:(לתכן עולם) Le-Tacen Olam Establishing the Correct Text in Aleinu

:(עולם לתכן) Le-Tacen Olam Establishing the Correct Text in Aleinu[1] By Mitchell First ([email protected])

עולם תקון The Jewish obligation of (=improving the 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. This article will show that a very strong case עולם לתכן can be made that the original version of Aleinu read (=to establish to=) עולם לתקן the world under God’s sovereignty), and not perfect/improve the world under God’s sovereignty[2]). has no connection to the עולם תקון If so, the concept of Aleinu prayer.[3]

—– It is reasonable to assume that Aleinu was already included in the Amidah of Rosh ha-Shanah (=RH) by the time of Rav (early 3rd century C.E.).[4] But no text of Aleinu is included in the , nor is a text of Aleinu included in any of the classical midrashim.[5] Therefore, we must look to later sources for texts of Aleinu. When is לתכן we do, we find that the reading found in the text of the RH Amidah in the Rav Saadiah (d. 942),[6] and in the text of the RH Amidah in the Mishneh of the Rambam (d. 1204).[7] Moreover, it is found in numerous prayer texts from the Cairo Genizah that include this line of Aleinu.[8] For example, it is found in: 1) a fragment of the RH Amidah first published by Jacob Mann in 1925;[9] 2) a fragment of the RH Amidah first published by Richard Gottheil and William H. Worrell in 1927;[10] 3) a fragment of the RH Amidah first published by Mordecai Margaliot in 1973;[11] and 4) a fragment of Aleinu first published by Mann in 1925.[12] It is found in many other Aleinu prayer texts from the Cairo Genizah as well.[13] (In the fragment of Aleinu first published by Mann in 1925, Aleinu is included in the Pesukei de-Zimra section of the Palestinian shaḥarit ritual.[14]) survives in לתכן Furthermore, the reading Yemenite siddurim to this day. It was also the reading in the original tradition of the of Persia.[15] Admittedly, the reading in Europe See, for .לתקן since the time of theRishonim has been example, the following texts of Aleinu: – Maḥzor Vitry of R. Simḥah of Vitry (daily shaḥarit and RH);[16] – Siddur Ḥasidei Ashkenaz (daily shaḥarit and RH);[17] –Peirush ha-Tefillot ve-ha-Berakhot of R. Judah b. Yakar (RH);[18] –Peirushei Siddur ha-Tefillah of R. Eleazar b. Judah of Worms (RH);[19] and –Sefer Arugat ha-Bosem of R. Abraham b. Azriel (RH).[20] The three [לתקן.[main manuscripts of Seder Rav also read 21 But these manuscripts are not from the time of R. Amram (d. 875); they are European manuscripts from the time of the later .[22] Earlier than Maḥzor Vitry, we have in comments on לתקן circumstantial evidence for the reading Aleinu that were probably composed by R. Eliezer b. Nathan of Mainz (c. 1090-1170). Here, in Hamburg MS 153,[23] the following explanatory comment about Aleinu is expressed (without a text of the line itself): בשמך יקראו וכולם… [24] מלכותך מתקנים העולם כל ויהיו Another manuscript also largely composed of the comments of R. Eliezer b. Nathan has essentially this same reading, in two places.[25] Another manuscript, which is probably the Siddur of R. Eliezer b. Nathan, has a similar reading: בשמך יקראו וכולם… [26] .במלכותך מתקנים העולם כל ויהיו לתכן Admittedly, it cannot be proven that was the original reading. is by far the better לתכן But this seems very likely, as reading in the context. This can be seen by looking at all the other scenarios that are longed for in this section: הארץ מן גילולים להעביר עוזך בתפארת מהרה לראות י-שד במלכות עולם לתקן /לתכן יכרתון כרות והאלילים ארץ רשעי כל אליך להפנות בשמך יקראו בשר בני וכל

יכירו וידעו כל יושבי תבל כי לך תכרע כל ברך תשבע כל לשון ולכבוד שמך יקר יתנו יכרעו ויפולו אלקינו ה׳ לפניך ותמלוך עליהם מהרה לעולם ועד עול מלכותך את ויקבלו כולם בכבוד תמלוך עד ולעולמי היא שלך כי המלכות

Beginning with every clause expresses a hope for ,להעביר ,the second line either the removal of other gods or the universal acceptance of our God. With regard to the first line, properly understood and its mystical and elevated language decoded,[27] it is almost certainly a request for the speedily rebuilding of the Temple.[28] Taken together, this whole section is a prayer for the rebuilding of the Temple and the establishment of God’s kingdom on earth. This fits the לתכן reading perfectly.[29] It is appropriate that this section of Aleinu is fundmentally a prayer for the establishment of God’s kingdom on earth. Most likely, this section was composed as an introduction to the malkhuyyot section of the AmidahRH.[30]

Moreover, we can easily understand how an עולם might have evolved into עולם לתכן original reading of The term .העולם תקון a term related to the familiar term ,לתקן always) העולם תקון with the definite article) is widespread in early rabbinic literature.[31] It is found thirteen times in the , and seventeen times in the Babylonian Talmud.[32] עולם The alternative scenario, that the original reading was לתקן and that this evolved in some texts into the unusual reading [is much less likely.[33 ,עולם לתכן ב Finally, the י-שד במלכות עולם לתכן seems to fit better in י-שד במלכות of (=to establish the world under God’s sovereignty) than in either of the two ways of understanding [י-שד במלכות עולם לתקן.[34 העולם instead of עולם Also, the use of the word עולם before the object את and the lack of an .better לתכן perhaps fit the reading I leave a detailed analysis of these aspects to grammarians.

Conclusion There is no question that social justice is an important value in .[35] Moreover, classical rabbinical literature includes many references to the concept both in the context ,העולם תקון of of divorce legislation and in other contexts. The purpose of this article was only to show that is almost certainly a mistake to read such a concept into the Aleinu prayer, a prayer most likely composed as an introduction to the malkhuyyot section of the Amidah, and focused primarily on the goal of establishing God’s kingdom on earth. Even if we do not change the text of our siddurim, we should certainly have this alternate and almost certainly original reading in mind as we recite this prayer.[36]

[1] This essay is a revision of Mitchell First, “Aleinu: Obligation to Fix the World or the Text,” Ḥakirah 11 (Spring 2011), pp. 187-197, available here. I would like to thank Yehiel and לתכן Levy for showing me his Yemenitesiddur which read inspired this research. I would like to thank R. Moshe Yasgur for sharing his thoughts and for always being willing to listen to mine. I would also like to acknowledge the assistance of Dr. Ezra Chwat of the Institute of Microfilmed Hebrew Manuscripts at the Jewish National and Hebrew University Library, and the assistance of Binyamin Goldstein. Finally, I would like to dedicate this article to my beloved wife Sharon, whose name has the gematria and who תקון of needs no improvement. [2] The above is how this phrase is usually translated. But The Complete ArtScroll Siddur, p. 161, translates: “to perfect the universe through the Almighty’s sovereignty.” Others adopt this translation as well. See e.g., J. David Bleich, “Tikkun Olam: Jewish Obligations to Non-Jewish Society,” inTikkun Olam: Social Responsibility in Jewish Thought and Law, eds. David Shatz, Chaim I. Waxman, and Nathan J. Diament, Northvale, N.J.: Jason Aronson, 1997, p. 61. [3] One scholar who intuited that the original reading may is Meir Bar-Ilan. See Mekorahhis “ shel לתכן have been Tefillat ‘Aleinu le-Shabeaḥ,’ ” Daat 43 (1999), p. 20, n. 72. The articles by Gerald Blidstein and J. David Bleich inTikkun Olam: Social Responsibility in see) לתקן Jewish Thought and Law assume that the reading is pp. 26, 61 and 98). But the article in this volume by Marc Stern mentions the alternate citing R. Saadiah (see ,לתכן reading of p. 165, n. 24). In 2005, Gilbert S. Rosenthal wrote a detailed article about the concept of tikkun olam throughout the ages and merely assumed that the reading in See his “Tikkun .לתקן Aleinu is ha-Olam: The Metamorphosis of a Concept,” Journal of Religion 85:2 (2005), pp. 214-40. [4] The , at Avodah Zarah 1:2, includes the following passage: א”ר יוסי בי רבי בון מאן סבר בראש השנה נברא העולם? ,רב דתני בתקיעתא דבי רב .’זה היום תחילת מעשיך זכרון ליום ראשון וכו A very similar passage is found at J. Talmud Rosh ha-Shanah 1:3 (where the reading is בתקיעתא .(דרב is from (זה היום…) The sentence from the liturgy referred to the introductory section to the ten verses of zikhronot. A reasonable inference from these Talmudic passages is that Rav composed (at least) the introductory sections to zikhronot, malkhuyyot and shofarot. Aleinu is part of the introductory section to malkhuyyot. Since the sentence from the introduction to zikhronot quoted corresponds to the present introduction to zikhronot, it is reasonable to assume that their introduction to malkhuyyot corresponded to the present introduction to malkhuyyot, i.e., that it included Aleinu. Admittedly, Rav could have made use of older material in the introductory sections he composed. The fact that Aleinu has been found (in a modified version) in heikhalot literature is some evidence for Aleinu’s existence in this early period, even though the prayer is not specifically mentioned in any Mishnaic or Talmudic source. (Regarding the dating of heikhalot literature, see below.) On the version of Aleinu in heikhalot literature, see Michael D. Swartz, “ ‘Alay Le-Shabbeaḥ: A Liturgical Prayer in Ma‘aseh Merkabah,” Jewish Quarterly Review 77 (1986-1987), pp. 179-190. See also the article by Bar-Ilan cited above. For parallels in later sources to the two passages from the Jerusalem Talmud, see Swartz, p. 186, n. 20. See also Rosh ha-Shanah 27a. A statement that Aleinu was composed by Joshua appears in a collection of Geonic known as Shaarei Teshuvah (responsum #44). But the statement was probably a later addition by the thirteenth century kabbalist de Leon. See Elliot R. Wolfson, “’s Letter and Commentary on ‘Aleynu: Further Evidence of Moses De León’s Pseudepigraphic Activity,” Jewish Quarterly Review 81 (1990-91), pp. 379-380. Statements that Aleinu was composed by Joshua are found in various Ashkenazic Rishonim. This idea seems to have originated with R. Judah he-Hasid (d. 1217). For the references, see Wolfson, pp. 380-381. There is much evidence that Aleinu could not have been composed by Joshua. For example: 1) Aleinu cites verses from the prophet Isaiah (this will be discussed below); 2) ha-kadosh barukh hu was not an appellation for God in Biblical times; and 3) terms are found in Aleinu that are characteristic of heikhalot literature. Also, for almost the entire Biblical period, the word olam is only a time-related word. It is not until Dan. 12:7 and perhaps Eccles. 3:11 that olam means “world” in the Bible. (Olam definitely means “world” at Ben Sira 3:18.) See Kirsten A. Fudeman and Mayer I. Gruber, “ ‘Eternal King/King of the World’ From the Bronze Age to Modern Times: A Study in Lexical Semantics,” Revue des études juives 166 (2007), pp. 209-242. See also Daat Mikra, comm. to Psalms 89:3 and Eccles. 3:11, and R. , comm. to Ex. 21:6 and Eccles. 3:11. (Based on the language of the book, it is very clear that Ecclesiastes is a late Biblical book See EJ 2:349.) does תקן the root ,תכן and תקן Regarding the roots not appear in Tanakh until the book of Ecclesiastes, and the probably did not mean “establish” in the period of תכן root the Tanakh (see below). [5] As noted, Aleinu has been found (in a modified form) in heikhalot literature. There are five manuscripts that include the relevant passage. But four of these only include Aleinu in an abbreviated form and are not long enough to include the phrase See Peter Schäfer, Synopse .עולם לתקן/לתכן zur Hekhalot-Literatur, Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1981, sec. 551, pp. 206-207. But .לתקן The only manuscript that includes the phrase reads this manuscript, N8128, dates from around 1500. See Ra‘anan S. Boustan, “The Study of Heikhalot Literature: Between Mystical Experience and Textual Artifact,” Currents in Biblical Research 6.1 (2007), p. 137. Regarding the dating of heikhalot literature, Bar-Ilan (Mekorah, p. 22, n. 85) estimates this literature as dating from the third through fifth centuries. See also more recently his “Shalshelet ha-Kabbalah be-Sifrut ha-Heikhalot,” Daat 56 (2005), pp. 5-37. Moshe Idel, in the second edition of theEncyclopaedia Judaica (11:592) summarizes the subject as follows: Even though it is quite possible that some of the texts were not edited until this period [=the geonic era], there is no doubt that large sections originated in talmudic times, and that the central ideas, as well as many details, go back as far as the first and second centuries. [6] Siddur Rav Saadiah Gaon, eds. Israel Davidson, Simḥah Assaf, and Yissakhar Joel, Jerusalem: Rubin Mass, 1941, p. 221. Admittedly, the manuscript which forms the basis for this edition was not composed by R. Saadiah himself. It is estimated to date to the twelfth or thirteenth century.

Neither R. Saadiah nor Rambam recited Aleinu in the daily service. [7] See the Seder Tefillot Kol ha-Shanah section at the end of Sefer Ahavah. I have looked at theOr ve-Yeshuah edition, the Frankel edition, the Mechon Mamre edition (www.mechon-mamre.org), and the editions published by R. Yitzḥak Sheilat and by R. Yosef Kafaḥ. All The) .לתכן print Frankel edition does note that a small number of manuscripts (.לתקן read In the standard printed Mishneh Torah, in the al kein nekaveh section of the RH Amidah (Sefer Ahavah, p. 154), only the first ten words were included (up to .וכו׳ followed by a ,(עוזך [8] Most of the texts from the Cairo Genizah date from the tenth through the thirteenth centuries. See Robert Brody, The of Babylonia and the Shaping of Medieval Jewish Culture, New Haven: Yale Univ. Press, 1998, p. 32. All of the texts from the Cairo Genizah that I refer to can be seen at genizah.org. [9] See his “Genizah Fragments of the Palestinian Order of Service,” Hebrew Union College Annual 2 (1925), p. 329. The fragment is known as Cambridge Add. 3160, no. 10. When Mann published the fragment, he .לתקן erroneously printed [10] See their Fragments from the Cairo Genizah in the Freer Collection, New York: The MacMillan Company, 1927, plate XLIII (opposite p. 194). The fragment is labeled F42 at genizah.org. [11] See his Hilkhot Ereẓ Yisrael min ha-Genizah, Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 1973, p. 148. The fragment is known as Cambridge T-S 8H23.1. [12] See above, pp. 324-325. See also, more recently, Ezra Fleischer, Tefillah u-Minhegey Tefillah Ereẓ-Yisre’eliyyim bi- Tekufat ha-Genizah, Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1988, p. 238. The fragment is known as Cambridge Add. 3160, no. 5. Neither Mann nor Fleischer printed the full text of Aleinu in this fragment. [13] See the following fragments: Cambridge Or. 1080 2.46; Cambridge T-S Misc. 10.27, 34.5, and 34.23; Cambridge T-S NS 150.235, 154.19, 155.23, 157.6, 157.37, 157.176, 158.69, 195.55, and 273.38; Cambridge T-S AS 101.64; and New York ENA 1878.8. I was able to find only one fragment that Cambridge T-S NS 122.33. (An interesting fragment :לתקן read is T-S NS 153.64, 8R. Here, only the top line of the letter remains and it is hard to (.ק or the top of a כ determine if it is the top of a I have been able to examine most of the Aleinu prayer text fragments from the Cairo Genizah. I would like to thank Prof. Uri Ehrlich of Ben Gurion University of the Negev for referring me to them. (Not all of these Aleinu prayer text fragments were long enough to include the relevant passage.) it ,לשבח Since the second word of theAleinu prayer is [14] was probably seen as fitting to include this prayer in the Pesukei de-Zimra section. A main theme of both Barukh she-Amar and Yishtabaḥ, as .See also Ber .שבח well as of the entire Pesukei de-Zimra, is 32a: le-olam yesader adam shivḥo shel HKBH ve-aḥar kakh yitpallel. A Palestinian practice of reciting Aleinu in Pesukei de-Zimra may also explain a statement found in several Rishonim (e.g., Sefer ha-Maḥkim, , and Orḥot Ḥayyim) in the name of Pirkei de- Eliezer (a work מעומד לאומרו צריך לכך :(composed in eighth century Palestine The .לשבח בעלינו יש גדול שבח statement is obviously not giving an instruction regarding the RH Amidah recited by individuals. Nor does the language of the statement fit as an (לאומרו) instruction to individuals listening to the repetition of the RH Amidah. The recital of Aleinu in a context outside of the Amidah seems to be referred to. (The statement is not found in the surviving texts of Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer.) [15] See Shelomoh Tal, Nusaḥ ha-Tefillah shel Yehudei Paras, Jerusalem: Makhon Ben Ẓvi, 1981, p. 154 (RH). The Persian- ritual followed that of R. Saadiah in many respects. At the end of the eighteenth century the Persian Jews were influenced to adopt a Sefardic prayer ritual and their own ritual was forgotten. [16] Ed. Aryeh Goldschmidt, Jerusalem: Makhon Oẓar ha-Poskim, 2004, pp. 131 (daily shaḥarit) and 717 (RH). The earliest surviving manuscript of Maḥzor Vitry dates to the first half of the 12th century. [17] Ed. Moshe Hirschler, Jerusalem, 1972, p. 125 (daily shaḥarit), and p. 214 (RH). (This work was published by Hirschler together with another work, Siddur Rabbenu Shelomoh; both are integrated into the same volume.) Siddur Ḥasidei Ashkenaz was compiled by the students of R. Judah he-Hasid (d. 1217) and presumably reflects his text of Aleinu. Hirschler’s edition of this siddur is based on several manuscripts. [18] Ed. Samuel Yerushalmi, Jerusalem: Meorei Yisrael, 1979, sec. 2, pp. 91-92. R. Judah flourished in and died in the early thirteenth century. Aside from the text ofAleinu in the manuscript it is also ,לתקן published by Yerushalmi including the reading clear from the various explanatory comments .לתקן by R. Judah that he was working with a text that read [19]Ed. Moshe Hirschler, Jerusalem: Makhon Harav Hirschler, 1992, p. 659. R. Eleazar died circa 1230. The text of Aleinu is found in his commentary to theAleinu of RH. In his commentary on the daily shaḥarit, only the first two words of Aleinu and the last two (timlokh be-kavod) are recorded. In his Sefer ha-Rokeaḥ, his references to Aleinu in both the RH Amidah and the daily shaḥarit are similarly very brief. [20] Ed. Ephraim E. Urbach, Jerusalem: Mekiẓei Nirdamim, 1963, vol. 3, pp. 469-470. Sefer Arugat ha-Bosem was composed in 1234, in Bohemia. Aside from the text ofAleinu published here including the word it is ,לתקן clear from R. Abraham’s explanatory comment (p. 469, lines 8-9) that he was .לתקן working with a text that read Other early European texts of Aleinu include the three texts of Aleinu in manuscript Oxford, Corpus Christi College 133 (late twelfth century; daily, RH and one other) and the text of Aleinu in manuscript Cambridge Add. 667.1 (early thirteenth in the first two; the לתקן century, daily). The former has third Aleinu does not include the second paragraph. I have not been able to check the reading in Cambridge Add. 667.1. [21] See Seder Rav Amram Gaon, ed. Daniel Goldschmidt, Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 1971, p. 142. [22] Ibid., introduction, pp. 11-13. A few fragments of the Seder Rav Amram Gaon have been found in the Genizah, but these are very short and do not include our passage. [23] This manuscript is generally considered to be largely composed of the comments of R. Eliezer b. Nathan. See, e.g., Urbach, Sefer Arugat ha-Bosem, vol. 4, p. 24 and the facsimile edition of this manuscript published by Abraham Naftali Ẓvi Rot, Jerusalem: 1980, pp. 21-30. The manuscript itself is estimated to have been copied in the fourteenth century (Rot, p. 21).

[24] See Rot, p. 20a (comm. to RH Aleinu). [25] See Alter Yehudah Hirschler, “Peirush Siddur ha-Tefillah ve-ha-Maḥzor Meyuḥas le-Rabbi Eliezer ben Natan mi-Magenza (ha-Ravan),” Genuzot vol. 3, Jerusalem:1991, pp. 1-128. In this siddur commentary (pp. 78 and is בשמך יקראו וכלם מלכותך ‘מתקני העולם כל ויהיו ,(114 found in בשמך יקראו the commentary to daily Aleinu in shaḥarit, and וכלם is מלכותך מתקנין העולם כל ויהיו found in the commentary to RH Aleinu. (One should not deduce from this manuscript that R. Eliezer b. Nathan recited Aleinu daily in shaḥarit.) [26] See Siddur Rabbenu Shelomoh, p. 212 (commentary on RH Aleinu). Hirschler published this work as the siddur of Shelomoh b. R. Shimson of Worms (1030-1096), but it is probably that of R. Eliezer b. Nathan. See, e.g., Avraham Grossman, Ḥakhmei Ashkenaz ha- Rishonim, Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 2001, pp. 346-348. [27] Gershom Scholem recognized long ago that Aleinu includes several terms that are not only post-Biblical, but are characteristic of heikhalot literature. See his Jewish Gnosticism, Merkabah Mysticism and Talmudic Tradition, New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1965 (2d. ed.), pp. 27-28. He points to the terms yoẓer bereshit, moshav yekaro, and shekhinat uzo. Meir Bar-Ilan (Mekorah, p. 8) also points to the term adon ha-kol. All of this suggests that Aleinu was composed by someone with some connection toheikhalot literature, or composed at a time after terms originating inheikhalot literature came to be in normative rabbinic use. This explains howAleinu easily came to be borrowed into heikhalot literature. Due to the common terms, the authors of this literature probably saw Aleinu as a text “related to their own hymnology.” Scholem, p. 28. In heikhalot literature, Aleinu is found in the as a prayer of gratitude purportedly ,לשבח עלי singular form recited by R. Akiva on return from a safe journey to heaven. See the article by Swartz referred to above. (R. Akiva and R. Ishmael serve as central pillars and chief mouthpieces in this pseudepigraphic literature. See EJ 11:591, 2d. ed.). Meir Bar-Ilan, Mekorah, pp. 12-24, argues thatAleinu originated in heikhalot literature in the singular, and was then changed to the plural and borrowed into the RH service. I disagree, as do many others. (Bar-Ilan does not claim that Aleinu originated as this prayer of gratitude purportedly recited by R. Akiva. This would be very unlikely. There are too many themes in Aleinu that are out of context and extraneous under the assumption that Aleinu originated as this prayer of gratitude.) [28] The idiom is based on verses and (צר ויתן לשבי עזו ותפארתו ביד) such as Psalms 78:60-61 במקדשו) 96:6 and Isaiah ,(ותפארת עז אפאר תפארתי) 60:7 and (ובית ותפארתנו קדשנו) 64:10 This interpretation is probably implicit in the .(בית he ,לראות מהרה בתפארת עוזך commentary of R. Judah b. Yakar. On writes: פני לראות ונזכה ,אתה עוזמו תפארת כי (שם על =) ע״ש אפאר תפארתך ובית. דכתי׳ המקדש בית בתפארת ולראות שכינה See the Peirush ha-Tefillot ve-ha-Berakhot of R. Judah b. Yakar, part II, p. 91. R. Judah’s statements are adopted by R. David Abudarham in his commentary to the Aleinu of RH. See also R. Shemtob Gaugine, Keter Shem Tov, Kėdainiai, 1934, p. 104. Unfortunately, this interpretation of has generally been overlooked. Numerous תפארת עוזך the phrase are scholars who have written that the prayer includes no request for the Temple’s rebuilding. Scholem (p. 28, n. 18) notes the following passage found in other heikhalot texts: עזו בתפארת ומבורך. הדרו במושב שמו ברוך עזו תפארת strongly suggests that הדרו מושב The parallel to represents the physical Temple in this passage. For heikhalot texts with this passage, see Mordecai Margaliot, Sefer ha-Razim, Jerusalem, 1966, pp. 107-09, and Martin Samuel Cohen, The Shi‘ur Qomah: Texts and Recensions, Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1985, pp. 173 and 175. to mean “establish” does require תכן The use of the root [29] some explanation. In Tanakh, ”,means to “weigh תכן the root “examine,” “measure,” or “place in order.” (At Psalms 75:4, the root ,עמודיה תכנתי is commonly translated as “establish,” but even here it probably means something like “properly apportion” or “place in order.” See, e.g., the commentary with the meaning “establish” is not תכן (.of S. R. Hirsch found in the may mean תכן Mishnah or Tosefta. But DJD) שנה למועדי תכן :establish” in the Dead Sea text 4Q511“ VII, p. 221), and perhaps in other Dead Sea texts as well. In paytanic literature, an to mean “establish” is found in the תכן early use of the root piyyut Thispiyyut is .(תכנת עולמך ימים בששת כי) Emet Emunatkha preserved in the Siddur R. Saadiah Gaon (p. 110) and in several Genizah fragments. It has a tetrastichic structure (as does Aleinu), and is generally viewed as a pre-classical piyyut, i.e., a piyyut from the late Tannaitic/early Amoraic period. See, e.g., Ezra Fleischer, Ha-Yotzrot be- Hithavutam ve-Hitpaḥutam, Jerusalem: Magnes, 1984, p. 55, n. 47. The Academy of the , in its Historical Dictionary Project database (Ma’agarim), estimates the date of composition of this piyyut as the late second century C.E. may be ,תכנת not ,תקנת ,In the Musaf Amidah for the original reading. See, e.g., Siddur R. Saadiah Gaon, p. 112 and the Genizah fragment quoted by Fleischer, Tefillah u-Minhegey Tefillah, p. 52. (For more sources on this spelling issue, see Maḥzor Vitry, ed. Goldschmidt, p. 199, n. 1.) Probably, the use of the to mean “establish” arose based on the usage of the תכן root root at Psalms both from the) תכון and תכן or perhaps from the words ,75:4 found (כון root numerous times in the Tanakh (Jer. 30:20; Ps. 89:22, 93:1, 96:10, and 141:2; Prv. 12:19 and 20:18; I Kings 2:12; I Ch. 16:30; and II Ch. 8:16, 29:35, 35:10 and 35:16). [30] Aside from the fact that the theme of the section fits as an introduction to verses of malkhuyyot, the section ends with :מלך four words from the root

ותמלוך עליהם מהרה לעולם ועד עול מלכותך את ויקבלו כולם בכבוד תמלוך . עד ולעולמי היא שלך כי המלכות I have little doubt that the first section of Aleinu (which includes the words melekh malkhei ha-melakhim and malkeinu) was also composed at the same time. This is contrary to the view of many scholars who point to the two separate themes in the two sections as evidence of different authors. Aleinu is a short prayer, and in the earliest texts of Aleinu there is no division into sections. Therefore, our presumption should be one of unitary authorship. Close analysis of the verses cited shows that both sections quote or paraphrase from the same chapter of Isaiah (45:20: u-mitpallelim el el lo yoshia and 45:23: ki li tikhra kol berekh tishava kol lashon; there are quotes and paraphrases of other verses from chapter 45, and from 44:24 and 46:9 as well.) This strongly suggests that both sections were composed at the same time. (I have not seen anyone else make this point.) Terms characteristic of heikhalot literature are found in both sections as well. While it cannot be proven that Rav (early third century) was the author of Aleinu, it has been observed that “in some of Rav’s homilies a tendency to a certain mystical thinking is discernible.” See EJ 13:1578 and the citations there, as well as the following statement of Rav at Ber. 55a:

יודע היה בצלאל לצרף אותיות שנבראו. בהן שמים וארץ Also, several Talmudic passages record Rav’s authorship or contribution to the texts of other prayers. Most of these passages are collected at Ismar Elbogen, Jewish Liturgy: A Comprehensive History, tr. Raymond P. Scheindlin, New York: Jewish Publication Society and Jewish Theological Seminary, 1993, pp. 207-208. Most relevant is Ber.12b where changes for המשפט המלך and הקדוש המלך the the Ten Days of Repentance are recorded in the name of Rav. Most recently, Ruth Langer is another who believes that the evidence points to authorship of both paragraphs ofAleinu around the period of Rav. She writes: In literary style, it is consistent with the earliest forms of rabbinic-era liturgical poetry from the … See Langer, “The Censorship of Aleinu in Ashkenaz and Its Aftermath,” in Debra Reed Blank, ed., The Experience of Jewish Liturgy: Studies Dedicated to Menahem Schmelzer, Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2011, pp. 148-149. As Langer points out, although Rav gained prominence in Babylonia, he had also been a student of R. Judah ha-Nasi in Israel. ,was the correct classical term העולם תקון [31] even though it has now been replaced in popular parlance by .Rosenthal, p. 214, n. 1 .עולם תקון [32] Rosenthal, p. 214, n. 1. It is also found eight times in the Jerusalem Talmud and four times in the Tosefta. Most of the time, the term is used in the context of the laws of divorce, but it is found in other contexts as well (e.g., Hillel’s enactment of prozbol at M. Gittin 4:3). Rosenthal suggests that the concept originated in the context of the laws of divorce, and was later expanded into the other contexts. See Rosenthal, pp. 217-219. can often be translated as תקן Admittedly, the root [33] “established.” But in many of these cases the context is that of establishing a legal ordinance or procedure, and a better translation would be “instituted.” On the other hand, the בתקונו ושמחנו musaf Amidah for festivals includes the phrase (the subject being the beit ha-mikdash) and this seems to be meaning תקן an example of the root “establish” in a non-legal context. Another such example is found in ממנו לו והתקין…the phrase one of the sheva berakhot (Ketubbot 8a). לתכן Nevertheless, I strongly believe that was the original reading inAleinu . It is easily understandable how an עולם might have evolved into עולם לתכן original reading of the reverse scenario ;לתקן is much less likely. Moreover, R. Saadiah’s text in the musaf Amidah for .in Aleinu לתכן Yet he recorded .שבת תקנת shabbat read there are ,עולם לתקן As mentioned earlier, in the reading [34] under the sovereignty” or“ :במלכות two ways to translate “through the sovereignty.” If the translation is “under,” establishing a world under the sovereignty of God is a simpler reading than perfecting a world under the sovereignty of God. If one wants to advocate for the translation ב through,” it requires investigation whether the prefix“ could have been used to mean “through” in the Tannaitic and Amoraic periods. [35] See, e.g., Shatz, Waxman, and Diament, eds., Tikkun Olam: Social Responsibility in Jewish Thought and Law, and Jacob J. Schacter, “Tikkun Olam: Defining the Jewish Obligation,” in Rav Chesed: Essays in Honor of Rabbi Dr. Haskel Lookstein, ed. Rafael Medoff, Jersey City: Ktav, 2009, vol. 2, pp. 183-204. For some citations to Biblical verses on justice, see Rosenthal, p. 215, n. 2. [36] R. Chaim Brovender suggested to me that after Aleinu shifted to becoming primarily a daily prayer, reciting a statement about perfecting/improving the world would have been seen as appropriate. By the twelfth century, Aleinu was being recited as a daily prayer in shaḥarit in parts of (see above, n. 16) and probably in parts of and England as well. (For Germany, see above, n. 17, and for England, see Ms. Oxford, Corpus Christi College 133.) The recital of Aleinu in the evening prayer in Europe is a slightly later development. For some early references to this practice, see Sefer ha-Minhagot of R. Moshe b. R. Shmuel of Marseilles (early thirteenth cent.), published in Kobeẓ Al Yad 14 (1998), pp. 81-176, at p. 103, and Kol Bo, sec. 11, citing R. Meir of Rothenberg (thirteenth cent.). The recital of Aleinu in the afternoon prayer is a later development. Regarding the recital of Aleinu as a daily prayer in Palestine, see above, n. 14. Identifying Achashverosh and Esther in Secular Sources

Identifying Achashverosh and Esther in Secular Sources By Mitchell First This article is a summary of a longer article which will appear in his forthcoming book Esther Unmasked: Solving Eleven Mysteries of the Jewish Holidays and Liturgy (Kodesh Press), pp. 129-167.

In this article, we will explain how scholars were finally able to identify Achashverosh in secular sources. We will also show that Esther can be identified in secular sources as well. Finally, we will utilize these sources to shed light on the story of the Megillah.

Before we get to these sources, we have to point out that an important clue to the identity of Achashverosh is found in the book of Ezra. Achashverosh is mentioned at Ezra 4:6 in the context of other Persian kings. The simplest understanding of Ezra 4:6 and its surrounding verses is that Achashverosh is the Persian king who reigned after the Daryavesh who rebuilt the Temple,[1] but before Artachshasta. But what about the secular sources? Was there any Persian king known as Achashverosh or something close to that in these sources?

Until the 19th century, a search in secular sources for a Persian king named Achashverosh or something close to that would have been an unsuccessful one. Our knowledge of the Persian kings from the Biblical period was coming entirely from the writings of Greek historians, and none of the names that they recorded were close to Achashverosh. The Greek historians (Herodotus, mid-5th cent. BCE, and the others who came after him) described the following Persian kings from the Biblical period: Cyrus, Cambyses, Darius, Xerxes, and Artaxerxes.

We were thus left to speculate as to the identity of Achashverosh. Was he to be equated with Artaxerxes? This was the position taken by the Septuagint to Esther. Was he to be equated with Cambyses? Or was he, as Ezra 4:6 and its surrounding verses implied, the king between Daryavesh (=Darius I) and Artachshasta (=Artaxerxes I). But why did the Greeks refer to him as Xerxes, a name at first glance seeming to have no relation to the name Achashverosh?

It was only in the 19th century, as a result of the decipherment of Old Persian cuneiform inscriptions from the ancient Persian palaces, that we were able to answer these questions. It was discovered that the name of the king that the Greeks had been referring to as “Xerxes” was in fact: “Khshayarsha” (written in Old Persian cuneiform). This name is very close to the Hebrew “Achashverosh.” In their consonantal structure, the two names are identical. Both center on the consonantal sounds “ch”, “sh”, “r”, and “sh.” The Hebrew added an initial aleph[2] (a frequent occurrence when foreign words with two initial consonants are recorded in Hebrew), and added two vavs. Interestingly, the Megillah spells Achashverosh several times with only one vav, and one time (10:1) spells the name with no vavs. Thereafter, at the beginning of the 20th century, Aramaic documents from Egypt from the 5th century B.C.E. came to light. In these documents, this and חשירש, חשיארש king’s name was spelled in Aramaic as is אחשורוש The closeness to the Hebrew .אחשירש easily seen. How did Khshayarsha (consonants: KH, SH, R, SH) come to be referred to by the Greeks as Xerxes?

The Greek language does not have a letter to represent the “sh” sound. The initial “KH SH” sounds of the Persian name were collapsed into one Greek letter that makes the “KS” sound. A tendency to parallelism probably led to the second “SH” also becoming “KS,” even though “S” would have been more appropriate.[3] Hence, the consonants became KS, R, KS (=X,R,X). The “es” at the end was just something added by the Greeks to help turn the foreign name into proper Greek grammatical form.[4] משה It was for this same reason that the Hebrew) became “Moses” when the Bible was translated into Greek.)

Identifying Khshayarsha/Xerxes with Achashverosh thus makes much sense on linguistic grounds. Critically, it is consistent with Ezra 4:6 which had implied that Achashverosh was the king between Daryavesh (=Darius I) and Artachshasta (=Artaxerxes I).[5] We have an inscription from Khshayarsha in Persian which lists the countries over which he ruled. Among the countries listed are “Hidush” and “Kushiya,” most likely the Hodu and Kush of the Megillah.[6]

Now that we have identified Achashverosh in secular sources, we can use these sources to provide some biographical information. Xerxes reigned from 486-465 BCE, when the Temple was already rebuilt. It was rebuilt in the reign of his father Darius I in 516 BCE. According to Herodotus, Xerxes was the son of Darius by Atossa, daughter of Cyrus. Xerxes was also the first son born to Darius after Darius became king. These factors distinguished him from his older half-brother Artabazanes, and merited Xerxes being chosen to succeed Darius. At his accession in 486 BCE, Xerxes could not have been more than 36 years old (since he was born after the accession of Darius in 522 BCE).

The party in which Vashti rebelled took place in the third year of the reign of Achashverosh (1:3), and Esther was not chosen until the 7th year (2:16). Why did it take Achashverosh so long to choose a replacement? It has been suggested that Xerxes was distracted by his foreign policy. In the early years of his reign, Xerxes ordered a full-scale invasion of Greece. Xerxes went on the invasion himself, which took him out of Persia commencing in the spring or summer of his 5th year and continuing through part of his 7th year.[7] This invasion ended in defeat. From the secular sources and a solar eclipse that took place in the battles, it can be calculated that Xerxes did not return to Susa until the fall of 479 B.C.E.[8] Tevet of Achashverosh’s 7th year, when Esther was chosen, would have been Dec. 479/Jan. 478 B.C.E. Accordingly, Esther was taken to the palace shortly after Xerxes’ return.

Do we have any evidence in secular sources for the main plot of the Purim story, the threat to destroy the Jews in the 12th year (3:7)? We do not, but this is to be expected. No works from any Persian historians from this period have survived. (Probably, no such works were ever composed.) Our main source for the events of the reign of Xerxes is Herodotus and his narrative ends in the 7th year of Xerxes.[9] Interestingly, there is perhaps a reference to Mordechai in a later narrative source. The Greek historian Ctesias,[10] who served as a physician to Artaxerxes II, mentions a “Matacas” who was the most influential of all of Xerxes’ eunuchs. (Probably, “eunuch” was merely a term used to indicate a holder of a high position in the king’s court.) “Matacas” suggests a Persian name with the consonants MTC, which would be very close to the consonants of the name Mordechai, MRDC.[11] The information provided by Ctesias bears a significant resemblance to the last verse in the Megillah, which records that by the end of the story, Mordechai was mishneh (=second) to the king.[12] (Perhaps we do not have to take mishneh literally; the import may merely be “very high official.”) Most interesting is what happens when we analyze the secular sources regarding the wife of Xerxes. According to Herodotus, the wife of Xerxes was named Amestris, and she was the daughter of a military commander named Otanes. (In the Megillah, Esther is described as the daughter of Avichail.) Ctesias records that Amestris outlived Xerxes. Moreover, in the further details that Ctesias provides, Amestris is involved in royal affairs even in the reign of her son Artaxerxes.[13] Neither Herodotus nor Ctesias use a term like “queen” for her, but their description of Amestris fits what we would call today the “queen.” Neither gives any indication that Xerxes had any other wife.

Some postulate that Amestris is Vashti. But this is extremely unlikely since there is nothing in Herodotus or Ctesias to indicate any loss of status by Amestris. Others postulate (based on verses such as Est. 2:19 and 4:11[14]) that Esther was never the main wife of Xerxes, but was one of other wives of a lesser status. See, e.g., Chamesh Megillot, Daat Mikra edition (published by Mossad Harav Kook), introduction to Esther, p. 6. The problem with this approach is that the clear impression that one receives from the Megillah is that Esther was the Persian wife of the highest status from the time she was chosen in the 7th year of the reign of Achashverosh through the balance of the years described in the book. See, e.g., verse 2:17 (va-yasem keter malkhut be-roshah va-yamlikheha tachat Vashti).

The approach that seems to have the least difficulties is to postulate that Amestris is Esther and that Herodotus simply erred regarding her ancestry. Although Herodotus traveled widely in the 460’s and 450’s B.C.E., he probably never set foot in Persia. His information about Persia is based on what was told to him orally. Every scholar knows that he could not possibly be correct on a large percentage of the details he reports (whether about Persia or any matter). Also, the impression that one receives from the Megillah is that Esther did not disclose her true ancestry for several years. Whatever rumors about her ancestry first came out may be what made their way to Herodotus.[15]

It is striking that the name Avichayil means military commander.[16] It is not so farfetched to suggest that Avichayil might have had another name which resembled the name Otanes. The Megillah tells us that Esther had another name, Hadassah.

Herodotus tells a story depicting the cruelty of Amestris. Amestris takes revenge on another woman by cutting off her body parts and throwing them to the dogs. Ctesias writes that Amestris ordered someone impaled, and had fifty Greeks decapitated. But scholars today know not to believe all the tales told by the Greek historians about their enemies, the Persians. (Herodotus, known as the “Father of History,” is also known as the “Father of Lies.” The reputation of Ctesias as a historian is far worse; he is widely viewed as freely mixing fact and fiction.)

Although he never says it explicitly, one gets the impression from Herodotus that he believed that Amestris was the wife of Xerxes even in the first seven years of Xerxes’ reign. But it would be understandable that Herodotus might have had such a belief. According to the Megillah, Vashti was gone by the third year of Xerxes. Xerxes reigned 18 years after that. To Herodotus and his informants, Vashti may have been long forgotten.

We have no Persian sources for the name of the wife of Khshayarsha. But close examination of the name “Amestris” supports its identification with Esther. The “is” at the end was just a suffix added to turn the foreign name into proper Greek grammatical form (just as “es” was added at the end of “Xerxes”). When comparing the remaining consonants, the name of the wife of Xerxes is recorded in the Greek historians as based around the consonants M, S, T, and R, and the name as recorded in the Megillah is based around the consonants S, T, and R. Out of the numerous possible consonants in these languages, three consonants are the same and in the same order! Probability suggests that this is not coincidence and that the two are the same person. Probably her Persian name was composed of the consonants M, S, T, and R, and the M was not preserved in the Hebrew. (One source in Orthodoxy that has suggested the identification of Esther with Amestris, without any discussion, is Trei Asar, Daat Mikra edition, published by Mossad Harav Kook, vol. 2, appendix, p. 3.)

—-

Once we realize that Achashverosh is Xerxes, it becomes evident that the asher haglah of Esther 2:6 cannot be referring to Mordechai. King Yechanyah was exiled in 597 B.C.E. If Mordechai was old enough to have been exiled with King Yechanyah, he would have been over 120 years old when appointed to a high position in the 12th year of Xerxes. Moreover, Esther, his first cousin, would not have been young enough to have been chosen queen a few years earlier. One alternative is to understand verse 2:6 as referring to Mordechai’s great- grandfather Kish.[17] Another alternative is to view the subject of 2:6 as Mordechai, but to read the verse as implying only that Mordechai came from a family that had been exiled.

—-

The identification of Achashverosh with Xerxes does not fit with the view of the Talmud. According to the Talmud (Megillah 11b, based on Seder Olam chap. 29), Achashverosh reigned between Koresh and Daryavesh. In this view, the Temple had not yet been rebuilt at the time of the events of the Megillah. (In the view of Seder Olam and the Talmud, the Persian period spanned the reigns of only three Persian kings. This is much shorter than the conventional chronology. The conventional chronology is set forth in the Table below. For more information about this discrepancy, see my Jewish History in Conflict: A Study of the Major Discrepancy Between Rabbinic and Conventional Chronology, Jason Aronson, 1997).

That the king intended to be depicted in the Megillah was Khshayarsha/Xerxes is accepted by legions of scholars today, even if they question the historicity of the story. Within Orthodoxy, some sources that accept the identification of Achashverosh with Xerxes include: Chamesh Megillot (Daat Mikra edition), R. Isaac Halevy,[18] R. Shelomoh Danziger,[19] R. Avigdor Miller,[20] R. Adin Steinsaltz,[21] R. Yoel Bin-Nun,[22] R. Yehuda Landy,[23] and R. Menachem Liebtag.[24]

The Megillah (10:2) implied that we could search outside the Bible for additional information regarding Achashverosh. I trust that this search has proven an interesting one!

——

Table: The main Persian kings from this era and their dates (B.C.E.): Cyrus 539-530 Cambyses [25] 530-522 Darius I 522-486 Xerxes 486-465 Artaxerxes I 465-424[26] Darius II 423-404 Artaxerxes II 404-358 Artaxerxes III 358-338 Arses 338-336 Darius III 336-332 Mitchell First works as an attorney in Manhattan and lives in New Jersey, and is available to lecture on this topic. He can be reached at [email protected] [1] Admittedly, this is an oversimplification, since the Daryavesh who rebuilt the Temple is mentioned both at Ezra 4:5 and at Ezra 4:24. See further below, n. 5. [2] Both the Elamite and the Akkadian versions of the name Khshayarsha also had an initial vowel. In Elamite,“i”, and in Akkadian, “a”. See Edwin M. Yamauchi, Persia and the Bible (1990), p. 187. The name of the king is found in Aramaic in the panels of the Dura-Europos (3rd century C.E., Syria) without the initial aleph. [3] That the transmission of foreign names is by no means an exact science is shown by how the name of the son of Xerxes was recorded by the Greeks. The Greeks preserved the “Arta” of the first part of his name, Artakhshaça, but then just tacked on “xerxes,” the name of his father, as the second part of his name! [4] I.e., convert it into the nominative case. [5] With regard to verse 4:24, the proper understanding of this verse is as follows. The author of the book of Ezra decided to digress, and to supplement the reference to accusations made against the Jews in the reigns of Koresh through Daryavesh with mention of further accusations against them in the reigns of the subsequent kings, Achashverosh (Xerxes) and Artachshasta (Artaxerxes I). Verse 4:24 then returns to the main narrative, the reign of Daryavesh. The role played by verse 4:24 is that of “resumptive repetition.” This is the interpretation adopted by the Daat Mikra commentary to Ezra (pp. 27 and 35) and by many modern scholars. See the references at Richard Steiner, “Bishlam’s Archival Search Report in Nehemiah’s Archive: Multiple Introductions and Reverse Chronological Order as Clues to the Origin of the Aramaic Letters in Ezra 4-6,”Journal of Biblical Literature 125 (2006), p. 674, n. 164. This understanding of verse 24 only became evident in modern times when it was realized that linguistically Achashverosh was to be identified with Xerxes. [6] Roland G. Kent, Old Persian: Grammar, Texts, Lexicon, p. 151 (2d ed., 1953). [7] Many find allusions in the Megillah to the preparation for the invasion and to the invasion. See, e.g., Esther 1:3 and 10:2. [8] See, e.g., William H. Shea, “Esther and History,”Andrews University Seminary Studies 14 (1976), p. 239. In the Persian system of regnal reckoning, 485 BCE was considered year 1 of Xerxes. 486 B.C.E. was only the accession year. [9] See Pierre Briant, From Cyrus to Alexander (2002), pp. 7 and 516. In his narrative of events up to the 7th year, Herodotus does make some tangential references to events after the 7th year. For example, he refers to Artaxerxes a few times, and he tells a story about something that Amestris did in her later years. (She had fourteen children of noble Persians buried alive, as a gift on her behalf to the god of the underworld.) Later ancient sources write about the assassination of Xerxes. [10] The Persica of Ctesias only survives in quotations or summaries by others. For this particular section of Ctesias, what has survived is a summary by Photius (9th cent.) [11] Another version of Photius reads “Natacas” here. But this difference is not so significant. “N” and “M” are related consonants, both being nasal stops; it is not uncommon for one to transform into the other. [12] See also Est. 9:4. [13] This means that Artaxerxes I (who empowered Ezra, and later Nechemiah) was technically Jewish! [14] Est. 2:19 refers to a second gathering of maidens,after Esther was chosen. Est. 4:11 records that Esther had not been called to the king for 30 days. [15] It is sometimes claimed that Esther could not have been the wife of Xerxes because Herodotus (3,84) tells of an agreement between Darius I and his six co-conspirators that the Persian king would not marry outside their families. One of the co-conspirators was named Otanes. But Herodotus nowhere states that the Otanes who was the father of Amestris was the co- conspirator Otanes. Briant writes that if Amestris had been the daughter of co- conspirator Otanes, Herodotus would doubtless have pointed this out. See Briant, p. 135. Therefore, implicit in Herodotus is that Xerxes married outside the seven families. [16] I would like to thank Rabbi Richard Wolpoe who first made this observation to me. [17] That the name Mordechai may be based on the name of the Babylonian deity Marduk also suggests that Mordechai was born in exile. [18] Dorot ha-Rishonim: Tekufat ha-Mikra (1939), p. 262. [19] “Who Was the Real Akhashverosh?,” Jewish Observer, Feb. 1973, pp. 12-15. [20] Torah Nation (1971), pp. 40 and 42. [21] Talmud Bavli, Taanit-Megillah, p. 47, ha-Hayyim, and p. 50, ha-Hayyim. . [22] Hadassah Hi Esther (1997), p. 49, n. 8. (This work is a collection of articles by various authors.) [23] Purim and the Persian Empire (2010), pp. 40-42. [24] For additional sources in Orthodoxy that accept the identification of Achashverosh with Xerxes, see Jewish History in Conflict, pp. 178-79. [25] Cambyses’ name was discovered to be “Kabujiya” in Persian. His name is recorded in Aramaic documents from Egypt from the 5th כנבוזי as cent. B.C.E. He did not reign enough years to be Achashverosh. Nor did he reign over Hodu. See Jewish History in Conflict, p. 167. Although he is not mentioned in Tanakh, his reign is alluded to at Ezra 4:5 (in the word ve-ad). [26] Another king named Xerxes reigned 45 days after the death of his father Artaxerxes I.

The Meaning of the Name “Maccabee”

The Meaning of the Name “Maccabee”[1] Mitchell FirstIn a previous post at the Seforim blog, Dan Rabinowitz dealt with the topic of the origin of the name “Maccabee,” and made many interesting points,[2] although he did not adequately address the issues. My intention in this essay is to offer a more is not found in מכבי/מקבי thorough discussion. The name classical Tannaitic or Amoraic literature.[3] But this is not surprising. The name was originally an additional name for Judah only and there are no references to Judah in classical Tannaitic or Amoraic literature.[4] The earliest sources that include the name in some form are works preserved by the Church: I Maccabees and II Maccabees. (These are not the original titles of these works.) I Maccabees was originally written in Hebrew,[5] but what has survived is only a Greek translation from the Hebrew (and ancient translations made from this Greek translation). II Maccabees, an entirely different work, was written in Greek. In the early Church, I and II Maccabees were considered part of the Bible.[6] I Maccabees (2:2-5) tells us that Mattathias (=Matityahu) had five sons, and that each had another name. For Joudas (=Judah), the name was Makkabaios (Gr: Μακκαβαîος.)[7] The additional names were probably given to the sons to help distinguish them from others with the same name.[8] In I Maccabees, Makkabaios is used for Judah six times. In II Maccabees, it is used for him twenty-three times.[9] To determine whether the earliest spelling of the name in Hebrew one must guess from the doublekappa in ,ק or a כ was with a Makkabaios what the original Hebrew letter (or letters) would have been. Fortunately, this is not hard. Although there are exceptions, there is a general pattern in the Greek ,(withchi (χ כ translation of the Bible of transliterating is transliterated with one ק with kappa (k).[10] Usually ק and kappa, but sometimes twokappas are used.[11] A with twokappas is very rare.[12] These כ transliteration of same patterns hold true in I and II Maccabees. For example, if we focus on I Maccabees,[13] and look at the Greek transliteration of names, places, and months whose Hebrew spelling is known from the Bible, we find: -transliterated transliterated- ;כסלו and ,כלב, זכריה, מכמש, כתים :with χ are and ,יעקב, עקרבים, תקוע ,אשקלון, קדש :with one kappa are and עקרון[transliterated with twokappas are: [14- ;קרנים transliterated with כ At no time in I Maccabees is .הקוץ[15] kappa.[16] Thus, the spelling of Makkabaios with two kappas [in the original Hebrew or Aramaic,[17 ק points strongly to a מקקב Moreover, an original .קק and does not mandate assuming a would be extremely unlikely. Hebrew and Aramaic words do not ordinarily have 4 letter roots. If we make the alternative assumption that the initial mem was not a part of the root, in either קקב this does not help either. There is no root Hebrew or Aramaic.[18] The double kappa just confirms our [כ. [and not19 ,ק supposition that the original reading was Based on this spelling, it seems reasonable to agree with the oft-proposed suggestion that the name is related to the Hebrew which mean hammer.[20] As to ,מקבא and מקבת and Aramaic words why Judah was called by this name, one view is that the name alludes to his physical strength or military prowess.[21] But is not a military weapon; it is a worker’s מקבת/מקבא a tool.[22] Therefore, it has been suggested alternatively that the name reflects that Judah’s head or body in some way had the physical appearance of a hammer.[23] Interestingly, the Mishnah at Bekhorot 7:1 lists one of the categories of and the term is explained in the ,המקבן disqualifed priests as Naming [מקבא. [Talmud as meaning one whose head resembles a24 men according to physical characteristics was common in the ancient world.[25] Is it possible that Makkabaios and the other four names were Greek names?[26] The additional names for the other sons were: Gaddi (Γαδδι), Thassi (Θασσι), Auaran (Αυαραν) and Apphous (Απφους).[27] Perhaps it would have been beneficial for a Jew even as early as the age of Mattathias to have had an additional name in the Greek language. It is seen from the reference to Antigonus at M. Avot 1:3 that a “traditional” Jew circa 200 BCE could have borne a Greek name. (In the period after Judah, we know of many prominent Jews who had both a Hebrew/Aramaic name and a Greek name.[28] For example, Simon’s son John was also called Hyrcanus,[29] John’s son Judah was also called Aristobulus,[30] John’s son Yannai was also called Alexander,[31] and Yannai’s wife Shelomtziyon was also called Alexandra.[32]) But the letters μ,κ,β or μ,κ,κ,β, with any combination of vowels in between them, do not seem to correspond to any known word in ancient Greek.[33] Moreover, the two kappas also suggest that the name is not Greek. Two consecutive kappas are not typical in a Greek word.[34] Finally, there are no non-Jewish figures from this period or any earlier period with a name like Makkabaios. This is strong evidence that the name is not a Greek one. However, our task of determining the original spelling and meaning of the additional name of Judah is not that simple. Two further issues present themselves. First, assuming that Makkabaios is a Greek representation of a Hebrew or Aramaic name, we still do not know whether the authors of I and II Maccabees knew how Judah himself, who died in approximately 160 BCE, spelled his name. I Maccabees, which covers the period 175-134 BCE, was probably composed after the death of John Hyrcanus in 104 BCE, or at least when his reign was well advanced. This is seen from the last two sentences of the work.[35] After describing the murder of Simon and the attempted murder of Simon’s son John, the book closes with the following statement (16:23-24): As for the remainder of the history of John, his wars and his valorous deeds and his wall building and his other accomplishments, all these are recorded in the chronicle of his high priesthood, from the time he succeeded his father as high priest. [36] With regard to II Maccabees, we are told by the unknown author that it is an abridgement of an earlier work by someone named Jason of Cyrene. Cyrene is in Libya, but presumably Jason spent some time in Judea.[37] He is otherwise unknown.[38] The prevailing view is that Jason was a contemporary of Judah.[39] For example, the abridgement ends with a description of a military victory by Judah in 161 BCE, suggesting that the original work ended around this time as well. But it can be argued that the abridger ended his work before Jason did.[40] For example, the abridger writes that Jason narrated the history of Judah “and his brothers” (II Macc. 2:19). Based on this, an argument can be made that Jason’s work continued long after 161 BCE. It has also been argued that Jason wrote his work as a response to I Maccabees.[41] Even if we adopt the prevailing view that Jason was a contemporary of Judah, this does not necessarily mean that Jason knew how Judah himself spelled his name.[42] The second issue that presents itself arises from the fact that the name is written “Machabaeus” in the Latin translation of I and II Maccabees composed by the church father Jerome (c. 400 CE).[43] There is a question whether this spelling reflects Jerome’s own spelling choice, which was perhaps made after he consulted the original Hebrew of I Maccabees,[44] or whether this was the conventional spelling of the name in the earlier Latin translations made from the Greek, which Jerome simply let stand. If this spelling was Jerome’s own and he made it after consulting with the original Hebrew of I Maccabees,[45] this would strongly suggest that the Hebrew text that he had In his translation of .כ before him spelled the name with a the Bible into Latin, Jerome almost uniformly used “ch” to Alternatively, if the “ch” spelling [כ.[represent 46 originated in the Latin translations before Jerome, or if it originated with Jerome, but not in consultation with the original Hebrew of I Maccabees, it would seem to be based on a Greek text which spelled the name with chi. This too would seem to reflect an original Hebrew spelling of the name with a Thus, although we saw earlier that the doublekappa in the .כ in the original ק Greek translation of I Maccabees suggests a Hebrew, the evidence from Jerome’s Latin translation points in the opposite direction. Perhaps already in an early stage there were two different Hebrew spellings of the name.[47] If the meaning that ,כ the Hebrew name was spelled with a suggests itself is “the extinguisher.”[48] * * * * * * The that is prevalent in Jewish כ spelling of Maccabee with a spelling. It is כ sources today is not evidence of an original only the consequence of the spelling choice made by the author of Yosippon in the 10th century.[49] Yosippon is a historical work of anonymous authorship that was based in large part on a Latin translation of the works of Josephus.[50] Among the other sources that the author of Yosippon had before him was a Latin translation of I and II Maccabees. In the Latin translation of I and II Maccabees that was before him, Judah’s additional name was spelled “Machabaeus.” Based on this, the He .כ author of Yosippon decided to spell the name with a influenced the כ This spelling with a [מכביי.[spelled it 51 Rishonim thereafter. There never was a group by the name Maccabees in ancient times. How did the references to this non-existent group ever arise and how did the books get their titles? II Maccabees focuses in large part on Judah. Jonathan Goldstein, the author of I and II Maccabees in the Anchor Bible series, explains further:[52] Clement of Alexandria and Origen, the earliest of the Church Fathers to mention the books by name, call themTa Makkabaïka, “Maccabaean Histories,” from which title persons who spoke loosely probably turned to call all the heroes in the stories “Maccabees.”[53] The first datable occurrence of such use of “Maccabees” for the heroes is in Tertullian…ca. 195 C.E.[54] seems to be the מקבי Finally, it must be pointed out that original reading in the work now commonly referred to as Megillat Antiochus.[55] But this work is replete with errors: with Yochanan (John), while מקבי It associates the name- according to I and II Maccabees, this name is only associated with Judah. -It describes Yochanan as killing the general Nikanor in a private encounter in the area of the Temple. According to I and II Maccabees, Nikanor was killed by Judah and his forces in a battle that took place outside of Jerusalem. -It describes Judah as being killed before the Temple was retaken and describes Mattathias as stepping in to fight with the other brothers. According to I Maccabees, Mattathias died before the Temple was retaken and Judah led the brothers in battle. II Maccabees does not even mention Mattathias and describes Judah as leading the brothers in battle. -In its dating of the story of Chanukah, it erroneously assumes that the retaking of the Temple coincided with the beginning of Hasmonean rule in Palestine. In actuality, over two decades separated these events. Because of these and other errors, it is hard to treat this work as a reliable historical source on any issue.[56] * * * * * * Some of the other, more remote, possibilities for the origin of the one) מחבה hope),[57] from) מקוה name are: a derivation from one who causes grief).[59] The) מכאב who hides),[58] or from name has also been interpreted in various ways as an acrostic.[60] Finally, on a lighter note, the suggestions of Franz Delitzsch and Filosseno Luzzatto (son of ) deserves mention. Delitzsch suggests that the name is a contraction of the exclamation mah ke-avi! (=who is comparable to my father!)[61] Luzzatto observes that there is a Greek term βιαιο-μάχας (biaio-machas) which means “fighting violently.”[62] If one places these words in reverse order, one gets something close to Judah’s additional name![63] Conclusion The two kappas in the name in the Greek translation of I Maccabees suggest that the original Hebrew from which That the .ק this translation was made spelled the name with a ק is extremely unlikely. A כ two kappas stem from an original spelling would suggest that the name is related to the Hebrew and that the name was ,מקבא and מקבת and Aramaic words assigned to Judah based on either his physical strength/military prowess or based on his physical appearance. But it is also possible that neither the authors of I or II Maccabees nor Jason knew how Judah spelled his own name. Also, the fact that the name is spelled with a “ch” in Jerome’s Latin translation suggests that there may also have been a Hebrew version of I Maccabees that spelled the name with a [כ.[64

[1] I would like to thank Sam Borodach for reviewing the draft. All translations from I and II Maccabees are from the editions of Jonathan A. Goldstein (Anchor Bible, vols. 41 and 41A, 1976 and 1983). All citations to theEncyclopaedia Judaica (EJ) are to the original edition. [2] Dan Rabinowitz, “The Name Machabee,” the Seforim blog (21 December 2008), available here. [3] I am not considering Megillat Antiochus (“MA”) to be within “classical rabbinic literature.” I will discuss this unusual work at the end. [4] Aside from the references in MA, the earliest reference to Judah in rabbinic literature is a reference in an 8th century work, Mishnat R. Eliezer (also known as Midrash Agur). This reference seems to be based on MA. This will be discussed below. Judah is also referred to in two of the three midrashim on Chanukkah published by Adolf Jellinek in the mid-19th century, and republished by Judah David Eisenstein in his Otzar Midrashim (1915). See Eisenstein, pp. 190 and 192. These midrashim are estimated to date to the 10th century. See EJ 11:1511. [5] There are many factors that point to the fact that the Greek is only a translation. See, e.g.,EJ 11:657, and Goldstein, I Maccabees, p. 14. For example, many Hebrew idioms are used. The church father Jerome (fourth cent.) clearly implies that the Greek version of I Maccabees is only a translation. He writes: “I have found the First Book of Maccabees in Hebrew; the Second is a Greek book as can also be proved from considerations of style alone.” Goldstein,I Maccabees, p. 16. An earlier church father Origen (third cent.) mentions an extra-biblical book used by the Jews which is a “Maccabean History which bears the title ‘sarbêthsabanaiel.’ ” Since this title is in Hebrew or Aramaic, this suggests that the book he is referring to, almost certainly I Maccabees, was composed in Hebrew or Aramaic. As to the meaning of this title, see Goldstein,I Maccabees, pp. 16-21 and J. Taanit 4:5 (68d). Jerome is the last individual to refer to the original Hebrew of I Maccabees. Neither I or II Maccabees is referred to or alluded to in either Talmud. [6] For example, they were included in codices of the Septuagint. Judah and his brothers were seen as heroes by the early church. Centuries later, the Protestant church denied the sanctity of I and II Maccabees and of all the other books known today as the Apocrypha. But the Apocrypha are still part of the canon of the Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox churches. The Biblical canon may have been considered closed by Jewry even before I Maccabees was composed. See Sid Z. Leiman, The Canonization of Hebrew Scripture (1976), pp. 29-30 and 131-32. Even if the canon was still open (see, e.g., Lawrence H. Schiffman, Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls, 1994, pp. 162-169, and M. Yadayim 3:5 and M. Eduyyot 5:3), a strong argument can be made that I Maccabees was never a candidate for canonization since it did not claim to be a book composed before the period of prophecy ended. II Maccabees would never have been a candidate for canonization since it was composed in Greek. [7] As is evident from the names Mattathias, Joudas, and Makkabaios, Greek often adds an “s” at the end of foreign became “Moses” in the Septuagint, and משה names. That is why why there is an “s” at the end of the name “Jesus.” [8] Goldstein, I Maccabees, p. 230. [9] In II Maccabees, the name is usually used alone, without the name Judah. In I Maccabees, the name is used alone one time. Although the name is spelled with two kappas each time, the “s” at the end is not there each time. In Greek, the ending of the name varies depending on the how the name is being used in the sentence. [10] The First Book of Maccabees, tr. by Sidney Tedesche, intro. and comm. by Solomon Zeitlin (1950), p. 250, and Samuel Ives Curtiss, Jr., The Name Machabee (1876), p. 8. at Ezra בקי See, e.g., the transliteration of the name [11] .(many times) עקרון and the transliteration of the city ,7:4 [12] Curtiss, who seems to have gone through the Septuagint .at I Ch תכן :very carefully, can cite only one such case 4:32. See Curtiss, p. 9. But even here, there is another reading in which the transliteration is with two chis. [13] In II Maccabees, the occurrence of names and places whose Hebrew spelling is known from the Bible is very limited. (Unlike I Maccabees, II Maccabees does not provide many geographic details.) In II Maccabees, transliterated with chi יעקב, חזקיה Transliterated with kappa are .מרדכי and כסלו are .קרנים and [14] I Macc. 10:89. [15] I Macc. 8:17: “Judah chose Eupolemus son of John of the clan of Hakkoz…” I am making the reasonable assumption that mentioned at I הקוץ Hakkoz is the same as the priestly clan Chr. 24:10. (Although the reading of the majority of Septuagint manuscripts is Ακκως, there is another reading: ακχως.) [16] This is true in II Maccabees as well. Admittedly, in most of the instances I have listed, the authors of I and II Maccabees were not deciding on their own how to transliterate these names and places, but were following already established conventions. [17] The name could be an Aramaic one, even assuming that I Maccabees was composed in Hebrew. [18] Semitic languages (other than Akkadian) do not have roots with identical consonants in the first two positions. Eduard Yechezkel Kutscher, A History of the Hebrew Language (1984, 2d ed.), p. 7. [19] The Syriac translation of I Maccabees also spells the The Syriac translation of the Bible was .ק name with a generally based on the Greek translation, but it has been argued that sometimes the translators consulted the original Hebrew and that perhaps the Hebrew original was consulted here. See Felix Perles, “The Name ΜΑΚΚΑΒΑΙΟΣ,”JQR 17 (1926-27), pp. 404-405. [20] See, e.g., 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. 158, Zeitlin, pp. 250-52, Nosson Dovid Rabinowich, Binu Shenot Dor va-Dor (1985), pp. 184-87, and Ernest Klein, A Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the Hebrew Language for Readers of English (1987), p. 377. For references to earlier scholars who argued for this approach, see Curtiss, pp. 18-20 and Ralph Marcus, “The Name ΜΑΚΚΑΒΑΙΟΣ” in The Joshua Starr Memorial is found in the Tanakh at Judges מקבת .Volume (1953), p. 62 4:21. (See also Is. 51:1.) It is also found in Tanakh in the at I Kings 6:7, Jer. 10:4, and Is. 44.12. It is ,מקבות plural since it is a ,נקב usually viewed as deriving from the root tool which is used to penetrate. [21] There are various ways of understanding the metaphor. Some reasonable suggestions are: 1) he was as strong as a hammer, 2) he dashed the enemy into pieces, and 3) he penetrated the enemies’ forces. As many scholars have noted, another historical figure with such an additional name was Charles Martel, ruler of the Franks in the 8th century. Martel is French for “hammer.” He was given this additional name following his victory over the invading Muslim army at Tours in 732 CE. This victory halted northward Islamic expansion in Western Europe. Judah is described by the name Makkabaois before he battled the forces of Antiochus IV. But this is not a difficulty. According to I Macc. 2:66, he was “a mighty warrior from his youth.” used by מקבת See M. Kelim 29:5 and 29:7, referring to a [22] stonecutters. See also M. Parah 3:11 and Tosefta Shab. 13:17 (ed. Lieberman). Marcus (p. 63, n. 3) notes that at Ber. 28b, when one of the Sages is called a “strong hammer” (patish ha- .that is used ,מקבת and not ,פטיש chazak), it is the word [23] See, e.g., Schurer, vol. 1, p. 158 and Zeitlin, pp. 250-252. Exactly how to understand this is open to interpretation. Was it the shape of his skull that looked like a hammer? something about his face? something about his neck? something about his body? something about the relationship of these objects to one another? For some possible understandings, see to Bekh. 43b, and the commentaries to M. Bekhorot 7:1 of Rambam and Tiferet Yisrael. It has also been suggested that the reference to a hammer alludes to Judah’s having an occupation as a blacksmith. It has also been means “nostril” in Syriac and that perhaps מקבא observed that Judah possessed uncommon nostrils. Perles, p. 405. Bezalel Bar-Kochva, Judas Maccabaeus (1989), p. 147, attempts to support the view that the name refers to some flaw in Judah’s physical appearance by noting that I and II Maccabees nowhere laud Judah’s physical stature or beauty. [24] Bekh. 43b. Although the printed edition of the Talmudic ,(here (just like the word in the Mishnah למקבן passage reads This would seem to be the correct .למקבא Rashi’s text read reading . [25] See Zeitlin, The Rise and Fall of the Judaean State (1962), vol. 1, p. 96 for some examples. Josephus tells us (Life, para. 3) that one of his ancestors (a contemporary of John Hyrcanus) was called Simon Psellus= Simon, the stammerer. [26] This suggestion is made at EJ 12:808. [27] These are the additional names for John, Simon, Eleazar, and Jonathan, respectively. Of the four names above, Gaddi is the easiest to relate to a known Hebrew or Aramaic word. It ”.fortune“ ,גד can be related to the Hebrew and Aramaic word See, e.g., Gen. 30:11. For some attempts to give meaning in Hebrew or Aramaic to the other names, see Goldstein,I Maccabees, p. 231, Rabinowich, p. 186, and Ralph Marcus, Josephus (Loeb Classical Library), vol. VII, pp. 138-39. [28] For an extensive discussion, see Tal Ilan, “The Greek Names of the Hasmoneans,” JQR 78 (1987), pp. 1-20. [29] Josephus, Antiquities, XIII, para. 228. [30] Josephus, Antiquities, XX, para. 240. [31] Josephus, Antiquities, XIII, para. 320. [32] Ibid. Perhaps she was given this name after her marriage to Alexander. The Hebrew name of Yannai’s wife was transmitted in rabbinic sources in various forms. See Schurer, vol. 1, p. 229, n. 2 and Ilan, p. 7, n. 28. That the original Hebrew form has now been shown by two Dead Sea texts: 4Q331 שלמציון was and 4Q332. See Discoveries in the Judaean Desert XXXVI (2000), pp. 277 and 283. [33] I make this statement based on my examination of the following work: An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon, founded upon the seventh edition of Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon (1889). In contrast, many Greek words related to fighting begin with “μαχ.” Also, the Greek word for knife or dagger begins with these letters. (This is mentioned by Rashi citing Midrash Tanchuma.) Even though ,מכרתיהם ,at Gen. 49:5 the letters μ,κ,β or μ,κ,κ,β do not seem to correspond to any known word in ancient Greek, we do find Azariah de Rossi (16th cent.), in his Meor Einayim, Imrei Binah, chap. 21, adopting the suggestion of a 16th century monk that the name is a Greek one and that the meaning is the equivalent of the Italian “paladino” (=hero, champion). Also, R. David Ganz (16th מכבאי cent.), Tzemach David, p. 69 (ed. Breuer), writes that in the Greek language is a gibor and ish milchamah. Of course, it is possible that the names of Judah and of some of the other brothers were Greek and what is recorded in I Maccabees are only shortened forms of names that originally combined two Greek words. Also, if the additional names originated as affectionate nicknames, whether in Greek, or in Hebrew/Aramaic, such names are often substantially altered forms of the original proper name. (In English, note Dick for Richard, Jack for John, and Billy for William.) It has been speculated that “Chashmonai” was the additional name of Mattathias. See Goldstein,I Maccabees, pp. 18-19. (“Chashmonai” seems to have been an alternative way of referring to Mattathias. See, e.g., M. Midot 1:6. But this does not necessarily imply that it was his additional name.) “Chashmonai” sounds like a Hebrew or Aramaic name. See Josh. 15:27, Num. 33:29-30, and Psalms 68:32. (We might expect Josephus to know the origin of the term “Chashmonai,” since he was from this family. But the various statements in Josephus are not consistent. See Goldstein, I Maccabees, p. 19, n. 34.) [34] Curtiss, pp. 8-9, theorizes that the original Greek spelling was with only one kappa. He writes that letters which are single in earlier Greek manuscripts often end up being doubled in later ones. Curtiss, p. 9, n. 1. [35] It has been suggested that the last three chapters of I Maccabees were added later, because Josephus never uses them. But the failure of Josephus to use these chapters can be explained in other ways. See, e.g, Marcus,Josephus (Loeb Classical Library), vol. VII, pp. 334-335. [36] Goldstein, I Maccabees, p. 62. There is another comment which perhaps suggests that the book was composed long after the events described. I Macc. 13:30 reads: “This tomb, which [Simon] erected in Modeϊn, still exists today.” The positive attitude towards the Roman Empire in the book strongly suggests that the book was composed before 63 BCE. See, e.g., I Macc. 8:1: “Judas had heard about the Romans: that they were a great power who welcomed all who wished to join them and established ties of friendship with all who approached them.” [37] Most likely, he is called Jason “of Cyrene,” i.e., from Cyrene, because he flourished elsewhere (e.g., Judea or Egypt) after having been raised in Cyrene. But Victor Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews (1959), p. 387, raises another possibility: Jason was a native of Palestine who left after the death of his hero Judah, and found a new homeland in the Jewish community of Cyrene. [38] It has been suggested that he is to be identified with Jason son of Eleazar who is mentioned in I Macc. 8:17 as having been sent by Judah on a mission to Rome. But this identification is only conjecture. .p. 19, n ,(ב (See Daniel Schwartz,Sefer Makabim 2004 [39] 23. Schwartz agrees with this position. He argues that it is evident from II Maccabees that Jason composed his work before the establishment of the temple of Chonyo in Egypt. This temple was established in 145 BCE at the latest. [40] The abridger does not state that he ended his work before Jason did. But if the abridger had followed Jason to the end, the abridger would have ended with something like: “Since Jason ended his work at this point, my work, too, is done.” Goldstein, I Maccabees, p. 5. Instead the abridger ends: “Such was the outcome of the affair of Nicanor. From that time on, the city has been held by the Hebrews. Therefore, I myself shall bring my account to a stop at this very point…” [41] Goldstein, I Maccabees, pp. 62-89 and II Maccabees, pp. 82-83. If this theory would be correct, we cannot view the similar spelling, Makkabaios, as an independent confirmation of this spelling, since perhaps the later work merely adopted the spelling of the former. It has also been theorized that I Maccabees was a response to or a rewriting of Jason’s work. [42] I am willing to assume that the abridger followed the spelling used by Jason. (It is not known for certain that Jason composed his work in Greek, but this seems very likely. The abridgement begins with an introduction, and the abridger did not say anything here about changing the language of Jason’s work.) [43] Curtiss, p. 7. [44] Throughout his Latin translation of the Bible, Jerome seems to have consulted the Hebrew and corrected earlier erroneous transliterations found in the Greek translation. Curtiss, pp. 6 and 31. Jerome was more advanced in Hebrew than of any of the other church fathers. [45] It is only speculation that Jerome consulted the original Hebrew of I Maccabees here. Even though Jerome refers to this work (see above, n. 5), he may not have had access to it and may not have remembered all of its spellings at the time he composed his Latin translation of I Maccabees. It sounds like he was referring to a work that was rare and not easily accessible. ”with “c” or “cc ק Curtiss, p. 7. Jerome transliterated [46] 188 times. There were only two occasions when Jerome with “ch”. (Curtiss attempts to explain what ק transliterated led Jerome to make exceptions in these instances. See pp. 7 and 32). [47] Curtiss (pp. 8-9) tries to get around this scenario by postulating that the original Greek text only had one kappa, and that it was only later that the kappa was doubled. An .could have been transliterated with one kappa כ original [48] See, e.g., Curtiss, pp. 25-29. [49] David Flusser, Sefer Yosippon, vol. 1, p. 79, note to line 56. [50] EJ 10:297. The author of Yosippon could not read Greek. [51] Flusser, vol. 1, pp. 79 and 80. (Flusser writes that this is the reading in the better manuscripts of Yosippon.) This spelling is also found in another work from around this time, a Hebrew translation and adaptation of I Maccabees. This work was perhaps authored by the author of Yosippon. See Flusser, Sefer Yosippon, vol. 2, p. 132. Much later in his work, in a different context, the author of Yosippon calls the group .Flusser, vol. 1, p. 342 .המקווים [52] Goldstein, I Maccabees, pp. 3-4. [53] A similar development seems to have occurred with the One can easily interpret all the references to .חשמונאי name in Tannaitic and Amoraic literature as references to חשמונאי Mattathias alone. (The only exception being the reference at Meg. 11a, but there are variant readings here.) It is only begin to חשמונאים after the Talmudic period that references to appear. See, e.g., Midrash Eser Galuyot, and Midrash Shocher writes ,חשמונאי Tov, chaps. 5 and 93. Jastrow, in his entry that the plural form is found in some editions of BK 82b. But I suspect that the plural form is not the original reading here. [54] Goldstein, I Maccabees, p. 4, n. 1, also suggests a possible earlier occurrence. But the Yemenite .מכבי Some manuscripts ofMA read [55] manuscripts of MA, which reflect ancient traditions, read If we look at the three oldest manuscripts ofMA (Turin .מקבי 111, Huntington 399, and Paris 20, all of which date from around 1300 and none of which are Yemenite manuscripts), two ,See Menachem Tzvi Kadari .מקוי and one reads מקבי read “Megillat Antiochus ha-Aramit,” Bar Ilan 1 (1963), p. 93, and Curtiss, pp. 37-41. (There are also a few manuscripts of MA in which the word is omitted.) In the manuscripts of MA, the term תקיפין קטלא is usually followed by words like מקבי/מכבי (=killer of strong men), perhaps implying that that the author of MA viewed this as its definition. [56] I would not have phrased it in this manner, but the EJ entry “Scroll of Antiochus” (14:1046-47) includes the following statement: “[T]he author was totally ignorant of the historical circumstances at the time of the Maccabees and made no use of any reliable sources on the period.” The first source to mention MA is the Halakhot Gedolot (mid-9th cent., who calls it Megillat Beit Chashmonai) but it is possible that the work was composed as early as the 1st century CE. That it was composed in the Talmudic period or the post-Talmudic period is also possible. The work was probably composed in Palestine, even though it may have been edited in Babylonia. It was originally composed in Aramaic; the widely known Hebrew version (included, for example, in the Siddur Avodat Yisrael, the Siddur Otzar ha-Tefillot, and the Birnbaum Siddur) is only a later translation. For references to sources which refer to MA and to practices of reading it on Chanukkah, see Natan Fried, Al Minhag Kriyat Megillat Antiochus be-Chanukkah, in Daniel Sperber, Minhagey Yisrael, vol. 5, pp. 102-113, and Rabinowich, pp. 138-146. Even though the first source to mention MA is the Halakhot Gedolot (and the import of his statement is unclear), a statement in Mishnat R. Eliezer, an 8th century work, seems to be based on MA. The statement (p. 103, ed. Enelow) refers to four sons of Chashmonai after Judah, the eldest, was killed. These details match the scenario depicted in MA. One of the midrashim on Chanukkah first published by Jellinek (see above, n. 4) is clearly based on MA but the midrashim published by Jellinek are estimated to date to the 10th century. See EJ 11:1511. (The midrash that is based on MA is the one that Eisenstein refers to as Maaseh (.ב‘ Chanukkah Nusach [57] Marcus, pp. 64-65. His suggestion is that Judah was thought of as living proof that God was Israel’s hope. Marcus makes the interesting argument that if the name was derived .the Greek form could have been Μακκβάν ,מקבן from the Hebrew There would have been no reason for the Greek form to have changed the ending, since names can end with “an” in Greek. The additional name of Eleazar was Auaran (Αυαραν). The problem with Marcus’ suggestion is that the Greek letter beta But Marcus finds some examples of .ב usually corresponds to beta being used to transliterate vav. Marcus did not realize it, but he was preceded in his attempted solution by Yosippon. There is one place where the author of Yosippon calls the .See Flusser, vol. 1, p. 342 .המקווים group [58] See Curtiss, p. 13 andJewish Encyclopedia, “The Maccabees.” Mattathias and his sons had fled and hid in the mountains during the period of persecution by Antiochus IV. But Judah seems to have had this name even before the persecution by Antiochus IV. [59] See Curtiss, p. 13 and Ezek. 28:24. [60] See Curtiss, pp. 14-17. [61] Curtiss, p. 23. [62] See, e.g., An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon, p. 150. [63] Curtiss, p. 14. [64] I cannot end this study without mentioning that the word “macabre” perhaps has its origin in the name “Maccabee.” See, e.g., Klein, A Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the .מקברי ,Hebrew Language for Readers of English, p. 377

The Date of the Exodus: A Guide to the Orthodox Perplexed

The Date of the Exodus: A Guide to the Orthodox Perplexed [1] by Mitchell First

A pdf of this post can be downloaded here, or viewed here.

The Exodus is arguably the fundamental event of our religion. The Sabbath is premised upon it, as are many of the other commandments and holidays. Yet if one would ask a typical observant Jew “in what century did this Exodus occur?,” most would respond with a puzzled look. The purpose of this article is to rectify this situation. Admittedly, the date of the Exodus and the identity of the relevant Pharaoh are difficult questions. The name of the Pharaoh is not provided in the Bible. One scholar has remarked:[2]

The absence of the pharaoh’s name may ultimately be for theological reasons. The Bible is not trying to answer the question “who is the pharaoh of the exodus” to satisfy the curiosity of modern historians. Rather, it was seeking to clarify for Israel who was the God of the exodus.[3]

Nevertheless, there have been some important developments in recent decades which warrant this post. Part I: The Date of the Building of Solomon’s Temple According to 1 Kings 6:1, 480 years elapsed from the Exodus to the building of the First Temple in the 4th year of the reign of Solomon.[4] This suggests that a first step towards dating the Exodus would be obtaining the BCE date for the building of the First Temple.[5] When books published by ArtScroll and other traditional Orthodox publishers provide a date for the building of the First Temple, the date they provide will usually be around 831 BCE.[6] Unfortunately, this date is far off. The date for the building is approximately 966 BCE. Why is there such a discrepancy? ArtScroll and the other traditional Orthodox publishers will provide a date around 831 BCE because that is the date for the building of the First Temple that is implied from rabbinic chronology. 831 BCE is the date that is arrived at after subtracting from 70 CE: 1) the 420 years which rabbinic chronology assigns to the Second Temple period, 2) the 70 years between the Temples, and 3) the 410 years which rabbinic chronology assigns to the First Temple period.[7] (In this calculation, one arrives at 831 BCE and not 830 BCE, because there is no year zero between 1 BCE and 1 CE.) But there are two problems with this calculation: 1. The Second Temple period spanned 589 years, not 420 years. I have addressed this extensively in my book, Jewish History in Conflict (1997), and will only touch upon it briefly here: The Tanach does not span the entire Persian period, which lasted about 207 years (539-332 BCE). Only some of the kings from the Persian period are included in Tanach.[8] The rabbinic figure of 420 years for the length of the Second Temple period probably originates with R. Yose b. Halafta of the 2nd century C.E., who was the author or final editor of Seder Olam.[9] When R. Yose had to establish a length for the Second Temple period, he did not have complete information. In assigning a length, he decided to utilize a prediction found at Daniel 9:24-27. Here, there is a prediction regarding a 490 year period, but the terminii of this 490 year period are unclear. For a variety of reasons, R. Yose decided to interpret the 490 year period as running from the destruction of the First Temple to the destruction of the Second Temple. After subtracting 70 years for the period between the Temples, he was left with only 420 years to assign to the Second Temple period. This forced him to present a chronology with a shorter Persian period than he otherwise would have.[10] (Even so, he probably did not believe that the Persian period spanned anything close to two centuries.) 2. The First Temple period spanned approximately 380 years (c. 966-586 BCE), not 410 years. The First Temple was destroyed in 586 BCE[11] (and not 421 BCE, as implied by rabbinic chronology). It was built in the 4th year of Solomon. The BCE dates for the reigns of Solomon and the other First Temple period kings can be calculated because of the interactions between some of our kings and some of the Egyptian and Assyrian kings.[12] For example, the Tanach tells us (I Kings 14:25) that king Shoshenk (=Shishak) of Egypt invaded Jerusalem in the 5th year of Rehavam. Based on Egyptian sources, this invasion can be dated to 926 or 925 BCE. Assuming we (arbitrarily) utilize the 925 BCE date and assuming that Rehavam followed an accession- year dating system,[13] this means that the year Rehavam acceeded to the throne (=the year Solomon died), would have been approximately 930 BCE. Solomon ruled into his 40th year (I Kings 11:42 and II Ch. 9:30) This means that the fourth year of his reign would have been approximately 966 BCE.[14] The Tanach nowhere states that the First Temple period spanned 410 years. If one totals the reigns of the individual kings of Judah during the First Temple period, and adds the last 37 years of the reign of Solomon, one obtains a figure of approximately 430 years.[15] The origin of the 410 year figure is somewhat of a mystery.[16] The large 430 year total is probably due to cases of co-regencies of father and son, or cases where the son ruled while the father was still alive but not functionally reigning. In these cases, the Tanach has sometimes provided the full amount of years that each king reigned, even if only nominally, despite the overlap.[17] —- Once we realize that the First Temple was built in approximately the year 966 BCE, we can date the Exodus, based on I Kings 6:1, to approximately the year 1446 BCE.[18] If so, Thutmose III (1479-1425) would be the Pharaoh of the Exodus.[19] Part II. Must We Accept the 480 Year Figure Found at I Kings 6:1?[20] Two separate questions are implied here: 1. Are we, as Orthodox Jews, required to accept this figure found in the book of Kings? 2. What evidence supports and contradicts this figure? I am not going to address the first question. This kind of question has been discussed elsewhere.[21] (My book includes much discussion of whether Orthodox Jews are required to accept the 420 year tradition for the length of the Second Temple period. But admittedly that is a different issue, because only a rabbinic tradition is involved.) As to the second question, the 480 year figure is roughly consistent with a 300 year figure utilized by Yiftah, one of the later Judges, in a message he sends to the king of Ammon (Judges 11:26):

While Israel dwelt in Heshbon and its towns, and in Aror and its towns, and in all the cities that are along by the side of the Arnon, three hundred years, why did you not recover them within that time?

But what happens when we compare the 480 figure with the data found in the books of Joshua, Judges and Samuel? The specific years mentioned in the book of Judges (8, 40, 18, 80, 20, 40, 7, 40, 3, 23, 22, 18, 6, 7, 10, 8, 40, and 20) total 410.[22] To calculate the period from the Exodus to the 4th year of Solomon, one must add to this: -40 years for the desert wandering; -a length for the period the Israelites were led by Joshua, and after his death, by the elders; [23] -a length for the judgeship of Shamgar; -40 years for the judgeship of Eli (I Sam. 4:18);[24] -a length for the judgeship of Samuel;[25] -a reasonable length for the reign of Saul;[26] -40 years for the reign of David (II Sam. 5:4-5, I Kings 2:11); and – the first 3 years of Solomon. If one does this, one arrives at a sum greater than 480 for the period from the Exodus to the 4th year of Solomon. (But to the extent that some of the numbers in the book of Judges can be viewed as overlapping,[27] the discrepancy is reduced.) The 300 year figure utilized by Yiftah can be interpreted as only an approximation. More importantly, the context of the statement suggests that it was only an exaggeration, made with the intent of strengthening the Israelite claim to the land involved. As one scholar writes (exaggeratingly!):[28]

Brave fellow that he was, Jephthah was a roughneck, an outcast, and not exactly the kind of man who would scruple first to take a Ph.D. in local chronology at some ancient university of the Yarmuk before making strident claims to the Ammonite ruler. What we have is nothing more than the report of a brave but ignorant man’s bold bluster in favor of his people, not a mathematically precise chronological datum.

The 480 figure, in its context, does sound like it was meant to be taken literally.[29] But it has been argued that it was only a later estimate based on mistaken assumptions.[30] Moreover, we have no other evidence that the Israelites in the period of the Judges and up to the time of Solomon were keeping track of how many years it had been since the Exodus. There was a time when there was significant evidence in support of a 15th century BCE Exodus. For example: ° When Yeriho was excavated in the 1930s by John Garstang, he found a city wall that he estimated to have collapsed around 1400 BCE. He also excavated an area which was destroyed in part by fire, and dated this destruction to around 1400 BCE.[31] But Kathleen Kenyon, excavating two decades later, showed that the collapsed wall was from about 1000 years earlier,[32] and that the destruction and conflagration that Garstang had dated to 1400 BCE should in fact be dated to around 1550 BCE.[33] ° The volcanic eruption that occurred long ago on the Mediterranean island of Santorini[34] might explain most of the ten plagues and the parting of the yam suf.[35] This was the second largest eruption in the past four millenia, and there is no question that it had an impact as far away as Egypt.[36] This eruption had traditionally been dated to around 1500 BCE. But recent radiocarbon and other scientific dating now strongly suggest that this eruption took place in the middle or late 17th century BCE.[37] There is much circumstantial evidence against a 15th century BCE Exodus: ° The implication of the book of Exodus is that the Israelites, in the northeastern part of Egypt, were not far from the capital.[38] But in the period from 1550- 1295 BCE, the Egyptian capital was located in a region farther south, at Thebes.[39] It was only beginning with Seti I (1294-1279) that an area in the northeastern part of Egypt began functioning as the Egyptian capital, when Seti I built a palace there.[40] ° After the Six-Day War and additional areas came under Israel’s control, Israeli archaeologists were able to study much new territory that had been part of ancient Israel. Their studies show that the period that Israelite settlements began to appear in the land was the late 13th and early 12th centuries BCE, not the 15th and 14th centuries BCE.[41] ° Scores of Egyptian sources from 1500-1200 BCE have come to light that refer to places and groups in Canaan.[42] Yet there is no reference to Israel or to any of the tribes until the Merneptah Stele from the late 13th century BCE.[43] (The Merneptah Stele will be discussed below.) ° The Philistines appear as a major enemy of Israel during the period of the Judges,[44] appearing in chapters 3, 10 and 11 of the book of Judges.[45] But they only arrived in the land of Canaan around the 8th year of Ramesses III (=1177 BCE).[46] ° Egypt is never mentioned as one of the oppressors against whom Joshua or a leader in the book of Judges fought. This would be very strange for a conquest commencing around 1400 BCE. Egypt seemed to have exerted strong control over the land of Canaan at this time and for the next 200 years.[47] Part III. Most Likely, the Relevant Pharaohs are Ramesses II (1279-1213) and Merneptah[48] (1213-1203) We have already observed that, archaeologically, the period that Israelite settlements began to appear in the land is the late 13th and early 12th centuries BCE. This suggests that we should be looking in the 13th century BCE for our Pharaoh of the Exodus. Moreover, Exodus 1:11 tells us that the Israelites built store Since the [רעמסס .[cities (arei miskenot) called Pitom and49 latter is an exact match to the name of a Pharaoh, this suggests that the Pharaoh who ordered this work (=the Pharaoh of the Oppression) bore this name. No Pharaoh bore this name until the 13th century BCE. The first to do so was Ramesses I. But he only reigned sixteen months (1295-94). Thereafter, after the reign of Seti I, Ramesses II reigned for over six decades. [50] Since Ramesses I only reigned sixteen months, while Ramesses II reigned over six decades, it is much more likely that the latter is the Pharaoh we should be focusing upon. Moreover, archaeology has shown that Ramesses II was responsible for building a vast city called Pi-Ramesse, which would have required vast amounts of laborers and brick.[51] Ramesses I, on the other hand, is not known to have built any cities.[52] Exodus 2:23 tells us that the Pharaoh of the Oppression died. If Ramesses II was the Pharoah of the Oppression, the Pharaoh of the Exodus would be his successor, Merneptah.[53] But there is problem with this scenario. The Stele of Merneptah,[54] dated to his 5th year, refers to “Israel”[55] as one of the entities in the region of Canaan that Merneptah boasts of having destroyed.[56] This implies that Israel was already a significant entity in the land at this time. The pertinent section of the Stele reads: [57]

The princes lie prostrate… Not one lifts his head among the Nine Bows.[58] Destruction for Tehenu! Hatti is pacified Cannan[59] is plundered with every evil Ashkelon is taken; Gezer is captured; Yanoam is made non-existent; Israel lies desolate; its seed[60] is no more; Hurru has become a widow for To-Meri; All the lands in their entirety are at peace…[61]

If the Exodus was followed by a 40 year period of wandering in the desert, and all of the Israelites entered Israel in the same stage, it would be impossible for Merneptah to have been the Pharaoh of the Exodus, since there was already an entity called Israel in the land of Canaan in the 5th year of his reign. Of course, one approach is to view Ramesses II as both the Pharaoh of the Oppression and the Pharaoh of the Exodus, and to treat verse 2:23 as an erroneous detail that somehow made its way into our official tradition. Obviously, we would like to avoid such an approach. Interestingly, there is a rabbinic view that treats the death mentioned at 2:23 euphemistically. According to this midrashic rabbinic view, verse 2:23 did not mean that the Pharaoh died; it only meant that he became leperous.[62] Identifying the Pharaoh of the Oppression with the Pharaoh of the Exodus is at least consistent with this rabbinic view.[63] A different solution is to postulate that some Israelites never went down to Egypt, and that these are the Israelites referred to by Merneptah. Although we are not used to thinking in this manner, there is perhaps some evidence in Tanach for such an approach.[64] Other solutions view the Israelites referred to by Merneptah as Israelites who left Egypt before the enslavement began, or who were enslaved but left Egypt in an earlier wave. Rabbi J. H. Hertz took the first of these approaches, and his comments (although written in the 1930’s) bear repeating: [65]

[If the reference in the Stele is to Israelites], then it refers to the settlements in Palestine by Israelites from Egypt before the Exodus… From various notices in I Chronicles[66] we see that, during the generations preceding the Oppression, the Israelites did not remain confined to Goshen or even to Egypt proper, but spread into the southern Palestinian territory, then under Egyptian control, and even engaged in skirmishes with the Philistines. When the bulk of the nation had left Egypt and was wandering in the Wilderness, these Israelite settlers had thrown off their Egyptian allegiance. And it is these settlements which Merneptah boasts of having devastated during his Canaanite campaign. There is, therefore, no cogent reason for dissenting from the current view that the Pharaoh of the Oppression was Rameses II, with his son Merneptah as the Pharaoh of the Exodus.

—– If we view the entity “Israel” in the Stele as representing the body of Israelites who came out of Egypt in the main Exodus, the matter of the determinative sign used for “Israel” becomes significant. The name “Israel” is marked with a determinative sign that differs from the determinative sign used for all the other city-states and lands in this section. All of the others[67] are accompanied by the determinative sign for city-state/land/region, while “Israel” is accompanied by the determinative sign for “people.” This could mean that the people of Israel were viewed as having arrived in Israel only recently and as having not yet settled down. This interpretation of the sign would support the view that the Exodus occurred only shortly before the time of the Stele, i.e., in the 13th century BCE.[68] Alternatively, the sign could mean only that the people of Israel were viewed as a nomadic people, or as a people that were settled in scattered rural areas but not as a city-state.[69] The implication of the different determinative sign for “Israel” has been much debated.[70] —– A key issue that needs to be addressed is how a 13th century BCE Exodus squares with the book of Joshua and its listing of various sites in Canaan that were conquered by the Israelites. We would like to know, for each site,[71] if there is evidence of people having occupied the site in the 13th and 12th centuries BCE (so that they could have been there for the Israelites to defeat), and whether or not there is evidence of a 13th or 12th century BCE destruction at the site.[72] I cannot discuss every site included in the book of Joshua, but I will briefly discuss four of them: [73] °Hazor: The archaeological evidence indicates that there was an occupation at Hazor which was terminated by a destruction in the latter half of the 13th cent. BCE.[74] Evidence of a conflagration as part of this destruction has also been found. Joshua 11:11 had referred to a destruction by conflagration at Hazor. °Lachish: The archaeological evidence indicates that there was an occupation at Lachish which was terminated by a destruction around 1200 BCE, and an occupation which was terminated by a destruction in the reign of Ramesses III (1184-1153 BCE).[75] °Ai (= Et-Tell). The archaeological evidence indicates that this area was entirely deserted from around 2400 BCE to around 1200 BCE, when a new smaller occupation seems to have begun peacefully.[76] °Yeriho: The archaeological evidence indicates that there was a conflagration and destruction at Yeriho in approximately 1550 BCE.[77] There was minimal occupation thereafter, without any wall, in the period from about 1400-1275 BCE.[78] There is no evidence of any occupation in the period from about 1275-1100 BCE.[79] Thus, the evidence from Hazor and Lachish is consistent with a 13th century BCE Exodus, but the evidence from Ai and Yeriho is not. But Et-Tell may not have been the Biblical Ai; many other sites for Ai have been suggested.[80] With regard to Yeriho, it may have only been a small fort in the 13th century BCE, with only a minor wall,[81] and the evidence of this minor occupation and destruction may have eroded away over the centuries.[82] The book of Joshua never calls Yeriho a “large” city.[83] —- Finally, a few other matters need to be discussed in connection with attempting to identify the relevant Pharaohs as Ramesses II and Merneptah: °Exodus 7:7 records that Moses was 80 years old when he first spoke to Pharaoh. If the Pharaoh of the Oppression was Ramesses II, and Moses was born shortly after he began to reign in 1279 BCE, Ramesess II, Merneptah and Amenmesses (the subsequent Pharaoh) would all have died by the time Moses was 80.[84] (The reigns of Ramesses II, Merneptah, and Amenmesses total approximately 79 years). Yet the book of Exodus only records the death of one Pharaoh between the beginning of the Oppression and the Exodus. A response is that we do not have to make the assumption that Moses was born after Ramesses II began to reign and that Ramesses II was the Pharaoh who ordered the male infants thrown into the river. We can understand the decrees against the Israelites to have been enacted in stages by separate Pharaohs, and assume that the book of Exodus oversimplifies matters in portraying only one Pharaoh of the Oppression. The import of Exodus 1:11 can be that the Israelites eventually built or completed the store cities of Pitom and Ramesses under Ramesses II.[85] ° The 14th chapter of Exodus and Psalms 106:11 and 136:15 can be read as implying that even the Pharaoh drowned.[86] But the mummies of both Ramesses II and Merneptah (and of nearly every Pharaoh from the New Kingdom[87]) have been found,[88] and their examination suggests that Ramesses II died from old age[89] and that Merneptah died from heart trouble.[90] Moreover, if all the Egyptians at the scene drowned, it would have been unlikely that the body of a drowned Pharaoh would ever have been recovered. A response is that one can easily understand the 14th chapter of Exodus and the above verses from Psalms as not necessarily implying that the Pharaoh actually entered the water.[91] ° The fact that the book of Ruth (4:20-22) records David as being only the sixth generation from Nahshon can be reconciled with a 13th century BCE Exodus. On the other hand, the list of high priests that the Tanach provides from Aaron to the time of Solomon is longer,[92] and the geneaology of Samuel that the Tanach provides is even longer.[93] Thus, the evidence from the geneaological lists in Tanach is inconsistent. [94] Part IV. A Brief Response to “Exodus Denial” A mainstream view in scholarship today is that all or most of the Israelites originated in Canaan.[95] If a portion of the Israelites were slaves in and fled from Egypt, it is argued that they were only a small portion. “Exodus Denial” has infected the new Encyclopaedia Judaica as well.[96] The archaeological evidence for the theory that all or most of the Israelites originated in Canaan is very speculative.[97] Archaeology has been able to document a large increase in population in the central hill country of Canaan commencing at the end of the 13th century BCE,[98] and to provide grounds for identifying this new population with early Israel.[99] But determining where this increased population came from is a much more difficult task.[100] A main reason the occurrence of an Exodus is disputed is the lack of Egyptian records recording a story of an enslavement of Israelites and their flight.[101] But we do not have narrative history works from the times of the possible Pharaohs of the Exodus. Nor, with regard to the 13th century BCE Pharaohs, do we have their administrative records. As the noted Egyptologist Kenneth Kitchen has remarked:

As the official thirteenth-century archives from the East Delta centers are 100 percent lost, we cannot expect to find mentions in them of the Hebrews or anybody else.[102] In the limited 15-13th century BCE material from the Egyptian palaces and temples that has survived, there is evidence that foreign workers and captives were employed in building projects; that the supervision of the work was two- tiered;[103] that straw was used as an ingredient in the bricks; that workers were faced with brick quotas; and that workers were supervised by taskmasters threatening to beat them with rods.[104] The one thing we are lacking is a document or relief from Egypt referring to slaves or workers as “Israel.” But even though the Merneptah Stele refers to our ancestors outside the land of Egypt as “Israel”, this does not mean that Egyptians would have used this term for our ancestors as slaves inside Egypt. Levantines in Egypt would typically be described as “Asiatics” (Egyptian: ‘amw), not by specific affiliations.[105] Moreover, our ancestors may have been intermingled with native Egyptians and other foreign groups while enslaved. Leiden Papyrus 348, a decree by an official of Ramesses II, does record that grain rations were given to: “the apiru who are dragging stone to the great pylon (=gateway)” of Ramesses II.[106] There was a time when a mainstream scholarly position was that apiru was a reference to the Israelites. Now most scholars believe that the term is a general term for a class of renegades or displaced persons. As has been noted, the Biblical Hebrews (=Israelites) may have been apiru, but not all apiru were Biblical Hebrews.[107] It has often been pointed out that it is unlikely that any people would invent a tradition of slavery in another land. Moreover, references to the Exodus are numerous in Tanach.[108] Instead of looking at Egyptian history for references to the Israelite enslavement in Egypt, some scholars take a different approach to proving the enslavement. They attempt to find evidence in the Bible for knowledge of Egyptian practices and beliefs.[109] For example, all of the following suggest that there was an Israelite enslavement in Egypt: -The Biblical knowledge of the details of the slaveworking process in Egypt (e.g., two tiers of supervision, bricks from straw, and brick quotas). -The fact that some of the Biblical plagues seem to reflect a negation of Egyptian deities. -The fact that some of the Biblical stories seem to be a polemical response to Egyptian beliefs. For example, the emphasis on the hardening of the Pharaoh’s heart seems to be a response to an Egyptian belief in the lightness of an innocent heart.[110] The use of seems to be a response to the use of a חזקה ביד the phrase similar term in Egypt to describe the power of the Pharoah.[111] The story of the saving of the baby Moses is perhaps a response to an Egyptian mythical birth story involving Horus.[112] -Many words in the Bible are of Egyptian origin. I will conclude with another quote from Kitchen:[113]

The Egyptian elements suggest a direct knowledge of how Egyptian labor functioned; the magical practices and the plagues are closely tied to specially Egyptian conditions… The Exodus route via Pi-Ramesse and Succoth fits the 13th century B.C… The lack of any explicit Egyptian mention of an Exodus is of no historical import, given its unfavorable role in Egypt, and the near total loss of all relevant records in any case…The sudden increase in settlement in 12th century [BCE] Canaan is best explained by an influx of new people (not needfully a military conquest…)…That they had ultimately come from Egypt is not proven but (in light of the long and pervasive biblical tradition and good comparative data) is by far the most logical and sensible solution.[114]

End Note There are Egyptian legends from as early as the 4th and 3rd centuries BCE which refer to a mass departure of Jews from Egypt in ancient times. One could argue that these reflect independent Egyptian traditions confirming the Exodus. But more likely, these legends originated as Egyptian corruptions of an Exodus tradition that originated with the Jews, or as Egyptian polemical responses to such a tradition. I will now describe these Egyptian legends. Hecateus of Abdera, a 4th century BCE Greek historian, tells us that a pestilence arose in Egypt in ancient times. The common people ascribed it to the workings of a divine agency. The Egyptian observances had fallen into disuse due to the many strangers in their midst. To remedy the situation, the people decided to expel the foreigners. The most outstanding of the foreigners ended up in Greece; the majority of the foreigners were driven into Judea, and were led by Moses.[115] Hecateus is known to have traveled to Egypt and to have written a book about the ancient Egyptians. Most likely, he heard this story in his travels in Egypt. Manetho, a 3rd century BCE Egyptian historian, tells us two Exodus stories. The first story[116] begins with an erroneous equation of the Israelites with the Hyksos invaders.[117] Manetho reports that there was a certain shepherd-people called Hyksos who came from the east and ruled Egypt for several hundred years. Eventually, the Egyptian king Misphragmouthosis defeated them and confined them to a place called Auaris. His son, king Thoummosis (whom he later calls Tethmosis), concluded a treaty with them.[118] Under the treaty, the Hyksos were allowed to evacuate Egypt unharmed. Manetho continues:

Upon these terms no fewer than two hundred and forty thousand, entire households with their possessions, left Egypt and traversed the desert to Syria. Then, terrified by the might of the Assyrians, who at that time were masters of Asia, they built a city in the country now called Judaea, capable of accomodating their vast company, and gave it the name of Jerusalem. After the departure of the pastoral people from Egypt to Jerusalem, Tethmosis, the king who expelled them from Egypt, reigned twenty-five years and four months… [119]

The second story[120] is one which Manetho admits is less reliable.[121] In this story, the king involved is named Amenophis.[122] The following is one scholar’s summary of this story:[123]

Amenophis desired to behold the gods and received an oracle that he would attain his wish if he purified the land of lepers. The king gathered them and sent them to forced labor in the quarries, then gave them the city of Avaris as their territory, their number amounting to eighty thousand. After they had fortified themselves in Avaris, they rebelled against the king and elected a priest of Heliopolis by the name of Osarseph as their leader.[124] Osarseph commanded the lepers to cease worshipping the gods, also ordering them to slaughter and eat the sacred animals of the Egyptians. He further forbade them to associate with people not of their persuasion. He fortified Avaris with walls and sent an invitation to the descendants of the Hyksos who lived in Jerusalem to come to his aid in the conquest of Egypt. They obeyed him willingly and came to Egypt to the number of 200,000. King Amenophis fled in fear to Ethiopia, taking with him the sacred animals, and stayed there thirteen years, as long as the lepers ruled Egypt. The rule was of unparalleled cruelty; the lepers burned down towns and villages, plundered Temples, defiled the images of the gods, converted shrines into shambles and roasted the flesh of the sacred beasts. Ultimately, Amenophis gathered courage to fight the lepers, attacking them with a great host, slaying many of them and pursuing the survivors as far as the frontiers of Syria.

Select Bibliography Galpaz-Feller, Penina. Yitziat Mitzrayim: Mitziyut o Dimyon, 2002. Hasel, Michael G. “Israel in the Merneptah Stela,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 296 (1994), 45-56. Hasel, Michael G. “Merenptah’s Inscription and Reliefs and the Origin of Israel,” in Beth Albert Nakhai, ed., The Near East in the Southwest: Essays in Honor of William G. Dever, 2003, 19-44. Hess, Richard S., Gerald A. Klingbeil, and Paul J. Ray, Jr. eds. Critical Issues in Early Israelite History, 2008. Hoffmeier, James K. Israel in Egypt, 1997. Hoffmeier, James K. “What is the Biblical Date for the Exodus? A Response to Bryant Wood,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 50/2 June 2007, 225-47. Kitchen, Kenneth. “The Exodus,” in Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. 2, 700-08, 1992. Kitchen, Kenneth. The Reliability of the Old Testament, 2003. Malamat, Abraham. “Let My People Go and Go and Go and Go,” Biblical Archaeological Review Jan-Feb. 1998, 62-66. Wilson, Ian. Exodus: The True Story, 1985.

[1] I would like to thank Sam Borodach, Allen Friedman, and Ari Leifer for reviewing the draft and for their insights. The views expressed here are solely my own. [2] James K. Hoffmeier, Israel in Egypt (1997), p. 109. [3] The truth is that the absence of the name of the Pharaoh in the book of Exodus does not appear to be for theological reasons. “Pharaoh” originally meant “great house.” Ibid., p. 87. It began to be used as an epithet for the monarch in the 15th cent. BCE, but it was only in the 10th cent. BCE that the name of the monarch began to be added. [4] “It was in the 480th year of the children of Israel coming out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year…of the reign of Solomon over Israel, the house of God was built.” From a parallel passage at II Ch. 3:1-2, it is seen that the sense of the passage in Kings is only that Solomon began the work of the rebuilding at this time. [5] The fact that the First Temple was built in the year 2928 according to rabbinic chronology does not determine the issue. In order to convert this to a BCE date, one must make assumptions about the lengths of the First and Second Temple periods. [6] The exact date provided depends on whether 68, 69, or 70 CE is used as the date for the destruction of the Second Temple. 831 BCE is the date arrived at if one uses 70 CE. [7] The tradition that the First Temple period spanned 410 years is recorded at Tosefta Zevahim 13:3, Yoma 9a and J. Megillah 72d (1:12). The tradition that the Second Temple period spanned 420 years is recorded at Tosefta Zevahim 13:3, Yoma 9a, Arachin 12b, Avodah Zarah 9a, and J. Megillah 72d (1:12). See also Nazir 32b. The earliest source for the 410 and 420 figures is Seder Olam (“SO”). The 420 year figure is explicit in SO chap. 28 and implicit in chap. 30. The 410 year figure is not explicit in SO, but is implicit in its statement in chap. 11 that the period that the Israelites spent in the land, from the time they entered until the time they left, was 850 years. 480 less 40, added to 410, equals 850. The 410 and 420 year traditions are implicit in the accepted Jewish count from creation. The tradition that the exilic period spanned 70 years is recorded at Jer. 25:11-12 and 29:10, Zech. 1:12 and 7:5, and Dan. 9:2. [8] The Persian period begins with Cyrus and Cambyses, who reigned before the Temple was built in the reign of Darius I. After Darius I, six other major kings ruled until the next Persian king, Darius III, was defeated by Alexander. The Tanach mentions Cyrus, Darius, Achashverosh (=Xerxes), Artachshasta (=Artaxerxes I), and Darius II (see Neh. 12:22). It does not mention any of the Persian kings after this: Artaxerxes II, Artaxerxes III, Arses, and Darius III. (As to Cambyses, his reign is alluded to in the word ve-ad at Ezra 4:5.). In the chronology of SO, the Persian period spanned the reigns of only three Persian kings. See SO, chap. 30. [9] Yevamot 82b and Niddah 46b [10] Jewish History in Conflict, pp. 128-137. [11] Some historians use the date 587 BCE. By my use of the date 586 BCE, I am not intending to take a position on this issue. [12] See Kenneth Kitchen, “How We Know When Solomon Ruled,” BAR Sept-Oct.2001, pp. 32-37 and 58. [13] In an accession-year dating system, the partial year in which the king began his reign is not counted as his first year. The prevailing view is that the kings of Judah followed this system. The kings of Israel used non-accession year dating in the tenth and ninth centuries BCE, but changed to accession-year dating in the eighth century BCE. Ibid., p. 35, and Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament (2003), p. 29. [14] If the meaning of the verses is that Solomon ruled 40 complete years, i.e., into his 41st year, then his 4th year would have been 967 BCE. [15] From Rehavam to Tzidkiyahu, the total years of the kings of Judah are 393½. See Divrey ha-Yamim, Daat Mikra edition, vol. 2, appendix, pp. 73-74. Adding another 37 years, for years 4 to 40 of Solomon, yields a total of 430½. [16] It can be suggested that since there were nineteen kings of Judah from Solomon to Tzidkiyahu (not including two kings who reigned only three months each), it was decided to subtract 19 from 430 years because the last year of each of these kings and the first year of his sucessor would usually have been the same year. But why was 20 subtracted from 430? Moreover, would not the above approach have warranted a subtraction of only 18 years? I would not rule out the possibility that the 410 figure originated with agematria yavo Aharon (Lev. 16:3). This gematria (בזאת) based on be-zot is found in a few classical sources, e.g., Baraita of 32 Rules (M. Margaliot, Midrash ha-Gadol to Genesis, p. 37), Lev. Rabbah 21:9, Numbers Rabbah 18:21, Pesikta Rabbati, chap. 47, Pesikta de-Rav Kahana, p. 177a (ed. Buber), and Midrash ha- Gadol to Lev. 16:3. Some of these sources record it in the name of a 3rd cent. Palestinian Amora, R. Levi. But it could have been in existence at the time of SO. The suggestion is made at Divrey ha-Yamim, Daat Mikra edition, vol. 2, appendix, p. 72, that the Sages wanted to create a chronology in which the length of time from the entry into the land until the departure spanned exactly 17 jubilee cycles (480-40, plus 410 equals 850). But there is no compelling reason that the Sages should have desired to adopt such a scheme, unless one theorizes that there was a desire to create a chronology which of Deut. 4:25. But this (ונושנתם (would approximately fit 852 seems very farfetched. If the chronology originated based on a seems more בזאת gematria, an origin based on the exact fit of likely. See also the comments at p. 72, n. 16. [17] See Divrey ha-Yamim, Daat Mikra edition, vol. 2, appendix, pp. 70-72. As stated here, if we focus on the period from Yehu to the Assyrian exile, and compare the total of the lengths of reigns of the kings of Israel with the total for the kings of Judah, there is a discrepancy of approximately 21 years. The kings of Israel in this period reigned a total 143 years and 7 months, and the kings of Judah reigned a total of 165 years. Obviously, the method of counting lengths of reigns employed in the Judean kingdom was different from the method employed in the Israelite kingdom, and the method employed in the Judean kingdom must have been a more generous one. [18] But if the Exodus was year one on the 480 count (and not year zero), we should go back only 479 years. [19] All the dates I have used in this article for the reigns of Pharaohs are taken from Kenneth Kitchen, “Egypt, History of (Chronology),” Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. 2 (1992), pp. 322-331 (tables at p. 329). A radiocarbon study published in 2010 suggests that these dates should be pushed back a few years. See Science, vol. 328, June 18 2010, pp. 1489-1490 and 1554-1557. Thutmose III was young at the time of his accession. Hatshepsut, who was his stepmother and aunt, served as the acting Pharaoh for the first 22 years of his reign until her death. (Based on I Kings 6:1, the Pharaoh of the Exodus almost turns out to be a woman!) [20] The Septuagint has a different number here, 440 years. [21] See, e.g, Shalom Carmy, “A Room with a View, but a Room of our Own,” in Carmy, ed., Modern Scholarship in the Study of Torah (1996), pp. 22-24, and Marc B. Shapiro, “New Writings from R. Kook and Assorted Comments,” seforim.blogspot.com, Parts I and II, 20 Marheshvan, 2010, and Feb. 9 2011. Shapiro cites a few Rishonim who take the position that the long lifespans recorded in the beginning of Genesis are not be taken literally. Mishnah Taanit 4:5 records the 17th of Tammuz as the date of the breaching of the city wall, impliedly with regard to both Temples, while the Tanach (in three separate places) records the 9th of Tammuz as the date of the breaching of the city wall in connection with the First Temple. The view is expressed by an Amora in the Jerusalem Talmud (Taanit 4:5) that the 9th of Tammuz date is not correct, and that the calamaties of the time led to a mistaken date being recorded. This Amora makes a similar observation about a date expressed at Ezekiel 26:1. Admittedly, these verses concern errors of very small lengths of time, not hundreds of years. [22] See, e.g., Soncino Books of the Bible: Joshua ·Judges (1950), intro. to Judges, p. 153. See also James K. Hoffmeier, “What is the Biblical Date for the Exodus? A Response to Bryant Wood,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 50/2 (2007), p. 227. [23] Judges 2:7. Joshua himself lived until 110. Judges 2:8. Joshua was described as a naar at Ex. 33:11. [24] The number 40 is one of the most frequently occurring numbers in the Bible. There are 33 forty-year spans mentioned in the Bible. This is only surpassed by the number of seven- year spans; there are 34 of those. Hoffmeier, What is the Biblical Date, p. 236. By way of contrast, no Egyptian Pharaoh is reported to have reigned 40 years. [25] According to I Sam. 7:14, Samuel judged Israel until the end of his life. [26] Despite I Sam. 13:1, which states that Saul reigned only 2 years. See, e.g., the commentaries of Soncino and Daat Mikra to this verse. In the Septuagint, some versions drop verse 13:1 altogether (the first part of the verse is problematic as well), some give Saul a reign of 42 years, and some give him a reign of 31 years. At Acts 13:21, Paul allots 40 years to Saul. See Hoffmeier, What is the Biblical Date, p. 227, n. 8. [27] Only a limited number of “after him” phrases link successive judges. Probably, many were only regional rulers and some served as contemporaries in different areas. See, e.g., Soncino Books of the Bible: Joshua ·Judges, intro. to Judges, p. 153, Hoffmeier, What is the Biblical Date, p. 228, and Kitchen, On the Reliability, pp. 202-03. [28] Kitchen, On The Reliability, p. 308. [29] Even though numbers like 40 and its various multiples could perhaps be interpreted schematically. Umberto Cassuto studied the formulation of numbers in the Hebrew Bible. He concluded that numbers written in ascending order are generally intended to be technically precise figures, while numbers written in descending order are generally non- technical numbers found in narrative passages, poems, and speeches. He writes: [W]hen the Bible gives us technical or statistical data and the like, it frequently prefers the ascending order, since the tendency to exactness in these instances causes the smaller numbers to be given precedence and prominence.

See Cassuto, The Documentary Hypothesis and the Composition of the Pentateuch, tr. by Israel Abrahams (1961), p. 52. (Cassuto developed this theory in order to refute the view that the explanation for the different orders was a difference in sources.) The number in I Kings 6:1 is written in ascending order (80 + 400).

[30] It has been suggested that the author of this number believed that the period from the Exodus to Solomon spanned 12 generations and just assumed 40 years for the length of each generation. See, e.g., Hoffmeier, What is the Biblical Date, p. 236, Kitchen, On the Reliability, pp. 307-08, and EJ 6:1044-45 and 8:576. (All my citations to the EJ are to the original edition, unless otherwise noted.) [31] Bryant G. Wood, “Did the Israelites Conquer Jericho?,” BAR March-April 1990, p. 49. [32] Ibid., pp. 49-50. The walls of Yeriho were destroyed or collapsed from earthquakes many times over the centuries. See Barbara Sivertsen, The Parting of the Sea: How Volcanoes, Earthquakes, and Plagues Shaped the Story of the Exodus (2009), p. 95. [33] Wood, p. 49. See also Kitchen, On the Reliability, p. 187. A recent radiocarbon estimate agrees with the 1550 BCE dating, dating this destruction to 1571-1529 BCE. Sivertsen, p. 97. [34] This island was known to the ancient Greeks as Thera. It is near Crete. [35] E.g., clouds of ash caused the plague of darkness, and a tidal wave (tsunami) caused the parting of the Sea. This suggestion was first made in 1964. Sivertsen, p. 7. In 2006, the suggestion was the subject of a documentary film,The Exodus Decoded, by filmmaker Simcha Jacobovici. (I was initially supposed to appear in this film and be interviewed on the topic of Jewish chronology. But the interview never took place.) [36] Volcanic ash from Santorini was found in the Nile Delta. Sivertsen, p. 168, n. 28. [37] Ibid., pp. 23-24. But there are those who still adhere to the later date. See, e.g., Sivertsen, p. 166, n. 3, and there are radiocarbon tests which support this position. For further background to this eruption and the controversy about its date, see the entries in Wikipedia for “Santorini” and “Minoan eruption.” See also Science, vol. 328, June 18 2010, pp. 1489-1490. [38] For example, the daughter of the Pharaoh of the Oppression found the baby Moses at a site on the Nile. From here, Miriam was easily able to run home to fetch her mother (Ex.2:1-10). Also, the Pharaoh of the Exodus was able to summon Moses and Aaron to his palace in the middle of the night (Ex. 12:30-31). [39] Nahum M. Sarna, Exploring Exodus (1986), p. 10 and Ian Wilson, Exodus: The True Story (1985), p. 23. The 17th Dynasty operated out of Thebes as well, ruling the southern part of the country, while the Hyksos ruled the northern part of the country from Avaris. Sarna, p. 16. [40] Wilson, p. 23. Ramesses II built his city and palace at Pi-Ramesse around this earlier palace. Hoffmeier, Israel in Egypt, p. 123. Excavations beginning in the early 1990s at Tell el-Dab‘a/Ezbet Helmi, very close to Pi-Ramesse, have now revealed two palaces which were in use in the period from 1550-1400 BCE. See Manfried Bietak, “The Palatial Precinct at the Nile Branch (Area H),”;. But the main Egyptian capital still seems to have been Thebes in this period. [41] See Israel Finkelstein, The Archaeology of the Israelite Settlements (1988), p. 353; Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman, The Bible Unearthed (2002), pp. 107-115, and William G. Dever, Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From? (2003), pp. 97-99, 154-155, and 167. The early Israelite settlements are particularly found in the areas of Ephraim and Menashe. Beginning in 1978, Adam Zertal conducted an extensive survey of the history of the settlement in Menashe. Among his conclusions: -In the period from 1550-1200 BCE, the number of settlements sharply declined in comparision to the period 1750-1550 BCE, with only one quarter of the sites remaining. In the period from 1550-1200 BCE,no new sites were established. -There was a considerable increase in settlements during the period from 1200-1000 BCE. See Ralph K. Hawkins, “The Survey of Manasseh and the Origin of the Central Hill Country Settlers,” in Richard S. Hess et al, eds., Critical Issues in Early Israelite History (2008), pp. 167-68. Those who argue for a 15th century BCE Exodus and Conquest can take the position that the Israelites lived pastorally for their first 200 years, and that this accounts for the lack of archaeological evidence for their settlement. See, e.g., Paul Ray, “Classical Models for the Appearance of Israel in Palestine,” in Critical Issues, p. 93. Such a position is very much out of the mainstream today. [42] Hoffmeier, What is the Biblical Date, pp. 241-42, based on Shmuel Ahituv, Canaanite Toponyms in Ancient Egyptian Documents (1984). [43] There are references in Egyptian texts from the 13th and 12th centuries BCE to a place called ’Isr. ’Isr has been , .See,e.g .אשר equated by some with the Israelite tribe of Ray, p. 84, n. 3. But the identification should probably be rejected. See Kitchen, Ramesside Inscriptions, vol. 1 (1993), pp. 40-41. Manfred Görg argues that there is an inscription which provides evidence of Israel’s existence in the 15th century BCE. The inscription itself dates to the 13th century BCE, but based on the spellings, Görg suggests the names were copied from a 15th century BCE source. The inscription refers to Ashkelon, Canaan, and a third toponym. The third toponym is only partially preserved. If it is restored to spell “Israel,” the spelling would be slightly different from the spelling of Israel on the Merneptah Stele. Hoffmeier writes that “Gorg’s reading of this name…is plagued by serious linguistic and orthographic problems that preclude it from being Israel.” Hoffmeier, What is the Biblical Date, p. 241. [44] Ibid., p. 242 [45] Judges 3:31, 10:7 and 13:1. [46] Kitchen, On the Reliability, pp. 339-340 and EJ 13:399. [47] In the 12th century BCE, the Egyptian grip on Canaan began to loosen considerably, so the Israelites could have operated with little Egyptian interference. Hoffmeier, What is the Biblical Date, pp. 242-43. According to Lawrence F. Stager, “the Egyptians maintained some control over parts of Canaan until just after the death of Rameses III in 1153 BCE.” See his “Forging an Identity: The Emergency of Ancient Israel,” p. 123, in Michael D. Coogan, ed., The Oxford History of the Biblical World (1998). See also Carol A. Redmount, “Bitter Lives: Israel in and out of Egypt,”Ibid ., pp. 117-118. [48] More recently, scholars have been spelling his name Merenptah. I have followed the traditional spelling. Merneptah was the 13th son of Ramesses II. Ramesses II outlived the first twelve. .was mentioned earlier at Gen רעמסס A region called [49] is also mentioned as the place the Israelites רעמסס .47:11 began their departure from. See Ex. 12:37 and Num. 33:3,5. As to Pitom, this is the only time this place is mentioned in Tanach. Many suggest it means “the house of Atum” (see, e.g., Hoffmeier, Israel in Egypt, p. 119, and Daat Mikra to Ex. 1:11), in which case we would be looking for a site where the god Atum had a special position. There are various theories as to its location. See Hoffmeier, Israel in Egypt, pp. 119-121. Papyrus Anastasi 6 refers to “the pools of Pithom-of- Merneptah.” Herodotus (2:158), 5th cent. BCE, refers to a town called Patoumos. [50] There were other Pharaohs named Ramesses thereafter, starting with Ramesses III in 1184 BCE. But a 12th century BCE Pharaoh of the Oppression would considerably compress the period of the Judges, and be egregiously inconsistent with the 480 year and 300 year verses mentioned above. Also, a 12th century BCE Pharaoh of the Oppression followed by 40 years of desert wandering would not fit the archaeological evidence that shows that Israelite settlement began in the late 13th and early 12th centuries BCE. [51] Kitchen, On the Reliability, p. 255. The city and palace at Pi-Ramesse were built around an earlier palace built at this location by Seti I. Ibid., p. 256. Pi-Ramesse was abandoned as a royal residence around 1130 BCE. I am not assuming that this is the city referred to at Ex. 1:11. But this is possible too. [52] Kitchen, On the Reliability, p. 255. [53] It has been suggested that the references to mayan mei neftoah at Joshua 15:9 and 18:15 are to a place that derives its name from Merneptah (and perhaps from his campaign in Palestine, see below). The combination of mayan and mei is redundant and is not attested elsewhere in Tanach. Also, Papyrus Anastasi 3 includes a reference to the “wells of Merneptah” in Canaan. See Kitchen, On the Reliability, pp. 165-66 and Hoffmeier, What is the Biblical Date, p. 243. (In the movie “The Ten Commandments,” Seti I was the Pharaoh of the Oppression, and Ramesses II was the Pharaoh of the Exodus.) [54] The Stele was discovered in 1896 at Thebes. A fragmentary copy was later discovered at Karnak. At Karnak, the section where “Israel” would have been written has not survived. [55] The actual reading is: ysri3r (in Egyptian hieroglyphs). Hoffmeier, Israel in Egypt, p. 30 and Michael G. Hasel, “Israel in the Merneptah Stela,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 296 (1994), p. 46. The Egyptian dialect at that time did not have an “l” sound; both the “r” sound and the “l” sound were written with the Egyptian “r”. See Kitchen, “The Victories of Merenptah, and the Nature of their Record,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 28 (2004), p. 271. (The Philistines are referred to as prst in Egyptian inscriptions from this era. EJ 13:399.) [56] This is the earliest reference to the entity “Israel” outside of the Bible. It is ironic that in this first reference, Israel is described as having been destroyed! (The name “Israel” for an individual is known prior to the Merneptah Stele. It is found at Ebla and Ugarit. Hasel, p. 46.) The Stele was probably constructed after a successful military expedition into Palestine by Merneptah’s forces (perhaps led by Merneptah himself.) There is other evidence for such an expedition. For example, Merneptah adopts the epithet “conqueror of Gaza” in a different stele. See Sarna, p. 12, Hasel, p. 55, and Hasel, “Merenptah’s Inscription and Reliefs and the Origin of Israel,” in Beth Albert Nakhai, ed., The Near East in the Southwest: Essays in Honor of William G. Dever (2003), p. 27. Moreover, the reliefs at Karnak are now generally viewed as illustrations of the conquests referred to in the Stele. This further supports the likelihood that there was such an expedition. Ibid. It has been suggested that if the Exodus occurred in the reign of Ramesses II, Merneptah’s expedition may have been a response to the Israelites’ expanding their control in Canaan during the early period of the Judges. Hoffmeier, What is the Biblical Date, p. 243. [57] The above translation is from D. Winton Thomas, ed., Documents from Old Testament Times (1958), p. 139. [58] “Nine Bows” is an Egyptian expression for all subjugated peoples. Hasel, Israel in the Merneptah Stela, p. 55. [59] This can be another term for Gaza, and not the land of Canaan. Hoffmeier, Israel in Egypt, p. 29 (but compare p. 45). [60] The Egyptian word can mean either human seed or grain. Ibid., p. 45. If the meaning is “grain,” the implication may be that Israel was no longer a military threat to Egypt. Also, one could perhaps infer that Israel was an agrarian society and hence already established in the land. Hasel, Israel in the Merneptah Stela, p. 53. [61] Sarna writes (p. 12): [T] he “Nine Bows” are the traditionally hostile neighbors of Egypt; the Tehenu are one of the Libyan peoples; Hatti is the land of the Hittites, now Asiatic Turkey; Ashkelon and Gezer are two southerly Cannanite towns; Yanoam is a town in the north of the country; Hurru , the land of the Hurrians, who are the Biblical Horites, is an Egyptian term for Palestine and Syria. To-Meri is another name for Egypt. [62] See Exodus Rabbah 1:34, and Targum Jonathan to Ex. 2:23. For a connection between death and leprosy, see Num. 12:12. There is a similar midrashic rabbinic teaching on Isaiah 6:1, a verse that mentions the death of king Uzziahu. [63] The passage at Exodus Rabbah 1:34 does not state what motivated it to treat the death euphemistically. But a different version of this passage is found at Midrash ha-Gadol to Ex. 2:23. There, additional language is found (underlined below) which helps explain what motivated the euphemistic העמדתיך זאת בעבור ואולם אומר הוא והלא מת ( reading: (Ex. 9:16 Given the כמת והמצורע שנצטרע אלא… (citing Num. 12:12) וכי reliability of Midrash ha-Gadol with respect to its quotations of midrashim (see, E.g., EJ 11:1515), it is reasonable to view the added language as original, and not as a later interpolation. For further possible background to the midrash at Exodus Rabbah 1:34, see , The Legends of the Jews, vol. 5, n. 101, pp. 412-413. Many rabbinic commentaries offer a different explanation of what motivated the euphemistic reading (without being aware of the additional language in Midrash ha-Gadol). The groaning and crying out referred to at verse 2:23 perhaps make no sense if the Pharaoh had died; we would expect an optimistic hope for change. Hence, a euphemistic interpretation of the “death” is called for. [64] See, e.g., I Chronicles 7:20-24. The events described here imply that Ephraim and his sons and daughter were living in Israel, not Egypt. See Y. Zakovitch and A. Shinan, Lo Kach Katuv be-Tanach (2004), pp. 145-150, and Gary N. Knoppers, I Chronicles 1-9 (The Anchor Bible) (2003), pp. 464-65. [65] The Pentateuch and Haftorahs (2d. ed. 1975), p. 395 (Exodus-Additional Notes). An interesting suggestion was made by Abraham Malamat. The Bible implies that the Exodus occurred over a relatively brief period, i.e., that it was a “punctual” event. But perhaps it was a “durative” event (=an event which spanned a long period of time), and involved a steady flow of Israelites out of Egypt over hundreds of years. If it was a durative event, the search for a specific date is not the correct approach. All we really should be looking for is the peak period, when Moses was their leader and the highest percentage left. See his “Let My People Go and Go and Go and Go,” BAR Jan.-Feb. 1998, pp. 62-66. A longer version of this article is included in Ernest S. Frerichs and Leonard H. Lesko, eds., Exodus: The Egyptian Evidence (1997). [66] I believe Hertz is referring to I Chronicles 7:20-24, but he is giving a different interpretation than the one I just suggested. [67] Specifically: Tehenu, Hatti, Canaan, Ashkelon, Gezer, Yanoam, and Hurru. “Nine Bows” has a bow as a determinative, but this was not a city-state or land. [68] For example, Sarna writes (p. 13): [I]t may be concluded that… [at the time of the Stele] the people of Israel was located in Canaan, but had not yet settled down within definable borders. Its presence there was of recent origin, so that the Exodus would have taken place in the course of the thirteenth century BCE.

See also the comments of Lawrence Schiffman in “Making the Bible Come to Life: Biblical Archaeology and the Teaching of Tanach in Jewish Schools,” Tradition 37/4 (Winter 2003), p. 48, n . 19:

The text describes the situation in Canaan in the thirteenth century B.C.E. with Israel alone pictured as a people without a geographical designation. This clearly refers to the period between the invasion and the actual settlement of the various Israelite tribes.

Those advocating an earlier date for the Exodus can make a different argument from the Stele. Since Merneptah felt that the destruction of Israel was something to boast about, Israel must have been a significant entity, one that was long- established in the land.

[69] Hasel, Israel in the Merneptah Stela, pp. 53-54. [70] See the two articles by Hasel cited previously. See also his “Merenptah’s Reference to Israel: Critical Issues for the Origin of Israel,” in Critical Issues, pp. 47-59. [71] Of course, there are always questions of whether archaeology has identified the correct site. Even if a name similar to the Biblical name has been preserved at a village or tel, the Biblical name may refer instead to the larger region. Moreover, even if the correct site has been identified, typically only 5% of each site is dug. Kitchen, On the Reliability, p. 183. [72] But it must be stressed that there is little reason to expect that the victories of the Israelites would have left archaeological traces of destruction in most instances. The Israelite victories over a city and its people are typically and the underlying ,ויכוה and ויכה described only by the terms Israelite goal was only to kill the leaders and the inhabitants. The cities themselves were eventually to be occupied by the Israelites. The victories described in the book of Joshua can be viewed mainly as disabling raids. After their victories, the Israelites did not attempt to hold the areas; they remained based at Gilgal. Kitchen,On the Reliability, p. 162. Only in the cases of Jericho, Ai and Hazor does the book of Joshua specify that the city was burnt, something that can be tested for archaeologically. See Kitchen, On the Reliability, pp. 183 and 189-90, and Hoffmeier, Israel in Egypt, pp. 33-44. It has also been observed that the descriptions of the conquests in the book of Joshua are formulaic and use rhetorical language, suggesting that they are somewhat exaggerated. The continuing presence of the Canaanites in Canaan after the time of Joshua is seen from the book of Judges. [73] A similar analysis must also be conducted with regard to how a 13th century BCE Exodus squares with the cities in Transjordan mentioned in the book of Numbers as conquered by the Israelites (e.g., Arad, Heshbon, Dibon, and Edrei). Compare Kitchen’s analysis, On the Reliability, pp. 190-196 with Dever’s analysis at pp. 23-35. [74] Dever, pp. 66-68. Judges 4:2 describes the Israelites as having been handed over to Yavin, king of Canaan, who reigned in Hazor. But this was many years later and the city may have been rebuilt by this time. Soncino, comm. to Judges 4:2. [75] Kitchen, On the Reliability, pp. 184 and 211. See also Dever, pp. 50 and 210. [76] Joseph Callaway, “Ai,” in David Noel Freedman, ed., The Anchor Bible Dictionary (1992), vol. 1, pp. 125-30, and Kitchen, On the Reliability, p. 188. [77] See above, Part II. [78] Kitchen, On the Reliability, p. 187. [79] Ibid., and Wood, “Did the Israelites Conquer Jericho?,” p. 50. [80] A recent discussion is that of Bryant G. Wood, “The Search for Joshua’s Ai,” in Critical Issues, pp. 205-240. [81] See, e.g., Richard S. Hess, “The Jericho and Ai of the Book of Joshua,” in Critical Issues, pp. 36-38. I am reminded here of Mark Twain’s remarks in The Innocents Abroad, end of chap. 46, after his visit to Palestine in 1867. In Sunday school, he imagined the kings mentioned in the Bible to be similar to the kings of England, France, Spain, Germany, and Russia, “arrayed in splended robes ablaze with jewels, marching in grave procession…” Now that he has been to Palestine, he realizes they were probably only “petty chiefs- ill-clad and ill-conditoned savages much like our Indians, who lived in full sight of each other and whose ‘kingdoms’ were large when they were five miles square and contained two thousand souls.” [82] Hess, p. 38, Kitchen, On the Reliability, pp. 187-88, and Kitchen, “The Exodus,” Anchor Bible Dictionary (1992), vol. 2, p. 702. [83] It has also been argued that the city could not have been too large if the Israelites were expected to march around it seven times in one day and then have sufficient energy to fight a battle. Hess, p. 35. Kitchen (On the Reliability, pp. 182-90) analyzed 24 cities listed as conquered in the book of Joshua. He omitted places whose identification on the ground was doubtful or which had not yet been explored archaeologically. He concluded ( p. 189): [O]nly four can be regarded as deficient in background finds for LB II [=Late Bronze II, c. 1350-1200 BCE] and in those cases there are factors that account for the deficiency. The rest shows very clearly that Joshua and his raiders moved among (and against) towns that existed and which in several cases exhibit destructions at this period…

Kitchen’s four deficient sites were: Makkedah, Yeriho, Ai, and Givon, and his suggested explanations were: erosion (Yeriho), wrong site (Ai), and most of the site still undug (Makkedah and Givon). Most scholars who have analyzed the sites listed as conquered in the book of Joshua have come out to more critical conclusions. See, e.g., Dever, pp. 54-72.

[84] Ramesses II died in 1213 BCE , Merneptah died in 1203, and Amenmesses died in 1200. Thereafter, Seti II died in 1194, Siptah died in 1188, Tewosret died in 1186, Setnakht died in 1184, and Ramesses III died in 1153. Should Moses have been born as late as 1250, by the time he reached the age of 80, his life would have spanned the deaths of Ramesess II, Merneptah, Amenmesses, Seti II, Siptah, Tewosret, and Setnakht. [85] Indeed, Hoffmeier writes (What is the Biblical Date, p. 233): [C]onstruction at Tell el-Dab‘a-Qantir is now documented under the previous reigns of Horemheb (1323-1295 BC) and Seti I (1294-1279) BC. This means that the oppression of the Hebrews could have begun decades before the reign of Ramesses II and culminated with the construction of Pi-Ramesses.

The construction by Horemhab involved renovations at the Temple of Seth and enlargement of a fortress. Kitchen, On the Reliability, p. 309, Hoffmeier, Israel in Egypt, p. 123, and Bietak, p. 10.

Psalms ;צריהם אחד מהם לא נותר מים ויכסו:Psalms 106:11 [86] .ונער פרעה וחילו בים-סוף :136:15 [87] The New Kingdom comprises the 18th-20th dynasties, from Ahmose in the mid-16th century BCE to Ramesses XI, at the beginning of the 11th century BCE. [88] Hoffmeier, What is the Biblical Date, p. 239. They were found in the Deir el-Bahri cache of royal mummies discovered in 1881. [89] Wilson, p. 24. [90] Ibid., p. 25. When this mummy was first examined, the salt deposits found were thought to provide evidence that Merneptah had drowned at sea. It was later realized that such deposits are found on most mummified remains and derive from the mummification process. Ibid., p. 24. All of the mummies of the 15th century BCE Pharaohs have been found. None indicate a death by drowning. Hoffmeier, What is the Biblical Date, p. 240. at Psalms 136:15 to פרעה For example, one can understand [91] be a metaphor for Egypt. Hoffmeier points out (Ibid., p. 239) that even Cecil B. DeMille did not have Yul Brynner follow the Israelites into the sea! There are also rabbinic sources that take the view that Pharaoh survived. See,e.g. , Mechilta, Beshalah, Masecheta Bet, parsha 6 (view of R. Nehemiah), and Pirkey de-Rabbi Eliezer, chap. 43. There is also an issue of whether these mummies are actually whom they purport to be. In June 2007, it was discovered that the mummy thought to have been that of Thutmose I was in fact that of another. The secretary–general of Egypt’s Supreme Council of Antiquities stated: “I am now questioning all the mummies. We have to check them all again.” This process, using CT scanning and DNA tests, is ongoing. [92] I Ch. 5:29-36. [93] I Ch. 6:18-23 and I Ch. 6:7-13. [94] It would seem that the most logical approach would be to rely on the longest of these lists and to view the others as abbreviated. But Gary Rendsburg takes a different approach, and argues that the royal geneaology (David to Nahshon) should be considered the most reliable. Based on this, he argues for a 12th century BCE conquest and settlement. See his Rendsburg, “The Internal Consistency and Historical Reliability of the Biblical Genealogies,” Vetus Testamentum XL, 2 (1990), pp. 185-206, and “The Date of the Exodus and the Conquest/Settlement: The Case for the 1100S,”Vetus Testamentum XLII, 4 (1992), pp. 510-527. (With regard to the Merneptah Stele, he takes the position that the Stele refers to the Israelites as slaves in Egypt.) [95] Some scholars postulate instead that the Israelites originated in Syria or Transjordan before they came to Canaan (and did not get to Transjordan following an Exodus). [96] The original EJ had an entry “Exodus” (6:1042-1050) that discussed much of the material I have discussed and concluded that the evidence supported a 13th century BCE Exodus. Similar was the section “The Exodus and Wanderings in Sinai” (8:575-577) in the “History” entry. In contrast, the new EJ eliminated the “Exodus” entry, and completely revised the section in the “History” entry. The “History” entry now includes the following: The discussion of the Exodus is connected with the Israelite Conquest of Canaan. Both of these events are not historical… Truth to tell, there was never any external evidence for the enslavement in Egypt and the subsequent exodus. Those scholars who supported some version of the enslavement tradition argued, irrelevantly, that no one would have made up a tale of enslavement, and that the tradition was persistent… The general consensus at present is that the people Israel arose in the land itself or perhaps from an area slightly to the east, with no indication of an Egyptian cultural past… [T]he tradition that the people of Israel originated outside the land serves to distance Israel from peoples to whom [they] were ethnically quite close…

The view that the Israelites obtained possession of Canaan mainly through a military conquest at the time of Joshua has also come under much attack in recent decades. The general consensus at present is that the settlement process was largely a peaceful infiltration into areas that had not been settled by the Canaanites. This rejection of the Conquest model contributes to Exodus denial, as many argue that if there was no Conquest, there was probably no Exodus. But the Exodus and Conquest are not dependent on one another. One can easily take the approach that most of the Israelites arrived in Canaan subsequent to an Exodus from Egypt but that the book of Joshua overdramatizes what happened thereafter.

[97] It is based largely on claims that the Israelite pottery of 1200-1000 BCE is similar to Canaanite pottery or reflects a natural evolution from it. But these interpertations are disputed by other scholars. Dever (p. 121) writes: “no issue in the current study of the early history of the Israelite people is as controversial as the above question. Debates rage among specialists, accompanied by acrimonious name-calling…” If there was no common historical past in Egypt, how the Israelites eventually coalesced into one nation requires explanation. The theory that all or most of the Israelites originated in Syria or Transjordan has practically no archaeological basis. [98] See above, n. 41. As Lawrence Stager writes (quoted at Dever, p. 99): This extraordinary increase in population in Iron I cannot be explained only by natural population growth of the few Late Bronze Age city-states in the region: there must have been a major influx of people into the highlands in the twelfth and eleventh centuries BCE….That many of these villages belonged to premonarchic Israel…is beyond doubt.

(Iron I is the period c. 1200-1000 BCE. The Late Bronze Age is the period c. 1550/1500-1200 BCE.) Kitchen jokingly suggests that if we do not accept an outside origin for the Israelites, the only other explanation for the huge population growth in highland Canaan between 1250/1200 and 1150 BCE is “a half century of fertility cult sex orgies.” See On the Reliability, pp. 226-27.

[99] See, e.g., Finkelstein, The Archaeology of the Israelite Settlements, pp. 27-33, and Dever, pp. 81, 84, 105 and 108. Some of the indications that a settlement is probably Israelite are: houses in the pillar-courtyard (=four room) style; stone-lined silos and collared-rim jars; the absence of pig bones; and the location of the settlement at a site which we know from later 10th century BCE sources to have been Israelite. Also, most early Israelite sites consist of only ordinarily dwellings without public buildings (e.g., a ruler’s quarter or storehouses). [100]Adam Zertal has argued that the evidence from the different Israelite cooking pots in use in successive periods documents a movement by the Israelites in Canaan from east to west. Finkelstein has argued for such a movement based on successive pottery styles. See,e.g. , Kitchen, On the Reliability, pp. 227-28, and 551, and Hawkins,Critical Issues, pp. 170-173. An east to west movement would be consistent with the Israelites having entered Canaan from the outside. But an east to west movement also fits approaches that view the Israelites as indigenous. (Finkelstein adopts such an approach). Many scholars find the evidence for an Israelite movement in Canaan from east to west unconvincing. There is now some evidence for possible Israelite settlement on the east side of the Jordan in the second half of the Late Bronze Age and the early Iron I Age. The evidence consists of sites with four room houses and/or collared-rim jars. See Kitchen, On the Reliability, pp. 198-199, and Hawkins, Critical Issues, p. 175. [101] Even though Papyrus Ipuwer is often cited as an extra- Biblical source that confirms the plagues, and the extant copy of Papyrus Ipuwer dates from the New Kingdom, Egyptologists believe that Papyrus Ipuwer is merely a copy of a text composed many centuries earlier. See, e.g., Donald B. Redford, Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times (1992), p. 66, and Hoffmeier, Israel in Egypt, p. 72, n. 63. According to Redford, a passage from Papyrus Ipuwer was already excerpted in a 20th cent. BCE source. [102] Kitchen, On the Reliability, p. 466. The only administrative records found at Pi-Ramesse so far involve a handful of wine-jar dockets. To quote Kitchen: “[w]ine jars do not an Exodus record!” [103] I.e., Egyptian taskmasters oversaw leaders drawn from the oppressed group. [104] See, e.g., Kitchen, The Exodus, p. 704. [105] Kitchen, On the Reliability, p. 466, and Redmount, p. 89. [106] Hoffmeier, Israel in Egypt, p. 114. See also, Kitchen, On the Reliability, p. 248. [107] Kitchen, The Exodus, p. 703. For a recent discussion of the term apiru, see Patrick Mazani, “The Appearance of Israel in Canaan in Recent Scholarship,” inCritical Issues, pp. 105-107. Apiru is a reconstruction of the Egyptian pronounciation of the term (in the consonant-only Egyptian script). In other languages, this group of people are called Habiru or Hapiru. They are referred to in areas as far away as Syria and Mesopotamia. Hoffmeier, What is the Biblical Date, p. 242, n. 96. There are verses in Tanach which seem to distinguish between Israelites and ivrim. See, e.g., I Sam. 14:21-22. It has been suggested that such verses are referring to Apiru/Habiru/Hapiru. [108] Kitchen, The Exodus, p. 701. [109] One scholar who has focused on such an approach is Penina Galpaz-Feller. See her Yitziat Mitzrayim: Mitziyut o Dimyon (2002). [110] Ibid., pp. 80-85. [111] See, e.g., Kitchen, On the Reliability, pp. 253-54. [112] For further references, see Gerald A. Klingbeil, “ ‘Between North and South’; The Archaeology of Religion in Late Bronze Age Palestine and the Period of the Settlement,” in Critical Issues, pp. 124-126. [113] Kitchen, The Exodus, p. 707. This article belongs in the new EJ in an “Exodus” entry! [114] I must disclose that Kitchen takes the approach here (p. 705) that the Exodus only involved about 72,000 Israelites, A reduced number of .אלף relying on a redefinition of the word Israelites involved in the Exodus helps explain why no evidence has been found in the Sinai of the Israelite wandering. A reduced number is also much more consistent with the recent population estimates of the ancient Israelite settlements in the period from the 13th through the 11th centuries BCE. (See Dever, p. 98, for some of these estimates.) In his On the Reliability, p. 265, Kitchen reduces his estimate of the number of Israelites who left in the Exodus to about 20,000. He estimates the total population of Canaan thereafter (including the Israelites) to have been about 50,000 to 70,000. It has been argued that if the Israelites were served by only 2 midwives (see Ex. 1:15), the Israelite population in Egypt at that stage could not have been in the hundreds of thousands. It has also been suggested that the tradition of 2 midwives has its roots in an alternative tradition of the number of Israelites enslaved. [115] The above was my summary of a much longer passage. This material from Hecateus was preserved in Diodorus (1st cent. BCE.). We know of the Diodorus material from Photius (9th cent. CE). The passage is printed and translated in Menahem Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism, vol. 1 (1974), pp. 27-29. [116] The story is preserved in Josephus, Against Apion, I, commencing with para. 75. [117] Josephus argues for this equation as well. [118] According to modern scholars, the Hyksos were driven out of Egypt in a series of campaigns by the Pharaohs of the 17th and 18th dynasties. See, e.g., Redmount, p. 108. One of the Pharaohs of the 17th dynasty who led a campaign against the Hyksos was named Kamose (1555-1550). Perhaps we see echoes of this name in the name Misphragmouthosis. The next king mentioned by Manetho, as preserved in Josephus, sounds like a reference to Thutmose. The reference could be to Thutmose I (1504-1492), Thutmose II (1492-1479), Thutmose III (1479-1425), or Thutmose IV (1400-1390). But based on versions of Manetho preserved in other sources (which refer to Amosis, Amos or Amoses), the reference seems to be to Ahmose, the first king of the 18th dynasty. See John Day, “The Pharaoh of the Exodus, Josephus and Jubilees,” Vetus Testamentum XLV, 3 (1995), p. 377. Ahmose is known to have led a campaign against the Hyksos. He reigned 25 years (1550-1525). [119] Manetho continues with the names of the kings who reigned over the next several centuries. Some are identifiable. For example, he lists “Harmesses Miamoun” as reigning sixty-six years and two months. Surely, this is Ramesses II. [120] Josephus, Against Apion I, commencing with para. 230. [121] Josephus, Against Apion I, para. 229. [122] The exact identification of the king intended is unclear. He is probably one of the four kings named Amenhotep. See, e.g., the note by H. St. J. Thackeray at p. 257 in Josephus, Against Apion I (Loeb Classical Library edition) (suggesting Amenhotep III or IV) and Day, p. 378 (suggesting a conflation of Amenhotep IV and Merneptah). [123] Victor Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews (tr. by S. Applebaum, 1959), pp. 361-362. [124] Manetho adds that he changed his name to Moses when he went over to these people.

The Origin of Ta‘anit Esther

The Origin of Ta‘anit Esther By Mitchell First Introduction The origin of this fast has always been a mystery. A fast on the 13th of Adar is not mentioned in the Megillah. Nor is such a fast mentioned in Tannaitic or Amoraic literature. Megillat Ta‘anit, compiled in the first century C.E., includes the 13th of Adar as a day upon which Jews were prohibited from fasting. A widespread view today is that the fast arose as a post- Talmudic custom intended to commemorate the three days of fasting initiated by Esther in Nissan. There are Rishonim who take this approach.[1] But Geonic Babylonia is where the fast first arose and this approach is not expressed in any of the sources from Geonic Babylonia. Moreover, the statements in these sources are inconsistent with this approach. I am going to suggest an approach to the origin of the fast that is consistent with the material in the Babylonian Geonic sources. I. The Earliest Sources That Refer To A Practice Of Fasting On The 13th The earliest sources that refer to a practice of fasting on the 13th are the following: – One of the four she’iltot for Purim included in the She’iltot of R. Ahai Gaon, a work composed in 8th century Babylonia. – An anonymous Babylonian Geonic responsum that made its way intoMidrash Tanhuma (Bereshit, sec. 3). (The discussion in this responsum and in the She’iltot is very similar.) – A responsum of R. Natronai, head of the academy at from 857-865 C.E. This The Siddur – [פורים תענית. [responsum refers to the fast as 2 of R. Se‘adyah (882-942).[3] Here, the fast is referred to as .the fast of the Megillah).[4] The Siddur of R=) אלמגלה צום Se‘adyah was composed in Babylonia.[5] – An index to a collection of Babylonian Geonic responsa.[6] The compiler of the index recorded the first few words of each responsum. In לנפול אנו רגילין באדר יוש :our case, the compiler recorded The responsum itself is no longer extant. The .יג[7] ובתענית responsum itself is no longer extant. – A responsum addressed to R. Hai (d. 1038).[8] This responsum inquires whether, in the case of a hakhnasat kallah that occurs on a fast day such as the 13th of Adar, the one who makes the blessing on the kos of berakhah is permitted to drink. – An anonymous Babylonian השני :Geonic responsum that includes the following statement II. Analysis אדר[ של כי”ג מתענין נמי הראשון אדר של וי”ג.[9 According to Robert Brody, the four she’iltot for Purim were probably not in the original She’iltot when it left the hands of R. Ahai in the 8th century. They were authored in a later stage.[10] She’ilta #79, the one which refers to fasting on the 13th of Adar, is even more problematic than the other three. After the first few lines in Aramaic, the balance of this she’ilta is almost entirely in Hebrew, unlike the rest of the She’iltot. Careful comparison of she’ilta #79 with the Geonic responsum that made its way intoMidrash Tanhuma suggests that the Geonic responsum is the earlier source.[11] It is reasonable to work with the assumption that this responsum dates from the eighth or ninth centuries. This responsum adopts a very unusual interpretation of the sections of the Mishnah at the beginning of Tractate Megillah. These sections permit villagers to fulfill their Megillah obligation on the 11th, 12th, or 13th of Adar, on yom ha-kenisah, under certain conditions. In the plain sense of these sections, yom ha-kenisah refers to Mondays and Thursdays, and the teaching is that the reading for the villagers is allowed to be advanced to these days when the villagers enter, or gather in, the cities. But in the interpretation adopted by the Geonic responsum, yom ha-kenisah means the fast of the 13th of Adar (= the day on which the Jews gather to fast). The reading for the villagers is allowed to be advanced because the date of the observance of the fast day is being advanced due to a prohibition to fast on shabbat and ‘erev shabbat that is being read into the Mishnah. In this interpretation, the advanced fast day is a day upon which the reading for the villagers is allowed. The Geonic responsum included inMidrash Tanhuma reads as follows: They asked: It was taught that the Megillah may be read on the 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th and 15th, but not earlier or later. R. Judah said that this rule is only in effect when the calendar is established by the testimony of witnesses and Israel dwells on its own land, but in our times…the Megillah can only be read on the proper date (=the 14th or 15th). Does the follow the first opinion or does it follow R. Judah? They responded: According to both R. Judah and the first opinion, the Megillah can only be read on the proper date. The following is what the first opinion meant. Towns that were surrounded by walls at the time of Joshua son of Nun read on the 15th. Villages and cities read on the 14th, but villages may advance their reading to yom ha- kenisah. When the Mishnah taught that the Megillah may be read on the 11th, 12th, 13th, etc., that applied to one who is engaged in fasting, as it was taught at the end of the Mishnah: “but villages may advance their reading to yom ha- kenisah.” What is yom ha-kenisah? The day of gathering, as it is stated (Meg. 2a): The thirteenth was a day of gathering for all (Heb: yom[12] kehillah la-kol hiy), as it is written (Est. 9:1-2): “in the 12th month, the month ofAdar , on its thirteenth day… the Jews gathered themselves (Heb: nikhalu) in their cities.” They gathered themselves and decreed a fast on the 13th of Adar. But the 14th was a holiday, as it is written (Est. 9:17) “and they rested on its 14th and made it a day of feasting and gladness.” In Shushan ha-birah, they only rested on the 15th. Therefore, Shushan and all walled towns read on the 15th and make that a festive day. When the Mishnah taught that “the Megillah may be read (on the 11th, 12th, 13th …)” that concerned one who is engaged in fasting, because it is forbidden to engage in fasting on shabbat. If the 14th falls on the first day of the week, it is forbidden to fast on shabbat. It is also forbidden to fast on erev‘ shabbat, because of the necessity of preparing for shabbat. Rather, the fast is advanced to Thursday, which is the 11th of Adar. If the 14th falls on shabbat, it is forbidden to fast on ‘erev shabbat because of the necessity of preparing for shabbat. The primary reason for a fast day is the recital of selihot and rahamim, and reciting these (instead of preparing for shabbat) will detract from honoring the shabbat. Honoring the shabbat is more important than a thousand fasts, for honoring the shabbat is a commandment from the Torah, while the fast is a rabbinic decree (Heb: ta‘anit de-rabbanan). The Torah commandment of honoring the shabbat takes precedence over the fast, a rabbinic decree. Hence the fast is advanced to Thursday, the 12th. If the 14th falls on ‘erev shabbat, the fast is observed on Thursday, which is the 13th. This is set forth in the Mishnah. How does this occur? If it falls on a Monday, villages and cities read that day and walled towns read the next day. If it falls on shabbat or the first day of the week, villages advance the reading to yom ha-kenisah, etc. But when the 9th of Av falls on shabbat, the fast is postponed until after shabbat, since this fast was instituted as a punishment. Therefore, the fast is postponed and not advanced. One of the cases discussed in the above responsum is the case of the 14th falling on shabbat. Almost certainly, this was not something still occuring at the time this responsum was composed.[13] This suggests, as does a close reading of the responsum, that the responsum is not describing a practice of fasting on the 13th that was occurring in its time. It is only interpreting M. Megillah 1:1-2, the ninth chapter of the book of Esther, and a statement in the Talmud (Meg. 2a: yod-gimmel zeman kehillah la-kol hiy), and describing a practice of fasting on the 13th that theoretically occurred in ancient times, according to the interpretations it was offering. The interpretation of yom ha-kenisah expressed in the Geonic responsum is far from its plain sense. If M. Megillah 1:1-2 was referring to the advancement of the reading to a fast day, the term we would expect it to use would be yom ha-ta‘anit. Moreover, M. Megillah 1:3 includes the following statement by R. Judah: “When [may the reading be advanced]? In a place where they enter makom( she-nikhnasin) on Monday and Thursday.” This strongly suggests that the term yom ha-kenisah at M. Megillah 1:1-2 refers to Mondays and Thursdays. Finally, an anonymous Talmudic discussion at Megillah 4a-b understands yom ha-kenisah as a reference to Mondays and Thursdays.[14] The interpretations expressed of Est. 9:1-2 and of the Talmudic statement yod-gimmel zeman kehillah la-kol hiy are far from plain sense interpretations as well. The critical question in determining the origin of the fast of the 13th of Adar is what motivated these unusual interpretations. Obviously, one possible motivation was an attempt to justify an existing practice to fast on the 13th. But I am going to suggest something entirely different that motivated these interpretations. Then we can understand the practice of fasting on the 13th as having originated as a consequence of the interpretations. As I mentioned, the responsum included in Midrash Tanhuma was from Babylonian Geonim, and it is reasonable to work with the assumption that it dates from the eighth or ninth centuries. As documented in my article, a major issue of halakha in this period was the permissibility of fasting on shabbat.[15] The unusual interpretations can be explained under the assumption that the authors were responding to and opposing contemporary practices of fasting on shabbat and ‘erev shabbat. Interpreting yom ha-kenisah the way they did enabled them to cite M. Megillah 1:1-2 as a source which prohibited fasting on shabbat and ‘erev shabbat. In their interpretation, the reading for the villagers is allowed to be advanced because the date of the observance of the fast day is being advanced, due to a prohibition to fast on shabbat and ‘erev shabbat that they were reading into the Mishnah. The practices that the authors of the unusual interpretations could have been responding to could have been: 1) the practice in Babylonia of fasting on the shabbat before Yom Kippur, 2) practices in Babylonia of fasting on shabbat as a form of repentance or piety, or by those whose ideal shabbat consisted of studying or praying all day, or by those who enjoyed fasting, or 3) practices of fasting onshabbat in Palestine in the above contexts. It is also possible that the main motivation of the authors of the unusual interpretations was opposition to a practice of fasting on ‘erev shabbat. I suggest that the unusual interpretations expressed in the Geonic responsum arose as a result of one or more of these polemical motivations. This led M. Megillah 1:1-2 to be interpreted to imply a prohibition to fast onshabbat and ‘erev shabbat. A new “tradition” about an ancient fast on the 13th of Adar was the result. One clue that the authors were responding to contemporary practices of fasting on shabbat and ‘erev shabbat is that the responsum includes a polemical line stressing the importance of honoring the shabbat: “honoring the shabbat is more important than a thousand fasts…”[16] The early 9th century polemical letter of Pirkoy ben Baboy uses almost the same language: “One who delights in one shabbat is greater than one who sacrifices a thousand sacrifices and (fasts) a thousand fasts.”[17] The main weakness with my approach to the origin of the fast is the argument that it is not likely that a Mishnah would be polemically interpreted to such an extent that the interpretation would result in the observance of a new (assumed to be ancient) fast day. My response is that those who authored the interpretation did not foresee that a new fast day would come be observed as a result of their interpretation. That the fast of the 13th of Adar did not arise as commemoration of the three days of fasting initiated by Esther is seen from the name for the fast day in the earliest sources. The responsum of R. Natronai is the earliest source that refers to the fast by a name, and it refers to the fast as Ta‘anit Purim. Of the four sources in the Geonic period from Babylonia and its environs that refer to the fast by a name, most likely none of them calls it Ta‘anit Esther.[18] When the Babylonian Geonic sources express or imply something about the origin of the fast, what is consistently expressed or implied is that the fast is a rabbinic obligation, and not merely a post-Talmudic custom. For example, the Geonic responsum included in Midrash Tanhuma refers to the fast as a de-rabbanan. Moreover, an anonymous Geonic responsum takes the position that, in a leap year, one fasts even on the 13th of the first Adar. Most likely, it takes this position because it views fasting on the 13th of Adar as an obligation, based on the interpretation of Est. chap. 9 expressed in the Geonic responsum included in Midrash Tanhuma. If it viewed the fast as a post-Talmudic custom meant to commemorate fasting that took place in Nissan, a fast on the 13th of the second Adar would almost certainly have been viewed as sufficient. In my article, I documented four sources that refer to a Palestinian practice of fasting three days (on a Monday-Thursday-Monday cycle) in Adar. These sources are: Massekhet Soferim (chaps. 17 and 21), and three other sources that have come to light from the Genizah. The Palestinian practice almost certainly was a commemoration of the three days of fasting initiated by Esther in Nissan.[19] That the Palestinian practice was understood as a commemoration of the three days of fasting initiated by Esther probably contributed to the name for the Babylonian fast of the 13th evolving into Ta‘anit Esther.[20]

This essay is a brief summary of my recent article that appeared in Mitchell First, “The Origin of Ta’anit Esther,” AJS Review 34:2 (November 2010): 309-351, and is adapted with the permission of Cambridge University Press. [1] An early example is probably . An erroneous period and vav made their way into the standard printed (ובי”ג the vav of) text of his Hilkhot Ta‘aniyyot 5:5, after the sixth word. (The necessary corrections have already been made in the Frankel המן בימי שהתענו לתענית זכר :edition.) The corrected text reads שנאמר (Est. 9:31) באדר בי”ג להתענות אלו בזמנים ישראל כל ונהגו Maimonides clearly states that the custom …דברי הצומות וזעקתם of fasting on the 13th is only of recent origin, and that it is a commemoration of a fast that took place in the time of Haman, i.e., in Nissan. Maimonides is forced to cite to Est. 9:31 because chapter 4 does not expressly state that the Jews of Shushan fasted in response to Esther’s request. [2] Robert Brody, Teshuvot Rav Natronai Bar Hilai Ga’on, 303-04, responsum # 177. [3] Siddur Rav Se‘adyah Ga’on, eds. Israel Davidson, Simhah Assaf, and Yissakhar Joel, 258 and 319-338. [4] Ibid., 319. [5] It was not composed in Palestine, where R. Se‘adyah lived earlier. Ibid., intro., 22-23. [6] Louis Ginzberg, Geonica, vol. 2, 67-68. [7] Ginzberg suggests that the correct reading is shel or yom. [8] Shelomoh Wertheimer, Sefer Kohelet Shelomoh, 14. [9] Louis Ginzberg, Ginzey Schechter, vol. 2, 136. [10] Brody, Le-Toledot Nusah Ha-She’iltot, 186 n. 5, and The Geonim of Babylonia and the Shaping of Medieval Jewish Culture, 209 n. 29. Structurally, they are deficient as she’iltot. Also, there is some variation in the manuscripts with regard to their location in the work. This suggests that they were later additions, attemped to be integrated into an already fixed work. [11] It is organized and concise, and seems to reflect an attempt to record an official interpretation of M. Megillah 1:1-2. She’ilta #79, on the other hand, seems to be taking for granted an already established explanation of M. Megillah 1:1-2 that it is reiterating and commenting upon. [12] Megillah 2a and she’ilta #79 have zeman instead of yom. [13] When the 14th of Adar falls on shabbat, the upcoming Yom Kippur would fall on Friday. Already in the time of R. Yose b. Bun (c. 300), the 14th of Adar was not being allowed to fall on shabbat or Monday, so that Yom Kippur would not fall on Friday or Sunday. See Y. Megillah 1:2 (70b),EJ 5:49, and Yosef Tabory, Mo‘adey Yisra’eil Bi-Tekufat Ha-Mishnah Ve-Ha- Talmud, 28. See also Rosh Ha-Shanah 20a. She’ilta #79 stated explicitly that the 14th of Adar no longer fell on shabbat in its time. [14] The severe difficulties with interpreting yom ha-kenisah as the 13th of Adar are noted by many authorities. Interestingly, there exists a manuscript of Megillah 2a (NY- Columbia X 893 T141) in which this interpretation (taken from the She’iltot) is included on the Talmudic page. The statement למכתב צריך ולא בעריהם נקהלו היהודים שנ׳ היא לכל :included is קהילה זמן עשר שלשה אחא רב פיר׳ …לתענית ישראל בו שמתכנסין תענית It is therefore incorrect to state that the fast of יום דהוא the 13th of Adar is nowhere mentioned in the Talmud! [15] See my article, 335-339. Much of the relevant material is found at Ozar Ha-Ge’onim, Yom Tov, secs. 41-49. [16] The material in the Geonic responsum and in she’ilta #79 is very similar. But the passage “honoring the shabbat is more important than a thousand fasts” is found only in the Geonic responsum. The fact that the responsum does not illustrate seven scenarios, but only illustrates the scenarios of the 14th falling on Friday, Saturday, Sunday, and Monday, also suggests that the main motivation for its interpretations was related to shabbat and ‘erev shabbat. [17] Ozar Ha-Ge’onim, Yom Tov, 20, sec. 41. This was a polemical letter written to the Jews of North Africa and Spain, instructing them that Palestinian customs should not be followed. Pirkoy, a Babylonian Jew, tells us that he was a disciple of someone named Rava who was a disciple of R. Yehudai. (R. Yehudai was head of the academy at Sura from approximately 757-761 C.E.) Pirkoy writes that many of the Palestinian customs originated as emergency measures during times of persecution, or were customs resulting from ignorance. It was only in Babylonia that accurate traditions were preserved. Among the Palestinian practices that Pirkoy criticizes was their practice of fasting on shabbat. [18] The four are: R. Natronai, R. Se‘adyah, Al-Biruni, and the expanded version of Seder Parshiyyot Shel Yamim Tovim Ve- Haftarot Shelahen. R. Natronai refers to the fast as Ta‘anit -Al .אלמגלה צום Purim. R. Se‘adyah refers to the fast as Biruni, a Moslem scholar of Persian origin (writing in 1000 CE), calls the day “the fasting of Alburi” (Purim).Seder Parshiyyot probably dates from the late ninth or early tenth century. It includes a shortened version of the responsum of R. Natronai that had referred to the fast. There are only three manuscripts of the expanded version of Seder Parshiyyot, none of which was actually copied in Geonic Babylonia. Two of the manuscripts read Ta‘anit Esther, while one reads Ta‘anit Purim. Since R. Natronai’s original responsum readTa‘anit Purim, it seems likely that the manuscript of Seder Parshiyyot that reflects this reading has preserved the original reading and that the other reading originated with a copyist altering the name to fit the name for the fast prevailing in his locale. Massekhet Soferim refers to sheloshet yemey zom Mordekhai ve-Esther. But the reference is to the Palestinian practice of fasting three days on a Monday-Thursday-Monday cycle. Massekhet Soferim was most likely composed in the 9th or 10th century, in a community under Palestinian influence, such as or Byzantium. See Debra Reed Blank, “It’s Time to Take Another Look at at “Our Little Sister” Soferim: A Bibliographical Essay, JQR 90 (1999): 4 n. 10, and M. B. Lerner, “The External Tractates,” in The Literature of the Sages, ed. Shmuel Safrai, 399-400. [19] This Palestinian practice may even have preceded the Babylonian practice of fasting on the 13th, although this cannot be proven. [20] See my article, 333, n. 98. The fast of the 13th was already known in some areas as Ta‘anit Esther by the 11th century. Ibid., 332-333. Some Observations Regarding the Mah Nishtannah

Some Observations Regarding the Mah Nishtannah[1] by: Mitchell First 1. It is well-known that the Mishnah in the tenth chapter of includes a set of mah nishtannah. But if one opens a standard printed Babylonian Talmud (Pes. 116a), one sees four questions[2] in the text of the Mishnah (matzah, maror, roast, and dipping), while if one opens a standard printed Jerusalem Talmud, one sees three (dipping, matzah and roast). Is this an instance of a disagreement between the text of the Mishnah preserved in Babylonia and the text of the Mishnah preserved in Palestine? There are such disagreements,[3] but this is not one of them. Here, the manuscript evidence points overwhelmingly to the conclusion that the original text of the Mishnah recorded only the questions of dipping, matzah and roast.[4] Moreover, if one opens up a standardMasechet Pesachim of the Babylonian Talmud and looks at the text of the Mishnah recorded in the Rif and the Rosh, one sees that they too record a Mishnah which included only the questions of dipping, matzah and roast. Also, Rambam utilized a text of the Mishnah which included only these three questions.[5] Let us see how the Encyclopaedia Judaica in its original and new editions deal with this issue. When Daniel Goldschmidt published his classic work on the Haggadah in 1960, after earlier German and Hebrew versions,[6] he clearly took the position that the original text of the Mishnah included only three questions.[7] It was therefore somewhat surprising when the “Mah Nishtannah” entry in the originalEncyclopaedia Judaica (published in 1972 and written by the anonymous editors) stated that “[t]he Mishnah enumeratesfour questions.” In its bibliography, this entry had cited only Goldschmidt’s 1960 work, and one other less scholarly source.[8] We are now in the 21st century. There is now a widespread consensus among scholars that the original text of the Mishnah included only three questions.[9] But when one looks at the new edition of the Encyclopaedia Judaica, one finds only a reprint of the original entry![10] —— 2. A widely quoted explanation of the Vilna Gaon takes the positions that there were always four questions, and that, after the churban, the roast question was substituted by the reclining question.[11] We have already seen that the first of these positions is incorrect. The Haggadah fragments found in the Cairo Genizah show that the second of these positions is incorrect as well. Genizah material generally dates from the 10th through the 13th centuries.[12] It is reasonable to assume that this is roughly the period of the Haggadah fragments from the Genizah.[13] Of course, not all of the Haggadah fragments from the Genizah span the mah nishtannah section. But of those that do,many include the roast question.[14] (The survival of the roast question for 1000 years, post-churban, has been implicitly acknowledged in the Haggadah shel Pesach, Torat Chayim, published by Mossad ha-Rav Kook, at p. 29, n. 59.) [15] Furthermore, although most of the mah nishtannah Haggadah fragments found in the Genizah record four questions the way they are asked today,[16] we also find the following:[17] -Several record three questions: matzah, dipping, and roast,[18] just like the original text of the Mishnah. Most likely, the fragments with these three questions reflect the original Palestinian tradition of the Haggadah,[19] which followed the text of the Mishnah, and the fragments with four questions reflect the Babylonian tradition,[20] which gradually penetrated into Palestine and its surrounding areas.[21] -One records the following three questions: dipping, matzah and reclining.[22] -One records five questions: dipping, matzah, roast, maror, and reclining.[23] (See the photograph in M. Kasher,Haggadah Shelemah, p. 93.) In this fragment, the roast question is This is .צלי כולו המקדש בבית אוכלים היינו הזה והלילה …:phrased the only fragment in which the roast question is phrased with such a qualification. [24] -Two record only the questions of dipping and roast.[25] (But there does not appear to be any reason why the matzah question would have been intentionally discontinued. Perhaps the matzah question was accidentally dropped by a scribe in one source, and further copies were later made from that source. It would have been easy for a scribe to accidentally turn his eye to the wrongmah nishtannah line in the source he was copying from, and thereby omit a question.) – One records only the questions of dipping and matzah. I would like to focus on this last source, which is not actually a Haggadah fragment, but is a section of an anonymous Geonic responsum which includes an outline of the procedures at the seder. It can be deduced that the responsum was composed in Babylonia because it includes avadim hayyinu, which was not a part of the Palestinian seder ritual in this period.[26] This responsum was published by Louis Ginzberg, in his Ginzey Schechter, vol. 2, pp. 258-260. [27] Theoretically, it is possible to argue that the author of this responsum gave only an abbreviated version of the mah nishtannah, and listed only the first two questions, even though his practice was four. This seems to be the understanding of Ginzberg, who הראשונות השאלות ‘ב אלא כאן נאמרו ולא :(writes (p. 259, n. 1 B.M. Lewin included this responsum in his .נתקצר נשתנה מה נוסח Otzar ha-Geonim, Pesachim (pp. 154-55), and he seems to agree But (.נתקצר נשתנה מה נוסח :with Ginzberg. (See p. 154, n. 13 this interpretation seems very unlikely. The whole purpose of the responsum was to spell out the procedures and text of the seder. Abbrevation here would have defeated its purpose. The Safrais take a different approach to this responsum in their monumental work, Haggadat Hazal. They write (p. 64, n. 53) ,העמוד בסוף חסרות that the third and fourth questions are implying that these questions were originally included in this responsum but were cut off. Moreover, in their chart on p. 266, they put brackets over a supposed area of the third and fourth questions in this responsum, implying that these questions were once there. They take this approach so that the set of questions in our responsum could then parallel the set of questions found in the other known Babylonian Geonic sources of the Haggadah text: Seder R. Amram Gaon, Siddur R. Saadiah Gaon, and the Haggadah text published in 1984 by M. Lehman.[28] All these sources record the standard four questions: dipping, matzah, maror, and reclining.[29] But I was able to view an image of the responsum (T-S Misc.36.179), and with the kind permission of the Cambridge University Library, have included this image at the end of this article. It is clear that the third and fourth questions were never there. The first side of the fragment ends with the last words of the matzah question (the last three words of this question were written below the last regular line), and the next side continues immediately with avadim hayyinu. It is clear from the image that there are no missing lines in between. Assuming we reject the unlikely interpretation of Ginzberg, this source records a two-question set in Babylonia.[30] The idea that we have now been able to “excavate” such a set, evidence of a period before four questions became the universal practice there, is truly remarkable. An issue remains whether the responsum dates to the period before the maror and reclining questions were added in any Babylonian communities, or whether it dates to a period after they were added, but was composed in a community which did not add them. The latter seems more likely. (The responsum does have at least one other unique חורים בני היום[ו] עבדים :aspect.[31] It includes the statement The Safrais discuss this statement at p. 111 and .היינו אתמול do not mention any other fragments from the Genizah with this language.[32] On the image at the end of this article, this statement is found on the first page, six lines above the last full line.) Regarding the issue of when the maror and reclining questions were added, the following are some reasonable observations that have been made by scholars to date: ◦ The reclining question was probably the last question to be added.[33] Unlike the maror question, it did not make its way into in any manuscripts of the Mishnah,[34] and in all communities, it is the last question of the set.[35] ◦ The maror question probably did not arise until after the text of the dipping question was changed in Babylonia (seePes . 116a[36]) and the dipping question lost its connotation as a maror question. Once the dipping question lost this connotation, it was probably viewed as necessary to add a question relating to maror.[37] ◦ The reclining question probably originated in Babylonia as well.[38] It was probably added, after the maror question, due to a desire to fix the number of questions at four, parallel to the themes of four cups of wine and four sons.[39] Aside from Haggadah fragments found in the Genizah, the earliest sources which include the reclining question are: Seder R. Amram Gaon,[40] Siddur R. Saadiah Gaon,[41] and the Geonic Haggadah text published by Lehman in 1984. (With regard to Seder R. Amram Gaon, it is accepted that many additions and changes were made to it in the centuries after R. Amram’s death, c. 875. The three surviving manuscripts of the work are only from the 14th-16th centuries. See D. Goldschmidt, Seder R. Amram Gaon, pp. 11-13. With regard to the Siddur R. Saadiah Gaon, the material in our possession has traditionally been viewed as representing a generally reliable version of the original 10th century work by R. Saadiah.[42] With regard to the Geonic Haggadah text published by Lehman, see above, n. 28.) —— 3. A main issue of debate among scholars has been whether the mah nishtannah set of the Mishnah reflects questions from Temple times. If we a ,( הלילה הזה כולו צלי ) focus on the roast question reasonable initial assumption is that this question is referring to the pesach sacrifice, since the pesach sacrifice was something that was required to be roasted. This would suggest that this question, and hence perhaps all the questions, were composed during Temple times. But many scholars argue that the roast question is not referring to the pesach sacrifice and that this question was composed after the churban (and hence, the other questions probably were as well.) They make the following arguments: 1. A practice arose after the churban, approved (or perhaps initiated) by Rabban Gamliel of Yavneh, of eating a gedi mekulas as a method of commemorating the pesach sacrifice.[43] See Betzah 2:6-7 and Eduyyot 3:10-11. (Although these two sources do not specify that the Rabban Gamliel they are referring to is Rabban Gamliel of Yavneh, it seems fairly clear, for a variety of reasons, that this is the case here.[44]) The meaning of the term mekulas is subject to debate.[45] Nevertheless, it is clear that the gedi mekulas was not designated as a pesach sacrifice, but was arranged on the spit during the roasting process in the same manner as a pesach sacrifice, and was roasted in its entirety just like a pesach sacrifice. See איזהו גדי מקולס? כולו צלי ראשו וכרעיו) Tosef. Betzah 2:11 andPes. 74a.[46] The Sages prohibited thegedi ( וקרבו mekulas,[47] but it is possible that a large section of Jewry followed the leniency of Rabban Gamliel and engaged in this practice.[48] The roast question could have been composed post-churban in an area which followed this practice and could be referring to this practice.[49] 2. The Mishnah at Pesachim מקום שנהגו לאכול צלי בלילי פסחים, אוכלים; מקום:records 4:4 It is possible that this Mishnah .שנהגו שלא לאכול, אינן אוכלין was composed during Temple times and is referring to a practice of eating roast meat on the seder night outside the Temple. But just as likely, this Mishnah was composed after the churban and is referring to a post-churban practice of eating roast meat[50] as a commemoration of the pesach sacrifice. It is possible to understand the roast question in the Mishnah as composed, post-churban, in an area which followed this practice and as referring to this practice.[51] But (as pointed out to me by my friend Sam Borodach) the precise phrasing of the roast question does not support either of these interpretations. When read in light of the parallel matzah question, the roast question implies that the question is about a required behavior of the evening. While there were areas which had a custom on this evening, post-churban, to eat a gedi mekulas or to eat roast meat, these were not required behaviors. It is hard to imagine the roast question phrased the way it was by someone composing it with the above optional commemorative behaviors in mind. The language of the roast question, read in light of the parallel matzah question, fits the pesach sacrifice best.[52] Does it follow from this interpretation that the roast question was composed during Temple times? Not necessarily. Even if the roast question is referring to the pesach sacrifice, it very possibly could have been composed after the churban, as a simulation of a question that might have been asked during Temple times. Once the idea for a mah nishtannah question about matzah took hold, it would be have been natural and instructive to create a parallel question covering such an important commandment as the pesach sacrifice, even if the pesach sacrifice was no longer being offered. (All the more so if practices commemorating the pesach sacrifice were ongoing!) (It is also possible to understand the roast question as having been composed post- churban if the pesach sacrifice itself continued after the churban.[53] But the evidence for this is weak.[54]) The Mishnah that concerns us, Pesachim 10:4, is found in the last chapter of this masechet. This suggests that this Mishnah was composed after the churban, since it is reasonable to presume that mishnayot that are presented in the early parts of a masechet were composed first and thatmishnayot that are presented later were composed later.[55] Moreover, there is specific evidence suggesting that this particular chapter was composed after the churban. Mishnah 10:3 includes the This statement .ובמקדש מביאין לפניו גופו של פסח:statement suggests that the normative statements in this chapter describe only post-churban practice.[56] Of course, the questions themselves could still reflect questions from earlier times, which were recorded in a chapter composed after the churban. Based on recent scholarly developments, a new argument can be made to support the idea that the questions were composed post-churban. The mah nishtannah is not included in the tenth chapter of the Tosefta. This chapter includes much material parallel to the tenth chapter of the Mishnah. In his Tosefta Atikta, published in 2002, Shamma Friedman studied the relationship between the Mishnah and Tosefta of Pesachim in the first four chapters and in the tenth chapter.[57] He came to the conclusion that the material in the Tosefta in these chapters seems to have originated earlier.[58] If Friedman is correct, this also tends to support a post-churban origin for the mah nishtannah. So far, I have not discussed the precise role that the mah nishtannah serve in the Mishnah. But most likely, the mah nishtannah of the Mishnah was not a mandated piece of liturgy to be recited by the father or a typical son. Rather, it was what the child who lacks מה נשתנה אביו מלמדו, אם אין…) understanding is taught to ask This also perhaps implies thatmah the [דעת בבן).[59 nishtannah text was a later development. ——– Note finally that the Talmud, at Pes. 70a, records and accepts a statement by R. Hisda that the roast question was authored by Ben Tema. Ben Tema took the position that thechagigah too had to be roasted. In the view of R. Hisda, the language of the roast fit the position of Ben Tema ,הלילה הזה כולו צלי ,question only. Ben Tema is only mentioned at Pes. 70a and Yoma 83a and there is not enough information to determine if he lived during Temple times. (Some suggest that he is to be identified with R. Judah Ben Tema, who probably dates to the second century C.E,[60] but this identification is only conjecture.) The above statement of R. Hisda is not recorded again at Pes. 116a, where one would expect it.[61] R. Hisda’s statement is also surprising, because it takes an overly literal approach to the roast question. There is also no statement in the Jerusalem Talmud expressing the view that the roast question was authored by Ben Tema.[62] ———- To summarize, it is possible that the mah nishtannah was composed during Temple times, but it also possible that it was composed post-churban. In support of the latter is that the mah nishtannah is found in the last chapter of the masechet, and in a chapter whose normative language suggests that it was composed post-churban. The inclusion of a question about roast meat is not inconsistent with this approach. This question could have been composed post-churban in an area which followed the post- churban practice of preparing a gedi mekulas or in an area which followed the post-churban practice of eating roast meat. More likely, if the question was composed post-churban, it is referring to the pesach sacrifice and was composed for educational purposes, as a simulation of a question that might have been asked during Temple times. The fact that themah nishtannah is not included in the Tosefta may also support a post-churban origin for it. ——— Cambridge University Library T-S Misc.36.179 (reproduced by kind permission of the Syndics of Cambridge University Library)

[1] I would like to acknowledge Dr. Jay Rovner, Rabbi Mordy Friedman, and Sam Borodach for their thoughts and assistance. The views expressed are solely my own. Several sources will be cited throughout: -D. Goldschmidt,Haggadah shel Pesach (1960), cited as “Goldschmidt.” -M. Kasher, Haggadah Shelemah (third ed., 1967), cited as “Kasher.” -Y. Tabory, Pesach Dorot (1996), cited as “Tabory.” -S. and Z. Safrai, Haggadat (1998), cited as “Safrai.” -S. Friedman,Tosefta Atikta: Masechet Pesach Rishon (2002), cited as “Friedman.” -R. Steiner, “On the Original Structure and Meaning ofMah Nishtannah and the History of Its Reinterpretation,” JSIJ 7 (2008), pp. 1-41, cited as “Steiner.”[2] I will call them questions, even though some have argued that they are best understood, in the context of Mishnah 10:4, as explanations or exclamations. See, e.g., Safrai, pp. 31 and 206, and the sources cited by Steiner, pp. 21-22. Steiner strongly defends the traditional understanding of themah nishtannah as questions (actually, as one long question). He points out that ת”ר חכם:the Talmud (Pes. 116a) includes the following passage בנו שואלו ואם אינו חכם אשתו שואלתו ואם לאו הוא שואל לעצמו ואפילו שני תלמידי חכמים שיודעין בהלכות הפסח שואלין זה לזה מה נשתנההלילה הזה מכל הלילות שבכל הלילות אנו מטבילין פעם אחת Although the printed editions have):הלילה הזה שתי פעמים this ,מה נשתנה and שואלין זה לזה punctuation between punctuation is only a later addition. See Steiner, p. 26, n. 95, and Kasher, p. 35. But see Goldschmidt, p. 11, and Safrai, p. 112, for a different approach to the above text.) Steiner argues that the Mishnah is most properly understood as intending only one (long) question, i.e., “what special characteristic of this night is causing us to depart from our normal routine in so many ways?” He shows that R. Saadiah Gaon and every early medieval source understood the mah nishtannah as only one long question. It was not until the 13th century שאלותthat a medieval source first referred to them as (plural). A study of the the mah nishtannah inevitably raises other issues. Is the mah nishtannah to be recited by the child only if he cannot formulate his own questions? Is it perhaps to be recited by the father? On these issues, see,e.g., ,Safrai, p. 31 ,רד-רב .Goldschmidt, pp. 10-11, Kasher, pp ArtScroll Mishnah Series, comm. to Pes. 10:4, p. 210, and J. Kulp and D. Golinkin, The Schechter Haggadah: Art, History, and Commentary, p. 196. Most likely, the correct understanding of Mishnah 10:4 is that the mah nishtannah is what the child who lacks understanding is taught to ask. See Steiner, pp. 26, and 33-36. (Steiner suggests that we should read the beginning לשאל of Mishnah 10:4 elliptically as if it includes the words It was only (.אביו מלמדו and again after ,בבן דעת אין after sometime in the post-Talmudic period that the mah nishtannah began to be treated as a mandated piece of liturgy.[3] A well- known example is the first Mishnah in the fourth chapter of Bava Metzia. On this topic generally, see M. Schacter, “Babylonian-Palestinian Variations in the Mishnah,” JQR 42 (1951-52), pp. 1-35. [4] This is what the earliest and most reliable Mishnah manuscripts record. See Safrai, p. 26 and Tabory, pp. 260, 262, and 361.With regard to the order of these three questions, almost all of the early sources which record the mah nishtannah as dipping, matzah and roast, record them in that precise order. See Tabory, p. 262. Kasher, p. 113, n. 6, refers to eight manuscripts of the Babylonian Talmud to Pesachim which include the Mishnah. All but one include only the above three questions in their text of the Mishnah (in the order dipping, matzah, and roast). (In this note, Kasher did not cite the Munich 95 manuscript of the Talmud, which also includes only these three questions, because it includes them in a different order.) Almost certainly, it was the familiarity of later copyists with the maror question from the texts of their Haggadah that led them to insert it into texts of the Mishnah. See H. Guggenheimer, The Scholar’s Haggadah, p. 250. Now that it has been established that Mishnah 10:4 includes only three questions, many scholars claim that the three explanations of R. Gamliel at Mishnah 10:5 (pesach, matzah, maror) are the answers to the mah nishtannah. But this approach must be rejected. As Steiner explains (pp. 32-33), although the topics of themah nishtannah match the topics of the three explanations (the dipping question was the maror question of the time), the “explanations” given do not specifically answer the questions posed. Moreover, the mah nishtannah is most properly understood as only one long question,i.e., “what special characteristic of this night is causing us to depart from our normal routine in so many ways?” If so, what we should be looking for in an answer is one fundamental answer and not כל הפרשה … מתחיל ,three piecemeal ones. According to Steiner is the answer expressed in the Mishnah tomah the בגנות nishtannah. (The prevalent view among the Rishonim was that avadim hayyinu was the answer to the mah nishtannah. See Steiner, p. 31. But avadim hayyinu is not found in the Mishnah, and was not even included in the Palestinian seder ritual. See Steiner, p. 32 and below, n. 26.)[5] See the edition of the Rambam’s commentary on the Mishnah published by Y. Kafah. Rambam copied a text of the Mishnah (presumably one that he felt was authoritative) and wrote his commentary on that text. For most of the sedarim of the Mishnah (including Pesachim), we have this text of the Mishnah and the Rambam’s commentary, all written in the Rambam’s own hand. This text of the Mishnah with the Rambam’s commentary was published by Kafah. The edition of the Rambam’s commentary on the Mishnah included in a standard Talmud volume does not include a text of the Mishnah.[6] The German version was published in 1936. The earlier Hebrew version was published in 1947.[7] Goldschmidt, pp. 11-12. He also clearly took this position in the 1947 version (pp. 9-10, and p. 29). I have not seen the 1936 version.[8] The other source cited was: “J. Levy, A Guide to Passover (1958).” There is a typographical error here, as the author’s name was Isaac Levy. This was not a work which compared in any way with the level of scholarship reflected in Goldschmidt’s 1960 Haggadah. At p. 27, Levy assumed, without any discussion, that the Mishnah enumerated the matzah, maror, roast, and dipping questions.[9] E.g., Safrai, p. 26, Tabory, pp. 260, 262 and 361, Steiner, p. 32, and Kulp and Golinkin, pp. 198-99.[10] It includes no new bibliographical references either, unlike many of the other entries.[11] The Gaon’s explanation is printed at Kasher, at p. 115. According to this explanation, reclining at the seder would not have been a shinui prior to the churban, since it was the practice to eat while reclining all year round. Only after the Temple was destroyed did reclining at the seder become something unusual. At the same time, the pesach sacrifice ceased. The Gaon’s explanations to the Haggadah were first published in 1805 (a few years after his death) by his student R. Menachem Mendel of Shklov. The Encylopaedia Judaica entry “Mah Nishtannah” also essentially follows the approach of the Gaon. Another widely quoted view is that of the Rambam, who writes that there were originally five questions before the question about roast meat was dropped. The Rambam writes (Hilchot Chametz u- בזמן הזה אינו אומר והלילה הזה כולו צלי שאין לנו :(Matzah 8:3 R. Brody, The Geonim of Babylonia and the Shaping [קרבן. [12 of Medieval Jewish Culture, p. 32.[13] For a listing of the Haggadah fragments from the Genizah, see Safrai, pp. 293-301. Most of these have not been published.[14] For some published examples, see: 1) I. Abrahams, “Some Egyptian Fragments of the Passover Haggadah,” J.Q.R. (O.S.) 10 (1898), pp. 41-51, fragments # 2, 7,8 and 10; 2) the Haggadah manuscript first described briefly in an article by J.H. Greenstone in 1911, and later published in full by Goldschmidt; 3) the Haggadah manuscript published by Jay Rovner, “An Early Passover Haggadah According to the Palestinian Rite,” J.Q.R. 90 (2000), pp. 337-396, and 4) MS Cambridge T-S H2.152 (photograph at Kasher, p. 93). There are other such fragments as well. For example, see Safrai, p. 53, n. 21 and p. 114, nn. 9 and 11. (The manuscript published by Rovner is probably, but not certainly, from the Genizah.). In only one of these texts (T-S צלי כולו המקדש H2.152) was the text of the question amended to With one exception (see below), the roast .בבית אוכלים היינו question is found only among sets of mah nishtannah which are based on the three questions included in the Mishnah. These sets either follow the set of three included in the Mishnah, or have a modified version of the set which leaves out the matzah question (perhaps erroneously, see the discussion in the text). (But not all of the fragments which include the roast question include a complete set of questions, so the above conclusions are not absolute.) The exception is T-S H2.152 which includes the roast question along with four other questions. One text from the Genizah (Abrahams, fragment #5) includes the following blessing immediately after ha-motzi: מרורים מצות לאכל אבותינו את צוה אשר העולם מלך … ‘ה ‘א ‘ב הברית The Safrais quote)זוכר ‘ה ‘א ‘ב גבורותיו את להזכיר אש צלי בשר this text at p. 30, but erroneously leave out the words Whatever community was using this text was almost (.אבותינו את certainly eating roast meat at their meal, although Tabory (p. 103) raises the possibility that they may have only been partaking a small, symbolic amount. A similar blessing is found in a different Genizah fragment printed by the Safrais at p. 289. There, however, the blessing is included before the blessing for washing and ha-motzi, so it is less clear that the blessing was meant to precede the actual eating of roast there are ,הברית זוכר meat. Regarding the concluding blessing other fragments from the Genizah which include such a blessing אש צלי in this section of the Haggadah (without reference to See, e.g, the Greenstone-Goldschmidt manuscript .( בשר (Goldschmidt, p. 83), and Abrahams, fragment #7. For further discussion of this concluding blessing, see Goldschmidt, p. 60, n. 10.

[15] The passage reads: זו שאלה גם גורסים הגדות שבמספר י עמ׳ שלמה הגדה עי׳. [16] Safrai, p. 113. (I am not concerned with variation in the order of these four questions.)[17] In this section, I am only including fragments whose total number of questions in their mah nishtannah set can be determined. Therefore, I am not including fragments such as Abrahams #7 and Abrahams #8, which include mah nishtannah questions but which are cut off mid- set. For example, Abrahams fragment #7 starts with the roast question, but is cut off before it. Abrahams fragment #8 starts in the middle of the matzah question. [18] See, e.g., Abrahams, fragments #2 and #10. See also our discussion below of the Greenstone-Goldschmidt fragment. Safrai writes (p. 65) of the Haggadah fragments from the Genizah are ניכר מספר that of this type. [19] Safrai, pp. 26, 64 and 113. But a few fragments which include the roast question follow the Babylonian rite in other essential respects. See Safrai, p. 30, n. 55, and p. 114, n. 9.[20] Safrai, pp. 113 and 206.[21] We know from many other contexts that Babylonian customs gradually penetrated into Palestine and its surrounding areas and became the majority custom. See, e.g., Brody, The Geonim of Babylonia and the Shaping of Medieval Jewish Culture, pp. 111, 115, and 117. (An example is the practice of reciting kedushah in the daily amidah. The letter of Pirkoi ben Baboi, early 9th cent., describes how Babylonian Jews moved to Palestine and forced Palestinian Jews to adopt the Babylonian practice of reciting kedushah daily.) See also I. Ta-Shema, Ha-Tefillah ha-Ashkenazit ha-Kedumah, p. 7. [22] See Kasher, It is MS ”.קp. 113, n. 11. Kasher calls this manuscript “21 Cambridge T-S H2.145. It is possible that this is not a legitimate variant and that the maror question was omitted in error by the scribe who copied this fragment. As explained in the text, the reclining question was almost certainly the last question added and there was little reason for a community to have dropped the maror question. We also have evidence of a mah nishtannah set of dipping, matzah, and maror. This does not come from the Genizah, but from additions inscribed at the end of a certain siddur. The siddur was authored by a rabbinic authority from Morocco, who lived in the 11th or 12th century. The additions, inscribed by the owner of the siddur, describe various local rites, and include a mah nishtannah set of dipping, matzah and maror. See Rovner, p. 351, n. 57.[23] T-S H2.152. [24] Safrai, p. 53. This set is so aberrant that it may not reflect an actual rite. Possibly, the set was created by a lone scribe who combined the various questions that he knew of into one set. Since this set records the language of the roast question in a manner found nowhere else, this is evidence that the scribe who copied this fragment may have been a creative one.[25] The Haggadah manuscript published by Rovner clearly records only these two questions. The Greenstone-Goldschmidt manuscript initially recorded only these two questions, but a later scribe inserted the matzah and the first line א/ד question. See the last line of fragment in the photos at Goldschmidt, p. ii. These ,ב/ד of fragment photos show that these lines are in a different handwriting. (The Safrais also print a text of the Goldstone-Goldschmidt manuscript. But they print it as if it included all three questions initially. See Safrai, pp. 286-89.) [26] Safrai, p. 50. See also the responsum of R. Natronai Gaon quoted, for example, at Kasher, pp. 27-28, Goldschmidt, p. 73, and Safrai, pp. 56-57. (In this responsum, R. Natronai criticizes an alternative Haggadah ritual for many reasons, one of which was the ritual’s omission of avadim hayyinu. R. Natronai thought it was a sectarian Haggadah ritual. It turns out that he was criticizing the Palestinian Haggadah ritual. See Goldschmidt, p. 74, Safrai, pp. 56-59, and Brody, p. 96.)[27] It is cited The responsum is .ש in Kasher, p. 113, n. 11 with the symbol not devoted solely to the seder. The first few lines of the responsum, whose beginning is cut off, deal with the hoshanot of Sukkot.[28] M. Lehman, Seder ve-Haggadah Shel Pesach le-Rav Natronai Gaon Al Pi Ketav-Yad Kadmon, in Sefer Yovel li-Chevod Morenu ha-Gaon Rabi Yosef Dov ha-Levi Soloveitchik Shelita, ed. S. Israeli, vol. 2, pp. 976-993, at p. 986. The title of Lehman’s article is unfortunate. The text of the article does not even claim that the Geonic Haggadah text published there served as the Haggadah of R. Natronai Gaon. Lehman composed the article initially based on a manuscript which spanned three sections, one of which was a Haggadah text. The first section of the manuscript included a caption stating that the material in that section (a long paytanic version of kiddush for Passover, and a long paytanic version of the blessing before drinking the second cup) was enacted and arranged by R. Natronai. The Haggadah section had its own caption which stated that what followed was the text of the Haggadah accepted by the Talmud and the Geonim (with no mention of R. Natronai). Three Passover-related responsa followed, without any caption. Later, Lehman acquired another page from the same manuscript. He writes that the body of his article was already in final form by this time, but he was able to add his discussion of the new page at the end of the article. The new page included three anonymous responsa, one of which is recorded elsewhere in the name of R. Hai Gaon. This made Lehman realize (p. 991) that his pages were part of a collection of material from various Geonim, and not material that may all have had some connection to R. Natronai. Probably, the article was given its title (by Lehman or perhaps by someone else) before Lehman acquired the additional page. But even before Lehman acquired the additional page, the title was unjustified, as the Haggadah section had its own caption which did not connect it to R. Natronai. (Despite its caption, even the material in the first section of the manuscript may not have been composed by R. Natronai.) It is unfortunate that the Safrais refer to Lehman’s text throughout their work as the “Haggadah of R. Natronai Gaon.” It is evident fom their discussion of this text (p. 261) that all they were really willing to accept is that the text reflected a Haggadah from the time of the Geonim in general.[29] See Safrai, pp. 261 and 266.[30] See Kasher, p. 42, J. Rovner, “An Early Passover Haggadah: Corrigenda,” JQR 91 (2001), p. 429 (correcting p. 351, n. 59 in his original article), and J. Kulp and D. Golinkin, The Schechter Haggadah: Art, History, and Commentary, p. 199. Note that the Rif quotes a text of M. Pesachim 10:4 which includes only the questions of dipping, פסחא לן דלית צלי בשר לימא matzah and roast, and then remarks It can be argued based on this that, in his .לא והשתא community, the mah nishtannah at the seder may have only included dipping and matzah.[31] Perhaps close examination of the responsum will reveal other unique aspects. The responsum follows an alternative nusach for kiddush, but this nusach is widely attested to. See, e.g., Siddur R. Saadiah Gaon, pp. Safrai, p. 61, and ,ג-ב Kasher, pp. 183-85 and ,141-142 Lehman, pp. 977-980 and 982-83. The responsum records the yitziatabout מסיחין Sages in Bnei Brak as having been mitzrayim all night. But there is other evidence for this See Safrai, p. 208.[32] But .משיחין :reading or its equivalent this language is recorded in the haggadot of Djerba (which also include the standard language that we are now slaves and will be free next year). See Kasher, p. 201, and Safrai, p. 111, n. 6. (Djerba is an island off the coast of Tunisia. The Jewish community there has ancient roots. ) R. Shlomo Goren saw fit to to include the above Geonic language (along with the standard language) in the haggadah he composed for the use of the Israeli army. See, e.g., Kasher, p. 201, citing the הראשית edition of the Haggadah Shel Pesach published by 1956 Many editions of thishaggadah were published .הצבאית הרבנות and I saw this language in later editions as well. Kasher discusses the Geonic language at pp. 198-201 and attempts to provide a rationale for it.[33] Tabory, p. 260.[34] The maror question made its way into some, but not the earliest, texts of the Mishnah. See Tabory, p. 261.[35] Tabori, p. 261, n. 36.[36] In Amoraic Babylonia, there was no practice of dipping throughout the year. This led the Babylonian to rephrase the question. Based on the statements by the Babylonian Amoraim expressed at Pes. 116a, the text of the dipping question was changed in many Mishnah manuscripts. Various forms of the question developed. See Safrai, p. 27, and Goldschmidt, p. 77.[37] Tabory, pp. 261-262. Almost certainly, the original formulation of this question described ,SeeSiddur R. Saadiah Gaon, p. 137 .מרורים the herb as variant) יא-י .Goldschmidt, p. 12, Kasher, pp. 113-14 and pp readings), and Tabory, p. 261. See also Rambam,Hilchot Chametz u-Matzah 8:2. (In the nusach ha-haggadah included in But .מרור the standard printed Mishnah Torah, the reading is מרורים the Frankel edition points out that some versions read is the phrase used in the Bible (Ex. 12:8 and מרורים (.here refers to only one of מרור Num. 9:11). Moreover, the singular the five herbs with which one can fulfill one’s obligation. See M. Pes. 2:6.[38] In suggesting that both the maror and reclining questions arose in Babylonia, I am following the approach of the Safrais. The Safrais believe that even though the majority of the mah nishtannah Haggadah fragments from the Genizah include dipping, matzah, maror and reclining, these fragments do not reflect the original Palestinian custom. These fragments only show that the Babylonian custom became the majority custom in Palestine and its surrounding areas. [39] Guggenheimer, p. 250. [40] P. 113 (ed. Goldschmidt).[41] P. 137.[42] But N. Cohen has noted several contradictions between the instructions provided by R. Saadiah and the liturgical texts, and between parallel prayer texts in different sections. According to Cohen, some of the liturgical texts included in the Siddur may have been supplied by later copyists, or at least changed by them. See Cohen, le-Ofiyyo ha-Mekori shel Siddur Rav Saadiah Gaon, Sinai 95 (1983/84), pp. 249-67. Cohen does not address the mah nishtannah in her study.[43] A gedi (=young goat) was one of the animals permitted for the pesach sacrifice. Ex. 12:5 states that the from a lamb=) מן הכבשים ומן העזים pesach sacrifice must come or a goat). [44] One such reason is that plain references to Rabban Gamliel (i.e., without the description “ha-Zaken”) are almost always references to Rabban Gamliel of Yavneh. See Safrai, p. 28, n. 50, E. Schurer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, ed. Vermes, Millar and .בשפחתו .Black, vol. 2, p. 368, n. 48, and Tos. Niddah 6b, s.v A story referring to a practice of preparing a gedi mekulas among Roman Jewry, and the objection of the Sages of Palestine, is found in many sources. See,e.g., Pes. 53a: תודוס איש רומי הנהיג את בני רומי לאכול גדיים מקולסין בלילי פסחים שלחו לו אלמלא תודוס אתה גזרנו עליך נדוי שאתה מאכיל את See alsoBer. 19a, Bezah 23a, and in the … ישראל קדשים בחוץ Jerusalem Talmud: Pes. 7:1, Bezah 2:7, and Mo’ed Katan 3:1. Most scholars believe that Todos lived after the churban. See Tabory, p. 98. But there are some scholars who believe that Todos lived during Temple times. See Safrai, p. 28, n. 52. Even if it can shown that there was a practice outside of Palestine of preparing a gedi mekulas during Temple times, this does not mean that there was such a practice in Palestine, where going to Jerusalem and participating in an actual pesach sacrifice was largely possible. (The version of the above story in the standard printed edition of the Talmud at Ber. 19a states that the message to Todos was sent by Simeon b. Shetach. But this is an erroneous reading. See Tabory, p. 98.) Aside from being recorded in both , the above story is also recorded in the Tosefta (Bezah 2:11). But תודוס איש רומי:the Tosefta has a slightly different reading הנהיג את בני רומי ליקח טלאים בלילי פסחים ועושין אותן מקולסין… . גדי a broader term than ,שה is the Aramaic term for טלא Regarding the significance of this reading, see S. Lieberman, Tosefta ki-Feshutah, 5, p. 959.[45] See the following איזהו גדי מקולס? כולו צלי, ראשו:note.[46] Tosef. Betzah 2:11 וכרעיו וקרבו. בישל ממנו כל שהוא שלק ממנו כל שהוא אין זה גדי איזהו גדי מקולס דאסור לאכול בלילי פסח בזמן :Pes. 74a … מקולס הזה כל שצלאו כולו כאחד .נחתך ממנו אבר נשלק ממנו אבר אין זה גדי Perhaps it was only the preparation of agedi mekulas) מקולס that was forbidden by the Sages, or perhaps the preparation of was forbidden as well. See the version of מקולס שה any kind of the story involving Todos recorded in Tosef. Betzah 2:11 and Lieberman, Tosefta ki-Feshutah, 5, p. 959.) There was a dispute as to the proper manner of positioning the legs and entrails of the pesach sacrifice while it was being roasted. See M. Pesachim 7:1. The view of R. Akiva was that they are hung outside it. This perhaps sheds light on the meaning of the difficult term mekulas. Mekulas in Aramaic can be interpreted as wearing a helmet (see the similar word at Targum Pseudo-Jonathan to I Sam. 17:5). According to Rashi, comm. to Pes. 74a, when R. Akiva expressed the view that the legs and entrails were roasted outside the animal, he meant that they were placed above its head. This made the goat look like it was wearing a helmet. Mekulas would therefore be another way of describing the method of positioning according to R. Akiva. (Rashi elsewhere give a slightly different interpretation of how the term mekulas accords with the view of R. Akiva. See Rashi, comm. to Pes. 53a and Betzah 22b.) An alternative approach is to understandmekulas as meaning “beautiful” or “praised.” See, e.g., Rambam, comm. to Mishnah, often has the meaning “to קלס Betzah, 2nd chap. The root beautify” or “to praise” in rabbinic literature, derived from the Greek word καλος (beautiful). See also J. Gereboff, Rabbi Tarfon: The Tradition, the Man, and Early Rabbinic Judaism, p. 70, where two other Greek derivations formekulas are suggested: καλως, an animal led on a string, and κολος, a hornless animal. Gereboff also cites S. Krauss for the view that χαυλος in Greek means “helmeted.” See also Tabory, p. 97, n. 248.[47] No reason is given in the Mishnah for the Sages’ prohibition. But in the response to Todos, a reason is given. If the practice of preparing a gedi mekulas is permitted, people will think that kodshim can be eaten outside of the azarah, because the practice was to refer to the gedi mekulas as if it were a pesach offering. Probably, Palestinian Jewry as well as Roman Jewry referred to the gedi mekulas as if it were a pesach offering. See below, n. 54.[48] There would be evidence of this if the custom referred to at M. Pesachim 4:4 is the custom to prepare and eat a gedi mekulas. [49] The Safrais (p. 28), for example, take this approach, as does Friedman (p. 92).[50] Some scholars argue that the custom being referred to in this Mishnah is simply the custom to prepare and eat a gedi mekulas. See, e.g., Safrai, pp. 27-28. But this is not the plain sense of the Mishnah.[51] Scholars who take this approach include G. Allon, The Jews in their Land in the Talmudic Age, pp. 264-65, and Goldschmidt, p. 12. In this approach, the roast question arose in connection with what was perhaps the practice of a large section of Jewry. By contrast, the custom to prepare a gedi mekulas may not have been a widespread custom. [52] A response to this would be that the roast question was phrased the way it was so it could be parallel to the matzah question, even though the phrasing did not exactly fit the concept of an optional commemorative practice.[53] There are those who suggest that the pesach sacrifice (and other sacrifices as well) continued after the churban (perhaps outside the makom ha-mikdash and without the permission of the Sages). See, e.g., J. Brand, “Korban Pesach le-Achar Churban Bayit Sheni,” Ha-Hed 12/6 (1937) and 13/7 (1938), and the references at D. Bleich, Contemporary Halakhic Problems, vol. 1, pp. 247-48. See also Tabory, Moadey Yisrael be-Tekufat ha-Mishnah ve-ha-Talmud, p. 99, n. 65.[54] For example, M. Pesachim 7:2 records a story in which Rabban Gamliel told his slave Tavi to go out and roast “the pesach” on the roasting tray. (The Rabban Gamliel who had a slave named Tavi was Rabban Gamliel of Yavneh. See Safrai, p. 28.) But this story can easily be interpreted as involving only the preparation of a gedi mekulas, post-churban, with the term “pesach” being used only loosely. For similar probable loose usages of the term “pesach,” see Tosef. Ohalot 3:9 and 18:18, and J. Talmud Meg. 1:11. See also Tabory, p. 100-101. The argument that the pesach sacrifice continued after the churban has also been made based on a passage in Josephus’ Antiquities. Josephus writes (II, 313): “to this day we keep this sacrifice in the same customary manner, calling the feast Pascha…” Josephus tells us (XX, 267) that he completed this work in the 13th year of the reign of Domitian (= 93-94 C.E). (The precise year that book II was written is unknown.) But Josephus was writing in Rome, not Palestine, and almost certainly all he meant is that the pesach sacrifice has been kept throughout the centuries through approximately his time. See also B. Bokser, The Origins of the Seder, p. 106. The historian Procopius, describing events in Palestine in the 6th century, wrote: [W]henever in their calendar Passover came before the Christian Easter, [Justinian] forbade the Jews to celebrate it on their proper day, to make then any sacrifices to God or perform any of their customs. Many of them were heavily fined by the magistrates for eating lamb at such times… In the late 4th or early 5th century, the church father Jerome wrote: Take any Jew you please who has been converted to Christianity, and you will see that he practices the rite of circumcision on his newborn son, keeps the Sabbath, abstains from forbidden food, and brings a lamb as an offering on the 14th of Nissan. See Secret History of Procopius, ed. R. Atwater, pp. 260-261 and S. Krauss, “The Jews in the Works of the Church Fathers,” JQR (OS) 6 (1893/1894), p. 237. But almost certainly, these passages are only referring to the practice of slaughtering a gedi mekulas. See Safrai, p. 30, n. 55. (Obviously, the references to “sacrifices” and “offering” in the above passages are only translations.)

There is evidence that the practice of preparing agedi mekulas on the seder night continued in Palestine through at least the 7th century. This is seen from the Palestinian work Sefer ha-Maasim which dates from this time and includes the following passage: … קרבו על כרעיו ראשו על שלם ניצלה זה מקולס גדי . See T. Rabinovitz, Sefer“ ha-Maasim le-Vnei Eretz Yisrael:Seridim Hadashim,” Tarbitz 41 (1972), p. 284. Sefer ha-Maasim is a work whose purpose seems to have been to record decisions of halachah applicable in its time. Safrai p. 30, and Rabinovitz, p. 280.[55] Actually, the matter of the order of the chapters in Mishnah Pesachim is not so simple. Some manuscripts of the Talmud and commentaries by Rishonim follow an arrangement in which the tenth chapter follows the first four chapters. All these chapters together are called Masechet Pesach Rishon and the other chapters are calledMasechet Pesach Sheni. R. Menachem Meiri writes that this alternative arrangement dates from the time of the Geonim or later. See Safrai, p. 19, n. 1. But some scholars, such as Shamma Friedman, believe that this alternative arrangement has a more ancient origin. See Friedman, p. 12, n. 5. If this alternative arrangement was the original arrangement, it is a mistake to view the tenth chapter as if it were the last of ten chapters.[56] Also, the names of the Sages included in the tenth chapter are: R. Tarfon, R. Akiva, R. Yose, R. Yishmael, Rabban Gamliel, and R. Eliezer b. R. Tzadok. (References to “Rabban Gamliel” in the Mishnah, without the description “ha- Zaken,” are almost always references to Rabban Gamliel of Yavneh. As to R. Eliezer b. R. Tzadok, he was active both before and after the churban.) M. Pesachim 10:6 records that R. Akiva included a prayer for the rebuilding of Jerusalem at ערבי פסחים סמוך למנחה לא his seder. The introductory statement and the detailed instructions governing the יאכל אדם עד שתחשך drinking of wine also give the impression of a chapter composed after the churban, detailing how an individual was obligated to conduct himself in his home. See Friedman, p. 409. Two arguments between Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai are also included in this chapter. In general, these reflect arguments from Temple times. But the author or editor of chapter 10 could simply have inserted this earlier material into a chapter composed after the churban. See Safrai, p. 19. Many ובמקדש היו מביאין לפניו :printed editions of Mishnah 10:3 read is a later addition. (See Safrai, p. 25 היו But .גופו של פסח and Friedman, pp. 89 and 430.) Some have argued that the provides a basis for dating this section of the היו absence of Mishnah, and by implication, the rest of the chapter, to Temple times. In this interpretation, the Mishnah first states and ,(הביאו לפניו…) in its time גבולין the practice in the in its time מקדשthen continues with the practice in the ,But as Safrai (p. 25) and Friedman (pp. 89 .(ובמקדש מביאין…) 430-32 and 438) point out, such an interpretation is very does not change the meaning היו unlikely, and the addition of of the phrase but correctly clarifies the original meaning. The debate about whether the tenth chapter was composed before or after the churban is summarized nicely by Friedman (see, e.g., pp. 88-92, 430-432, and 437-38). Friedman strongly advocates the position that the chapter was composed after the churban.[57] With regard to why these particular chapters were chosen, see above, n. 55.[58] The precise relationship between the Mishnah and the Tosefta has always been an issue. See, e.g., the entry “Tosefta” in the originalEncyclopaedia Judaica and the revised entry in the new edition.[59] Steiner, pp. 26, and 33-36. Steiner suggests that we should read this after לשאל statement elliptically as if it includes the words See EJ 10:354 and [מלמדו אביו.[and again after 60 ,בבן דעת אין S. Friedman, le-Ofiyyan shel ha-Beraitot be-Talmud ha-Bavli: Ben Tema u-Ben Dortai, in Netiot le-David: Sefer ha-Yovel le- [כולו.[David Halivni, pp. 248-255.[61] But see Tos., s.v. 62 Many authorities seem to disregard the statement of R. Hisda. For example, the Rif writes that thechagigah is to be commemorated at the seder by an item that is mevushal. Yet he implies in a different passage that the roast question was a normative question during Temple times. Similarly, the Rambam does not follow the position of Ben Tema (see Hilchot Karban Pesach 10:13), but at the same time, he includes the roast question in his list of mah nishtannah from Temple times. See Hilchot Chametz u-Matzah 8:2 (and Lechem Mishneh there). Note that R. Joseph Caro, OH 473, takes the position that the egg .Compare Tos .מבושלת that commemorates the chagigah should be .thehalachah follows Ben Tema), and R) שני .Pes. 114b, s.v Moses Isserles, OH 473 (the egg that commemorates the chagigah must be roasted). Friedman, in his Tosefta Atikta: Masechet Pesach Rishon (2002), pp. 91-92, accepts the essence of the interpretation of R. Hisda, but believes that the roast question must have been composed in accordance with a majority view. This leads him to conclude that the roast question must have been composed after the churban. (In Temple times, a chagigah offering was brought, and according to the majority view, it was not roasted. Since the roast question includes it could not have been composed ,הלילה הזה כולו צלי the phrase in accordance with the majority view in Temple times.) In a later article, le-Ofiyyan shel ha-Beraitot be-Talmud ha-Bavli: Ben Tema u-Ben Dortai, pp. 195-274, in Netiot le-David: Sefer ha-Yovel le-David Halivni (2004), Friedman discusses the Ben Tema passage extensively, and takes a different approach.