DOCSLIB.ORG

Hillel the Elder, Encyclopaedia Judaica, Second Edition, Volume 9, 108-110 Hillel (The Elder; End of First Century B.C.E

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Hillel the Elder, Encyclopaedia Judaica, Second Edition, Volume 9, 108-110 Hillel (The Elder; End of First Century B.C.E Hillel The Elder, Encyclopaedia Judaica, Second Edition, Volume 9, 108-110 Hillel (the Elder; end of first century B.C.E. and beginning of first century C.E.), considered one of the “fathers of the world” (Eduy. 1:4; Tosef. Eduy. 1:3) who laid the foundations for the spiritual and intellectual movement of the tannaitic period. Hillel was one of the last pair of *zugot. At first *Menahem was his colleague but when he withdrew *Shammai succeeded him (Ḥ ag. 2:2). After the period of the zugot, Hillel’s descendants established a dynasty which was to dominate rabbinic circles in the land of Israel for more than 400 years. When dealing with rabbinic or proto-rabbinic figures of Hillel’s stature, it is always important to distinguish between the earlier and more historically reliable tannaitic sources, and the later Talmudic traditions which often have a more legendary character. In the case of Hillel, however, even the earliest extant rabbinic sources are highly legendary in nature. For example, a tannaitic midrash (Sifre Deut. 357) provides the following outline of Hillel’s “biography”: “‘And Moses was 120 years old’ – He was one of four who died at the age of 120, and they are Moses, Hillel the Elder, Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai, and Rabbi Akiva. Moses was in Egypt for 40 years; in Midian for forty years; served and lead Israel for 40 years. Hillel the Elder came up from Babylonia at the age of 40; studied under the sages for 40 years; served and lead Israel for 40 years. Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai engaged in business for 40 years; studied under the sages for 40 years; served and lead Israel for 40 years. Rabbi Akiva began to learn Torah at the age of 40; studied under the sages for 40 years; served and lead Israel for 40 years.” Clearly the point of this midrash is to establish a typological connection between these three rabbinic heroes and their biblical model – Moses. Any attempt to glean concrete historical information from this tradition would therefore be misguided. The notion that Hillel came from Babylonia is attested elsewhere (Tosef. Neg. 1:16; Sifra Tazria 9:15), but beyond this we are on shaky ground. For evidence of Hillel’s character we have the following tradition from Tosef. Sot. 13:3: “Once the sages were gathered together in the upper chamber of the house of Guria in Jericho, when a heavenly voice came out and said to them: ‘There is one here among you who is worth of receiving the holy spirit (prophecy), but his generation does not deserve it’. They all looked at Hillel the Elder. When he died they said: So humble; so pious – a true disciple of Ezra.” This aspect of Hillel’s personality developed in later aggadot into a stereotypical feature, standing in equally stereotypical opposition to Shammai’s presumably harsh and difficult personality. Thus in TB Shabbat (31a) we find the story of three candidates for conversion who were rejected by Shammai and accepted by Hillel because of his “humility,” though the terms “patience” and “insight” would better characterize Hillel’s behavior there. In this context Hillel is reported to have summarized the entire Torah, saying “What is hateful to you, don’t do to your companion” (cf. The Book of Tobit 4:15, ed. F. Zimmerman, 70, 159ff.; Sifra Kedosh. ch. 4:12 and Gen. R. 24). Another late aggadah (Yoma 35b) tells of Hillel’s “humble” origins, i.e., his devotion to the study of Torah despite his abject poverty, which nearly led to his freezing to death on the roof of the study hall when, on one occasion, he was unable to pay the entrance fee. The only obvious connection between this famous story and the earlier tannaitic traditions about Hillel is that the first three letters of the Hebrew word for “humble” also spell the Hebrew word for “poor.” The traditions surrounding Hillel’s appointment to the office of Nasi deserve special attention. Tosefta Pes. 4:13 tells that on one occasion Passover fell on a Sabbath, and “they asked Hillel the Elder” if the offering of the paschal lamb overrode the Sabbath or not. According to the Tosefta, Hillel responded somewhat cryptically: “Is there only one paschal offering which overrides the Sabbath every year? Are there not more than three hundred “paschal offerings” each year which override the Sabbath?” We are then told that “all [those present in] the Temple courtyard descended upon him” (cf. Tosef. Ḥ ag. 2:11). Hillel apparently was referring to the daily sacrifice which regularly overrides the Sabbath. He then proceeded to present no fewer than four different legal justifications for his ruling. The first three justifications base the ruling in the case of the paschal offering on a legal precedent – the daily sacrifice. All three involve some form of legal reasoning, and the last two seem to use apparently standard tannaitic hermeneutical techniques for the exposition of scripture. The fourth justification consists of an appeal to accepted religious authority: “Moreover, I have received an explicit tradition from my teachers that the paschal offering overrides the Sabbath.” After a brief side discussion the Tosefta concludes: “On that very day they appointed Hillel as Nasi, and he instructed them in the laws of the Passover.” There are many points in this story which demand clarification. Who asked Hillel this question? Who were Hillel’s teachers from whom he had heard this halakhah, and why was this tradition unknown to the rest of those present? If Hillel indeed had received such a tradition from his teachers, why did he at first respond cryptically and then offer three independent and presumably original derivations of this law? If Hillel in fact offered three independent derivations of the law that paschal offering overrides the Sabbath and backed it up with an explicit tradition from his teachers, why do three halakhic Midrashim (Mech. Pisḥa 5; Sifre Num. 65, 142) ascribe a very similar midrashic derivation of this very law to R. Josiah, a much later tanna? What is the relation of this tradition to another tannaitic tradition (Tosef. Sanh. 7:11; Sifra, Baraita of Rabbi Ishmael) which states that “Hillel used seven hermeneutical methods before the elders of Patera (Batera)”? To all these questions the later Talmudic tradition (TJ Pes. 6:1, 33a; TB Pes. 66a) provides clear and unequivocal answers – though not always the same ones. First of all, later tradition identifies the events surrounding the paschal offering with the traditions concerning Hillel’s use of seven hermeneutical methods before the Elders of Patera, who are apparently viewed as representing established authority in the Temple prior to Hillel’s appointment (cf. TJ Kil. 9:3, 32b; TB BM 85a). Moreover, Hillel’s “teachers” are identified as Shemaiah and Avtalyon, who preceded Hillel and Shammai in the traditional list of zugot. Since an explicit tradition from Shemaiah and Avtalyon must have been known to anyone holding legitimate office in the Temple, the Talmudic story begins by stating: “This halakhah was forgotten by the Elders of Batera” (TJ; TB: Sons of *Bathyra). After being informed that a certain “Babylonian” named Hillel was present, who had studied under Shemaiah and Avtalyon, the Elders of Batera (apparently reluctantly) turned to Hillel to see if he had anything to offer on the subject. At this point the Babylonain and the Jerusalem Talmuds part ways in relating the story. According to the Jerusalem Talmud Hillel offered three interpretations in order to justify his position, but the Elders of Batera refuted every single one of them. Only when Hillel testified that he had received an explicit tradition on this matter from Shemaiah and Avtalyon, were the Elders of Batera willing to accept his view and to appoint him as Nasi. In the Babylonian Talmud, Hillel presents two original scriptural interpretations to justify his ruling, and on the basis of these original interpretations alone, they accepted his view and appointed him as Nasi. The difference between these two versions would seem to turn, therefore, on the question of the relative weight one should ascribe to original interpretation as opposed to accepted tradition in the deciding of this halakhic question. The Talmudic versions of the story probably do not reflect ancient and reliable historical traditions, but are rather a result of later editorial elaboration and reworking of ancient literary sources. Even the earliest forms of these traditions (Tosef. Pes. 4:13; Tosef. Sanh. 7:11; Sifra, Baraita of Rabbi Ishmael) cannot be simply accepted as accurately representing actual historical events in Hillel’s life. Nevertheless, even some of the greatest Talmudic scholars have assumed that these traditions – in their latest and most highly elaborated Talmudic versions – preserve ancient and reliable historical sources, and have used them as such (e.g. Epstein. ITL. 510–511; Lieberman, Hellenism, 54, no. 58). Relatively few halakhot are actually ascribed in tannaitic sources to Hillel himself. Most of these halakhot consist of brief statements of no more than two to five words (Eduy. 1:1–3, Sifra, Shemini 9:5; but see Sifre Zuta Num. 30). Other halakhot are indirectly attributed to Hillel (Tosef. Neg. 1:16, Sifra Tazria 9:15; Tosef. Ber. 2:22; Tosef.; cf. Tosef.Ketub. 7:9). Similarly two very important rabbinic decrees – takkanot – are attributed to him. These takkanot provide evidence of Hillel’s interest in civil law and economic matters. The first was the *prosbul, designed to prevent the complete cancellation of debts during the sabbatical year, since with changing economic conditions it became difficult to carry out the biblical law, and the economy which was based upon credit and loans was thereby imperiled (Shev.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Regulating Communal Space: Mikvaot in Seventeenth-Century Altona
    EMW - Workshops EMW 2010 EARLY MODERN WORKSHOP: Jewish History Resources Volume 7: Jewish Community and Identity in the Early Modern Period, 2010, Wesleyan University, Middletown, CT Regulating Communal Space: Mikvaot in Seventeenth-Century Altona Debra Kaplan, Yeshiva University, USA ABSTRACT: Over the course of a few years in the latter half of the seventeenth century, the community of Altona made several changes in the administration of local ritual baths. A series of entries in the communal pinkas, or logbook, elucidates how the community raised funds from mikvaot, how lay and rabbinic leaders worked together, and how communal leaders regulated ritual space both in homes and in communal space. This presentation is for the following text(s): Communal Logbook of Altona (CAHJP AHW 14 [50]) Communal Logbook of Altona (CAHJP AHW 14 [90]) Communal Logbook of Altona (CAHJP AHW 14 [91]) Copyright © 2012 Early Modern Workshop 44 EMW - Workshops EMW 2010 EARLY MODERN WORKSHOP: Jewish History Resources Volume 7: Jewish Community and Identity in the Early Modern Period, 2010, Wesleyan University, Middletown, CT Introduction Debra Kaplan, Yeshiva University, USA Introduction The texts presented here are all excerpts from the pinkas of Altona, held at the Central Archives for the History of the Jewish People, AHW 14. The communal pinkas, or record book, contains notes of some of the decisions issues by the parnassim, the lay leaders of the Jewish community. Altona, subject to the Danish king, was part of the triple Jewish community together with neighboring Hamburg and Wandsbeck. These three texts concern the policies of the parnassim towards local ritual baths, mikvaot.
    [Show full text]
  • Talmud from the Balcony Beyond the Limits of Law: Repairing the Fabric of Society
    Talmud from the Balcony Beyond the Limits of Law: Repairing the Fabric of Society Session 5 The Original Tikkun Olam: Taking Legal Outcomes Seriously and Fixing the System Elana Stein Hain December 14, 2020 shalomhartman.org #hartmanathome Talmud From the Balcony Beyond the Limits of Law: Repairing the Fabric of Society Session 5: The Original Tikkun Olam Taking Legal Outcomes Seriously and Fixing the System Elana Stein Hain December 14, 2020 I. What Does Tikkun Ha-Olam Mean? 1 Mishnah Gittin 4:5 1 Isaiah 45:18; Targum Yonatan 1 Menachem Kahana, Mipnei Tikkun Ha-Olam, p. 37 2 Mishnah Gittin 4:3 3 Mishnah Shevi’it 10:3 3 Sagit Mor, “Tiqqun ‘olam (repairing the world) in the Mishnah: from populating the world to building a community,” Journal of Jewish Studies Vol. 62, no. 2, 2011, p. 284 3 II. What is the Controversy? 4 Babylonian Talmud Gittin 36a-b 4 The Shalom Hartman Institute is a leading center of Jewish thought and education, serving Israel and North America. Our mission is to strengthen Jewish peoplehood, identity, and pluralism; to enhance the Jewish and democratic character of Israel; and to ensure that Judaism is a compelling force for good in the 21st century. Share what you’re learning! #hartmanathome @SHI_america shalomhartmaninstitute hartmaninstitute 475 Riverside Dr., Suite 1450 New York, NY 10115 212-268-0300 [email protected] | shalomhartman.org Happy Chanukah! I. What Does Tikkun Ha-Olam Mean? Mishnah Gittin 4:5 מי שחציו עבד וחציו בן חורין עובד את רבו יום אחד ואת עצמו יום אחד כדברי בית הילל.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter Fourteen Rabbinic and Other Judaisms, from 70 to Ca
    Chapter Fourteen Rabbinic and Other Judaisms, from 70 to ca. 250 The war of 66-70 was as much a turning point for Judaism as it was for Christianity. In the aftermath of the war and the destruction of the Jerusalem temple Judaeans went in several religious directions. In the long run, the most significant by far was the movement toward rabbinic Judaism, on which the source-material is vast but narrow and of dubious reliability. Other than the Mishnah, Tosefta and three midrashim, almost all rabbinic sources were written no earlier than the fifth century (and many of them much later), long after the events discussed in this chapter. Our information on non-rabbinic Judaism in the centuries immediately following the destruction of the temple is scanty: here we must depend especially on archaeology, because textual traditions are almost totally lacking. This is especially regrettable when we recognize that two non-rabbinic traditions of Judaism were very widespread at the time. Through at least the fourth century the Hellenistic Diaspora and the non-rabbinic Aramaic Diaspora each seem to have included several million Judaeans. Also of interest, although they were a tiny community, are Jewish Gnostics of the late first and second centuries. The end of the Jerusalem temple meant also the end of the Sadducees, for whom the worship of Adonai had been limited to sacrifices at the temple. The great crowds of pilgrims who traditionally came to the city for the feasts of Passover, Weeks and Tabernacles were no longer to be seen, and the temple tax from the Diaspora that had previously poured into Jerusalem was now diverted to the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus in Rome.
    [Show full text]
  • The Figure of Jesus in the Talmud, a New Paradigm
    Dan JAFFÉ Bar-Ilan University HISTORY OF A MARGINAL DISCIPLE: THE FIGURE OF JESUS IN THE TALMUD, A NEW PARADIGM ABSTRACT This article discusses a Talmudic mention of Jesus in the Babylonian version of Sanhedrin 107b. The analysis concerns mainly the implicit polemical aspects per- meating the text. I will endeavor to describe the way in which the Talmudic authors regard Christianity at a late period. The argument of this article lies principally in two points: on one hand, Joshua ben Perahjah’s ambiguous attitude towards his disciple Jesus is an expression of the soul-searching of the Talmudic Sages in rela- tion to the first Christians; on the other, this passage provides evidence of self- criticism inherent in the world of the Talmud. RÉSUMÉ Cet article apporte un nouvel éclairage sur le passage talmudique de Sanhedrin 107b mentionnant Jésus de Nazareth. Ce texte, déjà très commenté, fait l’objet d’une relecture qui s’oriente sur les représentations du personnage de Jésus dans la conscience talmudique. L’approche des rédacteurs est ambivalente : d’une part, on rejette Jésus et le christianisme qu’il est censé incarner ; d’autre part, on émet d’im- plicites regrets sur ce rejet à une époque où il est trop tard pour changer le cours de l’histoire. L’analyse se fonde sur différentes perspectives, tels les motifs littéraires qui composent le texte, les représentations métaphoriques qu’on y décèle et enfin les polémiques voilées qui en découlent. This article proposes an analysis of the famous Talmudic passage in San- hedrin 107b, which also figures with some variations in Sota 47a.
    [Show full text]
  • To View the Itinerary
    9 Day, 8 Night - Return to the Land of Your Soul: A Kabbalistic Journey to Israel With Rabbi Rayzel Raphael and Rabbi Sarah Leah Grafstein May 4-12, 2016 Whether this is your first or tenth visit, take a fresh look at an ancient land with this groundbreaking spiritual pilgrimage to Israel. With a unique approach that accesses contemporary issues through personal storytelling and relationship-building, the tour features a diverse array of guides and speakers—Jewish, Christian, and Muslim, conservative, moderate and progressive. Explore the sacred sites of Jerusalem, Tiberias, and Tzfat, and join with Israelis in celebration of Shabbat, Rosh Chodesh, and Yom Ha’Atzmaut (Independence Day) and participate in national commemorations of Yom HaShoah (Holocaust Memorial Day) and Yom HaZikaron (Memorial Day). With time for intensive discussion, spiritual connections, and personal reflection, join us for this once-in-a-lifetime journey that will investigate the complex issues facing Israel, explore prospects for security and peace in the region, and celebrate the hospitality and vibrant cultures of the local communities. Day 1, Wednesday, May 4, 2016: Arrival • Group transfer from the airport to Neve Ilan. • Dinner at the hotel followed by an organized Memories@Home event with a Holocaust survivor for Yom Hashoah. Hotel: C Hotel Neve Ilan [D] Day 2, Thursday May 5 (Yom Hashoah): Judean Hills • Have a leisurely breakfast, consider a spa treatment, use the pool, and/or enjoy the hotel’s other amenities. • Regroup at 10:30 to meet the guide. To commemorate Yom Hashoah, begin with a visit the Scroll of Fire, one of the most beautiful sculptures in Israel, located in what is the single largest memorial to the Holocaust in the world, the Martyrs Forest comprised of six million trees – truly, a living memorial.
    [Show full text]
  • It Is Fitting That We Come Together Today, on the Day the Members Of
    I would like to begin by thanking David Berger and the other Keshet organizers for allowing me to submit a paper to be read to you in my absence. I am, regrettably, unable to be in New York today, but am grateful for the honor of having been asked to participate in this way, nevertheless. My talk is entitled: Svara, Queers, and the Future of Rabbinic Judaism According to Masechet Sanhedrin [5a], there are two requirements for one who wants to exercise rabbinic authority—one must be both gamirna and savirna. Now, what do these Aramaic terms mean? Gamirna implies that one has to have amassed sufficient knowledge or learning. Basically, they gotta know their stuff. And savirna implies they have to have the ability to exercise svara. But what is this svara that is so crucial to functioning as a rabbi and to interpreting God’s will? It seems pretty straightforward: svara, the ability to be “savir,” “reasonable.” The capacity to reason. But, actually, svara is much more complicated, and, it turns out, is not only a prerequisite for those aspiring to rabbinic authority, but is probably the most significant source of Jewish law we have. After the destruction of the Second Temple, our founding Rabbis increased the number of places to which they could turn to discover God’s will—that is, the sources of Jewish Law—from one to five. In addition to our old standby—a verse in the Torah, which they called kra (and which legal scholars call midrash)—they added ma’aseh (precedent), minhag (custom), takkanah (legislation) and last but not least, svara.
    [Show full text]
  • Halakhah Lemoshe Misinai: a Historical Analysis
    MENDEL TRACHTMAN AND CHAIM TRACHTMAN Halakhah LeMoshe MiSinai: A Historical Analysis Introduction The enigmatic expression, Halakhah Le’Moshe Mi’Sinai (HLM) is mentioned throughout the Talmud. However, it is a phrase that the Sages (Hazal) had great difficulty defining uniformly and with total agreement. We find that both Tannaitic and Amoraic discussions contain the term HLM. Early and late commentators argued about the implications of these discussions and some even mentioned the possibility of a Rabbi who thought that a halakhah originated as a HLM subsequently reversing his view. To illustrate the problem of HLM, there is the very well known aggadah (story) in Tractate Menahot (29b) which describes Moshe asking God why he placed special markings above various letters in the Torah. God tells Moshe to go to the Yeshiva of Rabbi Akiva, a second century C.E. Tanna, and listen to him as he teaches his students. Moshe sits at the back of the academy and listens to the ensuing discussions between the Rabbi and his students. After listening to Rabbi Akiva answer many of the inquiries of the students, Moshe is completely confused and bewil- dered and begins to feel faint. When Rabbi Akiva gave his comments concerning the special markings on specific letters in the Torah scroll, a student asked him the source of his annotations. Rabbi Akiva immediate- ly answered that the origin of his remarks are HLM—they are derived from Moshe who received them at Sinai from God. The Talmud con- cludes the story by noting that when Moshe heard this response, he recov- ered his equilibrium.
    [Show full text]
  • Melilah Agunah Sptib W Heads
    Agunah and the Problem of Authority: Directions for Future Research Bernard S. Jackson Agunah Research Unit Centre for Jewish Studies, University of Manchester [email protected] 1.0 History and Authority 1 2.0 Conditions 7 2.1 Conditions in Practice Documents and Halakhic Restrictions 7 2.2 The Palestinian Tradition on Conditions 8 2.3 The French Proposals of 1907 10 2.4 Modern Proposals for Conditions 12 3.0 Coercion 19 3.1 The Mishnah 19 3.2 The Issues 19 3.3 The talmudic sources 21 3.4 The Gaonim 24 3.5 The Rishonim 28 3.6 Conclusions on coercion of the moredet 34 4.0 Annulment 36 4.1 The talmudic cases 36 4.2 Post-talmudic developments 39 4.3 Annulment in takkanot hakahal 41 4.4 Kiddushe Ta’ut 48 4.5 Takkanot in Israel 56 5.0 Conclusions 57 5.1 Consensus 57 5.2 Other issues regarding sources of law 61 5.3 Interaction of Remedies 65 5.4 Towards a Solution 68 Appendix A: Divorce Procedures in Biblical Times 71 Appendix B: Secular Laws Inhibiting Civil Divorce in the Absence of a Get 72 References (Secondary Literature) 73 1.0 History and Authority 1.1 Not infrequently, the problem of agunah1 (I refer throughout to the victim of a recalcitrant, not a 1 The verb from which the noun agunah derives occurs once in the Hebrew Bible, of the situations of Ruth and Orpah. In Ruth 1:12-13, Naomi tells her widowed daughters-in-law to go home.
    [Show full text]
  • Beit Shammai & Beit Hillel
    Beit Shammai & Beit Hillel: Two Fundamentally Different Approaches to Chanukah Rabbi Joshua Flug Director of Torah Research, Yeshiva University’s Center for the Jewish Future One of the more famous disputes between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel is regarding the practice of the extremely scrupulous (mehadrin min hamehadrin) on Chanukah. מצות חנוכה נר איש וביתו Our Rabbis taught: The precept of Chanukah [demands] one light for a והמהדרין נר לכל אחד ואחד man and his household; the scrupulous [kindle] a light for each member [of והמהדרין מן המהדרין בית שמאי :the household]; and the extremely scrupulous, — Beit Shammai maintain אומרים יום ראשון מדליק שמנה On the first day eight lights are lit and thereafter they are gradually מכאן ואילך פוחת והולך ובית הלל reduced; but Beit Hillel say: On the first day one is lit and thereafter they אומרים יום ראשון מדליק אחת are progressively increased. Ulla said: In the West [Palestine] two מכאן ואילך מוסיף והולך אמר amoraim, R. Yosi b. Avin and R. Yosi b. Zevida, differ therein: one עולא פליגי בה תרי אמוראי במערבא ר' יוסי בר אבין ור' יוסי maintains, the reason of Beit Shammai is that it shall correspond to the בר זבידא חד אמר טעמא דב"ש days still to come, and that of Beit Hillel is that it shall correspond to the כנגד ימים הנכנסין וטעמא דב"ה days that are gone; but another maintains: Beit Shammai's reason is that it כנגד ימים היוצאין וחד אמר טעמא shall correspond to the bulls of the Festival and Beit Hillel's reason is that דב"ש כנגד פרי החג וטעמא דבית .we promote in [matters of] sanctity but do not reduce הלל דמעלין בקדש ואין מורידין.
    [Show full text]
  • Scholarly Lineage of Prominent Tannaim
    Source Sheet Class 3-2000 Years of Jewish History-Rabbi Menachem Levine Source 1 Scholarly lineage of prominent tannaim Rabbis of the Mishnah : Chronology & Hierarchy Teacher→Student Father→Son Hillel Shammai Gamaliel the Johanan b. Zakai Elder R. Jose the Eliezer b. Joshua b. Eleazar b. Eleazar b. Gamaliel Galilean Hyrcanus Hananiah Arach Azariah Elisha b. Ishmael Akiva Tarfon Abuyah b. Elisha Shimon b. Nathan Meir Judah b. Ilai Jose b. Halafta Yohai Judah Hiyya Oshiah haNasi Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tannaim Source 2 The Oral Torah was originally meant to be transmitted by word of mouth. It was transmitted from master to student in such a manner that if the student had any question, he would be able to ask, and thus avoid ambiguity. A written text, on the other hand, no matter how perfect, is always subject to misinterpretation…. If the entire Torah would have been given in writing, everyone would be able to interpret it as he desired. This would lead to division and discord among people who followed the Torah in different ways. The Oral Torah, on the other hand, would require a central authority to preserve it, thus assuring the unity of Israel. Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan, Handbook of Jewish Thought, Moznaim 1979, p.179 Source 3 12 Our Holy Teacher wrote the Mishnah. From the time of Moshe to Our Holy Teacher, no one had written a work from which the Oral Law was publicly taught. Rather, in each generation, the head of the then existing court or the prophet of the time wrote down for his private use notes on the traditions he had heard from his teachers, and he taught in public from memory.
    [Show full text]
  • THE PENTATEUCHAL TARGUMS: a REDACTION HISTORY and GENESIS 1: 26-27 in the EXEGETICAL CONTEXT of FORMATIVE JUDAISM by GUDRUN EL
    THE PENTATEUCHAL TARGUMS: A REDACTION HISTORY AND GENESIS 1: 26-27 IN THE EXEGETICAL CONTEXT OF FORMATIVE JUDAISM by GUDRUN ELISABETH LIER THESIS Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR LITTERARUM ET PHILOSOPHIAE in SEMITIC LANGUAGES AND CULTURES in the FACULTY OF HUMANITIES at the UNIVERSITY OF JOHANNESBURG PROMOTER: PROF. J.F. JANSE VAN RENSBURG APRIL 2008 ABSTRACT THE PENTATEUCHAL TARGUMS: A REDACTION HISTORY AND GENESIS 1: 26-27 IN THE EXEGETICAL CONTEXT OF FORMATIVE JUDAISM This thesis combines Targum studies with Judaic studies. First, secondary sources were examined and independent research was done to ascertain the historical process that took place in the compilation of extant Pentateuchal Targums (Fragment Targum [Recension P, MS Paris 110], Neofiti 1, Onqelos and Pseudo-Jonathan). Second, a framework for evaluating Jewish exegetical practices within the age of formative Judaism was established with the scrutiny of midrashic texts on Genesis 1: 26-27. Third, individual targumic renderings of Genesis 1: 26-27 were compared with the Hebrew Masoretic text and each other and then juxtaposed with midrashic literature dating from the age of formative Judaism. Last, the outcome of the second and third step was correlated with findings regarding the historical process that took place in the compilation of the Targums, as established in step one. The findings of the summative stage were also juxtaposed with the linguistic characterizations of the Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon Project (CAL) of Michael Sokoloff and his colleagues. The thesis can report the following findings: (1) Within the age of formative Judaism pharisaic sages and priest sages assimilated into a new group of Jewish leadership known as ‘rabbis’.
    [Show full text]
  • Female Homoerotic Sexual Activity – Sources
    Feminist Sexual Ethics Project Gail Labovitz Senior Research Analyst, Feminist Sexual Ethics Project Female Homoerotic Sexual Activity – Sources: The sources addressing female homoerotic sexual activity in rabbinic literature (link to glossary) are very few, and far less clear than those regarding sexual activity between men. There is a great deal of ambiguity in these texts as to what activities are forbidden, the consequences for women who engage in them, and the nature (that is, the source and/or the authority) of whatever prohibition does exist. Reading these sources suggests several potential reasons why rabbinic thinking on female homoerotic sexual activity is less developed than regarding male homoeroticism; these possibilities will be discussed in the course of the analysis of the texts below. Tannaitic Midrash There is no direct prohibition on female homoerotic sexual activity in the Hebrew bible, indeed, no explicit discussion of such activity at all. Biblical laws of forbidden sexual couplings (notably Leviticus 18 and 20) are generally addressed to male listeners/readers. With the exception of the prohibition against bestiality (Leviticus 18:23 and 20:15-16), in which the prohibition against women committing this act follows on the prohibition to men,1 sexual acts which do not involve male participants are not discussed. Nor do the Mishnah (link to glossary) or the Tosefta (link to glossary) discuss sexual acts between women in any way. Only one midrashic (link to glossary) text from this period addresses any form of homoeroticism between women. As midrash, that is, as a form of exegesis of scriptural text, to Leviticus 18:3, this passage thus invokes the authority of scripture for its discourse on female homoeroticism; it links marriage between two women to the practices of the Canaanites and Egyptians, which this verse and numerous others explicitly forbid, as well as to a number of other sexual/marital connections explicitly or implicitly forbidden in scripture [cite the verse?].
    [Show full text]