Two Jewish Temples in Egypt

Two Jewish Temples in Egypt

Rabbi Reuven Chaim Klein is the author of the newly-released work God versus Gods: Judaism in the Age of Idolatry (Mosaica Press, 2018). His book follows the narrative of Tanakh and focuses on the stories concerning Avodah Zarah using both traditional and academic sources. It also includes an encyclopedia of all the different types of idolatry mentioned in the Bible.

Rabbi Klein studied for over a decade at the premier institutes of the Hareidi world, including Beth Medrash Govoha in Lakewood and Yeshivas Mir in Jerusalem. He authored many articles both in English and Hebrew, and his first book Lashon HaKodesh: History, Holiness, & Hebrew (Mosaica Press, 2014) became an instant classic. His weekly articles on synonyms in the Hebrew language are published in the Jewish Press and Ohrnet. Rabbi Klein lives with his family in Beitar Illit, Israel and can be reached via email to: [email protected]

In this article, we will discuss two different temples which the Jews built in Egypt: the temple at Elephantine, and Chonyo’s Temple. After providing the reader with the historical background to both temples, we will analyze the nature of the worship which took place there, as well as their possible Halachic legitimacy.

The Temple at Elephantine

Ancient ,יב) papyri found on the Egyptian island Elephantine Yev in Aramaic) reveal the forgotten story of a Jewish Temple that was built there. According to those documents, Jews living in Egypt when it was still an independent state built a Temple for Hashem at Elephantine. This occurred after the destruction of the First Temple, but before the construction of the Second Temple. Later, when the Persians conquered Egypt, they destroyed most of its temples,[1] but allowed the Jewish Temple at Elephantine to remain. Sometime afterwards, the priests of the Egyptian deity Khnum and the local Persian rulers colluded against the Jewish community at Elephantine, destroying their Temple and taking the Temple’s gold and silver for themselves. The Jewish priests of the Elephantine temple, led by a priest named Jedaniah, sent letters appealing to the Persian-appointed Jewish governor of Judah and the Cuthean governate of Samaria to intervene on their behalf, and lobby the Persians for the restoration of their temple. In these letters, the priests of Elephantine repeatedly mentioned that they wished to resume sacrificing meal- offerings, burnt-offerings, and incense (which as we will see seems to be Halachicly problematic). It seems that the Second Temple in Jerusalem had already been built by this time; as the Elephantine priests mentioned in their letter that they had also written to Yochanan, the Kohen Gadol in Jerusalem, but had not received a reply. The Elephantine Temple was eventually rebuilt, but the Jewish community at Elephantine did not last much longer.[2]

Were the Jews at Elephantine Loyal to Halachah?

The academic consensus views the Jews at Elephantine as practitioners of a syncretistic mixture of Judaism and Egyptian/Aramean idolatrous cults.[3] This comes as no surprise, because Jeremiah (Chapter 44) already mentioned that the Jews who remained in Judah after the destruction of the First Temple and the subsequent assassination of Gedaliah (the Babylonian-appointed Jewish governor over what remained of Judah) migrated to Egypt, where they engaged in idol worship.[4] As such, the deviant practices of these wayward Jews does not warrant any attempt at justification.[5] However, some scholars have called this picture into question. In the Ancient Levant, it was standard practice for people to bear personal names that refer to their gods. Such references to deities within a person’s name is known as a theophoric element. Accordingly, if the Jewish community at Elephantine was truly syncretistic, then we would expect the Jews of that community to incorporate the names of foreign gods into their personal names. But the evidence shows that they did not. Partially because of this lack of idolatrous theophoric elements, some scholars argue that the Jewish community at Elephantine was not idolatrous—rather they remained wholly devoted to Hashem. These scholars explain away alleged allusions to foreign gods at Elephantine as the assimilation of various pagan religious concepts into their brand Judaism, as opposed to the outright acceptance of pagan deities.[6] Similarly, the Jews at Elephantine may have used Aramean phraseology to refer to Jewish ideas, but they did not adopt Aramean religion.[7] According to this approach, we must seek out the Halachic justification for offering sacrifices at the temple in Elephantine, a practice which seems to defy the Torah’s ban on sacrifices outside of the Holy Temple in Jerusalem. Assuming that the Elephantine Jews were basically loyal to normative Judaism, how did they justify building a temple, complete with sacrifices? As mentioned previously, it seems that those Jews who built the Temple at Elephantine only did so after the destruction of the First Temple in Jerusalem. Based on this, R. Ephraim Dov ha-Kohen Lapp (1859–1925) proposes that they followed a minority Halachic opinion which maintains that when the First Temple was destroyed, the site in Jerusalem lost it holy status, thus legitimizing the use of private altars.[8] Accordingly, the Temple at Elephantine had the Halachic status of a legitimate private altar. As a result of this status, the Jews at Elephantine only offered voluntary, votive sacrifices such as meal-offerings, burnt-offerings, and incense (as opposed to obligatory sacrifices, like sin-offerings or guilt-offerings). This is, in fact, in accordance with the Mishnah[9] that limits the permissible sacrifices at legitimate private altars to exactly such offerings.[10]

Private Altars in the Second Temple Period

Nonetheless, the issue that remains unresolved is why this temple was not discontinued or dismantled upon the construction of the Second Temple. We can possibly resolve this question by comparing the issue of the temple at Elephantine to the issue of private altars in the Kingdom of Judah. As evident in the Book of Kings, private altars existed in the Kingdom of Judah throughout the First Temple period. There was no systematic campaign to destroy them until Hezekiah came along. This begs the question: Why did righteous kings of Judah, such as Asa and Jehoshaphat allow these private altars to remain, if sacrifices were only allowed at the Holy Temple in Jerusalem? R. Moshe Sofer (1762–1839) answers that many of the private altars in question were built before the prohibition of private altars came into effect (i.e. before the Temple in Jerusalem was built). Therefore, since these private altars were built legitimately, they maintained a certain degree of holiness. Consequently, it was actually forbidden to destroy them, and this prohibition remained in effect even once using them for ritual purposes became prohibited (i.e., when the Temple was later built). For this reason, even the “good” kings of Judah did not remove the private altars.[11] Based on this understanding, we can conjecture that a similar approach may have taken hold at the temple in Elephantine. If that temple was originally built at a time when private altars were permitted (because the First Temple in Jerusalem had already been destroyed), then perhaps some Jews attached a certain degree of holiness to the temple, and refused to dismantle it after the Second Temple in Jerusalem was built. Nonetheless, even if they were justified in allowing the temple at Elephantine to remain standing, there does not seem to be any justification for continuing to offer sacrifices outside of Jerusalem once the Second Temple was built.

The House of Chonyo

The Mishnah[12] mentions another Jewish temple in Egypt—the House of Chonyo (Onias). Chonyo was the son[13] of Shimon the Just, a righteous Kohen Gadol in the Second Temple in Jerusalem. Before his death, Shimon the Just said that his son Chonyo should succeed him as Kohen Gadol. The Talmud[14] offers two Tannaic accounts of how Chonyo’s temple came about. According to R. Meir, Chonyo’s older brother Shimi became jealous that their father chose Chonyo to succeed him, so he tricked Chonyo into making a mockery of the Temple rituals and angering the other Kohanim. Shimi gave Chonyo “instructions” for his inaugural service by telling him that he was expected to wear a leather blouse and a special belt. When Chonyo came to the altar wearing those “feminine” articles of clothing, Shimi insinuated to the other Kohanim that Chonyo wore those clothes in order to fulfill a promise to his “lover”.[15] This raised their ire and they chased him to the Egyptian city of Alexandria,[16] where he established an idolatrous temple. According to R. Yehudah, the story unfolds differently. Although Shimon the Just advised that his son Chonyo should become the next Kohen Gadol, Chonyo deferred that honor, allowing his older brother Shimi to be appointed instead. Nonetheless, Chonyo became jealous of his older brother, so he devised a plan to embarrass him and deprive him of his office. Chonyo gave Shimi “instructions” for his inaugural service by telling him that he was expected to wear a leather blouse and a special belt. When Shimi came to the altar wearing those “feminine” articles of clothes, Chonyo insinuated to the other Kohanim that Shimi wore those clothes in order to fulfill a promise to his “lover”. When the other Kohanim found out the truth, i.e. that Chonyo had tricked Shimi by giving him incorrect instructions for his inaugural service, they chased Chonyo to Alexandria, where he established a temple for Hashem.[17] The Talmud concludes this second account by relating that Chonyo justified the establishment of his temple by citing the words of Isaiah,[18] On that day, there will be an altar for Hashem inside the Land of Egypt, and a single-stone altar to Hashem next to its border (Isa. 19:19).

Josephus’ Account of the Chonyo Story

Josephus offers a third account of how Chonyo’s temple was established. After the death of Alexander the Great, Greek holdings in the Middle East were divided between the Seleucid kingdom in Syria and the Ptolemaic kingdom in Egypt. A flashpoint of contention between these two rival kingdoms was the Holy Land, and different groups of Jews took different sides in the conflict. When the Seleucid king, Antiochus Epiphanes, led his army to Jerusalem, he violated the Holy Temple and halted the offering of daily sacrifices for three and a half years. Chonyo, who was the Kohen Gadol in Jerusalem, was a supporter of the rival Ptolemaic kingdom. When the Seleucids came to Jerusalem, he fled to Egypt. In Egypt, Ptolemy granted Chonyo permission to establish a Jewish community in the district of Heliopolis. There,[19] Chonyo built a city resembling Jerusalem, along with a temple that resembled the one in Jerusalem. Centuries later, Chonyos’ temple met its eventual demise at the hands of the Romans. After they destroyed the Second Holy Temple in Jerusalem, the Romans ordered the closure of Chonyo’s temple in Egypt, and eventually its destruction.[20] Josephus seems to attribute noble intentions to Ptolemy. He was said to have sponsored the establishment of a Jewish temple in Egypt so that the Jews there would have the opportunity to worship Hashem (and would be more willing to help Ptolemy battle the Seleucids). However, in explaining Chonyo’s rationale for building the temple in Egypt, Josephus reports that Chonyo built it in order to compete with the Temple in Jerusalem and draw Jews away from worshipping Hashem properly. Chonyo had a bone to pick with the Jewish leadership in Jerusalem on account of their rejection of him, which forced him to flee to Egypt. Josephus also reports that Chonyo rationalized his building of a temple on foreign soil[22] by citing Isaiah’s above-mentioned prophecy.[22]

Chonyo’s Temple in Halacha

As we have seen above, whether or not Chonyo’s temple was idolatrous remains a matter of contention. According to Josephus and R. Meir, Chonyo sought to worship something other than Hashem. On the other hand, according to R. Yehuda, Chonyo’s temple was established for the sake of Hashem. If we follow the first view, then there can be no justification for what Chonyo did and the establishment of his idolatrous temple in Egypt. However, if he sought to worship Hashem, then from a Halachic perspective, there may be two ways of looking at Chonyo’s temple: Either his temple was a place of forbidden worship (albeit not quite idolatry in the classical sense of worshipping a foreign deity), or it might have been a completely legitimate place of worship. Maimonides[23] follows R. Yehuda’s version of events, and explains that Chonyo’s temple was not idolatrous, per se, even though it violated the ban on sacrifices outside of the Temple in Jerusalem. In other words, the practices at Chonyo’s temple reflected an illegitimate way of worshipping Hashem. Maimonides also notes that many local Egyptians—known as Copts—became involved in Chonyo’s temple, and were thus drawn to worshipping Hashem. The Tosafists[24] disagree with Maimonides’ premise that Chonyo’s temple violated Halacha. Instead, they explain that Chonyo avoided the prohibition of offering sacrifices outside of the Temple in Jerusalem by only offering sacrifices belonging to non-Jews. According to this approach, there was nothing technically wrong with Chonyo’s temple and the services there.

Gentiles Sacrifices outside of Jerusalem

Nonetheless, the commentators grapple over reconciling the Tosafists’ explanation with the opinion of the Tannaic sage R. Yose who maintains that the prohibition of offering sacrifices outside of Temple even extends to sacrifices of non-Jews.[25] R. Avrohom Chaim Schor (1560–1632)[26] explains that the dispute about whether Chonyo’s temple was legitimate or not centers around whether or not one accepts R. Yose’s view. In other words, R. Meir accepted R. Yose’s view that even a non- Jew’s sacrifices may only be offered in the Holy Temple. As a result of that, R. Meir understood that Chonyo’s temple must have been illegitimate, so he branded the temple idolatrous. In contrast, R. Yehuda rejected R. Yose’s opinion, so he reasoned that there could be Halachic justification for Chonyo’s temple. Because of this, R. Yehuda asserted that Chonyo’s was not idolatrous, but reflected the genuine worship of Hashem, albeit—as the Tosafists explain—specifically for gentiles. Alternatively, R. Schor proposes that although R. Yose forbids offering the sacrifices of gentiles outside of the Temple in Jerusalem, this prohibition only applies to Jewish priests. Accordingly, R. Yehuda believed that Chonyo and the Jewish priests at his temple did not actually participate in the ritual offerings there. Rather, they offered instructions for the attending gentiles to properly offer sacrifices to Hashem. In this way, no one at Chonyo’s Jewish-run temple ever violated the prohibition against offering sacrifices outside of the Temple in Jerusalem, because they themselves never engaged in such actions, they only helped the gentiles do so.[27] Others suggest that even R. Yose differentiates between two different types of sacrifices offered by a non-Jew. If a non-Jew consecrated a sacrifice to be brought in the Temple in Jerusalem,[28] then R. Yose would say that this sacrifice may not be offered outside of the Temple in Jerusalem. However, if a non-Jew consecrated a sacrifice without specific intent that it should be offered in Jerusalem, then his offering may Halachically be brought elsewhere. According to this, all opinions agree that a Jew may offer a gentile’s sacrifice outside of the Temple in Jerusalem provided that the gentile did not initially consecrate the sacrifice with intent to bring to Jerusalem.[29] With this in mind, we may justify the services at Chonyo’s temple by explaining that they only offered the sacrifices of non-Jews that were consecrated without specific intent to be offered in Jerusalem. R. Yehonassan Eyebschuetz (1690–1764) proposes another answer: the Tosafists’ discussion reflects the rejected opinion of the Amoraic sage R. Yitzchok.[30] R. Yitzchok understood that the prohibition of sacrificing outside of the Temple does not apply outside of the Holy Land, thus justifying the existence of Chonyo’s temple which stood in Egypt.[31] R. Lapp extends this logic to also justify the continued existence of the Jewish temple at Elephantine (mentioned above), even after the construction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem. He argues that in accordance with R. Yitzchok, the entire prohibition of sacrifices outside of the Temple only applies in the Holy Land, not in Egypt.[32]

Egyptian Temples and Eradication of the Idolatrous Inclination In short, there were two Jewish Temples in Egypt that coexisted with the Second Temple in Jerusalem: the Jewish Temple at Elephantine and Chonyo’s Temple in Alexandria/Heliopolis. We have shown that it is unclear whether or not these temples were idolatrous. If the two Jewish Temples in Egypt were non-idolatrous, then there may be some Halachic justification for their existence. This, of course, also does not hamper our understanding of the Talmudic assertion that the idolatrous inclination was abolished with the beginning of the Second Temple Era. However, if these Jewish Temples in Egypt were indeed idolatrous, then they pose a challenge to the Talmudic assertions regarding the elimination of the idolatrous inclination.[33] We shall resolve this difficulty by addressing each temple separately. The Elephantine Temple seems to have predated the construction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem, and thus the eradication of the idolatrous inclination. As such, the Temple existed before the sages removed the idolatrous inclination. It is not a stretch of the imagination to postulate that even if the idolatrous inclination suddenly ceased to exist, those who already engaged in systematic idolatry beforehand would continue to do so simply out of habit. Once the Elephantine Temple had already been functioning for some time, it would not simply shut down operations overnight because the sages rid the Jews of the idolatrous inclination. There was too much at stake for the priests and other functionaries who profited from the temple. Regarding Chonyo’s Temple—which certainly did not predate the construction of the Second Temple—even if it was idolatrous, we can argue that it was not the drive for committing idolatry which led to its establishment. Rather, Chonyo’s own ego and pursuit of honor led him to establish a new Temple in Egypt. Those who participated in his cult were merely supporting characters in Chonyo’s own private scheme. In other words, the existence of Chonyo’s idolatrous temple does not contradict the Talmudic statement that the sages had removed the idolatrous inclination, because the idolatrous inclination was not what drove Chonyo’s temple. To recap, the Idolatrous inclination was not in play at these two temples. At Elephantine, it was the priests’ greed which motivated their continued idol worship and at Chonyo’s temple, it was a personality cult intended to elevate Chonyo which sponsored idolatry.

[1] This is a fulfillment of Jeremiah’s prophecy (Jer. 43:12–13), which foresaw that Babylon’s Persian successors would overrun Egypt, and destroy the Egyptian places of idol worship. All source I have encountered assume that the establishment of the Jewish community in Elephantine occured after the destruction of the First Temple. However, Rabbi Moshe Leib Haberman (editor-in-chief of Kovetz Chitzei Gibborim) calls this assumption into question, because he notes that from the Elephantine Papyri themselves, one only sees that the Jewish settlement there predated Cambyses, but it is unknown by how much.

[2] B. Porten & A. Yardeni (eds.), Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt, vol. 1 (Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 1986), pgs. 62-64, 68-78 and B. Porten The Elephantine Papyri in English (Brill, 1996) pgs. 135–137; 139–151. [3] M. H. Silverman, “The Religion of the Elephantine Jews—A New Approach,” Proceedings of the World Congress of Jewish Studies, חלק .vol ו I division A (World Union of Jewish Studies, 1973), pg. 377. Texts found amongst the Elephantine Papyri invoke the name of a goddess Anat-Yahu. Some scholars argue that the composite name of this goddess implies a syncretistic merge of the Canaanite goddess Anat with Hashem (“Yahu”, makes up the first three-fourths of His name). Others argue that Anat-Yahu is wholly an Aramean creation, rather than a composite of Canaanite-Jewish conception. Aramean religion had a god named Ashim-Bethel and his consort was named Anat-Bethel. These scholars argue that idolatrous Jews, under Aramean influence, began to confuse Bethel with Hashem, eventually equating the two gods, so that Anat-Bethel was synonymous to them with Anat-Yahu. See K. Van der Toorn, “Anat-Yahu, Some Other Deities, and the Jews of Elephantine,” Numen: International Review for the History of Religions vol. 39:1 (1992), pgs. 80–101 and M. E. Mondriaan, “Anat-Yahu and the Jews at Elephantine,” Journal for Semitics vol. 22:2 (2013), pgs. 537–552. [4] J. M. P. Smith, “The Jewish Temple at Elephantine,” The Biblical World vol. 31:6 (1908), pgs. 453–454 also favors identifying the founders of the Jewish colony at Elephantine with the Jews who ignored Jeremiah’s call to remain in Babylonian-occupied Judah, and instead fled to Egypt. [5] C. Cornell, “Cult Statuary in the Judean Temple at Yeb,” Journal for the Study of Judaism vol. 47 (2016), pgs. 291–309 is a bit more generous in his assessment of the Jewish community at Elephantine. He submits that the Jews there worshipped the One Hashem, but that their temple held multiple images/idols which purported to depict Him in various hypostases. Still, this development represents a significant deviation from standard Judaism and if he is correct, we need not concern ourselves with seeking any justification for their practices. The fact that these Jews self-identified as Judean has no bearing on our discussion because it was/is common practice for deviant sects to claim to be Jewish. [6] Silverman 1973:383. [7] A similar approach argues that seemingly idolatrous elements of the Jewish presence at Elephantine do not represent their theological outlook, but rather reflect attempts to evoke Persian sympathy for their cause by implying to the Persians that their religion have shared components. In other words, when the Jews at Elephantine implied things which seem idolatrous, they were simply doing so for political expediency, but they did not actually believe/practice יהו those deviant facets. See T. Bolin, “The Temple of at Elephantine and Persian Religious Policy” in D. Edelman (ed.), The Triumph of Elohim: From Yahwisms to Judaisms (Kok Pharos, 1995), pgs. 127–142. [8] Maimonides (Laws of Beis ha-Bechirah 6:15) rules that the Temple’s site became permanently holy when King Solomon sanctified it. However, Raavad (there), disagrees and accepts the opinion that once the Temple was destroyed, the site was no longer holy, until it was re-consecrated upon the construction of the Second Temple (see below). [9] Megillah 1:10. [10] Zivchei Efrayim Al Meseches Zevachim (Piotrków, 1922), pg. 6. [11] Responsa Chasam Sofer (Orach Chaim §32). See also R.C. Klein, God versus Gods: Judaism in the Age of Idolatry (Mosaica Press, 2018), pgs. 28–32. [12] Menachos 13:10. [13] In Antiquities, Josephus attributes the temple in Egypt to a later Chonyo, who was not the son of Shimon the Just. Nonetheless, some scholars claim that Josephus purposely attributed the establishment of the temple in Egypt to a later Chonyo who had never served as Kohen Gadol in Jerusalem in order to delegitimize its religious value. See J. E. Taylor, “A Second Temple in Egypt: the Evidence for the Zadokite Temple of Onias,” Journal for the Study of Judaism vol. 29:3 (1998), pgs. 297–321. Interestingly, R. Yisroel Lipschitz (1782–1860) in Tiferes Yisroel (Menachos 13:10, Boaz §2) writes that the Chonyo in discussion was not literally a son of Shimon the Just, but rather a grandson of Shimon the Just (a son of Shimon’s son Chonyo), accepting Josephus’s account and adjusting his understanding of the Talmud accordingly. [14] TB Menachos 109b. [15] R. Gershom and Rashi explain that this “lover” was his wife. Maimonides (in his commentary to the Mishnah Menachos 13:10) writes that this “lover” was an alleged mistress. [16] TB Yoma 38a and JT Shekalim 5:1 relate that the House of Garmu did not wish to reveal the secrets behind making the shew-bread and the House of Avtinas did not wish to reveal the secrets behind making the incense for the Temple. In response, artisans from Alexandria were imported to try and mimic those secret recipes, but they were unsuccessful in exactly copying what those families had been able to make. Both R. Yosef Shaul Nathansohn (1808–1875) in Divrei Shaul (to TB Yoma 38a) and R. Shalom Massas (1909–2003) in ve-Cham ha-Shemesh (Jerusalem, 2003) pp. 326–327 independently draw an explicit connection these Alexandrian artisans to Chonyo’s Temple in Alexandria, although no other authorities do so. The notion of Alexandrian artisans being unable to exactly replicate something from Jerusalem is also found in Targum to Est. 1, which relates that Achashverosh wished to create a replica of King Solomon’s famed throne, and employed Alexandrian artisans to do so—but to no avail. That story must have transpired before the establishment of Chonyo’s Temple in Alexandria because Achashverosh lived before the construction of the Second Temple. In light of this, we may suggest that Alexandrian artisans were employed in all cases simply because Greek Alexandria was a center of knowledge in its time, so the most knowledgeable craftspeople lived there. [17] The Jerusalem Talmud (JT Yoma 6:3) slightly differs in its retelling of this discussion. Whilst in the Babylonian Talmud, the names of the two rival sons of Shimon the Just are Chonyo and Shimi, in the Jerusalem Talmud, they are Nechunyon and Shimon. However, R. Tanchum ha-Yerushalmi (a 13th century Egyptian Rabbi) writes that Chonyo had two names, Chonyo and Nechunyo; see B. Toledano (ed.), ha-Madrich ha-Maspik (Tel Aviv, 1961), pg. 154. Furthermore, according to the Babylonian Talmud, R. Meir believed that Chonyo was the victim of Shimi’s deceit and ended up establishing a temple for idolatry, while R. Yehuda believed that Chonyo tricked Shimi, and ended up fleeing for fear of Kohanic retribution and established a temple for Hashem. The Jerusalem Talmud echoes the dispute in the Babylonian Talmud regarding the story of Chonyo, but differs in the conclusions. According to the Jerusalem Talmud, R. Meir understood that Chonyo’s Temple was for Hashem, while R. Yehuda understood that it was for idolatry. See also Piskei ha-Rid (to TB Menachos 109b) who copies the entire story as related by R. Meir, but concludes that Chonyo’s intent was to establish a temple for Hashem—not for idolatry—in line with the Jerusalem Talmud. [18] See Isa. 19:18 which calls this Egyptian place Ir ha-Heres עיר) ,ההרס the city of destruction), which the Talmud (TB Menachos 110a) translates as Karta קרתא)de-Beis Shemesh ,דבית שמש city of the House of the Sun, i.e. Heliopolis). Indeed, deviant versions of the Bible (such as the Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scroll 1QIsa3) insert this tradition into the text and read Ir ha-Cheres עיר) ,החרס the city of the sun), instead of Ir ha-Heres. [19] As we saw above, the Talmud locates Chonyo’s temple at Alexandria, which is quite distant from Heliopolis. We can reconcile this discrepancy between the Talmud and Josephus by noting that the term “Alexandria of Egypt” used by the Talmud does not necessarily refer just to the Egyptian city of Alexandria, but to the entirety of Egypt; see R. Ulmer, Egyptian Cultural Icons in Midrash (Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter, 2009), pg. 210 and A. Kasher, The Jews in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt: The Struggle for Equal Rights (Tubingen: Mohr, 1985), pg. 347. R. Last, “Onias IV and the ἀδέσποτος ἱερός: Placing Antiquities 13.62–72 into the Context of Ptolemaic Land Tenure,” Journal for the Study of Judaism vol. 41 (2010), pgs. 494–516 makes the case that Ptolemey originally granted Chonyo land in Alexandria for the construction of the temple, but Chonyo later appropriated other, ownerless lands near Heliopolis upon which he built his temple. [20] Josephus concludes with a note that Chonyo’s temple lasted 343 years, although some argue that this figure is exaggerated by close to a century; see S. G. Rosenberg, “Onias, Temple of.,” Encyclopedia Judaica 2nd ed. vol. 15 (Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2007), pg. 432. R. Yisroel Lipschitz writes in Tiferes Yisroel (Menachos 13:10, Yachin§57) that Chonyo’s temple lasted close to 250 years. [21] Ibn Yachya in Shalsheles ha-Kabbalah (Jerusalem, 1962), pg. 49 writes that after Chonyo built his temple in Egypt, he later built another temple at Mount Gerizim with the help of the Samaritans. An observation of noted Bible scholar Emanuel Tov accentuates the affinity between these two renegade Jewish cults (i.e. the Alexandrian/Egyptian sect and the Samaritans). Tov categorizes witnesses of textual variations in the Torah by essentially dividing them into two blocks: The Masoretic Text (which Tov admits was the original) and the Septuagint/Samaritan block (which was derived from the MT, but splinters off into other directions). By using this mode of classification, Tov recognizes a certain shared affinity, or perhaps even correspondence, between these non-mainstream Jewish sects which existed in the Second Temple period. See E. Tov, “The Development of the Text of the Torah in Two Major Text Blocks,” Textus vol. 26 (2016), pgs. 1–27. [22] The War of the Jews (Book I, Chapter 1 and Book VII, Chapter 10) and Antiquities of the Jews (Book XII, Chapter 9 and Book XIII, Chapter 3). [23] In his commentary to the Mishnah Menachos 13:10. [24] To TB Menachos 109b. [25] Cited in TB Zevachim 45a. [26] Tzon Kodashim to TB Menachos 109b. [27] This explanation is also proposed by Sfas Emes (to TB Menachos 109b). [28] The Mishnah (Shekalim 1:5) rules that the Temple can only accept from non-Jews votive sacrifices, but not what are otherwise considered obligatory offerings. [29] See Mikdash David (Kodshim §27:9), written by R. David Rappaport (1890–1941), Even ha-Azel (Laws of Maaseh ha-Korbanos 19:7), by R. Isser Zalman Meltzer (1870–1953), and Sefer ha-Mitzvos le-Rasag vol. 2 (Warsaw, 1914), pg. 233b, by R. Yerucham Fishel Perlow (1846–1934). [30] See TB Megilla 10a. [31] Yaaros Dvash (vol. 1, drush #9). [32] Zivchei Efrayim Al Meseches Zevachim (Piotrków, 1922), pgs. 5–7. [33] For a fuller discussion of this Talmudic assertion, see R.C. Klein, God versus Gods: Judasim in the Age of Idolatry (Mosaica Press, 2018), pp. 244–276.

Avunculate Marriage in the Bible

Avunculate Marriage in the Bible

By Reuven Chaim (Rudolph) Klein Rabbi Reuven Chaim Klein is the author of theLashon HaKodesh: History, Holiness, & Hebrew [available here]. His book is available online and in bookstores throughout the world. Rabbi Klein published articles in various journals including Jewish Bible Quarterly, Kovetz Hamaor, Kovetz Chitzei Gibborim, and Kovetz Kol HaTorah. He studied at premier Yeshivas including the Mir in Jerusalem and BMG in Lakewood. He was most recently a fellow at the Tikvah Institute for Yeshiva Men (Summer 2015) and lives with his wife and children in Beitar Illit, Israel. Anyone who has a copy of the first edition of his book on Lashon HaKodesh is eligible to receive a PDF of the “Additions and Corrections” section of the new edition. Please send requests directly to the author at: [email protected] The term “avunculate marriage” refers to marriage between a man and his niece. In this paper, we will explore the Bible’s view on the permissibility of such unions, and discuss several examples of such marriages in the Bible. Not only does rabbinic literature generally presume that such marriages are permitted, the Talmud even encourages it. On the other hand, other sources ban these relationships. The Sadducees believe that the Bible forbids such marriages. While various Tosafists believe that such marriages are Biblically permitted, they still prohibit marrying one’s niece (at least in some cases) for other reasons.

Abraham & Nahor marry their nieces

Upon close examination, one will find that at least six Biblical personalities married their nieces. Each of these cases can and are interpreted in various ways; calling into question their relevance to our discussion. However, the mere fact that tradition allows for these sorts of interpretations shows that avunculate marriage is compatible with Biblical tradition, and constitutes a legitimate building block in the institution of the Jewish family. The first two examples of avunculate marriages in the Bible are those between Abraham and Nahor and their respective nieces. The Torah says: And Terah lived seventy years, and begot Abram, Nahor, and Haran. Now these are the generations of Terah: Terah begot Abram, Nahor, and Haran; and Haran begot Lot. And Haran died in the presence of his father Terah in the land of his nativity, in Ur of the Chaldees. And Abram and Nahor took them wives: the name of Abram’s wife was Sarai; and the name of Nahor’s wife, Milcah, the daughter of Haran, the father of Milcah, and the father of Iscah. (Gen. 11:26–29) This passage records that Abram (i.e. Abraham), Nahor, and Haran were brothers. Nahor married Milcah, the daughter of Haran; and Abraham married Sarai. According to an ancient tradition preserved in rabbinic sources (Seder Olam Ch. 2; TB Megillah 14a; and TB Sanhedrin 69b) and by Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews Book I, Ch. 6), another name for Sarai is Iscah. The assertion that Sarai is the same person as Iscah is supported by the fact that the Torah provides the paternity of Nahor’s wife Milcah, yet does not mention the paternity of Abraham’s wife Sarai. Given that the Torah delineates one wife’s father, we would have expected it to mention the father of the other wife as well. This difficulty can be resolved if we assume that Sarai is Iscah, since the Torah states that Haran was the father of Iscah.[1] If we assume that the Haran who is mentioned as Abraham and Nahor’s father-in-law is the same person as their brother Haran, and that Sarai is Iscah, then this passage records two instances of avunculate marriages: Nahor married his niece Milcah and Abraham married his niece Iscah/Sarai. However, it is debatable whether Nahor and Abraham’s marriages to Milcah and Sarai were truly avunculate marriages. In order to claim that they were, one must rely on two assumptions, both of which are subject to dispute. Firstly, Ibn Ezra (to Gen. 11:29) expresses skepticism regarding the identification of Iscah with Sarai.[2] Secondly, even if Iscah is Sarai, some commentators (including Abarbanel (Gen. 11) and the Medieval work Moshav Zeqenim[3]) understand that the Bible refers to two different men named Haran. One was a brother to Abraham and Nahor (and father of Lot); while the other was the father of Iscah/Sarai and Milcah.[4] Accordingly, there is no clear consensus on whether Abraham and Nahor married their nieces.

Dinah’s daughter

Later in Genesis, the Bible relates that when Joseph was the Egyptian viceroy, he married Osnath daughter of Poti-Phera (Gen. 41:45). According to many Midrashic sources (Pirkei D’Rabbi Eliezer Ch. 38; Masekhet Sofrim 21:9; and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan to Gen. 41:45(, Osnath was none other than the daughter of Dinah (Jacob’s daughter) and her rapist, Shechem. This “illegitimate” child was initially shunned by Jacob’s family, but eventually found her way back in by marrying Joseph. Thus, Joseph’s wife Osnath was his niece, the daughter of his sister Dinah. Although others understand that Osnath was actually an Egyptian woman,[5] the Midrashic sources above reject the notion that Joseph would marry a non-Israelite woman. Similarly, Rabbeinu Hayyim Paltiel quotes a Midrash[6] which says that Simeon married the daughter of Dinah who was born by rape through Shechem.[7] According to this Midrash (which is probably mutually exclusive with the above mentioned sources), Simeon married his niece, the daughter of his sister Dinah. These examples differ from the others under consideration because these are the only explicit examples of a man marrying his sororal niece (i.e. his sister’s daughter). All the other examples involve a man marrying his fraternal niece (i.e. his brother’s daughter).

Uziel and Miriam

Amram had three children: Miriam, Aaron, and Moses. The Bible records the marriages of both of Amram’s sons: Moses married Zippora daughter of Jethro (Ex. 2:21), and Aaron married Eliseba daughter of Amminadab (Ex. 6:23). However, the Bible does not tell us about the family of Amram’s daughter Miriam. Rabbinic literature states that she married Caleb (Exodus Rabbah §1:17; Sifrei, Beha’alothkha §78; and TB Sotah 11b–12a). However, according to the apocryphal work The Testament of Amram found amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran (4Q543, 4Q549), Amram gave his daughter Miriam to his younger brother Uzziel to wed. That work understands that the sons of Uzziel listed in the Bible (Ex. 6:22) were born to his wife Miriam. Thus, that work believed that Uzziel married his brother’s daughter Miriam.

Othniel and Achsa

As related in the book of Joshua (15:16–17) and in the opening chapter of Judges (1:12–13), Caleb offered his daughter Achsa to whoever could conquer the Canaanite stronghold at Kiriath Sepher: And Othniel the son of Kenaz, Caleb’s younger brother, took it; and he[Caleb] gave him [Othniel] Achsah his daughter to wife. Othniel succeeded in conquering the city, and thus wins the hand of his brother’s daughter Achsa in marriage. Most assume that Othniel was Caleb’s full brother, although some explain that they shared only a mother, not a father.[8] R. Ishtori ha-Parhi (1280–1366), the foremost Rabbinic topographer of the Medieval period, writes (Kaftor Va-Fereh Ch. 5) that the Sadducees consider themselves more pious than Rabbinic Jews because they forbid one to marry his brother’s daughter. Then, ha- Parhi cites this case as a Biblical precedent for allowing such marriages. Nonetheless, ha-Parhi notes that the case of Othniel only proves that one may marry the daughter of his maternal brother, but does not necessarily prove that one can marry the daughter of his paternal siblings.

Elimelech and Naomi

There is a Talmudic discussion (TB Bava Bathra 91a) regarding the Book of Ruth which explains the relationships between its major players. It asserts that Elimelech (Naomi’s husband), Salmon (Boaz’s father), the anonymous relative who refused to redeem Naomi’s field, and Naomi’s father were all sons of Nahshon ben Amminadab. According to this understanding, Elimelech married his brother’s daughter—Naomi. However, the Midrash (Ruth Rabbah §6:3) presents a dissenting view that Elimelech was a son of Salmon (and brother to Boaz). According to this understanding, Naomi was not Elimelech’s niece but his first cousin.

Mordecai and Esther

The Talmud (TB Megillah 13a) relates that Mordecai not only raised the orphaned Esther, but he also married her. Furthermore, some sources, including Josephus in Antiquities (Book XI, Ch. 6), Targum Rishon (to Est. 7:6),[9] and the Vulgate (Est. 2:7) explain that Esther was Mordecai’s niece. Ibn Ezra (to Est. 8:1) and Maimonides (there)[10] also repeat that claim. Together, these two ideas indicate that Mordecai married his niece. Nonetheless, this understanding is simply mistaken as the Bible quite explicitly states that she was his first cousin, not his niece: And he brought up Hadassah, that is, Esther, his uncle’s daughter… (Est. 2:7) and Now when the turn of Esther, the daughter of Abihail the uncle of Mordecai… (Est. 2:15).

The Talmud encourages marrying one’s neice

The prophet Isaiah tells of several acts of kindness that a man can perform that would prompt God to answer his prayers. He says: Is it not to deal thy bread to the hungry, and that thou bring the poor that are cast out to thy house? when thou seest the naked, that thou cover him, and that thou hide not thyself from thine own flesh? Then shall thy light break forth as the morning, and thy healing shall spring forth speedily; and thy righteousness shall go before thee, the glory of the LORD shall be thy reward. Then shalt thou call, and the LORD will answer; thou shalt cry, and He will say: ‘Here I am.’… (Is. 58:7–9) When explaining these “good deeds” in practical terms, the Talmud (TB Yevamot 62b–63a) notes that and that thou hide not thyself from thine own flesh refers to a man who marries his sister’s daughter. While there is a controversy among the commentators concerning whether the Talmud only means one’s sororal niece or even his fraternal niece, it is clear that the Talmud encourages a man to marry his niece. Similarly, the Tosefta (Kiddushin 1:2) teaches, “A man should not marry a woman until his sororal niece comes of age [so that he can marry her], or until he finds [another woman equally] fitting for him.”

Only Sororal niece, or even fraternal niece?

There are two approaches among the earlier commentators in how to understand the Talmud’s endorsement of marrying one’s niece. Rashi understands that the Talmud only endorses marrying one’s sororal niece. He explains that this act is considered particularly kind, because a man has a certain longing for his sister (more so than for his brother). Thus, by marrying her daughter, he will insure that his wife will be especially cherished. However, the Tosafists (Tosafot to TB Yevamot 62b) quote in the name of Rashi’s grandson Rashbam that the Talmud’s endorsement also applies to one’s fraternal niece, not just to a sororal niece. He explains that the Talmud specifically mentions marrying a sororal niece simply because it is more common that a man’s sister will convince him to marry her daughter than it is for his brother to do so. Nonetheless, Rabbeinu Tam disagrees with this assertion and instead maintains that the Talmud only means that one should marry his sororal niece. There are two modes of justifications given for this approach: Firstly, one’s sororal niece is similar to her uncle, as the Rabbis say, “Most children are similar to the brothers of their mother” (TB Baba Bathra 110a, Sofrim 15:10). This similarity between the two will insure a stronger marriage and that is precisely what the Talmud means to endorse. Furthermore, the Tosafists quote in the name of Rivan (a son- in-law of Rashi and uncle to Rabbeinu Tam and Rashbam) that it is actually forbidden to marry one’s fraternal niece, so the Talmud must only have endorsed marrying one’s sororal niece. They explain that according to the rules of the Levirate marriage (mentioned in Deut. 25:5–10), a man (A) is commanded to marry the widow of his brother (B), if B dies childless. However, the Mishnah teaches (Yevamot 1:1) that if the widow is A’s daughter, then A is exempt from that commandment, because a man may not marry his own daughter. Thus, the Rabbis forbid a man (B) from marrying his niece (A’s daughter) so as to prevent a situation where the commandment of Levirate marriage will be abolished. This rabbinic ban on marrying one’s fraternal niece proves that the Talmud’s endorsement of marrying one’s niece only applies to a sororal niece.[11] Nonetheless, this proof is incomplete because there are situations where there is no clash with the rules of the Levirate marriage. For example, if A is already deceased (and therefore anyways unable to perform the Levirate marriage), then B should be allowed to marry his daughter. Or if A is only B’s maternal brother, but not paternal brother (and therefore is not allowed to marry B’s widow even if she was not his daughter see TB Yevamot 17b), then he should be allowed to marry A’s daughter. Accordingly, one can argue that in these situations, the Talmud endorses marrying even one’s fraternal niece. This is especially compelling in light of ha-Parhi’s above mentioned proof-text from Othniel, which shows that one is allowed to marry his maternal brother’s daughter. In short, Rabbeinu Tam—in agreement with his grandfather Rashi—understands that the Talmud only endorses marrying one’s sororal niece, but actually forbids marrying one’s fraternal niece. Rabbi Betzalel Ashkenazi (1520–1592) testifies that this is also the opinion[12] of the non-yet-extant Tosafot Shantz to the Talmudic Tractate Gittin.[13] In his commentary to the Bible, the ‎Alsatian sage R. Yohanan Luria (1440–1514) also follows Rabbeinu Tam’s view.[14] However, Maimonides (in his commentary to the Mishnah Nedarim 8:5 and in his Laws of Sexual Prohibitions, end of ch. 2) understands that the Talmud does not mention one’s sororal niece to the exclusion of his fraternal niece. He thus rules that is considered a Mitzvah for a man to marry either his sororal or fraternal niece.[15] R. Meir Abulafia (1170–1244) writes (Yad Ramah to TB Sanhedrin 76b) that marrying one’s niece is considered commendable because she is the closest relative that a man is allowed to marry. He thus follows his older contemporary Maimonides in offering no distinction between a sororal niece and fraternal niece (because the degree of kinship to both is the same). Nonetheless, he notes that the Talmud mentioned one’s sister’s daughter in specific simply because marrying her is even more commendable. By doing so, he is performing an act of kindness towards his sister, who might otherwise have difficulty marrying off her daughter.[16] R. Moses Isserles (1520–1572) settles the matter by ruling in accordance with the view of Maimonides and Rashbam that one should marry his sororal or fraternal niece (see his glosses to theShul han Aruch, Even Ha’Ezer §2:6; 15:25).

The Rabbinic View regarding Forbidden Relationships

Rabbinic Judaism extends the meanings of the Biblical passages (Lev. 18 and 20) which delineate forbidden relationships. They note that the Torah spoke of the incest laws from the man’s point of reference, but the laws apply equally to a woman. Thus, the Rabbis understand that all incestuous relationships mentioned in the Bible are forbidden to both the man and the woman involved (TB Yevamot 84b). However, the Rabbis do not add more forbidden relationships than those listed by the Bible; they only say that both parties are culpable. The Sadducees, on the other hand, add cases to the Bible’ list, and forbid more cases of the same types of relationship. In this, the Rabbis understand the Bible’s meaning differently than the Sadducees and remain more faithful to the text of the Torah than did they.

The Sadducee View Regarding Forbidden Relationships

A Sadducean work found by Solomon Schechter at the Cairo Geniza criticizes those who marry their brother or sister’s daughter. This work reasons that since according to Mosaic law, a man is not allowed to marry his mother’s sister because she is his mother’s flesh (Lev. 18:13), a woman is also not allowed to marry her parents’ brother. The rationale for such an extension of the Biblical law is that the Torah does not simply list forbidden cases of incest, it lists forbidden categories of relationships. These relationships are determined by degree of kinship, without regard for gender. Thus, if a man is forbidden to his parents’ sister, the same prohibition says that a woman is forbidden to her parents’ brother because the degree of kinship—in this case, parent’s sibling—is the same.[17] A copy of this document, now known as the Damascus Document, was also found among the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran (4Q270). It contains a condemnation of those men who marry their brothers’ daughters (although that particular source omits the prohibition of one’s sister’s daughter). A legal scroll found at Qumran known as Midrash Mishpatim (4Q251) contains a list of the Biblical prohibitions of incest, and includes a man marrying his brother’s or sister’s daughter. Another important document from Qumran known as the Temple Scroll (11Q19) also[18] forbids marrying one’s brother’s or sister’s daughter.[19] Case The Bible The Rabbis The Sadducees Sadducean #: (Lev. 18 and 20) say that this also would say that this also approach is forbids a man from means that a woman means that one may not marry redundant marrying his… may not marry her… his/her… because it is already included in case #/New case: 1 Mother Son Daughter/Father (13) 2 Sister Brother n/a n/a 3 Father’s wife Husband’s son Wife’s 9 daughter/Mother’s husband 4 Granddaughter Grandfather Grandmother/Grandson NEW 5 Parent’s Siblings’ son Niece/Parent’s NEW sister brother 6 Father’s Husband’s Wife’s NEW (2 paternal-brother’s paternal-brother’s paternal-sister’s scenarios) wife son daughter/Parent’s paternal- sister’s husband, Mother’s paternal-brother’s wife/Husband’s paternal- brother’s son 7 Daughter-in-law Father-in-law Mother-in-law/Son-in-law 12 8 Brother’s Husband’s Wife’s 11 wife brother sister/Sister’s husband 9 Wife’s Mother’s Father’s 3 daughter husband wife/Husband’s son 10 Wife’s Grandmother’s Grandfather’s NEW granddaughter husband wife/Husband’s grandson 11 Wife’s sister Sister’s Brother’s 8 husband wife/Husband’s brother 12 Mother-in-law Son-in-law Daughter-in-law/Father-in-law 7 13 Daughter (see Father n/a n/a fn. 22) The Sadducean method of interpretation creates three pairs of redundancies in the Bible’s list (Cases 3, 7, 8, 9, 11, and 12) and also creates four new cases of incest which are not mentioned in the Bible, in addition to marrying one’s niece (Cases 4, 6, two scenarios, 10). These two points demonstrate the weakness of the Sadducean approach: The method of interpretation used to justify including one’s niece in the Biblical prohibition against marrying one’s aunt would create a series of redundancies in the other listed cases of incest. Furthermore, according to the Sadducean methodology of Biblical interpretation, four other relationships should be classified as incestuous (in addition to marrying one’s niece). However, the Sadducees are inconsistent in that they explicitly mention their added prohibition against marrying one’s niece, but fail to account for the other new cases of incest which their methodology creates.[20] In fact, Saul Lieberman argues that the Rabbis classified marrying one’s niece as a positive deed specifically in order to counter the Sadducean view that marrying one’s niece is Biblically forbidden. He notes it is the Rabbis’ way to take things which are simply “allowed” by the Bible and encourage people to do them in order to undermine sectarian heretical views.[21] Interestingly, in his abovementioned work, ha-Parhi notes that the Sadducees were not innovators in banning marriage to a niece: They adopted the prohibition from the Samaritans, who took the idea from the Arabs.[22] Later, the Karaites also followed suit and outlawed uncle- niece marriage.[23]

R. Yehuda Ha-Hassid’s view

The 12th century German leader of the Hassidei Ashkenaz movement, R. Judah Ha-Hassid, declares that one should not marry his niece, neither sororal nor fraternal (in his ethical will §22 and in Sefer Hassidim §477). However, his understanding of this prohibition clearly differs from the Sadducean approach. The Sadducees understood that the Bible itself prohibits marrying one’s niece, while Ha-Hassid does not. As a follower of Rabbinic tradition, Ha-Hassid must comply with Talmudic law, yet his mention of a prohibition against marrying one’s niece is clearly at odds with the Rabbinic approach which not only allows for such marriage, but even encourages it. R. Ezekiel Landau of Prague (1713–1793), in his halachik responsa (Noda B’Yehuda, Even HaEzer Tinyana §79) offers an innovative solution. He proves that R. Judah Ha-Hassid only wrote the prohibitions in his will and Sefer Hassidim for his descendants — not for all Jews — because otherwise his prohibition would contradict an explicit Talmudic passage which not only allows but even applauds a man marrying his niece.[24] Others interpret Ha-Hassid’s warning in accordance with contemporary science, which warns of the genetic dangers to children born to an uncle and niece. Nonetheless, Ha-Hassid himself explains his true intent. He writes (Sefer Hassidim §488) that only a pious individual is allowed to marry his niece in order that his children be similar to himself (per the rabbinic dictum mentioned above). However, a wicked man who only intends to fulfill his own pleasures should not marry his niece, so that his children will not be like him. Thus, Ha-Hassid actually allows for avunculate marriage in the right circumstances, yet elsewhere he writes blankly that it is forbidden so that the not-necessarily-pious masses would refrain from such unions.[25]

Conclusion

There are essentially two general views regarding avunculate marriage in the Bible. The Rabbinic position is that avunculate marriage is permitted by Biblical law. In fact, according to Rabbinic tradition there are even Biblical precedents for allowing such marriages. Nonetheless, the Rabbis do limit the circumstances under which one may marry his niece. They forbid marrying one’s fraternal niece, since this might interfere with the commandment of the Levirate marriage. There is also the pietistic view of the Hassidei Ashkenaz, who rule that only a pious man may marry his niece (because he will have pure intentions), while the masses should not engage in such unions. By contrast, the Sadducean approach outlaws avunculate marriage entirely, and attributes this prohibition to the Bible. Even according to Rabbinic tradition, the aforementioned Biblical cases are not unanimously viewed as actually consisting of avunculate marriages. The Sadducees would likely interpret these cases such that they do not serve as precedents for legitimately marrying ones niece.

[1] L. A. Feldman (ed.), Pirush HaRan Al HaTorah (Jerusalem: Machon Shalem, 1968) pg. 149. [2] While Ibn Ezra does not explicitly note his objections to this identification, other sources quote a question in his name which implies a reject of this tradition. Ibn Ezra asks that if we assume that the Bible lists Terah’s sons in order of their birth, then Abraham was at least two years older than Haran. Furthermore, it is evident from the Bible that Abraham was ten years older than his wife Sarah (Sarai), as it says Then Abraham fell upon his face, and laughed, and said in his heart: ‘Shall a child be born unto him that is a hundred years old? and shall Sarah, that is ninety years old, bear?’ (Gen. 17:17). This would mean that Haran fathered Iscah/Sarai at the extremely unlikely age of eight. Rabbeinu Hayyim Paltiel answers this objection by noting that the Talmud (TB Sanhedrin 69b) itself already raised this point. In fact, it uses this calculation to prove that in early generations men fathered offspring from as early as the age of eight. See I. S. Lange (ed.), Pirushei HaTorah L’Rabbeinu Hayyim Paltiel (Jerusalem, 1981) pp. 26–27 and S. Sasson (ed.), Moshav Zeqenim (London, 1959) pg. 15. [3] S. Sasson (ed.), Moshav Zeqenim (London, 1959) pg. 15. [4] The commentators propose this distinction because of the fact that the Bible splits the genealogy of Haran’s descendants into two verses. The first verse only mentions Lot, while the second says that he was the father of Milcah and Iscah. However, Kimhi explains these verses in the exact opposite way: He argues that the Torah sought to clarify that Haran was not only the father of Lot, but also of Milcah and Iscah (which follows the view that this passage only discusses one Haran). [5] Josephus (in Antiquities of the Jews Book II, Ch. 6) also understood that Joseph’s wife was literally the daughter of Potiphar. However, see Midrash Sekhel Tov (to Gen. 39:1) and Midrash Tadshe (Ch. 21), printed in J. D. Eisenstein (ed.), Otzar Midrashim (New York, 1915) pg. 486 and also cited by Yalkut Shimoni (Joshua §9), which say that Osnath was among several righteous female converts. [6] This Midrash appears nowhere else, save for Rabbeinu Hayyim Paltiel’s commentary. However, there is a similar tradition Genesis( Rabbah §80:11) which says that Dinah refused to leave the house of Shechem until Simeon promised to marry her. According to that Midrash, Simeon married his sister Dinah, not her daughter. [7] I. S. Lange (ed.), Pirushei HaTorah L’Rabbeinu Hayyim Paltiel (Jerusalem, 1981) pg. 166. [8] The Talmud (TB Temurah 16a), followed by Rashi (to Jos. 15:17 and Jud. 1:13), writes that Othniel was only Caleb’s maternal brother, not full brother. The rationale for this statement is that Caleb’s father is always given in the Bible as Jephunah (Num. 13:6; 14:30; 26:65; 32:12; 34:19; Deut. 1:36′; Josh. 14:6; 14:14; I Chron. 4:15), while Othniel is always mentioned as a son of Kenaz (Josh. 15:17; Jud. 1:13; 3:9; 3:11; I Chron. 4:13). According to this approach, after Caleb was born, his mother married someone named Kenaz, and bore Othniel to him. Rashi remains consistent with this view when he writes (in his commentary to TB Sukkah 27b) that he is unsure of Othniel’s tribe, because his relationship to Caleb was only through their mother, and matrilineal descent does not impart tribal affiliation. Kimhi (to Josh. 15:17) adds that in the instances that Caleb also is referred to as a Kenizzite (Num. 32:12; Josh. 14:6; 14:14), this term is a reference to his step-father. Kimhi then suggests that Caleb and Othniel were actually full brothers and that their father had two names: Jephunah and Kenaz (which is why Caleb is also called a Kenizzite). Ultimately, Kimhi rejects this approach and argues that the appellation “Kenizzite” refers to the family of Kenaz, a common ancestor of both Caleb and Othniel. Ha- Parhi (cited below) and Abarbanel (to Josh. 15:16 and in his introduction to Judges) concur with Kimhi’s conclusion. [It has yet to be explored whether the term Kenizzite used in connection with Caleb is related to the Kenizzites, a Canaanite tribe which God promised Abraham will be conquered by the Israelites (Gen. 15:19).] [9] Although, see Targum Rishon earlier (to Esther 2:7 and 2:15) who explicitly writes that Esther was the daughter of Mordecai’s uncle, making them first-cousins, not niece and uncle. [10] Y. Rivlin (ed.), Pirush Megillat Esther L’Rambam (Jerusalem, 1952) pg. 60. [11] See Tosafot (TB Yevamot 99a) and Tosafot Yeshanim (ibid. 62b). The same point is made earlier by Rav Sherira Gaon (who predated Rabbeinu Tam) in a responsum printed by M. Grossberg (ed.), Gvul Menashe (Frankfurt, 1899) pg. 15. [12] R. Abraham Haim Schor (d. 1632) writes Torat( Haim to TB Sanhedrin 76b) that marrying one’s sororal niece is especially praiseworthy because according to Biblical law, a daughter does not inherit her deceased father’s property unless he has no sons. Accordingly, there is likely animosity between a man and his sister, for the former will inherit their father’s property and the latter will not. Therefore, it is especially praiseworthy for a man to marry his sister’s daughter in order to alleviate this animosity and show his sister that even she will derive benefit from their deceased father’s estate. Tosafot Shantz, as quoted by Ashkenazi, offers a very similar approach and adds that marrying one’s brother’s daughter does not achieve the same effect because one’s paternal brother will in any case inherit his father’s property. In this, Tosafot Shantz offers another strong argument for Rabbeinu Tam’s position. [13] M. Y. Blau (ed.), Shitah Mekubetzet Yevamot (New York: Shitat HaKadmonim, 1986) pg. 302. See also Shitah Mekubetzet (to TB Nedarim 63b) who also seems so inclined. [14] Y. Hoffman (ed.), Meshivat Nefesh (Jerusalem: Machon Yerushalayim, 1998) pg. 18. [15] See also Meiri (to TB Yevamot 62b) who seems to agree with Maimonides. [16] In a similar explanation, R. Todros HaLevi ben Joseph Abulafia (1225–1285), a nephew of R. Meir Abulafia, writes that marrying one’s sister’s daughter is especially meritous because his sister likely has financial difficulties in marrying off her daughter. Hida (Birkei Yosef to Even HaEzer §2:6) quotes this unpublished explanation of R. Todros and adds that according to this, there is no difference between a sororal niece and a fraternal niece, the difference is only in whether the groom’s sibling has financial difficulties. [17] S. Schechter (ed.), Documents of Jewish Sectaries Vol. 1, Fragments of a Zadokite Work (Cambridge, 1910) pg. 5. [18] Interestingly, Midrash Mishpatim lists the prohibition of marrying one’s niece before it lists one’s aunt, while the Temple Scroll lists marrying one’s niece afterwards. [19] See E. Eshel, “The Proper Marriage according to the Genesis Apocryphon and Related Texts,” Meghillot: Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls Vol. 8–9 (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 2010) pp. 29–51, who discusses numerous examples of the DSS embellishing Biblical passages by adding marriages between first cousins. She explains that the authors of those scrolls added cases of marriage between first cousins and not between man and his niece precisely because the Qumranic sect believed the latter to be forbidden. [20] It should be noted that three out of four of those cases (i.e. grandmother, mother’s paternal brother’s wife, and grandfather’s wife) are explicitly banned by Rabbinic decree, even though according to Rabbinic interpretation they are permitted by Biblical law (see TB Yevamot 21a). [21] S. Lieberman, Tosefta Ki-fshutah (New York: JTS, 1973) pg. 915. Cf. E. Segal, “Sarah and Iscah: Method and Message in Midrashic Tradition”, JQR, vol. 82:4, pp. 417–429 who seems content to similarly explain the Midrashic identification of Sarah with Iscah (mentioned above). [22] Ha-Parhi, in his abovementioned polemic against Sadducees, writes that should one meet a Sadducee, one should tell him that according to Sadducean religion one is allowed to marry his daughter because the Bible does not explicitly forbid it and the Sadducees do not recognize the hermeneutical arguments set forth by the Rabbis (TB Sanhedrin 76a) for its prohibition. However, in light of the above, Ha-Parhi’s polemic is no longer applicable because according to the Sadducees’ internal logic, marrying one’s daughter is included in the prohibition of marrying one’s mother because both are a violation of the child-parent relationship. That is, the Torah forbids a man to lie with his mother and both Rabbinic and Sadducean interpretation extend this prohibition to a woman who is forbidden from lying with her son. However, Sadducean interpretation would also argue that included in this prohibition is a man lying with his daughter because the Torah’s intent is not simply to forbid a man and his mother, but to declare incestuous any fornication between the child-parent line. The Rabbis, on the other hand, understood that this is not the intent of the Torah and instead offer their own source for the prohibition of marrying one’s daughter. [23] N.A. Stillman (ed.), “Malik al-Ramlī.” Encyclopedia of Jews in the Islamic World (Brill Online, 2013). [24] For an extensive survey of various authorities who agree or disagree with Landau’s characterization of the prohibition cited by R. Yehuda Ha- Hassid, see Sdei Hemed Vol. 7 (Brooklyn: Kohath Publishing, 1950) pp. 2483ff. [25] See S. Guttman (ed.), Sefer Tzava’at Rabbi Yehuda HaHassid HaMefoar (Jerusalem: Otzar HaPoskim, 2011) pp. 177–188 for an in-depth analysis of Ha-Hassid’s stance on the topic.

Abraham’s Chaldean Origins and the Chaldee Language

ABRAHAM’S CHALDEAN ORIGINS AND THE CHALDEE LANGUAGE

by Reuven Chaim (Rudolph) Klein Rabbi Reuven Chaim Klein is the author of the newly publishedLashon HaKodesh: History, Holiness, & Hebrew [available here]. His book is available online and in bookstores in Israel and will arrive to bookstores in America in the coming weeks. Rabbi Klein published articles in various journals including Jewish Bible Quarterly, Kovetz Hamaor, and Kovetz Kol HaTorah. He is currently a fellow at the Kollel of Yeshivas Mir in Jerusalem and lives with his wife and children in Beitar Illit, Israel. He can be reach via email: [email protected]. For the purposes of this discussion, we shall divide the region of Mesopotamia (the area between the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers) into two sub-regions: the southern region known as Sumer (Shinar in the Bible) and the northern region known as Aram. Under this classification, Sumer incudes Babylon and the other cities which Nimrod (son of Cush son of Ham) built and ruled in southern Mesopotamia (Gen. 10:8–10). The northern Mesopotamian region of Aram includes the city ofAram Naharaim, also known as Harran, and Aram Zoba, also known as Aleppo (Halab). Both regions of Mesopotamia shared Aramaic as a common language. ABRAHAM WAS BORN IN SUMERIAN UR In painting the picture of Abraham’s background, most Biblical commentators assume that Abraham was born in Ur and that his family later migrated northwards to Harran. The Bible (Gen. 11:28; 11:31; 15:7; Neh. 9:7) refers to the place of Abraham’s birth as Ur“ Kasdim,” literally “Ur of the Chaldeans.” Academia generally identifies this city with the Sumerian city Ur (although others have suggested different sites).[1] According to this version of the narrative, Abraham’s family escaped Ur and relocated to Aram in order to flee from the influence of Nimrod. The reason for their escape is recorded by tradition: Nimrod—civilization’s biggest sponsor of idolatry—sentenced Abraham to death by fiery furnace for his iconoclastic stance against idolatry.[2] After Abraham miraculously emerged unscathed from the inferno, his father Terah decided to relocate the family from Ur (within Nimrod’s domain) to the city of Harran in the Aram region, which was relatively free from Nimrod’s reign of terror (Gen. 11:31). It was from Harran that Abraham later embarked on his historic journey to the Land of Canaan (Gen. 12). Josephus in Antiquities of the Jews mentions a similar version of events. He quotes the first-century Greek historian Nicolaus of Damascus who wrote that Abraham, a “foreigner” from Babylonia, came to Aram. There, he reigned as a king for some time, until he and his people migrated to the Land of Canaan.[3] NAHMANIDES: ABRAHAM WAS BORN IN HARRAN Nahmanides (in his commentary to Gen. 11:28) offers a slightly different picture of Abraham’s origins and bases himself upon a series of assumptions which we shall call into question. He begins by rejecting the consensus view that Abraham was born in Ur Kasdim by reasoning that it is illogical that Abraham was born there in the land of the “Chaldeans” because he descended from Semites, yet Chaldea and the entire region of Sumer are Hamitic lands. He supports this reasoning by noting that the Bible refers to Abraham as a “Hebrew” (Gen. 14:13) not a “Chaldean.” He further proves this point from a verse in Joshua (24:2) which states, Your forefathers always dwelt ‘beyond the River’, even Terah, the father of Abraham, and the father of Nahor. The word always (m’olam) in this context implies that Abraham’s family originated in the “beyond the river” region, even before Terah. Similarly, he notes, the next verse there (24:3) states And I took your forefather Abraham from ‘beyond the river’ and led him throughout all the land of Canaan, which also implies that Abraham is originally from the region known as “beyond the river.” For reasons we shall discuss below, Nahmanides assumes that the term “beyond the river” favors the explanation that Abraham was originally from Harran, not Ur Kasdim. Nahmanides further proves his assertion from the fact that the Bible mentions Terah took Abram his son, and Lot the son of Haran, his grandson, and Sarai his daughter-in- law, his son Abram’s wife and he went forth with them from Ur Kasdim to go into the land of Canaan and they came unto Harran and dwelt there (Gen. 11:31). In this verse, the Bible only mentions that Terah travelled to Harran with Abraham, Sarah, and Lot, yet elsewhere, the Bible mentions Nahor lived in Harran (see Gen. 24:10 which refers to Harran as theCity of Nahor). Nahmanides reasons that if Abraham’s family originally lived in Ur Kasdim and only later moved to Harran without taking Nahor with them, then Nahor would have remained in Ur Kasdim, not in Harran. Hence, the fact that Nahor lived in Harran proves that the family originally lived in Harran, not Ur Kasdim. Elsewhere in his commentary to the Bible (Gen. 24:7), Nahmanides offers another proof that Abraham was born in Harran and not Ur Kasdim. He notes that when Abraham commanded his servant to find a suitable bride for his son Isaac, he told him,Go to my [home]land and the place of my birth (Gen. 24:4), and the Bible continues to tell that the servant went to Harran, not to Ur Kasdim, implying that Harran is the place of Abraham’s birth. He further notes that it is inconceivable that Abraham would tell his servant to go to Ur Kasdim to find a suitable mate for Isaac, because its inhabitants—the Chaldeans—were Hamitic and are therefore unsuitable to intermarry with the family of Abraham (who were of Semitic descent).

Abraham’s early travels according to Nahmanides In light of his conclusion that Abraham was born in Harran, not in Ur Kasdim, Nahmanides offers a slight twist to the accepted narrative. He explains that Abraham was really born in Aram, which is within the region known as “beyond the river,” and is well within the territory of Shem’s descendants. He explains that Terah originally lived in Aram where he fathered Abraham and Nahor. Sometime later, Terah took his son Abraham and moved to Ur Kasdim, while Nahor remained in Aram in the city of Harran. Terah’s youngest son, Haran, was born in Ur Kasdim. Based on this, Nahmanides explains that when the Bible says Haran died in the presence of his father Terah in the land of his birth, in Ur Kasdim (Gen. 11:28), the Bible means to stress that Ur Kasdim only was the city of Haran’s birth, but not the city where Abraham and/or Nahor were born. After living in Ur Kasdim, Terah and his entourage eventually left and returned to Harran (when Abraham was en route to the Land of Canaan). The Talmud (TB Bava Batra 91a) mentions that Abraham was jailed in the city Cutha and identifies that city with Ur Kasdim. Nahmanides also cites Maimonides (Guide to the Perplexed 3:29) quotes the ancient gentile author of Nabataean Agriculture[4] who writes that Abraham, who was born in Cutha, argued on the accepted philosophy of his day which worshipped the sun, and the king imprisoned him, confiscated his possessions, and chased him away. Nahmanides explains that researchers have revealed that the city of Cutha is not in Sumer, the land of Chaldeans, but is, in fact, located in the northern Mesopotamian region of Aram between Harran and Assyria. This city is considered within the region of “beyond the river” because it lies between the Euphrates and Tigris Rivers (making it “beyond the Euphrates” if the Land of Israel is one’s point of reference).[5] Thus, argues Nahmanides, the Talmud also shares his view that Abraham was born in Aram, not Sumer. Based on his view of Abraham’s early life, Nahmanides explains an inconsistency addressed by the early commentators. When God commanded Abraham to go to the Land of Canaan, He told him to leave from your [home]land and from the place of your birth and from the house of your father (Gen. 12:1). The early commentators (see Rashi and Ibn Ezra ad loc.) address the following question: If Abraham had already left Ur Kasdim, the presumed place of his birth, and had moved with his father to Harran, then why did God tell him again to leave the place of his birth? Nahmanides answers that according to his own understanding, this question does not even begin to develop because Abraham was not born in Ur Kasdim, he was born in Harran and later moved to Ur Kasdim, only to return to Harran from where God commanded him to go to the Land of Canaan. In addition to what Nahmanides wrote in his commentary to Genesis, he repeats this entire discussion of Abraham’s origins in his “Discourse on the words of Ecclesiastes.”[6]

QUESTIONING NAHMANIDES’ ASSUMPTIONS As we have already mentioned, Nahmanides’ position is based on several assumptions, each of which needs to be examined. Firstly, Nahmanides asserted that it is illogical to claim that Abraham was born in Ur Kasdim because the inhabitant of Sumer were Hamitic peoples, yet Abraham was a Semite. This claim is unjustified because there is no reason to assume that only Hamites lived in Sumer, only that Sumer was, in general, a Hamite-dominated principality. Furthermore, even according to Nahmanides’ own internal logic, this argument is certainly flawed because Nahmanides himself admits that Abraham and his family did live in Ur Kasdim at some point, thus he clearly concedes that Semites could live there. Secondly, Nahmanides maintains that while Terah and his two eldest sons were born in Harran, he later relocated with Abraham alone to Ur Kasdim. Nahmanides fails to explain Terah’s rationale for moving with Abraham Ur Kasdim and why he did not take Nahor with him. This vital part of the story should have been explained by the Bible or at least by tradition. Abarbanel (to Gen. 11:26) raises this issue as one of five difficulties with Nahmanides’ approach. He compounds the difficulty by arguing that if Terah’s family originally lived in Harran and only later moved to Ur Kasdim, then the Bible should read and he went forth with them from Ur Kasdim to go into the land of Canaan and they returned to Harran and dwelt there, to imply that they had once lived in Harran. Yet, instead the Bible says and they came unto Harran and dwelt there, implying that they reached Harran for their first time. Furthermore, Nahmanides proves that Abraham’s family originated in Harran not Ur Kasdim from the fact that after Terah took Abraham, Sarah, and Lot from Ur Kasdim to Harran—leaving Nahor where he was—Nahor was also found in Harran, even though he did not come there with his father. However, this proof is also unjustified and had already been addressed by Ibn Ezra (in his commentary to Gen. 11:29). Ibn Ezra writes that it is likely that Nahor arrived to Harran either before or after his father and for that reason he is not listed amongst Terah’s entourage when relocating from Ur Kasdim to Harran. In fact, there is Biblical precedent for Ibn Ezra’s first suggestion, for when Jacob and his family relocated from the Land of Canaan to Goshen in Egypt, Judah was sent there ahead of the rest of his family (see Gen. 46:28). In the same vein, it is likely that when Terah relocated his family from Ur to Harran, Nahor was sent ahead of everyone else. In addition, Nahmanides proves from Abraham’s incarceration at Cutha that he lived in Aram at the time; however, contemporary scholars seem to agree that Cutha is actually in Sumer, not in northern Mesopotamia as Nahmanides mentions in the name of other researchers.[7] Nonetheless, to Nahmanides’ credit, there is some proof that Cutha is in northern Mesopotamia, not in Sumer: The abovementioned Talmudic passage (TB Bava Batra 91a) notes that in addition to his incarceration at Cutha, Abraham was also jailed at Kardu. Where is Kardu? When the Bible tells that the Ark of Noah landed at the mountains of Ararat (Gen. 8:4), all the Tagumim (Onkelos, Jonathan, Neofiti, and Peshitta) explain that Ararat is Kardu. This leads to the conclusion that the location of Abraham’s imprisonment was Armenia, north of Assyria and northeast of Aram, the region in which the Ararat mountains lie (in present-day Turkey). In fact, the name Kardu is preserved by a contemporary nameplace in that region: Kurdistan and its inhabitants who are called Kurds.[8] Based on this, one can argue that if Abraham was incarcerated at Kardu, then Cutha is also likely in that same general area, placing the city closer to Aram than to Sumer.

R. NISSIM OF GERONA AND ABARBANEL DISAGREE WITH NAHMANIDES R. Nissim of Gerona (1320–1376), in his commentary to the Torah, quotes Nahmanides and then proceeds to disagree. He argues that even if Ur Kasdim is in Sumer as Nahmanides assumes, the verse Your forefathers always dwelt ‘beyond the River’ is still not true. This is because the word always implies that Abraham’s family never lived elsewhere, yet even Nahamanides freely admits that the family lived in Ur Kasdim, which he does not consider within the region of beyond the river. R. Nissim reasons that if Haran and Lot were born in Ur Kasdim, then Terah’s family must have stayed there for at least thirty years (a reasonable age of fatherhood in the post-Babel era, see Gen. 11:10–26) for Haran to be born, mature, and father Lot. Instead, R. Nissim proposes that Ur Kasdim is, in fact, considered beyond the river. Accordingly, he understood that Ur Kasdim is actually located in northern Mesopotamia [9] and Abraham was born there, as were Haran and Lot, before the family relocated to Harran, which is also within the same region. According to this explanation, Your forefathers always dwelt ‘beyond the River’literally means that Abraham’s family never left that region, even when they lived in Ur Kasdim.[10] This view is also adopted by Abarbanel.[11] In addition to the two difficulties mentioned above and R. Nissim’s question, Abarbanel points out two more difficulties with Nahmanides’ approach. He quotes the verse And Abram and Nahor took for themselves wives… (Gen. 11:29) and notes that by grouping together Abraham and Nahor’s respective marriages, the Bible implies that Abraham and Nahor married their wives together—at the same time and place. If so, this passage is at odds with Nahmanides’ explanation who understood that at that time, Nahor was in Harran while Abraham was in Ur Kasdim. Abarbanel’s fifth and final difficulty is with Nahmanides’ assumption that Ur Kasdim is not considered beyond the river. He cites two Biblical verses which together imply that Ur Kasdim is considered beyond the river. When God identified Himself to Abraham He said unto him: ‘I am the LORD that brought thee out of Ur Kasdim, to give thee this land to inherit it’ (Gen. 15:7). Quoting God, Joshua says I took your father Abraham from beyond the River, and led him throughout all the land of Canaan, and multiplied his seed, and gave him Isaac (Josh.24:3). When analyzing these two verses collectively, one concludes that Ur Kasdim and beyond the river are synonymous, casting suspicion on Nahmanides’ view that Ur Kasdim is not considered beyond the river. (Nahmanides himself addresses this issue by differentiating between being “brought out of” Ur Kasdim and being “taken” from beyond the river, a distinction which Abarbanel rejects.)

WHO WERE THE CHALDEANS? Another issue with Nahmanides’ abovementioned explanation (although not necessarily crucial to his position on Abraham’s birthplace) is his assumption that the Chaldeans were Hamites who did not live together with Semites and would certainly not marry them. This assumption is clearly at odds with other early commentators who assume that the Chaldeans were indeed Semitic peoples. Furthermore, the Bible never explicitly mentions the “Chaldean” people in connection with Sumer until the time of King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon; thus, there is no reason to assume that the Chaldeans occupied Sumer in the time of Abraham. The notion that the Chaldeans are Semitic peoples has its roots in early works. Josephus writes in Antiquities of the Jews that the Chaldeans descend from Arphaxad, the son of Shem,[12] an assertion echoed by R. Gedaliah Ibn Yahya (1515–1587).[13] Interestingly, the last three letters of Arphaxad’s name (KHAF-SHIN-DALET) spells Kesed (Chaldea), the eponym of the Kasdim (Chaldeans). Ibn Ezra (to Gen. 11:26) writes that while Abraham was born in Ur Kasdim, the city was not yet known under that name in his time because Kasdim are descendants of Abraham’s brother Nahor.[14] It seems that Ibn Ezra understood that in Abraham’s time, the Chaldeans had not yet developed into a nation. Similarly, Radak (to Gen. 11:28) writes that Ur Kasdim was not actually called “Ur of the Chaldeans” at the time that Terah’s family lived there because the Chaldeans did not yet exist. He explains that the Chaldeans are descendants of Terah’s grandson Kesed, son of Nahor (mentioned in Gen. 22:22, see Radak there) who was born later. Radak mentions this a third time in his commentary to Isaiah 23:13 where he notes that the Chaldeans, who descend from Kesed, son of Nahor, conquered the cities originally built by Assur and his descendants. Maharal of Prague (1520–1609) explains[15] that the Chaldeans were mostly descendants of Assur (a son of Shem, see Gen. 10:22) but were called “Chaldeans” because the descendants of Kesed conquered them. Maharal also equates the Chaldeans with the Arameans, implying that the Chaldeans were not a Hamitic nation, but rather a Semitic nation descending from Aram, another son of Shem (see Gen. 10:22). By equating the Chaldeans with the Arameans, Maharal understood that the Chaldeans were not a Hamitic nation; but were Semitic. Maharal elsewhere[16] also identifies the Chaldeans with the Arameans and notes that his explanation is inconsistent with the words of Nahmanides in Parshat Hayei Sarah, but does not specify what Nahmanides says or even to which passage in Nahmanides he refers. Given our discussion, it seems that Maharal refers to the passage in question in which Nachmanides writes that the Chaldeans are descendants of Ham. In fact, Maharal in his commentary to the Torah (Gur Aryeh to Gen. 24:7) explicitly rejects much of what Nahmanides there writes.[17] In short, most commentators understand that the Chaldeans were actually Semitic peoples, unlike Nahmanides’ assumption that they were Hamitic. Nonetheless, there is some support for Nahmanides’ position in the apocryphal Book of Jubilees (11:1-3) which tells that Reu, the great-grandfather of Terah, married the daughter of Ur, son of Kesed, who founded the city Ur.[18] While according to Radak, the Chaldeans descend from Kesed, a grandson of Terah, Jubilees seems to maintain that the Chaldeans descend from an earlier person named Kesed who already lived in the time of Reu, Terah’s great-grandfather, and merely married into the Semitic family.[19] Either way, there is certainly no validation of Nahmanides’ assertion that the Hamitic Chaldeans and the Semites were completely separate.

NEBUCHADNEZZAR THE CHALDEAN WAS A HAMITE There is one Talmudic source which, by reasonable extension, might serve as a source for Nahmanides’ assumption that the Chaldeans were Hamitic peoples. The Talmud (TB Hagiga 13a) states that Nebuchadnezzar was “a son of a son of Nimrod.” As explicitly noted in the Bible, Nimrod was a Hamite (a son of Cush, son of Ham).[20] Prima facia, the Talmud explains that Nebuchadnezzar was a grandson of Nimrod, thereby making Nebuchadnezzar a Hamite. Although the Bible never mentions explicitly that Nebuchadnezzar was a Chaldean, it certainly implies such by calling his subjects in Babylonia “Chaldeans.” Furthermore, the Talmud calls Nebuchadnezzar’s granddaughter Vashti a Chaldean (see below), implying that Nebuchadnezzar himself was also Chaldean. All of this together raises the likelihood that the Talmud understood that Chaldeans are Hamites. Rashi (to TB Pesahim 94b) endorses a somewhat literal reading of the Talmud and explains that Nebuchadnezzar was not really Nimrod’s grandson; he was simply a descendant of Nimrod (a view shared by Tosafot to TB Yevamot 48b). Rabbi Aryeh Leib Ginzberg (1695–1785) favors this approach in his work Turei Even (to TB Hagiga 13a), giving credence to the notion that Nahmanides took this Talmudic passage literally as well. However, the Tosafists (there) reject a literal reading of the Talmud. They argue that since there is no source to the notion that Nebuchadnezzar was a descendant of Cush (Nimrod’s father), then the Talmud must not mean that Nebuchadnezzar was literally a grandson or even descendant of Nimrod.[21] Instead, the Tosafists explain that the Talmud was simply drawing an analogy between Nimrod, who was a wicked ruler of Sumer and persecuted Abraham, and Nebuchadnezzar, who was also a wicked king there and persecuted the Jews, as if to imply that Nebuchadnezzar was his “spiritual” heir. Furthermore, there is a Jewish legend which states that Nebuchadnezzar descended from the union of King Solomon and the Queen of Sheba.[22] According to this legend, Nebuchadnezzar was certainly not paternally Hamitic.[23] Finally, some commentators understand that the Talmud does not mean that Nebuchadnezzar was literally a genealogical descendant of Nimrod, rather that he was a reincarnation of Nimrod. All in all, there is no clear proof from the Talmud’s assertion about Nebuchadnezzar that the Chaldeans were Hamites.

THE LANGUAGE OF THE CHALDEANS We shall now turn to a discussion concerning the Chaldean language, which may help us better understand the origins of the Chaldean people and whether they were Hamitic or Semitic. The prophet Isaiah relates that God said, I will rise up against them—the word of God, Master of legions—and I will discontinue from Babylonia its name and remnant, grandchild and great-grandchild—the word of God (Isa. 14:22). The Talmud (TB Megillah 10b) tells that R. Yonatan would expound this verse as an introduction to the Book of Esther. The Talmud understood that this verse refers to the Chaldeans (the people of Babylonia) who destroyed the First Temple. R. Yonatan would explain that its name refers to their script, remnant refers to their language, grandchild refers to their monarchy, andgreat-grandchild refers to Vashti—the last scion of the Babylonian royal family who was wed to the Persian king Ahasuerus and was executed at the beginning of the Book of Esther. Accordingly, declares the Talmud, the Chaldeans are a nation that has neither script nor language.[24] However, in actuality, the Chaldeans did have a language, for the Chaldeans spoke Aramaic. Why then does the Talmud not reckon with the fact that they spoke Aramaic? This question is asked explicitly by the Tosafists (to TB Megillah 10b, Avodah Zarah 10a) and is addressed by many commentators. Rashi[25] explains that the Talmud does not mean that the language spoken by the Chaldeans would cease to exist, but rather that the Chaldeans borrowed their language (Aramaic) from other people (Arameans). According to this understanding, the Chaldeans were the inhabitants of Southern Mesopotamia (i.e. Sumer, where Babylon lies), while the Arameans were the inhabitants of Northern Mesopotamia (i.e. Aram) and are not the same people, they simply shared a common language. Although Rashi fails to explain the significance of the fact that the Chaldeans borrowed Aramaic from the Arameans, his explanation does shed light onto the Talmud’s declaration that the Chaldeans do not have a language; the Talmud means that the Chaldeans do not have their own language. The Tosafists (there) offer another answer. They explain that the when the Talmud states that the Chaldeans have neither language nor script, this does not refers to a common language and script, but rather to a royal language and script. That is, the Talmud acknowledges that the Chaldeans spoke Aramaic, but understood that they are to be “discontinued” in that their royal class would no longer have a special language of its own. It seems that the Babylonian royalty originally spoke a separate language (perhaps Akkadian[26] or the even older Sumerian) than did the rest of the nation, and this language was eventually lost as punishment for their role in the destruction of the First Temple.[27] R. Shlomo Alkabetz (1500–1580) proves this explanation in the introduction to his work Manot HaLevi (a commentary to the Book of Esther). He shows from the fact that Nebuchadnezzar and all the Babylonian kings after him spoke Aramaic—by then the dominant language in the Ancient World—that the original Chaldean language fell into disuse. In fact, he notes, the Bible tells that the Chaldean language had to be taught to members of the royal household (see Dan. 1:4), proving that it was by then relegated to obscurity. It is unlikely that the “Chaldean Language” referred to is actually Aramaic because one would assume that members of the royal court in Babylon already knew Aramaic![28] R. Alkabetz further notes that by the time of Ahasuerus, king of Persia, the Chaldean language was almost extinct and with the demise of Vashti, the language completely died, allowing Ahasuerus to declare each man shall rule over his house and speak the language of his nation (Est. 1:22), marking the utter end of the language of Babylon. Interestingly, R. Moshe Ashkenazi Halpern (c. 1555)[29] writes in his work Zikhron Moshe (to Est. 1:22) that Vashti justified her impudence by claiming not to understand the language of Ahasuerus. He explains that this is the meaning of the versethe queen Vashti refused to come at the king’s commandment (Est. 1:12) which can super- literally be translated as the queen Vashti refused to engage in the king’s words. Because of this, upon executing Vashti, Ahasuerus proclaimed that each man should be able to speak the language of his nation, i.e. without his wife claiming not to understand him. Maharsha and R. Yehuda Aryeh Leib Alter (1847–1905)[30] reject a literal reading of the Talmud and instead explain it esoterically. They understand, in slightly different ways, that when the Talmud mentions that the language of the Babylonians would be discontinued, it does not refer to their actual language but to the “essence” of their existence, which their language represents. They are therefore not bothered by the question of the Tosafists that Aramaic continued and continues to exist as a spoken and written language because they understood that the Talmud was not actually talking about the discontinuation of their language, it was discussing the discontinuation of their core essence. Once their core essence disappeared, they needed to adopt the “essence” of other nations in order to continue to exist, thereby losing their own identity. If this meta-physical reality was mirrored by physical reality (a point which is unclear in those sources), it would probably mean that the Chaldeans originally spoke Akkadian and/or Sumerian, but when their “essence” was lost, they needed to borrow Aramaic from the Arameans, their northern neighbors (similar to the understanding of Rashi). However, Maharal, who similarly interpreted this passage esoterically[31] and understood that the Chaldeans and Arameans are one and the same (as mentioned above), would certainly not agree with this theory. Instead, Maharal cites a Talmudic passage (TB Sukkah 52b) which relates that God “regretted” that He created the Chaldeans. Because of this “regret,” the Chaldeans are considered non-existent, personae non grata. If the Chaldeans do not exist, then their language, Aramaic, is to be considered equally non-existent, lingua non grata. For this reason, explains Maharal, Aramaic is not counted in the seventy languages.[32]

THE CHALDEAN LANGUAGE IN PERSPECTIVE To summarize, according to Maharal, the Chaldeans and the Arameans are one and the same, so the Chaldean language is to be identified with Aramaic. This explanation precludes the view of Nahmanides who maintains that the Chaldeans were Hamitic people (as opposed to the Arameans who were Semitic). In fact, we have already shown that Maharal explicitly disagrees with Nahmanides on this issue. On the other hand, Rashi (and perhaps others) understood that the Chaldeans took Aramaic from the Aramean inhabitants of northern Mesopotamia. According to this explanation, the Chaldeans are a distinct people from the Arameans. This explanation leaves open the possibility for Nahmanides’ view that the Chaldeans were the original Hamitic inhabitants of Sumer, albeit their Semitic neighbors to the north influenced them linguistically. Similarly, according to the Tosafists, the Chaldean language was spoken by the royal court in Babylon in tandem with Aramaic. This explanation also leaves open the possibility for Nahmanides’ explanation that the Chaldeans were the Hamitic inhabitants of southern Mesopotamia, and despite their acceptance of Aramaic (which originated from their neighbors to the north and had spread throughout most of the civilized world), they also maintained a distinct Chaldean language to be used by the ruling class.

IN SUMMATION In short, Nahmanides proposes a new theory that Abraham was actually born in Harran (in the northern Mesopotamian region of Aram), before his family relocated to Sumerian Ur and eventually returned to Harran. Nahmanides offers several justifications for his theory, most significant of which is the notion that Sumerian Ur, which was inhabited by the Chaldeans, was Hamitic territory and it is therefore unlikely that Abraham’s family, who were Semitic, originated there. We cast doubt on this proof by noting that even if the Chaldeans occupied Sumer at that time, they were not necessarily Hamitic peoples and certainly there is no justification for arguing that non-Hamitic families could not live there. Additionally, we explored the possibility of Hamitic origins for the Chaldean by surveying various commentators’ understandings of the “Chaldean Language” mentioned in the Talmud. While some of those explanations definitely allowed room for Nahmanides’ position, none of them directly support it. Finally, each of the proofs that Nahmanides offers for his view is based on certain assumptions and we have shown that each of those assumptions is not universally agreed upon.

[1] A. Marcus, Keset HaSofer (Tel Aviv, 1971) pgs. 296–297 writes that Ur Kasdim was definitely in the southern region of Mesopotamia, close to the Persian Gulf. [2] TB Pesachim 118a, Bereishit Rabbah §38:13, Targum Jonathan (to Genesis 11:28), and more. [3] See Kitvei Yosef ben Matityahu, Kadmoniut HaYehudim Vol. 1 (Jerusalem: Reuven Mass, 1939) pg. 31. [4] The work Nabataean Agriculture was written in Arabic by the 9th century Muslim philosopher Ibn Wahshiyya. It is supposedly an Arabic translation of an ancient Syriac text describing the beliefs of the Sabian religion. However, academia believes this work to have been forged (at least in part) by Ibn Wahshiyya himself. [5] Interestingly, several popular maps place Ur Kasdim southwest of the Euphrates River, meaning that it is on the same side of the Euphrates as is the Land of Israel, technically outside of Mesopotamia, albeit still within the same general vicinity. This lends credence to Nahmanides’ view that Aram is considered “across the river” while Ur Kasdim is not, even though both are in the general region of Mesopotamia. See A. Kaplan, The Living Torah (New York: Maznaim Publishing Corporation, 1985) pg. 42;Ramban Al HaTorah Bereishit Vol. 1 (Artscroll/Mesorah Publications, 2004) pg. 593; and Y. Elitzur & Y. Keel (eds.), Atlas Da’at Mikra (Jerusalem: Mossad HaRav Kook, 1998) pg. 66. [6] C. Chavel (ed.), Writings of the Ramban, Vol. 2 (Jerusalem: Mossad HaRav Kook, 1963) pp. 202–203. [7] M. Berenbaum and F. Skolnik (eds.), “Cuth, Cuthah,” Encyclopedia Judaica 2nd ed. Vol. 5. (Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2007) pp. 344–345. [8] Y. Elitzur & Y. Keel (eds.), Atlas Da’at Mikra (Jerusalem: Mossad HaRav Kook, 1998) pg. 386. [9] P. Berlyn, “The Journey of Terah to Ur-Kasdim or Urkesh,” Jewish Bible Quarterly Vol. 33:2 (Jerusalem: Jewish Bible Association, 2005) suggests that Ur mentioned in the Bible is actually Urkesh, an ancient city in Northern Mesopotamia. Other than that, she accepts the narrative proposed by Nahmanides (that Terah originally lived in Harran where Abraham was born, relocated to Ur, and later returned to Harran), without mentioning him by name. [10] L. A. Feldman (ed.), Pirush HaRan Al HaTorah (Jerusalem: Machon Shalem, 1968) pp. 153–154. [11] See there for an explanation of why Ur is associated with the “Chaldeans” if it is located in Aram. Rabbi Eliezer Ashkenazi (1512–1585) disagrees with Nahmanides’ narrative and instead proposes that Abraham never lived in southern Mesopotamia. He argues that Abraham’s family moved from within northern Mesopotamia from Aram Naharim to Harran (which he understands to be two separate places) and all references to Ur of the Chaldeans do not refer to a southern Mesopotamian city named Ur but rather to the Chaldean (Sumerian?) dominion over northern Mesopotamia in Abraham’s time. See Ashkenazi’s Maasei HaShem (Warsaw, 1871) pp. 78a–79a . [12] Kitvei Yosef ben Matityahu, Kadmoniut HaYehudim Vol. 1 (Jerusalem: Reuven Mass, 1939) pg. 27. [13] Shalshelet HaQabbalah (Jerusalem, 1962) pg. 218. [14] A. Marcus, Keset HaSofer (Tel Aviv, 1971) pgs. 296 criticizes Ibn Ezra for confusing Kesed son of Nahor with Kesed of the family of Arphaxad. [15] Gur Aryeh to Deuteronomy 32:21. [16] Gevurat HaShem (Ch. 54). [17] See also “Galut V’Geulah” (by Rabbi Chaim Wallin of Baltimore) printed in Kovetz Yeshurun Vol. 7 (New York-Jerusalem: Machon Yeshurun, 2000) pg. 572 who elaborates on what Maharal writes there. [18] E. Yassif (ed.), The Chronicles of Jerahmeel (Ramat Aviv: Tel Aviv University, 2001) pg. 121 gives “Milcah bat Ruth” as the name of Reu’s wife. [19] Nonetheless, Jubilees (9:4) mentions that Arphaxad’s land includes Chaldea, which implies that the Chaldeans are descendants of Arphaxad (as Josephus understood). [20] Rabbi Gershon Chanoch Heinich Leiner (1839–1891) discusses Nebuchadnezzar’s lineage in light of his previous position at the court of the Assyrian king Sannechreb. See Rabbi Leiner’s Petil Tekheilet, (Lublin, 1904) pp. 137–138. [21] R. Hayyim Yosef David Azulai (1724–1806) in his work Petah Einayim (to TB Hagiga 13a) notes that a contradiction between selections of Tosafot to differing tractates is not considered a contradiction because they were authored by different people. However, Tosasfot HaRosh, which was ostensibly written by one person, namely R. Asher ben Yehiel (1250–1327), also contains this contradiction: InTosafot HaRosh to TB Hagiga 13a, he writes that Nebuchadnezzar was not literally a descendant of Nimrod, while in Tosafot HaRosh to TB Yevamot 48a, he writes that he was. This contradiction has yet to be resolved. [22] See Rashi to I Kgs. 10:13 and J.D. Eisenstein (ed.), Otzar Midrashim (New York, 1915) pg. 46 and Rabbi David Yoel Weiss’ Megadim Hadashim (to TB Hagiga 13a). [23] Nonetheless, it is possible that his Hamitic lineage comes from his maternal genealogy, for Sheba is listed as a grandson of Cush (Gen. 10:7). However, it is equally plausible that the Queen of Sheba herself was Semitic as the name Sheba also appears twice in Semitic genealogies, namely as a son of Joktan (Gen. 10:28) and as a grandson of Abraham (Gen. 25:3). [24] The Talmud elsewhere (TB Avodah Zarah 10a) makes a similar comment about the Romans (who destroyed the Second Temple), see the commentators there. [25] To TB Megillah 10b, as explained by R. Yosef Hayim of Baghdad (1832–1909) in his Talmudic work Ben Yehoyada (there). [26] If, in fact, the “lost language” to is Akkadian, then it is much easier to understand how and why Aramaic suddenly superseded Akkadian as the lingua franca of the Ancient world and why rabbinic literature seemingly never refers to that language. [27] Azulai in Petah Einayim (to TB Megillah 10b) quotes an anonymous scholar who explains the juxtaposition of the lack of a royal language and the death of Vashti. He explains that because Vashti rejected Ahasuerus’ request to appear before him unclothed by publicly responding to him a disrespectful way, Ahasuerus had no choice but to execute his wife in order to save face. Had there been a royal language used internally by the ruling class, Vashti’s insolence would not have created such an impact because she would have responded to her husband in that language, limiting the knowledge of her disrespectful response to her husband and his royal courtiers, while the other attendees at the party would not have realized what transpired. [28] Ibn Ezra (Daniel 2:4) writes that when the Bible says that Nebuchadnezzar’s necromancers spoke to him in Aramaic, this refers to the Chaldean language, which was spoken by the king. See also M. Amsel, Shut Hamaor Vol. 1 (Brooklyn, 1967) pp. 472–474. [29] R. Halpern was either the father-in-law or brother-in-law of the more famous scholar R. Shmuel Eliezer Eidels (Maharsha). SeeZikhron Moshe (Jerusalem: Zichron Aharon Publications, 2003) pp. 7–9 for further discussion. [30] Sfat Emet (to TB Megillah 10b). [31] In the introduction to Ohr Hadash (a commentary to the Book of Esther). [32] See Tiferet Yisrael (Ch. 13), Gevurat HaShem, (Ch. 54) and Chiddushei Aggadot (to TB Sotah 33a).