will ask me, dearbrother,in whatway this societyseemedworthyin my eyes? Inclinethy ear, dear friend,to the utterancesof thy belovedcompanion, who has been subjectedto the insultsof the upholders-of-vain-superstitions,to the apostate,for whomthe Torahof Moseshas beena girdlefor his hips and the Talmuda girdle for his loins. Let thy earsattendthat they may hear his reply. (1: 138) It is hard not to be overwhelmed by the maskilic inflation of biblical diction here, especially in the use of locution instead of direct description ("Incline thy ear"), epithet instead of direct naming ("the upholders-of-vain-superstitions"), and redundant parallelism ("girdle for his hips"/"girdle for his loins"). The passage is particularly resonant of the invocations to the great biblical songs of Moses, Balaam, and Deborah, and establishes an epic height that signals the recitation of heroic exploits or the delivery of a prophecy. Hardly noticed in such grandiloquence is the fact that it is being

86

ALAN MINTZ

mobilized for a purpose which in its essence is entirely apologetic. When the narrative comment, written in the mid-1870s, picks up after the letter has been quoted, Lilienblum observes: This letter,whichI havepresentedwith all the vanityand hideousexpressions as I in my innocenceused to writethem, will clearlyindicateeverythingthat happenedto me duringthat summer.Besidesthe uproarconcerningme all over town, I was muchpainedto see my wifecryingconstantlyovermy having become an apostate and I was greatly concerned for the welfare of my youngestson, who at the time was still nursingat the breast,lesthe shouldfall ill from his mother'smilk, whichmay have been poisonedby the intensityof her anguish. (1: 151) The syntax of the passage is the linear syntax of historical explanation, not the posturing of epic reiteration. The sentences perform the function of elucidating circumstances, making judgments, communicating emotion; in general, the coefficient of feeling to statement is much closer to the bone. The language is conspicuously free of mediations and ornamental tropes and determines a kind of plain diction which provides for the expression of such unheroic emotions as anxiety and pain and for the mentioning of such homely details as nursing babies. In addition to making an explicit judgment of the discourse of the text it is commenting on, Lilienblum's retrospective narrative is radically revisionary in that it offers a substitute or supplemental account of the events described in the letter, an account that reveals the affective, existential dimensions previously denied or unreported. At other times the need for explicit judgment and revision is obviated by the simple proximate coexistence of the two styles, a juxtaposition that casts a light of irony and often bathos on what was once intended in earnest. A second method for mediating the relationship between past and present selves is control of the rhythm and the variety of the epistolary materials themselves. Having established the angle of judgment, about a third of the way through the apostasy section Lilienblum lets go of retrospective narration altogether and gives himself to the reconstruction through letters of the miniature epic of the young Lilienblum's near crucifixion. The correspondence is with several older, established maskilim in the capital city of Kovno who are outraged by the young writer's plight. Lilienblum describes how gossip and petty annoyances quickly grew into conspiratorial meetings, which issued broadsides against him, calling for him to desist from writing for Ha-melis, stripping him of his pupils, and threat-

GUENZBURG, LILIENBLUM, AND HASKALAH AUTOBIOGRAPHY

87

For a crucialfew pageswhen ening banishmentand excommunication. Lilienblum'sfate hangs in the balance,Lilienblumhimself disappearsas a correspondent(1: 172-77). The dramaof intercessionon his behalfunfolds first througha frenziedexchange of telegrams,then two grave and rotund appeals to the chief rabbis of Vilkomirby a committeeof supportersin Kovno, another telegram, and then a summarizingletter by Lilienblum supplyingfromhis point of view a continuousaccountof the eventsthat had been ominously hinted at by the more official communications.After the immediatedangersubsides,therefollows a seriesof lettersto his supporters in which Lilienblumdescribeshis apprehensionover a new round of confabulationsand threats(1: 182-88), and interwovenhere for the first time are referencesto the young woman "N" that are all the more significant becausethey signal the first instance of diary entries ratherthan lettersin ne'urim.The dramais broughtto a ringingclimaxwhen Lilienblum .Hattot is informedagainstand hauledbeforethe local police to explainthe incitement caused by his articles;demonstratingto the Russian magistratethat the true messageof the Hebrewarticlesis an appeal for the discardingof religious superstition among the Jews, he gains the admiration of the authoritiesand wins the day. Just how disingenuousis Lilienblum'stelling of his story becomesevident in the canny manipulationsof pacingand point of view. (For the time remainingbefore his departurefrom Vilkomirthe story is carriedforward mostly in diary entries,with retrospectivecommentbeing formallyparenthesizedin two speciallytitledconcludingsections.)The cumulativeeffectis to recast Lilienblum'sexperiencein dramatic,even melodramaticterms, complete with a courageous, persecutedhero who comes close to being thrashedby the enemiesof reasonbut who triumphsin the end and becomes a romanticexile. In short, a kind of EnlightenmentPurim spiel, with its classic reversal"from mourningto festivity." Now, it should be rememberedthat in the generalprologueto Hattot ne'urim (1: 98-99), Lilienblum, like Guenzburg, argues that Hebrew autobiographyshould differ from biographyin its commitmentto tell the story of a subject who may have no great achievementsto his credit but whose life experienceis trulyrepresentativeof the "Hebrewdrama"of contemporarylife. The dramaof other culturesmay unfold in grand passions and strongfeelingsbut the dramaof Jewishlife, Lilienblumcontends,has no strongeffectsto show otherthantroubleand wretchedness.Its rulinghumor is stupidityand it is built out of mistakesand folly. To believethat the circuit of experience,crisis, and self-realizationthat the young Jew must go

88

ALAN MINTZ

throughcan yieldanythingotherthanthe knowledgeof the essentialabsence at the bottom of the "Hebrewdrama"is simplyto live in a worldof illusion and bad faith.And what is this if not a monitorydescriptionof preciselythe fool's paradise Lilienbluminhabitedduring his career as an apostate in Vilkomir:he staged a theatricalinventionof heroic persecutionand resistance;he believedtherewas high dramawhen in realitytherewas only the spectacleof stupidity.It is Lilienblum'smethodof compositionnot to tell us about his folly from the vantage point of later disillusionmentbut to recreatethis specioussense of dramathroughthe orchestrationof contemporary documents. V In the fall of 1869at the age of twenty-sixLilienblumarrivedin Odessa with all the fantasiesof successthat young men in literaturehave traditionally carriedwith them in theirjourneysfrom the provincesto the big city. Lilienblumsaw himself sitting and learningEuropeanlanguageswithout worriesor impediments;he saw himselfcompletinga courseof studiesat an institutionof higherlearning;he saw himselfreturninghome after several years crowned with good fortune, learning,happinessand fame; he saw himselfachievinga life of gentilityand reason,tranquilityand peaceof mind (2: 14).As in the case of otheryoung heroes,the city did not yieldgraciously to his expectations.Althoughgratefulto be releasedfrom the "fanatical" society of Vilkomir,Lilienblumwas dismayedto find Odessaa city of merchants who paid lip serviceto culturebut who had little real interestin it and who could be counted on to make Lilienblumfeel suitably abashed when he appearedin their office to peddlecopies of his writings.The small initial stipend providedhim by his Kovno supporterssoon ran out, and letters of recommendationto potential employersproved ineffectual;to meet his obligationto send some supportto his familyin VilkomirLilienblum had to take on pupils as the only kind of work availableto him. The resultwas that Lilienblumcould makeno progressin the elementarysecular studies that were requisitefor any higher learning.Lilienblumconspired with circumstanceby persistingin giving over whateverintellectualattention that remainedto writingfurtherarticleson religiousreformistthemes for the Hebrew periodicalpress. Lilienblum'senergieswere additionally sappedby despondencyover the monotonyand drearinessof urbanlife;this was an anomic, facelessexistencefar removedfrom the flamboyantdrama of which he had so recentlyplaced himself at the center.

GUENZBURG, LILIENBLUM, AND HASKALAH AUTOBIOGRAPHY

89

The conditions of Lilienblum'slife did not change substantiallyduring the remainingfour yearsthat filledout the time coveredby the originalversion of Hallot ne'urim.There was a brief economic reprievewhen Lilienblum obtaineda job as a subeditorof a Yiddishnewspaperand therewere worse times when his wife visited him in Odessa, but all in all the sum of Lilienblum'stroubles remainedconstant throughout.The end result was that Lilienblumcame no closer to acquiringthe limitedrudimentaryeducation-not to mentionthe moreambitiousachievement-he had dreamedof. Simply put, he failed. Hallot ne'urim,however, is not entirely a record of failure. Running acrossthe grainof the accountof arrestedformaleducationis the storyof a secondkindof education,one that is concernedwith the sustained"working through"of Lilienblum'sresponseto his failure.Confrontedwith his own inadequaciesand with the intransigenceof the world, Lilienblumstroveto understandthe mechanismof illusionthat had encouragedhis own complicity in his fate and to determinean existentialstance to his sufferingto which he might adherewith increasingforce of will. The representationof Lilienblum'sordealbelongsin a senseto the categoryof existentialliterature in its nineteenth-century Russianvarietybecauseit is not concernedmerely with a series of cognitivedenialsand affirmations-though Hallot ne'urim has been rifledfor its "ideas"often enough-but ratherwith the reluctance of the self to do whatit is told. Lilienblumproliferatestheoriesof experience to explainand control the vicissitudesof his life, while at the same time he relapsesinto states of expectationand nostalgiathat vitiate his intentions. These two aspects of the self create the troubledpolyphony of this last, major section of the original Hallot ne'urim;the conclusion of the book finallysucceedsin strikinga note of unitaryconsciousness,thoughthe costs and incompletenessof this achievementare everywhereapparent. The first illusion to be renouncedwas the belief that in his courageous leap fromthe beitmidrashto the HaskalahLilienblumhad crossedthe great thresholdof life and arrivedat a new state of being. Under the indirectinfluence of new positivist-materialistcurrentsin Russian intellectuallife, Lilienblumsoon realizedthat the thresholdhe imaginedwas therewas illusory, and that he had never in truth stepped outside the same spiritual edifice;sitting in his seat in the old study house or wieldinghis pen for the Hebrewperiodicalpress-what differencedid it really make? It had been from the accomplishedpossession of this truth in later years-and with the full complementor ironyit permitted-that Lilienblum told the story of his apostasyin the previoussection;herein the accountof

90

ALAN MINTZ

his first year in Odessa Lilienblum describes with moving immediacy the suddenness with which the enormity of his false consciousness had dawned on him. A letter to a supporter, Ezra Cohen, from December, 1869, demonstrates how total and unrelenting was Lilienblum's judgment of the essential continuities in his life: " . . . formerly, I was enamored of the Tosafists, the Tur, the Beit Yosef the Shakh, the Noda' bi-Yehudah,R. Akiba Eger, and others, and now I am enamored of Mendelssohn, Levinsohn, Krochmal, and the like; formerly I strove to comprehend the Talmud and its commentaries and now I toil to comprehend the works of the new literature; formerly I spoke against the Karaites, who did not observe the Talmud, and today I speak against charlatans and practicers of superstition; formerly I used to weep over the exile of the Shekhinah and today I weep over the persecutions of our people; formerly I strove to disseminate the religion [dat] of the Talmud and today I strive to disseminate the opinions [de'ot] that are according to my lights" (2: 20). Lilienblum is particularly modern in his self-diagnosis. Contemporaries might have looked on the experience of breaking with the tradition in cataclysmic terms, either as revolutionary liberation or as a cosmic rent in the order of being-in either case the great dividing line in a man's life. Lilienblum saw what sociologists of religion and students of romantic literature now see in nineteenth-century conversions: not discontinuity but the displacement and reembodiment of varieties of the religious impulse. The reembodiment Lilienblum discloses had two aspects. The passage above is based on the claim that the new identity is homologous with the old; that is to say, there exists a continuity of function in the way in which persisting needs are fulfilled and the way in which they organized his present life. More significant is the claim that the nature and content of Lilienblum's activity as a Talmud student and as a maskil partook of the same essential realm of human experience. Lilienblum calls this the realm of 'iyyun, which he opposes to ma'aseh. Ma'aseh connotes materiality, practical accomplishment, the exact sciences, and productive occupations. This last is the world of doctors, engineers, merchants, industrialists, the world of the good men in Kovno who saved him from his persecutors in Vilkomir and who alone believed in him and took an interest in his fate in Odessa. Gaining entry into the world of ma'aseh became Lilienblum's professed goal, though the barriers which separated him from it-Russian, Latin, German, mathematics, geography, as well as his own secret unwillingness-must have made the distance seem vast. Measured against this goal, Lilienblum's prolonged dalliance with the Haskalah not only counted for nothing but immeasurably

GUENZBURG, LILIENBLUM, AND HASKALAH AUTOBIOGRAPHY

91

debilitatedhis capacity to separatehimself from the world of books and ideas. One of the most dispiritingconsequencesof the crisiswas Lilienblum's changed valuation of his identity as a writer.Accordingto the Haskalah faith, the Hebrewwriterwas the successorto the greatbiblicalsingers,and as a practitionerof the reasonableand the beautiful,he was thought to occupy a kind of priestly role superiorin moral authorityto political or religiousleaders.Thoughyoung Lilienblum'sgifts may not have beenof the sublimesort, he was a figureto reckonwith in the small world of Hebrew literature,and it was his pride in his membershipin that world which allowed him to survivehis ostracismin Vilkomirand which won him the supportand respectnecessaryto establishhimselfin Odessa.Withhis loss of faith in the Haskalah,he denied himself this last means of transcendence; the only thing he was good at and was rewardedfor becamea conspicuous form of 'iyyun.He continued for a time to write, but he knew his perseverancewas, accordingto the new goals, mereperseveration.Abettedby his despairover the conditionof RussianJewryand by the temporaryabsence of hospitableperiodicals,Lilienblum'sliteraryenterpriseeventuallyground to a halt. Lilienblum'srejectionof ideologiesand substitutereligionswas clearly producednot only from within his own experience.Advancedthought in Russianintellectuallife in the 1860s,especiallythat associatedwith N. G. Chernychevski,demandeda "realism"that wouldexposeandcall into question the cult of art and abstractthoughtand any otherform of transcendenThe new realismwas basedon an abandonedbelief talismor "illusionism."7 in the truthfulnessof empiricismand the scientificpoint of view and in the convictionthat everycertaintyor fact, howevermuch it is opposed by fantasticimaginings,mustbe acceptedin theirplace.8The most radicalcriticof the sixtieswas DmitriI. Pisarev,whose briefcareerlaid down the principles of nihilism:admirationfor materialismand the naturalsciences,historiosophic optimism,radicalindividualism,the reductionof humanmotivesto egotism,and the assaulton aestheticsand "pureart."9 Pisarevsaw his ideal of the criticallythinkingindividualnowheremoreevidentthan in the depic7. See V. V. Zenkovsky, A History of Russian Philosophy, trans. George I. Kline (New York, 1953), p. 322. Lilienblum mentions Chernychevski's influence on 2: 72. 8. Thomas G. Masaryk, The Spirit of Russia, trans. Eden and Cedar Paul, 2d ed. (New York, 1955), p. 398. 9. Zenkovsky, p. 338.

92

ALAN MINTZ

tion of Bazorov, the hero of Turgenev's Fathers and Sons (1862). 0 Bazorov, for Pisarev, is the example of the pure empiricist for whom the sole source of knowledge is sensation and experience. To him the ideals that young people thrill to are so much romanticism and nonsense. He "feels a natural, undefinable aversion to phrase making, to waste of words, to sweet thoughts, to sentimental aspirations, and in general to all pretensions not based on real tangible forces.""' Though he loves no one, he is not a misanthrope; if people choose to attach themselves to him he does not drive them away, though he never relaxes his skeptical attitude toward human motives. He is, finally, possessed of the courage to live without the false comfort of transcendental beliefs-and to die without them, too. After jettisoning the surrogate religion of Haskalah romanticism, Lilienblum aspired toward a reduction and steeling of the self along the lines of Pisarev's picture of Bazarov. But whereas Bazarov enters the novel with his enviably practical and self-sufficient character fully formed, Lilienblum enters this phase of his life history woefully unprepared for the pursuit of such aggressive autonomy. Caught in the toils of his profuse hopes and ambitions, Lilienblum, in fact, is just the kind of person Bazarov views with disdain, one of those "people who dream of love and useful activity, of the happiness of the whole human race, and yet are not capable of lifting a finger to improve even a little, whether he be a doctor, artisan, pedagogue, or even a writer."'2 In his isolation from people Bazarov is protected from boredom, need and despair by the fullness of thought and by his work as a biologist: "observations and experiments on living nature, observations and experiments on living people fill for him the emptiness of his life."" Suffering through a purgatory of need and despair, Lilienblum in Odessa is entirely unprotected. Yet the same kind of emotional self-reliance and practical activity become the goal of Lilienblum's efforts at reconstructing his life-a goal seen from across an infinite distance. Lilienblum in the end could never fully become Bazarov. Cognitively, Lilienblum did manage to achieve a nihilistic comprehension of the world, 10. Lilienblum compares his lot to that of Pisarev on 2: 96 (see Breiman's quotation of the manuscript diary in n. 96). Also see Lilienblum's retrospective remarks on Pisarev on 3: 195. In reference to Turgenev, see n. 91, 2: 72. 11. D. I. Pisarev, "Bazarov," in Sochineniya, 2 (Moscow, 1955): 7-50; translated by Lydia Hooke in the Norton edition of Fathers and Sons, ed. Ralph E. Matlaw (New York, 1966), p. 202. 12. Ibid. 13. Ibid., p. 211.

GUENZBURG, LILIENBLUM, AND HASKALAH AUTOBIOGRAPHY

93

and emotionally, he succeeded in overcoming his relation of need to other people. But when it came to central tasks of practical doing in the world there could be no success. It is the thesis of Hallot ne'urim that by their nature the conditions of Jewish life deny the individual the possibility of such fulfillment. Lilienblum arrived in Odessa in 1869 suffused with desire for the things of life he could not have; the autobiography is the story of the gradual narcotizing and eventual deadening of desire. The real ordeal of experience in Hallot ne'urim arises not out of the loss of faith in religion and its substitutes but out of the necessity to be reconciled in their aftermath to the reality of absence. Of the four years in Odessa (1869-73) the first is called by Lilienblum "the year of the great crisis" (he uses the German in Latin characters, "Krisis," as well as the new Hebrew coinage 'et ma'avar [2: 46]); the treatment of this year spreads over sixty pages, more than any other in the work. During this tormented season Lilienblum was tossed unrelentingly between the poles of desire and despair. His repeated ordeal took the shape of a fated circle of disillusionment. The circle begins with an uncontrollable profusion of fantasies and hopes about future success and happiness (associated with a cluster of terms: dimyon, tiqvah, hefe5); the impossibility of these fantasies brings on a wave of tearful self-pity (dema'ot and regesh), which finally issues in wretchedness, despair, and resentment (ye'ush) and then finally lapses back into fantasy. "I hope," writes Lilienblum, "I build imaginary, airy chambers and in my fancy fly to the heavens" (2: 40). "I desire, I seek, but I don't know what; I quest for the goal but I don't know what to call it" (2: 54). In the emptiness left by the excision of religion Lilienblum's soul is flooded with the kind of engulfing, blank desire which, released from its generating conditions, becomes its own substitute metaphysical presence. Given the miserable actualities of Lilienblum's life in Odessa, the flight of desire would abruptly collapse of its own weight. Lilienblum would come crashing to the ground, there to be assailed by swarms of unanswerable questions and overcome by nausea: "I loathed my family life, I loathed my loneliness, I loathed the new city [Odessa]. .... " Essential to the account of each breakdown is the mention of uncontrollable weeping. Tears are a sign of feeling (regesh) and Lilienblum uses them as a kind of metonymical marker of the critical stages in his effort to liberate himself from bondage to emotion. Weeping would give way to desperation and withdrawal into moods of black hopelessness in which Lilienblum would persevere until an onrush of desire would begin the cycle anew.

94

ALAN MINTZ

VI Lilienblum'ssecond year in Odessa so reinforced the conviction of failurethat the facultyof hope could neverquite functionin the sameway. Duringthis time Lilienblumhit on the idea of leavingOdessaand makinga fresh start at a universityin Germany.He won the support of his benefactors in Kovno, who put him in touch with a potentialsponsor in Germany,who in turn informedLilienblumthat he would be expectedto know Germanand to undergoan entranceexaminationin ancientlanguagesand in science(2: 87). Exhaustedfrom workingto keepbody and soul together and from trying to strengthenhis shaky hold on the Russian language, Lilienblumfound these demandsso beyondhis capacitiesthat the idea that he might never proceed beyond his presentcondition began slowly to be accepted.The growingdespairover his own conditionswas paralleledby a pessimismconcerningthe fortunes of the Jewish people as a whole. For yearshe and othershad beenenunciatingthe newideason the basisof which the life of the peopleshouldbe rebuilt(2: 74-79). No one had listened;there had been few responsesto his articles,and the conditionsof the nation had not changed. Lilienblumhad little reason to believe that his people were any more educablethan he himselfwas. Finally,Lilienblumwas comingto realizeduringthis time that his relationshipto the young woman "N" was impossibleand had drainedhim of enormousreservesof feelingwhichcould neverbe replenished.He was spent and he had nothing-and would never have anything-to show for it. Such a mass of disappointmentshad to have some effect on the tormentedcycle of desireand despair.In the face of reality,it becameincreasingly difficult to conjureup fantasiesof alternativefutures.The frequent repetitionof the words from the end of Job (41:1), "my hope has been shown in vain" (tobaltinikhzevah),indicatesa degreeof recognitionof the purposelessnessof striving for inaccessiblegoals. Lilienblum'sliberation becomes possible finally only by the death of the heart. Throughoutthe greatyear of crisis Lilienblumlonged for the time whenhis susceptibilityto painfuldisillusionmentwould be dulledand when the seeminglyunstinting flood of tears would abate. With each new trial or recollectionof the past Lilienblumwould measurethe intensityof his weeping,reportingwith relief at one point duringthat year that "the day is nearwhen my heartwill be a void withinme" (2: 86). By the end of the fourthyear in Odessahe was able to recordin hisjournal(with exquisiteautobiographicalself-consciousness) for August23, 1875:"Todaymarksa full year fromthe day on whichI last

GUENZBURG, LILIENBLUM, AND HASKALAH AUTOBIOGRAPHY

95

shed tears. This has been the first year of the death (lit. "freezing") of my emotions" (qefl'at rigshotai) (2: 123). The goal of Lilienblum's development in these years became the achieving of a stonelike state of complete renunciation (ye'ush mublat) (2: 96). The idea of ye'ush which once referred to the wretchedness, despair, and embitterment that were the inevitable results of his encounters with reality in his first years in Odessa, was now redefined to designate the new existential ideal: victory over expectation and the dread of future (pahad he-'atid). Along the path toward renunciation the question of the other could not be ignored. It would have been convenient if Lilienblum had been endowed with Bazorov's easy aloofness from human entanglements, but instead Lilienblum-though never in fact very entangled-inhabited an emotional world of extreme need. Having voluntarily rejected Vilkomir society, he had hoped to flourish within the admiring company of the enlightened in Odessa, only to find himself forced deeper into exile in a city that was in reality a commercial center whose inhabitants took nothing more than a polite interest in Lilienblum and the great issues he wrote on. He felt his deprivation keenly and shed his compromising tears over it. As Lilienblum's project of attempting to annihilate hope and need took shape, it became clear that he must strive to transform his wretched loneliness into sanguine aloneness, and that to do so would require a divesting of emotional ties and responsibilities, a virtual elimination of the transitive extensions of the self. Responsibility begins with the family. Lilienblum had been married for ten years and had several children when he was at the height of his heretical rebellion in Vilkomir at the age of twenty-five. Hallot ne'urim records the fondness he felt for his children and his unceasing efforts while alone in Odessa to provide support for the family he had left behind-deserted?-in Vilkomir. These signs of solicitude aside, the principal function of the family in Lilienblum's life was as an encumbrance.'4 Its support, in addition to his own, usually made it impossible to pursue any of his plans, and at the rare times that Lilienblum was free, he lived in constant dread of his family visiting him in Odessa and destroying the few scraps of independence he had gathered (2: 115). The felt exclusion of his wife's voice (or even name) from the text is a reminder not only of the autobiographer's autocratic control over his narrative but also of the truth of Brenner's observation that Lilien-

14. What could be more pathetic than Lilienblum's writing a long poem on the occasion of the tenth anniversary of his marriage called "A Prisoner's Lament" ('Enqat 'asir, 2: 196-203)?

96

ALAN MINTZ

blum's illusionless knowledge of himself did not mean that he was capable of knowing anyone else.'" In a letter of August, 1871 Lilienblum addressed to his wife his grave denunciation of Jewish marriage (2: 89-95). He prefaces his remarks with the pathetic observation that this letter marks the first time in their twelveyear marriage that their conversation will rise in the substance above the level of such domestic exchanges as "Is dinner ready? Are the children asleep?" In Jewish life, according to Lilienblum a man needs a wife to fulfill three functions: to relieve sexual desire, to give birth to sons, and to keep house. For a Jew a son is only a "kaddish" and for Lilienblum the recitation of the kaddish is as efficacious for the dead as the recitation of tebinnot for the living. If a man has children, he cares for them and grieves for them if they die. But to want children in the first place can only be narcissistic. The other two functions of Jewish marriage, sex and housekeeping, Lilienblum says very simply can be bought elsewhere. Because for Jewish men women are commonly no more than this-servants and chamber pots ('avit shel shofokhin)-they are interchangeable and mourned over no more than a bathhouse that burns down. There is potentially one role for which the services of a woman cannot be hired: the role of a helpmeet, the 'ezer ke-negdo. What a man needs most in life is a partner, a companion with whom to share the joys and burdens of a life. The success of such a partnership, like any similar arrangement in the business world, is predicated on a pooling of equal resources by both parties. In his own case, Lilienblum argues, not only typically from the beginning was his marriage never understood as an emotional partnership but from the first days of his heresy there began to be created in him an inner world of experience which was literally unimaginable to his wife, naturally taboo and emotionally turbulent. It was not just the subversive content of Lilienblum's experience that was the problem; the fact of the very existence of a space of differentiated individuality created a margin of subjectivity which existing social arrangements could not adequately handle.'6 It was within this space that Lilienblum's curious affair with Feyge Novakhovitch, the elusive "Maiden N," unfolded. The facts of the relationship are simple enough: during his embattled last six months in Vilkomir, Lilienblum drew on Feyge's sympathetic reassurance, and upon relocation 15. Kol kitvei fH. Y. Brenner (Tel Aviv, 1961), 3: 109. 16. On the space of individuality in late nineteenth-century Hebrew literature, see my "Mordecai Zev Feierberg and the Reveries of Redemption," AJSreview 2 (1977): esp. 171-74.

GUENZBURG, LILIENBLUM, AND HASKALAH AUTOBIOGRAPHY

97

in Odessa there ensued a four-year-longcorrespondencein which Lilienblum pouredout the vicissitudesof his passagefrom desperationto renunciation. What the meaningof this relationshipwas for the developmentof Lilienblum'sself as presentedin ffallot ne'urimis unclear.On the one hand Feyge seems to have been Lilienblum'sgrandpassion,the subjectof grand poetry, the "conquerorof his heart,"and he the lover who had fallen into the "snareof love" (2: 128);on the other hand is the startlingfact that the relationshiphad no existenceother than an epistolaryone: duringall the years in Odessa-according to Lilienblum'saccount-he never saw Feyge nor did he take steps to effect a meeting or even suggest one." As far as Feygewas concernedthis was not enough.She was passionatelydevotedto Lilienblumand wrote to him urgingmarriage.The seriesof reasonsLilienblumgave for backingawayfromthe idea castslighton the rolethat this act playedin the largerdramaof renunciation.Marriage,to begin with, meant the assumingonce againof familyresponsibility,and this was preciselywhat Lilienblumwas tryingto disentanglehimselffrom in order properlyto set about his studies.The goal of freedomcould not be servedby new encumbrances(2: 68-71). Althoughhe admitsthat in his last days in Vilkomirhe had grown to love Feyge desperately,he was incapableof disclosing his feelings because as a typical productof the world of the beit midrash,an innocentkloyzner,he could not deal with the shameof tellinga girl he loved her and because, given the ideas about romance he had picked up from books, he consideredit impossiblethat a woman like Feyge, whose heart had been brokenby anotherman, could ever love again (2: 104-5). By the second year in Odessa, Lilienblumrealizedthat his feelingsfor Feyge were an essential part of the prisonhouseof emotion and fantasy (regeshand dimyon)he was trying so painfully to escape from; he indeed needed to maintaincontactwith her, but in theirlettershe was preparedto revealonly the story of his intellectual-spiritualstrugglesbut not the more intimate secrets of his heart, where every expressionwould stir old yearningsand deflect him from his necessarycourse (2: 70). And when that course was realizedin the deathof feelingand expectationtowardthe end of the Odessa years,dead also was the capacityfor the "poesyof love" and any thoughtof a future connection between them. The meaning of Lilienblum'srelationshipwith Feyge Novakhovitch 17. See the citation Breiman brings from the manuscript of Derekh teshuvah(2: 153, n. 34) in which Lilienblum plays with the reader's curiosity concerning the final outcome of the relationship.

98

ALAN MINTZ

finally seems fixed by the nature of its origins. Drawn by their mutual misery,the possibilityof their love was first renderedimaginableand then catalyzed by readingtogether Mapu's 'AhavatSiyyon and 'AshmatShomeron.

Within this literary network of pastoral-platonicsentiments,their own unacknowledgedaffectionstook theiridentity.It was naturalthat whathad begunin mutualcommunionover a text shouldbe continued-and have its only reality-in the exchange of written documents and that no effort should be made to turn the literaryinto the real-at least on Lilienblum's part. The sharingand companionshipaspectsof marriagewerenot simply the most importantfunctionsof marriagefor Lilienblum:theywerethe only ones he was willing and capableof accepting.To make the word flesh, to join companionshipwith sexuality,would have createda matrixof emotional demand before which the kloyznercould only be impotent. The mixture of confidence and distance in a purely epistolary relationship enabled Lilienblumto isolate the helpmeet function of the new idea of marriagewhile escaping from its more intimate and engulfingexigencies. VII The last year of the narrative(1872-1873) is treatedin a scant eleven pages, which are concernedentirelywith documentingthe suppressionand disappearanceof the last vestiges of fancy and emotionalism.This meant writing in its various guises: Lilienblum'svicarious love affair through lettersand his vicariouspublic careerthrougharticles.Each was seen as a flight from the world of practical,productiveactivityinto a sickly imaginary realm.The correspondencewith Feygeended by Lilienblum'sdriving her away. As she came to realizethat Lilienblumhad no intentionof ever beinganythingmorethanepistolaryin his attentions,Feyge'slettersbecame increasinglydesperateand effusive. Lilienblumsaw in the abandonedexpressivenessof the languageof herletterssymptomsof the sameillnessfrom whichhe had so recentlyrecovered.He accusedher of "emotionalagitation that derivesfromnaiveteand purplephraseswhich,togetherwithall sortsof other fantasies,are outside realityand the world of action"(2: 120).Faced with such treatment,Feyge chose not to respond,and the correspondence, which had been an abiding presencein Lilienblum'syears of crisis, was terminated.I8 18. This seems to be the case for all intents and purposes, though once again Lilienblum plays with the possibility of persistence when he begins the first two letters of Derekh teshuvah,

GUENZBURG, LILIENBLUM, AND HASKALAH AUTOBIOGRAPHY

99

Surveying his seven years as a Hebrew writer, Lilienblum concluded that there is something in the very nature of the writing life which is corrupting. The condemnation of the ignorant and the adulation of the enlightened, the passion for controversy and the dread of obscurity-all the sentiments determining the writer's emotional milieu-derive from and conduce to states of fantasy ridden agitation. Lilienblum's nihilism also left little to write about. Topics of religious reform were now out of the question, and more secular issues concerning the state of Jewish society, which would naturally then have become Lilienblum's subject, were in turn disqualified on the grounds that the idea of the Jewish people, collectively considered, was a mystified, transcendental concept which violated a truly empirical understanding of reality (2: 125). Only the individual and his experience are real. In exchange for these numerous renunciations, for having systematically stripped himself of the consolations of love, religion and imagination, it would have been hoped that Lilienblum would have been granted some sense of existential achievement. It was not so. What am I now?A poor ignoramus['amha-'ares],who denieseverykind of fancy and consoling belief! I don't even know the rudimentsof the exact sciences-so what do I know?My knowledgeof Hebrewtheologyin my eyes counts for nothingbecauseit is fanciful,transcendentalknowledgethat is not groundedin nature-so what do I know?Neither Europeanlanguages,nor mathematics,nor geometry,nor astronomy,nor physics,nor chemistry,nor engineering,and the like-so what do I know?I know how to criticizefoolish doctrines,yet by negationalone man's spirit cannot be fulfilled. (2: 124) Lodged between the successful annihilation of an unworthy past and the unsuccessful appropriation of the desired future, Lilienblum judged the final balance of his life to be null. Hallot ne'urim is, in the end, a self-told obituary. Looking back from 1873, his thirty-first year, Lilienblum concluded that his life was over-life in any sense that still holds out hope for change. He had renounced expectation and hope of "resurrection," and had passed from the company of the "living dead" of the beit midrashto the ranks of the "dead living" of modern

addressing his correspondent in the feminine as "Yedidati," without giving anything away in the letters themselves (2: 154, 156).

100

ALANMINTZ

life, and it was this consciousnessof closurethat gave him the authorityat the age of thirtyto writean accountof his life: not the story of a life in progressbut the definitiveautobiographyof a life that struggled,withered,and once and for all died. This is not evendeathwith a flourish.In the prefaceto Hattot ne'urim,Lilienblumhad said that the tale of his life would be a kind of representativeHebrew drama because it was characterizedby absence ratherthan incidentor affect(1:95-96). Lilienblumreturnsto this notionat the close of the narrativewhenhe apologizesto the readerfor not supplying at least a suicide, the de rigueurending in modern literatureto a story of ordeal and disillusionment.But Hebrewwritingcannot even providethat satisfactionbecauseits subjectscontinueto live even though their life has expired(2: 126-27). As a testamentof the dead, then, the autobiographyis freeto revisitand to parodythe conventionsof the savva'ahformwhichwere so importantin such an early work as 'Avi'ezer.Whereasin a traditional Savva'aha patriarchwould summarizethe fruits of his wisdom and bequeath to his childrenguidelinesalong the path of tradition, Lilienblum testifiesto the failureof his experienceand counselsagainstwalkingin his ways. The dramathat does exist in Hattotne'urim,it was said, is producedby watchingthe gap close betweenthe successivestagesof the autobiographer's earlier self, as embodied in quoted documentsfrom past years, and the achievedknowledgeat the presenttime of the writing,as embodiedin retrospectivecommentarieson those documents.There is knowledgein Hallot ne'urim.Although in terms of accomplishmentin the world Lilienblum judgedhis life to be a failure,he neverthelesssucceededin understandingthe reasons for his failure,those assignedto society and to himself.Such illusionless consciousnesswould seem to be the work'sconsummatemoment, hinted at in the ironic distancebetweencommentaryand documentearlier in the text and steadilyapproachedas the past convergeson the present. The finalironyof Hattotne'urimis that eventhis consummationis never fully authorized;it is underminedby the deconstructiveforces of nostalgia. A gross conception of autobiographicalform would see the documentary axis of the work as moving in time throughthe past towardthe stationary axis of retrospectiveknowledge.The fact is that this second axis also has a temporalduration,howevermicroscopicin comparisonto the expanseof years in the narrativeitself. This is the time that elapsesduringthe writing itself;thoughthe writermay beginwith a finishedconvictionof knowledge, that convictionmust be exposedto the vicissitudesof reevokingthe past. In Lilienblum'scase this meant reexperiencingboth the intoxicationof his

GUENZBURG, LILIENBLUM, AND HASKALAH AUTOBIOGRAPHY

101

years of hereticalrebellion in Vilkomirand the emotional anguish of his "deeducation"in Odessa;and althoughover time he managedto renounce the first and to wean himself from the second, relivingthese experiences throughwritingabout them seems to have weakenedLilienblum'sresolve. The epilogue to Ualtot ne'urim,"The Last Sigh," lingers with special poignancyon the ecstaticagony of his persecutionsin Vilkomir(2: 134-35). Lilienblumknows that he was benightedand deludedthen, his rebellionan empty palace revolution, but that knowledgedoes not preventhim from feelingthe glow of those years:the radiantsenseof self-worth,the exhilarating possessionof positivedoctrines,the fearlessconfidenceof the writerwho knows that the truth of his experienceis worth generalizingfrom. These were all the wrong feelings,but their vibrancyforms such a contrastto the burnt out disillusionmentof the presentthat the final, monumentalnegations of ne'urimcannot help being shaken. .Hattot VIII Some of the compositionaldifferencesbetweenHaltot ne'urimproper

and the new work Derekh teshuvahare instructive. Whereas Ilatot ne'urim

broughtthe narrativeof Lilienblum'slife to withinthreeyearsof the date of publication(1876),in the case of Derekhteshuvahthe intervalis significantly greater.Derekhteshuvah,which coversthe years 1873-1881,was published only in 1899.Also, whereasthe secondsectionof Hattlotne'urim("TheDays of Crisis and Renunciation")took 135 pages to cover four years, Derekh teshuvahmanages to get through eight years in 55 pages. And where the textureof Hattotne'vrimis heavywith torturedexistentialstrivings,through the textureof Derekhteshuvahbreathesthe light air of a clear and steady intention. From the vantage point of the nineties many things became clear to Lilienblum.The "greatidea"with whichDerekhteshuvahcloses, the idea of HibbatSiyyon, had not only firmlyestablisheditself by this time but had alreadybecometied to the great enginesof politicalZionism.By then, too, Lilienblum'sidentificationwith this idea and his commitmentto its practical realizationwere completein their passion and tested in their duration. Hatllotne'urim,to be sure, was narratedfrom a position of achievedselfhood, but that final state of triumphantrenunciationhad been qualifiedby the very negativityof its identity and by a failureof nervein the form of nostalgia.The retrospectivepoint of departurein Derekhteshuvahis utterly self-assuredin its positiveprogram,in its absorptionin a transcendentnon-

102

ALAN MINTZ

subjectiveidea, and in its securityfrom regretand reservation.This conviction allowed Lilienblumto attempta kind of compressionand linearityin the reconstructivepresentationof self in these eight years. Despite the apparentreversalthat took place in 1881, Lilienblumsaw these years as formingessentiallyone continuous,if not fully conscious, movement,and this unidirectionalpressureand relativelack of complexityeliminatedthe need for elaboration.More than any of the earlierautobiographicalwritings, Derekhteshuvahdisplaysa desireto evade false startsand regressions and to make the past an image of an ineluctable,teleologicalmovement toward the present. Although the years 1873-1876 saw no change in Lilienblum'sstate of materialprivationand spiritualexhaustion,in the next year circumstances combinedto create a dramaticchange in Lilienblum'slife. Until this time Lilienblum'sfamily had been living with him in Odessaand their presence made it impossiblefor Lilienblumto do anything but eke out a day-to-day existence.The threatof a Turkishinvasionin April 1876causedthe inhabitants of Odessa to seek temporaryrefugein the towns and villagesof the interior, and Lilienblumused this opportunityto relocate his family in Vilkomir,while he returned,alone and disencumbered,to Odessa. Hallttot ne'urimhadjust beenpublishedand the proceedsfromthe sales-its revealing, autobiographicalcontent made it sell brisklyin the enlightenedcity of Odessa-and the small income it broughtenabledLilienblumto cut down on the numberof tutorialhourshe was forcedto give. In possessionfor the firsttime of a modicumof independence,Lilienblumdaredto resuscitatethe old dreamof a universityeducation.Though he was thirty-threeyears old and a fatherof adolescentchildren,Lilienblumfiguredthat he could cover the gymnasiumcurriculumin two years and then be within reach of the university. "Congratulateme," wrote Lilienblumto a correspondenton June 18, 1877, "wish me en bonne heure. Congratulateme on having valiantly reachedmy goal and attaineda happyend. For yesterdayI beganto study" (2: 154).The resultof finallyovercomingthe greatdisappointmentin his life was an exhilarationthat carriedhim undauntedthroughwhat turnedout to be manyyearsof patientapplication.The importantthingwas to havemade a beginning.For so long Lilienblumhad self-punishinglydreamedof the futurewhile in realitybeing pushedfartherand fartherback from taking a first step in its direction.Now since he was completelyabsorbedin studies he could safely turn his fantasiesinto a sourceof propulsivemotivationto keep him on the track. The preparatorycourse took four years insteadof

GUENZBURG, LILIENBLUM, AND HASKALAH AUTOBIOGRAPHY

103

two, each day of it minutelycalibratedinto hours for geometry,Latin, and geography,into time for individualstudy and for tutoringby formerHebrew studentswho had gone on to university.No matterhow tedious and exactinghis studies,Lilienblum'swill was not deflectedfrom his plan. Nor for that matterwould Lilienblumyield to the blandishmentof certainkinds of patronage.Judah Leib Gordon had secureda Germanbenefactorwho was willing to underwriteLilienblum'seducationif he would commit himself in advanceto trainingas an orientalist.But havingjourneyedso far into the realmof practicalactuality,the thought of retreatinginto the world of dead languages,yet another version of talmudism,was unthinkable. This display of will indicateda fundamentalchange of identity.At the end of section two of Halltotne'urim,summingup the years of despairand resignation,Lilienblumsigned his name with the pseudonymousacronym "The Wretched One" ('umlal ba-'ares = 'Ani Moshe Leib Lilienblum Ben

'Avi RabbiSevi). Writingto his wife to plead that she stay in Vilkomirand leave him to his work, Lilienblumannouncedthat now he shouldbe known by anothername:"The StubbornOne" (qesheh'ore]) (2: 165). He reminds her, ratherthreateningly,of the time in his earlytwentieswhen he was the heretical rebel of Vilkomir. No threats from parents, rabbis, the authorities-or from her-could shake the fierce disputant'swill to pursuehis goals. And so now, afterthe long nightof remission,the vianegativaof selfdenial and renunciationhas been put behindhim and his spiritreturnedto the vigilantassertivenesswhich severalyears beforehad been recalledonly as a temptationto nostalgia.A new era has been usheredin: hardshipsand distractionremainbut in place of tortuousself-questioninga sense of selfpossession and security (shalvat nefesh, qorat ruab) pervade the text.

Whencethis sudden and great renewal?Could it be tracedback to the threatof the TurkishinvasionwhichLilienblumplayfullysuggestsgave him freedom by removinghis family from Odessa?Was it on account of the slightindependenceprovidedby the salesof Hattotne'urim?The trivialityof these reasonsare patent. Derekhteshuvahis in the end not concernedwith originsand explanations.Lilienblumwas preoccupiedinsteadwithcreating a revisionarymyth of his self in whichthe deeprunningcontinuityis shown to be the will to action, conceivedof as a pressurethat is bound to surface when circumstancesallow. Alternatively,Lilienblum'snew life of accomplishmentwas picturedas a resurrection,a restorationto somethingthat had once flourishedbut had in the meantimebeensuppressed.The readerof the second part of Hattot ne'urim,that readerwho followed Lilienblumas he sufferedand struggledgraduallyto achievefreedomfromthe terrorof his

104

ALAN MINTZ

and who assentedto the authenticity of thosestruggles, disappointments mustbe forgivenif he is lessthanconvincedby theeffortlessness of Lilienblum's rebirth and if he is vexed by Lilienblum's evasion of the task of explicating the origins of this change. As I have suggested above, it is possible that, having met and seized the great cause of his life, Lilienblum had so become another person by the late nineties that the person who he had been in the early seventies was no longer recognizable or admissible, and hence the unanswerableness of the question of how a sense of self so secured and empowered emerged from an impasse of negation and exhaustion. If it had not been for his conversion to Zionism, Lilienblum's career might have been assigned to a dim footnote in the subsequently ascendent historiography of nationalism. But because his journey from belief to enlightenment and nihilism was capped in the end by an embrace of Hibbat Siyyon, Lilienblum was transmuted in the annals of Hebrew literature into a mythic figure: the great truth teller whose quest for truth could finally not resist the logic of Jewish history. Derekh teshuvahhas thus been read as the story of Lilienblum's conversion, a story that comes to its climax at the conclusion of the book when the pogroms of 1881 burst into his life, sweep aside the playthings of learning and enlightenment, and press Lilienblum into communion with the fate of the People. The actual text of Derekh teshuvahin fact urges a reading of considerably more complexity. There are two great moments of breakthrough in Derekh teshuvah,one at the beginning of the work and one at the end, and between these movements there obtains a relationship of dialectical continuity. The first concerns Lilienblum's return to studies. In an important sense, as I have tried to argue, this event constituted a greater discontinuity with Lilienblum's past than the concluding embrace of nationalism. The return to studies represented a breaking out of the cul-de-sac of resignation and a successful reentry into the world of praxis. Both the fact of Lilienblum's individual rebirth and the fact that it was a rebirth into practical accomplishment had of necessity to precede an awareness of the logic of national rebirth, which likewise was to come in the form of a reawakening to the need for the taking of practical, material measures. The individual foreshadowed the collective; as Lilienblum had learned to save his own life, so might the People learn also. The via negativa had been put behind and then it became a question of new life finding its fitting object. To use another metaphor; it is as if Lilienblum's life was like a lifeless firehose, which at the beginning of Derekh teshuvah is suddenly and mysteriously connected to a powerful

GUENZBURG, LILIENBLUM, AND HASKALAH AUTOBIOGRAPHY

105

source of water,and which, though misdirectedfor a time, at the end finds its proper target. The final conversionwas additionallypreparedfor by glimmeringsof renewed interest in the affairs of Russian Jewry. These concerns form a minorthemein Derekhteshuvah,whichreceivesa moreinsistentarticulation as the work progresses.As early as 1876 the abortivescheme of English philanthropiststo buy Palestinefrom the Sultanprovokedin Lilienbluma "stirringof the imagination"(2: 148). In July 1878, Lilienblummentioned with enthusiasmreports of the plans of the Alliance Israel1ite to purchase large tractsof Russianland to be colonizedby impoverishedJews fromthe Pale(2: 180).After 1879Lilienblumbeganto be extremelyconcernedby the growingassimilationof young RussianJews and wrote on the evils of it in the Russian-Jewishpress (2: 182).An articleof his in Ha-meli4 (1879, nos. 41, 44; 1880,nos. 1, 2) gratifiedhim greatlyby the controversyit aroused. The claim of continuity should not be stressed overmuch.The great arrivalwas the more powerfullyrealizedfor having been adequatelypreparedfor. The pogromsthat sweptthroughsouthernRussiain the springof 1881(the Jews of Odessawereattackedin the firstweekof May)weregiven poignantexpressionin Derekhteshuvahin a seriesof painedellipticaldiary entries;the real turningpoint in Lilienblum'ssituation,however,followed by severalmonths and is presentedin fourjournalentries,for Elul 28 and Tishri4, 6, 7 entrieswhose superscription,it should be noted, is given for the firsttime accordingto the Hebrewcalendar.In theseentriesLilienblum made the significantand brilliantchoice not to presenthis crisisof identity in directly discursivepsychological or ideological terms. He created an astonishing effect by instead presentinga kind of battle of the books: combatby textualproxy. In each entryLilienblumjuxtaposeda lessonfrom his gymnasiumstudieswith anothertext, and simplyby the progressof these unexplicatedjuxtapositionshe managedto indicatethe course of his conversion. The firstentry,for Elul 28, beginswith a Latinexercise.The text is from Cicero:"The virtuousman will desire no rewardfor his labors and hardships otherthanpraiseand honor."Lilienblumfirstnoticesthegrammatical peculiaritiesof the sentence,then transposesits syntax,and translatesinto Hebrew-all this as if the matterof the text werearbitrary,a momentin the exertionsof an aspiringexterne.Lilienblumpausesto wonderbemusedlyat these old Roman sageswho regardedpraiseand honor as sufficientmotives for civic virtue,and then he leavesthe exercise.Withoutcommenttherefol-

106

ALANMINTZ

lows an excerpt from an official Russian state communiqueurging the documentationof JewishcrimesagainstRussiansociety:". . . to gatherand submit to the properlocation preciseinformationtogetherwith presumptions of guilt on the question:whichaspectsof the economicactivityof the Jews cause injury to the lives of the principal inhabitants . . . " (2: 192). On

this text Lilienblumdoes comment,drawingout insteadthe implicationthat in the economicworldeverygroupor individualprospersat the expenseof others and that in Russiathe Jewswill alwaysbe regardedas the partygiving injury.The irony of thejuxtapositionof Ciceroand a documentof official Russianantisemitismcuts in two ways;though the venalityof Russian society is judged by contrastto an entirelydifferentnorm of humanbehavior in a polity, the very loftinessof the Ciceroniancivic ideal proves itself utterlyand dangerouslyirrelevantto an understandingof the politicalactualities of the Jewishquestion. The entryfor Tishri4 (no mentionis made of the interveningholidayof Rosh Hashana)juxtaposesa seriesof mathematicalproblemswith a passage from Jeremiah.The problemsand their solutions, which graphicallyseize the readerby pouringan extravagantdisplayof numbersand symbolsover the Hebrewpage, are concernedwith logarithmsand algebraicequations and together describean ideal languageof rationality.Logarithmsare a device for abridgingcalculationby transposingcomplex operationsinto simple steps of addition and subtraction.Algebraicequations are sets of artificiallymanipulatedequivalencesthat are transformedand balancedby agreedupon rules.The biblicaltext is Jeremiah45:4-5: "Behold,that which I have built will I breakdown, and that which I have plantedI will pluck up, even this whole land. And thou seekest great things for thyself?Seek them not!" The context is a short prophecygiven to Baruchben Neriah at the conclusionof his narrativeof Jeremiah'slife and prophecies.Exhausted and depressedby the visionshe has recorded,Baruchcomplainsthat he has been given no rest or consolation.Traditionalexegesis,especiallyKimhi, interpretsBaruch'scomplaint as a request for the mantle of prophecy, whichwas oftengivento a prophet'sdisciple,afterthe exampleof Elijahand Elisha;moderncriticismunderstandsthe complaintas a requestsimplyfor the kind of power to which importantscribesoften acceded.In any case, Baruchis told by God not to seek such grandioseattainments.His reward will be more modest but not insignificant:in the generalcatastrophethat will soon engulf Judah, Baruchwill be allowed to escape with his life. The applicationto Lilienblum'ssituationis clear. Lilienblumis a latter day Baruch,a scriberatherthan an originalvisionary,who has been over-

GUENZBURG, LILIENBLUM, AND HASKALAH AUTOBIOGRAPHY

107

and greatness,whilehis reachingin his searchfor personalachievement people are condemnedto destruction,of whichthe recentpogromswerebut a small adumbration.A text from the real world of historicalcatastrophe standsnextto a text fromthe artificiallyelegantworldof mathematics.In an equationnothingis everlost:whatis takenfromone termof the equivalence or done to it must be given to the other term so that the symmetrynot be violated;the verse from Jeremiah,however,describesa judgmentof irrecoverabledevastationin which what was built and plantedwill be forever torn down and uprooted. The diary entry for Tishri 4 concludes:"I put down my book and papersand went out into the awesomedestruction... " (2: 194). The Jeremiahverse is used again as the countertextin the third and fourthjournalentries(Tishri6, 7); with each repetitionthe authorityof the verse increasesin proportionto the insipid irrelevancyof the gymnasium lesson text. The first text is an excerptfrom a geographybook describing mineral deposits in a certain region of Russia and their discovery by merchantsand explorers.The text runsconsecutivelyfor severallinesbefore phrasesbegin to repeatin a jumble of sentencefragments,as if a distracted studentkept forcing his mind back to the page and as if self-possessionof the text was foundering on the bedrock of the Jeremiahverse, which immediatelyfollows it. The matterof the passageis again not arbitrary.For a Jew to force himselfto learn by rote the featuresand resourcesof a land which is not his and which does not want him is absurdand humiliating. Additionallypainfulis the obviouscontrastbetweenthe firmsubstantiality of rich mineraldeposits and the vulnerableprecariousnessof Jewishexistence in that land. The last diary entry, a passage in Latin and Hebrewfrom Ovid's The is a lushlypastoraldescriptionof the comingof nightto the Metamorphosis, mouth of a grotto, as Nox sprinklesa flowerysoporific on the scene. The exquisitelyartificialtranquilityof the tableauis of coursethe antithesisof the atrocitiesthat had so recentlytakenplace on the streetoutsideas "foretold" by the Jeremiahprophecyof wrath.In the morelocal contextof structure of Derekh teshuvah,the passage closes the climactic cycle of diary entriesby returningto the startingpoint of a Latinexerciseand by creatinga settingof charmedsleepfulnessin whichthe resisting,enterprisingwill of the individualfades and is foreverput to rest. The death of the will preparesthe way for resurrectionof the self. Late on the night of Tishri 12 Lilienblumdrawsthe conclusionsthat had been crypticallyimpliedin the pasticheof passages:the Jews are ultimatelyand

108

ALAN MINTZ

unchangeably alien to European society and rather than emigrating to other countries in which the sad tale will repeat itself, let them go to their ancestral homeland and once again make it their own. The nation may yet transform itself; for Lilienblum his own transformation has happened already. The greatstonethathad presseddownon my heartfor sucha long timefell off in a moment,my eyes opened,my soul exalted,and I becameanotherperson. The dew of resurrectionfell anewupon me and meltedthe "greatglacier"that had coveredmy heart these many years. (2: 198) The reawakening of the will, which had taken place at the beginning of Derekh teshuvah, yet which had not affected the longstanding paralysis of emotion, is now canceled and fulfilled by the reawakening of the spirit. The price to be paid for Lilienblum's rebirth is the end of autobiographical writing. When Lilienblum ceased seeking "great things" for himself, his will became entirely identified with the larger enterprise into which he had been reborn. Lilienblum thenceforth became an institution and his further autobiographical writings, such as Derekh la-'avor ge'ulim (A Way for the Redeemed to Pass Over). became institutional history. The space between self and society within which the authentic autobiographical impulse arises was closed forever.

IX Though with the publication of Derekh teshuvahthe career of Haskalah autobiography came to a formal close, the role of its posthumous influence should not be underestimated. To conclude this study, I wish briefly to make the case for the importance of this genre in the breakthrough to literary modernism in the first decade of the century in the narrative prose fiction of Berdyczewski (the Berdyczewski of Mabanayim and 'Orvaparab), Brenner, and Gnessin. The opening of a new space of existential subjectivity, the method of psychological realism, the awareness of the tragic limits of human action, the obsessive concern with a single consciousness, the deflationary precision of language-these characteristics of the new literature can be explained in part by reference to the European novel and in part by reference internally to the earlier development of the Hebrew novel. But only in part. The immediate legacy of the novel genre in Hebrew-with all its machinery of

GUENZBURG, LILIENBLUM, AND HASKALAH AUTOBIOGRAPHY

109

and melodrama,caricature,didacticintrusion,multiplicityof characters, geographical dispersion-constituted a substantial and oppressive edifice, and it may well be said that it was only by finding some way of bypassing these conventions that new directions could be taken. As far as internal explanations go, then, the more proper question might well be how such a writer as Brenner managed to write what he did despite the Haskalah novel. Take, for example, this passage from Brenner's Breakdownand Bereave-

ment (1920). But stop your struggling-becausethereis no one to rescueyou either.Resign yourself-and live as best you can. It wouldall havehad to end somedayanyhow, just as your life too will somedayhave to end. Oblivionis waiting for you, waiting.Tryto live each minutewith whatotherfeelingsyou have:live as the crushedfly liveswith its wingspulledoff or as the blindmangydog. Nothing will everchange,resignyourselfonce and for all. Acceptwhatcomesyour way-and be still!'9 At the center of the novel after Yehezkel Hefetz has been released from the hospital, he exhorts himself to leave off living in a constant state of feverish desire and to resign himself to a present existence that expects no salvation from the future. The kind of struggle Hefetz's desire condemns him to is hardly related to the tortures of religious doubt in the literature of the previous century; it is a kind of metaphysical anguish anchored to a deep sense of sexual humiliation. Hefetz is profoundly divided against himself and hence his characteristic form of consciousness is the reflexiveness of interior monologue. The complexity of the text rests on this kind of division. The exhortations sweep forward toward the promise of a sweet oblivion at the end of willing and striving; but the only concrete images embedded in a decidedly unpictorial passage-the wingless crushed fly and the blind mangy dog-make Hefetz's pleading all the more desperate by revealing what he really imagines a state of resignation to be like. Now, I believe it would be difficult to find in the fiction of Abramovitch, Smolenskin, or Broides a passage whose rhetorical complexity derives from a similar combination of philosophical and psychological awareness. But consider these lines from a journal entry in Moses Leib Lilienblum's autobiography flattot ne'urim (1876). Lilienblum is addressing his emotions, which have been stirred by the image of an impossible love. 19. Breakdown and Bereavement, trans. Hillel Halkin (Ithaca, 1971), p. 142.

110

ALANMINTZ But resignation[ye'ush]is strongerthan you! Whenyou next bringbeforeme fantasiesto indulgemyselfin, your labor will be in vain, for resignationwill seize those fantasiesby the neck and shakethem and will not permitme the slightestpleasure..... Nor shallI seek any longerto knowwhat my futurewill be, for resignationhas alreadytakencareof that questionin a fewwords..... (2: 109)

There are differences here, to be sure. The agon between involuntary feelings and mandated resignation is almost comically externalized, and no concrete images of debilitation check the flow of rhetorical suasion. The continuities are clear nonetheless, and they indicate a kind of language of the self that is different from the language of the novels of the time and that we can easily imagine as being generative of the later, more troubled fictions of a writer like Brenner. Here too is a divided consciousness caught in a tenuous act of self-exhortation. Here too is an attempt to lay to rest the strivings of desire which continually betray dependence on the surrogate gratifications of fantasy, and an attempt to attain to a similar kind of resignation in which the dread of the future will forever pass away. Lilienblum was, of course, not a novelist. What separated him from the generation of Brenner was, in Brenner's words, the fact that Lilienblum "knew only himself and did not know others. Psychological penetration regarding other people was foreign to him." As practitioner of autobiography, the dimension of intersubjectivity was absent. But it is the fact of that penetration on Lilienblum's part, no matter how narrowly applied, that Brenner acknowledges as the great link between the two literary generations: "the hatred of illusion, fantasy, and imaginary constructions."20 There existed, in sum, an alternative tradition of imaginative writing from which the modernists could derive nourishment, both thematically and formally, and to which they could cling for safe passage around the colossus of the novels. As a genre autobiography required focusing on the inner experience of a single individual, authorized writing about such private areas as sex and domestic relations that were not proper elsewhere, prided itself in the realistic correspondence between experienced reality and the written record of it, and, finally, encouraged the use of a flexible low diction suitable to the "fallen" reality of contemporary individual existence. The achievement of autobiography in its own right is considerable; its legacy may be more considerable still. 20. Kol kitvei U. Y. Brenner, 3: 109. See also 2: 292-93. On the connection between Brenner and Lillienblum, see Ya'aqov Rabinowitz, "Mosheh Leib Lilienblum ve-gilgulei rubo," Gilyonot 15 (1943): 176-81.

Hermann Cohen's Perceptions of Spinoza: A Reappraisal Author(s): Franz Nauen Source: AJS Review, Vol. 4 (1979), pp. 111-124 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486301 . Accessed: 26/06/2011 20:28 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

HERMANN COHEN'S PERCEPTIONSOF SPINOZA: A REAPPRAISAL by FRANZ NAUEN University of Haifa

The audaciousgoal of HermannCohen's philosophy of religionis to reconcileJudaismand modernculture.Interestin Cohen'sJewishwritings, especiallyhis posthumousReligionder Vernunft,'both on the partof Jewish scholarsand the Englishand Israelireadingpublic,bearswitnessto its lasting significance.For the contemporaryreader,the value of Cohen'sproject is, it appears, not canceled even by the historic fact that the Holocaust proved Cohen's messianicdreamtragically-even obscenely-out of phase with the grim reality of modern Germany.As Ernst Simon pointed out, Cohen was not the only sage to follow "a false prophet";Maimonides,for example, found nothing wrong with Rabbi Akiba's fateful allegianceto Bar Kochba.2 The best scholarshipon Cohen has thereforerightly concerneditself with the natureof Cohen'sachievementas a philosopherof Judaismrather

1. Die Religion der Vernunftaus den Quellen des Judentums(Leipzig, 1919); hereafter cited as Religion. 2. Ernst Simon, "Zu Hermann Cohens Spinoza Auffassung," Monatsschriftfar Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judenthums 79 (1935): 181-94; reprinted in Bracken (Heidelberg, 1965), pp. 205-14, esp. pp. 213-14.

111

112

FRANZ NAUEN

than with his statureas prophet,Germanpatriot,or antizionist.Especially prominentin the discussionof Cohen'sachievementhas been the question whetherCohen'sphilosophyof Judaismas articulatedin Religionder Vernunftwas consistentwith the New Kantianpremisesof his philosophical systemor whetherit was basedon logical,metaphysical,ethicalor religious presuppositionsinconsistentwith it. Put more boldly, was Cohen'sthought seen as a whole internallyconsistentor mightCohen the New Kantianphilosopher be distinguishedfrom Cohen the Jew?3 The scholarshipof S. H. Bergman,Nathan Rotenstreich,Leo Strauss and AlexanderAltmannon Cohen was in fact an in depth responseto the existentialistinterpretation,persuasivelyput forwardby FranzRosenzweig in 19244and refinedby ErnstSimonin 1933,5that a conversion,homecoming to Judaism or existentialmoment occurredduring the last phase of Cohen'scareersometimebetween 1907and 1915.Still widely acceptedby most studentsof Cohen,this thesishas contributedto the subordinationand neglect of all of Cohen's systematicphilosophicalwritings includinghis magnumopus, Ethik des reinen Willens,publishedin 1904;6Religionder Vernunft,publishedposthumouslyin 1919 is, in fact, Cohen's only major worktranslatedinto Englishor Hebrew.'And though Rosenzweigcertainly intendedto enhanceour appreciationof Cohen'shumanstature,an inescapable consequence of his interpretationis some suspicion regardingthe rigorousnessof Cohen'sphilosophizingand the validityof his basic philosophical ideas. In their best known books, ContemporaryThinkerssand JewishPhilosophyin ModernTimes,9Bergmanand Rotenstreichdevelopedand embel3. According to Julius Guttmann in Philosophies ofJudaism (New York, 1973), pp. 400-15, Cohen, because of his neo-Kantian premises, could not fully express his experience of Judaism, an opinion shared by Joseph Ben Schlomo in "The Philosophy of Religion and the Perception of Judaism of Cohen" [Hebrew] in Hermann Cohen, Dat ha-tevunahmi-meqorot ha-yahadut, trans. Zvi Voyeslavski (Jerusalem, 1971), pp. 481-511. 4. See "Einleitung" to Hermann Cohens Jadische Schriften, 3 vols. (Berlin, 1924; henceforth cited as J.S.), 1: xiii-lxiv. 5. Simon, "Auffassung." 6. Berlin, 1904; 2d rev. ed., Berlin, 1907 (hereafter referred to as Ethik). 7. Religion of Reason out of the Sources of Judaism, trans. Simon Kaplan (New York, 1972) and Dat ha-tevunah mi-meqorot ha-yahadut, trans. Zvi Wislovski (Jerusalem, 1971). Some of Cohen's major essays on Judaism and Judaica are collected in Hermann Cohen, 'lyyunim bayahadut u-vi-ve'ayot ha-dor, trans. Zvi Voyeslavski (Jerusalem, 1977). 8. S. H. Bergman, Hogei ha-dor, 3d ed. (Jerusalem, 1974), pp. 219-43. Very similar is Bergman's English essay, "Hermann Cohen" in Between East and West: Essays Dedicated to the Memory of Bela Horowitz (London, 1958), pp. 22-47. 9. Jewish Philosophy in Modern Times (New York, 1968), pp. 52-105.

HERMANN COHEN'S PERCEPTIONS OF SPINOZA

113

thesis.Intwolearnedarticles,however,"Hypothesis lishedRosenzweig's in the Philosophyof HermannCohen"'tand"Religionwithinthe Limitsof

Reason Alone and Religionof Reason,""'' unfortunatelyless familiarto the generalpublic, Bergmanand Rotenstreicharguedfor a high degreeof continuityand logicalconsistencyin Cohen'sphilosophicaldevelopment,as did also AlexanderAltmannin his essay, "HermannCohens Begriffder Korrelation."'2In the following, this "revisionist"argumentfor the systematic unityof Cohen'sthought,basedon researchinto the developmentof his philosophicalconcepts,will be supportedby a reinterpretationof Cohen's critiqueof Spinoza, seen by Rosenzweigand Simon as conclusiveevidence for the bifurcationof philosophyand Judaismin Cohen's late thought. A close study of the organicdevelopmentof Cohen'sargumentfor the basic opposition between ethical idealism and Spinozeanpantheismfrom 1877 onwardleads us to questionthe view that Cohen'scritiqueof Spinozain his lecture of 1910, "Spinozas Verhdiltnis zum Judentum,"'3and his essay of is evi1915, "SpinozafiberStaat, Religion,Judentumand Christentum,"'4 dence of existentialcrisis and intellectualdiscontinuity.This suspicion is strengthenedby the fact that alternativedata to that of Rosenzweigand Simon can be brought forwardto explain the unprecedentedviolence of Cohen's attack on Spinoza from 1910 onwards. In the "Preface"to Redeniiberdas Judentum,publishedin 1923,Martin Bubermentionedthat Cohen in his "last and most significantbook," Religion der Vernunft,had mistakenlyinferredthat God could have no reality from the fact that the notion "reality"implied the relationshipbetween knowledgeand sensation. Against this Buber argued not only that God shouldbecome real, i.e., enter the world of sensation,but also that Cohen had wronglymade the distinctionbetweenfeelingand thinkingabsolute."5 While Buberwas correctin thinkingthat Cohen maintainedthat God can 10. S. H. Bergman, "'Iqqar ha-rishon ba-filosofiyah shel Hermann Cohen," Hogim u-maaminim (Tel Aviv, 1959), pp. 139-59. 11. In Publications of the Leo Baeck Institute Yearbook 17 (1972): 179-87. 12. Zwei Welten: Siegfried Moses Festschrift (Tel Aviv, 1962), pp. 377-99. Emil Fackenheim pays tribute to Altmann's achievement in "Hermann Cohen after Fifty Years," The Leo Baeck Memorial Lecture XII, New York, 1969, esp. pp. 21-22. 13. Printed in Festgabe zum zehnjdhrigenBestehen der Akademie far die Wissenschaftdes Judenthums (Berlin, 1929), pp. 43-68. 14. Reprinted in J.S., 3: 290-372. 15. Martin Buber, Reden iiber das Judentum, 2d ed. (Berlin, 1932), pp. xvi-xvii.

114

FRANZNAUEN

not enjoy reality (Wirklichkeit) because Wirklichkeitimplies a relationship between knowledge and the senses, he failed to inform us that in the passage referred to God is real (real) in another way as it is the function of an idea to be a norm for Wirklichkeit,to be in some kind of relationship to the world of the senses without implying such a relationship definitionally.'6 Nor did he mention Cohen's underlying argument that religious love is unthinkable as sensual love but only as "love of the idea," the only appropriate object of such "love."'7 God as the ethical idea cannot have reality (Wirklichkeit) not only because this would imply that love toward him would not be ethical idealism, love of the normative idea, but pantheism, love of the existing world of sense. This irreconcilable opposition between ethical idealism and pantheism was moreover not unique to Religion der Vernunft,as Buber suggested, but a persistent theme which Cohen flatly called in Ethik des reinen Willens the difference between "truth and error" (Richtigkeit und Falschheit).'18 This incisive judgment underlay Cohen's critique of Spinoza, the most profound and influential of all modern pantheists. Spinoza's basic equation, "God or Nature" (Deus sive natura) is diametrically opposed to Cohen's starting point in all of his ethical writings, beginning with the first edition of Kants Begrfindungder Ethik,'9 published in 1877: a clear-cut distinction between the "Being" of nature and the "Should" of Ethics. Already in this work, Cohen's first attempt to formulate a Neo-Kantian ethical theory, Spinoza's Ethics were interpreted as a "false beginning" which obscured the basic distinction between the "Ought" and the "Is," between the "supersensual" ethical idea and other transcendental ideas. This question, however,is not raised. Whetherjust as the materialworld appearsin the formsof humaninteraction,so also the Ethicalis a thingin itself, has a Being which also only appearsin humanwilling,in Action as in Passivity.Still, howevermuch one may resist the thought for "enlightened reasons,"this is the ethicalquestion:the possibilityof anotherkindof validity for a Supersensual.In conceivingof this problemin this way, thefounderof transcendentalideas stands next to the creatorof the theory of Ideas. Since 16. Religion,p. 187, 17. Religion,pp. 187-88. 18. Ethik,p. 435. 19. Berlin,1877(henceforthcited as KBE,A)not to be confusedwith the considerablyrevised and expandedsecond edition, Berlin, 1910(henceforthcited as KBE,B).

HERMANN COHEN'S PERCEPTIONS OF SPINOZA

115

Plato, Kant was the first to determinethe task of ethics. Ethics must teach, accordingto Kant, what should be.20 This motif, the contrast between ethical idealism as conceived of by Plato and Kant and Spinoza's pantheism, was embellished in Ethik des reinen Willens, Cohen's ethical masterwork, published in 1904, where Spinoza's naturalistic analogy between human emotions and behavior and geometric points and lines was portrayed as the reason for Kant's antipathy to Spinoza. Kant's obvious antipathyto Spinoza, more than to any other philosopher, stemsfroma factualdifferenceof principle.Spinozaenchantshis readerby his tranquilityand sublimityregardingprejudiceand dominantopinion.He takes on the appearanceof antiquenakednessas he puts humanpassionsand actions on the level of mathematicalfigures.Such an attitudedeservesrespect when one is dealing with prejudicesin the battle of opinions and parties.It contradictshoweverthe possibilityof ethics as createdby Plato.2' This counterpositioning of Spinoza and Kant is however only part of the story. A clue to Cohen's most serious opinion can be found in his contention that Spinoza was responsible for the pantheistic leanings of the postKantian Idealists, especially Schelling and Hegel.22 If, however, Kant had refuted dogmatic metaphysics once and for all, how can the vogue of Spinozistic ideas among the post-Kantians be understood?23Cohen's explanations for this are not altogether convincing. For according to Cohen such a reversion to pre-Kantian thought structures could only be partially explained by either the romantic openness of the Idealists to history24or by their reaccommodation to a Christian theological tradition itself profoundly affected by pantheism.25 20. KBE,A, p. 4. 21. Ethik, p. 15. 22. Ibid., pp. 44-45, esp. pp. 461-63. 23. This is not a valid question for the historian of ideas who may safely conclude that Kant criticized dogmatic metaphysicians, including Spinoza and Mendelssohn for trying to prove what is only a rational "orientation." It is a great difficulty for Cohen who devoted much of his time to the project of showing that Kant at his best rejected not only the dogmatic claims of the metaphysicians but also the substance of their discourse. 24. Ethik, pp. 306-7. 25. Ibid., pp. 305-9.

116

FRANZNAUEN

The pantheisticroots of classicalidealismmust lie deeper,perhapsin Kant's philosophicalthought. And if we follow Cohen's most illustrious student,ErnstCassirer,in insistingthat beliefin a "thingin itself" underlying both phenomenaand moral action was an incontestablecomponent of Kant's philosophicalthought, we may conclude with some safety that Cohen held Spinoza responsible for this residual pantheism in Kant's thought.26Though Cohen preferredto interpretaway Kant's concept of a the historicalconnectionbe"thingin itself' ratherthan take it seriously,27 tween it and classical idealism would explain the curious fact that at the apex of his argumentin Ethikdes reinenWillens,Cohen forwenthis usual contrast of Spinoza and Kant. Instead, Spinoza's equation of God and Nature was contrastedto the God Idea of true monotheismwhich, transcendentto both Nature and the EthicalWill, unites both. Following this line of reasoningin whichlogic ratherthancontentunitesethicsand science, Spinoza'spantheismbased on an identity of God and Nature was distinguished from Ethical idealism where God "correlates"to both Man and Nature.28 Though this veiled critique of Kant only came to the fore at an advanced stage of Cohen's ethical thought, remarkablenonethelessis the unchangingframeworkof Cohen's critique of Spinoza'spantheismfrom 1877until his death. Often implicitin the first edition of KantsBegriindung

der Ethik, embellished and polished in Ethik des reinen Willens (1904) and

Religion der Vernunft(1919), the four major points of this critique can der Ethik(1877). alreadybe found in the first edition of KantsBegruindung First, Spinoza's formula, Deus sive natura, preempts the possibility of philosophicalethics by precludingthe being of the Ought.29Second, Spinoza's view of humanbehavioras akin to points and lines is incompatible with the methodologyof ethics.30Third, philosophicalethics requiresthe notion of a God Idea, transcendentto both natureand privateethics and 26. "In fact, every purely historical reproducer of Kant's system must realize that Kant on the matter did not succeed in distingluishingclearly between the methodological and the ontological problem," Ernst Cassirer, "Hermann Cohen und die Erneuerung der Kantischen Philosophie," Kant-Studien 17 (1912): 252-73; esp. p. 268. 27. This "explaining away" of Kant's concept of a "thing in itself' is already a major theme in KBE,A and Ethik; in KBE,B, Cohen points out that he is devoting even more space to this "Grenzbegriff," p. x. 28. Ethik, pp. 459-70. 29. KBE,A, p. 4; Ethik, p. 46. 30. KBE,A, p. 167; Ethik, pp. 15-16.

HERMANN COHEN'S PERCEPTIONS OF SPINOZA

117

reconcilingboth "from outside.""'Spinoza'sGod, however,is immanent and not transcendent.Fourth, Spinoza'skey concept affectusis mistaken insofar as Spinoza supposedthat affectsare either to be subjectto the externaldisciplineof reason(KantsBegrindungderEthik[A])32or suppressed entirely(Ethik).33Affect is, however,a motor which receivesits form from reason.34The only noveltyin Ethikwas Cohen'schargethat Spinoza'spantheismwas ethicallyand politicallybarrenbecausehe, comparing"compassion" to envy, overlookedits pivotal importanceas the source of love of one's fellow man.35The absence of this charge in Kants Begrindungder Ethik(A) is not surprisinginasmuchas Cohenbelievedthatcompassionand brotherlylove pertainednot to ethics but to religion,36the ethical importance of which he himself played down before 1900.31 Highlycriticalof Spinoza'smetaphysicalideas, Cohen until 1910nonethelesspaid tributeon a varietyof occasionsto Spinoza'shistoricalachievement. He acknowledgedthat Spinozawas a greatJew who had contributed to enlightenmentin religion and politics,38that his philosophycompleted the courseof medievalphilosophyinitiatedby Philo,39and that his notionof "affect"whilephilosophicallymisleadingwas in keepingwith the normative Jewishtradition.40Only after 1910does one find in Cohen'swritingsa personal attack on Spinozaas an elitist, blind to the potentialof the "Menge" for enlightenment,4'to the Messianismof the prophets,42and to the Jewish monotheisticidea.43This blindnessleads to defamationof Maimonides,44

31. KBE,A, pp. 323-25; Ethik, p. 466. 32. KBE,A, p. 177. 33. Ethik, p. 123. 34. Ethik, pp. 201, 480. 35. Ethik, pp. 217-20, 314. 36. Religion, pp. 188-89. 37. So, for example, even in "Das Problem der jiidischer Sittenlehre" (1899); J.S., 3: 17-19, where ethics based on autonomy is seen as philosophically independent of religion based on the God Idea. Cf. Ethik, p. 62. 38. So especially during the "Antisemitismus Streit" with Treitschke; see "Zur Verteidigung" (1880); J.S., 2: 95-100 and "Letter to Rabbi Moses of Mobile, Alabama" (1880); ibid., p. 472. Cf. Ethik, p. 463. 39. So even in Begriff der Religion (Giessen, 1915), p. 14. 40. "Autonomie and Freiheit" (1900), J.S., 3: 39. 41. Religion, p. 163. 42. "Spinoza fiber Staat, Religion, Judenthum und Christentum" (1915), J.S, 3: 368, 371. 43. J.S., 3: 372; Religion, p. 429. 44. J.S., 3: 346-50; Religion, p. 391.

118

FRANZNAUEN

hatredof Judaism,45and antisemitism,46 and, in short, rendershim a renegade from and an enemy of Judaismand the Jewish people.47 To whatextentcan Cohen'svituperativeattackon Spinoza'spersonality and his religiousideas-which can be found only in his writingsfrom 1910 onwards-be dissociatedfromhis critiqueof his philosophicalideas,which, as we have seen, is a constantin his philosophicaldevelopmentfrom 1877? Can the formerbe dissociatedfrom changesin Cohen'sthoughttakenas a whole? Cohen himself on occasion, after 1910, associatedSpinoza'spantheismwith modernantisemitismof which Spinozawas, Cohen believed,a majorliterarysource,especiallyeffectiveand malignant,since Spinozawas consideredby such giantsas Kant to be an experton Jewishmatters.48Perhaps Cohen'sphilosophicalcritiqueof Spinozaand his personalattackon him are not only intertwinedbut inseparable.PerhapsCohen's unprecedented animositytoward Spinoza in his lecture of 1910, "Das Verhaltnis and in his essay of 1915,"SpinozafiberStaat Spinozaszum Judenthum,"49 was the consequenceof a und Religion, Judenthumand Christentum,"so crucial change in Cohen's underlyingphilosophicalposition. Both Franz Rosenzweig and Ernst Simon eloquently argued that a revolution in Cohen's outlook was in fact the underlyingcause of Cohen's polemic against Spinoza in his writingsfrom 1910 onwards.Upon close scrutiny, however,their argumentsdo not appearto be altogetherconvincing. Rosenzweig, in his "Einleitung" to Hermann Cohens Jiidische Schriften,

published in 1924, interpretedthe final phase of Cohen's thought as a "homecomingto Judaism"as a religionof reasonwith its own hypotheses and subjectmatter."5 Accordingto this interpretationCohen in his old age could be consideredto be a precursorof the "New Thinking"whichRosenzweighimselfexpoundedin SternderErl6sung.ThoughRosenzweigdid not make this explicitin "{Jberden VortragHermannCohens'Das Verhailtnis Spinozaszum Judenthum,"it is clearthat he consideredthe bitingattackon 45. J.S., 3: 366. 46. Ibid., p. 363. 47. Ibid., p. 371. 48. Ibid., pp. 363, 371. 49. Printed in Festgabe zum zehnjfihrigenBestehen der Akademie fiir die Wissenschaftdes Judenthums (Berlin, 1929), pp. 43-68. 50. Reprinted in J.S., 3: 290-372. 51. J.S., 1: xlv-lvii.

HERMANN COHEN'S PERCEPTIONS OF SPINOZA

119

Spinoza's apostasy in Cohen's lecture of 1910 and his essay of 1915 as The flaw in this argumentis documentaryevidenceof such a homecoming.52 that none of Cohen's other writingsof 1910-14, especiallythe second edition of KantsBegrwindungder Ethikin whichCohen'snew approachto Spinoza first came to the fore, indicatethat a majorchange had taken place The eitherin Cohen'sphilosophicalnotionsor in his appraisalof Judaism.53 new phase in Cohen's philosophizing-which in my opinion follows coherentlyfrom his earlierthought-can be datedbackonly to the publication of Begriffder Religionpublishedin 1915.54Cohen's lectureof 1910on Spinoza contained in nuce, as Rosenzweighimselfpointed out, Cohen's ultimate appraisalof Spinoza, five years before any change can be noted regardingother substantivephilosophicalor religiousissues.55If so, we are thrownon the alternativeargumentof ErnstSimon, Rosenzweig'smost illustriousdisciple,in his essay"Zu HermannCohensSpinozaAuffassung."56 Accordingto Simon, the second edition of Ethik des reinen Willens,published in 1907,did not chargeSpinozawith being a renegadeto his people and his religion, while the second edition of KantsBegriindungder Ethik publishedin 1910did, though both were highlycriticalof Spinoza'sphilosophicalideas. To explainthis suddenchange,Simon arguesthat sometime between 1907 and 1910, Cohen felt called upon to forgo his philosophical impartialityand think throughhis own existenceas a Jew committedto his ancestraltradition.57To supporthis argument,Simon referredto remarks by Cohen whichdo not relatedirectlyto Spinoza,a remarkin a letterwritten in 1907that he had "sacrificedhis sentimentalityto his philosophy."58 The second, a remarkmade also in 1907,praisedSpinozafor loyaltyto his Sephardictradition as expressedin his readingonly Spanishliterature.59

52. Franz Rosenzweig, Kleinere Schriften (Berlin, 1937), pp. 351-53; this is made explicit however only in "Einleitung," J.S., 1: lv-lvi. 53. Cohen, in fact, in 1910, in KBE,B, not only rejects unambiguously the possibility of a philosophically based religion of reason-the project of Begriffder Religion (1915) and Religion der Vernunft(1919), but also rejects religion's compatibility with philosophy: "Ethics is philosophy. Religion however cannot be absorbed by philosophy." KBE,B, p. 497. 54. J.S., 1: xlv. 55. "Auch sonst ist die Behandlung Spinozas im Vortrag zwar keine Spur weniger deutlich als in der Abhandlung, aber doch weniger erb6st"; Kleinere Schriften, p. 352. 56. See above, n. 2. 57. Simon, "Auffassung," p. 211. 58. Ibid., p. 210; Letter to Dr. Leo Munk, 1907, Hermann Cohen, Breife, ed. Bruno and Bertha Strauss (Berlin, 1939), pp. 76-77. 59. Bricken, p. 210; "Religi6se Postulate" (1907), J.S., 1, 2.

120

FRANZNAUEN

PresumablyCohen in 1910had decidednot to sacrificehis sentimentality after all and would no longer admire Spinoza for reading romances in Spanishratherthan Dutch. I am not convinced.No readerof Cohen'sposthumousReligionof Reasoncan in justice claim that Cohen had decidedto forgo reason.The best evidencefor both Rosenzweig'sand Simon'stheses can be found not in extraneousmaterialbut in Cohen'sessay on Spinozaitself. (To be fair to Simon, he did not explicitlydenythis.) Leo Straussin his early article"CohensAnalyseder BibelwissenschaftSpinozas"in Der Jude convincinglyarguedthat Spinoza'sTractatusis interpretablewithinthe context of the climateof opinion in whichit was writtenand withinthe context of Spinoza's entire philosophy without ascribing to him any untoward malevolenceto Judaism.60Cohen'schargethat Spinozahad liberatedhimself not only from the Jewishcommunitybut from the monotheisticGod Idea and that he was motivatedby a need for revengefor the excommunication levied against him by the elders of the Amsterdamcommunityis technicallyunfair and unjust, though understandablein light of Cohen's strong sense of Jewish identity.6'Strauss then agreed with Simon that Cohen'sattackwas provokedless by philosophicalissues than by religious and national feeling. Rosenzweigand Simon,exponentsof "a new thinking,"saw a precursor in Cohenin his finalphase.Cohenthe classicalphilosopherof LiberalJudaism had to be distinguishedfromCohenthe existentialtheologianby a conversion,be it between 1907and 1910with a "Mitdenkender eigenenExistenz"62Orin 1915in the expositionof Judaismas a religionof reason.63To supportsuch an interpretation,Cohen's attack on Spinoza from 1910onward was brought forwardas evidence. My explanationof Cohen'sanimosityto Spinozafrom 1910onwards,on the other hand, is less speculativeand more empiricalthan that of Rosenzweigor Simon,thoughcompatiblewith what Leo Strausshad to say. Until 1904, Cohen was concernedexclusivelywith Spinoza'sphilosophicalideas as articulatedin Ethics.Thereis, in fact, only slightevidenceto suggestthat he had even looked at any of Spinoza'spoliticalwritings.64In 1904,he re60. Der Jude 8: 295-314; esp. pp. 299, 314. 61. Ibid., p. 314. 62. Simon, Bracken, p. 211. 63. Rosenzweig, "Einleitung," J.S., 1: xlv. 64. The only two allusions to Spinoza's political writings which I have found in Cohen's writings before 1910 are to Spinoza's remark that the Jewish theocracy was a democracy in "Der Sabbat in seiner Kulturgeschichtlichen Bedeutung" (1869), J.S., 2: 57 and to Spinoza's

HERMANN COHEN'S PERCEPTIONS OF SPINOZA

121

viewed the first volume of J. Freudenthal'sSpinoza,sein Lebenundseine Lehre for the Literarische Zentralblatt.65 From Freudenthal, Cohen

became acquainted with the complexity of the personal motives which prompted Spinoza to write the Tractatus theologicus politicus, though there

is no evidencethat he botheredto rereadit carefully.Duringthe sameyear, in Ethikdes reinenWillens,obviouslythinkingof Jews, both membersof a religionand displacedethnic persons,he stressedthat it was a moral duty not only to participatein the idealizationof one's own religiousheritagebut also to maintainperpetuallove and affection for one's people and one's der EthikMaimonis,"67 the originalhomeland.66In 1908,in "Characteristik fruit of a close reading of part three of the Guidefor the Perplexed,he reconsideredSpinoza'srole in medievalJewishphilosophy."Idealized,"it need not be understoodas a pantheistictraditionbeginningwith Philo and endingwith Spinoza,but could be seen as reachingits peakin Maimonides, with his ethical emphasiscloser to Kant than Spinoza.68 It was, however,the range of problemswhich came to the fore during the composition of the new "fourth part" of the second edition of Kants der Ethik69which decisivelyaffectedCohen'sunderstandingof Begriindung In Spinoza. discussingKant's philosophyof law, religionand history-the topic of the new fourth part-Cohen developedthe point alreadymade in Ethikdes reinenWillensthat Kant, in spite of some promisingbeginnings, had failed to groundtranscendentallythe "Geisteswissenschaften."70 More specifically,by distinguishingsharplybetweenthe metaphysicalroots of law and the philosophy of religion, Kant had overlooked,for understandable reasons,the fact that both were united in "WorldHistory"wherethe universalmessianicstate integratedthe law and religiousvalue.7'InsteadKant treatedseparatelythe real modernstate, based on the naturallaw, and an favorable assessment of Jesus in "Zur Verteidigung" (1888), ibid., p. 97. Both are allusions to commonplaces and might well be derivative, not based on a first hand exposure to Spinoza's political writings. 65. Reprinted in Hermann Cohens Schriften zur Philosophie und Zeitgeschichte, ed. Albert Gorland and Ernst Cassirer, 2 vols. (Berlin, 1928), 2: 501-3. 66. Ethik, pp. 592, 594. 67. J.S., 3: 221-89. 68. J.S., 3: 250. 69. See above, n. 19. 70. KBE,B, pp. 373-76, 386. Cohen does, however, emphasize here that Kant was right in distinguishing between the higher status of the natural sciences and the Geisteswissenschaften,a point not made in Ethik, pp. 228-30. 71. KBE,B, pp. 377-78.

122

FRANZ NAUEN

For this, apolitical"kingdomof God," based on pure ethicalprinciples.72 Cohen held Spinozaonly partiallyresponsible.Instead,followinga pattern with whichwe havealreadybecomefamiliar,CohencontrastedKant'sethically based theory of naturallaw with that of Spinoza,based on a "metaphysical"or even "mystical"definitionof the naturalindividualas part of God.73For, accordingto Kant, Cohen argued, "Man should receive his right from reason and history and not as a part of God, wherebyhe is equally a beast."74In addition, Kant was certainlynot influencedby Spinoza's basic contentionthat the equationof natureand powernot only was the fundamentallaw of naturebut also the foundationof politicalpower. Kant also rejectedSpinoza'sbrutal schism betweenrevealedreligionand philosophy,on the one hand, and religiousvaluesand politicalphilosophy, on the other.75Cohen did, however, hold Spinoza fully responsiblefor Kant's condemnation of Judaism:"Kant was committed to the moral emphasisof Rousseau.Spinozaneversucceededin tearinghim away from this ethical or religious ambiance. More dangerous was Spinoza's influence-not on Kant's concept of religion, but on his assessmentof the originalform of religion,biblicalJudaism,where Kant was dependenton Spinoza'sresearch."''76 This new political and religiousdimensionof Cohen'scritiqueof Spinoza referredhowever,now for the firsttime, not to Spinoza'sEthicsbut to his Tractatus politicus77 and Tractactus theologicus politicus.78 Cohen,

promptedboth by the specificsubjectmatterof the "fourthpart"of Kants derEthikandby the appearanceof a newGermantranslationof Begriindung the Tractatus theologicus politicus in the prestigious Philosophische Bibliothek,79now readthese politicalreadingsin the criticalLatinedition of Van

Vlotenand Land. Respondingto this new input,CohencontrastedSpinoza to Kant who had remainedloyal to his pietisticorigins.s0He arguedthat Spinoza,full of "unconcealedhate""'of Judaism,lackedentirelythe ethical 72. Ibid., pp. 379-80. 73. Ibid., p. 386. 74. Ibid., p. 387. 75. Ibid., pp. 385-86. 76. Ibid., p. 389. 77. Opera, ed. J. Van Vloten and J. P. N. Land, 2d ed., 3 vols. (The Hague, 1895), vol. 1; reprint of 2 vol. first edition (The Hague, 1883). 78. Ibid. 79. Ed. Carl Gebhardt, Theologisch-politischerTraktat, Phil. Bib. 93 (Leipzig, 1908). Both of Spinoza's political writings are mentioned by name for the first time in KBE,B, p. 387. 80. KBE,B, p. 466. 81. Ibid., p. 388.

HERMANN COHEN'S PERCEPTIONS OF SPINOZA

123

virtuesof "piety,""gratitude,""modesty"or "fidelity."82 Evenmoredamnwas the fact that had abandoned "his Jews" even beforethey Spinoza ing had excommunicatedhim and gone over to fanatic Christiansfor whom excommunicationwas "the highesttreasureof the Church,"83 unlike Kant who had managedto live at peace with his communityand even win over, peaceably,preachersof revealedreligionfor his own conceptionof rational religion.84

With time, beginningwith his essay, "SpinozasVerhaltniszum Judentum" of 1910,85continuingwith his seminarson Spinozaat the Hochschule fiir die Wissenschaftdes Judenthums86and concludingwith his essay, "SpiCohen'sdisnoza fiberStaatund Religion,Judenthumand Christentum,"87 like of Spinozaripenedinto hate. He found that the authorof the Tractatus theologicuspoliticuswas essentiallydisloyal.The firstphilosopherto reject his ancestral tradition,88Spinoza was a "renegadeto his people,"89an "apostate"who preferredChristianityto Judaism.90 This "humanlyincomprehensiblebetrayal"9'was encouragedby philosophical premiseswhich stressedan eternalcleavagebetweenan elite capable of philosophicalinsightand the massesfor whom religionwas the only Blindto the messianicidea of the prophets,the suitablekind of edification.92 of the Jewish Sabbath,the psalmsand Jewishprayer,93Spinoza's meaning was a formalism based on the eternalcontrast betweenknowpantheism ledge for an elite and religioustrainingfor the lower classes of society for whom Spinozahad nothingbut contempt.94Spinozain shortwas indifferent to the central problem of modernpolitics: human equality.95 Evenmoreperniciousthan Spinoza'spoliticalteachingswas his roleas a 82. Ibid., p. 467. 83. Ibid. 84. Ibid., pp. 467-68. 85. Printed in Festgabe zum zehnjaihrigenBestehen der Akademie fiir die Wissenschaftides Judenthums (Berlin, 1929), pp. 43-68. 86. For an excellent first hand account of Cohen's seminars on Spinoza at the Hochschule in Berlin, see Hans Liebeschiitz, "Hermann Cohen and Spinoza," Bulletin des Leo Baeck Instituts, no. 12 (December, 1960). pp. 225-38. 87. Reprinted in J.S., 3: 290-372. 88. Ibid., 3: 359. 89. Ibid., p. 298. 90. Ibid., p. 360. 91. Ibid., p. 361. 92. Ibid., p. 367. 93. Ibid., pp. 371-72. 94. Ibid., p. 368. 95. Ibid., p. 370.

124

FRANZ NAUEN

sourceof antisemitism.Spinozanot only "impeded"modernJewishhistory but due to his "demonic"characterwas "fatefully"its evil "demon."This "greatenemywho cameout of our ranks""prosecuted"Judaismin frontof the Christianworld.96 Through "a defect of his ethical and religious essence,"97he failed to understandMoses and the prophetsand, even worse, suppressed the universalismof the Jewish theory of natural law, the "fundamentalidea" of Jewishmonotheismby disingenuouslymisinterpreting Maimonides.98Aware, however,that Spinoza'sphilosophicalposition was alreadyestablishedbefore his excommunicationfrom the Amsterdam Jewishcommunity,Cohen concludedthat Spinoza'spantheismwas a partial if not sufficient explanationof his political and religious thought.99 Mistakenin his philosophicalpremises,Spinozahad "liberated"himselfnot only fromJudaismbut fromthe monotheisticidea.'00Somekindof relationship betweenpantheismand the most malignantsymptomof culturalcrisis, antisemitism,may in fact exist.'0'Consequently,in his writingsfrom 1914 onward, Cohen associated Spinoza, the renegadewhom he had come to know througha readingof the two Tractates,with Spinoza,the philosopher whom he had always criticizedincisively but without vituperation.The and in otherwritingsof Cohen's critiqueof Spinozain Religionder Vernunft finalperiod,whilesubstantiallyconsistentwith his earlierwritings,was now no longer a contest of philosophicalopinions but a holy war against an enemy to whom no quartermay be given, a battle not only betweentruth and falsehoodbut betweengood and evil.102This was howeveran intrinsic responseto Cohen'sexperienceof Spinozain perfectconsistencywith the otherwisegradualevolution of his philosophicaland religiousideas.

96. Ibid., p. 371. 97. Ibid., p. 372. 98. J.S., 3: 372; cf. pp. 344-53, where Cohen attacks Spinoza's interpretation of Maimonides at great length. 99. Ibid., p. 360. 100. Ibid., p. 361. 101. Ibid., p. 363. 102. So for example in "Die religi6se Bewegungen der Gegenwart" (1914): Pantheism is not Atheism but "Amoralismus, Aufhebung, Nevelierung der Sittlichkeit in das Natiirliche."

J.S., 3: 57.

Trends in the Study of Medieval Hebrew Literature Author(s): Dan Pagis Source: AJS Review, Vol. 4 (1979), pp. 125-141 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486302 . Accessed: 26/06/2011 20:29 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

TRENDS IN THE STUDY OF MEDIEVAL HEBREW LITERATURE by DAN PAGIS Hebrew University

The vast body of premodernHebrewliteratureis usuallytermed"medieval"-a somewhatmisleadingterm,partlybasedon the assumptionthat in most countriesthe JewishMiddleAges lasteduntilthe Emancipationin the eighteenthcentury. However, as is well known, this literaturewas by no means monolithic. It comprisedsuch disparateschools and styles as portions of the liturgy dating back to late Roman times, the Palestinianand Easternpiyyut(liturgicalpoetry)of the Byzantineand Moslemperiods,the famed Hebrew-Spanishschool and its ramificationsor parallelschools in Provence,North Africa, Turkey,and the Yemen,other importantcenters like Germanyand France, and an entire millenniumof Hebrewpoetry in Italy whose laterstagescoincidedwith, and wereinfluencedby, the Renaissance and the Baroque.Israel Davidson's monumentalbibliography,entitled in English Thesaurusof Hebrew MediaevalPoetry,' actually spans more

than a millenniumand a half,or, as its Hebrewtitle states,"fromthe canonization of the Bibleto the beginningof the periodof Enlightenment"(in the late eighteenth century). Alternativeterms to "medieval"seem scarcely clearer;"postbiblical"tacitly and misleadinglyexcludesthe nineteenthand twentiethcenturies,while "premodern"includesthe Bible. 1. Israel Davidson, 'OsCr ha-shirah ve-ha-piyyul mi-zeman batimat kitvei ha-qodesh 'ad reshit tequfat ha-haskalah, 4 vols. (New York, 1924-1933; 2d ed. with an introduction by Jefim [Hayyim] Schirmann and a supplement by Davidson [see below, n. 6]. New York, 1970).

125

126

DANPAGIS

The terminologicaldifficultyis no merequibble;it reflectsthe diversity and longevity of Hebrew literature,which in itself presentsnot only the usual problemof period division,but also that of geographicalplacement. At differentperiods, Hebrewliteraturedevelopedin a varietyof centersfrom the Atlanticto the IndianOcean,and from Egyptto England.While one centerwas beginningto rise, otherswere flourishingor declining;still othershad vanished.They werenot unitedby a singletradition,not even as far as their most obvious common factor-the use of Hebrew-was concerned,sincevariousschoolsat variousstagesuseddifferenthistoricallayers of Hebrewor introducedlinguisticinnovationsof theirown. Hebrewliterature based itself on several major traditions,and continuouslymodified them in language,theme, genre, form, rhetoric,and poetics. This wealthand complexityconfrontedthe scholarswith seriousmethodologicalproblems,furthercomplicatedby the physicalstateof the material and the oblivion into which it had fallen. The scholarshad first to salvage the texts from scatteredand fragmentarymanuscripts,to clarifytheirprovenanceand age, and to establishthe best possiblereadingand the identity of the author. To a greatextentthesetasks,still far frombeingcompleted,occupiedthe firstgenerationsof scholars,who devotedthemselvesto textologicaland historical, ratherthan literary,research. The study of medieval(or postbiblicaland premodern)Hebrewliterature-mostly poetry and to a lesser extent rhymed narratives,drama, poetics and prosody-goes back to the Wissenschaftdes Judentumsof the nineteenth century,2when such luminariesas Zunz and Steinschneider, among others,turnedtheir attentionto it, althoughthey often combinedit with otherJudaicstudies.In our centurythe studyof thisliteratureemerged as a field in its own right,thoughnot alwayscultivatedaccordingto its own needs. In the last forty years or so it seems to have flourished.J. Schirmann, in his annual bibliographies, The Study of Poetry and Piyyut,3 which

deal with the researchdone since 1948,has alreadylisted'somethreethou2. Israel Davidson, "The Study of Mediaeval Hebrew Poetry in the Nineteenth Century," Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research 1 (1930): 33-48. For the latter period, see Jefim Schirmann, "The Study of Hebrew-Spanish Poetry between the Two Wars: 1919-1939" [Hebrew], Sedarim 2 (1942): 475-83. For a general survey of the textological and historical research, see J. Schirmann's Introduction to Davidson's 'Osar, 2d ed., pp. ix-xxxvi. 3. "Heqer ha-shirah ve-ha-piyyut bi-shenat .. ." in Kiryat Sefer. The series started in 1950 with vol. 26 (on research published in 1948-1950) and has been published annually up to the present.

MEDIEVAL HEBREW LITERATURE

127

sanditems.Thoughcomparatively few areimportantcontributions, most reflecta generalawakeningof interestwhich,in Israel,transcended the scholarly realm and to a certain degree affected the general reader. Israeli

readersbeganto enjoythe grandeurand sublimityor the humorand wit of medieval poetry, which was made accessible to them by Schirmann's Hebrew Poetry in Spain and Provence4 and other anthologies, and was interpreted for them in critical essays. Some poems were set to new music.

YehudaSommo'ssixteenthcenturyComedyof Marriage,probablythe first real Hebrewplay, was revivedon Israelistages. Immanuelof Rome, Alharizi and other medieval authors of maqdmas supplied the material for plays and musicals. From the turn of the century, poets too were attracted by their medieval predecessors: Bialik by Yehuda Halevi and other Spaniards, Tchernichowsky and later N. Altermann by Immanuel of Rome, and Fichmann and Leah Goldberg by such Renaissance poets as the then newly discovered Yoseph Zarphati, to cite only a few examples. However, despite all its scholarly achievements and (unintended) literary impact, the study of medieval Hebrew poetry still has a long way to go-or rather several long ways, in different, though related, areas. I shall confine myself here to four of the most important.

1. Textology In 1924, in the introduction to his Thesaurus, Israel Davidson wrote: Justas the Jewishpeoplearescatteredthe worldover,so is the religiouspoetry of the Jews scatteredamong thousandsof volumes,buriedin obscuremanuscripts,coveredoverwith the dustof ages, hiddenin the remotestcorners,disjointed, distorted, neglectedand unknown. And the fate of Jewish secular poetryis even more deplorable.For a greatpartthe liturgyhas at least been kept intactby the Synagogue,whilethe secularpoetryhas had no suchguardian to protect it from oblivion.5 Since the 1920s, however, the editing of texts has greatly advanced. From the literary fragments of the Cairo Geniza alone many scholars, among

4. Ha-shirah ha-'ivrit bi-Sefarad u-vi-Provans, 4 vols. (Tel Aviv-Jerusalem, 1956; 2d ed., 1972). 5. 'Osar, English preface, p. xxxvii.

128

DAN PAGIS

them Davidson, Zulay, Schirmannand Spiegel decipheredand edited a large amountof unknownworks and broughtto light poets who had been forgotten for centuries.On the other hand, until recently,the salvaging, catalogingand editing of Geniza literaryfragmentsprogressedin a rather haphazardmanner. As is well known, this vast treasurycontains, paradoxically,mainlytorn and incompletemanuscriptswhich, followingtradition, werestoredup whenthey wereno longerin use. Sincethe manuscripts had beenacquiredby variouscollectorsand libraries,manypoemshad to be reconstructedfrom minute fragmentsdispersedin differentcountriesand even continents.Bibliographicaland textualdata werescarceand not readily available,and misreadingsand oversightscould not be avoided. Even Davidson's Thesaurus,which reliedmainly on printedbooks, and systematicallylisted some 35,000poems accordingto their incipits,often mistook slightly differentversions for differentpoems and overlookedothers, although Davidsonconscientiouslysuppliedseveralimportantaddenda.6As far as manuscriptswereconcerned,the situationwas even worse. From the Geniza alone, the literarymaterialis so vast, variedand dispersedthat systematicresultscan only be achievedthroughcomprehensivesurveys.Gone are the days of SolomonSchechterwho ardentlybut quixoticallyattempted to masterthe materialalmost single-handedly.Only systematicteamwork can reallycope with it, yet most scholarsstill seem reluctantto sharetheir work with others. Therehave been, however,severalnotableexceptions.The firstwas the Institutefor Researchof HebrewPoetry founded by Schockenin Berlin, later transferredto Jerusalem,and now unfortunatelydefunct. From the 1930s to the 1950s, H. Brody (its director),J. Schirmann,M. Zulay and A. M. Habermanncollaboratedin textological,bibliographicalandliterary endeavors,and published,with others,sevenvolumesof texts in the Studies of the Research Institutefor Hebrew Poetry.7 In the late 1950s a Microfilm

Center was founded at the National Library in Jerusalemwhich now housesphotocopiesof Hebrewmanuscriptsfromcollectionsthe worldover. The literarypart of this materialled to the foundationof a new Research Instituteof the Piyyut in the Geniza, sponsoredby the IsraelAcademyof 6. Vol. 4, a supplement to vols. 1-3, was published in 1933; an additional "Supplement to the Thesaurus,"Hebrew Union College Annual 12-13 (1937-38): 715-828, is also included in the second edition of the 'OSar (1970) at the end of vol. 4. 7. Yedi'ot ha-makhon le-heqer ha-shirah ha-'ivrit (Berlin, 1933-1936; Jerusalem, 1938-1958).

MEDIEVAL HEBREW LITERATURE

129

Sciencesand Humanitiesin 'Jerusalem,and headedby EzraFleischer.Here the fragmentsor completepoemswhichruninto tens of thousandsarelisted not only by their incipits (as in Davidson's Thesaurus)but also by their form, rhyme, refrain,acrostic, genre, and other data. The correlationof this data enabledthe Institute,withinfour or fiveyears,to reconstructhundredsof poems,to supplymanybetterversionsof alreadypublishedtexts,to discover forgotten authors, and to trace importantstages in the development of liturgicalpoetry,mainlyin the East.Among severalcollectionspublished by individualscholars before the establishmentof the Institute,J. Schirmann's New Hebrew Poems from the Geniza8 is outstanding in the

varietyand importanceof the materialand in its detailedstudy.The historical materialin the Geniza, too, held in store some literarysurprises.Here the most dramaticdiscoverieswere made by S. D. Goitein. Along with his studiesof the recordspertainingto Jewishsocietyand culturehe published autographlettersof YehudaHalevi and lettersrelatingto this famouspoet whichshedlighton the last yearsof his life, his late poems and hisjourneyto Eretz Israel.9 For all its importance,the Genizais only one of many literarytreasures still hidden. Hundreds, if not thousands, of unknown poems are to be found in codices and even in printed with piyyutim, books-mah.zorim poetry collections,and other sourcesfrom variousperiodsand centers,including Westernand Eastern Europe. Their systematicstudy has barely begun. However, in the last decades textological researchhas also produced several importanteditions of individualauthors. In 1938 Zulay collected and publishedthe works of Yannai, the great paytan of early Byzantine Palestine,discoveredonly in this century.'0ImportantAshkenaziand early ItalianHebrewauthorshave beeneditedby Klar, Habermann,Urbachand others. " Major discoverieswere made even in the famed Spanishschool. 8. Jefim Schirmann, Shirim hadashim min ha-genizah (Jerusalem, 1965). 9. S. D. Goitein, "The Biography of Rabbi Judah Ha-Levi in the Light of the Cairo Geniza Documents," Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research 28 (1959): 41-56; idem, "Judeo-Arabic Letters from Spain (Early Twelfth Century)," Orientalia Hispanica sive studia F M. Pareja octogenario dicata, vol. 1 (Leiden, 1974), pp. 331-50. See his Hebrew articles in Tarbiz 24 (1954-55): 21-47, 134-49; 25 (1956): 393-412; 28 (1959): 330-42; 30 (1961): 379-84; 48 (1977): 245-50. In the last article ("Did Yehuda Halevi Arrive in the Holy Land?"), Goitein publishes letters which refer to the poet's embarkation at Alexandria for Eretz Israel (Shavuoth of 1141), and thus refutes the assumption that the poet died in Egypt. 10. Menahem Zulay, Piyyulei Yannai (Berlin, 1938). 11. A few prominent examples are Benjamin Klar's edition of Megillat 'Ahima'ay(Jerusa-

130

DANPAGIS

SamuelHannagid'spoetry,of whichonly fragmentswereknownbeforethe 1930s,was firstprintedby D. S. Sassoonin 1934in an unvocalizedversion. SamuelHannagidsuddenlyemergednot only as a majorfigureamongHebrew-Spanishpoets, but as the literaryfatherof them all. In the late 1940s and early 1950svocalizedand annotatededitionsof his BenMishleiandBen Qohelet were published by Sh. Abramson and of his divan by A. M. Habermann;a moreextensiveedition of the divanwas publishedby D. Jarden in 1969.12

It was not untilmuchlaterthat a reliableeditionof Ibn Gabirol'spoetry was available.The Bialik-Rawnitzkyedition of the 1920s,though influential, was inadequate,sincethe editorshad to relyon garbledversionsand less than reliablesources.A few yearsago, Jardenpublisheda new two-volume edition(still incomplete)of Gabirol'sliturgicalpoetry.It is an ironyof editing historythat Gabirol'ssecularpoetry,previouslypublishedin partand in mutilated versions, was not made available until 1975. When it finally appeared,however,it did so in two rival editions, one by Jarden,and the other, which includesthe main extant source(SchockenMS 37), by Schirmann, who had begun this work forty years ago, in collaborationwith Brody.'3 Otherpoets too had to be verypatientindeed.Moses Ibn Ezra'ssecular poetrywas splendidlyedited and annotatedby Brody.The first volume of this editionappearedin 1935in Germany;the secondwas printedin 1942in Jerusalemfromgalleyssalvagedfromthe Nazis;but the thirdappearedonly in 1977,more than forty years afterthe completionof the editor'swork.14 Moses Ibn Ezra's Kitcb al-mukhcadarawal-mudhdkara,the main poetical

treatiseof the HebrewSpanishschool, writtenin Arabicin about 1135,was generallyknownonly in the fluentbut free 1923Hebrewversionof BenZion Halper.In 1975,AbrahamHalkin publishedthe text of the originaland a lem, 1946; 2d ed., 1974); A. M. Habermann's editions of the poetry of Simon bar Isaac (BerlinJerusalem, 1938) and Ephraim of Bonn (Jerusalem-Tel Aviv, 1968); E. E. Urbach's edition of Abraham ben Azriel's 'Arugat ha-bosem, 4 vols. (Jerusalem, 1939-1963). 12. Samuel Hannagid, Divan, ed. D. S. Sassoon (Oxford, 1934); ed. A. M. Habermann (Tel Aviv, 1947); ed. Dov Jarden (Jerusalem, 1966); Samuel Hannagid's collections Ben Mishlei (Tel Aviv, 1949) and Ben Qohelet (Tel Aviv, 1953) were edited by Shraga Abramson. 13. Shirei Shelomoh Ibn Gabirol, ed. Ch. N. Bialik and I. Ch. Rawnitzky (Berlin-Tel Aviv, 1924-1932); Shirei ha-qodesh (Devotional Poems), ed. Dov Jarden (Jerusalem, 1971-72); Shirei ha-hol (Secular Poems), ed. Heinrich (Hayyim) Brody and Jefim Schirmann (Jerusalem, 1975); ed. Dov Jarden (Jerusalem, 1975). (In 1976 Jarden added a volume based on the BrodySchirmann edition.) 14. Moses Ibn Ezra, Shirei ha-bol, ed. Heinrich Brody, vol. 1 (Berlin, 1935); vol. 2 (Jerusalem, 1942); vol. 3, ed. Dan Pagis (Jerusalem, 1977).

MEDIEVAL HEBREW LITERATURE

131

new and moreaccurateHebrewtranslation.5ButMoses Ibn Ezra'sTreatise on Metaphoricaland LiteralLanguage(anotherimportantwork on poetic theory)is still dormantin its only extantmanuscriptin the Sassoonlibrary, now in Jerusalem. Among recentlycollectedworksof individualauthorsare E. Fleischer's editions of Shelomo ha-Bavliand of the so-calledAnonymousPaytan,'6I. Levin's first volume of his edition of Abraham Ibn Ezra's devotional poetry," and A. Mirsky'sedition of Yose ben Yose, the first paytanknown by name.'8 The list is much longer. Unfortunatelyit does not include the most famous Hebrewmedievalpoets, each the leading poet of his own school: Eleazar ben Kalir (or Killir), the prime figure of the Palestinianpiyyut, famedand sometimesdenigratedthroughoutthe ages, and YehudaHalevi, the "sweet voiced," "national"poet of the Hebrew Spanish School and probablythe best known of all. Kalir has profitedfrom many years of devoted work by Shalom Spiegelbut still awaitspublication.YehudaHalevi was edited by Brodyat the turn of the centuryin a ratherinadequatemanner.'9Brodyhad intendedto revisethis edition,but he diedin 1942,with his plans uncompleted.To this day most editions of Halevi are eithergarbled reprintsof Brody'sor selectionsfrom it. But then, Bialik'sworks too still await a complete and reliableedition. 2. LiteraryHistoryandHistoriography Some twelveyears ago, in an addressat the IsraelAcademyof Sciences, J. Schirmannremarked:20 Thetimehascertainlynotyetcometo describethehistoryof Hebrewliteraturefroma newviewpoint.Wearestillfarfromcompleting thebibliographi-

15. Moses Ibn Ezra, Shirat Yisra'el, trans. Ben Zion Halper (Leipzig, 1923); Sefer ha'iyyunim ve-ha-diyyunim (Kitdb el-mubhadarawal-mudhdkara), trans. and ed. A. S. Halkin (Jerusalem, 1975). 16. Piyyulei Shelomoh ha-Bavli (Jerusalem, 1973); Pizmonei ha-'Anonimos (Jerusalem, 1974). 17. Abraham Ibn Ezra, Shirei ha-qodesh, vol. 1 (Jerusalem, 1975). 18. Piyyulei Yose ben Yose (Jerusalem, 1977). 19. Di'wdndes Abd-l-Hasan Jehuda ha-Levi, 4 vols. (Berlin, 1894-1930). 20. Jefim Schirmann, "Problems in the Study of Post-Biblical Hebrew Poetry," Proceedings of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities 2 (1967): 228-36.

132

DANPAGIS

cal andhistoricalpartof ourwork,whichis the foundation on whichwecan build.Mostof thetechnical,preliminary studiesnecessary for all engagedin the finalevaluationarestillmissing. In the course of the last decadethe situationhas improvedsomewhat. Severaltechnicalpreliminarystudies have been added, as well as broader surveysdealingwith the evolutionof themes,forms,andgenresthroughout long periodsof time, yet limitingthemselvesto certainaspectsor partsof literature.2'An all-embracingliteraryhistory still seems a long way off. In the nineteenthcenturyand up to the 1950smost attemptsat literary historicalsurveyswereeitherincidentalchaptersin generalJewishhistories or seeminglyspecificworkswhichnonethelessconceivedtheirsubjectin the broadestpossiblesense and describedpoetry,narrativeand dramatogether with purelyphilosophical,exegetical,and halakhicwritings.What is more, they sometimesconfused literarywith social and culturalhistory or with biographicalnotes. Whenreferringto poetryproperthey rathertendedto acceptthe evaluation of medievalauthoritiesand to use them as historiographicalevidence. For example,Albariziin the Tahbkemoni22 humblyreferredto his own generation in ChristianSpain as mere followersof the great classicalAndalusian tradition.Modernscholarspromptlyrepeatedthis view and branded postclassicalpoets in ChristianSpain as epigonesof Andalusia.But Albarizi'smodestywas more or less conventional.He himselfalso expressedthe oppositeview:in otherpassagesof the samebook he proudlyandjustlylaid claim to literaryoriginality,23as did later postclassicalpoets like Todros Abulafia.24However, the main problemwas not the overlookingof such details.Sweepinggeneralizationsabout periodsand trendshad theirroot in a deeperacceptanceof authority.Some scholarsset up classical,i.e., Andalusianexamplesof style, form, and genreas aestheticand historicalcriteria. For example,in the rich and yet confinedrealmof rhymednarrativeAlbarizi's Tabkemoni,the most typical "genre-pure"Hebrew book of the 21. E.g., Ezra Fleischer, in Shirat ha-qodesh ha-'ivrit bi-yemei ha-beinayim (Jerusalem, 1975), traces the development of this poetry from its beginnings and its relation to the liturgy in Eretz Israel, the Eastern diaspora, Spain, Italy, Germany and France; Dan Pagis, Hiddush u-masoret be-shirat ha-bol: Sefarad ve-'lalia (Jerusalem, 1976). 22. Chap. 18, ed. Toporovski (Tel Aviv, 1952), pp. 186-87; Schirmann, Ha-shirah, 3: 138. 23. E.g., in his introduction and elsewhere. 24. Gan ha-meshalim ve-ha-bidot,ed. David Yellin (Jerusalem, 1934), e.g., pp. 118, 180 and in many other poems.

MEDIEVAL HEBREW LITERATURE

133

maqimas, fashioned on the Arabic model of Albaririof Basra,was often considered by scholars as the fixed standardfor the entire field. Other books of rhymednarrativewerejudged by their proximityto the "pure" genre, the closer the better.Thus thereevolved a cyclicalconcept of ascent (authors preceding Alharizi), climax (Albarizi himself) and decline (the subsequentcenturies)whichwas largelya fallacy.The developmentof Hebrew rhymednarrativeis more complex and does not yield to such generalizations. It comprised several genres, some only slightly related to, or completely independentof, the Alharizi-Alhariripattern. They followed other Arabic or Christian-Europeanpatterns,and indeed often produced innovations of their own. Severalof those quite remote from the typical maqdmaare among the most delightful. In a widercircleof references,the entirepostclassicalpoetryand fiction of ChristianSpainwas consideredinferiorto that of Andalusia,althoughit, too, producedoriginalpoetry, more humorousand variedthan that ofthe refinedand aristocraticAndalusianSchool. In a still widercircleof reference,the entireHebrew-Spanishschool was considereda criterionfor othercenters,such as Italy. Hebrewpoetryflourished in Italy for more than a thousandyears, from the ninth to the end of the nineteenthcentury.Althoughit absorbedmanyelementsfrom Spain in the twelfth and thirteenthcenturies,it developed,from the fourteenthcentury onwards, its own special style, which blended Hebrew-Spanishelements with ever increasingItalian influencesin forms, prosody, imagery, themes, genres and poetics. Thus the Hebrew-Italianschool, from the fourteenthcenturyonwards,at various stages reflectedthe early and high Renaissance,the Baroque, and the Arcadia school. It also absorbedelements from the Spanish poetry and verse-dramaof the Siglo de Oro, broughtover by Spanishor PortugueseMarranopoets who escapedto Italy or Holland and revertedto Judaism.All this went to produce strikingly varied poetry (with almost no trace of Andalusia), like that of Jacob Frances, recently collected by Pnina Naveh,25and that found in other Renaissanceand BaroqueHebrew-Italianworks publishedby Schirmann more than forty years ago.26And yet Hebrew-Italianpoetry is still considered by some scholarsas derivingmainly from medievalAndalusiawith only tracesof the early Renaissance.Indeed,we even come acrossthis view in the Encyclopedia Judaica of 1971. 25. Kol shirei Ya'aqovFrances (Jerusalem, 1969). 26. Mivbar ha-shirah ha-'ivrit be-'ltalia (Berlin, 1934).

134

DANPAGIS

Historiographicalconceptsreferringto treatiseson poetictheoryseemed to be even morevague. Let us considerbrieflythe case of Meteqsefatayim,a treatiseon poeticswrittenin 1678by ImmanuelFrances,brotherand fellowpoet of the above mentionedJacob.Immanuelnot only explainedand illustrated the use, in Hebrew poetry, of Italian forms like the sonnet, the terzina,ottavarimaand canzone,all of whichinvolveda breakwith Andalusianprosody,but also expressedthe essentiallyBaroquepoeticsof barifut (i.e., acutezza),and encourageda nonclassicaluse of talmudic and later Hebrewin poetry.Yet, when this book was first publishedby Brodyat the turn of the century,27the Germanscholar MartinHartmannattackedthe edition, and dismissedthe treatiseitself as well as its predecessorsin sixteenth and seventeenthcenturyItaly as mere repetitionsof classical,Andalusian poetics.28In Hartmann'sview, AbrahamIbn Ezra'stwelfth century normativearabizingprosodywas the ultimatefixed law for one and all. He did not realizethat it was preciselythe developmentof Hebrewprosodyin Italy, as revealedby Frances,among others,that most clearlyreflectedthe dynamics of the center. But Hartmann'sview still seems to be tacitly accepted, and post-Andalusianpoetics were not found worthy of special study. Evaluativehistoriography,then, adheredto rationalistic,neoclassical standards:carefulmeasure,clearthoughornamentedstyle, purityof genre, symmetricalstructure,purismin the use of classical(i.e., biblical)Hebrewto the exclusionof laterlayers,strictadherenceto grammar,precise(i.e., quantitativeAndalusian)metersand forms. The dynamicsof Hebrewliterature were largelyignored.Schirmannonce said of Hebrewliterarymedievalists that they were too immersedin details to see the forest for the trees. We may add that even when they looked aroundthey seemedto see a petrified forest ratherthan a living one. 3. TheStudyof LiterarySources and its Limitations The study of literarysourceshas long been a traditionallyfavoredpur27. Immanuel Frances, Meteq sefatayim [written 1678], ed. Heinrich Brody (Cracow, 1896). 28. Martin Hartmann, Die hebrdische Verskunstnach dem Metek Sefatajim (Berlin, 1894). Brody gave a crushing reply in his Offener Brief an Herrn Prof. M. Hartmann(Frankfurt, 1894).

MEDIEVAL HEBREW LITERATURE

135

suit, taking many forms, such as the meticulouslistings of biblicalverses used in a work (even of incidentalphrasesnot servingas allusions);listings of foreign sources (mainly from the Arabic)-motifs and formulations borrowedfrom poems, proverbsand so forth or, in the field of rhymed narratives,the enumerationof parallelscoveringscenesor entireplots. The pursuitof sourcesas such, obviouslyimportantfor culturalhistory,is only a preliminarystage in literarystudy;yet it was oftenconfusedwith the main task. Many interestingsourceshave been broughtto light, but seldomused in analysis and interpretation.An important exception is the famous "mosaic" style, which has been acknowledgedas an original creation in which biblical quotations often changed or even reversedtheir original meaning, sometimes for humorous purposes.29But nonbiblical sources weremainlylistedwithoutany literarycomment.Suchlists seemedto imply that muchof medievalHebrewliteraturewas a net of borrowings,not to say plagiarisms.But if we reexaminethe parallelswithin theircontext, we perceive that these borrowings,too, were in fact used for new purposes,and acquireda new significancein the later work. Thus it is importantto note that YehudaHalevi, for example,based one of his devotionalpoems on an Arabic love poem.30However,it is no less importantto note, first, that he did not makean exacttranslation,but ratherrephraseda givenmotif adding a completely different conclusion, and, second, that he transposed the motif fromsecularto divinelove, therebyentirelychangingits meaningand, in fact, creatinga new poem altogether. It is, of course,true that muchof medievalpoetrywas openlyand intentionally based on literaryconventions,but the concept of originalitywas scarcelyless vividthan it is today. Poets and writersused to complainabout plagiaristsor defendthemselvesagainstchargesof plagiarism,though the border betweenlegitimateand illegitimateborrowingsran along different lines from those that we are used to. Evenrhetoricalimprovementsof given formulations,if used in a somewhat differentcontext, were granted the statusof originality;but this concept,as statedin Moses Ibn Ezra'sPoetics, was only the given minimum.In fact originalitytranscendedsubtle variations in rhetoricaltexture and manifesteditself more clearly in structure, intent, ideas, themes,and genres. Most studiesof sources,then, content,as it were, with the mere discoveryof parallelsand borrowings,often missed 29. David Yellin, Torat, pp. 103-40; Schirmann, Ha-shirah, general introduction, pp. 31-34; Dan Pagis, Hfiddush,pp. 70-77. 30. Israel Levin, "Biqqashti 'et she-'ahavah nafshi," Hasifrut 3 (1972): 116-49.

136

DANPAGIS

the point. Occasionallythey even seemedto obscurethe obvious structure and argumentof a work. For example,Zabara'sBook of Delight3'is considereda prime exampleof misogynistliteraturebecauseit includessome fiercelyantifeministstories,mostlyknownfromothersources;amongthem is the storyof the Matronof Ephesus,usedby Petroniusin his Satyriconand by variousmedievalauthors.And yet, withinthe context of Zabara'sbook this and othersuch storiesactuallyreversetheirargument.Theyareput into the mouth of a schemingvillainwho triesto set a simpletonagainsthis wise and faithfulwife by defamingthe characterof woman in general.The simpleton realizesthe truthonly whenit is too late. In the context,the narrator takes great pains to emphasize the reversal in argument, but scholars ignoredthis, sincethey consideredthe Book of Delightto be a compendium of independentfragmentslooselyheld togetherby a frame-story;howeverit has in fact a centraloriginalplot, in whichvariousborrowedstoriesare included to function as relevantparts. The half-truthsof mere source-listingshrinkeven more when such listing is found to be only selective. One study on Hebrew-Spanishdirges presentsthem mainly as a derivationfrom the Arabicdirge of pre-Islamic (Jahiliya)and earlyIslamictimes. But the Arabicinfluencecame fromlater Abbasidand Andalusianpoetryratherthan from the Jahiliya;more to the point, the Hebrew-Spanishschool often harkedback to biblicalmodels as well. This is particularlytrue of dirges. Hebrew-Spanishdirges clearly blendedArabicelementswith the ancientJewishtraditionof this genreand constantlyalludedto, or quotedfrom,biblicaldirgeslike David'slamenton the deathof Saul and Jonathan,and fromtalmudicdirges,like BarKipok's "If a flame fell on cedars."Therewere moreoverother relevantaspectsto the genre.For example,the socialand religiousfunctionof manydirges,and incidentallyof weddingsongs as well, placed them at the borderbetween secularand liturgicalpoetry.For this reasondirgesand weddingsongswere the only nonliturgicalgenres of the Andalusianschool that occasionally neglectedthe strictArabicforms, rhymeschemesand meterthat wereobligatory in all secularpoetry of the school; insteadthey used the freerand more varied forms and prosody of the piyyut. Even when we deal with sourcesalonewe cannotgraspthe essenceof this schoolexceptas a synthesis betweenbiblicaland Arabicsources,and occasionallytalmudic,Far Eastern and Europeansourcesas well. But we should stressthe transformation 31. Joseph Ibn Zabara, Sefer sha'ashu'im, ed. Israel Davidson (New York, 1914; 2d ed., 1925); The Book of Delight, trans. Moses Hadas (New York, 1932; 2d ed., 1960).

MEDIEVALHEBREWLITERATURE

137

of sourcesin this and otherschoolsof Hebrewpoetry,in differentgenres and,of course,in individualpoemsor stories.Weareconcernednot only withwhatis commonto manyworks,butalsowithwhatis specificto the singlework,includingthe specificuse it makesof its sources. 4. LiteraryAnalysisof MedievalHebrewPoetry and the Study of its Poetics

In his above mentionedaddress,J. Schirmannalso raisedcertainproblems concerningliteraryanalysis and evaluation. For many of our scholars,the studyof Hebrewpoetryhas merelyservedas a means of clarifying important facts in other fields. . . . The valuable studies

undertakenin Hebrewpoetry (as far as they exist) are nearlyall on bordersubjectsof literaryresearch,such as historyand linguistics,whilethe only real aim of the studentof poetryis the analysisof a poem as a literaryand artistic creation.To build on a firm foundation,he has to prefercertainworks and ignore others. What are the tools that he can summonto his aid? From the Middle Ages until the beginningof moderntimes, an antiquated"poetics" held swayamongus, whichitselfdeservesto be investigated. .. andwhichhas not yet entirelydisappearedfrom the writingsof our literarycritics. For a number of years now, there has been an upheavalin literaryresearchin Europeand successfulattemptshavebeenmadeto bridgethe generationsand to apply new methodsof examiningthe literarywritingsof old. Let us hope that we shallarriveat a similarchangein the fieldof Hebrewliterature.Butwe shall have to proceedcarefullyand with circumspection,since a mechanical transferof foreignconceptsto the sphereof Hebrewwritingis liableto lead to a distortionof its image. These remarks were not aimed at the scholarly work which had already been done on stylistic and formal aspects. M. Zulay had brilliantly compared the Kaliric and the Saadianic styles from a philological standpoint;32

A. Mirskyhad detectedformalprototypescommonto the midrashand the ancient piyyut.33 More recently, E. Fleischer traced the development in genres, forms, and style of the piyyut in the light of its liturgical function in various periods and rites.34 But such studies were rare and, moreover, did 32. Menahem Zulay, Ha-'askolah ha-paylanit shel Ray Sa'adya Ga'on (Jerusalem, 1964). 33. Aaron Mirsky, Mab$avtan shel $urot ha-piyyul (Jerusalem-Tel Aviv, 1968). 34. Shirat ha-qodesh (see n. 21).

138

DAN PAGIS

not raisethe immediateproblemof literarytheoryas reflectedin the interpretationand analysisof the single poem. As for straightforwardliterary criticism,the situation was as dismal as Schirmannhad described. In this field, too, severalattemptshad alreadybeen made at the time to analyzeand evaluatemedievalHebrewpoetry,especiallythat of Spain.But besidestextologicalproblems-some earlyanalyseshad been basedon corrupt texts and insufficientdata-the very methodsof analysisand evaluation had to be clarified. Fromthis point of view the attemptsat literarycriticismcan be roughly dividedinto threegroups. One group includedimpressionisticand evaluative essays writtenby criticswhose main concernwas modernpoetry,and, in theirmore lightheartedmoments,by medievalistswho usuallydealtwith textologicalor historicalissues. Theirimpressionsand evaluationsdiffered widely even with regardto one work or poet, variouslydescribedas, say, pedanticand sternor youthfulandpassionate.Moreover,some of the critics used the ancientmaterialto restatetheir own views on contemporaryliterary issues. Tchernichovsky'sbook on Immanuelof Rome, YaakovSteinberg's article on Moses Ibn Ezra, or Franz Rosenzweig's profound analyses of Yehuda Halevi's poems seemed to belong to modern Jewish literatureor philosophy,ratherthan to impartialscholarship,while many peripheralevaluationscould be altogetherdismissed. Another group focused on medievalpoetics from a relativisticviewpoint. Its first prominentrepresentativewas David Yellin,who in his book Torat ha-shirah ha-sefaradit35considered medieval rhetorical norms as the

main method for the analysis of medievalpoetry and the main criterion for its evaluation. Yellin relied on the tropology with which Moses Ibn Ezra concluded his aforementionedPoetics, but to a certain extent confused tropologyand literarytheory,ignoringthe fact that Ibn Ezrahimself devoted more space to general theoreticaldiscussionsthan to the list of topics and figures.Thus,even thoughYellinprovideda valuablehandbook, he limitedhimself,as did some of his followers,to definitionsand illustrations of medieval rhetoric (torat ha-qishutim),and barely touched upon other aspects.This seemedto amount,in practicalcriticism,to a mereenumerationof tropes and figures-a simplisticapproachwhich often missed the poem itself. A thirdgroupof criticswhichemergedin the 1950sand 1960sand whose 35. Jerusalem, 1939; ed. with addenda, Jerusalem,1971.

MEDIEVAL HEBREW LITERATURE

139

main representativewas Adi Zemach went to the other extreme.It introduced a severely"intrinsic"approach,a close readingof the single poem and its analysis.This trend,derivedfromthe school of New Criticismand its followers,had successfullybeen introducedin the study of modernHebrew poetry. However,in the medievaldomain,Zemachand some others,while relyingon Schirmann'sobservationsabout "antiquated"medievalpoetics, went much furtherand deniedthe relevanceto literaryanalysisnot only of medieval poetics, but also of historicalperspectivein general. They proclaimedthat each poem, regardlessof its period,was eithertimelessas literature or not worth the trouble.36Thus, though showing flashes of critical insight, they attributedto medieval poems modern devices and concepts which, at least in part, wereincompatiblewith the text. Schirmannrejected the seemingly outdated and mechanisticmedieval poetics as being too limited for analysis and modern evaluation;on the other hand, he cautioned againsta too freeuse of moderncriteria.Justwherethe golden mean was to be found remainedan open question. The problem should now be redefined,and distinctionmade between tools for analysis and norms for evaluation. We can analyze a medieval poem by examiningtextureand structure,themes and tone, tradition and innovation,regardlessof our own literarytaste. Eventhoughthe results of the analysis may not conform to our taste, because the specific style examinedis remotefrom presentday concepts,we can understandthe text and the poetic theory which it implies.Here, as elsewhere,poetic theoryis not absolute and timeless,but on the contraryhistoricallyspecific.Within Hebrewliteraturealone therewereseveralessentiallydifferentpoetics.Each reflectedand affectedits contemporarypoeticpracticeby both describingits norms and prescribingthem accordingto its own concepts,of which some wereclearlystatedwhile otherswereonly implied.The conceptof the poem as ornamentedspeech or a cunning artifice was essentiallyincompatible with, say, the conceptof the poem as an inspiredself-expression.Such conflicting views had far-reachingimplicationsconcerningstyles, forms, or genres.Thus the specificpoetics of a specificschool or trendwas not only relevantfor analysisbut indeed one of its majorfoundations.Besides,the poetic treatiseswere not as mechanisticas they seemed. Hebrew-Spanish poetics,for example,was richerby far than the tropologyexplainedby Yellin; it also discussedbroadissues in the light of the particularsecularpoetry 36. Adi (Eddy) Zemach, Ke-shoresh 'e$ (Tel Aviv, 1965; 2d ed., 1973); idem, Miqra bishemonah shirim 'ivriyim mi-yemei ha-beinayim (Jerusalem, 1968).

140

DANPAGIS

of its time-metaphorical versusliteralmeaning,talentversuslearning,the poet's intent and the reader'simpression,originalityversusconventionality or plagiarism.True, during the Middle Ages such isses were not systematicallyexamined,and othersno less important,like structureor genreconventions,were barelytouchedupon. Howeverthe basic assumptionsof the theoryshed lighton these issues,too, in the coloringof the school. If Moses Ibn Ezra'stwo treatiseson poetics had not survived,they could have been partly reconstructed,on the basis of the poetry of his time, but of course with much less certainty.Whereverthere was formulatednormativepoetics, the poetry was never oblivious to it. Indeed, practicallyall Hebrew theoreticiansin Spainand Italy and elsewherewerepoets in theirown right and often referredto theirown worksalong with those of others.Theywere also awareof discrepanciesbetweentheoryand practice,and theirreaction to this varied,dependingon how they viewedtraditionand conventionand on how flexiblethey werein theirnormativedemands.In any case, the tension between poetry and poetics was in itself an importantaspect of this literature.37 In the analysisas distinctto the contemporaryevaluationof premodern Hebrewpoetrywe should,then,makeuse of the varioustreatiseson poetics, even thoughthey are fragmentary.Theyare not primitivedocumentsof one static theory,but specificreflectionsof specificperiodsand centers.Yet the study of poetics and its interactionwith the poetry of its period has been hitherto limited to the Golden Age of the Andalusian school,38which, though extremelyinfluential,did not reign supreme. An importantdesideratumis the elucidationof individualstyles. They

37. The poets' awareness of the tension between theory and practice was a measure of poetic trends in different periods. Compare, for example, Moses Ibn Ezra (ca. 1138) who apologized for not being able to realize all norms he himself had prescribed (Mub4l/ara, fol. S15=Shirat Yisra'el, p. 156=Sefer ha-'iyyunim, pp. 218-21) with, say, seventeenth century Hebrew authors in Italy and Holland who encouraged formal and rhetorical innovations transcending the Hebrew-Spanish norms-e.g., Samuel Archivolti, 'Arugat ha-bosem (Venice, 1602), pp. 118-19, Joseph Jedidiah Carmi, Kenaf renanim (Venice, 1626), fol. 3a; Solomon Oliveyra, Sharshot gavlut (Amsterdam, 1665), pp. 37-38. A clear break with Hebrew-Spanish tradition in the name of poetic freedom was proclaimed by Moses Hayyim Luzzatto (Rambal) in a manuscript of his Leshon limmudim(before 1727), ed. A. M. Habermann (Tel Aviv, 1959), pp. 131-38. 38. Yellin, Torat; Dan Pagis, Shirat ha-bol ve-torat ha-shir le-Mosheh Ibn Ezra u-venei doro (Jerusalem, 1970); A. S. Halkin, introduction to Sefer ha-'iyyunim; R. P. Scheindlin, "Rabbi Moshe Ibn Ezra on the Legitimacy of Poetry," Medievalia et Humanistica, n.s., 7 (1975): 101-15; Reuven Tsur, Muskamot ve-reforiqah (Tel Aviv, 1976).

MEDIEVAL HEBREW LITERATURE

141

differedeven in the classicalAndalusianperiodin spite of the pronounced general traits of the Hebrew-Spanishschool, and even more in other periods.As is the case with the literarystudyof schools and poetics,the stylistic study of individualauthors,too, has only recentlybegun.Much, then, has still to be accomplished.The delay,or even neglect,in the literarystudy of Hebrew premodernpoetry, narrative,and poetics, was partly due to technicalities-textologicalproblems,the sheeramountand diversityof the material,and the small amount of work devoted to it as comparedwith other branchesof Judaica,but the delaywas also due to lackof clearcritical methods and a ratherstatic approachwhich quite obscuredthe great variety of the field. Whetherwe deal with generaltrendsor with a singlepoem, we should always see them in the dual light of traditionand innovation, authorityand revolt. MedievalHebrewliteraturewas at timesmagnificent, at other times limited, disruptedby calamitiesand fighting for existence; but it always underwentchange, becauseit continuedto live.

Three Contemporary Perceptions of a Polish Wunderkind of the Seventeenth Century Author(s): David Ruderman Source: AJS Review, Vol. 4 (1979), pp. 143-163 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486303 . Accessed: 26/06/2011 20:30 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

THREE CONTEMPORARYPERCEPTIONS OF A POLISH WUNDERKIND OF THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY by DAVID RUDERMAN University of Maryland

I In the year 1620,' Abrahamb. Naphtali HirschSchor,2the head of the rabbinicalcourt of Satanov, Poland, wrote to Rabbi Mordecaib. David Katz3of the neighboringcommunityof Lvov(Lemberg)about a "greatand terribleact of God whichI heardand saw with my own eyes herein the holy congregationof Satanov."R. Abrahamrelatedthe following story:4 ... Here in the holy congregation of Gr6dek (Gorodok) three parasangs away 1. The Schorletteris undatedbut JosephSolomonDelmedigo,the firstto publishthe letter, had arrivedin Polandby the beginningof 1620.(Cf. Isaac Barzilay,YosephShlomoDelmedigo, Yasharof Candia, His Life, Worksand Times [Leiden, 1974], p. 59.) Abraham Yagel in

Italy had alreadyreceivedan extensivereporton the Gr6dekchild by late 1620. 2. On Abrahamb. Naphtali HirschSchor, see JecheskielCaro, Geschichteder Judenin

Lemberg (Cracow, 1894), p. 139; Zevi Horowitz, Le-toledot ha-qehillot be-Polin (Jerusalem,

1978),p. 399; Evrerskafa en'siklopedia(St. Petersburg,1912-14), s.v. "Shor',Avraam'"; 3. On Mordecaib. David Katz, see ReubenMargaliot,"Rabbisand Headsof Yeshivot" shelgatuyot(Jerusalemand Tel Aviv, 1956),vol. 4, cols. 395-96; [Hebrew]in 'Enfiqlopediyah

Caro, Geschichte der Juden in Lemberg, p. 144; Solomon Buber, 'Anshei shem (Cracow, 1895),

p. 144. 4. Irflobn

'1i lm' rnIWx V'K ximloP 1I1rI"'i i i~n11K

143

;131~O6I '1 flIK1O'5 p"~

WT'1 lll...

144

DAVID RUDERMAN

from Satanov,therelives a man namedR. Gedaliahwith a smallfour-and-ahalf-year-oldson. The youth is a mereboy havingno superiorityin his studies over the rest of the childrenof his age. But whenhis fatherbeganto studythe Hebrewalphabetand the prayerbook with him and saw that the holy spirit rests upon him, he subsequentlybroughtthe boy beforeme to the holy congregationof Satanovto test him. And I testedhim severaltimes-a hundred times and more-myself along with my colleagueswho werewith me and we saw the workof the Lordand his wonders,for He is exceedinglygreat.I asked him: "Please tell me the beginning of the halakhah learned today." He immediatelyrelated the halakhah, answering:"Rabbi Ashi said that our mishnahstates:I can likewiseprove,"etc. Rabbi Abraham then proceeded to question the boy about various passages in the Zohar, asking the father to have his son quote from specific pages. The child answered correctly even when the rabbi failed to mention a specific page but only placed his finger on a particular passage in the book hidden from the child but apparently not from his father. The boy was even able to read the rabbi's mind, quoting precisely biblical passages which Rabbi Abraham had been contemplating, again through the mediation of the father. In light of such an incredible demonstration, the rabbi could only conclude that "the boy knows what is in the heart of man and this can only be a spirit of prophecy." He was especially impressed by the child's ability when he considered that the boy still had not learned to read fluently but occasionally mispronounced words and was generally very shy. The news of the extraordinary child of Gr6dek quickly spread to several other Jewish communities in Poland. Quoting R. Abraham's testimony, a Joshua of BrzeS' Litowski (Brest-Litovsk) wrote to the head of the rabbinical tribunal of Vilna, who then ordered that the story not be told to women and children and especially not to Gentiles.5 The bearer of R. Joshua's letter, a Jew from Lublin, also carried to the tribunal a second letter from R. Abraham Schor. In this, the Satanov rabbi related how he had

mii"f ru nx'x yxvrprnu r jDr mxr no rnn imo0 onixo p"p? 1? D I,?'m 1'"2 M11)XVil1'" ?JYD1O1r n x in'xi yivx rW m" n u mr'inn "1x)rr'~ru rn rnawmtv rm vnxriru ' n rm vix'l n mx p'1r'-ri i v .ixi, wvrn -,? rnnn r1 Ir7 112K. 'lv.Kn VnK u l ...-1 1D, ru~rur The entire letter of Schor to Katz was first published by Joseph Solomon Delmedigo in Sefer 'Elim (Amsterdam, 1629), p. 65. See also Israel Zinberg, History of Jewish Literature, 12 vols., trans. and ed. Bernard Martin (New York, 1972-1978), 4: 169. 5. Sefer 'Elim, ibid.

145

A POLISHWUNDERKIND

askedthe boy about the redemptionof Israeland he said:"I do not know," and when asked who had placed such things in his mouth he answered: "God the Lord, the God of Israel."6 The single source known to scholars of this entire story together with the account of its diffusion throughout Poland had been Joseph Solomon Delmedigo, the Italian Jewish physician, scientist and philosopher. In his Hebrew work Sefer 'Elim, first published in Amsterdam in 1629, Delmedigo quoted R. Abraham's letter in full, mentioned how its contents had reached Lvov and Vilna, and also reproduced another letter from his own disciple, Moses Metz, addressed to a Karaite, Zerab b. Nissim, in which Delmedigo's own role in the entire affair was described.' Metz's letter was an account of how he and Delmedigo had traveled to the town of Gr6dek to observe first-hand the spectacle of the precocious child who had become by that time such a cause c6l1bre that "all the Polish rabbis and with them several thousand Jews feared to see him." But the shrewd Delmedigo was capable of exposing the deception of the Gr6dek child prodigy: For immediatelywhen my teacher [Delmedigo] saw that he needed his father, he detected a trick wherebyhe [the father]would give him clues in code. For example,for the letter"aleph,"he would say "yes" to him in Yiddish; for "bet,""good";for "gimel,""right"and so on. And the questioner had to ask the question through his father and his father would elicit an answerfromhim [theboy], placingin his mouththe letterswith thesepseudonymsso that he wouldrecitethe letterswithoutvowelsor vocalizationand his father would interpretand vocalize them.8 Delmedigo confirmed his initial suspicion by testing the child without the assistance of his father and immediately "the trick was made known to all the congregation." Metz further explained how the father had made a handsome profit from his guile and how the rabbis finally excommunicated the father when they learned of his deceitful behavior. The boy died soon

6. Ibid.: v'pK " 'j'K'1

"'Vr 1,'i

~x 'iu nmm m'n ft

'w-nSx1,

rnrr r5"ax K ;*iKin'y ix ,nSK,...

7. Ibid., p. 50, and see also p. 15.

-91f v~ r * TIV 1i fl mmmKn '1~ m Vi •, rnn ,n ,ii1'n n~iiar , rnin• ri, qI Im -w-9 ?vqln ?l yl mu ?y l p TZ wl * IJx 1-9-IY 13DWKjlvn Ilt5 15n J m OVIDD11,1 IV 'Tm rl rm 'Tx mi.1vi'1 wwr* 11ri mxnimp Imflynn T mmx 991xmi 13Ymm~m 13mxii mN.1 ... 0rp213m. .rn

8. Ibid., p. 50: luz ,t

rul

1r?n X

;*XVIV;1

-1 2*

?Xlvn

...

p

146

DAVID RUDERMAN

that after;Metz could not ascertainthe cause.Metz also acknowledged

even after his teacherhad publiclyexposedthis imposter,some ardentfollowerscontinuedto believein him, and he stronglyadmonishedthose who uncriticallyacceptedsuch popularsuperstitions"for they are the affairsof women and the masses."9 Elsewherein Sefer'Elim,Delmedigohimselfrecountedthe affair,underscoring the chicanery of the father.'0In yet another work, Mayreflahokhmah,he once more proclaimed:"But as regardsthe affairof the Polish child from Gr6dek,it was a trick, as I have shown to all the worldwhen I came to see it."" From the accounts of Delmedigo and Metz, the matter apparentlyendedwiththe excommunicationof the fatherand the premature death of his son, even though they acknowledgedthat a small numberof enthusiastic supporters stubbornly persisted in believing in the boy, "becauseof their own embarrassmentin revealinghow ignorantthey had been." But both Delmedigo and Metz had apparentlyunderestimatedthe magneticappeal of the Polish wonderchild.For despite Delmedigo'sinsistence that he had shown the world the trick of the boy's father, there remained those who either ignored Delmedigo's demonstration or else remainedimperviousto Delmedigo'sclaim that he had ever exposed the fatherin the firstplace. In fact, Delmedigo'sassumptionthat his disclosure had convincinglyclosedthe case of the Gr6dekboy was perhapsmorewishful thinkingthan an accuratereadingof the responsesof the boy's following. Besidesthe materialfound in Sefer 'Elim,at least two other contemporaryreferencesto the Polishchildexist, neitherpublishedto date.The firstis a letter writtenby Mordecaib. David Katz of Lvov to HayyimVital, the majordiscipleof Isaac Luria and the great kabbalisticauthorityin Safed. Katz, after having received the initial notice of Rabbi Abraham Schor regardingthe boy from Gr6dek,recopiedthe entireletterof Schoras found in Delmedigo'swork and then added the following story: of A femaleservanthadworkedfor a certainJewin the holycongregation ran from the Jew without tellWhen two had she Potylicz. years passed, away

9. Ibid.: zPini

~ win xm~iu Sp alpnpI~ moz5 1t tl O•,n ,IIMrim ,am4i,'n

m 1nDo

wm v w n nm in, 1 .. nly-1 lzr ?nhl ol "•lnr "1"1 1,' 3'-1"1.."1155 n,, pinn' 1"r1'-X•,'1 ,'n• ,;Ir,',' 10. Ibid., p. 15. 11. Quoted by Isaac Barzilay, Yoseph Shlomo Delmedigo, p. 259.

nyiX79T,,'•... l 1 n13ml

tr'wrl,

A POLISHWUNDERKIND

147

ing him that she was runningaway. But immediatelyafter her escape, some hostile Gentilesfrom the same place of Potyliczaroseto slanderthis Jew by saying:"Whereis this womanservantwho had workedfor you?"But the Jew did not know where she had fled. In short, this confusioncontinuedto increase becauseof our many sins until God gave them the inspirationto say: "Letus go to visit and inquireof this sameboy."And beholdwhentheycame to the boy, beforethey said anythingto him, the boy beganto speak [of how] these menhad come to investigatethe whereaboutsof the maidservantandhe mentionedher by name,that she was alive,and that they shouldbe relievedof their confusion. 2 The boy had intended to reveal the woman's whereabouts but was suddenly interrupted by "one wicked man" (could this be a reference to Delmedigo?) who began to argue with the boy's father, causing him to flee from the place. Subsequently, the boy would say nothing more. Rabbi Katz asked Vital to examine the entire matter in order to advise him what action to take. He turned to Vital because he had heard that shortly before Isaac Luria had died, he had told his disciple Vital that during the latter's lifetime "one boy would appear in the land of Edom [=Christian lands] who would relate wondrous and terrible things of God."" The second reference to the Gr6dek boy is found in a large collection of letters and other materials compiled by Abraham b. Hananiah Yagel, an Italian Jewish physician and author.'4 In the fall of 1620, Yagel first heard 12.

nrni vzorr'x

nT1

nnx 1n1ntKnnji 1"n]v•i Vt,7xDDKpp: ,x,'n r 5x nn K'1,n ,m-o ? "vxnrnDwxnn prt un:t ,nmn TV • 5VI' 5,•, M,tmD alpz:Intixiv ,hz oyni inn?n?... l 0111n X 11 : : worn x5 r nr npfrrn " rr-it 13 "1nI ff D'TX y1 My V 1?K K71n IA:K:tnK

nrn'V1 1I

proKt

i

15 np '75 nnK'm

:r an oan. The letter is found in panTmn •o i r n K' n; pa;w nrinxm llnpn mix1Kt ntmn' ,m TheologicalSeminary MS New York, Jewish of America3541 (ENA 74), fols. 181r-181v.I examinedthe manuscriptfroma microfilmin the Instituteof MicrofilmedHebrewManuscripts (no. 29346),JewishUniversityand National Library,Jerusalem.My thanksto Dr. Abraham Davidof the Institutewho firstinformedme of this letterand to Dr. LawrenceMarwick,Head of the HebraicSection, Libraryof Congress,Washington,D.C., who identifiedfor me the town of Potyliczin the Belzskregionas well as a numberof otherPolishtowns mentionedin this article. ~ 13. Ibid., fol. 181v: '6 w nV'q n ivn1 Y 11 t 'lnntn ironn prKtpanm mi rn X m1r'... . ..:.

minul f1K'3D =5 1vr

11KflK3 'KIw2Vnfl"b "Xri'nr

n ~K1'7'v ifiK

np Y

5'n 'v"7

pnrn",ini

.. .v~ rnbnu . The latterpartof the letterwas transcribedin the nameof theshammashof the Jewishcommunityof Lvov, Saul b. David of Kostelec. 14. On Yagel, see Solomon Maybaum,AbrahamJagel's KatechismusLekachtob(Berlin, 1892);Cecil Roth, The Jews in the Renaissance(Philadelphia,1959, pp. 53, 105, 330-31; Joseph Dan, Ha-sippurha-'ivribi-yemeiha-beinayim(Jerusalem,1974),pp. 202-21. Yagel's

DAVID RUDERMAN

148

the news of the Polish child in his place of residencein Modena. Yagel mentioned the boy's impressiveknowledge of Jewish law, his ability to

answeranyquestionposedto himandhis talentto detersuccessfully "the

many who rose up against him to kill him." He also relatedhow the boy

heardthesweetsongof angelsin hisearsbut,beyondthis,it wasimpossible

for him to recountall of his numerousaccomplishments.He did, however, wish to emphasizethe miraculousdimensionof the boy's achievements.'5 Some monthslater,in a secondletter,Yageladdedthe followingdetails to his earlierdescriptionof the boy: Ten Jewishauthoritiesof considerablestaturefrom those regions[of Poland] went and found the boy, met with him in a certainplaceand askedhimto tell them about the redemptionand the transformationand the secretof whenthe wondrousend will come. Butthe boy refusedto answeruntiltheyadjuredhim in the name of God that he tell what he knew. Then he replied:"Know that you will not be set at peaceby my words."Buttheirheartsweremost troubled concerningthis and the men pleadedwith him. But when he beganto answer them that on the next Nisan, birthpangs will begin and a periodof trouble will come to Jacob,he could not manageto say that they wouldbe saved and how the salvationwouldtranspire,for a firefell fromheavenand he departed in a storm and was no longer visible to them.'6

Upon witnessingthis miraculoussight, the entirecommunitymourned and fasted in trepidation over what they had experienced. Yagel related how after some forty days the boy finally returned, to the delight and relief of the community. But this time, the rabbis zealously guarded the child and refrained from asking him any further provocative questions.'7

two letterson the Gr6dekboy are foundin MS MoscowGiinzburg129,fols. 108v-112r.Parts of this manuscripthave alreadybeenpublishedby FroimKupfer,"R. Abrahamb. Menahem of Rovigo and his Removalfrom the Rabbinate"[Hebrew],Sinai 6 (1967):142-62; see also DavidRuderman'sforthcomingarticle,"A JewishApologeticTreatisefromSixteenthCentury Bologna,"to appearin the HebrewUnionCollegeAnnual50 (1979). 15. MS Moscow-Gfinzburg129, fols. 108v-109r. lXK 9=2313 n - r'*'n 16. Ibid., fol. lvl: w3Va VD D 13-, • rK n ,''vlztx r;nIn "-P VTfnl 2fl: a win nX pin 5Ymimx 51nnI6Kzn D'vrK Dtnr aimzr •i ni" n 1n'rmn n r•inni 1r2Y n "i5mnK n n•np)rt,' n Wnr, 11n25 r~n n nmo17 'n1 n'v1Y3,VtV71IX12 =0srp TIvrnrrv'rni" rW,0'n a mt nnn5 wmnnirx5vjism 5Y=:5 nrnw 5Y t* n

Din nnrwzl irima t•mxn lannax5 rown'•5 -izna5 -X Z) pon m-1mm 50nn nP; n

n-r, ,

,nym

ir• -mix;nrh -Pn xn lo-03n ax *,nnn, 3pir5,;rp nn n •a ',al Da ,= lxK1 A1 t1O n, ofl", izn. '31nn-.n -0 1... 1 '2K K ',x 3Vn 131 izK17I'75l f fols. 111v-112r. 5Knpiz 17. Ibid.,nnnln ' -31 ty p1 ,nxnp5onnun nixv pm in n n 'vax mxi'i w -, 1101r1V13-11P -1-sM Tz nx ' mnixl'3 miy 'wo nipizn '51xvli TID

149

A POLISHWUNDERKIND

Whathad apparently begunas a localincidentin a smallPolishtown FromGr6dek hadeventuallybecomea matterof international significance. to Lvov,to LublinandVilna,andfinallyto ModenaandevenSafed,reports of the Polishyouthhadindeedmadehima celebrity.Andwhathadoriginatedas merelythe taleof a precociouschildwithan unusualaptitudefor becomea saga recitingpassagesfromtheTalmudandZoharhadultimately of imposingdramaticappealwhichnowincludedan engagingportraitof a miraculous boysungto by angels,capableof provingfalsea Christianlibel Jews, possessingno less than the secretsof the divine against brought and bold redemption, ascendingin fireto hisheavenlyabode.Delmedigo's assertionthat he had shown"to all the world"the trickof the childof Gr6dekhad obviouslymadelittleimpacton whatmay havebeena considerablenumberof people. Howmightone explainthe hypnoticappealof the Gr6dekchildin the face of apparentlystrongevidencethathe was indeedan imposter?How to enjoysuchpreeminence in the was it possiblefor a localtown-wonder Andhow mightone citiesof Polandandbeyond-to Italyand Palestine? the curiousfactthat,withthe exceptionof Delmedigoandhis understand associate,thestorywasconsidered significant enoughto engagetheserious but attentionof not onlya groupof Polishrabbisandtheirconstituencies and an Italian and alsoa majorkabbalistic Jewish doctor natural authority of thevariousperceptions of theboyfrom scientist?A carefulexamination in afford an which viewthe highly to Gr6dekmight interesting perspective culturalexperience of Jewslivingat thebeginning complexandmultifaceted of the seventeenth century. II Ofcourse,thestoryof thePolishwonderchild wasnotwithoutprecedent in earlierJewishliterature.The motif of a child prodigyunravelingthe of manyJewsfor censecretsof the divinehadcaptivatedthe imagination consider the of turies.Oneneedonly abundance storiesin rabbinicliterature on theinfancyandyouthof biblicalheroeslikeCain,Noah,andMoses-in particulartheirmiraculousabilitiesto speakwhennew-bornbabes.'"The ' zDpv -iPnm i'ninrn'yl I'vyb 'inym rDrn;Drx r io 'nni i3rv. 18. Louis Ginzberg,Legendsof the Jews, 7 vols. (Philadelphia,1909-38), 1: 106, 145-47, 189;2: 264, 269-72; 3: 464, 468; 5: 102, 167-69, 212, 273. See also the numerousrabbinic

innir '- ? n

150

DAVIDRUDERMAN

of childrenandpropheticcapacitywasfurtherunderscored relationship by as thosethatproclaimed suchrabbinicstatements that,sincethedestruction of the Temple,prophecywastakenawayfromthe prophetsandwisemen theworld andassignedto fools andinfants,or that,sincethe destruction, in vain of the utterances infants.19 existed only richsourceof thewonderchild of Anexceedingly motifwastheliterature the Zohar.The storiesof youngchildren the Jewishmystics,particularly withwondrousabilitiesappearingbeforewisemenand otheradultswith wereespeciallyfavoritesubjects of mysticalknowledge startlingrevelations to the authorof theZohar.20In fact,AbrahamYagelhimselfin his discussionof theGr6dekchilddidnotmisstheparallelbetweenthesekabbalistic storiesand the Polishmarvel.2' in thisregardis the fascinating Of specialsignificance storyof thecharacterof RabbiGaddiel,madefamousin mostrecenttimesin thewritingof literature andparticularly wellknowninJewishkabbalistic of S. Y. Agnon22 The a wonderchild who the seventeenth possessed century. storyportrays divineknowledgeand was killedat the age of sevenby his enemies,but ascendedto the Gardenof Edento learnthe divinemysteriesfromGod themidrashic Himself.As GershomScholemhasdemonstrated, work,The theoriginalsourceof thisstory. Testament ofR. EliezertheGreat,represents into the writings It was latercopiedby HayyimVitaland incorporated R. Jacob b. Hayyim attributedto IsaacLuria.In the seventeenth century, a in and a who settled Jerusalem majordisciple Zemabl, Portuguese emigre It reappeared of Luria,publishedthe storyin his Sefernagidu-mesavveh. laterin theseventeenth in a entitled the collection Shulban'arukhof century in R. IsaacLuriaand the beginningof the eighteenthcenturyin the Sefer hemdatyamim.23In fact,thestoriesof R. GaddielandtheGr6dekboy are Ph. D. sourceslistedin Dov Neuman(Noy), "Motif-Indexof TalmudicMidrashicLiterature," diss., Indiana University, 1954 (University Microfilms,Ann Arbor, Michigan, F1362), T500-599 (Conceptionand Birth),includingsuchmotifsas a child looks at birthlike twentyyear-oldyouth, child speaks at birth, one-monthchild speaks to confute false accusations, child walks and talks immediately,etc. ed. Adolf Jellinek,6 vols. (Leipzigand Vienna,1853),1: 56: B.T. 19. Cf. Beit ha-midrash, Shabbat119b;B.T. Bava Batra 12a;etc. 20. Zohar,3: 186a-192a,translatedinto Hebrewin IsaiahTishbyand FischelLachower, Mishnatha-Zohar,2 vols. (Jerusalem,1957-61), 2: 66-89. 21. MS Moscow-Giinzburg129, fol. 11lr. 22. GershomScholem,"TheSourcesof the Taleof R. Gaddielthe Infantin the Literature of the Kabbalah"[Hebrew]in Le-'Agnonshai (Jerusalem,1966),pp. 289-305. 23. Ibid.

A POLISH WUNDERKIND

151

not without parallel,particularlyin the version of Yagel. Like R. Gaddiel, the Polish child possesseddivine knowledge,as the singingof angels in his ears suggested.Also similarin the two storiesis the threateningsituationin which both found themselveswhen enemiesdesiredto kill them. Even the backgroundof Gentile hostilityto Jews, more obvious in the martyrdomof Gaddiel, is neverthelessintimatedin the Gr6dek boy's involvementin the episodeof the Jew and his missingChristianmaid. Mightit not be plausible to surmisethat R. MordecaiKatz also had in mind the story of R. Gaddiel when he decided to addresshis query to the renownedIjayyim Vital? The phenomena of wonderchildrenwere not merely the imaginative productsof Jewishliteraryinvention;they had also become by the seventeenthcenturya part of the historicalmemoryof the Jewishcommunity.At the end of the thirteenthcentury,the SpanishJewishcommunityhad encountereda boy prophetsimilarin manyrespectsto the prodigyof Gr6dek. In a well-knownresponsumof R. Solomonb. Adret,the rabbidescribedan unusualchild in Avila who, while ignorantand untutored,had experienced angelic visions which inspired him to write a book of biblical commentaries.24For Adret, the most puzzlingaspect of this spectaclewas that an uneducatedchild was capableof composingwrittentreatisesof remarkable erudition.Although the biographiesof the Avila and Gr6dek childrenare not altogethersimilar,the parallelbetweenthe two did not escapethe attention of either R. AbrahamHIayyimSchor25or R. AbrahamYagel.26Both referredto Adret's responsumand both suggestedan analogy betweenthe two boys, althoughfor Schor the Gr6dek youth was clearlymore remarkable. What both observerscould not have failedto note in studyingthe two figureswas the commoneschatologicalimportof theirpropheticstatements. In the case of the Spanish child, his visions were directly related to an inspiredJoachimiteapocalypticliteratureappearingat the end of the thirteenth century.In fact, Avila itself had emergedas a conjecturedplace of origin of the Messiah who was to appear in 1295. The aura of messianic anticipationwas also manifestin the Gr6dek child who, accordingto the

24. On the wonderchild of Avila, see R. Solomon b. Adret, She'elot u-teshuvot, 3 pts. to date (Bnai Beraq, 1958), pt. 1, no. 548, pp. 208-9; J. L. Teicher, "The Medieval Mind," Journal of Jewish Studies 6 (1955): 1-13; Yitzbak Baer, A History of the Jews of Christian Spain, 2 vols. (Philadelphia, 1961-1966), 1: 277-78. 25. Sefer 'Elim, p. 65. 26. MS Moscow-Gunzburg 129, fol. 110v.

152

DAVIDRUDERMAN

testimoniesof both Schor and Yagel,was pressedby his contemporariesto prognosticatewhen the messianicredemptionwould come. A similar eschatologicaltheme was prominentin the tale of an even more illustriousJewish child prodigy named Nabman.27The story of this youthfulprophetwas traditionallyascribedto David b. AbrahamMaimuni

(1222-1300),the Nagidof Egyptwhois thoughtto havecomposeda com-

mentaryon the apocalypseprophesiedby Nabman for the rabbisof Barcelona. In fact, thesepropheciesweremost likelywrittenclose to the timeof David ha-Nagid,sometimeduringthe thirteenthcentury.28In the earlysixteenthcentury,the propheciesof Nabmanenjoyeda renewedpopularitydue to the commentaryof R. Abrahamb. Eliezerha-Levi,a Spanish6migr6and kabbalist,who wrotehis workin Jerusalemin 1517.Primarilybecauseof R. Abraham'streatmentof Nahman, the prophecieswere widely circulated amongthe SpanishJewishimmigrantswho had settledin Italy,Turkey,and Palestine.At the end of the sixteenthcentury,Gedaliahibn Yahyaincluded the story of Nahman in his Shalsheletha-qabbalah29 and like the Gaddiel in the seventeenth narrative,it was includedin the Sefer nagidu-mesavveh of In the aftermath the Jewish from century.30 expulsion Spain,the Nahman reflected the of propheciesaccurately atmosphere apocalypticexpectation prevalentin the Jewish communityof the sixteenthand seventeenthcenturies. JosephDan has suggestedthat the storyof the Gr6dekchildrepresentsa kind of parodyof the story of Nahman,embellishedby Delmedigoin order to ridiculesuch imaginativetales.31That the Gr6dek affairis more than a literaryparody on Na1man seems evident, however, from the other contemporarytestimoniesregardingthe Polish boy discussedabove. Yet more remainsto be said of the relationshipbetweenthe two boys. 27. On the propheciesof Nabman,see GershomScholem'svariousarticleson R. Abraham b. Eliezerha-Leviin KiryatSefer,especially2 (1925-26): 101-41;7 (1930-31): 149-65, andthe R. 'Avrahamben recentlyrevisededitionof these articlesby MalachiBeit-Arie,Ha-mequbbal 'Eli'ezer ha-Levi [Mavo le-hosa'at tavlum shel bibburo] Ma'amar meshare qilrin (Jerusalem,

1978);also JosephDan, "Noteson the Matterof the Prophecyof the Boy" [Hebrew],Shalem1

(1974): 229-34; Eliyahu Strauss (Ashtor), Toledot ha-Yehudim be-Migrayim ve-Suryah tabat shillon ha-Mamlukim, 2 vols. (Jerusalem, 1944), 1: 129; J. D. Eisenstein, 'OSar midrashim, 2

vols. (New York, 1915),2: 396-97. 28. GershomScholem,KiryatSefer 2 (1925-26): 117-18. 29. Gedaliah ibn Yabya, Shalsheletha-qabbalah(Jerusalem,1962), p. 105. See also AbrahamDavid, "Mif'alo ha-historiyografishel Gedaliahibn Yabya, Ba'al Shalshelethaqabbalah,"Ph.D. diss., HebrewUniversity,1976,pp. 177-78, 365. 30. Jacob b. HIayyimZemab,Sefernagidu-mevavveh (Zolkiew, 1793),pp. 75-79. 31. Joseph Dan, "Notes,"p. 233.

153

A POLISHWUNDERKIND

In the same collection of letters containingYagel's descriptionof the Polish child, there is also a discussionof Nahman.32On two separateoccasions in 1598 the well-knownItalian kabbalist,MenabemAzariah Fano, wrote to Yagel asking him to comment first on the astrologicalcircumstancesof Nabman'sbirthand then on the propheciesthemselves.In answer to the first inquiry,Yagel concludedthat Nahman'sastrologicaldata suggesteda prematureand unnaturaldeathfor the boy. In his secondresponse, Yagel copied the boy's biography as told to him by Fano-the circumstancesof his parents,his prophecyat birth,his long silencefor twelveyears, his final blessingto his parentsand his prematuredeath-and thenoffereda learnedinterpretationof this phenomenon.33Fano's inquirytogetherwith Yagel's answer provide further evidence of the wide currency of these propheciesamong Italian Jewryat the end of the sixteenthcentury.Additionally, they offer proof of a direct connection betweenNahman and the Polish child. The same ItalianJew who had reportedon the Gr6dekyouth had also reflectedsome twenty years earlieron the prophecyof Nahman. Could he have failed to notice the obvious similaritiesbetween the two youths-their precocity,their prematuredeaths and, most significantlyof all, the theme of messianicanticipationwhich infused both their stories? Nahman,it seems,had the opportunityof utteringhis messianicprophecies, whereasthe Gr6dekboy was interruptedby a heavenlyfirebeforespeaking of the redemption.But both stories were obviously productsof the same collectivemood of Jewishmessianicexpectation.A generationsuch as that of Yagel's,charmedby the revivalof the story of Nahmanand his prognostications, would have greetedthe tale of the boy from Gr6dek with equal fascinationand anticipation. III For AbrahamYagel, however,the appeal of the Nahman and Gr6dek stories was certainlynot limitedto an anticipationof the imminentcoming of the Messiah.Delmedigohad apparentlyderidedsuch wonderworkersas the boy of Gr6dekbecauseof his own scientificproclivitiesand rationalattitude. But Yagel, his contemporary,an erudite physician and important

32. MS Moscow-Giinzburg129, fols. 72v-73v. 33. Yagel'sdescriptionof Nabmanas told to him by Fano closelyparallelsthe accountsof Ibn YabyaandZemab.His uniqueexplanationof this phenomenonis furtherdiscussedbelow.

154

DAVIDRUDERMAN

scientificpopularizerin his own right,chose to treatsuchwondersseriously preciselybecauseof theirscientificinterest.Yageland Delmedigowereboth outstandingproductsof the enlightenedculturalworld of ItalianJewryin the late sixteenthand earlyseventeenthcenturies,and both scholarsplayed importantroles in introducingthe Hebrewreaderof their day to the latest scientificinformation.34 In view of Delmedigo'scriticaland derisiveattitude toward the Gr6dek child, Yagel'scontrastingsympathetictreatmentis all the more interesting. After recounting the wondrous acts of the Polish prodigy, Yagel attemptedto understandthe phenomenon.He readilyadmittedthe supernatural dimension of this child, all the more remarkableto him since prophecy according to the rabbis had ceased since the days of Haggai, Zechariah,and Malachi.But althoughthe prophetsno longerexisted,Yagel contended, visionariesand seers were still to be found and, on occasion, possessedthe "divinespirit on their tongues."" In the case of the boy of Gr6dek: " .. . according to what has been heard, he is accurate in what he

says and is consistentlywise and knowledgeable;one asks and he responds; one asks about a given subject and he answerscorrectlyas if he were a maturepersonwho had acquiredknowledgeand possessesheavenlyknowledgeto foretellthe future ."36Suchability,Yagelconcluded,is a univer... sal attributeof certainindividuals, both Jews and non-Jews,who are preto receive divine either pared inspiration "accordingto a naturaldisposition their or a achieved After [on parts] disposition by [their own] effort.""37 this kind of illustrated this observation defining propheticaptitude,Yagel with a numberof examplesfrom history.First he recalledBalaamand his propheticabilities.38Then he mentionedtwo examplesof child prophets 34. On Delmedigo'srole in writingHebrewscientificworks,see Barzilay,YosephShlomo Delmedigo,especiallyp. 3. Yagelauthoredtwo majorscientificworks,Beitya'ar ha-Levanon and Sefer Be'erSheva',both extant in manuscript(MS Bodl. Reggio 8-11). 35. MS Moscow-Giinzburg129, fol. 109r-109v. m 1 rni i ina IK 36. Ibid., fols. 109v-110r. ny D n192n rr' pn0 0m.an1... s2InmIn ,b'1

... 2= 1'. ' al1 3 ixK •n n n a11•113 ,nyVK '5Y3?. 5rr ',1pn '~ 37. Ibid., fol. 1lOr:,DDKi, rain n3zn 51m K 31[351n K '* v n anxi lMD D X... "71'7K '.IVY.1?1 11 X 13 "D512p' .1?mntY!1V X71 'DD n -.1flK Kp nn. The view parallels that of Maimonides in the Guide ... mnitnn )iV- K n=nn 1K n,'an m for the Perplexed, 2: 32, 36. See also Alvin Reines, Maimonides and Abravanel on Prophecy

(Cincinnati,1970),p. xxxv. 38. MS Moscow-Giinzburg129,fol. Il0r. On Balaam'sexaltedpositionin rabbiniclitera-

ture see Ginzberg, Legends of the Jews, 3: 354-82, 410-11; 6: 123-75; compare also Philo, De vita Moysis 1.48; Josephus, Antiquities 4.6.2.

155

A POLISHWUNDERKIND

who appeared in medieval Christian society, both of whom, he emphasized, were uneducated and simple folk: Observewhat happenedto the seventeen-year-old girl who was a shepherdess duringthe time of CharlesVII the king of Francewho was surroundedby the armiesof the Englishking which almost took from him [Charles]his entire kingdom. But this young maiden arose, aroused herself from her slumber, gatheredher strength,left her flock in the field,wentto King Charlesand told him what she told him; for the essenceof her wordswas that she desiredto lead his armiesand to be victoriousover his enemies.And the kingtrustedher word and placedher in chargeof his army;and she girdedher weaponryand fought the king's enemies and was victoriousover them with great honor. And chroniclersof that time sang herpraisesas if she wereskilledin warfrom heryouth and knewherenemies'strategyin war.39And who wouldbelievethe account of the child born in England named Merlin who revealedfuture events and secretthings and who transcribedin a documentbeforethe kings and noblesall that wouldhappento them in the end of days,in additionto all the incrediblefeats he accomplishedin the days of his youth which were recorded in the chroniclesof that kingdom.40 Yagel concluded his short natural history of divine seers by mentioning two additional examples of Jewish visionaries, the child prophet of Avila

39. MS Moscow-Giinzberg 129, fol. 1lOv. x5 0rr IX Wp0V 1nXnTK ip= ,an ,p~al a1,.... nn n I X p SbT Ithnp .nmn -.1n.10m13V"o 0-nMa n"DI= .a.15X nnSMxz. -.niy3n•o• •mb~ nx,• "inpno axm all IV 5D 01I-.=

imp n 5b nm 'r,,m Ir

K n nIn~n nimp*0=1 n5b o•bb mi3m5'•p 7•bnomMn norn MY xny b 15 nonbt =n3b)p'95,.1 n-1m 5yn m• Dun-.Ip5 7 lbxn rn-nlb ,n,• lnm Inn,"Dr,mn• Winn nnb

... p~mV 31,r iP r p ny n'"',r nnlmn,

ib nbn. The literature on Joan of Arc is extensive. See for

n, exampleC. W. Lighthody,TheJudgementsofJoan (London, 1962);Daniel Rankinand Claire Quintal,TheFirstBiographyofJoanofArc(Pittsburgh,1964);W. S. Scott, TheTrialof Joanof Arc (London, 1956);Jules Quicherat,Procksde condamnation et de rihabilitationde Jeanne d'Arc,5 vols. (Paris, 1841-49). 40. MS Moscow-Giinzburg 129, fol. I10lOv: i vo 2'rxn nn'i •,mh n,'t~ "T1an'fMn ,y' ',r -T25 5DnX nnK cbrn n X17, "IVX bob 13n1 I,'Ivm',oMl ,105P-=-O" :100 mDnMIMI "Ino n Tbna min lm5b'b on

n mo1 1:anK ,rn "-an

,rbfi,

n ewv m'lmnin.On Merlin, see Edward Anwyl,

, Encyclopaedia of ReligionandEthics,s.v. "Merlin";KeithThomas,ReligionandtheDeclineof Magic(London,1971),pp. 394-410. TheparallelwhichJosephDan notedbetweenthe Gr6dek child and Merlin("Notes,"p. 233) was thus mentionedalreadyin 1620by Yagel.On earlier ancientNear Easternparallelsof the Merlinlegendsee MosesGaster,"TheLegendof Merlin," Studiesand Textsin Folklore,Magic, MedievalRomance,HebrewApocryphaand Samaritan Archaeology, 2 vols. (New York, 1971), 2: 965-84.

156

DAVIDRUDERMAN

and the more recent messianicfigure, Solomon Molcho.41In all of these cases, he explained,the propheticgifts of these individualsweretransitory, and in some cases, like Joan of Arc and SolomonMolcho,the prophetsdied an unnaturaland prematuredeath. All of these illustrationsthus provided sufficienthistoricalprecedentsto lend credibilityto the fantastictale of the child from Gr6dek. Yagel'snaturalexplanationof the propheticgift is reminiscentof similar approachestaken by some of his learnedChristiancontemporaries.Augustino Nifo and Pietro Pomponazzi had presentedparallel expositions of propheticendowmentalmost a centuryearlier.42More recentlyGirolamo Cardano, a leading intellectualfigure in the scientificworld of sixteenthcenturyItaly, had likewisesought a naturalexplanationfor the prophetic gift. For Cardano, certain men exceeded others in their powers of clairvoyance and divination,facultieswhich they had possessedsince birth.43 In his massive scientific encyclopedia, De rerum varietate,Cardano claimedthat he himselfpossessedthe powerto go into a trancewheneverhe pleased,to see anythinghe wishedby the force of his own imagination,and to foreseehis own futurein dreamsor in his fingernails.44Immediatelyfollowing the descriptionof his own endowments,Cardanopresenteda catalogue of otherunnaturaland miraculousphenomena,includingdescriptions of both Joan of Arc and Merlin.45AbrahamYagelknewof Cardano'swork, quoted him directlyon other occasions, and appearsto have been profoundly influencedby this eruditebut eccentricChristianscholar.46In all

41. MS Moscow-Giinzburg 129, fol. 1l0v. Yagel apparently referred to Solomon Molcho's collection of sermons originally published in Salonika in 1529. On Molcho, see EJ, s.v. "Molcho, Solomon." 42. On Nifo's view of prophecy, see Lynn Thorndike, A History of Magic and Natural Science, 8 vols. (New York, 1929-1941), 6: 484-87; on Pomponazzi's view, see also Thorndike, 5: 98-110, as well as A. H. Douglas, The Philosophy and Psychology of Pietro Pomponazzi (Cambridge, 1910), pp. 287-91. 43. On Cardano's view of prophecy, see Thorndike, A History of Magic and Natural Science, 5: 574-75; W. G. Waters, Jerome Cardan, A Biographical Study (London, 1893), pp. 104-17, 249; and more generally, Angelo Bellini, Girolamo Cardano e il suo tempo (Milan, 1946); Giuseppe Saitta, 11 Pensiero italiano nell' Umanesimo e nel Rinascimento, 2 vols. (Bologna, 1950), 2: 202-26; Oystein Ore, The Gambling Scholar (Princeton, 1953); Giuliano Gliozzi's entry on Cardano in Dizionario biografico degli Italiani (Rome, 1976), 19: 758-63. 44. Girolamo Cardano, De rerum varietate (Lyons, 1662; reprint ed., New York and London, 1967), chap. 43, entitled "Hominis mirabilia," pp. 160-61. 45. Ibid., p. 163. 46. Yagel quoted Cardano on two occasions, referringto both of his major works, De subtilitate libri and De rerum varietate, in his Sefer Be'er Sheva', chaps. 10 and 15. Both times he

157

A POLISH WUNDERKIND

likelihood,Yagel,in reflectingon the authenticityof the Gr6dekchild, consultedCardano'swork and utilizedthe descriptionsof the Frenchand English childrenthat he found there. Yagel presented a somewhat different explanation, however, in his responseto MenahemAzariahFano regardingNakman'sauthenticityas a prophet.47As with the Gr6dekchild, Yageldid not considerNahmanto be a legitimateprophet, but placed him in the categoryof a monster,a species which, he explained,was well known in natureand previouslydocumented by the ancientssuch as Xenophon48and by medievalArabicscholarssuch as Ibn Abi 1-Ridjdl(=Aben Ragel).49Yagel referredto an entire chapter of Ibn Abi 1-Ridjal'swork, calledin Latin De iudiciisastrorum,on monsters and other naturalprodigies.50 By placing Nahman in the categoryof monsters,Yagel revealedstrikingly his knowledgeof a significantsubjectof the scientificliteratureof his By the sixteenthand day directlyrelatedto the subjectof wonderchildren.5' praisedthis Italianscholar.Moregenerally,Cardano'sworksmay haveprovidedappropriate models for Yagel'sscientificwritings.I hope to deal with Cardano'sinfluenceon Yagelin a futurestudy. 47. MS Moscow-Giinzburg129, fols. 73v-74r. 48. I could not locate Yagel'sreferencein Xenophon,quotedbelow in the next footnote. Yagel,however,does referelsewhereto the famousstoryof the birthof Cyrus,his grandfather's dream,and the latter'sfutileattemptto murderhim as an infant,reportedby both Herodotus and Justin.Cf. Belt ya'ar ha-Levanon,book 1, chap. 1; book 4, chap. 71. Perhapshe also referredhereto the samebirthstory or perhapsYagel'sreferenceto Xenophonwas not a direct quotationbut simplytaken from Ridjal.The classicalsourceson the mythicalbirthof Cyrus are quoted and discussed by Otto Rank, The Myth of the Birth of the Hero and Other Writings

(New York, 1959),pp. 27-44. 49. On Ab:i'lHasan'Ali Al-Shaybiniibn Abi l-Ridjdl,see the entryon him in TheEncyc-

lopaedia of Islam, 2d ed., s.v." ibn Abi l-Ridjil"; Moritz Steinschneider, Die Hebraischen Ubersetzungen, 2 vols. (Berlin, 1893), 2: 578-80; George Sarton, Introduction to the History of '7 Science, 3 vols. (Baltimore, 1927-1948), 1: 715-16. The entire passage reads: i Vn 5P nI', nn I Pb ro mpiiy .6. I ',D1 003b"I2pfl 5 'n m1,23 Mn1 '3 1 5,9 , 1' "n= 1T7 '=.....102'p01

•,•v,"b

,miflT

,

... n'3l',l n1•y n"n,"ll.

50. I consultedthe edition,AlbohazenHaly filii Abenragel,De iudiciisastrorum,libriocto (Basel, 1571),without findingthe exact reference.Yagel quoted from ibn Ridjil's works on other occasions.See for example,Sefer Be'er Sheva',chaps. 4, 15. 51. On worksdealingwith monsters,monstrousbirthsand naturalprodigiesin the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, see Thorndike, History of Magic and Natural Science, 6:

286-87, 488-91, and more recentlythe exhaustivestudyof Jean Ceard,La natureet les pro-

diges: L'insolite au XVIe siecle en France (Geneva, 1977). [See also the review of the book by J.-C. Margolin in Bibliothbque d'humanisme et Renaissance 40 (1978): 415-19.] Ceard edited

earlierAmbroisePare'sDes monstreset prodiges(Geneva, 1971).

158

DAVID RUDERMAN

of nature centuries,bookson the bizarreextravagances earlyseventeenth had appearedthroughoutEurope.As Jean Ceardhas recentlydemonwithmonstersin Yagel'sagewassymptomstrated,theunusualfascination aticof a largerintellectual culture,thatof the problemof late Renaissance ideaof nature.Inthesixteenthcentury,naturerepresented a livingorganism in perpetualactivityand therebyrevealeda deep structuralharmonyof andcoherencebetweenvariousparts.A studentof analogousrelationships naturethus encountered a marvelousvarietyof things(to use the phrase coinedby Cardanoas the title of his aforementioned work)whichrepresentedbotha sourceof discomfortandeventerrorto himbut,at thesame thegrandeurof hishumancondition.Forman'staskwas time,constituted to recordthe various"signs"thatnaturerevealed,to classifythemandto offera coherentexplanation of theiroriginandbehavior.Theunusualfascinationof theagewithmonstersandprodigiesstemmedfromthedesireto recordandmeasureeveryabnormality so asto penetrate theorderandreguandmultiformity of larityof theuniverse.Monsterstestifiedto thefecundity of nature;theyalsofunctionedas portentsof thingsto come.A knowledge thesesignspermitted mento acquiregreaterwisdomabouttheuniverse, but at the sametimetheydramatically indicatedthe finitudeof humanexperience. For naturestill chose to hide its face, to deceiveman. And thus theeffortto explainmonstersin a naturalcontextwasa chillaccompanying ing fearthatall hadnot yet beenexplained.Themonstermightalsorepresenta sign,an omen,a celestialnoticeof thepotentialterrorandinstability of the yet unknowable future.Thusfor mostof the sixteenthcentury,the "naturalsciences"of divinationandclassifyingmonstersremainedclosely intertwined.52 GirolamoCardanowas especiallypreoccupied withnumeroustalesof 52. This is a summary of the theme of Ceard's work. See especially pp. vii-xiv, 485-93. Ceard's explanation of the sixteenth century fascination with monsters is reinforced by anthropologists Mary Douglas and Edmund Leach in their discussions of the concepts of cultural anomalies and taboos. According to their view, each person attempts to perceive the world as a stable entity in which all objects have recognizable shape, location, and permanence. An anomaly constitutes an uncomfortable fact which refuses to fit into any established system of classification, seemingly defying cherished assumptions. Such anomalies attract maximum interest and often elicit intense feelings of taboo. Cf. Mary Douglas, Purity and Danger (London, 1966), especially pp. 48-53, and Edmund Leach, "Anthropological Aspects of Language: Animal Categories and Verbal Abuse" in Pierre Maranda, ed., Mythology (London, 1972), pp. 39-67. My thanks to Professor Ronald Weissman of the University of Maryland for these references.

A POLISH WUNDERKIND

159

monstersand monstrousbirthsand their relationto divination.53 And Yagel,his Jewishadmirer,was clearlyof like mind.Yagelin his Geibizzayon presenteda long discourseon unnaturaldeathas well as the strangebirthof Siamesetwinsin Veniceduringhis lifetime.54In his medicalcorrespondence, he displayeda fascinationwith various manifestationsof psychic phenomena,55and in his Beit ya'ar ha-Levanon,he includedan entiretreatiseon dreams and divination, reviewingboth the literatureof the ancients and some of his contemporarieson the subject.56 In the cases of the Gr6dekchild and Nahman,Yagelthus encountereda subjectalreadyfamiliarto him from his previousreadingon divinationand monsters and from his own medical experience.Instead of rejectingsuch children out of hand, Yagel treated them seriouslyas mattersworthy of psychologicalexplanation.With his scientificcontemporaries,Yagelshared a view of the universe which hypothesizeda harmony of corresponding relationshipsbetweeneach part of the physicaland heavenlyworlds.Out of such a view arose a sensitiveawarenesson his part of the ubiquityand individualityof hidden naturalpowers throughoutthe entire cosmos. Contemporaryscienceas understoodby Yagel,Cardanoand manyothers,could hardlydistinguishclearlybetweenthe universeas a religioussubjectand as a scientificone. Thus, for Yagel,Na1hman and the Gr6dekchild wereconcurrently objects of scientific inquiry and presagesof messianicredemption. Becauseof the ill-definedarea whereprophecy,mysticism,and the miraculous mingled with scientific experimentationin the sixteenth and seventeenthcenturies,57 Yagelcame to sharea commonuniverseof discoursewith the Polish rabbisand with kabbalisticsages of Safed and Italy such as Vital and Fano. All of them, Delmedigoexcepted,treatedthe Gr6dekchild with the utmost seriousnessand respondedto his fabulousbehaviorwith credulity and curious amazement. 53. This interest is apparent in many of Cardano's works; for references, see the works mentioned in note 43 above and C6ard's extensive treatment, pp. 229-51. 54. Abraham b. IHananiah Yagel, Gei hizzayon (Alexandria, 1897), ed. A. B. Mani, pp. 10-12, 24-25, where the references to Ibn Abi l-Ridjil and Xenophon are also found. 55. MS Moscow-Giinzburg 129, especially the selections numbered 44, 45-52, 65. 56. Yagel, Beit ya'ar ha-Levanon, pt. 1. 57. On the close relationship between science, magic and mysticism in the sixteenth century, see generally Thorndike, vol. 6 and C6ard; M. L. Righini Bonelli and William R. Shea, eds., Reason, Experiment and Mysticism in the Scientific Revolution (New York, 1975), especially Paolo Rossi, "Hermeticism, Rationality and the Scientific Revolution," pp. 247-73, who mentions the earlier works of Eugenio Garin, Francis Yates, P. M. Rattansi and others; W. P. O. Wightman, Science and the Renaissance (Aberdeen, 1962), pp. 284-302.

160

DAVID RUDERMAN IV

Beyondthe appeal of the Gr6dekchild as harbingerof Jewishredemption and as scientificsubject,there still remainsa furtherdimensionof the story to consider.For the extraordinarytale of the Polishchild is hardlya story unique to the Jewishexperience.Indeed it is really no more than a Jewishvariationon a theme of universalimport.Examplesaboundin both Westernand Easterncivilizationsof childrenwith divinequalities,who perform wondersand possess powersof healing,but at the same time are constantly threatenedby extraordinarydangers.The spiritualbiographiesof heroesof classicalantiquityare repletewith storiesof the wondersworked by their subjectsin childhood.5"And is there a betterexampleof the wonderchildmotif than Jesusthe divinechild?To be childlikewas to be Christlike, and the followersof Christwere called childrenof God.59In Eastern religionsthe themewas no less common.Krishnawas worshippedas a child possessingdivinepower.60In like mannerBuddhawas portrayedas a wonderchildin his religioustradition.6' In the same periodthat the Gr6dekand Nalman storieshad circulated among Jews, the theme of the holy child enjoyed an especiallypowerful appealin Europeancivilization.PhilippeAries, in his now classic study of the historyof childhood,was the firstto locate a distinctawarenessof children in Europeansociety in the seventeenthcentury.62Aries marshaledan abundance of evidence from iconography of children, children's dress, 58. See for example Moses Hadas and Morton Smith, Heroes and Gods (Freeport, New York, 1970), pp. 3, 103; Cairoly Kerenyi, "The Primordial Child in Primordial Times" in C. G. Jung and Cairoly Kerenyi, Essays on A Science of Mythology: The Myths of the Divine Child and the Divine Maiden (New York and Evanston, 1963), pp. 25-69; Rank, The Myth of the Birth of the Hero, pp. 14-64. 59. See especially Mark 10:14 or Mathew 11:25. On the divine child in Christianity, see also Dictionnaire de spiritualitd (Paris, 1960), s.v. "Enfant (vie spirituelle)," 4:682-714; T. W. Manson, The Teaching of Jesus (Cambridge, 1935), pp. 89-115; Donatus A. Marsa, An Outline of St. John's Doctrine of the Divine Sonship of the Christian (Floriana [Malta], 1957); Rank, The Myth of the Birth of the Hero, pp. 50-56. 60. Cf. Milton Singer, ed., KrishnaMyths, Rites and Attitudes (Chicago and London, 1968), pp. 177-81; William G. Archer, The Loves of Krishnain Indian Painting and Poetry (New York, 1960), chap. 3. 61. Cf. Henry Clarke Warren, ed., Buddhismin Translations(Cambridge, Mass., 1900), pp. 38-56; T. W. Rhys Davids, ed., Buddhist Birth Stories (Jakata Tales) (London, 1880; reprint ed., New York, 1977); W. T. DeBary, ed., The Buddhist Tradition in India, China and Japan (New York, 1969), pp. 55-60. 62. Philippe Aries, Centuries of Childhood, A Social History of Family Life, trans. Robert Baldick (New York, 1962).

A POLISH WUNDERKIND

161

games and pastimes, the literatureof child saints, and communion ceremonies to argue that by the seventeenthcenturythe Europeanworld had discoveredfor the firsttime the individualityand uniquenessof children.By that period, portraitsof childrenbecamecommonplace,childrenceasedto be dressedlike their parents, new pastimeswere initiatedwhich centered aroundchildrenand, most significant,a new pedagogicliteratureemerged placingeducationin the forefrontof man's obligations.Of particularrelevance to the theme of wonderchildrenis Aries'semphasison the religious importanceof childrenas specialobjectsof devotion.Thus a typicalseventeenth centuryprayerrecapturedthe sentimentsof Mark:"Give us a holy childhood ... which makes us increasinglynew creaturesin Jesus Christ and leads us to glorious immortality. Be like new-bornchildren ... unless you become like children, you....will not enter the kingdom of heaven."63Childrenwere seen by clerics and laymen alike as witnessesto baptismalinnocence, comparableto angels and close to the Christ who loved them. Throughdisciplineand moral instruction,they werecapableof being transformedinto rational men and good Christians.64 RichardTrexlerin his studyof the youth of Florencein the late Renaissance reinforcedAries's generalobservationswith special referenceto the new youth confraternitiesof Florence. As early as the fifteenthcentury, Trexlerargued, a new ideology of youth and adolescencewas vigorously proselytizedby the confraternities.Savonarola,in particular,saw the young as the salvationof the world who, when segregatedfrom their familiesand indoctrinatedwith Christianvirtue, could become ideal adult types and ritual saviors.65 Similarfascinationwith wonderchildrenprevailedin Englandas well in the sixteenthand seventeenthcenturies.66Englishliteratureof this period preserves numerous accounts of wondrous and prodigious children. Especiallysignificantwas the revivalof interestin the most famous child prophetof England,Merlin,whose prophecieswererepublishedand enthu-

63. Quoted by Aries, ibid., p. 122. 64. Aries's work has been both refined and criticized by later scholars. See for example Lloyd de Mause, ed., The History of Childhood (New York, 1974); David Hunt, Parents and Childrenin History: The Psychology of Family Life in Early Modern France (New York, 1970). 65. R. C. Trexler, "Ritual in Florence: Adolescence and Salvation in the Renaissance" in Charles Trinkaus and H. A. Oberman, eds., The Pursuit of Holiness in Late Medieval and Renaissance Religion (Leiden, 1974), pp. 200-64. 66. See Keith Thomas, Religion and the Decline of Magic, p. 132, especially note 4, p. 140.

162

DAVID RUDERMAN

siastically received by the English reading public of the seventeenth century.67 An analysis of the ritual function of wonderchildrenin Christianand Jewishsocietiesin generaland in the sixteenthand seventeenthcenturiesin particularis clearlybeyondthe scope of this essay.Yetone mighttentatively offer,in conclusion,a temptinghypothesissuggestedby a readingof C. G. Jung'sessay on the motif of divinechildren.68For Jung, the child motif in Westernand Easternliteraturerepresentsor personifiescertaininstinctive data of the dark, primitivepsyche. The child myth emergesin a culture whereman has becomeunchildlikeand artificialand has lost his roots. The sudden appearanceof a wonderworkingchild representsa vehementconfrontationwith primarytruthor with the originalunconsciousand instinctive state of humanity.Jungunderstoodthe miraculouschild'semergenceas inevitable,coming to compensate,correct,or "heal" the one-sidednessor extravagancesof the consciousmind. A common featureof all child myths was that the child who possessed extraordinarypowers still remained defenseless,in continual dangerof extinction.The adversitiesof the child wereto Junga symbolicrepresentationof the inevitableconflictbetweenthe youthful bearerof a "high consciousness"and his surroundings.In short, the divinechildmythgraphicallyrepresentedthe yearningof a civilizationin turmoiland unsureof itself to recaptureits pristineoriginsand its deepest roots. 67. Ibid., pp. 394-410. A typical example of the wise child motif in English literature of the period is the saga of Charles Bennett of Manchester, preserved in four separate literary accounts in 1679. Charles, who came from a simple English family, was alleged to speak Latin, Greek, and Hebrew at the age of three without having received any instruction. He was soon brought to London where he was tested by certain churchmen on various biblical subjects and in each of the languages he claimed to know. His audience was astounded by his correct responses. Finally, he asked to speak only three words to King Charles II and subsequently prophesied his own death nine days later. Despite their differing religious backgrounds and associations, the Gr6dek child and the Bennett lad were remarkably similar creatures. On Charles Bennett, see W. E. A. Axon, "The Wonderful Child," Chetham Miscellanies, n.s., I (Manchester, 1902). For other examples of wonderchildren in England during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, see the cases mentioned in Axon's introduction as well as that of the boy of Bilson who claimed to have the devil in him in 1622, discussed in Richard Hunter and Ida Macalpine, Three Hundred Years of Psychiatry 1533-1860 (London, 1963), pp. 100-1. 68. C. G. Jung and Ciroly Ker6nyi, Essays on A Science of Mythology, pp. 70-100. Compare Otto Rank's somewhat different psychoanalytic interpretation of the birth myth of the hero in his The Myth of the Birth of the Hero, pp. 65-96. For Rank, the mythmakers who fantasized about the extraordinary childhoods of their heroes were investing the latter with their own infantile history.

A POLISH WUNDERKIND

163

The sixteenthand seventeenthcenturiesin Jewishhistoryrepresentedan era of extremeculturalchange, major upheaval,and physicaldisaster,including the deep-rootedeffects of the Spanish expulsion, the oppressive measuresof the Counter-Reformationin Italy, the Cossack pogroms in Poland, and the diffusion of Lurianickabbalaheventuallyleading to the hysteriasurroundingthe messiahshipof ShabbetaiZevi. Might one therefore consider the bold suggestionthat whateverelse childrensuch as the Jewishchild of Gr6dek represented,they were in some way tangiblemanifestationsof a desireon the part of theirbeholdersto returnto a world less afflictive,moresimpleand placid?For who else but a young,virtuous,innocent and unscarredchild of uncanny insight could undo the wrongs of a weary, tormented,and corruptworld?In the case of the Polish boy, his knack for identifyingscripturalpassageswas perceivedby his followersas only a preludeto a far more profoundtalent. He was empowered-so they thought-to solve the puzzlingcase of the missingChristianmaid and thus to protectthe Jewishcommunityfrom the false accusationsof its Christian neighbors. But even more significant,he was considereda creaturewith supernaturalendowmentscapableof discerningthe precisetime Israelmight be redeemed.The wonderchildfrom Gr6dekmight have representedmore than a curious prodigy of nature;he may have offered reassuranceto a society in anxious search of miracles.And despite Delmedigo's futile attemptsto publicizethe deception,the authenticityof the Gr6dekchild was thus assumedby a communityin profoundneed of his marvelousand healing presence.

Observations on Three War Poems of Shmuel Ha-Nagid: A Study in Internal Poetic Cohesion Author(s): David Segal Source: AJS Review, Vol. 4 (1979), pp. 165-203 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486304 . Accessed: 26/06/2011 20:30 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

OBSERVATIONSON THREE WAR POEMS OF SHMUEL HA-NAGID: A STUDY IN INTERNAL POETIC COHESION by DAVID SEGAL Ben Gurion University of the Negev

If Shmuel ben Yosef ha-Levi ibn Nagrella, better known as Shmuel ha-Nagid (938-1055), has been variously praised by his contemporaries, later medieval litterateursand moderns as an innovative and forceful writer, his poetry qua poetry has been subjectedto little close scrutiny. Threeshort poems have been analyzedas wholes;'individualstichsillustrative of typical figuresand rhetoricaldevicesin the Hebrewpoetryof Spain

NOTE:This articlewas preparedwhilethe writerservedon the facultyof the HebrewCollege, Brookline,Massachusetts.AJSreviewgratefullyacknowledgesthe kindpermissionof Dr. Dov Jardento reproducethe Hebrewtexts of the poemsdiscussedin this articlefromhis editionof the Nagid's divan referredto below. 1. Eddy Zemach, Readings in Eight Hebrew Poems from the Middle Ages [Hebrew] (Jerusalem, 1968), pp. 40-48, 60-75; Frederic Bargebuhr, The Alhambra: A Cycle of Studies on the Eleventh Century in Moorish Spain (Berlin, 1968), pp. 354-60; Andras Hamori, On the Art of

MedievalArabicLiterature(Princeton,1974),pp. 92-98 (an independentconsiderationof the poem analyzedby Bargebuhr). 2. Moses ibn Ezra,Kitabal-mubad4ara editedand translatedby Abraham wal-mudhakara, S. Halkin (Jerusalem, 1975) under the title Sefer ha-'iyyunim ve-ha-diyyunim; see passim

165

166

DAVID SEGAL

have been cited;2diverse featuresof a good many genres, including influencesof Arabicmodelshave been noted;3and variousinsightfulobservations have been made.4 Yet all the above is quantitativelyvery little, given the intrinsicworthof the Nagid's literarylegacy and his position as the firstluminaryof Hebrew poesy in Spain. In this essay, the writeradds to the beginningsmade in the aestheticanalysisof Shmuelha-Nagid'spoetry by clarifyingwhat is signified by the genre of "martialpoetry"and then by examiningthreemartial poemsthat arecompound-i.e., poemswhosemajorsegmentsdifferin topic and tone. The studywill disclosethat all threeare strikinglysimilarboth in theircontentand in the mannerin whichtheirseeminglyunrelatedsections are closely bound together. I. TheGenreof MartialPoetry Shmuelha-Nagid is uniquein the annals of medievalJewryin penning Hebrewversesreflectingactualmilitaryexperiences.Whilehe was imitated in this by his son Yehosef,who wrote a few poems touching on martial valor, none of the latter's works has actuallycome down to us, with the exceptionof four stichson homesicknesswrittenas a child with his father's help and appearing in his father's divan. The famed maqamist Judah to a descripal-Harizidevotedone tale-chapter seven of his Tah.qemonition of a militaryencounter.The description,however,is clearlyfictitious and derivativein no small measurefrom the Nagid's works. The precise definition of the Nagid's war poems is somewhat problematic.5D. S. Sassoon,who publishedthe firsteditionof the Nagid'sdivan

(index). (Halkin's edition replaces the earlier, free rendition of Ben Zion Halper, Shirat Yisra'el [Leipzig, 1924].) David Yellin, in his Spanish (Hebrew) Poetics [Hebrew] (Jerusalem, 1940), expands significantly upon the work of Moses ibn Ezra, while retaining the former's categories and approach, and in the process cites the Nagid's poetry liberally. 3. Yehuda Ratzaby, "The Love Poetry of R. Shmuel ha-Nagid" [Hebrew], Tarbiz 39 (1969): 137-69; Israel Levin, Shmuel ha-Nagid: His Life and Poetry [Hebrew] (Tel Aviv, 1963), pp. 107-48; I. Levin, "The War Poetry of Shmuel ha-Nagid: Its Relation to Ancient Heroic Arabic War Poetry" [Hebrew], Ha-sifrut 1 (1968-69): 347-67; and I. Levin, "Lamenting over the Ruins of the Encampment and the Image of the Wandering She Demon" [Hebrew], Tarbiz 36 (1957): 278-96. 4. Dan Pagis, Secular Poetry and Poetic Theory: Moses ibn Ezra and His Contemporaries [Hebrew] (Jerusalem, 1970); see index. Also, see below, n. 24. 5. On the background of the war poems of the Nagid, see Jefim Schirmann, "The Wars of Shmuel ha-Nagid" [Hebrew], Zion 1 (1936): 261-83, 351-76; 2 (1937):185-87.

THREE WAR POEMS OF SHMUEL HA-NAGID

167

in modern times, did not group the poems by theme or genre, but in the sequencein which he found them in manuscript(MS Sassoon 589).6Abraham Habermann,in his edition,7gatheredtogethera groupof poemsthat he warpoems, and thesesamepoemswereretainedby labeledshireimilbhamah, Dov Jarden in his edition-Divan

Shmuel Hanagid: Ben Tehilim (here-

after referredto as DSHS)-with some minorrearrangementon groundsof chronology9and with the addition of two more poems.'0 of the title are not at once apparent.By no meansdo all The problematics the Nagid's "war poems" treat of militarymatters. Rather, it seems that their common denominatoris some referenceto martial pursuit. There might also be some mentionin Yehosef'ssuperscriptionthat the poem was penned on the battlefield,or prior to a battle, or in the wake of military endeavor. Even this broad classification,however, cannot encompass at least one poem, #28 in DSH (one of the two addedby Jarden),a four-stich apologia on the Nagid's part for errorsin his major opus on Jewishlaw, Hilkhata gibberata."I

A numberof other poems do not qualifygenericallyas poems of war, if that we mean poems descriptivein one fashion or another of martial by combat. Poems #812 and #3213praise Yehosef for his penmanshipand a poem of his, respectively;neitherspeaksof militaryaffairs-except that the Nagid's grief mentionedin stichs 7-10 of #32 could be occasionedby distress connectedwith militarylife. Two poems alludeto a figureencounteredin a martialpoem, but arenot themselvesdescriptiveof battle.The first,#5, is a three-stichpoem allegedly composed/readby the Nagid in his sleep,rejoicingover the downfallof one 6. David Solomon Sassoon, Diwanof ShemuelHannagidh(London, 1934). 7. AbrahamHabermann,RabbiShemuelha-Nagid:Divan [Hebrew],2 vols. (Tel Aviv, 1947-52). 8. Dov Jarden, Divan Shmuel Hanagid: Ben Tehilim [Hebrew] (Jerusalem, 1966). Unless

otherwisenoted,all referencesto the Nagid'spoemsreferto this edition,whichcontains,i.a., a comprehensivebibliographythrough1965on the Nagid'swritings,and commentsand studies on his life and works (pp. 461-82). 9. "Yom?aru-mayoq"("On a Day of Distressand Trouble"),#1 in DSH (p. 3) appearsas the last of the war poems in Habermann,on p. 151 of his edition;and "Levavibe-qirbibam" ("My Heart Is Hot Within Me"), #9 in DSH (pp. 35-38) appearsin Habermannbetween "Meteisekhel"("Men of Discernment")and "be-libbibom"("Thereis Heat in My Heart"), which are #24 and #25 respectivelyin DSH. 10. DSH, #28, p. 96 and #36, pp. 121-24. 11. DSH, #27, pp. 89-95, esp. ss. 61-100, and the superscriptionof Yehosef. 12. DSH, p. 39. 13. DSH, pp. 108-9.

168

DAVID SEGAL

ibn Abbas (a primaryadversaryof the Nagid in an encounterdescribedin #2) and ibn Abbas'sally.'4The second poem is #6,'5which treatsthe same themeand discussesat some lengththe wretchedfate of both ibn Abbasand ibn abi Musa, but does not portray any militaryencounter.In similar fashion, a four-stichpoem of victory and thanksgiving,#12,'6 celebrates the downfall of a foe killed by subterfuge,but does not contain a battle scene. Anotherpoem of questionableaffinityto war poetryis #3,'7 a supplication descriptiveof grave danger.While the superscriptionexplicitlyidentifies it as a prayerfor help beforebattle,the contents,of themselves,do not specificallyevoke militarydanger. One poem of illness, #36'8-the second of two poems that Jarden includesin warpoemsbut Habermanndoes not-has no referencewhatever to military life; again, it is only Yehosef's superscription,ascribinghis father's weakness to aging during war (mi-derekh ha-ziqnah bamilbamah),that links this poem to martialverse. Finally, other poems' mention of battle is minimaland/or tangential, such being poems concerningillnessesof Yehosef'9and the Nagid.20Poem #1 does not describeany militaryencounter;rather,it recordsa dreamvision whose last stich mentions dangers-specifically, swords.21 Given the above facts, it is doubtfulthat one can hope to classifyrigorously the war poems of the Nagid both by theme and by essential and characteristicsections,as has been done by Pagis for the secularpoetryof Moses ibn Ezra22-evenif that poet, too, has a numberof poemswhichdefy easy classification,as Pagis points out.23Perhapsone reason for the difficulty of so classifyingthe Nagid's poetry is that Moses ibn Ezra comes towardthe end of an era and the Nagid comesat the beginning,whengenres in Hebrewpoetrywere in the very processof beingcreated-some, such as maxims and war poetry, at the hand of the Nagid himself!

14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23.

DSH, #2, pp. 4-14, esp. ss. 11-40; #5, p. 27. DSH, pp. 27-30. DSH, p. 43. DSH, p. 15. DSH, pp. 121-24. DSH, #14, pp. 47-49. DSH, #37, pp. 125-27. DSH, #1, p. 3, esp. s. 8. See Pagis, Secular Poetry, pp. 131-309. Ibid., pp. 281-86.

THREE WAR POEMS OF SHMUEL HA-NAGID

169

someNonetheless,one can at leastput fortha sequentialdescription, whatalongthe linesof Pagis'smodels,of martialpoems(as distinctfrom warpoems);i.e.,thosethatdescribemartialactivity,whetherin onestichor many,andwhetheras the majorsegmentof the poemor as almosttangential asides.24

Althoughnot all arepresentin allpoems,themajorsectionsof themartial poemscan be characterized as follows: 1. Introduction A. Praise of God (at times blendingwith, or replacedby, declara-

tions of confidenceor supplication).25 B. Backgroundof the conflict-rangingfrom somewhatdetailed to a verybrief descriptionof politicaland militarymaneuvers, mention(if at all) of eventsleadingto battle.26 2. Themartialnucleusof the poem(indispensable to the genre):menof thebattle-rangingfromthefulsomedescriptions tion/description 24. A majorcontributionof Pagis in SecularPoetryis the clear demonstrationof differences in style and contentin the various-and ratherstereotypic-segmentsof a givengenre, say, the poem of friendship:there are, for example, fundamentalshifts in attitude (as cheerful/gloomy)and perspective(personal/impersonal).Cf. Secular Poetry, pp. 116-21. Moreover,Pagisdemonstratesthat in manypoemsit is possibleto extracta sectionwhich,seen in isolation,couldreadilybe takenfor a unitof anothergenre-such an instancebeingpraiseof a deceasedperson,whichreadspreciselylike praiseof one living(pp. 133-34). The consideration of such a dynamicin the genresof the Nagid is a high desideratumbut one meriting independenttreatmentand lying outsidethe confinesof this study,whichwill focus primarily on the linkagesbetweenthe two majorsegmentsof the compoundpoem.In a futurestudy,the writerintendsto compareclosing segmentsof self-praiseto determineto what degreethey might or might not be consideredinterchangeable-a topic suggestedby Pagis himself,in privateconversation,yearsago. And in a forthcomingstudythe writerconsidersthe relationship of an independentBen Qoheletpoem to a largerdivan poem in whichit is contained. 25. See n. 34 below, and AddendaA and B at the end of this study. 26. The longerbackgroundsectionsappearin the two longestof theNagid'spoems-#2 (in DSH) ss. 12-39 [political]and ss. 40-50 [military],pp. 5-7) and #4 (ss. 10-29 [or 10-38, if one considersthe militaryconquestsof the Nagid's troops describedin ss. 30-38 as being antecedentto the main battle]),pp. 16-18. Otherbackgroundsectionsincludethe following: #7, ss. 21-25, pp. 32-33; #13, ss. 14-21, pp. 45-46; #16, ss. 11, 16, 20, p. 53 (all thesebeingat once part of the battle description,as the participants,their motivationand arrivalare here given);#24, ss. 7-24, pp. 74-75; #26, ss. 23-26, p. 87;#29, s. 12(herefollowinga stichdescriptive of battle),p. 97;and#40, ss. 22-23, pp. 144-45 (althoughconstruableas partof the battle). Otherbackgrounddescriptionsareone stichor less thanone stich,for the most parttransitionalin purposeand general,ratherthanconveyingspecificeventsleadingup to the conflict: #9, s. 16, p. 37; #27, s. 12 (herefollowinga stich descriptiveof the battle),p. 97; #31, s. 17, p. 105;#34, s. 8 (again within the descriptionof the enemy'sactivities),p. 115.

170

DAVID SEGAL

of his earlypoems, #2 and #4, to otherswherevery few stichssuffice, sometimes as an aside. Frequentcomponents of this segment are descriptionof weaponry,static or in action;the wreakingof carnage and devastationupon the foe and his surroundings;and the emotions attendant upon such activity.27Occasionally sententiae are includedin, or follow upon, martialnuclei.28 3. Conclusion A. Praise/dedication-of-poemto God.29 B. Praiseof the poem and/or himself.30 C. Declarationon the dissemination/utilizationof his poem.3' D. Other elements,such as petition.32 27. Martial nuclei: #2, ss. 51-131, pp. 5-13; #4, ss. 39-131, pp. 18-25; #7, ss. 26-34, p. 33; #9, ss. 16-33, pp. 37-38; #10, ss. 3-5, p. 39; #11, ss. 10-25, pp. 41-42; #13, ss. 22-31, p. 46; #15, ss. 10-14, p. 50; #16, ss. 9-25, pp. 52-54; #18, ss. 35-42, pp. 59-60; #20, ss. 27-42, pp. 64-65; #21, ss. 2-5, p. 66; #22, ss. 22-32, pp. 68-69; #24, ss. 25-69, pp. 75-78; #25, ss. 23-58, pp. 82-84; #26, ss. 27-44, pp. 87-88; #27, ss. 62-86, pp. 93-94; #29, ss. 11-26, pp. 97-98; #30, ss. 15-30, pp. 101-2; #31, ss. 16-49, pp. 105-7; #33, ss. 28-61, pp. 111-14; #34, ss. 8-14, 18, pp. 115-16; #37, ss. 13-15, p. 126; # 38, ss. 12-15, p. 129; # 39, ss. 29-39, pp. 136-37; #40, ss. 36-39, p. 142; #41, ss. 20-28, pp. 144-45. For examples of various components of battle scenes-such as taunts and challenges, stages of the battle and zeal for combat-see Levin, Shemuel ha-Nagid, pp. 77-95. 28. Sententiae in or following descriptions of battle include: #2, pp. 13-14, ss. 132-36; #9, p. 38, s. 30; #22, p. 69, ss. 33, 34; #29, p. 98, ss. 27-35; #31, p. 107, ss. 43-44. In three martial poems sententiae appear in initial sections: #35, pp. 117-18, ss. 4-15; #39, p. 134, s. 2; #40, p. 139, ss. 5-6. 29. Praise/dedication-of-poem to God: #2, s. 137, p. 14; #4, ss. 137-39, p. 26; #7, ss. 35-37, p. 33; #9, s. 36, p. 38; #11, s. 26, p. 42; #13, ss. 31-33, pp. 46-47; #15, s. 25, p. 51; #16, ss. 42-43, 57, pp. 55-56; #18, s. 46, p. 60; #22, ss. 40-43, p. 70; #24, s. 73, p.79; #25, ss. 59, 63-64, pp. 84-85; #27, ss. 89-90, pp. 94-95; #31, ss. 49-55, pp. 107-8; #33, ss. 67-68, p. 114; #34, s. 22, p. 116; #35, ss. 50-51, p. 121; #37, s. 27, p. 127; #38, ss. 62, 68-70, p. 133; #39, ss. 49-53, p. 138. 30. On praise of the poem and/or himself: #2, ss. 137-42, p. 14;#4, ss. 137-44, p. 26; #7, ss. 38-44, pp. 33-34; #13, ss. 33-35 (since this poem's rhyme appears at the end of every hemistich and the poem concludes with a hemistich, rather than a line comprised of two hemistichs, one could say rather, ss. 68-72), p. 46; #20, ss. 27, 40-42, pp. 64-65; #22, ss. 43-50, p. 70; #23, ss. 33-37, p. 73; #24, ss. 73-79, p. 79; #25, ss. 59-62, pp. 84-85; #31, s. 49, p. 107;#33, ss. 67-75, p. 114; #37, ss. 25-28, p. 127; #38, ss. 64-66, p. 133; #39, ss. 52-53, p. 138. 31. Declaration including instruction/exhortation on the dissemination/utilization of the poem: #2, ss. 143-49, p. 14; #4, ss. 145-49, p. 26; #6, ss. 54-56, p. 30; #11, ss. 29-31, p. 43; #26, ss. 45-47, p. 88; #31, ss. 55-56, p. 108; #33, s. 22 (unusual in that it comes in the midst of the poem), p. 111. A number of the stichs cited in this note and in the prior note state or imply that the poems are intended for synagogue use-specifically: #6, s. 55, p. 30; #11, s. 29, p. 43; #22, ss. 49-50, p. 70; #25, s. 61, p. 85; #26, ss. 46-47, p. 88; #33, s. 74, p. 114; and #37, s. 28, p. 127. 32. Other elements-requesting a prayer of his fellow Jews for his safety: #26, s. 48, p. 88; and #40, ss. 43-45, p. 142; requesting of God that his prayer be acceptable: #29, s. 39, p. 99 (and

THREE WAR POEMS OF SHMUEL HA-NAGID

171

of Evena cursoryglanceat the aboveoutline,showingthe bracketing martialepisodeswithpsalm-likecallinguponGod in praiseand/orpetiof thosewholookupontheNagid'swarpoems tion,bolstersthearguments or as synonymous with, includingmanyof, the much-debated corpusBen Indeed,closer examinationrevealsthat the basic componentsof Tehillim.33 one psalm genre, individualthanksgiving,are found in varyingcombinations in Nagid poems.34 It must be furtherobservedthat manyNagid poems arecomposite,containing(usuallyat the outset) segmentson varyingthemes,all but one nonmartial:a poem of complaint against a critic of his life style;35poems of lament:over Zion's lot,36over his sinfulness,37over the rigors of military cf. Ps. 19:15and 69:32);askingblessingand/or deliveranceof God: #9, s. 37, p 38; #18, ss. 59-62, p. 61; #34, ss. 21-22, p. 116;triumphantreturnfrombattle:#41, ss. 27-30, p. 145;concernwiththe day of judgment:#16, s. 60, p. 56 (andcf. #36, ss. 37-42, p. 124);God'srendering just retribution(on earth):#25, ss. 63-64, p. 85;#30, ss. 40-41, p. 101;and declarationof the Nagid's salvation:#26, ss. 99-100, p. 95. 33. Scholarsare dividedover the questionof the Nagid's Ben Tehillimbeing (1) synonymous with his divan,(2) incorporatedthereinor (3) as yet undiscovered.In "Ben Tehillimof ShmuelHanagidandthe Book of Psalms:A Studyin EsotericLinkage,"Ph.D. diss., Brandeis University,1976,pp. 1-12, the writersummarizesthis debateand attemptsto substantiatethe secondof the abovethreepositions.NehemiahAllony, in a forthcomingarticletitled "Diwan and Ben Tehillimby Shmuelha-Nagid"[Hebrew]also reviewsthis controversyand supports the first position. 34. AddendumA at the end of this paperpresentsa chartof 29 poemsof the Nagid-28 of them are war poems-containing initialpraiseand, more than that, those componentsof the individualpsalmof thanksgivingagreedupon by most biblicalscholarsas basicto the genre: initial praise;mentionof the (past) danger-at times with callingon God; the fact of divine rescue;and final praise-at timesfollowedby callingon othersto praise.Cf. FlemingJames, Thirty Psalmists (New York, 1965), pp. 163-86; Claus Westermann, The Praise of God in the

Psalms, trans. K. R. Crim (Richmond, 1965), pp. 102-16; and SigmundMowinckel,The Psalmsin Israel's Worship,trans. D. R. Ap-Thomas(Oxford, 1962),2: 31-43. AddendumB presents,similarly,sectionsof 12 divanpoems-nine beingwarpoems-with markedresemblance to segmentsof the Psalter'shymn genre:summonsto praiseGod; the reason(s)for praise-God's acts in natureand/or history;and concludingpraise.See James,ThirtyPsalmists, pp. 15-19; Mowinckel,ThePsalms,pp. 81-105; Westermann,ThePraise,pp. 15-35 and 152-55. Westermannemphasizesthe basicsimilarityof psalmsof praise(hymns)and songs of thanksgiving.Cf. also Mowinckel,2: 87;and M. H. Segal,Mevoha-miqra(Jerusalem,1947),3: 526. 35. #7, ss. 1-21 and 35-45, pp. 31-34. Sucha returnto the originalthemeat a poem'sconclusionis rarein the compositepoemsmentionedbelow,the only otherinstancebeing#27, pp. 89-95. 36. # 9, ss. 1-15, pp. 25-38 (see below,sec. II);#25, ss. 1-17, pp. 80-81; #31, ss. 1-7, pp. 103-4 (leading into a descriptionof the heavens in ss. 8-14, pp. 104-5). (This poem is analyzedbelow, sec. IV.) 37. #22, ss. 1-17, pp. 67-68 (analyzedbelow, sec. III).

172

DAVID SEGAL

and two eulogies proper,relatingto the death of relalife,3"over aging;"39 tives.40 Indeed, in the Nagid's divan, a broad spectrumof topics mingleswith description/mentionof battle. Two martialpoems treat of illness in stichs intermingledwith descriptionof the martialincident.41 One martialpoem has as its prefacea riddlepoem of two strains:a descriptionof wine'spower and praise of the Nagid's lineage, praise ending with an adjurationto Yehosefto live up to his familyheritage.42 Onepoem- of 100stichs-treats, at its outset and close, the Nagid's labors and methodin compilinga work on the oral law.43Two martialpoemscontainstichs descriptiveof heavenly bodies,with one of themdescribingotherscenesin natureand society.44One poem that mentionsmartialactivityis primarilyan adjurationto Yehosefto study writtenArabic.45Finally, two poems of the Nagid-among his last martial poems-blend martial verse with self-praise and praise/ friendship.46 In conclusion, it can be stated that poems which, to date, have been classedtogetheras warpoemssometimesrelateonly tangentiallyto warfare. Poems that do treat military matters are in this study referredto as "martial"poems. Such poems frequentlyexhibit bracketingof the nuclear (battle)section of the poem with political-militarybackground,and sometimespraiseof God, at the outset, and at the close, with suchcomponentsas praiseof God and/or the poem, andexhortationas to the poem'sdissemination and use. The praise-of-Godcomponents are reminiscentof com-

38. #23, ss. 1-18, pp. 71-72. 39. #26, ss. 1-22, pp. 85-86.

40. #15, ss. 1-10, 17-25, pp. 50-51 (this poem being almostwholly of lament);#41, ss. 1-20, pp. 143-44. Both poems lack, however,whatPagisholdsto be the nuclearcomponents of the lamentgenre- cosmicgriefandthe poet'sgriefoverthe loss of the deceased.See Pagis, Secular Poetry, pp. 197-200 and 206-14.

41. #16, ss. 12-15, 25-45, pp. 53-55; and #38, ss. 6-7, 17-41, 67, pp. 129-33.

42. #20: wine-ss. 2-10; lineage-ss. 11-18; adjuration-ss. 19-26. 43. #27, ss. 1-60, 93-97, pp. 89-95. 44. #31, ss. 8-14 (a description of the heavenly bodies), pp. 104-5; and #33, ss. 1-22 (the

same, and descriptionof humanand animalactivitiesby day and by night),pp. 109-11. 45. #21, ss. 1-2, 5-8, p. 66.

46. #39: self-praise-ss. 1-20, pp. 134-35; and of friendship-ss. 23-28, 39-48, pp.

137-38. The second such poem is #40: self-praise-ss. 1-22, pp. 139-41; and of friendship-ss. 23-35, 40-43, pp. 141-42. A somewhat similar blend of friendship and self-praise is found among poems of friendship in the Nagid's divan, these being #43-#45, pp. 147-53 (analyzed in an article under preparation); and #70, pp. 213-14 (treated in the writer's dissertation on pp. 300-12).

THREEWAR POEMSOF SHMUELHA-NAGID

173

ponents of biblical psalms. Finally, a good numberof martialpoems are compositein genre,theirfirstsectionscomprisingsuchgenresas differentas poetry of complaint and poetry of praise/friendship. II. "Levavibe-qirbi ("My HeartIs Hot WithinMe") .am" Traditionally,a major model for secular Hebrew poetry in Spain, namelythe qasida,has been perceivedby studentsof Arabiclettersas a bifurcated creation whose two segments-mourning over lost love, and description(s)of a journey and/or battle and/or patron-are essentially unrelated.47A similarposition on the essentialunrelatednessof basic segments of longer Hebrewpoems has been taken by Hebrewscholars.Moses ibn Ezra speaks of introductorylove sectionsto poems of praiseas essentially unrelatedto what follows them, and faults poets who write in this fashion-even if he himself at times falls into that category!48In the twentieth century, D. Yellin is quite explicit in pointing to the Arabic qasida patrimonyof the medievalHebrewpoems of praiseand describesopening sections on love, wine, nature or other themes that are linked with lyric poetry as being distinctly set apart from the praise sections following.49 Otherscholarssharein thejudgmentthat longerHebrewsecularpoemsare markedby disunity.50A centralthesis of D. Pagis in his detailedstudy of Moses ibn Ezra's poetic theory and practice is the essential-albeit not total!--unrelatednessof major segmentsof poems, certainlypoems whose initial sections are of genres differentfrom their main ones.5' 47. Ibn Qutaiba,author of The Book of Poetryand Poets [Arabic],ed. M. GaudefroyDemombynes(Paris, 1947),is frequentlycited for his descriptionof the qafidaas a type of poem with sterotypicsections basicallyunrelatedone to another-as in A. J. Arberry,The Seven Odes: The First Chapter in Arabic Literature (London and New York, 1957), pp. 15-16

and H. A. R. Gibb, ArabicLiterature,2d rev. ed. (Oxford,1963),pp. 15-16 (in a generaldiscussionof the qafidaon pp. 13-31). See also ReynoldA. Nicholson,A LiteraryHistoryof the Arabs(Cambridge,1922),pp. 76-78, 134and 288;andA. J. Arberry,ArabicPoetry:An Introduction(Cambridge,1965),pp. 17-18. sec. 141b,pp. 272-75. Pagis,in his SecularPoetry,p. 143, 48. Mosesibn Ezra,Mubh4aara, holdsthat the Arabicoriginalsignifiesmore(unrelated)topicsthanlove. On Mosesibn Ezra's prefacingpraise of a friend/patronwith other topics, see Pagis, Secular Poetry, pp. 139, 172-74. 49. Yellin, Spanish (Hebrew) Poetics, p. 74.

50. IsraelLevin, TheGoldenAge [Hebrew](TelAviv, 1955),p. 142and Shmuelha-Nagid, pp. 115, 132;JefimSchirmann,HebrewPoetryin SpainandProvence[Hebrew](Jerusalemand Tel Aviv, 1961), 1: 47; Eddy Zemach,Ke-shoresh'e$ (Tel Aviv, 1973),pp. 170-71. 51. Pagis, SecularPoetry,esp. chap. 6, pp. 116-50.

174

DAVIDSEGAL

therehasbeensomereassessment of thedisunityof Arabic Alternatively, and, moreimportantto our concernshere,of medievalHebrew poetry52 poetry.Mirskyhas shownthat in a numberof poemsof friendshipof Shlomo ibn Gabirol and Yehudaha-Levi,patternsof recurringmotifs and roots, and in some cases, patternsof allusion form a like phenomenon; the major figure in the first componentof the compound poem-be that figurea sorceressor a handsomeyoung man or an attractiveyoung woman who is the objectof lavishpraise-is the veiledprefigurationof the personage to whom the "body"of the poem is addressed.5Yael Feldmanshows a like patternin compoundpoemsof friendshipof Moses ibn Ezra,a pattern wherebythe implicitlinkageof the friend/patronwith a centralfigurein the firstsection is such that the superiorityof the friend/patronto that figureis emphasized.54 In the analysisbelow, the writershowsan underlyingsystemof cohesion operativein threemartialpoems of Shmuelha-Nagid:the personalfrustrations and griefsexpressedby the poet in the first and seeminglyunrelated sectionof the compoundpoem are resolvedsupralogicallyin the second,as he imposes upon his foes the anguishthat has been his and undergoesa complete reversalof mood from gloom to joy.

"Levavibe-qirbibam" or "My Heart Is Hot Within Me" does indeed appearto consist of two sharplydisparatesections,recallingthe "mosaic" style of the Arabicqafida.In the first section, ss. 1-15, the Nagid laments the ruinof Zion at the handsof Edom;in ss. 16-37 he describesa victoryin Muslim Spain over a rebel against his monarch,Badis of Granada.The linkagebetweenthe two sectionsseemspurelylocal,typicalof that medieval Hebrew poetic stylistic termed tiferet ha-ma'avar-"the elegant transition."55The Nagid seemsto have abandonedtotallythe subjectandconcern of section one.

52. See, for example, Raymond Scheindlin, Form and Structure in the Poetry of Al-

Mu'tamidibn'Abbad(Leiden,1974),especiallyhis Introduction(pp. 1-30) andnotes9, 10and 19; and Hamori,On the Art, esp. chap. I on the pre-Islamicqavida,pp. 3-30. 53. Aharon Mirsky, "The Structureof FriendshipPoems" [Hebrew],Sinai 81 (1977): 103-28. 54. Yael Feldman, On the Questionof the Poetic Cohesion of Poems of Moses ibn Ezra [Heb-

rew], M.A. diss. HebrewCollege(Brookline,Mass.), 1976. 55. Mosesibn Ezra,Mubadara,fols. 141v-144v(includesprescriptionson a poem'sopening stich), pp. 272-81.

THREE WAR POEMS OF SHMUEL HA-NAGID

175

The text of the poem, accordingto the Jardenedition (DSH), follows:

ntgn

,nyln'l

o

93H'

a

,r-im1ftivnn tin r2m ,Immn1 T

":

;"

T

:

TT

:

T

imX nnnn ,n•')1Yl ir 1m i.S n ri

v ,nv

v

n

,nvent ru11pn rrs2 m 125t1p 1 p nrn2I inpt 1,'1t7 -et bips Lrvrl ', 71 i) nmn11

r•v1

v

,

-

T: ni"t7 T: :

T

:

i

T "TV": T

.: "

--na

" "

-

:

T : T T:

~--: 5~f,"T---pL ": t

-

i'

T T

-T

T:

TT

?nuen

T:

T

j" V . -TzT T -

0

99

T

i

T

T:

"

0nl 741.n 7

.'q T

-

ai nuatllnn! ni3 yluninx1-n ,nYtia

A -

Ern

T

":

T:

tnlna

,nu-iV-n

fp1'01tn,1

TT-:

'T?

MInn

lnb

,p

a

"M1,n

:

ST :

TT: TT-: T T-:

, "nytiV3

T:

T

nn .16

n

.

"" :

:-:

T

-:

"T"

is

-

:

:

TT-:

:

T

"1

"I

Mn

; :

o.

*T-:

M

T...o:

T: O

--

T*

.:

:

0

.*. - :

"

:T

:

,n1nt3 I nEl0I InN1V -

T

oT

T:

T .:

TT

S

TT

S

: oT- .o..*.:T ": To: T - :

,nI=sa

-

:

m

"

:-- :

.

;

:

"

18

T T T-:

tob

J qltl

1n1ly -.

on

:

.

:

T

..:

T

T

:

: --

-

? -na-

12001

25

I.tn :

176

DAVIDSEGAL * ? , .

-

:T

..

.

*r ~ --

"

'-

-

:

:

r i

-

:

":

-

i bt

; :

'

d11

'

in

nbin"

T:T:

S: i :

T

..

,T

:

al

'fo

na

T

: :

n

: a

?.

1

T

n I-l

T T

.

TT T: T:T T

--T

;%

T

:"

T

:

T

T

S-T:

-T-:

Ill

"

xVi --

1611"n T

J --

i T:

T

"T

6TE" V6. "

-

"

-toTT n

:

T --:

T

4,= inarfm3 7: I : T

The poem may be summarizedas follows:in the firstsection,the Nagid expressessadness and longing for the Leviticalcities of his forebears(1). He yearnsfo see Jewishpilgrimsstreamingfromthe Exileto MountZion (2, 3), wherethe young men andwomenof Jewishsocietyredeemedwill display the splendorof virtuousliving,untaintedby immoralbehavior(4-7). Zion, however,lies in enemy hands-inaccessible, wastedand desolate(8-9). At this sight the poet mourns bitterly(10-11), calling upon God to see His people's degradation, restore them, and bring down their ancient foe

(12-15). In the second section, linked to the first by a transitionverse (16), the Nagid describesthe effortsof a formerally of his monarch,and a relativeas well, to seek refuge in a fortress(16-17). The fortress is besieged, with attendanttumult,bloodshed,carnageand looting(18-26). The two alliesof the rebelliousfoe are taken, and he himselfflees and is captured(29-31). The poet then exultsin victory,praisesGod, dedicatesthe poem to Him and praysfor continuedsuccess(33-37). Viewedin accordancewith the sequential model of martialpoetry, the second section can be seen as comprising the following:a briefintroductionof the backgroundof the conflict(16-17); the martialnucleus,here substantial(18-31); and a conclusionwith praise of God (32-36) and petition (37). Despitewhat appearsto be thejoining togetherof two disparatepoems, there are actuallymany and subtlelinkageswhich make the work far more unified than at first appearsto be the case. The firststichof sectiontwo (16) containsa doubleepithetdescribingthe Nagid's foe: ba'al meri va-'ahtimelekh,"the rebel and king's kin." Now

177

THREE WAR POEMS OF SHMUEL HA-NAGID

suchdoublingis not unusualin thecontextof thispoem:thestichsabound at or complementary, albeitprimarily in pairedterms,eithersynonymous thatthisverbalfeatureis almosta theendsof theverses.Yetit is noteworthy duplication of what appears in s. 13: va-'ahbot'uv ba'alat boibve-labba'at-

"thesisterof Uz is possessorof ornamentand ring."To emphasizethe close relationship,let us juxtaposethe two phrases,renderingthe firstmoreliterally: ba'al meri va-'abimelekh

the possessorof rebellion andbrotherof the king

va-'abot 'uS ba'alat bobzve-labba'at

the sisterof Uz is possessorof ornamentandring.

In both versesthe enemiesdescribedarepossessorsand siblings. Stich 21 revealsanotherlinkagebetweenthe two sections and the two enemies. The Edomites-i.e., Christians-who control the Holy Land are gloriouslyattired,while Judah(the people of Israel)is naked(13); and in s. 21, nobles who previouslywere gloriously attiredare cloaked in blood: minkesut/ ha-lote'enafki batyehudah'arummah va-'abot'uSba'alathbobve-tabba'at(s. 13).

We have here a doubleentendre,metulla'atmeaningat once "clothedin scarlet"and "bloodied."It would seem,then, that the enemyof sectiontwo is sufferinga punishmentappropriateto the enemyof sectionone-the "sister of Uz" who possesses"ornamentand ring"whilethe daughterof Judah is "naked of garment."To proceed furtherin this vein, the phrase 'adat ramim,"the company of the haughty"(21), recalls the descriptionof the enemyin sectionone, tadur'alei 'ash(12), "dwellingabove the stars"(literally, "the Great Bear"). Furthermore,ss. 21 and 23, with referencesto arrowsemployedin the conquestof the foe, recalls. 15 whereinthe Nagid prays that God shower his foes with arrows! ve-haspehbavavekha be-voprahve-hashqehkhos le-teiman mele'ah mehamatakhve-sora'at(s. 15) ve-sarimlevusheishesh me'oddamme'oddamimbe-bes va-'adatramim bedamimmetulla'at(s. 21) ve-qamnuve-'alinule-roshobe-sullammin qeshatotu-ma'latzbe?le-lev rakh meyagga'at(s. 23).

178

DAVIDSEGAL

The plea in that same stich 15 that God force Yemento quaff"a cup of Your hot wrath, full and overflowing"anticipatess. 33: ve-haspehzbasayekhabe-voprahve-hashqehkhos le-teiman mele'ah mebamatakhve-sora'at(s. 15) 'ani 'esht kos yesha' ve-khos 'al yeshu'ati ve-hu yesht qiqalon u-voshet be-

qubba'at(s. 33).

The emergingpicturebecomes clearer.The enemy facing the Nagid is not merelya personalfoe but the archetypalenemyof Israel.This point is renderedexplicitlyin other poems;56here it is more subtly conveyed.Furthermore,the conquestof this enemyappearsto embody-by poeticlogicthe divine salvationlonged for so passionatelyin the first section of the poem. The foe ascendingabove the stars in s. 12 is trampledunderfootin s. 26; and it is the Nagid and his forceswho ascend-a "ladderof bows and a stairwayof arrows." 'elohim ha-la'ad ta'aleh bat 'edom tadur 'alei 'ash u-vat siyyon be-lev yam

meshuqqa'at(s. 12) ve-qamnuve-'alinule-roshobe-sullammin qeshatotu-ma'latbe$ le-lev rakh meyagga'at(s. 23)

In s. 8 the lion Edomroarsand locks the Jewsout of the Holy Land;in section two, especiallyss. 16-18, he is himselflocked in his fortress,a prisoner. In contrast with the (prayedfor) jubilant singing of the redeemed pilgrimsin ss. 2 and 3, and the triumphantshoutsof the Nagid'stroopsin s. 22, and thejubilantsingingof the Jewishcommunityin s. 36 in theend-the foe shouts in death agony in s. 26. In the sphereof allusion, the patternof "measurefor measure"is still furtherattested.Stich9 speaksof the adversaryhavingwrestedthe beautiful

56. As for example in #4, pp. 16-26, where the foe is identified with, or likened to, various foes of Israel: Amalek-ss. 43, 47; Arabs/Ishmael-ss. 14, 102; Babylonia-ss. 19, 70; Edom-s. 71; Egypt-s. 41; Moab-s. 45; Midian-s. 86; Philistines-ss. 14, 102; and foes of Israel in general-ss. 56, 79. Also #7, p. 33, s. 31: #9, p. 36, ss. 12, 13, 15; and cf. Gerson D. Cohen, Sefer Ha-Qabbalah by Ibn Daud: The Book of Tradition(Philadelphia, 1967), p. 277 and n. 86.

THREE WAR POEMS OF SHMUEL HA-NAGID

179

ornamentsfromthe Temple(literally:"thewall").This wrestingfroma wall recallsLeviticus14:34-40, whichdetailsthe treatmentthat is to be tendered walls of houses consideredleprous:"Then the priest shall command that they take away [baleyu-the same verb as "wrested"in s. 9] the stones in which the plague is and they shall cast them into an uncleanplace without the city." This allusion explains the significanceof s. 17 of our poem: Hethoughtto escapewithhislifein hisstronghold/ but he enteredit anda cursestuckto it likeleprosy. And appropriately,the Nagid, a Levite if not a priest, has the stones removed-but not for purposesof cleaning or replacement! Two key words in theirrepetitionsthroughoutthe poem, heartand eye, lev and 'ayin, reveal the "measurefor measure"punishmentof the foe mentionedabove. The Nagid's heartburnsand his eye weepsin longing(1); he sees in his mind's eye the ruinedTemple(10); his eye tremblesand his heart groans as though it were cleft by the spear of an enemy (11). In section two, the Nagid's eye enjoys seeing his craven opponent's forces appear as small as grasshoppersand worms (18)-and he sees his own troops triumphant (22). The foe flees with heart "agitated and melted"(29), havinggone mad becauseof what his eye had seen done to his comrades(31). Even words employed only twice contributeto this patternof reversed the affliction.In s. 12 the "daughterof Zion"is "plungedinto (meshuqqa'at) heartof the seas";in s. 28 the feet of a foeman are "plunged(meshuqqa'at) into stocks." In conclusion, the actual enemy of Shmuelha-Nagid in section two is identified with the composite enemy of Israel responsiblein section one for the destructionof the Temple, the Exile and the prevention of the Jewish return;and through a "measurefor measure"punishmentof this foe, the Nagid experiencesan exaltationof spirit that supralogicallyconstitutes that very salvation and vengeanceprayed for but not attainedin section one. III. "Zekhorlibbi be-tuv"("In GoodDays, 0 My Heart, Remember") Like "Levavibe-qirbibam" ("My Heart Is Hot Within Me"), "Zekhor libbibe-luv"appearsat firstsight to be a poem of disparatecomponents:the firstsection(1-17) comprisesan anxiousconfessionof sin and the secondis

180

DAVIDSEGAL

a martialpoem of clearlydefinablesections:exhortationon the inscribing and disseminationof the poem (18-21); a descriptionof the war and the resultantvictory(22-32); sententiae(33, 34);praiseof God for His deliverance (35-39) and dedicationof the poem to God (40-44); and praiseof the poem (44-50). One mighteven questionthe indispensabilityof the last-cited section (44-50) to the martialpoem (18-32). Certainly,the relationshipof the first section of the compoundpoem to what follows, withoutattention to the stylisticfeaturesof the Nagid's poetrytouchedon thus far, would be far from clear. The text of the poem follows: T

iv iftln T T mnu;n !inim T

#0

JA

T:T:

"

:

*T

T :

T

:

L ~,fK~l

61n

T

T

..*

:

"

n nt ,ri~n

" ON 'I 61TD [M=1MI -

'~lsti

61M -:

TT:

mnsi

.

T

61:),iv

ninn'n

?,n

IIAMVI "pnII?-

. " '

t

n.

v ??;ftl .

. m

!

T

T

T

T "

T T

.

T T

T T • TT~ ' T

ra

-ni' T T..

u

nnu

.

.

Tn"2ivn -T.. ' i M02 11

'~

-- .

I :

TT:

. .itn .

T..-

T.V

.7

-: "T -rTT

60

-:)

--.

ftr ni'

."

T" biX T

nn

n

:ln .

...

T

T

imixit ?Annx

mq:

.?

o?

h-:

. --: -

T

:

..

-

HA-NAGID THREEWARPOEMSOF SHMUEL

181 :

7? IT T

:

T" :

T

TT:

7

i

.lrng afl gy)

S

:

-

,ni

ms

TT:"-- T

:

n)

InIM " TV ;'" 00

:..

'1rs2 T ?N,1121 ;I;,'"s an" T:

T

:0

:

:T"

::

:T

"

:

acltad

. ,Tra Tn, l 00 ,'-- 00 T;" T

T"

T

:

"

T

:

T -

0: T

"T

T-:

"

:

:-

TT:

i 6i101 6103m abin :

T

T

TT:

:T

T T:T:-

. TT

TT:

T:

":

TT:

:T

:

":

-TT T

T:T

:T

T

I

":

T

T T T

:

"

T'

T

T

*

TT

T:

:T

":-:

: To "9 :

T"

T

:

:

TT

-

:

T~Y oT~~i

-

T

.

,'~la

T: T*

TT: T :

S*T"

T

:T

TT:

..T

T

:

""

T:

":

182

DAVID SEGAL

T

T

.:

T"7:"V"T-%

. :-

l

o

fl

?

t 1

m -

r5

~

i

a

sM n7 i t ~i t

.

-i

U

iY

5 0

The contents of the poem might be summarized as follows: in section one, the Nagid adjures himself to keep in mind old age and its reminders to fear sin (1, 2), acknowledging his present sinfulness (3, 4) and his fears as to what reward awaits him on his fixed day of death (5-9). Friends' expressions of astonishment at his fear, in light of his many goodly acts to his people (10-13), the Nagid scorns (14), for he knows how he has recompensed God's good treatment with evil behavior (15-16); yet withal, he resolves to trust God who has bestowed largesse upon him gratis (17)-and herein the poet hints at the topic to be embarked upon in the very next stich. The Nagid begins section two by instructing Yehosef to copy the victory poem and send it on to Jerusalem (18-21), informing all of how the boasting foe, confident at the outset, retreated in shamed silence to fortifications in the face of the onslaught of the Nagid's troops (22-26). Foiled by God for being scoffers, they were forced to hear and obey the foe they had just disregarded and witness the devastation of their land (27-29). The formerly powerful enemy nation sank impotently to ignoble defeat (30-32). Following two maxims-one on the sure fall of a person with a wounded leg (33) and the other on the efficacy of forcing double returns from robbers (34)-the poet thanks God for having aided him in time of severe danger and having cut down his foe, giving the latter over to the Nagid as fatted lambs were handed over to priests in Temple times (35-39). The poet starts the final section by dedicating the poem to God, who provided him with plenty, renewed his youth and saved him; to Him he offers mellifluous and artfully constructed song recalling David's psalms (40-45). Its declamation shall bring joy to the people and rejuvenation to the desert (46). While earth may know arid seasons, the poem shall never lose its freshness (47). It shall shed light and joy (48), be recited in holy places and at weddings (49) and shall be sung (in the Messianic era) when the Jews, redeemed, march up to Zion (50). Close reading soon makes evident the fact that here, much as in "Levavi be-qirbi bam," we have the presentation of a deeply felt personal problem that is obliquely "resolved," as may be seen by tracing recurring roots and motifs: the poet sees himself as hopelessly stained by sin in section one; in the martial nucleus of the poem it is the foe who is implicitly presented as sinful, and the Nagid associated with divine judgment and priestly purity. In

THREE WAR POEMS OF SHMUEL HA-NAGID

183

the poem'sconclusion,the Nagid'soriginaldeficiencies-intheirparticularity!-are reversed, as is the initial mood of gloom. Below, major motifs and roots exemplifying these and related progressions are listed: Here section I refers to ss. 1-17; II, to the martial nucleus (22-32) and the preceding exhortation to Yehosef (18-21) and attached sententiae (33, 34); and III to the dedication/praise to God (40-45) and praise of the poem (46-50). 1. Writing: In I the Nagid's sin is written (ketuvah-4) on his forehead and his murky fate written (nikhtav-7) in his book; in II Yehosef is adjured to set down in writing (ha-ketivah) on a smooth scroll (18) the Nagid's victory; in III the Nagid's poem is the acme of beauty, likened to finely carved, chiseled and trimmed materials (44, 45). 2. Mouth and Speech: At first the Nagid's mouth (peh) testifies against him (3); in II the foe boasts and then is forced to fall silent (23); in III the Nagid's poem is to be placed in redeemed Jews' mouths (be-fi-50) and be sweet upon the lips of reciters. 3. Sinfulness: I is replete with the Nagid's confession and consciousness of his sin. In II his intended audience, the Jerusalemites, are described as those whose sin is forgiven (21); and the enemy is depicted as implicitly sinful-speaking arrogantly (23) and scheming like scoffers (27). In addition, by the end of II the Nagid, in a bold metaphor, imaginatively identifies himself with the priestly class, the recipients of the offerings of Israel (including, of course, sin offerings)-as God gives him the enemy's flesh as his due (38, 39). Finally, in III all mention of sin is far removed indeed. The song of the Nagid is much the opposite of tainted: psalm-like (43), it is to be sung by the redeemed Jews ascending to Zion (50). 4. Judgment: In I the Nagid fears his final judgment (3, 9); in II his forces, like Noah's waters (26) implicitly constitute the execution of judgment upon the foe, and the Nagid likens his action to the rendering of biblical judgment (34). 5. Provisions: Concerned about inadequate spiritual provisions in I (9), the Nagid in II sees his foes deprived of actual provisions (25, 32) and in III is himself sated with good and with salvation (41-42). 6. Youth (n'r) and Good (twb): At the poem's outset (1) good times (be-Juv, be-tovah) are dissociated from youth (no'ar); at the poem's close (41) the Nagid's mouth is sated with good (be-tuv) and his youth (ne'urim) renewed. 7. Day (ywm): In I, the days (yemei) of youth are censured (1) and the Nagid

184

DAVID SEGAL

fearsthe day (yom)of judgment(3) as well as his (final)day (ve-yomi-5, be-yomi-6); in III the day (yom)of danger(35), throughGod's rescue, becomes the equivalentof a festive day (yom-38). 8. Love ('hb):In I the Nagid is undeservingof the largesseof his God, who acts lovingly (ke-'ohev-16); in II he is worthy of sendinga missiveto Jerusalem(21);in upright,loving ('ohev)dwellersof beloved(ha-'ahuvah) III he predicts the recitationof his paean in holy places, under the weddingcanopies of beloved ('ahuvah)brides (49). 9. Journeying(hlk):In I the Nagid speaks, in anxious tones, about going ('elekh-9) on his finaljourney;in II he and his troops go (be-lekhtenu) to devastatethe foe and his land (24); in III the Nagid's poem illumines the night for those who go (holekheiderekh)upon the way (48). In summation,the claims made on the poem's behalf are at the same time self-consolation,in the deepestsense:in the very writingof the poem the Nagid has, as it were, lit his own path and gladdenedhis soul. Put otherwise:if the Nagid felt hopelesslymarredby sinfulnessat the outset,following the war and his perceptionthereofas presentedin the poem, he felt himselfpurged-so muchso as to havepenneda psalm-likepoemworthyof recitationfor his contemporariesand in the Messianicera. IV. "Ha-'e'evornabalei'einai"("ShallI StemtheStreamsof My Eyes?") "Ha-'e'evornabalei'einai"("Shall I Stem the Streamsof My Eyes?"), titled "Tehillah"(Praise),is readilydivisibleinto two basicsegments,eachin turnsubdividable.Sectionone (1-14) presentsthe Nagid'sgriefover Zion's ruin(1-7) and a descriptionof the nightsky (8-14), the two beinglinkedin the traditionof the nasib,the love complaintof Arabicpoetry,whereinthe tormentedlover,havinglooked upon the remainsof the encampmentof his departedmistress,spendsa sleeplessnightregardingthe heavens."After a transitionalstich (15), the martialpoem ensues,comprisingan accountof a militaryvictory (16-48) and consequentpraise of God (49-56). To renderyet more evident, as it were, the division of this compound poem into its basicsegmentsthe Nagid has bracketedthe firstsectionwitha combination (or inclusion): "Shall I stem the root-repetition-word-play streams of my eyes and rest (ve-'anubah)when the sons of Hamath 57. On the nasib see Hamori, On the Art, pp. 13-19, 37, 71 and 136-38 and notes. See also Arberry, Arabic Poetry, pp. 42-43, ss. 1-3 and pp. 38-39, ss. 1-4; and Ratzaby, "The Love Poetry," p. 162, #20.

185

THREEWARPOEMSOF SHMUEL HA-NAGID

[Arameans] have taken possession of Hamath and Janoah [Levitical cities]?" (1); " . . . while the congregation of fools are good-heartedly at rest [u-vi-menubah]"(14).

This stylistic featureof setting apart the first segment of a compound poem is the morestrikingin that both poemspreviouslyconsideredexhibita like bracketing.Poem#9's firstsection(1-15) is bracketedby the wordplay bam(hot) and Ilamat (the samecity to be mentionedin #31, s. l!) in s. 1, and me-bamatakh(of Your hot wrath)(15); the first section of #22 is bracketed by forms of the root twb (good): be-tuv(in good days), be-tovah(in good times) (1) and be-metiv ii (in Him who has ... done good to me) (17).58

The text of the poem follows: --

-

T

T. : T T

TT::

-T

"

":

T

T

T

"

":

"

T

:

"

T"

%.T...

TT

-

T--:

""

T

T T "4 : " ,'II'ImI ':1'• '•":

a ..Inn .. ..mo noln.:pos ? .: l'rn ~~y ~rtn mnw,~ ntai~ .. .. T

nulb.

:)I

.T

T..

:

-

p"Im

7wfxl

:

10-m

wt

mm

U17

n

T

nifl7n1

T

T

*T

.

.

.-:

ni"Int T lS1"11" . .'1

:: V

T

~nivn

-:

T T-:

T

f T

TT-

TT'.:

:

T

:

T

Tnn

T

t

r :

T V T T:

".:titm T

': "

--

""

:

":

T

"

-

: " T: -

58. Otherinstancesof bracketingof initialsegmentsof compoundpoemsby repeatingroots and/or word play (discountingprepositions)in war poems(#1-#40 in DSH) includethe following: #16, pp. 52ff., ss. 1 and 8-"ve-gadelu ke-migdalim"("toweredlike towers")and "godlo"("His might");#26, pp. 85ff., ss. 1 and 22, "be-lorish"("withoutdestitution")and "horish"("has left as legacy");#27, pp. 89ff., ss. 1 and 60- "peh"("mouth")and "u-feh" ("anda mouth");#39, pp. 134ff.,ss. 1 and 22, "panim"("face")and "u-fanim"("andface"); and #41, pp. 143ff.,ss. 1 and 19, "zeman"("time/fate")and "zemani"("my time/fate"). The close scrutinyof this bracketingstylisticin the worksof the Nagid and othermedieval Hebrewpoets and its comparisonwith the phenomenonof inclusionin biblicalpoetryis a desideratum.

186

--

a

Ini

My :TT

:n*avy rl T

DAVID SEGAL

T

T T"

Tr: :

n- a, T

.nna TT:

T

T::

T:

T T

o . :

OT

TT

IIq

Y

eli

..

T: ":

ill

,n5

,0w

;wt

TT

"

" : T:

T

:

T T:

nvt

in

TT

:

T-

-vqaqm

T0

: n'1fu'

n.T

=61n

5=)

o-

T: T

ona9

:

unt

m

T

: T

T

-

T :

T

T

T

sonw,, T-

':

i#0

nyn1 T

awnt

:

":

.

r

-

: "

"

tun ai ninx17Z6

n n.

v

T

T

0fl?

T:%T: "

o

i

:

on0

y n ,qo5i

TT

-:

:

p

:

Arif

T:

5

:-:

a9=6161noi

:

n

'

T

1- an0EV T

--:

"

y UPQ9ZV

,,

:

T

to

TT

an ,nnimtnn

TT:

on

rp

TT : T

,:nnan pt .sirn-oi

-i

T T

T":

TT T "

T-

-wNirivnno : :-

T"

: :

)'

e

ift

T

T::-Tv

wi

zf

w,tw. 15

spq

. -:

I

O gfi

-!

T

:

415m

-TT

TT.:

.n:

no g

ftif

T T:

T :T

".: T

,23"1 * T

l1

:

unt iumn nt An

v

T

in0

t3,95

.MfT T:

:

..

T-:

,n g T

:

bf py al Ti "--: "T

")

T

O? ,91f

.bnmn5 " TT ,1MnDl T

nr

T: T

: "

T

poi ;,nfgTf

T

wniu

n

0 ,'0'*?1*

pi.

"

":-:

bynnippn .~ng TT

9 lang

fl

:--:

n

O

Mil

\T:

"

n

12nt

T"

aVX

:

t)"I

-

:

T

"r

"

"

"

T

:

4N

30

THREE WAR POEMS OF SHMUEL HA-NAGID

T: TT:

T : "*T%

T

: u.v* -T - :

;I

to ..

:

"*

" :T7--:

--?

--

T

:

"

"V

"- "7"*:

" --

"""

T :

" T

,, 'l

m ? u"M

no --m T

..TTT

""ru

*.TlT : "" T TT

T:

187

61m; oil `o6#1107nit) i'•'fly _n91

n•x612x , 9C.•

nnthough thepoemislesstightly interloked thantheothertwo.Attentiveness T

T

TT:

:

T

"T:

:

T

-

T

:

:

T

T

T ".--:

Primary motifs relating to this scheme are weeping/mourning and joy; terriT

T

T:

-

T

T0

destructionin the first section;i.e., the two foes are perceivedas one. As was the case with both poems consideredabove, "Shall I Stem the Streamsof My Eyes?"displaysmore unity than is at first apparent-d #22: theven theheart a tory; family ties; (sy); andthan (lbb). Furthermore, the poem islife; lessspeech the other two. Attentiveness though tightlyinterlocked to recurringroots and shared motifs reveals that the calumny and grief imposed upon the Nagid's foes in section two is a punishment for Zion's imposed upon the Nagid's foes in section two is a punishmentfor Zion's destruction in the first section; i.e., the two foes are perceived as one. Primarymotifs relatingto this schemeareweeping/mourningandjoy; territory; family ties; life; speech (sybt);and the heart (lbb). Furthermore,a numberof themestouched upon in the portraitureof the heavensprefigure themesdevelopedlaterin the poem, such as the obedienceof a son, feet and the figureof the deer, and the cup. The sectionsof the poem shall be indicated herein a fashionsimilarto thatemployedin discussing#9 and #22:the first segment of this compound poem shall be called I, comprisingthe Nagid's grief over Zion (lA: 1-7) and the descriptionof the night sky (IB: 8-14). The martial nucleus (15-48) shall be II; and concludingpraise of God (49-56), III. The above-citedmotifs and recurringroots follow.

188

DAVID SEGAL

1. Weeping/mourningand joy: At the outset the Nagid weeps copiously over Zion'sruin(1), groaningand lamenting(7). In II,joy attachesto the troops of the Nagid (21); conversely,the lamentsof the enemy'swives (anticipated)are mentionedin taunts hurled at the foe, togetherwith mention of rites appropriateto mourning (27-28). In addition, the enemytroopsshriekin distress(21) and are satedwith grief(45). Finally, in III, the Nagid is jubilant (45), indeedto the point of nearlyexpiring (52). 2. Territory:In I, exiledZion'sterritoryhas beenseizedby Arameans(1-3); in II the foe is forced to flee held territory(the plain) for the mountains (23-24); in III the Nagid says he will spreadthe newsof his victory to all points of the compass,parallelingGod's deliveryof him "east and west" (55-56). 3. Family Ties: In I Zion is a woman divorced(2-3), contrastedwith a placid heavenlyscene-the Great Bearwith her children(11); in II the foe's wives are referredto as widows in anticipation(27, 38); and in III, recalling the banishmentof the "daughtersof Zion" (2), "sons and daughters"will disseminatetidings of the victory (56). 4. Life:The poet despairsof life at the outset-"mah li be-bzayyim" (4); in II is because of his the foe, thoughalive (bayyim), accounteddead cowardice (42). 5. Speech (syb): When the Nagid speaks (ve-'asibah)in I (7), he is grieffilled. Quitethe reverseholds in II when the Nagid, with his men, speaks in mockeryat the cowardiceof the foe (24) and their empty out (sahbnu) boasts (34); finally, in III the Nagid's tongue, praisingGod, is like a sword (49). 6. Heart:The griefof the Nagid'sheart(libbi-7) and the good-heartedness (joy, be-luv-levav-14)of evildoersin I are balancedin II by the foe's folly of the heart (be-libbah-22) and faintheartedness(rakh-levavo33). In III, where almost exactly the same idiom appears as in s. 7-"ve-'asim 'aleilibbi"(I take [this]to heart)-the Nagid statesthat he notes God's daily deliveranceof him-'asim 'alei libbi (54). As has been noted above (p. 24), thereare in IB at least threeprefigurations of later scenes in the poem: 7. Obedienceof a Son: The description,in IB, of Orion as a foolish son (ben) breakingaway wronglyfrom his star-clan(10) at once prefigures the Nagid's warningto his son (beni)Yehosefto walk on the rightpath

THREE WAR POEMS OF SHMUEL HA-NAGID

189

(15) and his descriptionof the foe as one who despisesthe obligationsof legal treaties(48). 8. Feet and Deer: The descriptionof the Pleiades as caperinglike a roe (ka-'ayyalah)albeit with no feet (regel)(12) at once prefiguresthe flight of the foe to their mountain retreat like stags (ka-'ayyalim)and the sure-footedness(ragli) of the Nagid in victory (53). 9. Cup: The depiction of the stars as being colored like wine-filledcups (kosot-9) prefiguresthe cups (kosot) of salvation tenderedthe Nagid (50). In a patternmarkedlysimilarto the one we have seen in poems #9 and #22 above, #31, a compoundpoem, presentsan initialsectioncharacterized by frustrationand grief, and that in a situationthat seems to admit of no remedy.This complaintis followed by a martialpoem whereina processof catharsistakes place, a process highlightedby recurringmotifs and roots: the foe of the first section is metamorphosedinto the enemy of the second; and that second foe's shamingnot only leads to a reversalof the Nagid's mood and consequent praise of God, but is taken as poetic justicerenderingretributionto the ravagerof Zion. V. Summary This studyhas shownthat thecategoryof warpoemsof ShmuelHanagid can admita subcategoryof "martialpoems"-those poems that actuallycite or describemilitaryactivity, however briefly.This categorylends itself to description,in part,along the lines laid out by D. Pagisin his categorization of the poetry of Moses ibn Ezra. The nuclear component, that citing/ describing battle, is at times prefaced by an introduction containing, variously,(A) praiseof God, or confidencein Him, or supplicationand/or (B) a descriptionof military-politicalconditions leadingup to battle. It is often followedby suchconcludingcomponentsas furtherpraise/dedicationof-the-poem to God, praise of the poem or self, exhortation as to the poem's disseminationand/or use, or final petition. Also, in compound poems, the martialsegmentis often prefacedby segmentsof other genres. Attendingto the variedcomponentsof the martialpoem-especially as they appearin typicalor frequentsequences-brings home its affinityto the psalmicgenresof the hymn and personalthanksgiving,each of whose discreteand typicalcomponentsare variouslymirroredin manymartialpoems of the Nagid. This fact strengthensthe argumentof those who would either

190

DAVID SEGAL

identifythe warpoemsof the Nagid as beingthe sameas, or a majorrepository of, the poems of the much-debatedcorpus Ben Tehillim. Threecompound-martialpoems have been studiedhere;all three have beenshownto be markedlysimilarin theircomponentsandin theirpatterns of overallcohesion.All beginwith deep-feltgriefand frustrationoverseemingly insolubleproblems-personal sinfulness(#22) and Zion's ruin(#9 and #31); and all pass on to apparentlyunrelatedtopics, these being military triumphs of the Nagid. Yet, when the language whereby these same triumphsare describedis scrutinized,it becomes apparentthat the Nagid has in each instanceperceivedhis victoryas, in effect,a supralogicalresolution of his dilemma:while the poet does not openly state that victoriesover princelingsof Andalusiacan in anyway redeemZion or whitewashhis sinful record,this is, in effect, what these three poems suggest.59 The unityof eachpoem has beenattestedprimarilyby the densityof root repetitionand motif repetition,and that in similarpatternsof reversalof mood and situationof both the Nagid and his imaginativelyfusedfoe. Such a pattern argues for genuine linkage ratherthan randomor insignificant repetition,and this argumentis bolsteredby the demonstrationthat major elementsof the same patternhold in three like martialpoems. To statethe aboveis not to claim"organicunity"in thesethreepoemsof the Nagid, or in his poetrygenerally,if by such a termone meansthe shaping of all of a poem'scomponentsby an underlyingfocus or dynamic,such that all progressions,all figuresof speech,all wordscan be seenas being(A) necessaryoutgrowths of such a conception or dynamic, and (B) tightly determinedby the other elements of the poem. Certainlyno attempt has been made-nor could it succeed-to show that every phraseis indispensable to a poem'smessage.On the otherhand,it has beenshownthatthereis operativea genuine and strong cohesion betweensegmentswithin martial poems-a cohesion that has heretoforegone unnoticed.To what degree such patternsof cohesion hold for other poems of the Nagid and Hebrew poets of Spain generallyis a topic for furtherresearch.

59. The student of Jewish historiography is referredto Cohen, Sefer Ha-Qabbalah, esp. pp. 223-303, where Cohen demonstrates from ibn Daud's work and primary Hebrew sources of Muslim Spain-particularly poetry (including poems by and to the Nagid)-that Spanish Jewish leadership viewed itself, and was itself viewed internally, as an active participant in the messianic process.

191

THREE WAR POEMS OF SHMUEL HA-NAGID

ADDENDUM A SECTIONSOF WAR AND NATURE POEMSRESEMBLING SECTIONSOF INDIVIDUALPSALMSOF THANKSGIVINGa

0 2

Call To God

Explicit Answer/ Rescue

12-69

70-81, 82-94

10-27, 45-57

58-60, 61-63

Pages

Praise

Danger

4-14

11

4

16-26

7-8

5

27

6

27-30

7

31-34

9

35-38

3 3-5

Calling Others to Praise

31, 44, 51, 95-131

137

143-149

8, 45, 66-131

115-119, 137-139

145-146

1-3

1,3

1, 3 (?)

(13-25), 53 22-25

21,26, 35-37 34-35

36

27

27

21-22

26-27

12

2

1

1-4

44-47

14

49

16

52-56

18 20

1, 14

34

55-56 35-37

11

13

16

Declaration of Praise

14-23

24-31

32-33

6-10

13

19

9

9-17, 25-39

9-25, 40,41

42-43, 57

57-61

1-4b

5-8, 37-40

9, 35, 36, 41, 42

46

62-65

27-28

29-30

29

40

35-36

19, 36, 37-43

40-43

22

29c 4

24

74-79

3

5, 6

36-38, 69-72

73

25

80-85

19-23b

23-43

44-58

59

aThis table lists 29 divan poems having sections that resemble typical sections of the individual psalm of thanksgiving. The first column lists the number of poem in DSH; the second column gives the page numbers of stich(s) cited; and the remaining columns indicate which stichs resemble typical sections of the individual psalm of thanksgiving-discussed in n. 34. bHere, self-adjuration to praise God. CHere,calling on others to pray by recitation of the poem itself.

192

DAVIDSEGAL

Pages

Praise

Danger

Call To God

Explicit Answer/ Rescue

26

85-88

20

21, 46

27

89-95

63-74, 77-84

65-88

29

96-99

11

36

30

100-3

32-35

17, 18, 20-22, 31, 36-38

31

103-8

33

109-14

35

117-21

37

125-27

38

128-33

14b

45-49

49-56

37-39, 41-44

40

3-10, 18-23

11-13, 16, 17

24, 25

12, 17-42

6, 7, 13, 37, 40-42, 62

63, 64

30

49-51

49-52

67-68

39

134-38

40

139-42

36-37

36

41

143-45

21

20

48-56

57

108 261-66

20-47

Calling Others to Praise

89-92, 98, 99

16, 49-53 64-65

5, 8, 9

Declaration of Praise

41-45

11

193

THREE WAR POEMS OF SHMUEL HA-NAGID

ADDENDUM B SECTIONSOF DIVAN POEMSRESEMBLING SECTIONSOF HYMNS* FORPRAISE OFGOD REASON(S)

Page(s)

Call to Praise God

God's Grandeur in Nature

God's Acts in Human Events

2

4

1

2-5

4

16

5

5-6

6

27-28

1,5

1-2

33

110-11

5-8, 13-19

7, 8, 19

35

117, 120

1-3, 49-51

1-3, 49-51

42-49

50-62

38

131-33

43

147-48

44

149

70

213

108

265

109

267

110

269

15-16

Concluding Praise

50

3, 7, 11-14 I 2-4, 6-9

4, 5, 7, 8

1(?)

2-6 55

54

18-19

21-28

24

1,3

*This table lists twelve divan poems having sections that resemble typical sections of the hymn psalm, which are the call to praise God; the reason for this-God's grandeur in Nature or divine acts in human events; and concluding praise. The first column lists the number of the poem in DSH; the second gives the page number(s) of the stichs cited; the remaining columns indicate which stichs resembles the typical sections of the hymn-type psalm-discussed in n. 47.

194

DAVID SEGAL

NOTE The translationsin AddendaC-E derivefrom the writer'sdissertation (citedin n. 33) with slightmodification.A literalrenderinghas beenthegoal here, albeit one that is neitherstiltednor unclear.Given the significanceof root repetition,as demonstratedin the analysesof the poems, stems that recurin the Hebreware representedby recurringEnglishstems, with rare exception:as "high"and "haughty"for the root rwmin #9, ss. 21, 31 and 32; and "path"for the root drkin #22, ss. 9, 48 and 50. Anothertranslation of #9 may be found in Weinberger,JewishPrince,pp. 54-56. Unpleasantas it is to fault the work of a fellow devoteeof the Nagid, it must be said that Weinbergeris frequentlyinaccurate.Thus s. 5's benotyeshurunis construed as "singingmaidens,"but can only meaneither"singingmaidensof Jeshurun [Israel]"or "princesses"(or: "noblemaidensof Jeshurun");s. 6, in the poem's context, must be construedas futureaction, not past;s. 7's description of the prince'sdaughter"who in the nut gardenplacedher fawn by a lily to be gatheredand planted"can in no way be supportedby the Hebrew text; ve-hinneh'arayotyish'agushamin s. 8 is not "beholdthe roaringlions who occupyit";the renditionof the (ongoing)subjectof description,in s. 9, as "she"ratherthan "it"-so renderedin s. 8-confuses the reader;and so on. A poetic versionof #9 by the writeris scheduledto appearin a future issue of HebrewStudiesunder the title of "'My Heart Burns'by Shmuel Hanagid:A ConsideredTranslation."For allusionsto, and illustrationsof, biblicalor talmudicusagesof wordsand phrasesappearingin the Hebrew, see DSH, pp. 35-38 (#9), pp. 67-70 (#22) and pp. 103-8 (#31).The phenomenonof overallallusionto particularpsalms,treatedin the writer'sdissertation-on pp. 177-78, 187-95 (#9), pp. 202-3, 212-22 (#22) and pp. 231-32, 239-47 (#31)-shall be dealt with in a later study.

ADDENDUM C "MyHeartIs Hot WithinMe" "Levavibe-qirbi baam" 1. My heart is hot within me and my dye sheds tears / for I yearn for Hamath and Mephaath[Leviticalcities; the Nagid was a Levite] 2. And [I yearn]to see the companyof Siryon[Israel]campingand traveling, / bringingto Moriah [Mt. Zion] clustersof nard with songs

THREE WAR POEMS OF SHMUEL HA-NAGID

195

3. And [see] the caravanof Lebanon[exilicJewry]upon Ariel [Mt. Zion] with the sound of singing/ scatteringbits of myrrhandcassiaas though planting4. At a time whenZion's young men in Zion, like the sun / shiningand beamingupon her spicebeds, 5. Shall behold the noble maidensof Jeshurun[Israel]with loving glance, / [behold]eyes painted with the kohl of God's deed6. Daughtersnot dishonoringtheirfathersthroughwantonness/ nor sons committingdishonor or deeds that are wanting. 7. And I long for the prince'sdaughterin the nut gardensetting/ gazelles over the rose, to pluck and to plant. 8. But lo, lions roarthere,preventingher / frompassingthroughor entering or touching [it]. 9. [It is] ruinedby strangers'hands,who have wrestedfrom the wall / of the fair-crested[Zion-i.e., the Temple]the open flowersand wreaths and knops. 10. When I view with my heart's eye my innermostTemple chambera ruinousheap / and the foundationstone swallowedup among [other] stones, 11. I lamentbitterly,with tremblingeye and I groanwith a ragingheart/ as though an enemy spear were cleaving my heart. 12. God, will the daughterof Edom ascend forever,dwelling/ above the GreatBear,whilethe daughterof Zion is plungedinto the heartof seas? 13. Will You not be angeredin that the daughterof Judah[Israel]is without garment,naked/ and the sisterof Uz [Edom-Christendom]possesses ornamentand ring? 14. Ariselike a lion fromhis thicketor like a leopardfrom/ his mountains, and lift high a hand outstretchedand known 15. And spend Your arrows in Basra [Edom] and make Yemen [Edom] down / a cup of your hot wrath, full and overflowing; 16. And I will laud you in song, like my song (anotherode) at the entering of / the rebel and king's kin.* 17. He thought to escape with his life in his stronghold/ but he enteredit and a curse stuck to it like leprosy. 18. We campedat its base;and in our eyes / his men in its towerswerelike grasshoppersand worms.

of Yehosef,DSH, p. 35. *Seesuperscription

196

DAVID SEGAL

19. My company was hewing asunderwith the sword of God / and his company was being hewn asunderwith the sword20. On a day when the heavensthunderedfromthe tumultof horses/ and the earth was moved and shaken from their racingabout, 21. Whenprincesclad in red-dyedlinen werereddened/ with arrows,and the company of the haughtycrimsonedwith blood 22. Here I saw the commotionof [a force] scattering[foes] and shooting/ and thereI heardthe cry of [a force]shoutingtriumphantlyand blasting [the horn]. 23. We rose up and ascendedto its summit on a ladder/ of bows and a stairwayof arrowswearyingthe faint-hearted, 24. And seat a highwayto their doors for every plunderer/ and entered their courtyardsas througha breachedcity. 25. We paintedthe earth with their blood / and made the ground cloven [or: valleyed]with the corpses of their rulers. 26. One walks and one's foot tramplesa body and a skull / and in one's ears, the souls of men thrust throughcry out. 27. [Onthe one hand]a grudge-bearer, an avenger,one ladenwith booty; / and [on the other hand]one groaningwith a draining,flowingwound. 28. There both his comradeswere taken, the one thrustthrough/ swiftly, the other's foot plunged into stocks. 29. Then he fled with heartagitatedand melted,like a fool flees, / heeding not [the king's] bidding and reprimand; 30. And one who runs away thinks that every tree seeks to kill him / and that every rock is a sword, chopping off his arm. 31. Then he escapedto a high and mighty ruler,with a soul / maddened from what his eye had seen befall his comrades. 32. From there we took him craftily and with a high hand / and pure counsel full of deliverance. 33. I drink a cup of deliveranceand a cup [of wine] over my deliverance/ while he drinkscontumelyand shame in a goblet. 34. My God, with swiftfoot I haveracedwithYou to / pits, my handon the hole of asps dallying. 35. And I have set You as my hope and my surety,for my soul / knowsand understandsYour glory and faithfulness. 36. I shall hymn You withjoyful lips in a vast congregation/ and company shouting praise, throughmy song, over Your goodness; 37. And so may my soul live, and forever / be aided and deliveredfrom travail and danger.

THREE WAR POEMS OF SHMUEL HA-NAGID

197

ADDENDUMD "Remember,0 My Heart" "Zekhorlibbi" 1. In good [days],O my heart,rememberold age and hoaryyears, / and do not rememberthe days of youth in good [days]; 2. For the one makes fearof sin attractiveto you / while the other makes sin and iniquity attractiveto you. 3. Have I a mouth with which to reply upon the day of judgment?/ My mouth will testify against my waywardsoul! 4. And shall I raisemy foreheadlike the righteous/ whensin is writtenon my forehead? 5. Or shall I rejoice in my many days? My day / will come upon me, though I live ten thousand! 6. And I know not if, on my [destined]day, a visitation/ will removeme before the time of lying down. 7. And who knows what is writtenin my book / when I wage wars with massed soldiery and troops. 8. And who knows, when I run to battles/ everyyear,if my deathbe not nearby. 9. And if I go without provisionson a path / far off, whitherdo I go? 10. Now my people and they who know me have said to me, / "Does the fear of your sin make your spirit sad? 11. "How manyrighteousacts haveyou amassedas opposedto [your]sin / and your soul has been good to so many! 12. "And how many hardshipsof those that have come upon your God's people / have grieved your generousnature! 13. "Indeed, were they weighed together-the scale / of your sins would near the stars!" 14. I answeredthem, "How can you comfort me vainly / when mine is a soul that contends with vain speakers? 15. "My heartis afire,for I have set it over / my soul, but it has deceivedme like Ziba.* 16. "God has done good to me like one who loves [me] / whereasit [my heart] has acted like one who acts hatefully. *2 Sam. 16:4, 19:25-27.

198

DAVID SEGAL

17. "ButI trustin Himwhohasfreelydonegoodto me / to pardonfreely that whichit [myheart]has sinfullycommitted." 18. Yehosef,takeyourpenandsetdownstraightly / on a smoothscroll,the writing; 19. Broadlywriteeach and everyletter/ even as my God let me stride broadlyin war. 20. InscribeallthatyourGoddidformysoul[me]/ andsendit to Metiva 21. Andinformeach[personthere]forgivenof sin anda lover/ [ofJerusalem]and a good dwellerin belovedZion. 22. Statethatwhenwe aroseto contendwith/ thosewhocameoutswiftly to contend[that] 23. Theyspokemostproudlyat first,but/ in theendweresilencedforthere was no reply. 24. Whenwe wentout to despoilthem,withsoldiery/ like sand,witha campbroadas the sea, 25. Theyfortifiedthemselvesin rocks,and theirland / we foundabandonedto prey-eaters. 26. We sweptthroughlikeNoah'swaters/ theirtowersbecominglike an ark for them. 27. Allthattheythoughtdidnotcometo pass,for/ Goddoesnotestablish scoffers'thoughts. 28. Indeed,a foewhoat theoutsetrefusedto listen/whenbroughtdownin the end, listenedand consented. 29. Seeinghisdwelling[lit.:tent]fullof scatterers / andhislandsurrounded by ravagers. 30. Thenshebecamea lowlykingdom/ whohadbeenthoughtthefirstof the nations; 31. Thenhis soul [he himself]becamepillageandcaptive/ who hadpillagedand taken[others]captive. 32. Hevomitedupthevainsweetshe hadeaten/ andwaswillingto eathis crustdry. 33. Now, as for anyonewho standson a woundedleg / waita bit:he will chooseto sit down; 34. Andif you liftyourarmagainsta thief/ hewillpaybackthethefttwofold. 35. MyGod,on thedayof danger,mysoulyearned/ forYourhelp,which restoresthe soul. 36. Yousawhowmylegandhandwereslipping,/ deathminglingwithmy life.

THREE WAR POEMS OF SHMUEL HA-NAGID

199

37. AndYouroseupto cutdownmyfoe withYourvoice,for / withYour voice the flameof foemenis cut down. 38. Youhauledhimto slaughterlikea lamb/ thickandfattedon a festive day. 39. And set my portionof his flesh/ cheeksand shoulderand maw. 40. To God,who filledhis landwithdesolation/ andfilledmy landwith fruitage, 41. And who satedmy mouthwithgood thingsandrenewed/ my youth and my primelike an eagle's, 42. AndsatedwithHissalvationmysoul,/ whichhadbeenhungryforHis salvation43. I wondrously producethishymnedspeechwhichshallbe / sweeton the the like lips song of David, 44. Carvenfrompearlsof speech/ andchiseledfromthe rockof golden utterance, 45. Deckedin garbof wordsand matter/ like the cornersof a trimmed palace. 46. Whenit is declaimed[lit.:liftedaloft]thepeopleshallrejoice/ andthe wastelandshallexultand blossomlikethe rose. 47. It shallbe moist,whendroughtandheatconsumethe waters/ of the heavens,whenrainsare shutup. 48. And it shallilluminethosewho go on pathsby night/ andgladden everypiningsoul. 49. And it shallyet be sungin the midstof God'smeetingplaces/ and beneaththe canopyof the belovedbride, 50. Andshallyet be set in themouthsof theredeemed, ascending / to Zion uponthe path.

200

DAVID SEGAL

ADDENDUME "ShallI StemtheStreamsof My Eyes?" "Ha-'e'egornahalei'einai" 1. Shall I stem the streamsof my eyes and shall I rest / when the sons of Hamath [Arameans-Christians] have taken possessionof Hamathand Janoah [Leviticalcities]? 2. Gebal [Edom-Christendom]dwells within Zion's bordersand within the Templeof the apparitionof the brightnessof / the divinePresencewhile the daughterof Zion is driven away. 3. Herhusbandregardsheras a divorcedwife,put away/ withouta bill of divorcementand forgotten. 4. Whathas life for me with no arknor arkcover,/ nor the splendorof the candelabrum,floweringwith almond-blossomedshapes? 5. The Templeand its porchesand the most holy place- / a strangefireis within it and the holy fire is removed, 6. And [removed]the magnificenceof the bases and capitalsand palm / trees resemblingpomegranates,they being ninety-sixon the outside. 7. I sit deprivedof sleep, while the uncircumcisedof heart sleep well; I groan, take [this] to heart and reflect. 8. I view the heavensover my head and the stars/ unfoldinglike a flower bed with buds, 9. Like flowers colored like cups of wine / most bright, having the fragranceof a spiced bundle of myrrh. 10. Orionas he restsin his chambersby himselflooks like a rebellious/ and foolish son turningaside from tribe and family, 11. And the Great Bear with her cubs looks like a woman cloaking/ her daughterswith compassion,and restingin a peacefulhabitation. 12. Swiftly and without legs the Pleiades circle the heaven's / compass daily, like a hind despatched. 13. Tirelesslythe zodiac runs to and fro while earth / is suspendedin the midst of the zodiac without a rope, yet does not sink low. 14. All these [heavenlybodies]are rightlyorderedfor those who turn from wrongand understandit [thezodiac], / while the congregationof fools are good-heartedlyat rest. 15. My son, walk the good path, for there is no good / except upon the good and uprightpath;

THREE WAR POEMS OF SHMUEL HA-NAGID

201

16. And heara wonderthatGod performedon a day /whenhatefulfoes spewed vain talk and incitement. 17. Chieftainsand marshallsand rulersweregatheredtogether/ princesof hosts and kingdoms,and every governor. 18. We came upon them with a companyswift to contend,one / girdingitself of old with firebrands,and flaming; 19. [A company]cursedwhen hatefulfoes recalledits deeds, / but praised when kings [our allies] heard of its bravery; 20. Theirsouls brimmingto wreakwrong,/ saturatingthe earthwith blood and making it bring forth and blossom. 21. When the contentiouscompanyheardtheir ringingshout it went very

they[too]shrieked[infear]. badlyfor them;/ hearingtheirshrieking,

22. They had said in their hearts,"I am one, and thereis none else besides me!"; / they were as naughtupon our coming and were drivenaway. 23. They were like lions spread out upon the plains; / they went up the mountainlike stags and skipped. 24. We said to them, "Is such the deed of a companyof men- / that on

hearinga reportof a[nother]companyof men,it flees?

25. "Pray,descendfromthe ridgesuntilwe make/ earthboil like a pot with princes'blood; 26. "Come,drawnearin battle, souls of the two combatants:/ one will cry out and his companion be gladdened. 27. "Come, we will make your wives weep silently and increase/ within your tents laceratedwomen with heads made bald, 28. "Until the regentof all the birdsand of all beasts/ lets loose a cry to all dwellingin the wastes and flying 29. "To come and lick the blood of nobles'corpses,each head / [marked] with a head wound or lopped off by the edge of the sword; 30. "To make nobles whom we had coveredwith worms / into a spread, like dung and refuse, 31. "To place chunks-not chunks of lambs-before / every bird in every nest and before every lion-cub in every pit." 32. Men who had becomea stenchto us-we madea stench/ of theirskin, they who had been scented and perfumed. 33. We woundedthemwith deedsand handlashes,not tongue-lashings- / for [only] the weak-heartedmakes bold with his mouth and prates. 34. We drewnearand on everyside they went up [retreated]but / whenwe were distant they gored [us] with the rod of the mouth.

202

DAVIDSEGAL

35. "Why do you hold forth so loftily and vainly, only / to refrainfrom contention and rebukewhen the truth comes? 36. "Whereare the lies you daubedwith your mouth?Here / is the battle and there is no substanceto your words. 37. "Beforeyour wives you speak a great deal, yet there are wives / who have husbandswho refrainfrom speakingwhen they come [home]. 38. "Shouterson the mountain top, descend; we will fill / your wives' mouths, [once] filled with laughterwith keeningand shouting." 39. We thunderedwith our voices but no voice replied,for / speechis no snare to a bird who has seen the site of the pit. 40. They were shamedand withdrew,filthy and abominable,/ more filthy and abominablethan any other group. 41. Theyweredisgracedwhenone saidto another,"Where,/ then, areyour words?"and the latter fell mute, resigned. 42. They withdrewslain, thoughalive, for therebe men / dead of shamethough they be not slain. 43. At timesa manwho has a hairybeardand thickheadof hair/ has beard and hair shaven from contempt; 44. At times a mancan walk about in good health-but have / his gall cleft with arrowsof mockeryin the gates. 45. Theirsouls werebrimmingwith grieffromcoveringtheirheadsbut / I, with head up, was glad and exultant. 46. This is the end of a communitythat declaimedbut did not perform;/ this is the end of a communitythat rode and prospered. 47. This is the last of a nation, their spirit fled; and this was the last / of [some of our] men who regardeddeathlike life and ease [whodied willingly]. 48. Thuslyeveryviolatorof a covenantshallwithdrawby day [openly]/ for they rejectedwhat was statute, they forgot and abandonedlaw. 49. Lo, my tongueis a sharpsword:to Him who so rewards/ my soul I now begin to sing. 50. I begin and close with praisefor the God of deliveranceover / cups of deliverancethat I give [others]*and take [myself]* 51. Over the deliverancethat was sweet and pleasant,/ superiorto every deliveranceof mortal men.

*Jarden's explanation, DSH, p. 107.

THREE WAR POEMS OF SHMUEL HA-NAGID

203

52. Had it not been for God supportingmy spirit / it had flown, had fled for very excess of joy and gladness. 53. I declaim,I prosperin my song, for my path [of conduct]/ steadiedmy legs and prospered-them on the day of battle. 54. I take to hearthow God performswondersfor me daily- / I observe,I look well. 55. And even as I am saved daily in east and west / so I shall laud Your hand in east and west; 56. And songs [lit.: daughters of song] for the mouths of sons and daughters,to / northand south,in the handof singers,I shalldespatch.

Rabbinic Notes to Graeco-Coptica Author(s): Daniel Sperber Source: AJS Review, Vol. 4 (1979), pp. 205-209 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486305 . Accessed: 26/06/2011 20:30 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

RABBINICNOTES TO GRAECO-COPTICA by DANIEL SPERBER Bar-llan University 1. &Tro'j In Le musion82 (1969):85-86, and 89 (1976):311-12 JamesDrescher, in a series entitled "Graeco-Coptica,"discussed the word ivroXh7(and othiVrohXO), showingthat in late Greekandin Copticit bearsthe additional meaningof "alms,charity."To his discussionshouldbe addedthe remarks of Saul Lieberman,in an articleentitled"mra, Charity,Alms,"Journalof BiblicalLiterature65 (1946):69-72. There Liebermanbringsconsiderable evidencefor iVroh'jin this specialusagein earlyChristianliterature.He also shows there that a similarsemanticdevelopmenttook place in the case of the Hebrewwordmmy(and its Aramaicequivalents),whichcamelikewiseto mean "alms, charity."(See further his note apud Leviticus Rabba, ed. MordecaiMargulies[Jerusalem,1958],pt. 4, p. 870 to line 56.) 2. aKiTrrTp In Le musion89 (1976):320-22, Dreschernoted the rareform KbIrTWP (=iaKtiTrrp=exceptor),which he finds in ConstantinusPorphyrogenitus, De ceremoniisaulaeByzantinae(PatrologiaGraeca,113:322) and in Coptic. This formwas alreadyconjecturedby AlbertThumbin his importantarticle entitled "Die GriechischenLehnworterim Armenischen,"in Byzantinische 205

206

DANIEL SPERBER

9 (1900):435,on the basisof the Armenianskeptor(13th-14th Zeitschrift centuries). Thisunusualformis alsoto be foundin a rabbinicsource,in Pesiqtade Rab Kahana,Ha-HIodesh12, ed. BernardMandelbaum(New York, 1962),

p. 102: R. Hoshaya[early3rdcent.C.E.]taught:theearthlycourt[beitdin]ruledand saidthatthe daywasNewYear'sDay(roshha-shanah), [and]the Lordsays to the ministering angels:Set up a platform(bfma),and let the advocates and let the Tlni"tSpostand [and (pl,2'2,o=uvvinyop+pl.ending) stand, announce]that the earthlycourthas declaredthe day to be New Year'sDay. But if the witnesstarriedin coming [andhencethe courtcould not declare the day to be New Year, since their decision dependsupon the eyewitness statementsas to the state of the New Moon], or the courtdecidedto lengthen the year [by a day], thus making New Year's Day the morrow,the Lord Blessed be He says to the ministeringangels: Remove the bema, and the advocates,and let the lpl1•opobe removed,for the earthlycourthas declared that tomorrowis New Year'sDay. Why so? "For this is a statutefor Israel, and a law for the God of Jacob"(Ps. 81:5).

The variant readingsnoted by Mandelbaumin his edition (ad loc.) are: c 'Dpv, I'llnpl . To this we may add Midrash ha-Gadol, Exodus 12.1, ed. Mordecai Margulies (Jerusalem, 1956), p. 169, lines 6, 8: 1,•apDo(read: and The manuscript evidence is overwhelming. Clearly we ,rnp••o) have before uspt•Dp~. the word aidrKrwp. However, its meaning is more than simply

"a scribe,"or even one "speciallyattachedto the magistrates."'For in the context of our passage the sceptor seems to play a more significant role, even

announcingthe final outcome of the litigation, the verdict. It is true that Mandelbaum(note, ad loc.) suggested emending to Here he was following a suggestion made by 71•,iipo =scriptor=scribe. Israel B6hmer in his Kezad Maarichin2in 1885. However, the emendation is 1. See, e.g., Alexander Souter, A Glossary of Later Latin (Oxford, 1949) col. 134a, s.v. "exceptor." See also Adolf Berger, Encyclopedic Dictonary of Roman Law (Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, n.s. 43 [1953]): 461, s.v. "exceptor." 2. Israel B6hmer, Kezad Maarichin, oder Beitrdge zur Chalddisch-RabbinischenLexicographie (Berlin, 1885), p. 4. We should mention that the correct etymology was alread noted by most of the major rabbinic dictionaries. See Jacob Levy, Neuhebrdisches und Chalddisches Worterbuchaber die Talmud und Midraschim, 4 vols. (Leipzig, 1883), 3: 582a, Aruch Completum, ed. Alexander Kohut, 8 vols. (Vienna, 1878-92; reprint ed., New York, 1955), 6: 120b; Marcus Jastrow, A Dictionary of the Targumim,the TalmudBabli and Yerushalmi,and the Mid-

RABBINICNOTESTO GRAECO-COPTICA

207

both unnecessaryand textuallyunfounded.Furthermore,a simplescriptor would not rightfullyfulfill the duties demandedof our functionary. Now, one of the Coptic sourcesthat Drescheradducesgives a slightly differentpicture of the sceptor. I shallstandbeforePilatein your Severusof Antioch,Eulogyof St. Leontinus3:

andcursores, whilethesceptores court,enduringthe shoutsof thepraecones call out, takingthe apologiae.

Apparently,the sceptoresnot only wrote out the apologia4 (usually the speech of the defense),but also announcedit. In our text, too, we have a descriptionof the proceedingsat a court of law, with its f3t)ta--"a permanentelevatedplatformto serveas a seat of the judge"5-and its advocates. Apparently,the issue at stake is whetherthe earthly court has the right to make such calendricdecisions. The judge summonshis court, and the kategorin(not mentionedhere)contest the legitimate rightsof the earthlycourt in this matter,while the synegorindefend it. Thejudge decidesin favorof the defendant(the earthlycourt), andsceptores declarethe earthlycourt's decision upheld. And if the earthlycourt decides later to change its decision, the divine court also endorses this change,cancelingits earlierrulingand the publicdeclaringof the sceptores. We see then that our two sets of sourcesnot only bear one anotherout on the philologicallevel, but also supplementeach other on the contextual level.

rashic Literature (New York, 1903), col. 1020a; Samuel Krauss, Griechische und Lateinische Lehnw6rter im Talmud, Midrasch und Talmud (Berlin, 1899; reprint ed., Hildesheim, 1964) 2: 410b. See also Nehemiah Briill, Jahrbuchfir Jiidische Geschichte und Literatur 1 (1874): 178. However none of these authorities remarked on this specific form SKEPTORand EXCEPTOR,a contracted form of ?KKyTrrTwp or jKTTrrwp (exceptor), nor did they note the specialized meaning

of the word (see below).

See further Michael Sachs, Beitraege zur Sprach- und Alterthumsforschung(Berlin, 1852), 1: 170, who suggests reading l~tn5pbo (read: =speculatores; Julius Fiirst, Glossarium prnt5,po) Graeco-Hebraeum 159-60 and inter Moritz Giade-

197, citing, alia, (Strassburg,1890) pp. and Yosefben BenyaminDov Sch6nhak,Sefer mann'ssuggestionto readprvpo= avKoO&tvrat;

ha-mashbir ('o he-'Arukh he-badash) (Warsaw, 1868), 2: 38b, suggesting KiKTrrpov. These may

all be readilyrejected. 3. James Drescher,Le museon89 (1976):320. 4. Ibid.:Pilatetook the apologiaof the Saviourwrittenby the sceptoresas for a robber. 5. Saul Lieberman,"Roman Legal Institutionsin EarlyRabbinicsand in the Acta Martyrum," Jewish Quarterly Review, n.s. 35 (1944): 13.

208

DANIEL SPERBER

3. rpckT'a In Le musion82 (1969):98-100, Dreschernoted an additionalsemantic usage of the word Trpckirfa,namely "paten, tray, dish." This meaning, hithertounnoticed,may be seen to appearin a rabbinicsourcetoo. (Genesis Rabbah 11:4, ed. Julius Theodor and ChanochAlbeck [Berlin-Jerusalem, 1903;2d ed., Jerusalem,1965]): circa270-310]:Oncea certainpersonin SaidR. Hiyyab. Abba[flourished Laodiceainvitedme [to his house]andbroughtbeforemea prie borneon of everything thathadbeencreated fifteenpoles,andinit (n1i)[wassomething] in thesix daysof creation.Andin thecenterwasa childwhocalledoutloud, "Theearthis theLord's,andthefulnessthereof; theworldandtheythatdwell therein"(Ps.24:1).Whyso?So thattheownershouldnotbecomeoverproud. I askedhim,"Myson,whencehaveyoubeengracedwithall thishonor[i.e., andevery He replied,"I usedto be a butcher[or:a meatdresser], wealth]?" animalconsidered good I wouldset asidefor the Sabbath."6 The readingtrpizinis found in the 'Arukhs.v. T'rpiv,ed. AlexanderKohut (New York, 1955),4: 936, and was translatedin some versionsby the word tInk, "table." So too in MS Paris 149 of Genesis Rabba (cited in the apparatus,p. 91 to line 3), which has ait v Irn Inh*V-atable of gold, and also in B.T. Shabbat 169a: antSavTnh.7 However, the meaning table is somewhatproblematic:tables are not generallymadeout of gold, and normally one does not put food in a table (11) but ratheron it (ir95). However, an alternativereading,found in a group of sources has, in (withslightvariationsin readings).8 place of trpizin,the worddiskos-o-lpjnT This, of course, correspondsto the GreekbiaKos,and here means "a large dish or salver."'We would thereforesuggestthat trpizintoo (= rpair&tov, diminutiveof rpdirf'a)'0 here means "a tray." Indeed, the (albeit later) recensionof this text in the PesiqtaRabbati,chap. 23," has the Greekword 6. Parallels:B.T. Shabbat119a;PesiqtaRabbati,chap. 23, ed. Meir Friedmann(Vienna, 1880), fol. 119b; Yalqut Shime'oni 1: 16. 7. See Julius Theodor and Chanock Albeck's notes ad loc.

8. MS Munich97 of GenesisRabba;'Arukh,ed. Constantinople,1512;Venice,1525,s.v. 9. See SamuelKrauss,GriechischeundLateinischeLehnw6rterim Talmud,Midraschund Targum(Berlin,1899)(=LW) 2: 209ab, s.v. por 1. 10. SamuelKrauss,LW 2: 278a, s.v. Dolvo. 11. See above, n. 1.

RABBINIC NOTES TO GRAECO-COPTICA

209

translatedinto Aramaicas om5•,-Inn=na silvertrayor dish.The word whichwe havealreadyseenappearing in laterrecensions of thistext thaw, in is a translation of thewordtrapezin, (e.g.,B.T.Shabbatandthe 'Arukh), more common its meaning. Wemayfurthernotethatthewordtrpizinis hereusedmuchasit is in the CopticsourcesthatDreschercited.It is of silveror gold,andso, too, in the Copticsources'2it is of silveror gold."TheCopticsourcessuggestthatit studdedwithjewels,'4whilesome may(attimes)havebeenrichlydecorated, rabbinictraditionslikewisesuggestthatit was ornamented.'5 We see thenthatin the two paralleltraditionsof thisGenesisRabbah text we find two differentwords,'6presumably verysimilarin meaning: This serve credenceto Drescher's to additional may give rpariLtov-biUKor. of his There he writes:"In the at conclusion discussion. conjectures the abovepassagesthe TPAHEZAis coupledwithHOTHPION.Amongthe sacredvesselsnonegoes morecloselywiththe irortptov,thechalicewhich holdsthe wineof the sacrifice,thanthebiTKor,the paten,whichholdsthe bread.ThewordAICKOCoccursrarelyin SahidicCoptic.I believethatits Our placewastakenby TPAHEZAwiththe meaningpaten,tray,dish."''7 link a further in Drescher's constitute "equation," 7pairidtov-- •Kos,may argument.

12. Drescher, Le musdon 82 (1969): 98. 13. Ibid., p. 99. 14. Ibid. 15. Theodor-Albeck, ad loc., citing a manuscript commentary to Genesis Rabba. 16. I have discussed the problem of parallel recension with alternative readings at length in a study entitled "Greek and Latin Words in Rabbinic Literature" in Bar-llan (Annual of BarIlan University-Studies in Judaica and the Humanities) 14-15 (1977): 34-38. See further my comments in "Melilot 2," Sinai 79 (1976): 55-59 and "IJiqrei millim ve-girsa'ot," Leshonenu 40 (1976): 58-61. 17. Drescher, Le Musion 89 (1976): 100.

The Household Table in Rabbinic Palestine Author(s): Joseph Tabory Source: AJS Review, Vol. 4 (1979), pp. 211-215 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486306 . Accessed: 26/06/2011 20:31 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

THE HOUSEHOLD TABLE IN RABBINIC PALESTINE by JOSEPHTABORY Bar-IlanUniversity D. Sperberhas confirmed,'from rabbinicsources, the argumentof J. Drescher(Le museon82 [1969]:98-100) that 7rpdirfa was used to mean a "paten,tray, dish" in additionto its betterknown meaningof "table."We shall heretry, throughthe use of rabbinicsources,to show the real,archaeological backgroundbehindthe semanticchangefrom"table"to "tray"and to suggest that this backgroundmay have been a cause of that change. First, let us point out two importantcharacteristicswhichwerecommon to tables mentionedin rabbinicliteratureand to those with which we are familiar in the Greco-Roman world. The first characteristicis that the standardtable, although of oblong shape, was equippedwith three legs.2 Although the three-leggedtable has the advantage of steadiness on an uneven surface,the technicaldifficultiesinvolved in combiningthe three 1. Seehis article"RabbinicNotes to Graeco-Coptic," whichappearsin thisvolume. 2. Gisela M. A. Richter, The Furniture of the Greeks, Etruscans and Romans (London,

1966),pp. 66-69. Althoughother types of tables are documented,the three-leggedone was most popular.For the rabbinicevidence,see Johann Krengel,Das Hausgerdtin der Miina (Frankfurt, 1899), p. 1; Samuel Krauss, Qadmoniyyotha-talmud,4 vols. (Berlin-Vienna, 1922?-TelAviv, 1945),vol. 2, pt. I, p. 11. Overten tablesof this type have beendiscoveredin Turkeyand weredescribedby RodneyS. Young,"PhrygianFurniturefromGordion,"Expedition 16 (1974):3-12.

211

212

JOSEPHTABORY

legs with a four-corneredtable top are so great3that it does not seem likely that such a table could have developedindependentlyin differentcultures. The presenceof such tablesboth in Greeceand in Palestineindicatesa link between the two cultures. It has been suggested,in connection with the Greek tables, that "the form may have been derivedfrom Egypt"4so that the link betweenPalestineand Greecemay have been an indirectone, both dependingon a common source. The second characteristicis that, like Greco-Romantables, the tables referredto in rabbinicliteratureare consideredportable, mobile objects. This is evidencedby the text in Sifrawhichsays that laws of impuritydo not applyto stationaryobjectsbut do applyto tables.5This shows not only that the tables were potentially portable but that they were actually carried aroundduringtheir use. Indeed, Resh Lakish(Palestine,3rd century)said that the shewbreadtable used in the Templewould have been treatedas a stationaryobjectbut for the fact that it was actuallyraisedup and displayed to the pilgrimsduringfestivals.6Babyloniansourcesreferto the bringingin of the table at the beginningof the meal7and to its removalat the end of the meal.8 Although this custom is well attested to in Greek and Roman sources,9 I have been unable to find similar attestation in Palestinian sources. 10

The above mentioned similaritiesseem to justify an attempt to shed additionallight on the table in the Greco-Romanworld throughthe use of rabbinictexts. The rabbinicsourcesreferfrequentlyto a tableequippedwith

3. See the architecturalmonstrosityshown in Young, "PhrygianFurniture,"fig. 3. This Biblica,6 vols. (Jerusalem,1965-1976)6: figurehas also been reproducedin Encyclopaedia 691-92. 4. Richter,Furniture,p. 66. Youngsuggeststhat woodworkingtechniquesthroughoutthe EasternMediterrranean may have been borrowedfrom Egypt(PhrygianFurniture,p. 2). 5. Sifra, Shemini,Parashah6, 4, ed. Isaac Weiss(Vienna, 1862;reprinted., New York, 1947),fol. 52d. 6. B. T. Yoma 21b. 7. B. T. Berakhot46b; Pesabim100b. 8. B. T. Pesabim115b. 9. Richter,Furniture,pp. 63-65. This point has, at times, been overlookedby classical scholars,as pointedout by C. E. Graves(TheAcharnians [Cambridge,1961],noteto line 1158). 10. Cf. SamuelKrauss,Talmudische Archdologie,3 vols. (Leipzig, 1910-1912),3: 55-56. Althoughthe phrasefound in the Mishna "they broughtbefore him" (Pes. 10:3)has been explainedas referringto the carryingin of a table(RabbenuHananelandTosafot,bothprinted in B. T. Pesabim[Vilna,1886]114a),we cannotextractmorefromthis passagethanthat the food was carriedin. See the discussionof this passagein JosephTabory,"TheHistoryof the Orderof the PassoverEve" [Hebrew],Ph.D. diss., Bar-IlanUniversity,1977,p.15.

THE HOUSEHOLDTABLEIN RABBINICPALESTINE

213

a detachabletop, evidenceof whichis hardlyto be foundin extantGrecoRomansources,whetherliteraryor archaeological." We mustdistinguish herebetweentableswhicharemadeof two parts,a top or leafanda base, andtableswhosetopsaremeantto be usedindependently. Marbleor stone tables were well known in the Roman world and they were made in two separateparts:a top and a pedestalor two supportsinsteadof the pedestal. However,once the top was placedon the support,it was meantto be a permanentfixturethere, since the great weightof the top would not permitits being carriedaround at will. Tables of this type were known in Palestine, and a fine example,found in the excavationsof the JewishQuarterof Jerusalem,is on displayat the IsraelMuseum.12However,rabbinicsourcesrefer to a table top madeof a lightermaterialwhichwas separatefromits support and was used independently.The existenceof such a top is shown in rabbinic sourcesby the remarkablelaw that both an ordinaryor Delphictable from which one or two legs have completelybrokenoff is not considereda utensilas regardsthe laws of purity,yet if the thirdleg has also brokenoff, it

11. In the article "mensa" in Pauly-Wissowa, Realenzyklopddie der klassischen Altertums

Wissenschaft (Leipzig, 1893)(henceforth:PWRE),two proofs are broughtto show the existence of detachabletable tops. The firstproofis a deductionbasedon the fact that Penelope's suitorsusedtabletopsas shields.Presumablytheycouldnot havedoneso if theyhad to manage with the legs of the table. However,a fifthcenturyB.C.E.painterfoundno suchdifficulty,nor was he awareof detachabletabletops,since he portrayeda suitorholdinga table as a shield with the legs of the table facingtowardhim (ErnstPfuhl,Masterpiecesof GreekDrawingand Painting[London, 1955],fig. 99). The secondproof derivesfromAthenaeus'scallinga tabletophrid9rqa(Deipnosophistae 2. 49a). However,this would seem to referto the mannerof constructionratherthan the actual detachabilityof the top sincethe capitalof a columnis also calleddrid~Ea,eventhoughno one wouldconsiderit detachable.Hugo Blumner("Tische"in AugustBaumeister,Denkmalerdes klassischenAltertums[Munichand Leipzig,1899])findsno evidencefor detachabletabletops nor does G. M. A. Richterreferto themin her above-mentionedwork. Interestinglyenough, Youngpoints out that, in the elaboratePhrygiantable, "quitea lot of strongglue musthave beenused"to connectthe tabletop to the legs for "otherwisethe topswouldhavesimply lifted off' (PhrygianFurniture,p. 7). Perhapsthe tops weremeantto be used separately.They were slightlydishedat the surface,leavinga low raisedrimall aroundthe edges(Young,p. 5) which may imply that they were carriedin fully laden. 12. See the description in Nahman Avigad, Archaeological Discoveries in the Jewish Quarter

of Jerusalem,IsraelMuseum,Jerusalem,Catalogueno. 144,Spring1976,p. 19.A photograph is to be foundamongthe unnumberedplatesand this photographhas also beenreproducedin 5 (1972):98. A smaller,roundtableis on displayin the Museumbut no photograph Qadmoniot of it has yet been published.Anothertable top of this period,at presentin Haifa, has been describedby Levi Y. Rahmani,"Table-topof the Late Second TemplePeriod,"Sefunim5 (1976):67-71.However,fromthe carvingon the ledge,it wouldseemthatits supportwasa oneleggedpedestal.

214

JOSEPHTARORY

may once again be consideredas a utensil.'3This is understandableonly if we assumethat a table fromwhichall legs have brokenoff, i.e., a tabletop, may be placedon an independenttripodwhichwas originallyintendedfor supportingtabletops. The independenttabletopwas called a tavla'4and was frequentlymade of ceramics,althoughothermaterials,suchas wood or evengold and silver, werealso used.'5From a Palestiniansource,whichhas been preservedonly in the BabylonianTalmud,we learnthat tables were equippedwith a ring attachedto one edge'6 whichwas presumablyused to hang the table on the wall when it was not in use." Since we can not considerthe feasibilityof hangingthe table on the wall with its protrudinglegs, we must assumethat here also they are speakingabout a table top without legs. Vase paintings show fully ladentables beingcarriedinto the diningroom.'8Thus it is only naturalto assumethat the tabletopswereused in the sameway. The Mishnah forbidscarryingfood to the home of a mourneron a tavlabut permits the use of a basket'-'-apparentlybecausebringingin the settingon a tavla was the more festive way of doing things. The tavlawas equippedwith a ledge20which was neededto keep the dishes from slidingoff duringtransport.21

13. M. Kelim 22:2. See Samuel Krauss, Griechischeund Lateinische Lehnworterim Talmud, Midrasch und Targum, 2 vols. (Berlin, 1898-1899), 2: 214; Jacob Neusner, A History of the

MishnaicLawof Purities,22 vols. (Leiden,1974-1977),2: 201. The base of the Delphictable was also considereda separateutensil(M. Kelim24:6)and it is depictedas beingused separately(P.T.Shabbat,17:1,ed. Venice, 1523?,fol. 16b). 14. From rcTPXa p. 254. (tray?)or tabula.See Krauss,Lehnw6rter, 15. Yehoshua Brand, Kelei ha-heres be-sifrut ha-talmud (Jerusalem, 1953), p. 181.

16. B.T. Bava Batra57b. 17. Commentaryof Samuelben Meir,ad loc.; Krengel,Hausgerdt,p. 1. This is of special interestbecauseRichter(Furniture,p. 78) points out that objectsof everydayuse, when put away,arerepresentedon vasepaintingsas hangingon the wall.However,thereis no suchsimilar evidencefor tables. Richter(p. 63) suggeststhat Greek tables were pushed under the coucheswhen not in use. 18. Richter,Furniture,fig. 365(Apulianvolute-kraterin the NationalMuseumof Naples). 19. M. Mo'ed Qatan 3:7. 20. M. Kelim 2:3, 7. 21. It is possiblethat the surfaceof the tavlawas carved(into sections?)or roughenedfor this samepurpose.This wouldexplainwhy a tavlawhoseuppersurfacewas carvedor roughenedwasconsidereda utensilwhilea table,whosehighlypolishedsurfacewasgreatlyesteemed (PWRE,s.v. "mensa,"col. 939),wouldbe ruinedby the sametreatment(T. Kelim,BavaBatra 1:9,ed. Moses Zuckermandel,p. 591). However,the meaningof this text is not sufficiently clear.See the discussionof this text in JacobNeusner,MishnaicLawof Purities,2: 200. One

THE HOUSEHOLDTABLEIN RABBINICPALESTINE

215

In conclusion, it would seem that the use of a detachabletabletop on which the food was broughtbefore the diners and which was placed on a tripod in their presenceis to be consideredamong the reasonsthat a word meaning "table"(rp&•rfta)came to adopt the meaningof "tray."22These findingsfrom rabbinicsources shed light on the Greco-Romanworld and would seem to requirea reconsiderationof the existenceof separatetabletops in that world.

should point out that the text presentedby Zuckermandelrunmn5npwshould be translated "andit is capableof receiving(susceptible)impurity."The text is difficultand C. Y. Kasovsky 6 vols. [Jerusalem,1932-1961],6:52b)has suggestederasingthei of (ThesaurusThosephthae, nl',~pb.

However, in the parallel passage (Thesaurus, 6:50a) he has made no similar suggestion.

22. It shouldbe pointedout that Syriacmlne has also the meaningsof mensaandpatella hostiarum(Karl Brockelmann,LexiconSyriacum[Halle, 19281,p. 618b). Perhapsa careful study of the Syriactexts could shed additionallight on the changeand its causes.

‫על ר׳ משה נרבוני ור׳ אברהם שלום על השפעתו של ס׳ אור השכל‬ Author(s): ‫משה אידל‬ Source: AJS Review, Vol. 4 (1979), pp. 1-6 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486307 . Accessed: 26/06/2011 20:31 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

b aI••lwIenSlas "11 1i'nI1,nIl "1

'rm

,"", ,xPe

,

'*Y 'rlT' J1' O1'D lYtWfl '3117VP1 •l~W"Th1',l '

3

1?52•l

4;"93 ,I

nmnl9

m145*

xD98w

N

'Tl

:1.11'5

3I.w!D991N

nl

'11 .2 5,

5v

'1

anN

5DW-.I

nX ,7-1117n Qom4it," 75 in .1X on 3Nx Shi'ur O w Y4ln '05 4312135V P13117 • 1• 1•N IWI'" "•',•'Do .I o 0' Epistle 1n

5

l in~N

"TN

1N 115

"1i)

rimT11ni n

rn .=Y3995 Altmann, Narboni's -'Dr9911 "Moses 19510v

4nv 1Nmin Alexander

4.'•,

j Wr

,

43in1n13

4nv1

11

'n

,(1852 ,'

T

ilVb '1

N1 '1(13,

D'D1OI1'DI

,•

Alexander Altmann, "Moses Narboni's Epistle on :Shiur Qom ," in .1 Alexander Altmann, ed., Jewish Medieval and Renaissance Studies (Cambridge, Mdass.,1967), pp. 242-53. ID ;X"Y,M.)nt ,(1852 A21r,5=315123" '"T.12) YD'133 7.11112 r12113 '0"05 U91)) -I .2 j'In

1370 ,-DInn 7rpnn ln

,"M'Y5

117D-

.ri-lm'-

,11n

nun

y)

1rm2nb1

-r

X178

'D

.Tx1 W

tIriPn

0 1K

x

m

'1

nz

,5-r

O"D

,956

nT

m$ yW1'D21 I 0171 12 XIlm

nwn

Steinschneider,

Die

Hebraischen des Mittelalters,

Uebersetzungen reprint X

X onr

(Graz,

umve

, 243 .3

tPO"1D 0 9'0f31Y71.

5Y

1956),

VD1015-T7.

10-nT 5Y

-13-n

,W(1"bn'5= :nxi

ed.

iP

n

,-It 'MY

5tV

,'-Nw5XU5

'15

n-it

.25-24

Moritz

$"D

-.637

n

.4

truoel

p.

311-19.

lTyr'K , I 'D "D D'1D "W!.D'DID!S'D 1311T 5.N209 11 ,956

'0 ( ,233 ij7')21 '" .'•iVn11K .'2-125 1r1

bK ,31T,, rl•,1D D"1'112 ,D'P'lribll D,"1 D""X-2'3-,1 -Tn? HNT232 lxqmtm31 13b.9mninnn

1D' riYlf,, "3VKSi,1 ,l'V12 9 rD D""lr"11 D"'N.',1 n••,.1. 09myriv l'xq1mnl 1imN13

SD13'N-121

1T3,93l

D'91 .008I

D'13ibbIM

.

131017?m V

an

1

D

D'3

1p3i

9 ,• VnlK11 '0 ,233 Ip' •-K1""N

6.2208 9'1 ,956 0'lD '""

(2

.,114-2113 9I

V5D qvn aKn1 VDW 1'1r,,

rTn3 DIX'= '9D? 'D V1K1N '9N10, (1 '91

'.I

V'b

.l

5Y!Dn

11-9175M2

1DN

7n

"C-' Nx51n1mnp1 nXD93

5u1Dt33 ,rn

i~)2

rif9Yr

m111m0

n5m)

a

13 3.'1 N.m92 -.T !Dt3N'9X5

'NTSD 1'93D

X51

fTN

12 9

?12n

K13 m Vrt' L721* ,D'9717) ' uS m1-qw 5w7

t"mS

tro1v

9

.0ltjn5 ,P1NTD

nly01710

romm

02

0?

v

D3D

0

.5'95

'"

:

5nin

;X162 12'D

-Dz

,2 'M

."D

;Y'N391 ')

r "m

nS' I;D

-.7

,"'110725

ID

M131

,909

17

5w3

. 7lnxn

mm1

D1

D')I!

Y9nD

yT'Vn

5w 13T

:.132

nx18m

09

n f-"z .5

19-

n17,908

'i

fI1v T

ND71

D597w

;InXll ,(5j"Vn)

5w

53

;1,

;IVb r-ow

t'93 .294

7D

Imn 20 "l'Y ,1

.'31313

-.lx-,

7D

x1i-iv

5Y

13 v

.I-qD512N

r3'0n

0

'WIDVIV

x5

9

-gix 'D

,'7tr3)1D

nyD1n

tDimm

nivvi

7Pi-

.95

nb179

l0

01

,0o'9912.v n

nT .nx

*,nxy

01000 C320on

;'?1v13 13

C2

,"IzTENK

m

r1om

a1

S"3

r im

,156

"1

on D3V

a1.-

N

r

-

7-

k5

i

,lT,'

1-

D' ltrn C .9- "'1 10 ,l,,ymi n197 1,95Y . 1 ,vD1imn5'

0 ,0 .I.-M 'v1.9v

p19n

.I51

on-9

'1'

pn

n

1D1NV

5Y!

myy 5Y!D-

l'in

Yn

,'2y

' 13'719 [ "1 -91 m- 9125nn 7ny

NX923.i1DW

5N

n

3E1 l

.-mn

'-9

'.11152

0m 1=3

;X130

D'tr51712

ruxN

15-n

D 'l3 1 Tr* 153X p7nr5 5w

"D

0a1wwn 2.1-763

Si)D,

-r-,93n

XIDD

,2301

ml

l2 5np

1191,12

5DW

X-9237.1

531 xinnV

DWI

3;'12'1 1,K'Yl11t

,(2"5Wv

7

1!DDn

NX1P1)

'n1

nx

r1mN

1Inlnn)

(4:*Tt

(23:*t

..

"fl

b

own

Nx1

'n913

0N

'9'

-91-21 Tipnin

Y.'K

-rTy9

, 13V

IY'N71

2

-n

'fn

1•

nl5DVp;18.

72100,21

1, 1

?1'25 .'D .'1

1

1 20

51D1

5Y

5x

5D

m DWT~

5D

-nnyri nT.Lr'n

1 nl

5=7fL V5Y? "i m.y9

(1

YDV-IMNDD V 527p$ YN1 Yn -1117 nn5 Km1 31' ,NK5 I

1n1' 1l'b1YDVIjnK"5Yl K'1 -77n 1n 13i NT1

1.nnnv

5 13

013

!

m)

mt

.6 7102

b ' V1 'W••'K'•I1'D= 37M l (2 InD 13'"3111 Trll '9D• V11D[liI DMnD j1O19'DfiV 1'1n1' TYD $NZ2'VK1't' 5mnI '1 !'w '1393111. '10nr on'

11b51

9N

9n r$'t

DWt7..l

X1'V' N N'3Kl'IV NIK (2 ', 31 183WO D 1 1r'in "Pr Xn1n D3WOI fiN 2'V' K'5 0Vfi 1101$'DflV 130n' 19w'n l1ri KKwn NN

0013)5

qxrm

=32'9 rIV' ,X:

V 11Dbli MWSY ,I: N'23h1 ,13V -N 5xT On3 1133N1 p1712-

wDn

.'13'V '952

"17p 3"

1,

"n'917005n

'a'flNK '1 "1191705n 13p12 .'19','

5

13n3N

-.,11;Dt71 .9r Ynurl

,My wV1ra#v 131"N1

."'•,'b1N N'XI9,'1M

2173 IT':3 1K3l

,3'b.9n0l

5x N

13V0

5D1

'9

I

,5Y.'

10#7V#V

P iP

,n =: 7. 1D3KVn 'D•! ,i0nlIP '5N 5~Y i ' 1.••n1 .mitv DW5 fo1N1O

10,111, n1 ''31.1 '..1'!D512N 71D

n1Y XW 5V

P5f

13.l9b-ri,1Y

!173

nt

wn 71,19n' '•N KiN nmi ,,55, nmn nl:y "' '9r 5Y 13n9'n3 ,DT "1''V 1KNV3..1'DY12XK Yt1

n 5v3" i, 1-.i n nn, ,•q!DyniN n •n j 2 'Db ."1?M7 1MY ,10?Z Y2 'I8NX '$N,, '312-13 nI 'f in ;DN 7N 2N5 ,S-D n M11 T'1 5 1 Y30 p1 N'K1f113D K13 TD 1 V9'D

1X ,t7N'lX5! 5Y ;M'S9n "'• 13=5' tD'19'1 ,3T VIfIl

5D KNx110 a' Y1j' ' 09Dpn

;mIr rn*1 'ut

7N NK'bb $N5K xnlK3n3Z

p1 5 7YD' K1

1"K 10on' IWvl..KI11'S 1 p f1

on' DK

V

I Nx5-9175nV'DW p

3 0"93110r

f .7 1 to1 K in i ,u 'fl131mVmfl nwmr ,1 1W3owvn 37-m1 n '111 n'i "m5nn, -? -i wn -min .-mN vi; mpirSTY=12p' 01 I1m1 -?3r n•17 ,'1iprn• 55n 210 ' 17 1 ,in '1.0 It K NK '03V PP'1135v.9-27 in 11 ,956 0'" '"n) 3I .9301 m ?)"YM " •o'•n 1 ,i-fn arrim '1 1 IC 1[?!] X '0",, Y=1 I Y3 -.17 r'-' nx I n " -11IS ,nv5 (208s D(3-2X ?hwO nb1 r 7Y"3xl wn. ?v S b aDY ,71i3D ,l19170u,x-iy 701210 13x ,pl onn -tmml X,,l ."Dintv oix= y t"uKo1 uV'13 Km11 b' zV l b3 1"m'?"1?Z1 '1?flK 1 r bn' nxK 75nniIT -1ivX-t,, 8:z pnr

13x OK'w

n'-w

'1-

'Tmn

DBn

'DS

n

X1103

5bw

Dt in

T?S

'D

31DY 7

D

')

-IYi -T

,1"Y?

.28:3D

'NXT

' 'Y71D0 W V011'71''K12NIbV 1'1T IT'K,, 'Tp ,(12 fv v'pnr? 31 on) 2 ,[2"102n] n b in 3 TN 11-. )lrD'm15'pn1m .H 1i'r1 1"3"'1 3* r0r5i1r31 1'uvvy lfmvi5-TKtnZ

0tZ 1n33 ?'1'30

3?1'0 p'li nSvi

'on

1DC3p

D imx nT ymyvin 1vmyn1

nN 1'yTn123KMimn)

inm# ."11=35

:nwn nun

'r' rinx 1 'r 97 K11yin r'rm3N1*1 rimmi - j v5 1."3x .295-292 'W) v"T n m.3i ,b35inm--i "'1,UX"T .17

5N lx

-TSxh ID-n

T rinri1'i3Vn

'v K5m num

1i

c'rraO

i lm

"D'cri

t'r91P;I

1D1N;,,

rim2

.3"y

?, rip" (3297

1I

,956

,n5 onD

n7 '"D

.8

,n$Din

13'I M Y3iP ."D1'2b13tiY• liprv•n 1 11ivyW 301r ,I ,'-9 ,13113D U11,'D ;rr1'105'131 ,0 b;,I ,1' ,',$91"ND 3 2 =03 W1NW,1a•, VI ?lf 1F3 if nnn 013YDIP0'412 flTN 10 ' 7 Dn 3 l1K1* K 1n13 ,11PI1 13'4Y I14nX 7'0D1? !Wn1'K

vWar D'DT101 -9-"17' T ,21-T 131.-13 K'N

11K ."XN1K

.7ith 4 'Db o31n13 ni vn ;wm '0o13N 13D? nTi KmTI K125 11 ,233 JP'K1T 1KNM11 'I "

a0n.

1nrn:

;?DwW

'nN '1

=157 no1,909 , I1 X2 ny,V (1201

Nv~v

l'51x

-nl,

wwr;iv

Im18 D'n• n3i3

1'l

X-17.)

0-11n "Wlw'w",,5Y v115 9,1023 ',N"i7n .13 ,V'D Dnf N ' vY1l .p11tD) "•1 1• •5 , ."1 'f•

3 9Y3n , ,n n i

915

'Dn

n "1 x n035 phI 1 m5nar in 0, rwi un'1 50z wn im3 .nyI 001mi,ni1' w D;DM mm3 f1tow

N'23

r

12T1n011 m'0

mN

roinYT

n'itnn

tx

5

un

"Y , "lg~T 01?].9

,1 8

"ol"W

,3

'WY

71Yo

,15

'1W

1

n nT

v

n1 n

13720

,5')y5

v[!]

1p mIn n

In1

5W

DI

5Y

I1

.A13

1 -15

,1"znn 'l 'n

S

w

,285

p3-

'T

la D=

1

H.

.3

,5

'1-'Y0

17

C32TlYn

A.

;3"Y"

,17

'16

'1 1

"Df1bll

,(i"-in

p5n

'fW212i0

395

Philosophy "131Y

,

n

aN

,nxt

nN

r

1"3D

N'1X=

'1W

mrm

ni 10

w

5z3

ri1It

Da

ni

0n1y5

m

rmb

."hilmn

.3"1

Los

,-Vn

.1T

.u

-1%

17

'in

'1

3inN ?

a1ft

-ni

15,

p. .n

r

e

[?]

1964), "

=313 .1

1nx-

'inni

,x

Angeles, "t

In

iv o

.10 nxi

292

S)n

'WP

,392

'0

pr'5-

am

Y91w

."n019

M1Y0

,83

T3w

nTn

nn1 5.12

rm5

n 'Wt

r1o

bn

Shalom

n01in

,5123M )"3

- 1-'1?K

in3 m'D

-nx

and

9013

m ny15

.K :

3=w

rny-m

,3

wSynn

Abraham

of .(Berkeley W

ip

,398

38

I1

-.6D-pr)

vrtn

,u1n1opri)

,(N"mo1

The

Davidson, ,TD

'DV

'3

lt j1nu inni T ,1

,X9

T"D

.15'NT

'05

y

innxynnnmn

irun

.YI

1'D!913X

n

wn

15-'t

r

y

y

.-

5 .(Berkel)ey and Los Angeles, 1964), p. 15,n. 164

o 1 wt"D , lilT , 1 'iK1r n; r inx 0>il n'N ,lz''0'90 ft fl,7 '1:fln ,DW n-munI 0n11mn ,93

Dn

-inx

Itun'-

3 :I5,n 39

nf ,D ,

Dnr1NY5

,Mich. 78 nox

, ;(159

'0.105n

10,, on'DY1

wpw

'

u92

,''

-13 ~1

100' 38 '•

5=n

4'l-ininn

n

."flny1

I3IT013 nnV7 ,3nT

H. A. David3157 son,909 The Philosophy5 5ofAbrahamShalom'3. ftn

nmnI1 .9'3

1n•

"D'•

'K 1KX 1 2n9 ;1'2

Y'n '2'1 "n K-1r nWn

,

T 'Y

.,rIT5

in K,1311 113 '117 ' 3,( 4n111

N93 n'•

'r

12X"'n ,

4w1w1

'31213 3112•,

,111-

'"3)

I

5 n)rn72 0nTK

v3N1';ln

NEr

1

lpnynNK1

K11 '3'•21ni ,124'10bll , '3

;".1I n .K13 4-,28 5

'11'Inn ."5N12

5w,

1T~ ,956

D T •' inb ;('3M59 ,Mich. 78

,' N

n13

.V w

-12Y1 'T7 I'Yt7S)

(8:I 13

,43D

i!

:1'DY12K 2=13 -

VT?1 1V1 2Wm3n1,, 1n 35 fl )l ,1

nlif1111 f'17PW1 n-lInt 5D N'f1 ill ll f ,,'4•.5 ,'D

nytVN

-n

'K,,

'-13

'1 3.

UN'2KLD

y

1N

'Di Nv 0 N 1PDSD1

:D1

luI

n.

.12

-1

164

5y

n lDUB

'o

.1N

5DW.WW

01

111702 V~bnar 0190, DilN '3 n'Dlik 1VPDN 02PD71'91NkWT ,7n1' 21PtnW;lg1

:101'Snt35130 Nbll110nN N'1N1 N

,TD ,('T"0

-X"P"

,;ry1)

.l3

013

,23

91

J"P

7P'3uN1

,53DT..

'f

l1 i

.:2"V

.N115

21' 001 Phi nN p 1 N nl,, 'P9 Dl 'ttK 1 riD) 1DVpmaw,"1'5Y; ',',1 n,1? 171 10nig~Shu ."D iN312,10 571'"-rr,'N (i7nI" 'WrlPK D'519 '1KNS1 ;D31130 ;r9190 auD09~anD'93V '3• ;ri$n•"'3i1,, ?10#

,1-

'W JrtD

nr

,'inn,

'

"13,'9i

','In•7,"

T inNi

017v f'I-nn

nyn 8 0n +1 rDyt 3 I •a•wnl, 111' r + 15v n2,ni,1I:'I:1• tll~l• 2.n r:: 1 "1n,3, ,l•K' 13.,:m

,'I

inN

;1 ."121

im1 .+nN

976 Nl n,%Tx 9i n•wrn.3N ,i1 ,113Y , ,'xt•,.,

, ',,v ;11,iN

'm93xV•n Wn5 0i,: 'm1 n• n••:DW 1'i3 nn= ,n.-'Db n:nm t5n .913 Dn=p n 3909

K1

0

35N .K

t9t0 ',l•I i,,n 5Tnwi 5=DW5

xim

'x13Nm Nli

,9vin

numil

DW'T

I19-T3 nY-

niymm

nl5DV..l

V t1n',:

5i~vn =i'tn nT ~D ;1"5;1 '"1 nit, , 3 n [!] M 18n n,-, 5x i91 r m131'90 Iny t318

in nn itln"n Wt, 2 otv: ."nDW 3 Bin nn o kit 1#nn = n1-5DND

fl m3

~1p nXn, In•" -;12-•10u i5D 5Yn nx

pjwi

11213=5

.93w

K 'N

7'1,'916 mr1m

7n -

jwn

'g96N

Tlni-b

.

DI

021-16 M60

."010wi

0197UD;I1t ;3'11,5311;~11 'DSD's'Dlb 00#a$DDD't3Dtt9n11T0 13S W `TO~b

'93# 5D1N92'111T NEW $#8 '318 01202n.1"1313;lbSY3 ,nT5t,11 a,;rl inr Dh510 inSTS1VB ltnN 7018,~l,aS1N'6.PD99S12N 5YN nt5112#D'NUtK DDK;1 ;lb'3;1ng1 0#210

15V

9

,-ainrat

,iDn-13.9v .4D

W-.l

5D

26

NY

+

inN

.;r2KN; 'T'P51 5Niral '1N; I 53701 .168 n m.

;,-izm

'DY1

,352

.

.A35 DFDD

"11

091, 5

.

539

=

Irn -

.

=

jI '131

+

13

"ol1"Wi

365

nT

'Y21

oizan

,408

pMM

T"D

WID

,7 4

";lbnl m3n3w7 n0.0910,

mr

=

13

(o"q

,ND

minN +

riIxmth'29

8s13 n nri '"

;13

1pm

,325

-itO

113Yl- t

gD83D

*lmni

.9370~ '11K 'CD~t ivWWt

VD3-i

-n

-

',m

ODM'-

."rn-

trinx

."ri3x1

DIW*

"InN W.1-M

.14

N9,

53m1n

trirwn

nix

il -wri

Y,01 W1'"I1

.15

ift

mm0

myn

7n rn

'D

1

1

VD 5w

tqD015vD

.13

milm

.01'01#'T IS070~

XD

xy

rD1

*$W

mimpwnm

--DVY51=N5

97

.D'mlg

runmi

-

i)D 1T25

N'

?T) 93

5 W }'2~ D1?flrg 0 tnKiiW907018 1~ Int ;P2 nD DnDSDN

,3 "

nip-n

=

26

minN

}'2

531 1;1

W13NjK;

M17l 5z

=

1

3mv

trym

Dib Pon

CP373 T inT

Dam 0

.16

imN

SN IPtIE ?Dvl

?tMvl

MS

(2 5X'I

S1 'N

atNu

ix

rN

nN

"llI

?N32'12X

n-9D3Dl.I

5Y

"r

5Nx 5x.

"ffn.t5VB

Ir

05Y

r

.1 3,im

w

1D'D-905

l-1!)5

trwNr

13'3t)

".nW

lolDni

1mm1

n-93m1m

-.31lMv'

Inw-'2i

MINIM

nri1 mn

?v

rrD!y2Nx

$ 19v13 'oD '13m 5vl ;.12url1, 1

m,IftP .0

X-9-.117

:1ax3

i

2

7-9

nD9v13ND1

-lN 1x5

n

5'W

?Xrl

DTuI1

'ft1 ..'113 K'; -

"n'wiv; n'rn -9K;1, 11MV115

-

DDliV

nu

5v

,fioniNow

.-n

IS

IT

,rin-9n

9i

) 15.ny Alexander Altmann, "The Ladder of :iKanl aK 'mrn ', o onnlhVnT CM 5 .51i 1 n .32-1 '6 ,(n"=n ,C3a5,1) C015V o'ripn ,Ascension" n51 ovnI, mnaTnnhn .DJ'YnM '3V -3rl .n-,-• -M-

13n

12-11 '•1

rl

,ir I', .17 Georges Vajda, L'Amour de Dieu dans la theologie juive du Moyen Age :-nflK

.(Paris, 1957),pp. 263-64

H. A. Wolfson, The Philosophy of Spinoza (New York, 1969), 2: 304ff., :nXI.18 n-2 f5xxl 2no-9 fl'V1 k-,nriW5 nD nwfit ronx nfl9?Z1-9 nz)fionotlfl' l y-f? 5y 1 ) wn .310 n21w ny n intellectualis ranmv 5x i m r i n x o i n u ' nv d e i 5 x mra . a mor ;mrinn 5y i

nxr IV

inST

5X

-1m a1v

.n2X88 1N D7 NDN3

X-3N3

15-9XI

5X.1

nX

5y

nwix

N

a

rinth

135yx

-1n1

a

,Pr'Dv912

o

Pr ,Tln3$

:315V

13n-.

9=.bm73

5 kS7

-1X1 IN

.5Nx

I

N

1DTND;1

o=DnW :(3120 't ,774 ovD '"P) D'I1D ninlnm0 S w9Dmvnni hTi 1P ',. ,n1 1•n 'nIrS x Wi1n N -ivx 5! 11V N 11(93y -N P in l l "?"wiN5 mn•" X',' Vl•;n 5, ", I;, I. ."tWnnY3 n,,'-rinin ,'NN i ri,mDW1 riny alN nI95m1 nirlNynD ,nlrlranni Nxtr ",', ,Nnn;xDn rN, invspl ma7T .bvmt

nix

'Dt

013

n nm

wrft

nvN

mix

n*l9S3pi

"nwrfNtmo