Ana Bărbulescu 151

Bound by a Unifying Conflict: the Sage and the Min in Tannaitic Times

shares a long history. For our present Among many other innovations, subject the history of the group is not the literature and consequently the religious important, but as we shall see, to understand discourse developed in the Tannaitic period who the Sage was in “our times” we shall brings to life a social group non-existent in have to refer to the history of his group. earlier times: the Minim. Considering them Accepting the lineage upon which most of as a category specific to early rabbinical the scholars agree (Hasidim – Pharisees – discourse throughout this analysis I shall Rabbis)3, I shall use either any of this deno- attempt to describe and explain the relation- mination related to the specific period of ship between this newborn category (the time or the term Sage, as a generic deno- Min) and its creator, the generic Sage. mination. The element that allows us to use The term Minim is the plural form the term Sage as a generic denomination is of the singular Min most probably derived the ideological continuity that characterizes from the Hebrew word “kind”. None of the the analyzed group, this approach enabling a sources from the first century use this term, comparative analysis of the positions occu- attested for the first time in rabbinical texts pied by the same group in different histo- dating to the second century CE. Once in- rical and social contexts. vented, the history of our term is not a short Before we go further some theore- one and, while its use is most frequent in the tical clarifications related to our categories interval between the second and the are necessary. The two categories that I beginning of the fourth century1, it can still work with – the Min and the Sage – are be found in later texts from the Babylonian asymmetric categories: the Sage is a generic , or from different midrashic collec- denomination that cannot be found in this tions. Related to the use of the term in post- form in the Hebrew texts, whereas the Min Tannaitic sources, even if this is not the is a term extracted as such from the sources, subject of our research, we have to empha- which will used in its original form due to size the fact that in the later texts of the the fact that its a priori content is unknown. Babylonian Talmud a shift has occurred, If we remained with the analysis at this and what the Rabbis from the or level, the two categories would be non- Tosephta have defined as Minuth is not homologous categories, but we shall try to identical with the definition associated by go deeper and demonstrate that this imba- later sources with the same category2. lance is overcome by the fact that, in the Contrary to the Min, the Sage of Tannaitic texts, both the Sage and the Min Tannaitic times is a member of a group that are constructed categories, with the only

152 difference that in the case emergence of the rabbinic society, the of the Sage there was a reasons that explain it or the stages under- group that assumed this gone by this new social entity. And constructed identity (the secondly, the Tannaitic texts will be treated Rabbis from Tannaitic times), whereas as an instrument of knowledge that helps us regarding the Min this was not the case. identify the taken for granted knowledge All the previous studies that have used by the individual Jew to interpret analyzed the relation between the Sage and reality once the rabbinical society was the Min attempt to explain how this established and the Rabbi became an category was constructed, and what was the institutionalized religious leader. role that the conflict in itself played in its Following the idea that in order to construction. To accomplish this, I will understand the result of any interaction we reconstruct the social reality following a bi- have to identify the physical or social dimensional theoretical model: the analysis entities involved in it, our analysis will be of social conflict generated by Georg divided into three parts: in the first two, I Simmel4, and the sociology of knowledge shall try to establish who the Sage and the developed by Thomas Berger5. Simmel’s Min were, while in the third part the perspective will allow us to distinguish analysis will be developed on a explanatory between different functions of the social dimension that will try to reveal how the conflict and to understand its generative category of the Min was constructed, and force, while Berger’s approach will make how we may explain the relation between comprehensible the social change and the our two categories. process of institutionalization. Inside the phenomenological model developed by Berger, reality is a constructed category 1. Who was the Sage? taken for granted by the individuals, mean- ing an objective datum, even if the con- The answer to the question above structed reality and the objective datum (the is not a unitary one, and it must be objective reality) are not overlapping elaborated considering the main historical entities. Following this approach, I shall event that affected the Jewish society in the emphasize the comparison between the first century of the Common Era: the constructed reality that is meant to be, but is destruction of the Temple. The place occu- not yet perceived as a reality taken for pied by the Temple in the Jewish world was granted, and reality as an objective datum. so important that its destruction equally Consequently, I shall bring into discussion transformed the social order and its em- the differences between the “real world”, bedded social statuses. The social structure the empirical datum and the “world of the was, on its turn, redefined as the old social Sages”, a constructed reality that will be- roles became unable to fulfill, in the new come a reality taken for granted only in historical context, their social and sym- time. bolical function. Consequently, mirroring As regards the methodological the changes undergone by the broad society, approach, the Tannaitic texts subjected to the Sage as generic entity and his social our research will be analyzed from two status was equally transformed. different but equally important perspectives. Analyzing late second temple Ju- Firstly, they will be treated as a historical daism, Dan Jaffé enumerates its funda- instrument that helps us understand the mental concepts: , the divine

6 election, the ritual law and the Temple . The Israel as the chosen peo- 153 analysis elaborated by Jaffé is useful in ple, a people that existed order to identify the points around which the through a conditioned rela- different Jewish groups coexisting at that tionship with God. The time met. In this diverse religious environ- quality of a chosen people has always been ment, in which the Sages represented only a the main element of Israeli identity (the group among others, the destruction of the fundamental myth of the symbolic uni- Temple generated a huge social shock, and verse), an element that can be maintained consequently massive social change. In only through a continuous relation with order to understand this social change (and God (the necessary condition of the system). in so doing provide an answer to our Any cessation in this relationship equals the question) two of the main concepts deve- breaking of the Covenant, and deprives loped by Berger: symbolic universe and Israel of its elected status. plausibility structure7 need to be introduced. We can define Jewish society during For Berger, the symbolic universe the Age of the Second Temple as a sacri- is the specific manner of integrating the ficial one, in which the relation to divinity reality in a meaningful whole, bearer of a was maintained through a sacrificial system. natural logic and in the same time of a As a result of this model, the elements of natural taxonomy8. This natural logic and the plausibility structure were: 1) The taxonomy creates knowledge the taken for Temple – as the axis of the empirical con- granted. Including a set of fundamental struction, the one that proves to each truths about reality, and being objectified at individual that the relation between the a social level, any deviation from this order divinity and his people is a continuous one; institutionalized by common knowledge is 2) The Sacerdotal Elite – as the legitimate perceived as equal with a deviation from mediators of the relationship; and 3) The reality itself. Every item included in the Ritual Law/ Obligations – as the element category of this knowledge taken for that allows each individual to participate in granted becomes coextensive with the capa- the intermediated relationship with God. city of knowledge itself, and sets up the In this sacrificial society, the frame by which every element still un- Sages, as heirs of the hassidim movement, known will be known in the future. are a pietistic group engaged in a struggle The plausibility structure is viewed for influence, and developing a conflictual by Berger as the fundamental element of the relation with the institutionalized elites. The whole construction, the one that by its group is characterized by a profound reli- destruction endangers the existence of the gious observance and the importance as- later. As we can see, Berger defines the signed to the study of the Law. Looking for concept only by mentioning its function. In social dominance, and trying to render ille- my opinion this approach is insufficient, and gitimate the social status shared by the sa- I will therefore attempt to define the cerdotal elite, they will reconstruct the re- plausibility structure as the sum of objective lation with the divinity by positioning it at elements that empirically supports a sym- an individual level. Or, as Carol Newsom bolic system. formulates, ”their development of halakah is Applying this theoretical scheme to focused primarily on those areas of behavior the Jewish cultural space, throughout his- within the control of the individual. That is tory the main element of the symbolic uni- to say, they engaged dominant discourse, verse was represented by the doctrine of those matters the importance of which

154 everyone grants, at the le- Jerusalem Temple. vel where it was least sub- Assuming a reconstruction role, ject to priestly or any o- they will build a “new reality”, in which the ther institutional control”9. sacrifical system will be replaced by a When under the influence of the continuous application of God’s will, by a historical context, the main element of the transformation of the Law in a way of life, plausibility structure disappears (with the this transformation leading to the con- destruction of the Temple in the year 70), struction of a new plausibility structure: 1) the entire complex of empirical reference The Written Oral Law will replace the points disappears as well. The necessary Temple – and it will become the axis of the condition of the system (the continuous new empirical construction; 2) The Sages, relation with God) remains unfulfilled, and as an Intellectual Elite, will replace the the fundamental myth (the myth of the Sacerdotal one becoming the new mediators elect) is endangered. In order to ensure the (a new kind of religious elite) between God survival of the fundamental myth, new ways and its people, by the construction of a that will assure a continuous relationship legitimate model for the interpretation of the with God had to be found. divine Law; and 3) The Ritual and Moral From Josephus’s work10 we know Obligations ( as a way of life) applied that, in the first century of the common era, to each individual, which will restore four sects shared the Jewish soil: the individual participation to the intermediated Saducees, the Essenians, the Pharisees and relationship with God after the destruction the Zealots11 and the solution was to be of the Temple. found among them. The Sadducees, with Following Jaffé, the Sages’ move- their closeness to the temple cult and to the ment can be defined as elf-established. This sacerdotal aristocracy, lost their credibility means that they are the new mediators along with their allies, and had no future in between God and his people only inside the new historical context. The Essene their constructed reality, whereas at an movement, or at least the Qumranic one, objective level their social position at the was it its turn destroyed by the Roman beginning of the second century is only that legions, and bore in itself no future for the of an emergent elite, struggling for social Jewish society. The Zealots, with their control with different doctrinal opponents. belligerent approach, were the last to be Considering, as I have already perceived as a solution for the social crisis, mentioned, the rabbinical texts both as especially after the destruction of the entire historical and knowledge instruments, the Judea by the Roman army. But the solution struggle for power and the constructed was there in the Pharisaic movement. And knowledge used to win the battle might be their success was guaranteed by two related reconstituted. elements: 1) they had traditionally side- As the Jewish religious life that stepped the sacerdotal elite’s role as characterized the period before the de- legitimate mediators between Israel and struction of the Temple was a diverse one, God, so the destruction of the Temple with different religious groups sharing the proved, in a way, their case; and 2) their same symbolic space, we have no reason to emphasis on the Oral law, and on the suppose that with the destruction of the fulfillment of God’s will by each individual Temple all these groups disappear as well. in everyday life, a religious demand that can In the real world they were, undoubtedly, be perfectly fulfilled in the absence of the there. But what we can say about the

Rabbis’ world? Israel’s submissive accept- 155 A first analysis of the Tannaitic ance. According to this texts reveals an important element: in the view, the one who rejects rabbinical literature of the period a new God’s commandments is a category that designates alterity was born, transgressor of Israel. Returning to the frag- the Min, while their traditional opponents ment from the book of Sifre, a shift has from earlier times (Sadducees or Essenians, occurred, the one who walks “after his for example) might rarely be found in that heart” and by this rejects God’s command- texts by their proper and traditional denomi- ments (his Law) is not a mere transgressor nations. Several important questions arise at of Israel, but a transgressor included in a this point: Who was the Min? Why was this special category, in one word a Min. But, category constructed? And last but not least, going from the biblical text to the book of how can we explain the fact that in the new Sifre, does the perception of God’s com- definition of reality developed by the Rab- mandments remain the same? Does the bis, the old categories that in earlier times divine Law remain a unitary concept, or did had designated their opponents now tend to the concept itself undergo fundamental disappear? changes? To reconstruct the portrait of the The thesis of a revealed Oral Min in Tannaitic literature, I will use at first Torah had always been a major doctrinal a more general definition of the term point under dispute between Pharisees and Minuth, and then, going deeper, I will try to their doctrinal opponents, especially the identify different doctrinal groups that were Sadducees. This major theological innova- included together under this unique denomi- tion makes possible, after the destruction of nation. the Temple, the emergence of the Rabbis as a new religious elite. The first chapter of the Tractate Avot unveils their self-instituted 2. Who was the Min? religious status, as holders of a divine revelation, a status that later, and due to the 2.1. Rejecting God’s commandments use of institutionalized channels, will be- come knowledge taken for granted: The first text that I will dwell upon is from the book of Sifre, a collection received the Torah at Sinai and almost contemporary with the Mishnah. The transmitted it to Joshua; Joshua to the text is important because it prvodes, with a elders, and the elders to the prophets, biblical text (Numbers XV. 39) as reference and the prophets to the men of the Great point, the first definition of Minuth: Assembly. They said three things: be patient in judgment, raise up many And ye shall not walk after your heart students, and make a fence round the [Numbers XV.39], this is Minuth […]. Torah. (Mishnah, Avot I.1) (Sifre, pisqa 115, p. 35a) Sending the Oral Law back to According to the biblical text, Sinai, the Rabbis add under the designation Israel’s (or more generally man’s) inborn of God’s Law their own interpretations and capacities hinder the fulfillment of God’s doctrines, derived from the biblical will. Thus, in order to surpass this incapa- tradition. This epistemic shift is best seen in city, God gave them the Law, demanding a baraitha from the Babylonian Talmud:

156 ing the doctrinal approach developed in […] Rabbi Eliezer said, ‘If Avot I.1 and Baba Metzia, 59b, the Minim the Law agrees with me, are the ones that reject God’s command- let it be proven from ments, by rejecting the rabbinical inter- Heaven.’ A Bath Kol issued forth and pretive pattern, since the Rabbis are the said, ‘What have you against Rabbi legitimate holders of the divine charisma, Eliezer? The decision of the Law is which allows them a correct and true always with him.’ Rabbi Joshua stood up understanding of the Law. and said, ‘It is not in heaven’ [Deute- ronomy XXX.12]. What does this mean? Rabbi Jeremiah said, ‘The Torah was 2.2 Multiple Powers in Heaven given us from Sinai; we pay no attention to a Bath Kol. For already from Sinai the Apart from this general definition, Torah said, ‘by a majority you are to early rabbinical texts offer several more decide’. [Exodus XXIII.2] (Babylonian specific identities for the individuals design- Talmud, Baba Metzia, 59b) nated as Minim: those who believe that there are many powers in heaven is one of them. In the new constructed reality, The texts taken into considerations are: only the Rabbis and their Torah (their Mishnah Sanhedrin IV, 5, Tosephta Sanhe- interpretations) are the keepers of Israel’s drin VIII, 17, and once again a fragment obedience to God. As Boyarin formulates, from the book of Sifre: “only the majority decision of the Rabbis has power and authority, and only their Therefore man was created singular… knowledge is relevant”12. that the Minim might not say: there are Related to this rabbinical ascribed many Powers in Heaven. (Mishnah capacity to operate the correct interpretation Sanhedrin IV, 5) of the Law, three major elements must be Man was created last. And why was he emphasized: 1) this ability is defined as created last? That the Minim might not belonging to Sinaitic times, being seen on a say: there was a partner with Him in the par with the biblical revelation of the Law; work [of creation]. (Tosephta, Sanhedrin 2) just as the Law, it is a divine gift; and 3) VIII, 17) unlike the Law, it has a particularistic Shimon ben Azai says, ‘Come and see: character, being circumscribed only to a In all the offering [mentioned] in the charismatic group, more specifically to the Torah, it is not said, in connexion with rabbinical community, whose constructed them, either ‘God’ (Elohim) or ‘thy genealogy goes also back to Sinai. God’ (Eloheikha) or ‘Almighty’ (Sha- Returning to the text from the daim) or ‘of Hosts’(S[ebaoth)13 but book of Sifre, and considering the theolo- ‘YHWH’, a singular name. So as not to gical innovations introduced by the Rabbis, give to the Minim an occasion to humble I will conclude that in this text, the name of us. (Sifre, pisqa 143, p.54a) Minim does not designate, as it used to in the text from Numbers, the transgressor of From these texts we can infer that the Israel in the biblical meaning of the term, belief in many powers in heaven grants the but the ones that read the Scripture using individual or the community their inclusion their own interpretations, rejecting thereby in the category of Minim. For the Rabbis, the rabbinical approach to the Law. Follow- the fundamental issue was the declaration of the strict monotheism that they professed as Pandira, he was born out 157 the legitimate doctrine about God, and in of the wedlock, he was a this process they labeled as Minim the magician that brought groups that denied it, in our case the indi- magic from Egypt, he was viduals that held the belief in multiple hanged/ crucified on the eve of Pesah powers in Heaven. (sometimes the time is not specified). In As to the question: who were the relation to our subject, there is another holders of that belief?, the answer is not a tradition which is more important: his unitary one because considering the Min as followers spoke in his name words of those who believed that there were many Minuth: powers in heaven is a theoretical construc- tion that can’t be plastered on a specific It happened with Eliezer ben Dama, religious group. Among the religious groups whom a serpent bit, that Jacob from that shared the Jewish space in Tannaitic Kfar Soma, came to heal him in the times, the Gnostics with their dualistic name of Yeshu ben Pandira; but Rabbi doctrine, or the early Christians with the Ishmael did not let him. He said, ‘You divine character ascribed to Jesus, may be are not permitted ben Dama’. He counted among the believers in many answered, ‘I will bring you proof that powers in heaven, and consequently among he may heal me’. But he had no those labeled by the Rabbis as Minim. More opportunity to bring proof, for he died. importantly, the relation between these [Whereupon] Rabbi Ishmael said, religious groups and the theoretical category ‘Happy art thou, ben Dama, for you constructed by the Rabbis is not one of have gone in peace and you have not perfect overlapping, but one of mere in- broken down the fences of the Sages. clusion, which means that all the believers (Tosephta, Hullin II, 22-23) in many powers in heaven (being Gnostics, It happened that Rabbi Eliezer was early Christians or members of others arrested for Minuth, they brought him religious groups) are recorded by the Rabbis up to tribunal for judgment. […]. When among the Minim, but not all the Minim are he was released from the tribunal he believers in many powers in heaven. was troubled that he had been arrested Following this approach, I shall for the words of Minuth. His disciples conclude that the belief in multiple powers came in to comfort him but he would in heaven was only one of the ways that not accept. Rabbi Akiva entered and situated an individual or a group outside the said to him, ‘Rabbi may I said some- line drawn by the Rabbis, but aside from thing to you? Perhaps you will not be this doctrine, there were also other paths distressed’. He replied, ‘Say it’. He said that led other groups outside the same to him, ‘Perhaps one of the Minim said border line. to you a word of Minuth and it pleased you’. He replied, ‘By heaven, you reminded me! Once, I was walking on 2.3. The followers of Yeshu the streets of Sephoris found Jacob a man of Kfar Sechania and he said to me Of the traditions concerning Jesus, a word of Minuth in the name of Yeshu the following are contained in the literature ben Pandira and it pleased me. of the Tanaitic period: he appears under the (Tosephta, Hullin II, 24) name Yeshu ben Stada or Yeshu ben

158 Once again, as in ordered that they should say ‘from world the case of the believers in to world’. (Mishnah Berachot IX, 5) many powers in heaven, These are they who have no place in the the rabbinical texts offer world to come: one who denies that the us a more specific identity for those resurrection of the dead is from Torah, designated as Minim: this time they are the that the Torah is from Heaven, and an followers of Yeshu. Their general trans- epikoros. (Mishnah Sanhedrin X, 1) gression is stated in the first of the selected The Minim asked Rabban Gamaliel, fragments: they broke the fences of the ‘Whence do you prove that the Holy Sages, the same fences that the first One, Blessed be He, revives the dead? mishnah from Avot speaks about, fences He said to them, ‘From the Torah, from that at a symbolical level represent the Oral the Prophets, and from the Writings’. Law, seen as a divine Law revealed only to And they did not accept his answer. the Rabbis. By their transgression, they are (Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 90b) placed, as the upholders of the doctrine of many powers in heaven, outside the border As before the destruction of the built by the Rabbis. Contrary to what Temple, they are perceived as doctrinal Herford asserts, in early opponents, only this time they are not the Min is not always a follower of Yeshu (a counted as Sadducees, but are included in Judaeo-Christian in Herford’s terms)14, but the new constructed category, the Minim. a follower of Yeshu is always a Min. By rejecting the Oral Torah, they break “the fences of the Sages” and choose to “walk after their heart”, which, in conformity with 2.4 The Sadducees, the resurrection of the statement from the book of Sifre, is the dead and the status of the Oral Law synonymous to Minuth. In my opinion this is their main ascribed transgression, a As I have already mentioned, the transgression that leads to their exclusion doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, and from salvation, while the denial of the the status of the Oral Torah were the main resurrection is only an example of their items that, at doctrinal level, opposed the deviant worldview. Pharisees to the Sadducees. Being a part of a destroyed symbolic world, after the des- Summing up the data that the truction of the Temple, the Sadduceean analysis revealed until now, I can conclude party had no means (either at symbolical or that in early rabbinical literature, the Min objective level) to win the battle. They were was the one who denied the rabbinical ap- doomed to disappear, and so they did, but proach to the Law and refused to acknow- the process took time and the debate is still ledge their status as legitimate mediators present in early rabbinical literature. For this between God and his people. section, I chose three texts: two from the The text of Tosephta helps us to Mishnah and a later one from the Baby- situate them among the Jews, as by their lonian Talmud: transgression they are not as the idolaters, who are unable to acknowledge God: All who concluded benedictions in the sanctuary used to say ‘from the world’. Rabbi Tarphon said, ‘[…] If the pursuer After the Minim corrupted [religion] and were pursuing after me, I would enter said that there was only one world, they into a house of idolatry, and I enter not

into their houses [of the Minim]. For the religious elite. 159 idolaters do not acknowledge Him and As a result of this speak falsely concerning Him; but these approach, the Min is the do acknowledge Him and speak falsely hated enemy, who hates concerning Him […]’. (Tosephta, God in the same way as the idolaters from Shabbat XIII, 5) biblical times. Their religious books bear no sacred status16 as their doctrines are Contrary to any expectation, their characterized by the absence of divine discrimination from the idolaters doesn’t revelation. At the social level, the contract work on their behalf. And this because, even with the constructed category is forbidden, if they have been gratified by the divinity leading to a social and economic boycott. with a special status (as part of the chosen Two texts from Tosephta will help us people) they chose to “break the fences of exemplify this view: the Sages”, so what they now possess is only a false knowledge of God. In later Flesh, which is found in the hand of a times, and in another cultural space, a Gentile is allowed for use, in a hand of a special term began to be used in order to Min it is forbidden to use. That which designate the false knowledge of God, comes from a house of idolatry, lo! This heresy. For Josephus in the end of the first is the flesh of the sacrifices of the dead, century, for example, the term hairesis still because they say, ‘slaughtering by a Min means a group marked by common ideas is idolatry, their bread is Samaritan and aims, while a century later, the invented bread, their wine is wine offered [to rabbinical term Minuth understood as false idols], their fruits are not tithed, their knowledge/ doctrine about God bears the books are books of witchcraft, and their exact meaning of what in later times will be sons are bastards. One does not sell to known as heresy. them, or take from them, or give to Given these facts, to understand them; one does not teach their sons how the term Minuth was invented we have trades, and one does not obtain healing to emphasize the idea that its definition as from them, either healing of property of false doctrine about God is only an external healing of life’. (Tosephta, Hullin II, 20- definition. In itself, what was designated as 21) Minuth was only a doctrine about God that […] And concerning them [the Minim] was defined as false only because was the Scripture says, ‘Do I not hate them, different from the one developed by the O Lord, which hate Thee, and I loathe Rabbis. them that rise against Thee. I hate them In conclusion, the Min was the one with a perfect hatred, and they have who opposed the Rabbis. The believers in become to me as enemies’ (Psalm many powers in Heaven, the followers of CXXXIX.21). (Tosephta, Shabbat XIII, Yeshu, the successors of the Sadducees and 5) all the others15 were equally included among the Minim. And what is more im- The status ascribed here to the portant, the main reason that determined the Minim stays in perfect opposition with the Rabbis to construct this religious denomi- one ascribed to the Rabbis in the first nation was not the content of their beliefs, chapter of the Tractate Avot, and in the but their denial of the rabbinical approach to Tractate Baba Metzia from the Babylonian the Law, and by this of their legitimacy as a Talmud, which I have already mentioned:

160 the Minim hate God, world of the Rabbis, we find two different whereas the Rabbis are the images that have in common only one keepers of Israel’s obe- element: the conflict between the Rabbis dience to God; the rab- and their opponents. In the real world their binical institution (the decision by majority) opponents were different religious groups is legitimated by Heaven whereas any ritual that didn’t share a common identity, professed by the Minim is equal with whereas in the world of the Rabbis their idolatry; the Oral Torah is from Heaven opponents were the members of a unique whereas the books of the Minim are books category, the Minim. of witchcraft. We can’t explain the conflict Birkat Ha-Minim17 (the Genizah between the Rabbis and the Minim in terms version18), the twelfth benediction of the of Orthodoxy and Heresy, as Karen King20 rabbinic statutory prayer, together with the does, because that would mean that we will evidences related to this benediction found use rabbinical beliefs as scientific expla- in the Gospel of John and in early Church nations. To paraphrase Gavin Langmuir21, Fathers proves, in my opinion, a unique what the Rabbis believed about Minim was element: that, from the rabbinical point of a consequence not of what Minim really view, and in their new constructed reality, were but of what the Rabbis believed or the only element that relates the Min with badly wanted to believe about themselves. the Synagogue’s life is the curse. Because In the world of the Rabbis, the of his transgression, the Min cannot parti- Minim were defined as possessors of a false cipate in the institutionalized (meaning knowledge of God, who opposed the pos- legitimate) relation to God, so for him the sessors of the true knowledge. In the real covenant is broken, and he is no longer world, the conflict between them was not a Israel, but an outsider. In this way, the final conflict of Orthodoxy vs. Heresy, but one of step was made as the belonging to Israel is social power and authority. determined by the acceptance of rabbinical In my opinion, the Min as a social authority. constructed category is a category generated as a result of this conflict, and therefore, in order to identify the stages of its con- 3. Conclusion: Gaining authority struction we have to use elements developed through a unifying conflict by the sociology of social conflict. As a result of any conflictual As a constructed category, the Min situation between different social groups, was before anything else an element of the every party involved in the conflict is constructed reality generated by the Rabbis. pushed into a centralized form. “What a group knows and claims it is In our case, given the nature of the important is not merely a matter of content”, conflict, the rabbinical following of this says Carol Newsom, „but is often related to pattern will be once more a necessary one, the social uses of knowledge”19. Applying because, as their quest was one over au- this postulate to our case, the professed thority and authority supposes institutio- knowledge was the rabbinical image nalization, as a group (even in the absence ascribed to the Min, while its social use was of any conflict) they had to move naturally gaining authority. toward centralization and unification. Returning to our game, the Going further, a question remains comparison between the real world and the still unanswered: How did the Min appear?

Why did the Rabbis construct this social agenda, while uniting them 161 category? in a unique category built Simmel helps us understand it. In on their refusal to accept his analysis of social conflict, he writes, the Rabbis self-legitimated “the centralized form into which the party is religious establishment. As a result, the Min pushed by the situation of conflict grows became the insider defined as transgressor beyond the party itself and causes it to of the covenant, was expelled across the prefer that the opponent, too, take on this border. form”, and “since every party wishes the A final question lingers: why was antagonist to act according to the same the symbolic pattern designed by the Rabbis norms as its own, it may come to desire the acknowledged by the broader Jewish unification or perhaps centralization of both society? itself and opponent”22. The answer would be that, by their As any social movement that social reconstruction, they provided sym- pursued the centralization and unification of bolical means that enabled the Jewish its own entity, the Rabbis created a unique community to keep what was nearly lost in category, in which they included all their the destruction of the Temple: the status of opponents, this construction being generated an elect people. More general, they made by their own need for centralization. And possible the survival of Israel’s fundamental from this construction and as result of a myth. unifying conflict, the Min was born. The expulsion of the Min outside Israel’s borders proves our point that the construction of this social category was Bibliography generated by a conflict over authority, and not by the construction of the Rabbis as an Josephus Flavius, 2001, Antichităţi Orthodox movement. iudaice, Bucureşti: Hasefer. The Rabbis haven’t defined them- The Sifre, 1864, Ed. Meir Friedmann, selves as Orthodoxy, but as religious elite, Vienna. and they merely used the means of Mishnah, 1964, Jerusalem. Orthodoxy to claim this status. In the new Mishnah, 1950, translated by Herbert constructed reality developed by the Rabbis, Danby, Oxford: Oxford University Press. a new community of Israel emerged, one Tosephta, 1881, Ed. Moses Samuel that after losing the Temple, fulfills the Zuckermandel, Pasewalk. necessary condition of the system (the Babylonian Talmud, Ed. Adin Steinsaltz, continuous relation with God) by making New York, Random House, 1989. the Torah a way of life, that is by observing Talmud Bavli, Ed. Adin Steinsaltz, the rabbinical commandments. Jerusalem, 1967. And if they are the elite, only those Berger, Peter, 1967, The Sacred Canopy who recognize their status are the people, – Elements of a Sociological Theory of meaning Israel. Religion, Doubleday & Company. What the Rabbis did, was to Boyarin, Daniel, 2004, Border Lines. establish new criteria of belonging to the The Partition of Judaeo-Christianity, Phila- community of Israel, and in their quest they delphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. expelled outside the border all the groups Büchler, A, 1956, “The Minim of that did not acknowledge their religious Sepphoris and Tiberias in the Second and

162 Third Centuries”, in Notes Studies in Jewish History, pp. 245-274. 1 Ephraim E. Urbach, “Self-Isolation or Friendländer, M, 1899, Self-Affirmation in Judaism in the First “Encore un mot sur Minim, Minout et Three Centuries: Theory and Practice” in Guilionim dans le Talmud”, in Revue des Jewish and Christian Self-Definition, vol. II, Etudes Juives 38, pp. 194-203. E.P. Sanders, A.I. Baumgarten, A. Men- Jaffé, Dan, 2005, Le judaïsme et delson (editors), Fortress Press, 1981, p. l’avènement du christianisme. Orthodoxie et 290. er hétérodoxie dans la literature talmudique I 2 See for example, Daniel Boyarin, Border e – II siècle, Cerf: Paris. Lines. The Partition of Judaeo-Christianity, Herford, R. Travers, 1975, Christianity University of Pennsylvania Press, Phila- in Talmud and Midrash, New York: Ktav. delphia, 2004, Richard Kalmin, “Christians Kalmin, Richard, 1994, “Christians and and Heretics in Rabbinic Literature of Late Heretics in Rabbinic Literature of Late Antiquity” in Harvard Theological Review, Antiquity” in Harvard Theological Review, April 1994, v. 87, n. 2, p. 155. v. 87, pp.155-169. 3 See for example, Dan Jaffé, Le judaïsme et Kimelman, Reuven, 1981, “Birkat Ha- l’avènement du christianisme. Orthodoxie et Minim and the Lack of Evidence for an hétérodoxie dans la literature talmudique Ier Anti-Christian Jewish Prayer in Late Anti- – IIe siècle, Cerf, Paris, 2005, p. 18-20. quity” in Jewish and Christian Self-Defi- 4 Georg Simmel, Conflict: The Web of nition, vol. II, E. P. Sanders, A. I. Baum- Group-Affiliations, The Free Press, New garten, A. Mendelson (editors), Fortress York, 1955. Press, pp. 226-244 . 5 Peter Berger, The Sacred Canopy – Langmuir, I. Gavin, 1990, History, Reli- Elements of a Sociological Theory of gion, and Antisemitism, University of Cali- Religion, Doubleday & Company, 1967, fornia Press. Peter Berger &Thomas Luckmann, The Luckmann, Thomas, 1967, The Invisible Social Construction of Reality – A Treatise Religion, The MacMillan Company. in the Sociology of Knowledge, Penguin Newsom, Carol, 2004, The Self as Books, 1975 Symbolic Space. Constructing Identity and 6 Dan Jaffé, Le judaïsme et l’avènement du Community at Qumran, Leiden, Boston: christianisme. Orthodoxie et hétérodoxie Brill. dans la literature talmudique Ier – IIe siècle, Simmel, Georg, 1955, Conflict: The Cerf, Paris, 2005, p. 18. Web of Group-Affiliations, New York: The 7 Peter Berger, The Sacred Canopy – Ele- Free Press ments of a Sociological Theory of Religion, Urbach, Ephraim, 1981, “Self-Isolation Doubleday & Company, 1967. or Self-Affirmation in Judaism in the First 8 Thomas Luckmann, The Invisible Reli- Three Centuries: Theory and Practice” in gion, The MacMillan Company, 1967, p. Jewish and Christian Self-Definition, vol. II, 53. E.P.Sanders, A.I.Baumgarten, A.Mendelson 9 Carol A. Newsom, The Self as Symbolic (editors), Fortress Press, pp. 269-298. Space. Constructing Identity and Commu- nity at Qumran, Brill, Leiden, Boston, 2004, p. 58-59. 10 Given the fact that Josephus wrote his work in a Roman environment and for a

163 Roman audience, the reliability of his work has its limits, even though his truthfulness as witness is more questionable when he 17 See also Tosephta, Yadaim II, 13: “The speaks about the Roman authority and its rolls and books of the Minim do not defile legitimacy as ruling power, than when he the hands.” describes, for example, social groups that 17 “For the Apostates let there be no hope. equally belonged to the Jewish society of And let the arrogant government be speedily his times. uprooted in our days. 11 Flavius Josephus, AJ, XVIII, 1.2-6. Let the nostrim and the minim be destroyed 12 Daniel Boyarin, Op. cit., p. 172. in a moment. 13 The debate is developed around the plural And let them be blotted out of the Book of forms of the Hebrew terms: Elohim, Elo- Life and not be inscribed together with the heikha, Shadaim and Sebaoth. righteous. 14 R. Travers Herford, Christianity in Tal- Blessed art thou, O lord, who humblest the mud and Midrash, Ktav, New York, 1975, arrogant.” p. 365-381. 18 I used the translation of Reuven Kimel- 15 See, for example Mishna Megilla IV, 8-9: man from “Birkat Ha-Minim and the Lack “He that saith I will not go before the Ark in of Evidence for an Anti-Christian Jewish coloured garments shall not do so in white Prayer in Late Antiquity” in Jewish and ones. [He hath refuseth to do so] in sandals, Christian Self-Definition, vol. II, E.P. shall not do so even barefoot. And he that Sanders, A.I. Baumgarten, A. Mendelson maketh his tephillin round, it is danger and (editors), Fortress Press, 1981, p. 226. there is no fulfilling of commandment in it. 19 Carol A. Newsom, The Self as Symbolic If he places it upon his forehead or upon the Space. Constructing Identity and Commu- palm of his hand, lo, this is the way of nity at Qumran, Brill, Leiden, Boston, 2004, Minuth. […] If one says, ‘The good shall p. 72. bless thee’, lo, this is the way of Minuth. [If 20 Apud Daniel Boyarin, Op. Cit., p. 133. one says], ‘Thy mercies reach to the nest of 21 Gavin I. Langmuir, History, Religion, and the bird’, ‘Let thy name be remembered for Antisemitism, University of California good’, ‘We praise, we praise’, they silence Press, 1990, p. 344. him.” 22 Georg Simmel, Op. cit., p.129.