Ohrmazd's Better Judgement (Meh-Dādestānīh)
DOMENICO AGOSTINI, EVA KIESELE and SHAI SECUNDA THE VAN LEER JERUSALEM INSTITUTE/PRINCETON UNIVERSITY/THE HEBREW UNIVERSITY OF JERUSALEM
OHRMAZD’S BETTER JUDGEMENT (MEH-DĀDESTĀNĪH): A MIDDLE PERSIAN LEGAL AND THEOLOGICAL DISCOURSE
SUMMARY This article presents a transcription, translation, commentary, and discussion of a ritual and theological passage taken from the long-neglected Middle Persian work, the Zand ī fragard ī Jud-dēw-dād. The selection is notable for the way it mixes theological and ritual forms of discourse while considering situations in which impure or Evil things, like corpses, wolves, and sins, naturally come into contact with pure and Good elements, like water, fire, and good deeds. Along with explaining this rich text and its various textual parallels, the article considers the potential research value of the Zand ī fragard ī Jud-dēw-dād for Iranists and scholars of late antique religious literature. Keywords: Middle Persian literature; Pahlavi; Zand; Videvdad; Zoroastrianism; dualism; theology.
RÉSUMÉ Cet article présente la transcription, la traduction, le commentaire et l’analyse d’un passage rituel et théologique tiré de l’œuvre en moyen-perse Zand ī fragard ī Jud-dēw-dād qui a été longtemps négligée. Ce passage se distingue par la façon dont le texte mélange les formes théologiques et rituelles du discours tout en tenant compte des situations dans lesquelles des choses impures ou mauvaises, comme les cadavres, les loups et les péchés, entrent en contact naturellement avec des éléments purs et bons, comme l’eau, le feu et les bonnes actions. Tout en donnant l’explication de ce riche texte et de ses différents parallèles textuels, cet article envisage la valeur potentielle de recherche du Zand ī fragard ī Jud-dēw- dād, aussi bien pour les iranisants que pour les spécialistes de la littérature religieuse de l’Antiquité tardive. Mots clés : littérature en moyen-perse ; pehlevi ; Zand ; Videvdad ; zoroastrisme ; dualisme ; théologie. * **
177 STUDIA IRANICA 43, 2014, p. 177-202 178 D. A G O S T I N I , E. K I E S E L E , S H. S E C U N D A StIr 43, 2014
Man muss schon ein Meer sein, um einen schmutzigen Strom aufnehmen zu können, ohne unrein zu werden. (Fr. Nietzsche, Also sprach Zarathustra I.3)
INTRODUCTION At the sixth conference of the Societas Iranologica Europaea held in Vienna in 2007, Dr. Götz König (Freie Universität Berlin) presented a paper that called attention to a lengthy Pahlavi text entitled Zand ī fragard ī Jud- dēw-dād (ZFJ – “Commentary on chapters of the Videvdad”).1 While ZFJ is mentioned in virtually all major surveys of Pahlavi literature including E. W. West’s pioneering article “Pahlavi Literature”2 and J. C. Tavadia’s monograph, Die mittelpersische Sprache und Literatur der Zarathustrier,3 the text received no sustained attention by Iranists4 until König highlighted its significance.5 In the few years since then, a handful of studies have been published that include transcribed and translated passages from ZFJ.6 During this time, the text has been put to a variety of scholarly uses, including textual criticism of the Videvdad (“The Law for Discarding the Demons”),7 source criticism of Pahlavi literature,8 orality studies,9 intellectual history,10 and research aimed at establishing the historical period during which the Zoroastrian authorities of the zand flourished.11 We hope that the present
1 König 2010. This title appears in the first line of the text. The earliest surviving manuscript of Zand ī fragard ī Jud-dēw-dād (ZFJ) is MS TD2, which was copied in 1626 CE in Yazd by Frēdōn Marzābān. The manuscript was brought from Iran by T. D. Anklesaria in 1880. Apparently, all other surviving copies derive from MS TD2 and are thus devoid of philological value. MS TD2 was reproduced in JamaspAsa et al. 1979. Presently, it is kept in the B. T. Anklesaria collection at the Cama Oriental Institute, Bombay. 2 West 1895. 3 Tavadia 1956. 4 An exception is JamaspAsa 2001, which includes a translation and transcription of a small amount of the text. 5 König suggests that this neglect has to do with the title of ZFJ, which led scholars to believe that it was a derivative second-order work unworthy of sustained inquiry. An additional factor may have been the relative disinterest in Pahlavi ritual texts until recent years. 6 See for example Skjærvø 2012a, p. 357 (=TD2 443 and TD2 559-60); idem. 2012b, p. 40 (=TD2 616-619); idem. 2009, pp. 300-301 (=TD2 442). 7 König 2010; Andrés-Toledo 2012. 8 König 2010; Secunda 2010. 9 Secunda 2010. 10 Elman and Skjærvø [forthcoming]. In addition, Yaakov Elman has a number of publications on ZFJ and Zoroastrian intellectual history in preparation. 11 Elman 2006; Secunda 2012. O H R M A Z D ’ S B E T T E R J U D G E M E N T 179 article, which has evolved from an international collaborative effort, will join this august company.12 As its name implies, ZFJ bears a close relationship to the Videvdad – the only ancient Avestan nask (major textual division) that has survived from antiquity in its entirety.13 The Videvdad comes down to us in an Avestan original and Middle Persian rendition. The Avestan text of the Videvdad (AV) is organized as an ongoing dialogue between Zarathustra and Ahura Mazdā, and it touches upon numerous issues of mythical and legal significance. The Avestan text has survived in the so-called sade (simple) manuscripts, and also together with a Middle Persian rendition known as Pahlavi Videvdad (PV). The latter contains the original Avestan text and a Middle Persian zand (commentary).14 The zand comprises a direct “interlinear” Middle Persian translation of the original Avestan text and adds brief explanatory glosses that clarify obscure words and attempt to render the “Pahlaviized” Avestan more comprehensible. The zand also preserves extensive scholarly discussions that frequently cite Sasanian religious authorities by name.15 In terms of genre, ZFJ is a kind of Pahlavi literary hybrid. It is not a completely restructured compendium along the lines of the Middle Persian legal text Šāyast nē šāyast (“Permitted and not permitted”) and its organi- zation closely follows the order of PV. On the other hand, ZFJ does occasionally reorganize the material of PV, including the zand’s extended scholarly discussions, and presents it in a question-and-answer format known as ham-pursagīh16 related to the Pahlavi Rivāyats, i.e. the Zoroastrian
12 As noted, Götz König was the first modern scholar to call attention to the research potential of ZFJ. He transliterated, transcribed, and translated a portion of the text and compared it to parallels in the Pahlavi Videvdad and Šāyast nē Šāyast. Mahnaz Moazami (Columbia University and Encyclopædia Iranica Foundation) transcribed a large portion of the text and translated a number of passages together with Yaakov Elman (Yeshiva University). Prods Oktor Skjærvø (Harvard University) provided a preliminary transcription of the entire text from beginning to end, incorporating what had been transcribed by König and a substantial part that had been transcribed by Moazami, and translated some passages. Elman, Skjærvø, and Yishai Kiel (Yale University) have been working on the second half of the manuscript, while the authors (Domenico Agostini, Eva Kiesele, and Shai Secunda) have formed a working group that is translating and transcribing the text from the beginning of the manuscript. The present article represents the first fruits of our labours. 13 For an up-to-date treatment of the Videvdad along with bibliographical references, see Skjærvø 2007. 14 See Cantera 2004, pp. 1-14. 15 On the sages cited in the zand and the historical period in which they operated, see Secunda 2012. 16 See Hintze 2009, pp. 39-40. In contrast to the Avestan catechism form in which a human (Zarathustra) asks the Divine (Ahura Mazdā) for instruction, in the Pahlavi 180 D. A G O S T I N I , E. K I E S E L E , S H. S E C U N D A StIr 43, 2014
“responsa” literature. Unlike the Rivāyats however, ZFJ more frequently retains the attributions to named authorities and also much of the original Middle Persian formulations of the zand. Finally, there are numerous textual and occasional legal differences between ZFJ and PV. It is quite possible that these reflect an alternative form of PV that was available to the redac- tors of ZFJ. Potentially, such alternative forms were associated with specific exegetical schools, as is implied in a couple of Middle Persian passages,17 however it is too early to offer a definitive statement on the matter. This paper presents a transcription, translation, and commentary on a passage from ZFJ (TD2 448-453) that combines ritual-legal concerns with mythological traditions and quasi-philosophical speculation. The article also includes a longer expository section that describes the text’s larger theological program. Like some previous studies, we highlight a number of features of ZFJ that are promising for future research. For the time being— that is, until the translation and commentarial work on the entire text of ZFJ (and PV) is completed—it is premature to answer some of the basic quest- ions concerning the text, including its date of redaction,18 linguistic features, and its relationship to various exegetical and jurisprudential schools.19 Nevertheless, we hope that the issues raised here will ultimately contribute to solving some of these important issues.
TEXT AND TRANSLATION 20 (1) [TD2 448:15-449:9] ēn wārān kē pad hixr ud nasāy ud xrafstar ud daštān
“responsa” literature questions are posed by anonymous (perhaps fictive) petitioners to religious leaders. 17 See König 2010, pp. 115-119; Secunda 2010, pp. 155-159. 18 Note that König 2010, 129, tentatively draws a connection between ZFJ and the Rivāyat ī Ādur-farnbay, ninth century CE Pahlavi work of legal “responsa”. 19 See König 2010, pp. 116-118. 20 The transcription is based on Skjærvø’s with some slight changes. As a rule we have generally avoided emending the text. Hence, the transcription can at times reflect an inconsistency in grammatical forms. Additions to the original are placed in angular brackets < >. Apparently extraneous words or letters are indicated by parentheses. In cases of debatable renditions the original term appears in parentheses immediately following the translation. In the translation parentheses are also used to add brief explanatory words and phrases. 21 MS ī. O H R M A Z D ’ S B E T T E R J U D G E M E N T 181
wārēnēd 22 meh-sūdīh ī mard ī ahlaw ud wāstar ud xwarišn ī gōspandān rāy This rain which is raining onto bodily refuse (hixr), dead matter (nasāy), Ahrimenic creatures, menstruation, and other forms of impurity, when they collect it (lit. “take it up” – i.e., the rain) (and) keep it in the place of the (purifying) sap (tan tōhmag), is it permitted or not? No, no, no! Why? Because Ohrmazd, through the principle of Better Judgment (meh-dādestānīh),23 makes it rain for the food and drink of humans (and) the beneficent cattle – so that the livelihood and the nourishment of humans (and) cattle comes from it. In a (situation of) adversity it is (equally) allowed (šāyēd) to make it rain in such a way that he makes it rain in every place for the Greater Benefit (meh-sūdīh) of the righteous man, pasture and the food of cattle. (2) [TD2 449:9-15] čiyōn pad gōwišn ī zarduxšt paydāg kū guft kū ud āb kunāy tō kē ohrmazd hē abar ō (ud) hazzān wāzēnāy abar ō nasāy wāzēnāy tō kē ohrmazd hē abar ō (ī) hixr ud abar ō ast frāz hilē 24 ud āškārag frāz frōwēnāy 25 ō nasāy ī nigān sūrāg ī xrafstarān awēšān pad āgenēn frāz frōwēnāy abar ō 26 zrēh ī pūytīg 27 As it is manifest in the words of Zarduxšt: He said: And will you who are Ohrmazd make water? Will you bring it upon the ossuary? Will you who are Ohrmazd bring it upon dead matter? Will you let it forth on bodily refuse and upon the bones? And will you make the exposed (corpses) float forth to the buried dead matter (and) the hole of Ahrimenic creatures? Will you make them—together—float to the Pūytīg Sea? (3) [TD2 449:15-450:7] u-š guft ohrmazd kū kunēnd wārag ī zrēh purr az nasāy ud hixr ud xrafstar <ī> dōsēn kē pad yōjdahrīh az zrēh pūytīg ō zrēh ī frāxkard burd yōjdahrīh bē kunēm 28 ud az-iz ān wan ī 29 hu-āb tōhm ī hamāg urwarān abar kunēm xwarišn xwārišn dārōg darmān ī harwisp ox ī
22 MS wārēnīdan. 23 See our discussion of this term in the commentary below. 24 MS ŠḆKWNydy ( ). Note here that the scribe (mistakenly?) substituted the indicative -ē instead of the subjunctive -āy. 25 MS plwkn’y. See AV 5.16 frafrāuuaiiāhi. 26 MS KN. 27 MS pyttyk. 28 The plural ending –ēm is used here instead of the expected –am and might be explained as a majestic plural. 29 MS wnd. 182 D. A G O S T I N I , E. K I E S E L E , S H. S E C U N D A StIr 43, 2014
astōmand ud gōspand ī hudāg bē wālēnam ud 100-ēwēnag 1000- ēwēnag bēwar-ēwēnag drustīh bēšāzišnīh ō dām baram. And Ohrmazd said: They (i.e., the waters carrying pollution) make the rain-flow(?)30 of the sea full of dead matter and bodily refuse and carapacial31 Ahrimenic creatures which are carried in purification from the Pūytīg Sea to the Frāxkard Sea. I perform the purification! And also from that Tree of Good Waters, the seed of all plants, we prepare food, drink and drug. I make grow the remedies of all the bony existence (ox ī astōmand) and the beneficent cattle. And I carry to the creation a hundred, thousand, ten-thousand types of health and healing. (4) [TD2 450:7-451:1] az abestāg paydāg awēšān pad āgenēn bē wārēnam man 32 kē ohrmazd ham pas zarduxšt was-rāmišnīh meh-sūdīh <ī> ēn kār dīd rāy ēg-iš guft kū ēn meh ud weh ēn nēktar ēn meh-dādestānīhātar čiyōn tō abēzag hē u-š meh-sūdīh-iz ī az ān ī gannāg mēnōg ka andar dām dwārist ud ān wārān ī wuzurg kardan xrafstarān kē ēn zamīg hamāg 3-nēzag-bālāy frāz grift ō zrēh ī pūytīg 33 ruft abāz nimūdan 34 zarduxšt padiš hunsand rāmišnīg bē kard (ī) amāh mardōmān It is evident from the Avesta: I who am Ohrmazd, make them rain (all) together. Then, because Zarduxšt (Zarathustra) saw the Great Benefit (of) this act, (he had) great peacefulness. Then he (Zarduxšt?) said: this is greater and better, this is more beautiful, this more (closely accords to) Better Judgment, as you are pure. And by showing the Greater Benefit which is from when the Gannāg Mēnōg (Foul Spirit) scurried into the creation, and from making those great rains (from which) the Ahrimenic creatures—which occupy all this earth three spears high— were swept into the Pūytīg sea, Zarduxšt (was) content with it. (And) he made our people peaceful. (5) [TD2 451:1-5] ka az ī dahāg ud abārīg petyārag ī gannāg mēnōg čiyōn gurg ud gurg- sardag ka pad ātaxš ud āb abāz 35 tuwān dāštan ayāb an-ēr ka pad ātaxš sōzēnd šāyēd ayāb nē abēr abēr abēr šāyēd. If Až ī Dahāg and other adversaries of Gannāg Mēnōg—like wolves and the wolf-species—when in fire or water (and) it is possible to
30 The meaning of this word is not entirely clear. It is obviously related to wārīdan (to rain), however the suffix -ag apparently shifts the sense . 31 Literally dōsēn (plastery). 32 MS wʾlynwwml. 33 MS pwyttyk. 34 MS nmwtn'. 35 MS abāg. O H R M A Z D ’ S B E T T E R J U D G E M E N T 183
restrain (them); or (when) they are cremating non-Iranians, is it permitted (to restrain them) or not? It is very, very, very permitted! (6) [TD2 451: 5-10] pas dādār ī ohrmazd nē tuwānīg kē wināh ī ēdōn garān ī pad nasāy ō āb ud ātaxš burd guft estēd pad and čārakkarīh abāz nē tuwān dāštan kē ān meh-sūdīh ī xwarišn ud xwārišn ī mardōmān ud gōspandān jud az ēn kardan nē tuwān bawēd. Then is the Creator Ohrmazd “not capable”? He who is not able to restrain such a grave sin as is said (regarding) carrying dead matter to water and fire – despite that much ability? He who is not able to perform that Greater Benefit of food and drink for people and cattle without this (i.e., bringing rain on corpses)? (7) [TD2 451:10-12] az ān ī ka petyārag ō dām mad andar gētīg ēč tis ī abēzag būdan kardan nē šāyēd bē kerbag ān bawēd kē-š meh-sūdīh rāy Since the adversary came to the creation, it is not possible (šāyēd) for anything in the gētīg to be pure (or) to make (pure). Rather, a good deed (kerbag) is that on account of which there is Greater Benefit. (8) [TD2 451:12-452:2] kerbag az wināh wēš ayāb kerbag az kerbag meh ayāb wināh az wināh keh wināh ān ō 36 bun kē wināh az kerbag meh ayāb wināh az wināh meh u-š dādestān ēdōn čārag 37 bē ōzadan rāy tis-ēw ēdōn abd čiyōn rāyēnišn ī kahas kē-š ābādānīh ī gēhān aziš bē (nē) 38 kardan nē rāyēnīdan čāšt Is a kerbag from a sin better? Or is a kerbag from a kerbag greater? Or a sin from a sin lesser? A sin is that (which goes) to the account; which (as) a sin from a kerbag is great,39 or (as) a sin from a sin is great. And the decision is such: The remedy for killing is any one thing as wonder- ful as the preparation (rāyēnišn) of an irrigation channel whence the cultivation of the world – it has been taught “making” (the irrigation channel), not “preparing.”
36 MS KN. 37 MS: člʾk. 38 The scribe added nē above the line, however this makes the sentence difficult to render and may represent a secondary (and incorrect) emendation on the part of the scribe. That said, an alternative reading of this sentence would place “nē rāyēnīdan čāšt” as the opening of the following paragraph, where it would introduce the aphorism with the words “has it not been taught to edify?” We are not aware of this kind of rhetorical formulation in Pahlavi literature. 39 Based on the context, both occurrences of the term meh in this final sentence of the paragraph should be interpreted not as comparatives, rather as positives. 184 D. A G O S T I N I , E. K I E S E L E , S H. S E C U N D A StIr 43, 2014
(9) TD2 [452:3-8] āb ud ātaxš az mard ī ahlaw weh nēst mard ī ahlaw gandōmand 40 ud pūdōmand ud margōmand ud yaskōmand ud armēšt bē ō pāyag ī zišttom rasēd ud jādag ī wuzurg meh-sūdīh rāy ēn hamāg anāgīh mardōm ō xwēš barēnd ud pad abāz-abespārišnīh ī ō mēnōg ud ēmēd ī tan ī pasēn padiš hunsand ud rāmišnīg ham Water and fire are no better than a righteous man. A righteous man is full of stench, putridity, death, illness, infirmity (and) reaches the ugliest degree. And (yet) on account of the allotment of the tremendous Greater Benefit people bring to themselves all this evil. But through the re-consignment to the mēnōg and the hope of the Final Body, I am content and at peace with it. (10) [TD2 452:8-13] ka wēšag <ī> awērān kē pad-iz nasāy 41 ud warōmand pad ātaxš bē wirāyēnd ud was xrafstar ud murw ud dām ī 42 ohrmazd ud dām ī ahrimen pad ātaxš sōzēnd šāyēd ayāb nē arz ī 43 ābādānīh <ī> gētīg (ī) meh-sūdīh ī dām ī ohrmazd rāy ēg-iš az ān sōxtan kerbag was bawēd If they are restoring with fire a ruined forest which may even be (in a state of) dead matter or doubtful (regarding dead matter), and they burn with fire many xrafstar and birds and creatures of Ohrmazd and creatures of Ahrimen, is it permitted or not? The value of the prosperity of the gētīg is for the Greater Benefit of Ohrmazd’s creatures. Therefore there is much kerbag from burning those. (11) [TD2 452:13-453 :3] pad wēšag ka-š ātaxš awiš abganēd dānēd kū nasāy gyāg šāyēd ayāb nē wēšag warōmand nē pādixšāy kardan ud ān gyāg dānēd wēnēd ēg-iš pāk bē kunišn ud ān gyāg kū rāy dānēd awiš šudan ud ayāftan nē tuwān ātaxš frāz hilišn 44 Regarding the forest, when he sets it ablaze (and) he knows that it is a place of dead matter, is it permitted or not? It is not authorized to render the forest “doubtful”. And he apprehends (dānēd) that place (and) sees (the dead matter). Then he should make it pure. And (regarding) that place concerning which he apprehends that it is not possible to go and obtain (the dead matter) he should release the fire.
40 MS ynd’w ’wmnd. 41 MS nns’y. 42 MS ud. 43 MS ēw. 44 MS ŠḆKWNx2. O H R M A Z D ’ S B E T T E R J U D G E M E N T 185
(12) [TD2 453:3-453:9] ka ātaxš frāz hilēnd pad nasāy frāz rasēd čiyōn kunišn 45 ka-š gyāg čiyōn tuwān būdan bē nigerēd ka-š nasāy bē tuwān burdan ayāb aziš ātaxš abāz 46 tuwān dāštan pad ātaxš 47 andar hištan pad gyāg nigerīdan a-wināh ā-š nasāy nasāy bē pahrēzišn ud tan rēmanīh margarzānīh nē bawēd ud ka pad ātaxš andar hištan 48 ayāb pad gyāg nē nigerīdan wināhgār ka-š nasāy bē tuwān burdan nasāy pad ātaxš bē sōzēd rēman margarzān ud hagriz pāk nē bawēd When they release the fire (and) it approaches the dead matter, how should they act? When he examines the place of it regarding the possible—when it is possible to carry away the dead matter or it is possible to keep the fire away from it—(then) he is sinless regarding “letting the fire in” (and) regarding “examining the place”. If the place is such that it was “possible” (tuwān…), he examines: If it is possible to carry away the dead matter or it is possible to keep the fire away from it, he is sinless regarding “letting the fire in” and “examining the place.” Then, each corpse should be attended to and there will be neither bodily impurity (nor) a margarzān-sin. If he is in (a state of) “letting the fire in” or in (a state of) “not examining the place”, he is a sinner. When it is possible for him to carry out the dead matter (but) he burns the dead matter in the fire, he is impure, a margarzān sinner and will never become pure.
COMMENTARY (1) This section deals with the culpability of humans when a sacred ele- ment comes into contact with impure matter. The scenario is one in which rain is falling on bodily refuse (hixr), dead matter (nasāy),49 Ahrimenic
45 MS OḆYDWN-x2šn'. 46 MS abāg. 47 MS ʾthšʾ. 48 MS ŠBKWNx2d. 49 Avestan hixra- appears at AV 5.14, 16, and 18 alongside terms related to corpses, including nasu- and daxma-. While etymologically speaking hixr would seem to refer to liquid excrements (Bartholomae 1904, p. 1812), this sense is not normally retained in Pahlavi literature. Some Middle Persian passages make a distinction between hixr and nasāy, although the significance of this difference varies. The earliest Middle Persian sources on the topic make an interesting distinction: At the beginning of the fifth chapter of PV, two sixth century Zoroastrian scholars named Abarg and Mēdōmāh (Secunda 2012) discuss scenarios in which regular dead matter (nasāy) swallowed by a bird is downgraded to the status of hixr. According to Abarg this occurs as soon as the bird ingests the dead flesh, while Mēdōmāh argues that it happens only once digestion has taken place (PV 5.1 and 5.4). A further disagreement appears later in that passage between Abarg and an apparently more senior scholar 186 D. A G O S T I N I , E. K I E S E L E , S H. S E C U N D A StIr 43, 2014 creatures (xrafstar),50 menstruation, and other impurities.51 In this way it is similar to the beginning of ZFJ and the first paragraphs of the fifth chapter of the Videvdad upon which it is based, which describe people unintentionally bringing wood contaminated by impurity to the fire. Our passage considers whether one may keep the water away from impurities by collecting and then preserving it in the gyāg ī tan tōhmag (literally, “place of the body-seed”). To the best of our knowledge, the phrase gyāg ī tan tōhmag is found nowhere else in Pahlavi literature. However, a related term—āb ī tan tōhmag—does appear. The Bundahišn (Bd., “The Primal Creation”) includes āb ī tan tōhmag in a list of seventeen natural liquids: šāzdahom ān ī andar urwarān gumēxt estēd kē āb ī tan-tōhmag gōwēd Sixteenth, that which is mixed in plants, which they call “āb ī tan-tōhmag” (liquid of the “body-seed”).52 As opposed to the moisture found at the base of plant stalks which constitutes the fifteenth liquid in Bundahišn’s list, āb ī tan-tōhmag is mixed into the plant itself, and thus refers to a kind of sap. This meaning is also apparent in other sources, including Rivāyat ī Ādur-farnbay 79.2 where
named Gōgušasp which considers whether disintegration of the dead matter onto a leaf is deemed legally equivalent to digestion and thus downgraded to hixr (Elman 2006, p. 29). More explicit treatment of the difference between nasāy and hixr can be found in the ninth century Pahlavi books. In Dēnkard V.24.19b the ninth century Zoroastrian authority Ādurfarnbay son of Farroxzād explains to his Christian interlocutor Bōxt-Mārē that hixr refers to “the pollution of the parts of the body that die and are separated from the body while the main part of the body is still alive.” Ādurfarnbay notes that this includes “not only the flesh, but also semen and blood, as well as the other things” (Dēnkard V.24.19b; for the text, see Madan 1911, p. 463; Dresden 1966, p. 342; for a translation, see Skjærvø 2011, p. 253). On the other hand, the legal compendium Šāyast nē šāyast 2.95 (Tavadia 1930, p. 64) refers to the hixr of dead corpses. Interestingly, the Pahlavi Rivāyat accompanying the Dādestān ī Dēnīg (PRdd) maintains that matter that falls off of the hands, feet, or other limbs is deemed hixr specifically when it does not contain moisture; otherwise, it is considered nasāy (Pahlavi Rivāyat 55.3; for the text, see Williams 1990, I, pp. 196-197 [transliteration and transcription] and II, p. 92 [translation]). A number of other Middle Persian texts consider what is included within the category of hixr, including ZFJ, which in one long passage (TD2 468-9) discusses various discharges that accompany an aborted foetus. That passage tries to determine whether these are considered regular dead matter (nasāy) or merely hixr. 50 These are harmful and/or unappealing creatures that Young Avestan and Middle Persian texts state were formed by the Evil Spirit and should therefore be extermi- nated. For a recent article with relevant bibliography, see Moazami 2005. 51 Choksy 1989 remains the only full length monograph devoted to purity in Zoroastrianism. 52 Bd 11B.1. See Pakzad 2005, p. 159. Compare Anklesaria 1956, pp. 112-113. The translation is based on an edition being prepared by Domenico Agostini and Samuel Thrope. Note that depending on the context, “āb” can mean either “water” or, more generally, “liquid.” O H R M A Z D ’ S B E T T E R J U D G E M E N T 187 unadulterated sap (āb ī tan-tōhmag kē-š āb-gumēzišnīh nēst, āb ī tan-tōhmag which does not have a water admixture) appears in a list of foods permitted to women who have had an abortion. According to some Pahlavi texts, āb ī tan-tōhmag was used with gōmēz each morning to purify the hands from nightly contamination by the demon of corpse impurity.53 In short, it seems that the author of the ZFJ passage is interested in whether it is appropriate to store rainwater that had come into contact with impure substances alongside sap used for purification purposes. The answer to this question is an emphatic no, and the reason has to do with Ohrmazd’s munificent relationship to the world. The word to describe this relationship is meh-dādestānīh, which we understand as a principle of “Better Judgment.” The term appears in a related passage at PV 7.71 in a section that deals with how one sustains a thirsty woman who is impure following an abortion. Although bringing water to such a woman might have been seen as constituting a grave sin, Ohrmazd nevertheless declares: ē xwarād čē ēdōn ōy ast meh-dādestānīh ka ān gyān bōzēd Let her drink! Because such is the meh-dādestānīh when one saves that soul.54 In this text, meh-dādestānīh renders Avestan masiiō arəθəm – perhaps “greater concern,” though arəθəm might also connote a sense of “justice”.55
53 See for example ZFJ MS TD2 577; 588; and Gizistag Abāliš (‘Accursed Abāliš’) question 4. The latter reads as follows: mowbed guft kū amāh pad šab ka druz ī nasrušt ō tan rasēd nazdist pad ān gōmēz ayāb pad āb tan tōhmag framāyēm burdan / The Mowbed said: “During the night, the demon of filth reaches our body, so, in the morning, we order it to be taken away by means of cow’s urine or the sap of plants (Skjærvø 2011, p. 245). 54 The transcription of this and all other passages from PV are from P. O. Skjærvø’s preliminary edition (personal communication). 55 See Bartholomae 1904, p. 195. Interestingly, in an unpublished paper Maria Macuch [2006] notes that the Syriac Corpus Iuris—a legal compilation produced in eighth century Fars by a leader of the Christian community named Īšōʿbōxt—contains a definition of a related term, beh-dādestanīh which is of course a later form of Pahlavi weh-dādestānīh. According to Īšōʿbōxt, beh-dādestanīh refers to a legal situation in which someone is willing to go beyond their normal obligations. In contrast to a related concept known in Persian as passand that refers to legal concessions, beh-dādestanīh connotes going beyond minimum legal requirements. According to Macuch, meh-dādestānīh is a synonym of weh-dādestānīh, and should normally be rendered as “extension of law, justice.” Note that Īšōʿbōxt translates the term into Aramaic as yetīrūt dīnā. Indeed, many appearances of the term in Pahlavi literature refer to legal situations where this sense is appropriate. It is noteworthy that our passage and PV 7.71 use the term in order to develop a theology of Ohrmazd’s benevolence while responding to a set of legal-ritual questions. On the other hand, there are other passages that stress different senses of the term. Dēnkard V.9.13 (Madan 1911, p. 443; Dresden 1966, p. 346), actually defines meh-dādestānīh as: “Love of the gods and love of the ruler” (yazdān dōstīh ud xwadāy dōstīh); “keeping the ruler and serving the ruler” (xwadāy dārīh xwadāy paristīh); “being totally 188 D. A G O S T I N I , E. K I E S E L E , S H. S E C U N D A StIr 43, 2014
The idea behind Ohrmazd’s declaration is quite similar to our ZFJ passage. Just as the concern for the purity of water is superseded by the greater concern for the person’s life, Ohrmazd allows rain to fall everywhere—even on impurities—in order to sustain life. According to the ZFJ §1, rain is one expression of Ohrmazd’s Better Judgment in the world, as it provides nourishment for humans and cattle alike. The Greater Benefit (meh-sūdīh) that occurs from rainfall falling everywhere—again, including on impurities—outweighs the negative impact of occasional contamination. There is no reason to protect rain from impuri- ties since by doing so one contradicts the way Ohrmazd designed the world. In short, the passage articulates a kind of theological utilitarianism that is maintained and further developed in subsequent paragraphs. Interestingly, a related formulation which seems to be based on material similar to our ZFJ passage can be found in the seventeenth chapter of the Pahlavi Rivāyat accompanying the Dādestān ī Dēnīg (PRdd).56 The passage concerns a period of difficulty when foreign rulers dominate Iran. Zoroastrians are urged not to escape the enemy onslaught, but rather to try and restrain (abāz dāštan) it. Indeed, unless there is a threat to life, one who flees is held accountable for the destruction wreaked by the non-Iranians. This is followed by a series of four commandments from Ohrmazd to Zarduxšt, detailing the proper way to observe the Avestan commandment to “worship the creator.” Proper worship implies, inter alia, providing food and water to beneficent cattle from which food and clothing for people are made. The last commandment is to “perform deeds and decisions (kār ud dādestān) most beneficially (meh-sūdīhā), as everyone is agreed on this, that everyone should observe meh-dādestānīh.” This is followed by the state- ment that one should observe meh-dādestānīh since Ohrmazd and the Amahraspands do so, knowing that (acting) through meh-dādestānīh is for the benefit of the world (sūd ī gēhān rāy), from which comes the benefit of the people (sūd ī mardōmān). Illustrating the principle of divine Better Judgment, the passage goes on to explain that despite the fact that people die from rainfall or rivers (incidentally, the theme of Videvdad 5.8-9), the
‘Iranian’ and one of the Good ‘Religion’” (hammist ērīh ud hu-dēnīh); and “love of the good and love of creation” (weh dōstīh dām dōstīh). Apparently, the passage refers to behaviour that would merit meh-dādestānīh. See also Dēnkard III.6.3 where among other things meh-dādestānīh is defined as promoting benefit and restraining harm (rawāg sūdīh ud pādirān zyānīh; we are grateful to Judith Josephson for making available to us the relevant section of her edition-in-progress on Dēnkard III). 56 See Williams 1990, I, pp. 90-95 (transcription and transliteration); II, pp. 32-35 (translation). The meaning of some key terms in this passage remains unclear. Related material also appears in the Dēnkard III.6.3 passage referenced above, which is also rather obscure. O H R M A Z D ’ S B E T T E R J U D G E M E N T 189 gods do not diminish their battle against evil by making it rain – rather, rain is “of greater benefit” (sūdōmand-tar.) (2) This paragraph opens a unit (§2-4) that functions as a proof-text for the answer given in §1. Zarduxšt’s question to Ohrmazd about the latter bringing water upon impure things like ossuaries, corpses, hixr and bones, and having the impurities flow to the mythic Pūytīg sea is related to the question posed in §1. Paragraph two and three are based on ancient Iranian mythic hydrology that among other things refers to the Frāxkard sea (Avestan Vourukaša)57 and three salt-water seas known as Pūytīg (Avestan Pūitikā; this body of water was understood during Sasanian times to be the Persian gulf), Kamrōd (associated with the Caspian Sea), and Syāwbun (this body of water was assumed to be the Black Sea). One version of the myth appears in Bd 10,58 while a related, more ancient articulation appears in AV 5.17-19. In fact, ZFJ more or less directly quotes PV 5.16: abar ō nasāy wazēnē tō kē ohrmazd hē abar ō hazzān wazēnē tō kē ohrmazd hē abar ō hixr wazēnē tō kē ohrmazd hē abar ō ast frāz hilē tō kē ohrmazd hē an-āškārān frāz frawē tō kē ohrmazd hē nasāy-nigān ast kē an-arzānīgān gōwēd awēšān pad āgenēn frāz frawē abar ō zrēy pūdīg Will you who are Ohrmazd bring (the water) upon dead matter? Will you who are Ohrmazd bring it upon the ossuary? Will you who are Ohrmazd bring it upon bodily refuse? Will you who are Ohrmazd bring it upon bones? Will you who are Ohrmazd make the unrevealed (corpses) float forth? – i.e. “buried dead matter.” There is someone who says “unworthy.” Will you make them—together—float to the Pūytīg Sea? There are a number of differences between the text from PV and its ZFJ parallel: (i) ZFJ begins the citation by explicitly referring to water in the phrase ud āb kunē tō kē ohrmazd hē. This sentence does not appear in most witnesses of PV, although at PV 5.15 both MSS T44 and E10—two late revisionist manuscripts with interesting readings—gloss wazēnē (rendering Avestan zazāhi) as kunē.59 Still, no surviving version of
57 The Vourukaša Sea appears elsewhere in the Avesta and Yasna 65.3-4 (=Yašt 5.3-4) refers to it in an explicitly hydrological context. 58 This chapter is devoted to explicating “the nature of the seas.” An important parallel can be found in Wizīdagīhā ī Zādspram 3.12-14 (Gignoux and Tafazzoli 1993, pp. 42-45). 59 Some other manuscripts of PV 5.15 retain only the gloss kunē and not the initial Pah- lavi rendition of Avestan zazāhi as wazēnē. As for the general situation of witnesses to PV, in Skjærvø’s current estimation (private communication) the principal pre-revi- sionist descendants of PV seem to be T44, Bh11, F10, and M3. Of these, T44 is closest to L4, Bh11 a good second; M3 is clearly descended from K1, while F10 moves about; and there is a lot of back-and-forth between L4 and K1 in the descendants 190 D. A G O S T I N I , E. K I E S E L E , S H. S E C U N D A StIr 43, 2014
PV 5.16 uses the verb kunē to describe Ohrmazd bringing rain upon impure things. Only ZFJ reflects such an alternate tradition. (ii) The order of the impure items in ZFJ is different from the way these items appear in AV 5.16 and PV 5.16. Both the Avestan and Pahlavi have nasāy… hazzān… hixr … ast, while ZFJ has hazzān… nasāy… hixr… ast. (iii) Unlike PV as it has come down to us, ZFJ has āškārag (visible) instead of anāškārag (not visible) in its standard rendition of Ave- stan aŋhaiϑīm. PV’s gloss, nasāy nigān (“buried corpse”) constitutes a straightforward gloss of this term, since a not visible corpse is probably a buried one. On the other hand, although the term nasāy nigān appears in ZFJ in virtually the same position, it must function quite differently since it glosses the word āškārag, which means its very opposite – “visible”. Apparently as a result, ZFJ includes the preposition ō before nasāy ī nigān in order to convey a sense of movement from one thing (a visible corpse) to another (an invisible corpses). Thus, in ZFJ’s version the sentence means that the visible corpses will reach the not visible ones. (iv) Following this, ZFJ adds the gloss sūrāg ī xrafstarān, which does not appear in PV as it has come down to us. Instead, PV adds ast kē anarzānīgān gōwēd (“there is one who says ‘the unworthy ones’”), which apparently expresses Zoroastrianism’s displeasure with buried corpses, as seen at PV 3.22. The meaning of the ZFJ gloss is less clear. In general, the significance of these variants needs further study, which cannot be undertaken here.
(3) This passage contains Ohrmazd’s response to Zarduxšt and it paral- lels subsequent passages in the Videvdad. At AV 5.17-18 Ohrmazd affirms Zarduxšt’s description and proclaims that he releases water from the Vouru- kasha Sea on impurities and makes them flow to the Pūitikā Sea. At AV 5.19 Ohrmazd adds to the mythic hydrology by describing the purification that is achieved as the water-flow makes its way from the Pūitikā Sea back to the Vourukaša Sea and onto the so-called Tree of Good Waters which contains the seeds of all plants. This particular myth is also detailed in Bd, where we read of ten thousand species of plants engendering the tree of many seeds (wan ī was-tōhmag) that grows up in the Frāxkard Sea. This tree in turn is described as containing all plant seeds.60
(as noted by Geldner 1886-1896) Although in the current case ZFJ is in line with the revisions (as in E10), we do not know to what extent its version of PV is generally related to the revisionist MSS. 60 Bd 6D.5: az ān hamāg tōhmag ī urwarān wan ī was-tōhmag frāz dād andar zrēh ī frāxkard abar rust kē hamāg sardag ī urwar tōhmag pad tōhm ī ān wan aziš hamē O H R M A Z D ’ S B E T T E R J U D G E M E N T 191
Elsewhere, Bd describes a process of water purification and ‘desalina- tion’ that takes place in the Frāxkard, Pūytīg, and Sadwēs seas.61 This part of the hydrologic scheme is also described in the zand at PV 5.19, which the ZFJ passage paraphrases. The textual condition of this passage is quite problematic.62 Still, it is worth pointing out a number of differences between ZFJ and PV’s formulations: (i) ZFJ emphasizes that Ohrmazd is speaking, while this is merely assumed in PV 5.19 and based on PV 5.17-8. (ii) kunēnd wārag ī zrēh purr az nasāy ud hixr ud xrafstar <ī> dōsēn: Here, both PV and ZFJ seem to be struggling with the Avestan phrase γžarə.γžarəṇtīš. aṇtarə.arəδəm. zraiiaŋhō. ZFJ refers to the polluted waters making (kardan) the sea full (purr) of nasāy, hixr, and xrafstar. PV, on the other hand, states that the polluted waters fully overflow (? āšixt purr), and it does not explicate the impurities in the way that ZFJ does. Similarly, ZFJ refers to wārag ī zrēh – the rain-flow(?) of the sea, while PV 5.19 has andarg-ālag zrēh – the inside or interior of the sea, which matches the Avestan.63 (iii) ZFJ includes the “emphatic” phrase yōjdahrīh bē kunēm (“I perform the purification!”) in order to emphasize Ohrmazd’s agency and the sense that a real purification is taking place. This phrase is absent from PV. (iv) Unlike PV which details an impressive number and variety of plants, ZFJ focuses on the remedies for people and cattle that are derived from the plants. ZFJ’s focus might be related to PV 5.20, where food and fodder are described as going to people and cattle.
waxšēnd / From all the seeds of the plants, the tree of many seeds was brought forth, (which) grew forth in the Frāxkard Sea (and) from which, by the seed of that tree, the seeds of all species of plants grow. (Compare Pakzad 2005, p. 106 and Anklesaria 1956, pp. 78-79). 61 Bd 10.9: mayān ī ēn zrēh ī frāxkard ud ān ī pūytīg pahlūg zrēh dārēd kē war ī sadwēs xwānēnd harw stabrīh ud sōrīh ud nē-pākīh az zrēh ī pūytīg ō zrēh ī frāxkard wurrōyēd šawēd pad wād ī wuzurg ī buland az ān war ī sadwēs abāz zanēd harw čē pāk ud rōšn andar ō frāxkard čašmagān ī ardwīsūr šawēd ān ī didīgar abāz ō pūytīg rēzēd / Between the Frāxkard sea and the Pūytīg one, he keeps the side sea, which they call Lake Sadwēs. He strikes back everything coarse, salty, and impure which aims to go from the Pūytīg sea to the Frāxkard sea by a great and high wind coming from that Lake Sadwēs. All that is clean and luminous goes into the Frāxkard (and) the springs of Ardwīsūr. The other things he pours back into the Pūytīg. (Compare Anklesaria 1956, pp. 102-103; Cereti 2007, pp. 59-60; Pakzad 2005, p. 142). 62 For an attempted reconstruction of the text, see Cereti 2007, p. 60. 63 Note that in most manuscripts of PV the word in any case does not look like ālag. For example, T44 records baxšēnd (HLKWNd) – an error for ālag ī. 192 D. A G O S T I N I , E. K I E S E L E , S H. S E C U N D A StIr 43, 2014
(4) This paragraph continues to cite parallel material from PV. It directly quotes the first line of PV 5.20 which describes the conclusion of Ohrmazd’s hydrological scheme. ZFJ then proceeds to cite material from AV 5.21 – a very complex text that is difficult to interpret with any clarity. Notably, the material found at AV 5.21 appears also at AV 10.18 as part of a purification ritual for corpse impurity. Both passages retain a productive intertextual relationship to a citation of an Old Avestan text from the third Gāθā (Yasna 48:5). AV 5.21 contains a slightly different version which Skjærvø renders as “you make the best things ritually pure for man(kind) after birth. She, the Mazdayasnian Daēnā purifies, O Zarathustra (alterna- tively: Purify her, O Zarathustra: the Mazdayasnian Daēnā).”64 One would think that AV 10.18 harnesses the power of this statement for its purification ritual, while in the present passage the Gāthic citation seems to refer most immediately to the purification that Ahura Mazdā achieves in his hydrolo- gical scheme. Our paragraph apparently reads AV 5.21 as indeed a positive response to Ohrmazd’s hydrology. On the other hand, the surviving Pahlavi zand to AV 5.21 interprets Zarduxšt’s happiness as referring back to earlier in the chapter: ay zardušt ka-š ēd bē dānist kū mard pad xwēškārīh kardan wināhgār nē bawēd pad-rāmišn bē būd The meaning is that Zardušt, when he knew this, (namely,) that people do not become sinners by performing duties, was peaceful.
(5) In this paragraph, ZFJ returns to the kind of legal discussions that comprise most of the work as a whole. The question is clearly related to the one the passage opened with in §1 and constitutes a kind of mirror. More specifically, while the questioner in §1 asked whether one should protect
64 yaožd ma iiāi aipī ząϑəm vahištā // hā yaožd zaraϑuštra yā daēna māzdaiiasniš The original Gathic text differs slightly from the text cited in AV 5.21, having ma iiå “mortal women” in the oldest manuscripts (“you purify mortal women”) instead of ma iiāi “for mortal man” in the later manuscripts of the Yasna,andAV 5.21. The line has received many modern interpretations, all based on the reading ma iiāi, however, these are not of immediate concern here. What is important is that the adjective vahištā, which in the Gathic text is neuter plural “best (thing)s” and goes with the text that follows, has apparently been reinterpreted in AV as feminine singular and thought to refer to the Mazdayasnian Daēnā. The exact meaning of this term (to the Young Avestan authors) is also not certain. In later Zoroastrian literature it refers to the sacred tradition, which may be the sense here as well. The second line, which is in Young Avestan, is ungrammatical and can be understood in two ways: Either hā (“she,” the nominative subject) is correct and yaožd (second person “you purify”) is wrong. This gives “she, the Mazdayasnian Daēnā purifies, O Zarathustra.” Alterna- tively, yaožd (“you purify”) is correct and hā (the nominative) is wrong, resulting in “you purify her, O Zarathustra., the Mazdayasnian Daēnā.” We are grateful to P. Oktor Skjærvø for these notes. O H R M A Z D ’ S B E T T E R J U D G E M E N T 193 water by moving it away from impurities, here the question is whether one should hold back evil things like wolves and non-Iranians from fire and water. Note that we have emended the text from abāg tuwān dāštan to abāz tuwān dāštan since abāg tuwān dāštan is an inexplicable form that shows up nowhere else in Pahlavi literature,65 while abāz tuwān dāštan is relatively common.66 More importantly, the subsequent paragraph uses abāz nē tuwān dāštan to question Ohrmazd’s apparent inability to abstain from sinning in a way that seems to deliberately parallel the present paragraph. Despite the fact that this passage returns to legal discourse, there remain some mythic elements in the form of the ancient Iranian dragon, Až ī Dahāg, and the Evil Spirit, Gannāg Mēnōg. The text explains that the representations of the Evil Spirit are things like wolves and wolf-species, though it is unclear what it means when it refers to an Až ī Dahāg in need of rescuing. It is interesting to note that the affirmative is repeated three times for emphasis just like §1, where “no” was stated thrice. (6) In the wake of Ohrmazd’s affirmation of Zarduxšt’s question about bringing rain on impurities, this paragraph explicitly raises the fundamental theological question about Ohrmazd’s omnipotence. The text is shockingly direct in questioning Ohrmazd’s power: Ohrmazd is depicted as incapable of preventing the grave sin of water and fire coming into contact with impurities. This is expressed by using the verb burdan “to carry” – the normal verb used to describe the human sin of carrying impurities to sacred elements. Interestingly, this depiction of human sin is applied to Ohrmazd’s actions in the world, thereby establishing another parallel between the divine and human realms. The text then cites Ohrmazd’s rationale for bringing rain on all things, including impurities, yet turns this into a question. Namely, if Ohrmazd is truly powerful why can he not bring sustenance to the world without causing metaphysical harm? (7) This paragraph responds to the previous questions and opens a theological exposition about how Ohrmazd’s power can be accounted for in a world of mixture. He states that the nature of gētīg (from Avestan gaēθiia, literally, [world] of the living, and the opposite of mēnōg from
65 The closest form would be Dēnkard III.47.1 (Madan 1911, p. 38 and Dresden 1966, [pp. 28-29]): abar ān ī kēn abāg dāštan sazēd. However, the addition of tuwān in our text would at best render a phrase that already essentially means “allow to occur” entirely redundant. It should be noted that although abāg tuwān dāštan looks little like abāz tuwān dāštan, the mistake may reflect an aural error. In any case, it is not at all uncommon for abāg to appear in place of abāz in Pahlavi literature. See for example Pahlavi Rivāyat 29.4, 29.5, and 48.103. 66 It is perhaps significant that this includes passages like Bd 1.28, where similar matters like “keeping away the Adversity from His creatures” (az dām petyāragīh abāz dārēd) are discussed. 194 D. A G O S T I N I , E. K I E S E L E , S H. S E C U N D A StIr 43, 2014
Avestan mainiiauua, literally “of the mainiiius ‘spirits’”)—an important term in Zoroastrianism that derives from Young Avestan and refers to this world—is such that completely pure, good actions are impossible in a mixed world, even for the deity. The goodness of actions is determined solely in relative, utilitarian terms: Good is whatever constitutes an improvement, i.e. adds to the Greater Benefit of this world relative to the powers of evil. (8) This paragraph elaborates on the utilitarian scheme outlined in §7. The text begins with an interrogation of the relative quality of a kerbag— a term used for religious duties that is somewhat comparable to the Hebrew word mitzvah—which it attempts to incorporate into a larger framework. Since a kerbag’s worth is determined relatively, that is within a complex and ‘mixed’ existence, it makes sense that a kerbag performed against the backdrop of sin is ideal. This leads to questions about “purer” actions like “kerbags from kerbags” and “sins from sins” regarding how they rank on a comparative scale. Notably, the text seems to preserve an answer only for the question about whether “sins from sins” are lesser – which apparently means “less grave”. Specifically, all sins that go to a person’s heavenly account of deeds, regardless of their context, are equally considered sins. The text then seems to quote a decision from elsewhere regarding the ‘remedy’ for killing. Here too, although the initial question of whether kerbags from sins or from kerbags are better is never directly answered, the cited legal decision nevertheless exemplifies the principle that kerbags that are performed to expiate sins are indeed highly positive acts (kerbag az wināh wēš). The paragraph closes with a learned gloss that seems to require actual “making” of a canal and not merely “preparing” it. (9) The following paragraph presents a fascinating apodictic aphorism where righteous people are declared to be as important as water and fire – elements that epitomize purely sacred creations. Although humans are plagued by the admixture of Evil and its concomitant suffering, they bear their fate for the sake of the Greater Benefit (meh-sūdīh). This idea develops further the claim articulated in §8: Good, in this case performed by humans, can indeed emerge out of an admixture of Good and Evil. The final line of the text apparently expresses the confidence that humans will ultimately experience physical purity when they are “re-consigned to the mēnōg”67 and in the final resurrection. Interestingly, this hope is stated in the first person, perhaps suggesting that at some point the text served as a kind of catechism.
67 The idea of humans being “re-consigned” (abāz-abespārišnīh) to divine entities also appears at PV 18.51, where a man who recited the proper liturgy after experiencing a seminal emission is “consigned” (abespārišnīh) to the divine entity Spandārmad. O H R M A Z D ’ S B E T T E R J U D G E M E N T 195
A similar formulation appears at Zand ī Wahman Yasn 4.67: ēdōn guft ohrmazd ō spitāmān zarduxšt ku bē xwāh 68 ud warm bē kun pad zand ud pāzand ud wizārišn bē čāš ō hērbedān ud hāwištān gōw ud pad gēhān frāz gōwēnd. awēšān kē az sadōzim nē āgāh hēnd ēg-išān gōw tā ēmēd ī tan ī pasēn rāy bōxtārīh ī ruwān ī xwēš rāy harg ud anāgīh ud petyārag ī awēšān jud-dēnān ud dēwēsnān abar gīrēnd ud bē barēnd Thus spoke Ohrmazd to Spitāmān Zarduxšt: Seek and memorize the zand and the pāzand, teach the explanation, tell (it) to the priests and the disciples and they will tell it forth in the world. (Regarding) those who are not aware of “the century,” then speak to them so that on account of the hope of the Final Body (and) the salvation of one’s own soul, they take upon (them- selves) and bear the hard work, the harm, (and) the adversity caused by those of different Traditions (dēnān) and dēw-worshippers.69
(10) This paragraph returns to the discussion begun in §5 in which the notion of meh-sūdīh is applied to daily life. The question posed concerns a “ruined” forest which needs to be restored through controlled burning. The problem is that this process may bring fire into contact with dead matter and animals that the text divides into the two categories: “xrafstar”/“creatures of Ahrimen”, and “birds”/“creatures of Ohrmazd.” The ruling is that one may indeed burn the forest since from a utilitarian perspective (arz ī ābādānīh <ī> gētīg, “The value of the prosperity of the gētīg”) the greater good is achieved. This too illustrates the idea that a kerbag can be achieved even if along the way a (unintentional) sin is committed. (12) This paragraph continues the discussion about controlled burning. Here, since the person actually knows that dead matter is in the forest, it would be forbidden to set the fire since certainty implies liability. Interes- tingly, the text precludes a possible pretext of “officially” declaring the forest “doubtful”. The two available options are surveying the scene and re- moving the dead matter if possible. Surprisingly, if one is unable to retrieve the dead matter that has been identified, it is still permitted to set the fire. The paragraph also deals with a case in which the fire has already been lit and is now advancing towards dead matter. Again, one is obligated to examine the scene and determine whether it is still possible to remove the dead matter or alternatively, to prevent the fire from reaching it. The text employs a number of technical usages, including a state of possibility (tuwān) – note that it appears here without an infinitive. In addition, the
68 The scribe uses the heterogram YPLHWN = xwah instead of the homonymous BOYHWN = xwāh. 69 Cf. Cereti 1995, pp. 103-104 (transliteration), 139 (transcription), 158 (translation). 196 D. A G O S T I N I , E. K I E S E L E , S H. S E C U N D A StIr 43, 2014 passage has two usages that express specific offenses: “letting the fire in” (ātaxš andar hištan) and not “examining the place” (gyāg nigerīdan). The final clauses delineate the results of not following the proper procedure. If one could have removed the dead matter and did not, he is both impure, a margarzān—that is a “capital”—sinner,70 and in accordance with Videvdad 3.39, he will never receive expiation.
EXPOSITION ZFJ is almost entirely concerned with the ritual matters discussed in the Videvdad. What is unique about the passage presented in this article is the way legal-ritual discussions give way to theological contemplations that do not function merely as an excursus. Rather, the philosophical arch grounds the subsequent legal discussion with which it retains a productive relationship. It is helpful to describe the broader textual context of the ZFJ passage presented in this article. The very beginning of ZFJ opens with a citation of PV 5.3-4 that absolves humans of culpability in the event that they unknow- ingly take firewood contaminated by different kinds of impure matter (MS TD2 433-437). Beyond defining the types and extent of impurity, a major focus of the discussion is on human knowledge, intentionality and the relationship of these to legal culpability and ritual impurity. ZFJ continues with a discussion about moving and burying corpses that parallels PV 3.14 and 3.40 which likewise focus on culpability in extenuating circumstances (437, 439-441). From there, ZFJ continues with a treatment of the interim storage of corpses and familial obligations towards the deceased (442-448). It discusses the proper procedure in a situation of adverse weather conditions – specifically, snowfall that threatens to bring the corpse into contact with water. This section parallels PV 5.11-14 and incorporates relevant material from PV 8.16, which itself constitutes an inner Avestan parallel. It is possible that our passage was triggered by a short, highly proble- matic text that immediately precedes it and which seems to derive from an already corrupt tradition of PV 5.14 [J-K]. The ZFJ passage raises the issue of bringing water into contact with ‘invisible’ hixr-impurity (hixr ī pad gētīg tan nē paydāg ī, “hixr the substance of which is not visible in this world”), which is likened to pouring water into a potentially contaminated trough. The scenario of rain falling on impurities in the first paragraph of our passage matches this setting. In addition, the case described in the preceding paragraph is reminiscent of the scenario in which someone unknowingly
70 Note that although PV 5.4 deals with a situation in which impurity and sin can be disentangled from one another, in a case of conscious sinning one is indeed both a sinner and impure. O H R M A Z D ’ S B E T T E R J U D G E M E N T 197 gathers contaminated wood, which appears at PV 5.1-7 and is also the subject that ZFJ opens with. Our ZFJ passage picks up with Videvdad 5.15-16 in which Zarathustra asks Ahura Mazdā the following theological question: “Will you, Ahura Mazdā, release the water from the Vourukaša Sea together with the wind and the cloud? Will you, Ahura Mazdā, bring it upon the corpse… upon the daxma... upon the pollution?” In response, Ohrmazd describes the cosmic hydrology through which he waters, purifies, and sustains the world (5.17- 20). The next paragraph (5.21) responds positively to this scheme (“This is the better, this the more beautiful…”), which is followed by four paragraphs that affirm the greatness of the “law for discarding the demons, i.e. the Videvdad”, and caps off the thread begun at the very beginning of chapter five; namely, that Ohrmazd does not consider someone who unintentionally brings fire to contaminated firewood guilty. Thus, the approach outlined by ZFJ here can be seen as a culmination of the theological preoccupations found in the first third of Videvdad 5 (5.1- 20), which includes a number of perspectives on the “mixing” of good and evil in this world. The text begins with a scenario in which mixing occurs due to lack of knowledge, where someone unintentionally collects contami- nated wood for fire, or irrigates a patch of land that contains corpses. Ohrmazd responds leniently to these cases of unintentional mixing. He declares that it is not considered contaminating in order to avoid the cosmic effects of ubiquitous pollution (5.1-7). The subsequent perspective on mixing in the text deals with the way that the purely good elements of water and fire actually kill humans. Here, Ohrmazd claims that these good elements should not be implicated in the death of humans. Instead, two demonic forces are responsible for the deed (5.9-10). The next section reflects a more legalistic perspective, and deals with the construction of huts whose purpose is to keep the elements off of corpses until the spring. In the current context, this section should be seen as providing a practical solution towards the potential mixing of good (the winter rains and snow) and evil (corpses) (5.10-14). The final perspective on the matter is the most explicit, and consists of Zarduxšt asking how Ohrmazd himself could bring water onto impurities when he allows it to rain. Here, Ohrmazd explains that indeed he does bring rain upon impurities in order to initiate a hydrological process that purifies the water and sustains the mythic Tree of Good Waters where all plants can be found (5.15-20). This final perspective can be described as affirmative, namely that Ohrmazd agrees with Zarduxšt’s depiction of him allowing the mixture of good and evil in the form of rain falling on impurities. That said, Ohrmazd merely adds that this is part of a larger, positive cosmological scheme. 198 D. A G O S T I N I , E. K I E S E L E , S H. S E C U N D A StIr 43, 2014
Our section of ZFJ builds on this ancient approach, yet presents it in a new light. It describes Ohrmazd’s response as a utilitarianism which is an integral part of his Better Judgment (meh-dādestānīh). Although the rain will inevitably fall on impurities, this is deemed acceptable since it is necessary for the Greater Benefit (meh-sūdīh) accomplished by sustaining the world. This perspective engenders a relative scale in which a relative good outweighs minor evils. Notably, while in the Videvdad it was suffi- cient for Ohrmazd to merely affirm Zarduxšt’s observation, ZFJ turns this affirmation into a theological principle that guides the entire passage. The ZFJ passage is interested both in legal and theological aspects of the inevitable mixing of good and evil (gumēzišn). In this way, it develops the Videvdad’s juxtaposition of moral, theological, proscriptive, and mytholo- gical perspectives on gumēzišn. ZFJ actualizes a theme that is only latent in the Videvdad, namely, the implicit likening of the human and divine realms regarding the mixing. According to ZFJ, both realms should operate in line with the utilitarian principle of the Greater Benefit (meh-sūdīh). When humans adopt a utilitarian approach to evil in this world they are imitating the divine. What appears at first to be a leniency is in fact imitatio dei. The pragmatism of human law is actually a reflection of the divine design. This notion frames, organizes, and gives meaning to the Zoroastrian ritual-legal system. Crucially, this “foundational story” ensures that Zoroastrian religious law will not be seen as merely arbitrary. Scholars of legal literature have recently begun to explore the entangle- ment between law and narrative, which previously had been thought to occupy two disjunctive forms of discourse. Scholars of disciplines as varied as Talmudic studies and Constitutional law have highlighted the “messy” actualization of law as it unfolds in the real world in the form of narratives.71 They have also looked at the narratological and poetic features of legal writing itself. This approach has proven effective for gaining a broader understanding of how constitutional and Talmudic law function in their respective cultures. Whereas Persian poetry has been appreciated by Iranists on a literary plane, Zoroastrian legal texts have barely been subjected to such literary analysis. It is our opinion that these texts might also be considered from such an angle. The passage from ZFJ presented in this article contains a few note- worthy cases in which the text seems to have been crafted with “literary” ambitions in mind. Below are two small examples of this phenomenon. (a) The passage is structured symmetrically, as pointed out in the com- mentary above. The questions raised in §1 and §5 both are answered three times: “no, no, no” in §1 and “very very very permitted” in §5. This poetic
71 Cover 1983; Wimpfheimer 2011. O H R M A Z D ’ S B E T T E R J U D G E M E N T 199 device serves to emphasize the two most basic questions in the passage; namely, whether one should interfere with the way Ohrmazd designed the world (no) and whether, within the constraints of that world, humans should try to limit harm (yes). (b) In §8, a set of densely constructed questions seem to have been produced with aesthetic considerations in mind. The text contains a parallel structure in which two predicative statements are followed by either/or questions that almost echo each other and can be recited rhythmically: Predicative I: kerbag az wināh wēš Either/Or I: kerbag az kerbag meh… wināh az wināh keh Predicative II: wināh ān ō bun Either/Or II: wināh az kerbag meh… wināh az wināh meh These few examples illustrate a broader phenomenon in which even Zoroastrian legal texts employ literary devices. We believe that this aspect of Zoroastrian legal literature, along with other traditionally “non-legal” features of the texts, such as the mixing of theological and legal registers, is worthy of further study.
CONCLUDING REMARKS This article is the first fruits of an ongoing project to read Zand ī fragard ī Jud-dēw-dād in its entirety. Although we do not yet know if it is representative of the entire compilation, the chosen passage contains a number of fascinating features, some of which have the potential to shed light on larger questions relating to ZFJ as a work and its place in Pahlavi literature. In a couple of passages, we noted how ZFJ’s version of the Pahlavi translation of the Videvdad differs from the version of PV that has survived in the manuscripts. In some instances, ZFJ’s version might reflect a later development of the translations, for example in §2.i. In other cases, ZFJ seems to be struggling with exegetical problems to which it offers creative solutions, for example in §2.iii. At times, as in §3.ii, ZFJ struggles alongside the “standard” PV and offers a different solution to the same exegetical problem. ZFJ does not seem to represent a “debased” version of PV. Instead, ZFJ’s version may reflect one of multiple recensions of PV as they circulated in late antiquity. Moreover, based on some parallels to Bd and PRdd, ZFJ seems to be pulling from a broader pool of Zoroastrian tradi- tions regarding which the direction of influence is presently irrecoverable.
Domenico AGOSTINI Eva KIESELE Shai SECUNDA The Van Leer Jerusalem Institute Dept. of Religious Studies Martin Buber Society of Fellows 43 Jabotinsky Street Princeton University Hebrew University of Jerusalem Jerusalem 9214116 Princeton, NJ 08544 Mount Scopus, Jerusalem 91905 Israel U.S.A. Israel 200 D. A G O S T I N I , E. K I E S E L E , S H. S E C U N D A StIr 43, 2014
Abbreviations: AV Avestan Videvdad Bd Bundahišn PRdd Pahlavi Rivāyat accompanying the Dādestān ī Dēnīg PV Pahlavi Videvdad ZFJ Zand ī fragard ī Jud-dēw-dād
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Andrés-Toledo 2012Andrés-Toledo, Miguel Á., “Parallel Versions of Vīdēvdād 11,” Iranian Studies 45/2 (2012), pp. 181-201. Anklesaria 1956 Anklesaria, Behramgore T., Zand-Akasih: Iranian or Greater Bundahišn. Bombay: Rahnumae Mazdayasnan Sabha, 1956. Bartholomae 1904 Bartholomae, Christian, Altiranisches Wörterbuch; Strassburg: Karl J. Trübner, 1904. Cantera 2004 Cantera, Alberto, Studien zur Pahlavi-Übersetzung des Avesta. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2004. Cereti 1995 Cereti, Carlo G., The Zand ī Wahman Yasn: A Zoroastrian Apocalypse, Rome: Istituto italiano per il medio ed estremo oriente, 1995. ——— 2007 Cereti, Carlo G., “Middle Persian Geographic Literature II: Chapters X and XII of the Bundahišn,” in Des Indo-Grecs aux Sassanides: données pour l’histoire et la géographie historique, Rika Gyselen (ed.), Bures-sur-Yvette: Groupe pour l’Étude de la Civilisation du Moyen-Orient, 2007, pp. 55-64 [Res Orientales 17]. Choksy 1989 Choksy, Jamsheed K., Purity and Pollution in Zoroastrianism: Triumph Over Evil, Austin: University of Texas Press, 1989. Cover 1983 Cover, Robert, “The Supreme Court, 1982 Term—Foreword: Nomos and Narrative,” Harvard Law Review 97 (1983), pp. 4-68. Dresden 1966 Dresden, Marc J., Dēnkart. A Pahlavi Text, K. R. Cama Oriental Institute, Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz, 1966. Elman 2006 Elman, Yaakov, “The Other in the Mirror: Iranians and Jews View One Another. Questions of Identity, Conversion, and Exogamy in the Fifth-Century Iranian Empire. Part Two,” Bulletin of the Asia Institute 20 (2006 [publ. 2010]): pp. 25-46. Elman & Skjærvø [forthcoming] Elman, Yaakov, and Prods O. Skjærvø, “Concepts of Pollution in Late Sasanian Iran. Does Pollution Need Stairs, and Does It Fill Space?,” ARAM [forthcoming]. Geldner 1886-1896 Geldner, Karl. F., Avesta. The Sacred Books of the Parsis, Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1886-1896. O H R M A Z D ’ S B E T T E R J U D G E M E N T 201
Gignoux & Tafazzoli 1993 Gignoux, Philippe, and Ahmad Tafazzoli, Anthologie de Zadspram: édition critique du texte pehlevi, Paris: Association pour l’Avancement des Études Iraniennes, 1993 [Cahiers de Studia Iranica 13]. Hintze 2009 Hintze, Almut, “Avestan Literature,” in The Literature of Pre-Islamic Iran, Ronald E. Emmerick and Maria Macuch (eds.), London: I.B. Tauris, 2009, pp. 1-71. Jamasp 1907 Jamasp, Hoshang, Vendidad Avesta: Text with Pahlavi Translation and Commentary and Glossarial Index, Bombay: Government Central Book Depot, 1907. JamaspAsa 2001 JamaspAsa, Kaikhusroo M., “Catechism on the Pahlavi Videvdad,” in Philologica et linguistica: historia, pluralitas, universitas: Festschrift für Helmut Humbach zum 80. Geburtstag am 4. Dezember 2001, Maria G. Schmidt and Walter Bisang (eds.), Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier, 2001, pp. 137-151. JamaspAsa, Mahyar Nawabi & Tavousi 1979 JamaspAsa, Kaikhusroo M., Y. Mahyar Nawabi and M. Tavousi (eds.), Ms. TD2: Iranian Bundahišn & Rivāyat-i Ēmēt-i Ašawahištān. Etc.,. Part 2, Shiraz: Asia Institute of Pahlavi University, 1979 [The Pahlavi Codices and Iranian Researches, 55]. König 2010 König, Götz, “Der Pahlavi-Text Zand ī Fragard ī Juddēvdād,” in Ancient and Middle Iranian Studies: Proceedings of the 6th European Conference of Iranian Studies, Held in Vienna, 18–22 September 2007, Maria Macuch, Dieter Weber and Desmond Durkin- Meisterernst (eds.), Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2010, pp. 115-131. Moazami 2005 Moazami, Mahnaz, “Evil Animals in the Zoroastrian Religion.” History of Religions 44 (2005), pp. 300-317. Macuch [2006] Macuch, Maria, “A Pahlavi Legal Term in Jesubōxt ’s Corpus Iuris,” paper presented at the Sixth Conference of Irano-Judaica, Hamburg, Germany, 10-12th September, 2006. Madan 1911 Madan, Dhanjishah M. (ed.), The Complete Text of the Pahlavi Dinkard, Bombay: The Society for the Promotion of Researches into the Zoroastrian Religion, 1911. Pakzad 2005 Pakzad, Fazl A., Bundahisn: Zoroastische Kosmogonie und Kosmologie, Tehran: Centre for the Great Islamic Encyclopaedia, 2005. Secunda 2010 Secunda, Shai, “The Sasanian ‘Stam’: Orality and the Composition of Babylonian Rabbinic and Zoroastrian Legal Literature,” in The Talmud in its Iranian Context, Carol Bakhos and M. Rahim Shayegan (eds.), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010, pp. 140-160. ——— 2012 Secunda, Shai, “On the Age of the Zoroastrian Sages of the Zand,” Iranica Antiqua 47 (2012), pp. 317-349. Skjærvø 2007 Skjærvø, Prods O., “The Videvdad: Its Ritual-Mythical Significance,” in The Age of the Parthians, Vesta Sarkhosh Cutris and Sarah Stewart (eds.), London and New York: I. B. Tauris, 2007, pp. 105-162. 202 D. A G O S T I N I , E. K I E S E L E , S H. S E C U N D A StIr 43, 2014
Skjærvø 2011 Skjærvø, Prods O., The Spirit of Zoroastrianism, New Haven: Yale University Press, 2011. ——— 2012a Skjærvø, Prods O., “‘If Water Had Not Been Made to Dry Up, This Earth Would Have Been Drowned’: Pahlavi *āwās- ‘to dry’,” in Language and Nature: Papers Presented to John Huehnergard, Rebecca Hasselbach and Naʿama Pat-El (eds.), Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 2012, pp. 353-364. ——— 2012b Skjærvø, Prods O., “The Zoroastrian Oral Tradition as Reflected in the Texts,” in The Transmission of the Avesta, Alberto Cantera (ed.), Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2012, pp. 3-48. Tavadia 1930 Tavadia, Jehangir C., Sāyast-nē šāyast: A Pahlavi Text on Religious Customs. Hamburg: De Gruyter, 1930. ——— 1956 Tavadia, Jehangir C., Die mittelpersische Sprache und Literatur der Zarathustrier, Leipzig: O. Harrassowitz, 1956. West 1895 West, Edward W., “Pahlavi Literature,” in Grundriss der iranischen Philologie, Wilhelm Geiger (ed.), Strassburg: K. J. Trübner, 1895, pp. 75-129. Wimpfheimer 2011 Wimpfheimer, Barry S., Narrating the Law: A Poetics of Talmudic Legal Stories, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011. Williams 1990 Williams, Alan V., The Pahlavi Rivayat Accompanying the Dadestan ī Denig, 2 vols., Copenhagen: Det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab, 1990.