The Meaning of Ayelet Ha- Shaḥar at Tehillim 22:1

The Meaning of Ayelet Ha-Shaḥar at Tehillim 22:1

By Mitchell First [email protected] is found at Tehillim 22:1. The entire השׁחר אילת The phrase verse reads: “la-menatzeaḥ al ayelet ha-shaḥar mizmor le- This is the only ? השׁחר אילת David.” What is the meaning of time this phrase appears in Tanakh. Its meaning is so unclear that Radak offers five interpretations! means: “doe of the dawn.” A male deer השׁחר אילת ,Literally would be an ayal. An ayalah is a female deer (=a doe).[1] Ayelet is the construct state of ayalah. It means “ayalah of the…” has the איל There are two times in Tanakh where the root meaning “strength.” These are at Tehillim 22:20: eyaluti, and 88:5: eyal.[2] Accordingly, some suggest that that the meaning of the phrase in our verse is “strength of the morning,” i.e., words in those verses lack a dagesh in איל sunrise.”3 But the“ the yod. Our ayelet has a dagesh in the yod. With the dagesh, the meaning in Tanakh is always the “deer/doe” meaning.[4]

An amora in the Jerusalem Talmud (Berakhot 1:1 and Yoma 3:2) explains ayelet ha-shaḥar by taking the position that the light of morning first appears like two horns on the horizon and then illuminates the entire horizon. He probably means that there is a similarity to the antlers of a deer which branch out in different directions. In this interpretation, the verse is referring to the morning light.[5] But the word used in Tehillim 22:1 is ayelet, referring to a female deer, and 99% of the time, these have no antlers![6] (Of course, a response could be that the verse is speaking about male deer and for some poetic reason chose to use the female form.[7])

The above amora also mentions an alternative view that ayelet literally means “star,” but is commonly כוכבתא .כוכבתא means translated here as a reference to the planet Venus. Could ayelet have meant “star” at Tehillim 22:1?[8] This is very unlikely because nowhere else in Tanakh doayal , ayalah, [have such a meaning.[9 איל ayelet or other forms of

Many interpret ayelet ha-shaḥar as a musical instrument. Note for example that Tehillim chapter twelve begins as follows: la-menatzeaḥ al ha-sheminit mizmor le-David. Most likely, ha- sheminit is a musical instrument, one of eight strings. The format of our verse, 22:1, perfectly parallels the format of verse 12:1. But try as I might, I cannot imagine a musical instrument with a name like “doe of the dawn.”[10]

Rashi and Radak mention a view that the doe symbolizes Bnei Yisrael who seek the redemption symbolized by the word shaḥar.[11]

The key to solving our problem is the introductory sentence of psalm 56: la-menatzeaḥ al yonat eilem reḥokim. There are several possible interpretations of the wordsyonat eilem reḥokim, but most likely the reference is to a dove that is [אלם).[far away and the only issue is the meaning of eilem (12 A “dove that is far away” cannot possibly be a reference to a musical instrument. The commentary in the Soncino edition writes here that it “is doubtless the title of a song to whose melody the Psalm was sung.”

This must be the approach we should take to verse 22:1. The introductory sentence is pointing to a well-known song called ayelet ha-shaḥar and telling the conductor to use the tune of this song. This approach is taken in the Encyclopaedia Judaica (13:1321)[13] and in the commentary on our verse in the Soncino edition: “In all probability, the name of a melody to the accompaniment of which the Psalm was to be rendered.”[14] Among our Rishonim, Ibn Ezra takes this approach as well on both verses, 22:1[15] and 56:1.

Although this “tune instruction” approach does not fit the perfectly, we should be able to live with it. The על word entry in the Encyclopaedia Judaica takes the position that al ayelet ha-shaḥar may have been the name of the song, but this is unlikely. It is too coincidental that the song at 56:1 is a common word used על,would begin with al as well. Rather in those first line instructions in the book of Tehillim. Sometimes it is an instruction regarding the specific musical instrument to be used and other times, like here, it can be an instruction with regard to the tune. (For examples of other times where the introductory verse likely refer to a tune, see the introductory verses to chapters 45, 57-59, 60, 69,75, and 80, and the commentary in the Soncino edition on each.)

——

Here are the five approaches that Radak had mentioned: 1) the name of a musical instrument, 2) strength of the morning, implying that the psalm was said at sunrise, 3) the name of a morning star, 4) an allusion to David fleeing from Saul, and 5) a way of referring to the Israelites. He preferred the last approach.

As to Rashi, here is what he offers: 1) the name of a musical instrument, 2) a way of referring to the Israelites, 3) the Sages’ homiletical approach that it refers to Esther (see Yoma 29a) and 4) strength, citing Menachem Ibn Saruk.[16]

Uriel Simon[17] points out that Ibn Ezra wrote two poems based on the theme that Israel is an ayelet. But as a commentator, he does not even mention this view in his standard commentary, since it is not at all a plain sense approach.[18]

— Finally, it is interesting to offer a contemporary parallel to our interpretation of ayelet ha-shaḥar as an instruction regarding the tune of the psalm by referencing a well-known song. Nowadays we might say: “To the tune of Mary Had a Little Lamb.” (I thank Dr. Richard Gertler for this suggestion.)

[1] I am here reminded of the phrase “Doe a deer, a female deer” that I heard in the film The Sound of Music when I was a little child. That phrase finally came in handy! [2] The Targum gives ayelet the strength meaning at 22:1, תקוף. translating it as 3]] This is the position taken by R. Saadiah Gaon. See Uriel Simon, Four Approaches to the Book of Psalms (1991), p. 51. It is referred to at the beginning of Ibn Ezra, although Ibn Ezra does not mention R. Saadiah by name. has the “deer/doe אילות ,At Shir Ha-Shirim 2:7 and 3:5 [4] meaning” even without the dagesh. [5] These statements in the Jerusalem Talmud are best understood in light of a statement at Yoma 29a. [6] Female deer only have antlers when they have excess testosterone. This is very rare. Rashi (Yoma 29a) points out that ein karnayim le-nekeivah. [7] In a different context, it is interesting to note the poetic license taken by the Israel Postal Company with their logo. For decades they have used a deer with antlers, intending an allusion to Gen. 49:21 (a verse that describes the delivery of imrei shefer.) But this verse refers to an ayalah. For further discussion, see my Links to Our Legacy (2021), pp. 205-208. (In recent years, their logo has been modified. Unless you knew, you cannot tell that a deer or any animal was intended originally.) [8] Malbim is one who had adopted this interpretation. [9] But “morning star” is a common understanding of the phrase ayelet ha-shaḥar in modern Hebrew. [10] My son Shaya jokingly suggested that it could be a musical instrument that looked like a doe and was used to wake people in the morning! (My son’s wife is named Ayelet. It was his engagement to her in 2019 that inspired me to do this research.) [11] See further Shir Ha-Shirim 6:10. [12] As to eilem, perhaps it means “silent” or is a reference to a tree. Accordingly, theEncyclopaedia Judaica entry suggests “speechless dove far-off” and “dove of the far-off terebrinths.” [13] This entry was authored by Nahum Sarna. [14] Similarly, Robert Alter, The Book of Psalms (2007), p. 71, writes that the reference is to “a musical instrument of some sort, or alternately, to a melody.”Hebrew & Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, eds. L. Koehler and W. Baumgartner (1995, revised edition), p. 40, has: “beginning of a song?” Finally, Daat Mikra follows the “tune instruction” interpretation in its main commentary (but suggests that the song is about the morning star) and then offers many other suggestions in the footnote. [15] He thinks that the allusion is to a love song, since that word ayelet is used in the expression ayelet ahavim at Mishlei 5:19. [16] Based on the manuscript evidence provided at Alhatorah.org, most likely the last was not in the original comment of Rashi and was added by others later. [17] Four Approaches to the Book of Psalms, p. 240. [18] But Simon points out that he does mention and reject it in an earlier recension of his commentary on Tehillim.

Book announcement: Roots and Rituals: Insights into Hebrew, Holidays, and History by Mitchell First

Book announcement: Roots and Rituals: Insights into Hebrew, Holidays, and History

By Eliezer Brodt

The Seforim Blog is proud to announce the publication of our contributor Mitchell First’s newest bookRoots and Rituals: Insighats into Hebrew, Holidays, and History (Kodesh Press, 2018.)

Mitchell First’s 62 short articles address interesting questions about the Hebrew language, liturgy, Jewish history, the calendar and holidays. For example: On Jewish Liturgy: the origin of the Haftarah, the origin of the blessing “Who Has Not Made Me A Woman,” and the origin of our prayer for the government. On Jewish Holidays and Calendar: the origin of the count from creation, the meaning of Yom Teruah, the meaning of “Maccabee,” identifying Achashverosh and Esther in secular sources, and the original three questions in the Mah Nishtannah. On Hebrew Language: the origin of the words brit, boker, hefker, chalom, chatan, kesef, midbar, navi, olam, זכרshe’ol, and seraphim. Also, is there a connection between meaning “memory”? Is there a connection זכר meaning “male” and ?מלחמה and לחם between

He also has articles on words that appear only once in Tanakh, biblical words of Egyptian origin, wordplay in Tanakh, and interesting words in the daily Amidah.

This book also includes two longer articles: “The Meaning of which appeared on the Seforim) ”( )התפלל the Word Hitpallel A Flood of :מבולBlog here) and “The Root of the Word Possibilities (which appeared on the Seforim Bloghere ).”

The book can be ordered here.

For some reviews of the book see here, here and here.

Here are the Table of Contents:

The Meaning of the Word (התפלל) Hitpallel

The (התפלל) Meaning of the Word Hitpallel By Mitchell First[1] [email protected]

It is clear from the many places that it connotes praying. But what was התפלל appears in Tanakh that the original meaning of this word? I was always taught that it meant something like “judge yourself.” Indeed, the standard ArtScroll Siddur (Siddur Kol Yaakov) includes the following in its introductory ;מתפלל pages: “The Hebrew verb for praying is it is a reflexive word, meaning that the subject acts upon himself. Prayer is a process of self-evaluation, self-judgment…”[2] More recently, when I searched Jewish sites on the internet for the definition that was offered for hitpallel and mitpallel, I invariably came up with a definition similar to the above. Long ago, Rabbi S. R. Hirsch (d. 1888) and R. Aryeh Leib Gordon (d. 1912) also gave definitions that focused on prayer as primarily an action of the self.[3] In this post, I would like to share a different interpretation offered by some modern scholars, one based on a simple insight into Hebrew grammar. This new and compelling interpretation has unfortunately not yet made its way into mainstream Orthodox writings and thought. Nor has it been given proper attention in academic circles. For example, it did not make its way into the widely consulted lexicon of Ludwig Koehler and Walter ,התפלל Baumgartner.[4] By sharing this new interpretation of we can ensure that at least the next generation will understand the origin of this critical word.

—— There are two issues involved in parsing this word: 1) what is the meaning of the and 2) what is the import of thehitpael stem, one ?פלל root that typically implies doing something to yourself? With its meaning is ,פלל regard to the root admittedly difficult to understand. Scholars have pointed out that the other Semitic languages shed little light on its meaning.[5] If [is found 4 times:[6 פלל we look in Tanakh, the verb 1) It seems to have a meaning like “think” or “assess” at Genesis 48:11: re’oh fanekha lo filalti…(=I did not think/assess that I would see your face).[7] 2) It seems to have a meaning like “intervene” at Psalms 106:30: va-ya’amod Pinḥas va-yefalel, va-teatzar ha- magefah (=Pinchas stood up and intervened and the plague was stopped).[8] 3) It seems to have a meaning like “judge” at I Sam. 2:25: im yeḥeta ish le-ish u-filelo elokim…(If a man sins against another man, God will judge him…).[9] 4) It את שאי כלמתך אשר פללת :also appears at Ezekiel 16:52 You also should bear your own shame that =) לאחותך גם you pilalt to your sisters). The sense here is difficult, but it is usually translated as implying some form of judging.

What I would like to focus on in this post, however, is the import .התפלל of the hitpael stem in the word Most students of Hebrew grammar are taught early on that the hitpael functions as a “reflexive” stem, i.e., that the actor is doing some action on himself. But the truth is more complicated. One source I saw counted 984 instances of the hitpael in Tanakh.[10] It is true that a large percentage of the time, perhaps even a majority of the time, the hitpael in Tanakh is a “reflexive” stem.[11] Some examples: ● “station is in thehitpael 48 times in יצב oneself”; the verb Tanakh (e.g., hityatzev) ● “strengthen is in thehitpael 27 times in חזק oneself”; the verb Tanakh (e.g., hitḥazek) ● “sanctify is in thehitpael 24 times in קדש oneself”; the verb Tanakh (e.g., hitkadesh) ● “cleanse is in thehitpael 20 times in טהר oneself”; the verb Tanakh (e.g., hitaher) But it is also clear that the hitpael transforms meanings in other ways as well. For example: ● At Genesis 42:1 (lamah titrau), the form of titrau is hitpael but the meaning is likely: “Why are you looking at one another?” This is called the “reciprocal” meaning of hitpael. Another example of this reciprocal meaning is found at II Chronicles 24:25 with the word hitkashru; its meaning is “conspired with one another.” ● The ,appears in the hitpael 46 times in Tanakh הלך root e.g., hithalekh. The meaning is not “to walk oneself,” but “to walk continually or repeatedly.” This is called the “durative” meaning of the hitpael. There are many more durative hitpaels in Tanakh.[12] Now let us look at a different word that is in the hitpael form in which means “to be חנן The root here is .התחנן :Tanakh חנן ”.gracious” or “to show favor appears in the hitpael form many etc.). At I Kings 8:33 we even ,התחנן, אתחנן) times in Tanakh פלל have a hitpael of :adjacent to one another חנן and a hitpael of as doing התפלל If we are constrained to view .והתחננו והתפללו something to yourself, then what ?To show favor to yourself ?התחנן would be the meaning of This interpretation makes no sense in any of the contexts that the חנן hitpael of is used in Tanakh. Rather, חנן as recognized by modern scholars, the root is an example where the hitpael has a slightly different meaning: to make yourself the object of another’s action. (This variant of hitpael has been called “voluntary passive” or “indirect reflexive.”) Every is used in thehitpael , the actor is asking חנן time the root another to show favor to him. As an example, one can look at the beginning of parshat va-et-ḥanan. Verse 3:23 states אתחנן .to God אתחנן that Moshe was does not mean that “Moshe showed graciousness to himself.” Rather, he was trying to make himself the object of God’s graciousness. Let .התפלל us now return to our issue: the meaning of Most likely, the hitpael form in the is doing the same התפלל case of thing as the hitpael form in the case it is turning the word into a voluntary :התחנן of passive/indirect reflexive.[13] Hence, is to make oneself the object of God’s התפלל the meaning of assessment, intervention, or judging). This is a much) פלל than the ones that התפלל simpler understanding of look for a reflexive action on the petitioner’s part. Once one is presented with this approach and how it perfectly parallels the ,התחנן hitpael’s role in it is very hard to disagree.[14]

Some Additional Comments 1. It is interesting to mention some of the other creative that had previously been proposed התפלל explanations for (while our very reasonable interpretation was overlooked!): a. The root is related to a root found in Arabic, falla, which means something like “break,” and reflected an ancient practice of self-mutilation in connection with prayer.[15] Such a rite is referred to at 1 Kings 18:28 in connection with the cult of Baal (“and they cut themselves [=va-yitgodedu] in accordance with their manner with swords and lances, until the blood gushed out upon them”).[16] (fall) נפל is derived from the root התפלל .b and reflected the ancient practice of prostrating oneself during prayer.[17] -did not originate based on a three התפלל .c letter root, but was a later development derived from a In this approach, one could .תפלה primary noun . is not even a hitpael התפלל argue that (This approach just begs the question of where the תפלה word would have arisen. Most scholars reject this does not look like a primary תפלה approach because noun. Rather, it looks like a noun פלל that would have arisen based on a verb such as (.פלה or 2. There are other examples in Tanakh of words that have the form of hitpael (התחנן andהתפלל but are either voluntary passives (like or even true passives, as the role of the hitpael expanded over time.[18] Some examples:[19] a. Gen 37:35: va-yakumu khol banav ve-khol benotav le-naḥamo, va-yemaen le-hitnaḥem…(The meaning of the last two words seems to be that Jacob refused to let himself be comforted by others or refused to be comforted; the meaning does not seem to be that he refused to comfort himself.) b. Lev. 13:33: ve-hitgalaḥ (The meaning seems to be “let himself be shaved by others.”) c. Numb. 23:9: u-va-goyim lo yitḥashav d. Deut. 28:68: ve–hitmakartem sham le-oyvekha la-avadim ve-li-shefaḥot… (It is unlikely that the meaning is that the individuals will be selling themselves.) e. Psalms 92:10: yitpardu kol poalei aven (The evildoers are not scattering themselves but are being scattered.) f. Is. 30:29: ke-leil hitkadesh ḥag…(The holiday is not sanctifying itself.) g. Prov. 31:30: ishah yirat Hashem hi tithalal h. Jonah 3:8: ve-yitkasu sakim ha-adam ve-ha-behemah… (Animals cannot dress themselves!) i. II Kings 8:29 (and similarly II Kings 9:15, and II Ch. 22:6): va-yashav Yoram ha-melekh le-hitrape ve-Yizre’el… (The meaning may be that king Yoram went to Jezreel to let himself be healed by others or to be healed.)

3. As we see from this post, understanding the precise role of the hitpael is important to us as Jews who engage in prayer. Readers may be surprised to learn that understanding the precise role of the hitpael can be very important to those of other religions as well. A passage at Gen. 22:18 describes the relationship of the nations of the world with the seed of Abraham: והתברכו בזרעך כל גויי הארץ. (The phrase is found again at Gen. 26:4.) Whether this phrase teaches that the nations of the world will utter blessings using the name of the seed of Abraham or be blessed through the seed of Abraham depends on the precise meaning of the hitpael here. Much ink has been spilled by Christian theologians on the meaning of hitpael in this phrase.[20]

—— Whoever suspected that grammar could be so interesting and profound!

ונתחזק חזק חזק! (Does the last word mean “let us strengthen ourselves,” “let us continually be strengthened,” or “let us be strengthened”? I will leave it to you to decide!) Notes: [1] I would like to thank my son Rabbi Shaya First for reviewing and improving the draft. [2] P. xiii. [3] The edition of Rav Hirsch’s Pentateuch commentary translated by Isaac Levy includes the following (at ,means: To take the element of God’s truth התפלל :(Gen. 20:7 make it penetrate all phases and conditions of our being and our life, and thereby gain for ourselves the harmonious even tenor of our whole existence in התפלל] .…God is] working on our inner self to bring it on the heights of recognition of the Truth and to resolutions for serving God…Prior to this, the commentary had pointed means “to judge” and that a judge פלל out that the root brings “justice and right, the Divine Truth of matters into the matter….” R. Aryeh Leib Gordon explained that the word for prayer is in the hitpael form because prayer is an activity of change on the part of the petitioner, as he gives his heart and thoughts to his Creator; the petitioner’s raising himself to a higher level is what causes God to answer him and better his situation. See the introduction to Siddur Otzar Ha-Tefillot (1914), vol. 1, p. 20. The Encylcopaedia Judaica is another notable source that uses the term “self-scrutiny” when it defines the Biblical conception of prayer. See 13:978-79. It would be interesting to research who first suggested the self-judge/self-scrutiny definition of prayer. I have not done so. I will point out that in the early 13th century Radak viewed God as the one doing the judging in the word See his Sefer .התפלל .פלל Ha-Shorashim, root [4] The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (1994). The authors do cite the article by E.A. Speiser (cited in the next note) that advocates the interpretation. But they cite the article for other purposes only. The that Speiser התפלל interpretation of advocates and that I will be describing is nowhere mentioned. [5] For example, E.A. Speiser writes that “[o]utside Hebrew, the stem pll is at best rare and ambiguous.” See his “The Stem PLL in Hebrew,” Journal of Biblical Literature 82 (1963), pp. 301-06, 301. He mentions a few references in Akkadian that shed very little light. There is a verb in Akkadian, palālu, that has the meaning: “guard, article in Theologicalפלל keep under surveillance.” See the Dictionary of the Old Testament, vol. 11, p. 568 (2001), and p. 933. This perhaps ,פלל Koehler-Baumgartner, entry .פלל supports the “assess” and “think” meanings of the Hebrew and פלילים, פללים, פלילי ,Various forms of a related noun [6] ) -appear 6 times. The meanings at Deut. 32:31ve ,פליליה oyveinu pelilim), Job 31:11 (avon pelilim), and Job 31:28 (avon pelili) are very unclear. The meaning at Is. 16:3 (asu pelilah) is vague but could be “justice.” The meaning at Is. 28:7 (paku peliliah) (=they tottered in their peliliah) seems to be a legal decision made by a priest. Finally, there is the well-known and very unclear ve-natan be-flilim of Ex. 21:22. Onkelos translates this as ve-yiten al meimar dayanaya. But this does not seem to fit the words. The Septuagint translates the two words as “according to estimate.” See Speiser, p. 303. Speiser is unsure if this translation was based on guesswork or an old tradition, but thinks it is essentially correct. [7] Note that Rashi relates it to the wordmaḥshavah . Sometimes the verb is translated in this verse as “hope.” Even though this interpretation makes sense in this verse, I am not aware of support for it in other verses. That is why I prefer “think” and “assess,” which are closer to “intervene” and “judge.” Many translate the word as “judge” in this verse: I did not judge (=have the opinion) that I would see your face. See, e.g., The Brown- .פלל Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, entry :using a similar verb ויפלל Brown-Driver-Briggs translates [8] “interpose.” See here as ויפלל Alternatively, some translate .פלל their entry “executed judgment.” [9] It has been suggested that the “judge” meaning is just a later development from the “intervene” meaning. [10] The exact number given varies from study to study. I have also seen references to 946, 780 and “over 825.” See Joel S. Baden, “Hithpael and Niphal in Biblical Hebrew: Semantic and Morphological Overlap,” Vetus Testamentum 60 (2010), pp. 33-44, 35 n.7. [11] We must be careful not to assume that thehitpael originated as a reflexive stem. Most likely, the standard Hebrew hitpael is a conflation of a variety of earlier t-stem forms that had different roles. See Baden, p. 33, n. 1 and E.A. Speiser, “The Durative Hithpa‘el: A tan-Form,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 75 (2) (1955), pp. 118-121. [12] See the above article by Speiser. For example, the implication may be “to ,אבל with regard to the hitpael of be in mourning התמם over a period of time.” With regard to I I Sam. 22:26 and Ps.18:26.), the ;תמם the hitpael of) implication may be “to be at Gen. 24:21 משתאה :continually upright.” Some more examples תתאוה ,(continually gaze) at Deut. 5:18 (tenth commandment; continually desire), at Ps. 18:8 (continually ויתגעשו התעטף shake), and at Ps. 142:4 (continually be weak/faint ). Another example is When it is in thehitpael, the implication may .נחל the root be “to come into and remain in possession.” [13] See T. Lambdin, Introduction to Biblical Hebrew (1971), pp. 249-250, and Speiser, The Stem PLL, p. 305. as “to seek to make himself worthy התחנן Rav Hirsch views [14] of concession.” See his comm. to Deut. 3:23. This is farfetched. Hayim Tawil observes that there is an Akkadian root enēnu, “to plead,” and sees this Akkadian root as underlying the He views thehitpael as signifying that the .התחנן Hebrew pleading is continous (like the import of the hitpael in hithalekh). See his An Akkadian Lexical Companion For Biblical Hebrew (2009), pp. 113-14. But there is insufficient reason to read an Akkadian when we have a very appropriate Hebrew ,התחנן root into .חנן root [15] See Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, vol. 11, p. 568, Ernest Klein, A Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the Hebrew Language for Readers of English (1987), p. 511, and ,פלל Brown-Driver-Briggs, entry .p. 933 ,פלל Koehler-Baumgartner, entry [16] The Soncino commentary here remarks that this was “a form of worship common to several cults with the purpose of exciting the pity of the gods, or to serve as a blood-bond between the devotee and his god.” [17] See Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, vol. 11, p. 568, Klein, p. 511, and Koehler-Baumgartner, entry .p. 933 ,פלל [18] One scholar claims to have located as many as 68 such instances in Tanakh, but does not list them. For the reference, see Baden, p. 35, n. 7. Baden doubts the number is this high and believes that the true number is much lower. Baden would dispute some of the examples that I am giving. Hitpaels with true passive meanings are found more frequently in Rabbinic Hebrew. The expansion of the meaning of the hitpael stem to include the true passive form took place in other Semitic languages as well. See O.T. Allis, “The Blessing of Abraham,” The Princeton Theological Review (1927), pp. 263-298, 274-278. [19] These and several others are collected at Allis, pp. 281-83. For a few more true passives, see Kohelet 8:10, I Sam. 3:14, Lam. 4:1, and I Chr. 5:17.

[20] See, e.g., Allis, and Chee-Chiew Lee, “Once Again: The Niphal and the Hithpael in the Abrahamic Blessing for the ברך of Nations,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 36.3 (2012), pp. 279-296, and Benjamin J. Noonan, “Abraham, Blessing, and the Nations: A Reexamination of the Niphal and in the Patriarchal Narratives,”Hebrew Studies ברך Hitpael of 51 (2010), pp. 73-93.

New Book Announcement: Esther Unmasked: Solving Eleven Mysteries of the Jewish Holidays and Liturgy by Mitchell First

The Seforim blog is proud to announce the publication of our contributor Mitchell First’s newest book, Esther Unmasked: Solving Eleven Mysteries of the Jewish Holidays and Liturgy (Kodesh Press, 2015), available here (http://www.amazon.com/Esther-Unmasked-Solving-Mysteries-Holid ays/dp/0692375422). Table of Contents Introduction by Rabbi Hayyim Angel ...... 9 Preface ...... 13 1. :עולם לתכן Establishing the Correct Text in Aleinu ...... 17 2. הליחמ? . . What is the Origin of the Word ...... 30 . 3. :והו ינא What is the Meaning of this Cryptic Mishnaic Statement? . 42 4. What is the Meaning of “Maccabee”? ...... 60 5. What is the Meaning of Ḥashmonai? ...... 76 6. What Motivated Antiochus to Issue His Decrees Against the Jews ...... 94 7. The Origin of Taanit Esther ...... 118 8. Achashverosh and Esther in Secular Sources ...... 129 9. Mah Nishtannah: The Three Questions ...... 168 10. Arami Oved Avi: Uncovering the Interpretation Hidden in the Mishnah ...... 189 11. The Pe/Ayin Order in Ancient Israel and its Implications for the Book of Tehillim ...... 207 Abbreviations ...... 231 Index ...... 232 Preface This book consists of eleven articles that address interesting questions that arise in connection with the liturgy and origin of the Jewish holidays. Too often, Orthodox Jews take the liturgy and the origin of the holidays for granted, without adequate investigation. For example, regarding the liturgy: ● The improving the“ ,תקון עולם Jewish obligation of world,” is widely referred to and it is traditionally assumed that the Aleinu prayer is one of the texts upon which this obligation is based. The first article shows that a very strong case can be made that the original toestablish the“ ,לתכן עולם version of Aleinu read world under God’s to perfect/improve“ ,לתקן עולם sovereignty,” and not the world under God’s sovereignty.” If so, the concept has no תקון עולם of connection to the Aleinu prayer. ● A phrase that is part of the traditional Sukkot hoshanot based on the text of a ,אני והו הושיעה נא liturgy is אני והו Mishnah at Sukkah 4:5. The meaning of the phrase has been a puzzle throughout the centuries. The third article shows that almost אני certainly the original text of the Mishnah read With this .והוא reading, the statement can be explained. ● It is usually assumed that the Passover recital of “Four Questions” is one of the fundamental rituals of rabbinic Judaism. The ninth article explains that the original mah nishtannah only included three questions. The variation in the number of questions in the mah nishtannah over the centuries is then described, and the evolution of the number of questions into the present four is then explained. Regarding the origin of the Jewish holidays: ● The sixth article discusses what motivated Antiochus to undertake his persecution of the Jews. The three main theories will be discussed and evaluated. ● In the seventh article, the origin of the fast of the 13th of Adar (Taanit Esther) will be addressed. No fast in Adar is mentioned in the book of Esther or the Talmud, and the origin of this fast has always been difficult to understand. The 13th of Adar was even a holiday Yom( Nikanor) in the late Second Temple period, a day on which fasting was prohibited. Based on a careful examination of Geonic sources, the seventh article will explain how this fast first came into existence in Geonic Babylonia. ● The identification of Achashverosh in secular sources had always been a puzzle. The eighth article will explain how, in the middle of the nineteenth century, Achashverosh was finally able to be identified. He is the king that the Greek historians referred to as “Xerxes.” The article will detail the basis for this identification, and will show that Esther can be identified in secular sources as well. Regarding the balance of the articles: ● The second article suggests explanations for the origin of the mysterious Tannaitic ,מחל root a root not found in the Bible. The article further attempts to distinguish this .סלח root from its synonym ● The fourth article explains the correct spelling of the term and (מקבי) Maccabee points to its likely original meaning. ● The fifth article discusses the identity and meaning of .חשמונאי ● The tenth article conducts an analysis of Mishnah Pesaḥim 10:4. It shows that it is likely that this Tannaitic source understood arami oved avi to mean “my father was a homeless/wandering/lost Aramean.” Typically, it is assumed that this interpretation of arami oved avi did not arise until the time of the Rishonim. ● The final article explains the reason why the pe verses preceded the ayin verses in the acrostics in chapters 2-4 of the book of Eikhah (and in the acrostic in chapter 1 in the Dead Sea text of Eikhah). It turns out that pe preceded ayin in the order of the alphabet in ancient Israel! The implications of this explanation for dating the book of Tehillim (interspersed with many acrostics) are then addressed. • • • Many of the articles included in this book have been published in earlier forms in Ḥakirah, Biblical Archaeology Review, AJS Review, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament and seforim.blogspot.com. (For the references to the earlier articles, see the first footnote in each article.)

Several לתכן of the articles: the first (establishing the reading seventh (origin of Taanit Esther), eighth (the ,(עולם identification of Esther in secular sources), and eleventh (the implications of the ancient pe/ayin order) have been viewed by many as groundbreaking.

A :מבול The Root of the Word Flood of Possibilities

The Root of the Word מבול: A Flood of Possibilities By Mitchell First[1] ([email protected])

means מבול A common assumption is that the word “flood.” This is how the word is translated in ArtScroll’s Stone Chumash, in the Hertz Pentateuch, and in the Koren Tanakh. But in order to truly understand the meaning of a word, we must determine its three letter root. ,has four letters מבול The word the first of which is a mem. Usually, a mem at the beginning of a noun is not a part of the root. It is what is added to turn a verb into a noun. is מבול Thus, an initial thought might be that the root of [בול.[2

But there is no evidence בול for a verb in Biblical Hebrew. Therefore, the vav is probably not a root letter here and one of the three original root letters probably dropped out. The dagesh also מבול in the bet of implies that a root letter dropped out. Our task is to determine what that letter was. One possibility is that the original root was and בלל that the dropped letter was a lamed.[3] If the .מבלול In this view, the original noun was perhaps the fundamental meaning ,בלל original root was ”.would be “mixture/intermingling/confusion מבול of the word The fact that the story of migdal Bavel follows shortly after the story of gives some credence to מבול the is a main theme of migdalthe בלל this approach. The root Bavel story (see Genesis 11:7 and 11:9). But the dagesh implies that the dropped letter was the מבול in the bet of first letter of the root.[4] Therefore, a more likely possibility has the meaning נבל The verb [נבל.[is 5 מבול for the root of of “fall, decay, destroy.”[6] The root letter nun often drops as the first letter of the root. In this .מנבול approach, the original noun was The problem with נבל is that מבול underlies the word נבל claiming that the root is typically used in the context of a gradual destruction, such as in the context of leaves and flowers.[7] See, e.g., Is. 28:1: ve-tziz novel, Is. 34:4: ki-nevol aleh mi-gefen, and Is. 40:7: naval tzitz. It seems to mean “wither” and “decay,” rather than “destroy.” There is one instance is נבל in the Tanakh where the root applied to the world. See Is. 24:4:navlah ha-aretz…navlah tevel. But even here the implication may be one of gradual decay.[8] Radak agrees but takes a different ,נבל is מבול that the root of approach.[9] is נבל In his approach, the fundamental meaning of the root “fall.”[10] But the word is not being used to describe the effects of the flood (earthly items falling and being destroyed). The word is being used to describe something that is itself falling from the heavens. In Radak’s view, anything that falls from the heavens (e.g., snow, hail and fire) [מבול.[can be called a 11 מבול A third approach to the root of This seems to be the most likely [יבל.[is that it is 12 but ,מיבול approach. In this approach, the original noun was the yod dropped.[13] יבל ,Throughout Tanakh is a root relating to movement and flow.[14] See, e.g., Ps. 60:11: mi yovileini ir matzor (who will lead me into the fortified city?), Is. 53:7: ka-se la-tevach yuval (as a lamb is led to the slaughter), and Is. 55:12: u- ve-shalom tuvalun (and you will be led out with peace). relating to יבל Another example of the root movement is in the context of the jubilee year. At Lev. 25:10, we are told: yovel he tiheyeh lachem ve-shavtem ish el means “ram” in יובל …achuzato several places in Tanakh.[15] Based on the statement in Lev. 25:9 that the shofar is blown to proclaim the jubilee year, Rashi believes that yovel must mean ram at Lev. 25:10, and that the reference is to the blowing of the horn of the ram. But the plain sense accords with the view of the Ramban that the meaning of yovel at Lev. 25:10 is “being brought back,” i.e., a time of being brought back to one’s land.[16] is connected to water יבל Also, the root in several verses. See Is. 30:25 and 44:4: (streams of water) מים יבלי .(אובל) See also Dan 8:2 .יובל :and Jer. 17:8

Hayyim Tawil’s An Akkadian Lexical Companion for Biblical Hebrew contributes to our understanding and supports our suggestion that the root of Tawil points out that there is .יבל in Biblical Hebrew is מבול a word in Akkadian bubbulu, which means something like a flood of water.[17] Most probably, this word is related to the Hebrew word mabbul, since Hebrew and Akkadian are related languages, and m and b often interchange. Since bubbulu is used in the context of water, this suggests or נבל and not ,יבל is מבול that the root of .בלל

The issue of the .is not just an etymological one מבול root of the word a force מבול Philosophically, what we are asking is: was the meant to cause intermingling/ confusion? a force meant to cause things to fall/decay/be destroyed?[18] or more neutrally, a force of flowing water? Most likely, the [and the last is correct.[19 יבל root is

Interestingly, Rashi conducts practically the same that we did. In his explanation of מבול analysis of the word the word at Gen. 6:17, he writes:

she-bilah et ha-kol, she-bilbel et ha-kol, she-hovil et ha-kol min ha-gavoha la-namukh… means נבל. בלבל means “destroy and wear down,” similar to בלה means “move” and is בלל. הוביל mix,” the equivalent of“ [יבל.[from the root 20 was purposely מבול But Rashi seems to believe that the word chosen to convey all three connotations. Additional Notes

1. Outside of the 12 times מבול the word appears (in various forms) in parshat Noach, the only other time the word appears in Tanakh is at Psalms 29:10: Hashem la- mabbul yashav. Many assume that the meaning here is something like “God sat enthroned at the Flood,”[21] but the prefix la- is difficult in this approach. An interesting interpretation is provided by Tawil. He cites a scholar who claims, based on a parallel in Akkadian, ,.here means “before the Flood,” i.e למבול that “from time immemorial.” The phrase Hashem la-mabbul yashav would then parallel the subsequent phrase va- yeshev Hashem melekh le-olam.[22] Many other interpretations of la-mabbul yashav have been suggested.[23] Most creative is the suggestion of Naphtali Herz Tur-Sinai that the reference is to God having dried up the waters of the mabbul and that [יבש![here is just a methathesized form of 24 ישב 2. An analysis similar to can also be מבול the one we have conducted on the word the pre-exilic name ,בול conducted on for the month of Marchesvan.[25] בול Is ?(בלל) named for some activity in the month relating to mixing or relating to moving/gathering ?(נבל) relating to withering ?(יבל) produce All have been suggested.[26] בול Because may have typically been a rainy month, a derivation from the has also been מבול word suggested. See, e.g., Radak to I Kings 6:38. Interestingly, a statement at Midrash Tanchuma, Noach, sec. 11, explains the (מ) as based on the fact that the Flood spanned 40 מבול word days in [בול![the month of 27 inמבול I focused above on determining the root of .3 Biblical Hebrew. If we rephrase the question and ask what the root of the word was in proto-Semitic, the answer changes slightly. The answer would be vav-bet-lamed. The prevailing scholarly view is that most Hebrew roots with an initial yod derive from earlier Semitic roots with an initial vav.[28]

[1] I would like to thank Rabbi Avrohom Lieberman and Sam Borodach for reviewing the draft. [2] Also, no Hebrew root begins with the two letters mem and bet. See Eduard Yechezkel Kutscher, A History of the Hebrew Language (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1984 ), p. 7: It is also instructive that [in a Semitic language] in the first two positions, not only are identical consonants excluded (the patterning AAB being non- existent except in Akkadian) but even homorganic consonants (produced by the same organ) do not occur in this position. Mem and bet are homorganic consonants. (Kutscher admits that there are some exceptions to the rule he stated.) [3] See, e.g., R. Abraham Ibn Ezra to Gen. 6:17, who .as the root נבל makes this suggestion. He also suggests [4] Of course, all the dagesh really shows is that whoever inserted this dagesh believed that a letter was dropped. But most likely, the vocalization was based on the pronounciation at the time, which presumably reflected a tradition that the word was pronounced mabbul, and not mavul. This suggests that there was once a root letter preceding it. [5] See, e.g., Ibn Ezra, Seforno, and S.D. Luzzatto, on Gen. 6:17. Those who take this approach can point to the fact that the Ecc. 12:6), also with a dagesh) מבוע word .נבע in the bet, undoubtedly comes from the root means mapalah ve-hefsed נבל Seforno writes that [6] .meansnefilah ve-hashchatah נבל and Luzzatto writes that Seforno .destroy them) at Gen=) משחיתם points to the use of the word 6:13 as evidence that mabul probably has this meaning as well. Very likely, .are related נפל and נבל the roots [7] R. Samson Raphael Hirsch argues that this is precisely the point. By using the the Torah was implying that on some level ,מבול term the event was only of a mild character. I do not find this argument convincing. Although Noah and his family remained in the Ark for one year and ten days (see Gen. 6:11 and 7:14), the implication of verse 7:23 (va-yimach et kol ha-yekum…) is that every living thing was destroyed decisively in the first 40 days. [8] See, e.g., the translation in the Soncino edition. The also connotes gradual בלה Hebrew root decay. See, e.g., Deut. 8:4 (clothes), 29:4 (shoes), and Gen. 18:12 (Sarah). It .נבל may be related to the root In Akkadian, the root nabulu may have more of a connotation of destruction than the ,See, e.g., the concordance of S. Mandelkern .נבל Hebrew root and Ernest Klein,A Comprehensive Etymological ,מבול entry Dictionary of the Hebrew Language for Readers of English (New York: MacMillan, 1987), as מבול p. 311. This would give more of a basis to interpret .נבל deriving from [9] In addition to his comm. to Gen. 6:17, see his Sefer .נבל ha-Shoreshim, entry is an unripe fruit that falls נובלת In rabbinic Hebrew, a [10] off of the tree. [11] Both San. 108b and Zev. 116a refer to a mabbul shel esh. Radak also points to the phrase nivlei shamayim at Job 38:37, where the context indicates that the phrase refers to falling rain. But it seems more likely נבלי that there means “vessels,” i.e., the clouds that hold the rain. It has been .נבל is related to the “vessel” meaning of מבול suggested that In this is “a מבול view, the meaning of receptacle that holds water.” See, e.g., Hayim ben Yosef Tawil, An Akkadian Lexical Companion for Biblical Hebrew (Jersey City: Ktav, 2009) p. 196, who mentions such a suggestion. Probably, the origin of the is that vessels were often made from נבל vessel” meaning of“ the skin of (.נבלה a fallen animal (=a also has נבל the meaning “disgusting,” probably because withering and falling things become with this מבול disgusting. But it seems farfetched to connect .נבל meaning of [12] See, e.g., Moses David Cassuto, Peirush al Sefer Bereshit (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1953), vol. 2, p. 45, Daat Mikra (comm. to Gen. 6:17), Menachem Tzvi Kadari,Millon ha-Ivrit ha- Mikrait (Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan Univ., 2006), p. 575, and Tawil, p. 196. The Daat Mikra commentary to Genesis 6:17 (p. 177, n. 52) points out that all three , Yaval:יבל sons of Lemekh have a name derived from the root Yuval, and Tuval Kayin. See Gen. 4:20-22. [13] Some other examples of words whose initial yods ,I Kings 7:9) מסד and (יצע Is. 28:10, from) מצע :dropped are See Daat .(יסד from Mikra to Gen. 6:17. There is a dagesh in the middle letter of both of these words. [14] The word also has the related meaning of “carry.” See, e.g., Psalms 76:12: yovilu shai (carry presents). is used to mean the produce יבולה In the Shema, the word of the land. Most likely, it has this meaning because produce must be carried in from the which also means ,תבואה land. (See similarly, the word See .בוא produce, and comes from the root means produce יבולה Klein, p. 689.) Alternatively, the word because produce flows from the land. [15] Yovel means ram at Ex. 19:13 and throughout the sixth chapter of the book of Joshua. (That yovel means ram at Ex. 19:13 is evident from Josh. 6:5. It is also suggested by Ex. 19:16.) R. Hirsch also takes this .הבאה Ramban defines yovel as [16] approach to this verse. See also the commentaries of R. Saadiah Gaon, Ibn Ezra, and Hizzekuni. R. Hirsch also makes the suggestion that when yovel is used in the context of a sound being made, we can translateyovel as “home-calling signal,” based Despite the brilliance of this suggestion, a .יבל on the verb comparison of Ex. 19:13 with Josh. 6:5 suggests that, in the sound contexts, yovel is merely short for keren ha-yovel (=the horn of the ram). Is there a connection between the “movement/bringing” meaning of yovel and the “ram” meaning? R. Hirsch makes the following interesting suggestion:

[T]he ram, is the leader of the flock, the one who “brings” them to their pasturage, perhaps quite specially, who goes in front, and the flock following him, “brings them home.” p. 256): “leader of the) יובל See similarly Klein, entry flock, bellwether.” [17] Tawil, p. 196. The standard word in Akkadian for flood is abūbu. [18] Or, according to Radak, a force of falling water. [19] It is interesting to note that in the Septuagint the was translated as מבול word κατακλυσμός = down-cleansing. (The ArtScroll Tehillim commentary to Psalms 29:10, p. 354, refers to themabul as a “cataclysmic” upheaval. Surely, this is just coincidence!) But the Greek-speaking Egyptian Jews had a very limited understanding of the structure of Hebrew words. Surely, they did not .in the word יבל see the root [20] For further elaboration, see the Siftei Chakhamim and ArtScroll’s Sapirstein edition of Rashi. The three-pronged interpretation expressed in this Rashi seems to be his own. [21] See, e.g., the ArtScroll Siddur. See also Rambam, Moreh Nevukhim, part I, chap. 11. [22] See Tawil, p. 196. [23] For example, the Daat Mikra commentary to ”,here means “throne מבול Psalms 29:10 cites a suggestion that based on a resemblance to a word in Arabic. The suggestion is made by Jacob Nahum Epstein in “Mabbul,” Tarbitz 12 (1940), p. 82. But the Arabic word that Epstein bases his suggestion on is Epstein must assume that there was a switch ;מנבר pronounced of resh and lamed. (The Daat Mikra comm. to Gen. 6:17 states that the relevant word is in Akkadian, but this is an error.) The Anchor Bible translates: “has sat enthroned from the flood” (=from the time of of מבול the flood) and argues that the reference is not to the the time of Noach, but to some other water-related Divine victory. [24] See his Peshuto shel Mikra, vol. 4, part 1 (Jerusalem: Kiryat Sefer, 1967), p. 56. [25] See I Kings 6:38. [26] See, e.g., J. Talmud Rosh ha-Shanah 1:2, Daat Mikra to I Kings 6:38, and Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (Leiden-New York-Köln: seems בלל The connection to) .בול Brill, 1994), vol. 1, entry least likely.) Of course, lacks a mem at the outset, there is less בול because the word reason to suspect that an initial root letter such as nun or yod was .יבול of Job 40:20 surely comes from בול dropped. But the [27] See Gen. 7:11-12. [28] Support for this in our case is that there is a word in Arabic, wabala, to bring down rain. See Cassuto, vol. 2, p. 45. See also Tawil’s reference (p. 196) to the Akkadian word (w)abālu. is anon-Semitic word מבול Of course, it is possible that that happened to make its way into the Tanakh and we are completely misguided in our search for its origin and meaning in Biblical Hebrew and the other Semitic languages. But it is a noun that begins with mem and this is a typical Biblical Hebrew form. Moreover, the parallels in the other Semitic languages support our conclusion that the origin of the word is a Semitic one and that its root is vav-bet-lamed/yod-bet-lamed.

The Identity and Meaning of Chashmonai

The Identity and Meaning of Chashmonai [1]

By Mitchell First ([email protected]) The name Chashmonai appears many times in the Babylonian Talmud, but usually the references are vague. The references are either to beit Chashmonai, malkhut Chashmonai, malkhut beit Chashmonai, malkhei beit Chashmonai, or beit dino shel Chashmonai.[2] One time (at Megillah 11a) the reference is to an individual named Chashmonai, but neither his father nor his sons are named. The term Chashmonai (with the spelling ,appears two times in the Jerusalem Talmud (חשמוניי once in the second chapter of Taanit and the other in a parallel passage in the first chapter of Megillah.[3] Both times the reference is to the story of Judah defeating the Syrian military commander Nicanor,[4] although Judah is not mentioned by name. In the passage in Taanit, the reference is to echad mi-shel beit Chashmonai.[5] In the passage in Megillah, the reference is to echad mi-shel Chashmonai. Almost certainly, the passage in Taanit preserves the original reading.[6] If so, the reference is again vague.

Critically, the name Chashmonai is not found in any form in I or II Maccabees, our main sources for the historical background of the events of Chanukkah.[7] But fortunately the name does appear in two sources in Tannaitic literature.[8] It is only through one of these two sources that we can get a handle on the identity of Chashmonai.

———— Already in the late first century, the identity of Chashmonai seems to have been a mystery to Josephus. (Josephus must have heard of the name from his extensive Pharisaic education, and from being from the family.) In hisJewish War, he identifies Chashmonai as the father of Mattathias.[9] Later, at XII, 265 of his Antiquities, he identifies Chashmonai as the great-grandfather of Mattathias.[10] Probably, his approach here is the result of his knowing from I Maccabees 2:1 that Mattathias was the son of a John who was the son of a Simon, and deciding to integrate the name Chashmonai with this data by making him the father of Simon.[11] It is very likely that Josephus had no actual knowledge of the identity of Chashmonai and was just speculating here. It is too coincidental that he places Chashmonai as the father of Simon, where there is room for him. If Josephus truly had a tradition from his family about the specific identity of Chashmonai, it would already have been included in his Jewish War. The standard printed text at Megillah 11a implies that Chashmonai is not Mattathias: she-he-emadeti lahem Shimon ha-Tzaddik ve-Chashmonai u-vanav u-Matityah kohen gadol…This is also the implication of the standard printed text at Soferim 20:8, when it sets forth the Palestinian version of the Amidah insertion for Chanukkah; the text includes the phrase: Matityahu ben Yochanan kohen gadol ve-Chashmonai u-vanav…[12] There are also midrashim on Chanukkah that refer to a Chashmonai who was a separate person from Mattathias and who was instrumental in the revolt.[13] But the fact that I Maccabees does not mention any separate individual named Chashmonai involved in the revolt strongly suggests that there was no such individual. Moreover, there are alternative readings at both Megillah 11a and Soferim 20:8.[14] Also, the midrashim on Chanukkah that refer to a Chashmonai who was a separate person from Mattathias are late midrashim.[15] In the prevalent version of Al ha-Nissim today, Chashmonai has no vav preceding it.[16] If there was no separate person named Chashmonai at the time of the revolt, and if the statement of Josephus that Chashmonai was the great-grandfather of Mattathias is only a conjecture, who was Chashmonai? Let us look at our two earliest sources for Chashmonai. One of these is M. Middot 1:6.[17]

המוקד… בבית היו לשכות ארבע ייון…[18] מלכי ששיקצום המזבח אבני את חשמוניי בני גנזו בה צפונית מזרחית

From here, it seems that Chashmonai is just another name for Mattathias. This is also the implication of Chashmonai in many of the later passages.[19] The other Tannaitic source for Chashmonai is Seder Olam, chap. 30. Here the language is: malkhut beit Chashmonai meah ve-shalosh =the dynasty of the House of Chashmonai, 103 [years].[20] Although one does not have to interpret Chashmonai here as a reference to Mattathias, this interpretation does fit this passage.

Thus a reasonable approach based on these two early sources is to interpret Chashmonai as another way of referring to Mattathias.[21] But we still do not know why these sources would refer to him in this way. Of course, one possibility is that it was his additional name.[22] Just like each of his five sons had an additional name,[23] perhaps Chashmonai was the additional name of Mattathias.[24] But I Maccabees, which stated that each of Mattathias’ sons had an additional name, did not make any such statement in the case of Mattathias himself. Perhaps we should not deduce much from this omission. Nothing required the author of I Maccabees to mention that Mattathias had an additional name. But one scholar has suggested an interesting reason for the omission. It is very likely that a main purpose of I Maccabees was the glorification of Mattathias in order to legitimize the rule of his descendants.[25] Their rule needed legitimization because the family was not from the priestly watch of Yedayah. Traditionally, the high priest came from this watch.[26] I Maccabees achieves its purpose by portraying a zealous Mattathias and creating parallels between Mattathias and the Biblical Pinchas, who was rewarded with the priesthood for his zealousness.[27] Perhaps, it has been suggested, the author of I Maccabees left out the additional name for Mattathias because it would remind readers of the obscure origin of the dynasty.[28] (We will discuss why this might have been the case when we discuss the meaning of the name in the next section.)

—– We have seen that a reasonable approach, based on the two earliest rabbinic sources, is to interpret Chashmonai as another way of referring to Mattathias. The next question is the meaning of the name. The name could be based on the name of some earlier ancestor of Mattathias. But we have no clear knowledge of any ancestor of Mattathias with this name.[29] Moreover, this only begs the question of where the earlier ancestor would have obtained this name.[30] The most widely held view is that the name Chashmonai derives from a place that some ancestor of Mattathias hailed from a few generations earlier. (Mattathias and his immediate ancestors hailed from Modin.[31]) For example, Joshua 15:27 refers to a place called Cheshmon in the area of the tribe of Judah.[32] Alternatively, a location Chashmonah is mentioned at Numbers 33:29-30 as one of the places that the Israelites encamped in the desert.[33] In either of these interpretations, the name may have reminded others of the obscure origin of Mattathias’ ancestors and hence the author of I Maccabees might have refrained from using it. חשמנים It has also been observed that the word (Chashmanim) occurs at Psalms 68:32: לאלקים מני מצרים; כוש תריץ ידיו. חַשְׁמַנִּים יאתיו Chashmanim will come out of Egypt; Kush shall hasten her hands to God. (The context is that the nations of the world are bringing gifts and singing to God.[34]) It has been suggested that the name Chashmonai ,here.[35] Unfortunatelyחשמנים is related to ,appears in Tanakh חשמנים this is the only time the word so its meaning is unclear.[36] The Septuagint translates it as πρέσβεις (=ambassadors).[37] The Talmud seems to imply that it means “gifts.”[38] Based on a similar word in Egyptian, the meanings “bronze,” “natron” (a mixture used for many purposes including as a dye), and “amethyst” (a quartz of blue or purplish color) can be suggested.[39] Ugaritic and Akkadian have a similar word with the meaning of a color, or colored stone, or a coloring of dyed wool or leather; the color being perhaps red-purple, blue, or green.[40] Based on this, meanings such as red cloth or blue cloth have been suggested.[41] Based on similar words in Arabic, “oil” and “horses and chariots” have been proposed.[42] A has also [אשמנים,[connection to anotherhapax legomenon, 43 been perhaps אשמנים .suggested means darkness,[44] in if related, may mean ,חשמנים which case dark-skinned people.[45] derives from the חשמניםFinally, it has been suggested that ,oil), and that it refers to important people) שמן word i.e., nobles, because the original meaning is “one who gives off light.” (This is akin to “illustrious” in English).[46] But the simplest interpretation is that it refers to a people by the An [חשמנים.[name 47 seems to be parallel חשמנים argument in favor of this is that to Kush, another people, in this verse. is an active form; it means “will come,” and not יאתיו ,Also “will be brought.”[48] I would ,חשמנים Whatever the meaning of the word like to raise the possibility that an ancestor of Mattathias lived in Egypt for a period and that people began to call him something like Chashmonai upon his return, based on this verse.

Conclusions Even though Josephus identifies Chashmonai as the great-grandfather of Mattathias, this was probably just speculation. It is too coincidental that he places Chashmonai as the father of Simon, precisely where there is room for him. The most reasonable approach, based on the earliest rabbinic sources, is to interpret Chashmonai as another way of referring to Mattathias, either because it was his additional name or for some other reason. A main purpose of I Maccabees was the glorification of Mattathias in order to legitimize the rule of his descendants. This may have led the author of I Maccabees to leave the name out; the author would not have wanted to remind readers of the obscure origin of the dynasty. Most probably, the name Chashmonai derives from a place that some ancestor of the family hailed from.

—– A few other points: º did not originally include an חשמונאי Most probably, the name aleph. The two earliest Mishnah manuscripts, Kaufmann [חשמוניי.[and Parma (De Rossi 138), spell the name 49 This is also how the name is spelled in the two passages in the Jerusalem Talmud.[50] such as) אי As is the case with many other names that end with ,(שמאי the aleph is probably a later addition that reflects the spelling practice in Babylonia.[51] is not found in the rabbinic חשמונאים º The plural literature of the Tannaitic or Amoraic periods,[52] and seems to be a later development.[53] (An this ;חשמונים alternative plural that also arose is plural probably arose earlier than the former.[54]) This raises the issue of whether the name was ever used in the plural in the Second Temple period. The first recorded use of the name in the plural is by Josephus, writing in Greek in the decades after the destruction of the Temple.[55] It is possible that the name was never used as a group name or family name in Temple times and that we have been misled by the use of the plural by Josephus.[56] On the other hand, it is possible that by the time of Josephus the plural had already come into use and Josephus was merely following prevailing usage. In this approach, how early the plural came into use remains a question.

Since there is no evidence that the name was used as a family or group name at the time of Mattathias himself, the common translation in Al ha-Nissim: “the Hasmonean” (see, e.g., the Complete ArtScroll Siddur, p. 115) is misleading. It implies that he was one of a group or family using this name at this time. A better translation would be “Chashmonai,” implying that it was a description/additional name of Mattathias alone. ° The last issue that needs to be addressed is the date of Al ha-Nissim.

According to most scholars, the daily Amidah was not instituted until the time of R. Gamliel, and even then the precise text was not fixed.[57] Probably, there was no Amidah at all for most of the Second Temple period.[58] The only Amidot that perhaps came into existence in some form in the late Second Temple period were those for the Sabbath and Biblical festivals.[59] Based on all of the above, it is extremely unlikely that any part of our text of Al ha-Nissim dates to the Hasmonean period. The concept of an insertion in the Amidah for Chanukkah is found already at Tosefta Berakhot 3:14. See also, in the Jerusalem Talmud, Berakhot 4:1 and 7:4, and in the Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat 24a, and perhaps Shabbat 21b.[60] But exactly what was being recited in the Tannaitic and Amoraic periods remains unknown. The version recited today largely parallels what is found in the sources from Geonic Babylonia. The version recited in Palestine in the parallel period was much shorter. SeeSoferim 20:8 (20:6, ed. Higger).[61] The fact that the Babylonian and Palestinian versions differ so greatly suggests that the main text that we recite today for Al ha- Nissim is not Tannaitic in origin. On the other hand, both versions do include a line that begins biymei Matityah(u), so perhaps this line is a core line and could date as early as the late first century or the second century C.E.[62] In any event, the prevalent version of Al ha-Nissim today, Matityahu … kohen gadol Chashmonai u-vanav, can easily be understood as utilizing Chashmonai as an additional name for Mattathias. But this may just be coincidence. It is possible that the author knew of both names, did not understand the difference between them, and merely placed them next to one another.[63] On the other hand, we have seen the reading ve-Chashmonai in both Al ha-Nissim and Tractate Soferim. Perhaps this was the original reading, similar to the reading in many manuscripts of Megillah 11a. Perhaps all of these texts were originally composed with the assumption that Mattathias and Chashmonai were separate individuals. But there is also a strong possibility that these vavs arose later based on a failure to understand that the reference to Chashmonai was also a reference to Mattathias.

—— Postscript: Anyone who is not satisfied with my explanations for Chashmonai can adopt the explanation intuited by my friend David Gertler when he was a child. His teacher was talking to the class about Mattityahu-Chashmonai and his five sons, without providing any explanation of the name Chashmonai. David reasoned: it must be that חשמני he is called metathesized into חמשי ,. )because he hadfive sons i.e [חשמי/חשמני)![64

[1] I would like to thank Rabbi Avrohom Lieberman, Rabbi Ezra Frazer, and Sam Borodach for reviewing the draft. I will spell the name Chashmonai throughout, as is the modern convention, even though the vav has a shuruk in the Kaufmann manuscript of the Mishnah and Chashmunai may be the original pronunciation [2] The references to beit dino shel Chashmonai are at Sanhedrin 82a and Avodah Zarah 36b. The balance of the references are at: Shabbat 21b, Menachot 28b and 64b, Kiddushin 70b, Sotah 49b, Yoma 16a, Rosh ha-Shanah 18b and 24b, Taanit 18b, Megillah 6a, Avodah Zarah 9a, 43a, and 52b, Bava Kamma 82b, and Bava Batra 3b. For passages in classical midrashic literature that include the name Chashmonai, see, e.g., Bereshit Rabbah 99:2, Bereshit Rabbah 97 (ed. Theodor-Albeck, p. 1225), Tanchuma Vayechi 14, Tanchuma Vayechi, ed. Buber, p. 219, Tanchuma Shofetim 7, Pesikta de-Rav Kahana, p. 107 (ed. Mandelbaum), and Pesikta Rabbati 5a and 23a (ed. Ish Shalom). See also Midrash ha-Gadol to Genesis 49:28 (p. 866). The name is also found in the Targum to I Sam. 2:4 and Song of Songs 6:7. The name is also found in sources such as Al ha-Nissim, the scholion to Megillat Taanit, Tractate Soferim, Seder Olam Zuta, and Midrash Tehillim. These will be discussed further below. The name is also found in Megillat Antiochus. This work, originally composed in Aramaic, seems to refer to bnei Chashmunai and/or beit Chashmunai. See Menachem Tzvi Kadari, “Megillat Antiochus ha-Aramit,” Bar Ilan 1 (1963), p. 100 (verse 61 and notes) and p. 101 (verse 64 and notes). There is also perhaps a reference to the individual. See the added paragraph at p. 101 (bottom). This work is generally viewed as very unreliable. See, e.g., EJ 14:1046-47. Most likely, it was composed in Babylonia in the Geonic period. See Aryeh Kasher, “Ha-Reka ha-Historiy le-Chiburah shel Megillat Antiochus,” in Bezalel Bar-Kochva, ed., Ha- Tekufah ha-Selukit be-Eretz Yisrael (1980), pp. 85-102, and Zeev Safrai, “The Scroll of Antiochus and the Scroll of Fasts,” in The Literature of the Sages, vol. 2, eds. Shmuel Safrai, Zeev Safrai, Joshua Schwartz, and Peter J. Tomson (2006). A Hebrew translation ofMegillat Antiochus was included in sources such as the Siddur Otzar ha-Tefillot and in the Birnbaum Siddur. [3] Taanit 2:8 (66a) and Megillah 1:3 (70c). In the Piotrkow edition, the passages are at Taanit 2:12 and Megillah 1:4. [4] This took place in 161 B.C.E. On this event, see I Macc. 7:26-49, II Macc. 15:1-36, and Josephus, Antiquities XII, 402-412.The story is also found at Taanit 18b, where the name of the victor is given more generally as malkhut beit Chashmonai. [5] Mi-shel and beit are combined and written as one word in the Leiden manuscript. Also, there is a chirik under the nun. See Yaakov Zusman’s 2001 edition of the Leiden manuscript, p. 717. [6] The phrase echad mi-shel Chashmonai is awkward and unusual; it seems fairly obvious that a word such as beit is missing. Vered Noam, in her discussion of the passages in the Jerusalem Talmud about Judah defeating Nicanor, adopts the reading in Taanit and never even mentions the reading in Megillah. See her Megillat Taanit (2003), p. 300. There are no manuscripts of the passage in Megillah other than the Leiden manuscript. There is another manuscript of the passage in Taanit. It is from the Genizah and probably dates earlier than the Leiden manuscript (copied in 1289). It reads echad mi- shel-beit Chashmonai. See Levi (Louis) Ginzberg, Seridei ha-Yerushalmi (1909), p. 180. Mi-shel and Chashmonai are combined and written as one word in the Leiden manuscript of the passage in Megillah and there is no vocalization under the nun of Chashmonai here. [7] I Maccabees was probably composed after the death of John Hyrcanus in 104 B.C.E., or at least when his reign was well-advanced. See I Macc. 16:23-24. II Maccabees is largely an abridgment of the work of someone named Jason of Cyrene. This Jason is otherwise unknown. Many scholars believe that he was a contemporary of Judah. Mattathias is not mentioned in II Macc. The main plot of the Chanukkah story (=the persecution of the Jews by Antiochus IV and the Jewish rededication of the Temple) took place over the years 167-164 B.C.E. [8] M. Middot 1:6 (benei Chashmonai) and Seder Olam, chap. 30 (malkhut beit Chashmonai). [9] I, 36. This view is also found in Seder Olam Zuta, chap. 8. Earlier, at I, 19, he wrote that Antiochus Epiphanes was expelled by ’Ασαμωναίου παίδων (“the sons of” Chashmonai; see the Loeb edition, p. 13, note a. ). This perhaps implies an equation of Chashmonai and Mattathias, But παίδων probably means “descendants of” here. [10] XII, 265. Jonathan Goldstein in his I Maccabees (Anchor Bible, 1976), p. 19, prefers a different translation of the Greek here. He claims that, in this passage, Josephus identifies Chashmonai with Simon. But Goldstein’s translation of this passage is not the one adopted by most scholars. There are also passages in Antiquities that could imply that Chashmonai is to be identified with Mattathias. See XX, 190, 238, and 249. But παίδων probably has the meaning of “descendants of ” (and not “sons of”) in these passages, and there is no such identification implied. The ancient table of contents that prefaces book XII of Antiquities identifies Chashmonai as the father of Mattathias. See Antiquities, XII, pp. 706-07, Loeb edition. (This edition publishes these tables of contents at the end of each book.) But these tables of contents may not have been composed by Josephus but by his assistants. Alternatively, they may have been composed centuries later.

In his autobiographical work Life (paras. 2 and 4), Josephus mentions Chashmonai as his ancestor. But the statements are too vague to determine his identity. This work was composed a few years after Antiquities. [11] Goldstein suggests (pp. 60-61) that Josephus did not have I Macc. in front of him when writing his Jewish War, even though Goldstein believes that Josephus had read it and was utilizing his recollection of it as a source. Another view is that Josephus drew his sketch of Hasmonean history in his Jewish War mainly from the gentile historian Nicolaus of Damascus. Most likely, even when writing Antiquities, Josephus did not have II Macc. or the work of Jason ,(ב (of Cyrene. See, e.g., Daniel Schwartz, Sefer Makabim 2008 pp. 30 and 58-59, Isaiah M. Gafni, “Josephus and I Maccabees,” in Josephus, the Bible, and history, eds. Louis H. Feldman and Gohei Hata (1989), p. 130, n. 39, and Menachem Stern, “Moto shel Chonyo ha-Shelishi,” Tziyyon 25 (1960), p. 11. [12] I am not referring to the Palestinian version as Al ha-Nissim, since it lacks this phrase.

The text of Al ha-Nissim in the Seder R. Amram (ed. Goldschmidt, p. 97) is the same (except that it reads Matityah). See also R. Abraham Ha-Yarchi (12th cent.),Ha-Manhig (ed. Raphael), vol. 2, p. 528, which refers to Matityah kohen gadol ve-Chashmonai u- vanav, and seems to be quoting here from an earlier midrashic source. Finally, see Midrash Tehillim, chap. 30:6 which refers to Chashmonai u-vanav and then to beney Matityahu. The passages clearly imply that these are different groups. [13] See the midrashim on Chanukkah first published by Adolf Jellinek in the mid-19th century, later republished by Judah David Eisenstein in his Otzar Midrashim (1915). Mattathias and Chashmonai are clearly two separate individuals in the texts which Einsenstein calls Midrash See also .ב‘ Maaseh Chanukkah and Maaseh Chanukkah, Nusach Rashi to Deut. 33:11 (referring to twelve sons of Chashmonai). [14] As I write this, Lieberman-institute.com records four manuscripts that have Chashmonai with the initial vav like the Vilna edition, two manuscripts that have Chashmonai without the initial vav (Goettingen 3, and Oxford Opp. Add. fol. 23), and one manuscript (Munich 95) that does not have the name at all. (Another manuscript does not have the name but it is too fragmentary.) There are three more manuscripts of Megillah 11a, aside from what is presently recorded on Lieberman-institute.com. See Yaakov Zusman, Otzar Kivei ha-Yad ha-Talmudiyyim (2012), vol. 3, p. 211. I have not checked these. With regard to the passage in Soferim 20:8, there is at least one manuscript that without) חשמונאיreads the initial vav). See Michael Higger, ed., Massekhet Soferim (1937), p. 346, line 35 (text). (It seems that Higger printed the reading in the ב.of ms text here.) [15] These midrashim are estimated to have been compiled in the 10th century. EJ 11:1511. [16] The prevalent version is based on the Siddur Rav Saadiah Gaon (p. 255): Matityah ben Yochanan kohen gadol Chashmonai u-vanav. This version too can be read as reflecting the idea that Chashmonai was a separate person. [17] Middot is a tractate that perhaps reached close to complete form earlier than most of the other tractates. See Abraham Goldberg, “The Mishna- A Study Book of Halakha,” in The Literature of the Sages, vol. 1, ed. Shmuel Safrai (1987). [18] The above is the text in the Kaufmann Mishnah manuscript. Regarding the word beney, this is the reading in both the Kaufmann and Parma (De Rossi 138) manuscripts. Admittedly, other manuscripts of Mishnah Middot 1:6, such as the one included in the Munich manuscript of the Talmud, read ganzu beit Chashmonai. But the Kaufmann and Parma (De Rossi 138) manuscripts are generally viewed as the most reliable ones. Moreover, the beit reading does not fit the context. Since the references to Chashmonai in the Babylonian Talmud are often prefixed by the word beit and are never prefixed by the word beney, we can understand how an erroneous reading of beit could have crept into the Mishnah here. The Mishnah in Middot is quoted at Yoma 16a and Avodah Zarah 52b. At Yoma 16a, Lieberman-institute.com presently records five manuscripts or early printed editions with beit, and none with bnei. At Avodah Zarah 52b, it records three with beit and one with beney. (The Vilna edition has beit in both places.) in the Mishnah, most חשמוניי Regarding the spelling likely, this was the original spelling of the name. See the discussion below. חשמונאי בני :See, e.g., Bereshit Rabbah 99:2 [19] ביד נופלת יון מלכות מי .Bereshit Rabbah 97 (ed ,ביד ,לוי של משבטו היו חשמוניי שבני :(Theodor-Albeck, p. 1225 Pesikta Rabbati 5a, Tanchuma Vayechi 14, Tanchuma Vayechi, ed. Buber, p. 219, Pesikta de-Rav Kahana, p. 107, and Midrash ha-Gadol to Genesis 49:28. See also the midrash published by Jacob Mann and Isaiah Sonne in The Bible as Read and Preached in the Old Synagogue, vol. 2 .עב .p ,(1966) I also must mention the scholion to Megillat Taanit. (I am not talking about Megillat Taanit itself. There are no references to Chashmonai there.) As Vered Noam has shown in her critical edition of Megillat Taanit, the two most important manuscripts to the scholion are the Parma manuscript and the Oxford manuscript. If we look at the Parma manuscript to the scholion to 25 Kislev, it uses the phrase nikhnesu beney Chashmonai le-har ha-bayit, implying that the author of this passage viewed Chashmonai as Mattathias. On 14 Sivan, the חשמונאי יד Oxford manuscript of the scholion tells us that the city ,וכשגברה was conquered. Probably, the קסרי of author of this passage is referring to the acquisition of Caesarea by Alexander Yannai, and the author is using Chashmonai loosely. Probably the author meant beit Chashmonai or malkhut beit Chashmonai. (One of these may even have been the original text.) On 15-16 Sivan, the Parma manuscript of the scholion tells us about the military victory of over Beit Shean. We know from Josephus חשמונאי בני (Antiquities XIII, 275-83 and Jewish War I, 64-66) that this was a victory that occurred in the time of John Hyrcanus and that his the sons were the leaders in the battle. But it would be a leap to deduce that the author of this passage believed Probably, the author was .חשמונאי that John was loosely and meant beit Chashmonai or malkhut חשמונאי בני using beit Chashmonai. Not surprisingly, the Oxford manuscript has beit Chashmonai here. In the balance of the passages in the scholion, if we look only at the Parma and Oxford manuscripts, references to beit Chashmonai or malkhut beit Chashmonai are found at 23 Iyyar, 27 Iyyar, 24 Av, 3 Tishrei, 23 Marchesvan, 3 Kislev, 25 Kislev, and 13 Adar. [20] This passage is quoted at Avodah Zarah 9a. In the Vilna edition, the passage reads malkhut Chashmonai. The three manuscripts presently recorded at Lieberman-Institute.com all include the beit The other source recorded there is the .חשמונאי preceding Pesaro printed edition .חשמוניי מלכות of 1515. This source reads [21] One can also make this argument based on the passage in the first chapter of Megillah in the Jerusalem Talmud: This passage tells a story about Judah .משלחשמוניי אחד ויצא (without mentioning him by name). But the parallel passage in the חשמוניי בית משל אחד אליו :second chapter of Taanit reads As pointed .ויצא out earlier, almost certainly this is the original reading. Moreover, if a passage intended to refer to a son of Chashmonai, the reading we would חשמוניי מבני אחד :expect would be .ויצא [22] Goldstein, p. 19, n. 34, writes that the Byzantine chronicler Georgius Syncellus (c. 800) wrote that Asamόnaios was Mattathias’ additional name. Surely, this was just a conjecture by the chronicler or whatever source was before him. [23] The additional names for the sons were: Makkabaios (Μακκαβαîος), Gaddi (Γαδδι), Thassi (Θασσι), Auaran (Αυαραν) and Apphous (Απφους). These were the names for Judah, John, Simon, Eleazar and Jonathan, respectively. See I Macc. 2:2-4. [24] See, e.g., Goldstein, pp. 18-19. Goldstein also writes (p. 19): Our pattern of given name(s) plus surname did not exist among ancient Jews, who bore only a given name. The names of Mattathias and his sons were extremely common in Jewish priestly families. Where many persons in a society bear the same name, there must be some way to distinguish one from another. Often the way is to add to the over- common given name other names or epithets. These additional appellations may describe the person or his feats or his ancestry or his place of origin; they may even be taunt-epithets. The names Mattityah and Mattiyahu do occur in Tanakh, at I Ch. 9:31, 15:18, 15:21, 16:5, 25:3, 25:21, Ezra 10:43, and Nehemiah 8:4. But to say that that these names were common prior to the valorous deeds of Mattathias and his sons is still conjectural. (Admittedly, the names did become common thereafter.) [25] See, e.g., Daniel R. Schwartz, “The other in 1 and 2 Maccabees,” in Tolerance and Intolerance in Early Judaism and Christianity, eds. Graham N. Stanton and Guy G. Stroumsa (1998), p. 30, Gafni, pp. 119 and 131 n. 49, and Goldstein, pp. 7 and 12. See particularly I Macc. 5:62. As mentioned earlier, I Maccabees was probably composed after the death of John Hyrcanus in 104 BCE, or at least when his reign was well-advanced. See I Macc. 16:23-24. [26] According to I Macc. 2:1, Mattathias was from the priestly watch of Yehoyariv. Of course, even if he would have been from the watch of Yedayah, the rule of his descendants would have needed legitimization because they were priests and not from the tribe of Judah or the Davidic line. [27] See, e.g., Goldstein, pp. 5-7 and I Macc. 2:26 and 2:54. Of course, the parallel to Pinchas is not perfect. As a result of his zealousness, Pinchas became a priest; he did not become the high priest. [28] Goldstein, pp. 17-19. Josephus, writing after the destruction of the Temple and not attempting to legitimize the dynasty, would not have had this concern. (I am hesitant to agree with Goldstein on anything, as his editions of I and II Maccabees are filled with far-reaching speculations. Nevertheless, I am willing to take his suggestion seriously here.) [29] As mentioned earlier, the identification by Josephus of Chashmonai as the great-grandfather of Mattathias is probably just speculation. [30] It has been suggested that it was the name of an ancestor. See, e.g., H. St. J. Thackeray, ed., Josephus: Life (Loeb Classical Library, 1926), p. 3, who theorizes that the Hasmoneans were named after “an eponymous hero Hashmon.” Julius Wellhausen theorized that, at I Macc. 2:1, the original reading was “son of Hashmon,” and not “son of Simon.” See Emil Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, revised and edited by Geza Vermes, Fergus Millar, and Matthew Black, vol. 1 (1973), p. 194, n. 14. [31] See I Macc. 2:70, 9:19, and 13:25. [32] See, e.g., Isaac Baer, Avodat Yisrael (1868), p. 101, EJ 7:1455, and Chanukah (ArtScroll Mesorah Series, 1981), p. 68. [33] See, e.g., EJ 7:1455. Another less likely alternative is to link the name with Chushim of the tribe of Benjamin, mentioned at I Ch. 8:11. [34] The probable implication of the second part of verse 32 is that the people of Kush will hasten to spread their hands in prayer, or hasten to bring gifts with their hands. SeeDaat Mikra to 68:32. [35] This is raised as a possibility by many scholars. Some of the rabbinic commentaries that suggest this include R. Abraham Ibn Ezra and Radak. See their commentaries on Ps. 68:32. See also Radak, and R. Yosef Caro, Beit , חשמן,Sefer ha-Shoreshim Yosef, OH 682. The unknown author of Maoz Tzur also seems to adopt this approach (perhaps only because he was trying to rhyme .(השמנים with [36] Some scholars are willing to emend the text. See, for example, the suggested emendations at Encyclopedia Mikrait from the = משמנים such as) חשמנים entry ,3:317 oil.) The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon (1906) writes that there is “doubtless” a textual error here. [37] So too, Origen (third century). Some Rishonim interpret the ,.here as rulers or people of importance. See, e.g חשמניםterm and (סגנים) the commentaries on Psalms 68:32 of Ibn Ezra Radak. See also Radak, Sefer חשמן ,ha-Shoreshim , and R. Yosef Caro, Beit Yosef, OH 682. What motivates this interpretation is the use of the term in connection with Mattathias. But we do not know the meaning of the term in connection with Mattathias. [38] See Perhaps supporting this is verse 68:30 .(דורון) Pes. 118b (lekha yovilu melakhim shai). See Rashbam to Pes. is found at מנות דורונות 118b. Also, the interpretation Midrash Tehillim (ed. Buber, p. 320). It also seems to be the view of Rashi. [39] On the Egyptian word ḥsmn as bronze or natron, and reading one of these into this verse, see William F. Albright, “A Catalogue of Early Hebrew Lyric Poems,” Hebrew Union College Annual 23 (1950-51), pp. 33-34. Jeremy Black, “Amethysts,” Iraq 63 (2001), pp. 183-186, explains that ḥsmn also has the meaning amethyst in Egyptian. But he does not read this into Ps. 68:32. (He reads it into the Biblical (.חשמל [40] See, e.g., Black, ibid., and Itamar Singer, “Purple-Dyers in Lazpa,” kubaba.univ- paris1.fr/recherche/antiquite/atlanta.pdf. [41] Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (1994), vol. 1, p. 362, interpret “bronze articles or red cloths.” Mitchell Dahood, Psalms II:51-100 (Anchor Bible, 1968) interprets “blue cloth.” Based on the Akkadian, George חשמניםWolf suggests that refers to nobles and high officials because they wore purple clothing. See his Studies in the Hebrew Bible and Early Rabbinic Judaism (1994), p. 94 [42] For “oil,” see Encyclopedia Mikrait 3:317, one of the many possible interpretations) חשמנים entry mentioned there). For “horses and chariots,” seeDaat Mikra to 68:32 (citing the scholar Arnold Ehrlich and the reference to the coming of horses and chariots at Is. 66:20). .(in the ashmanim) באשמנים See Is. 59:10 [43] [44] Ernest Klein, A Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the Hebrew Language for Readers of English (1987), p. 58, writes that it usually translated as “darkness.” Some Rishonim who adopt this interpretation are Menachem ben Saruk (quoted in Rashi) and Ibn Janach. Note also the parallel to Psalms 143:3. On the other at Is. 59:10 suggests that the בצהרים hand, the parallel to is “in the light,” as argued by באשמנים meaning of Solomon Mandelkern in his concordanceHeikhal ha-Kodesh (1896), p. 158. שחורים :(See Midrash Tehillim (ed. Buber, p. 320 [45] This is the fourth .אנשים interpretation suggested there. Buber puts the second, third, and fourth interpretations in parenthesis, as he believes they were not in the original The second .מנות דורונות text. The first interpretation is and third interpretations are farfetched plays on words. Also, the original reading seems to חשמנים in the Targum Pseudo-Jonathan translation of meaning “dark ,אוכמנאי or אוכמנא be people.” See David M. Stec, The Targum of Psalms (2004) p. 133. The standard printed editions have a different reading (based on an early was the name of a חשמנים printed edition) and imply that particular Egyptian tribe. [46] See Mandelkern, p. 433, who cites this view even though he disagrees with it. [47] A modern scholar who takes this approach is Menachem Tzvi Kadari. See his Millon ha-Ivrit ha-Mikrait (2006). This also seems to be the approach taken in the standard printed edition of the Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, even though this does not seem to be the original reading. See also Rashi to Ps. 68:32, citing Menachem ben Saruk who claims that they are the residents of Chashmonah. See also Radak, second) חשמן ,Sefer ha-Shoreshim suggestion) and Mandelkern, p. 433. as one of כסלחים Gen. 10:14 mentions the sons of Mitzrayim. Interestingly, one of the three early texts of the Septuagint (codex Alexandrinus, fifth cent.) reads Χασμωνιειμ (=Chasmonieim) here. If this were the original reading, this would suggest that there were a people called Hashmanim (or something similar) in second century B.C.E. Egypt. But the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus codices (which are earlier than the Alexandrinus codex) do not have this reading; they have something closer to the Hebrew. Most likely, the reading in the Alexandrinus codex is just a later textual corruption. See John William Wevers, Notes on the Greek Text of Genesis (1993), p. 136. [48] See similarly Deut. 33:21, Proverbs 1:27, Isaiah 41:5 and 41:25, and Job 3:25, 16:22, 30:14, and 37:22. [49] The Kaufmann manuscript dates to the tenth or eleventh century. The Parma (De Rossi 138) manuscript dates to the eleventh century. The vocalization in both was inserted later. In the Kaufmann manuscript, there is a patach under the nun and a chirik under the first yod. Also, the vav is dotted with a shuruk. (The Parma manuscript does not have vocalization in tractate Middot; the manuscript is not vocalized throughout.). The Leiden manuscript of the Jerusalem Talmud includes a chirik under the nun in the passage in Taanit (66a). See Zusman’s 2001 edition of the Leiden manuscript, p. 717. There is no vocalization under the nun in the passage in Megillah (70c). [50] is the spelling in all but one חשמונאי of the manuscripts and early printed editions of Seder Olam. One See Chaim .חשמוני manuscript spells the name Joseph Milikowsky, Seder Olam: A Rabbinic Chronography (1981), p. 440. is the spelling in the text of Pesikta חשמוניי ,Also de-Rav Kahana that was published by Bernard Mandelbaum in his critical edition of this work (p. 107). (But see the notes for the variant readings.) is the spelling in the חשמוניי ,Also text of the Theodor-Albeck edition ofBereshit Rabbah, at section 97 (p. 1225). (But see the notes for the variant readings.). See also ibid., p. .(חשמניי) note to line 6 ,1274 Also, Lieberman-institute.com cites one manuscript of Menachot 64b with the spelling This is .חשמוניי also the spelling used by R. Eleazar Kallir (early seventh century). See his piyyut -to be published by Ophir Münz) לצלעי נכון איד for Chanukkah Manor). [51] I would like to thank Prof. Richard Steiner for pointing this out to me. cites the ,חשמונאי Jastrow, entry [52] plural as appearing in some editions of Bava Kama 82b (but not in the Vilna edition.) Lieberman- institute.com presently records five manuscripts of Bava Kama 82b. All have the word in the singular here. The EJ (7:1454) has an entry “Hasmonean חשמונאים של :Bet Din.” The entry has a Hebrew title as well The entry cites to Sanhedrin 82a and Avodah Zarah .דין בית 36b, and refers to “the court of the Hasmoneans.” (In the new edition of the EJ, the same entry is republished.) Yet none of the manuscripts presently recorded at Lieberman-institute.com on these two passages have the plural. (Lieberman-institute.com presently records two manuscripts of Sanhedrin 82a and three manuscripts of Avodah Zarah 36b. According to Zusman, Otzar Kivei Ha-Yad Ha-Talmudiyyim, vol. 3, p. 233 and 235, there are three more manuscripts of Sanhedrin 82a extant. I have not checked these.) Probably, the reason for the use of the plural in the EJ entry is that scholars began to use the plural for this mysterious bet din, despite the two references in Talmud being in the singular. See, e.g., Zacharias Frankel, Darkhei ha-Mishnah (1859), p. 43. חשמונאים Other erroneous citations to a supposed word are found at Chanukah (ArtScroll Mesorah Series), p. 68, n. 6. [53] The earliest references to this plural that I am are aware of are at Midrash Tehillim 5:11 But it is .(חשמונאים בני) and 93:1 ,(ובניו חשמונאים) possible that may not be the original reading in either of these חשמונאים passages. The reference at 5:11 is obviously problematic. Also, the line may be a later addition to the work. See Midrash Tehillim, ed. Buber, p. 56, n. .ובניו חשמונאי and חשמונאי בית This work also refers to) .66 See 22:9, 30:6, and 36:6.) The next earliest use of this plural that I am aware of is at Bereshit .חשמונאים בני :(Rabbati, section Vayechi, p. 253 (ed. Albeck This work is generally viewed as an adaptation of an earlier (lost) work by R. Moshe ha-Darshan (11th cent.) .by R שמנה כל אעדיף is found in thepiyyut חשמונים [54] Eleazar Kallir (early seventh century) and in the works of several eighth century paytannim as well. Perhaps even earlier are the references in Seder Olam Zuta. See, e.g., the text of this work published by Adolf Neubauer in his Seder ha-Chakhamim ve-Korot ha-Yamim, vol. 2 (1895), pp. 71, 74 and 75. See also the Theodor-Albeck edition of Bereshit Rabbah, section 97, p. 1225, .חשמונים notes to line 2, recording a variant with the reading Also, when חשמוניםYosippon always refers to the referring to the group in the plural. (In the singular, his -Also, Lieberman (.חשמוניי and חשמונאיreferences are to institute.com cites one manuscript of Megillah 6a (Columbia X 893 T 141) .חשמונים with the reading [55] See his Jewish War, II, 344, and V, 139, and Antiquities XV,403 (Loeb edition, p. 194, but see n. 1). [56] It is interesting that a similar development occurred in connection with the name “Maccabee.” The name was originally an additional name of Judah only. Centuries later, all of the brothers came to be referred to by the early church fathers as “Maccabees.” See Goldstein, pp. 3-4. [57] See, e.g., Allen Friedman, “The Amida’s Biblical and Historical Roots: Some New Perspectives,” Tradition 45:3 (2012), pp. 21-34, and the many references there. Friedman writes (pp. 26-27): The first two points to be noted concerning the Amida’s history are that: (1) R. Gamliel and his colleagues in late first-century CE Yavneh created the institution of the Amida, its nineteen particular subjects, and the order of those subjects, though not their fully-fixed text, and (2) this creation was a critical part of the Rabbinic response to the great theological challenge posed by the Second Temple’s destruction and the ensuing exile… See also Berakhot 28b. [58] Admittedly, this view disagrees with Megillah 17b which attributes the Shemoneh Esreh of eighteen blessings to an ancient group of 120 elders that included some prophets (probably an equivalent term for the Men of the Great Assembly.) But note that according to Megillah 18a, the eighteen blessings were initially instituted by the 120 elders, but were forgotten and later restored in the time of R. Gamliel and Yavneh. See also Berakhot 33a, to the Men תפילות which attributes the enactment of of the Great Assembly. [59] See, e.g., the discussion by Joseph Tabory in “Prayers and Berakhot,” in The Literature of the Sages, vol. 2, pp. 295-96 and 315-316. Tabory points to disagreements recorded between the House of Hillel and the House of Shammai regarding the number of blessings in the Amidot for Yom Tov and Rosh ha-Shanah when these fall on the Sabbath. See Tosefta Rosh ha-Shanah 2:16 and Tosefta Berakhot 3:13. Disagreements between the House of Hillel and the House of Shammai typically (but not exclusively) date to the last decades of the Temple period. See EJ 4:738. The reference to Choni ha-Katan in the story at Tosefta Rosh ha-Shanah also perhaps supports the antiquity of the disagreement. (This individual is not mentioned elsewhere in Tannaitic or Amoraic literature.) [60] With regard to Birkat ha-Mazon, the practice of reciting Al ha-Nissim here seems to only have commenced in the Amoraic period. See Shabbat 24a. פלאיך ,The first two words of the Palestinian version [61] are also ,וכניסי a Chanukkah piyyut by R. Eleazar ,שמנה כל אעדיף referred to in Kallir (early seventh century). [62] Early authorship of Al ha-Nissim is suggested by the fact that some of its language resembles language in I and II Macc. See particularly I Macc. 1:49, 3:17-20, 4:24, 4:43, 4:55, and II Macc. 1:17 and 10:7. See also perhaps I Macc. 4:59. The original Hebrew version of I Macc. was still in existence at the time of Jerome (4th century). See Goldstein, p. 16. [63] It has already been pointed out that Josephus, having I Maccabees 2:1 in front of him (=Mattathias was the son of John who was the son of Simon), was faced with a similar problem. The solution of Josephus was to conjecture that Chashmonai was the father of Simon. [64] I Macc. 2:2-4 states explicitly that Mattathias had five sons: John, Simon, Judah, Eleazar and Jonathan. Another brother, Ιωσηπον (=Joseph), is mentioned at II Macc. 8:22.But it has been suggested that the original reading here was Ιωαννης (=John), or that Joseph was only a half-brother, sharing only a mother.