Words of a Wise Man's Mouth are Gracious (Qoh 10, 12): Festschrift for Gunter Stemberger on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday [Illustrated] 311018849X, 9783110188493

Table of contents :
Contents
Foreword
PREFACE
A Brief Survey of Günter Stemberger’s Scholarly Work
The Bibliography of Günter Stemberger
Transcription of Hebrew
Grenzen der Interpretation für die von Gott zur Auslegung gegebene Torah?
Rabbinic Interpretation of the Bible in the Light of Ancient Hermeneutical Practice.
Authoritative Literature and Scripture in the Chronistic Corpus
The Parables of Enoch and the Foundation of the Rabbinic Sect: A Hypothesis
Sur les expressions « élus de vérité », « élus de justice » et « Elu de justice et de fidélité »
How Important was the Destruction of the Second Temple in the Formation of Rabbinic Judaism? Some Reconsiderations
Josephus in Praise of Mosaic Laws on Marriage (Contra Apionem, II, 199–201)
Some Aspects of Josephus’ Theological Interpretation of the Jewish War
Strabone e la cosiddetta riforma ellenistica
Verso un’edizione italiana dell’archivio di Babatha. Il Papiro Yadin 1: testo e traduzione
The Outer and the Inner Devil. On Representing the Evil One in Second Temple Judaism
Ehret den Kaiser. Bögen und Tore als Ehrenmonumente in der Provinz Iudaea
Were the Jews Accused of Roasting their Enemies?
The Severan Emperors, Rabbi Judah ha-Nasi and the Cities of Palestine
Sobre las funciones de la partícula šeen Hebreo Misnaico
Bet Še’arim in Its Patriarchal Context
Elementos singulares en Tosefta Shabbat
Magic, Sex and Politics: The Media Power of Theatre Amusements in the Mirror of Rabbinic Literature
What Did Ham Do to Noah?
Towards the Study of Jewish Popular Culture in Roman Palestine
Los primeros contactos de la Iglesia con el Talmud. El significado de la deuterosis
Midraš Qohelet: Un fragmento de la Genizah de El Cairo
Die Ursache für die Bindung Isaaks: Wie lasen die Rabbinen die Bibel?
Berechtigung und Grenzen der Notwehr und Selbstverteidigung im jüdischen Recht
Hoffnung für die Zukunft: Feststellungen und Spekulationen zum jüdischen Verständnis von Dtn 30,3
Yosef Ben Šim’on Kara’s Lost Commentary on the Psalms. The Imola Fragment from the “Italian Genizah”
Talmud, Philosophy, and Kabbalah. A Passage from Pico della Mirandola’s Apologia and its Source
Der Anfang der Ḥisronot ha-Schass-Literatur. Christliche Talmudzensur und ihre jüdische Überwindung
Zionismus und jüdische Identität
Judaistik und ihr Ort in der universitas litterarum heute. Einige Überlegungen zum Fach Judaistik in Deutschland
INDEX

Citation preview

" T H E WORDS OF Λ WISE MAN'S MOUTH ARE GRACIOUS" (QOH 10,12)

w DE

G

STUDIA JUDAICA F O R S C H U N G E N ZUR W I S S E N S C H A F T DES J U D E N T U M S

HERAUSGEGEBEN VON E. L. E H R L I C H

BAND XXXII

W A L T E R DE G R U Y T E R · B E R L I N · N E W Y O R K

"THE WORDS OF A WISE MAN'S MOUTH ARE GRACIOUS" (QOH 10,12) FESTSCHRIFT FOR GÜNTER STEMBERGER O N T H E O C C A S I O N OF HIS 65TH BIRTHDAY

E D I T E D BY MAURO PERANI

WALTER D E GRUYTER · BERLIN · N E W

YORK

© Printed on acid-free paper which falls within the guidelines of the A N S I to ensure permanence and durability.

ISBN-13: 978-3-11-018849-3 ISBN-10: 3-11-018849-X Bibliographic information published by Die Deutsche Bibliothek Die Deutsche Bibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data is available in the Internet at < h t t p : / / d n b . d d b . d e > .

©

Copyright 2005 by Walter de Gruyter G m b H & Co. KG, D-10785 Berlin

All rights reserved, including those of translation into foreign languages. N o part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any f o r m or by any means, electronic or mcchanical, including photocopy, recording or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing f r o m the publisher. Printed in G e r m a n y Cover Design: Christopher Schneider

in Mrns n n

Contents Foreword by Mauro Perani Preface von Kurt Schubert und Fritz Werner Peter Schäfer, A Brief Survey of Günter Stemberger's Scholarly Work

IX XIII XV

The Bibliography of Günter Stemberger (1972-2005)

XIX

Transcription of Hebrew DOHMEN, Grenzen der Interpretation für die von Gott zur Auslegung gegebene Torah ? CHAIM MILIKOWSKY, Rabbinic Interpretation of the Bible in the Light of Ancient Hermeneutical Practice ARMIN LANGE, Authoritative Literature and Scripture in the Chronistic Corpus DANIEL BOYARIN, The Parables of Enoch and the Foundation of the Rabbinic Sect: A Hypothesis MARC PHILONENKO, Sur les expressions «elus de verite», «elus de justice» et «Elu de justice et de fideliti». Contribution a Vetude du sociolecte essenoqoumränien JACOB NEUSNER, How Important was the Destruction of the Second Temple in the Formation of Rabbinic Judaism? Some Reconsiderations ARYEH KASHER, Josephus in Praise of Mosaic Laws on Marriage (Contra Apionem, II, 199-201) JONATHAN J. PRICE, Some Aspects of Josephus' Theological Interpretation of the Jewish War LUCIO TROIANI, Strabone e la cosiddetta riforma ellenistica CORRADO MARTONE, Verso un'edizione italiana dell'archivio di Babatha. II Papiro Yadin 1: testo e traduzione PlERO CAPELLI, The Outer and the Inner Devil. On Representing the Evil One in Second Temple Judaism WERNER ECK, Ehret den Kaiser. Bögen und Tore als Ehrenmonumente in der Provinz Iudaea MIRIAM PUCCI BEN ZEEV, Were the Jews Accused of Roasting their Enemies? ... AHARON OPPENHEIMER, The Severan Emperors, Rabbi Judah ha-Nasi and the Cities of Palestine MIGUEL PEREZ FERNANDEZ, Sobre las funciones de la particula se- en Hebreo Misnaico

XXXIII

CHRISTOPH

1 7 29 53

73 77 95 109 121

129 139 153 167

171 183

VIII

Contents

Bet Se'arim in Its Patriarchal Context Elementes singulares en Tosefta Sabbat GIUSEPPE VELTRI, Magic, Sex and Politics: The Media Power of Theatre Amusements in the Mirror of Rabbinic Literature DAVID M. GOLDENBERG, What Did Ham Do to Noah? CATHERINE HEZSER, Towards the Study of Jewish Popular Culture in Roman Palestine CARLOS DEL VALLE RODRIGUEZ, Los primeros contactos de la Iglesia con el Talmud: El significado de la deuterosis Luis F. GIRON BLANC, Midras Qohelet: Un fragmento de la Genizah de El Cairo GOTTFRIED REEG, Die Ursache für die Bindung Isaaks: Wie lasen die Rabbinen die Bibel? JOHANN MAIER, Berechtigung und Grenzen der Notwehr und Selbstverteidigung im jüdischen Recht URSULA RAGACS, Hoffnung für die Zukunft: Feststellungen und Spekulationen zum jüdischen Verständnis von Dtn 30,3 MAURO PERANI, Yosef Ben Sim'on Kara's Lost Commentary on the Psalms: The Imola Fragment from the "Italian Genizah" SAVERIO CAMPANINI, Talmud, Philosophy, and Kabbalah: A Passage from Pico della Mirandola's Apologia and its Source MICHAEL KRUPP, Der Anfang der Hisronot ha-Schass-Literatur: Christliche Talmudzensur und ihre jüdische Überwindung KURT SCHUBERT, Zionismus und jüdische Identität PETER SCHÄFER, Judaistik und ihr Ort in der universitas litterarum heute: Einige Überlegungen zum Fach Judaistik in Deutschland LEE I. LEVINE,

197

OLGA RUIZ-MORELL,

227

Index

243 257

267 299 309 319 331 385 395 429 449 463

475 493

Foreword by MAURO PERANI

It was with great pleasure that I accepted to be the editor of this Festschrift in honour of Günter Stemberger on the occasion of his 65 th birthday. My personal friendship with the honouree, dating back more than twenty years, has become even stronger in recent times, because of the common interest in some ancient Talmudic and midrashic manuscript fragments, which we studied as a part of the "Italian Genizah" project and that we published together. The Walter de Gruyter Verlag of Berlin, which sponsored the publication of this Festschrift in the prestigious series "Studia Judaica", made sure together with me that the studies included in this volume would have been those of the most prominent experts in the field and that their contributions would have been related to Stemberger's favourite research topics, that is to say, with the development of Judaism from antiquity to modern times. I have chosen the title of this volume from a passage of Qohelet 10,12a which says: ]Π"Π3Π 'D '121, The words of a wise man's mouth are gracious. I think that this verse best expresses the scholarship and the wisdom of Günter Stemberger, which are graceful not only for their deepness and mastership but also for the clarity and humanity which this great scholar shows when he offers his works to his pupils, to his friends and to the academic world. Delicacy and grace are the main characteristics of the intelligent people who, after having attained the knowledge of the ΓΠΠ03 Π03Π - according to the Kabbalistic meaning attributed by the mystics to the word ]"Π as an acronym of "hidden wisdom" - became humble and simple, avoiding any arrogance and haughtiness. In fact, Stemberger's style is full of simplicity and delicacy, really gracious, but also marked by a rigorous, almost syllogistic, logic. He has certainly fully deserved the honour that we want to pay to this great and international scholar, whose personal career realises and embodies best the old saying according to which the humble will be exalted. The volume is opened by a preface written by Kurt Schubert and Fritz Werner who outlined the most important phases of Stemberger biography and scholarship. I edited for this occasion the complete bibliography of Günter Stemberger (1972-2005), masterfully commented by Peter Schäfer in his A Brief Survey of Günter Stemberger's Scholarly Work.

χ

Mauro Perani

The thirty articles included in this Festschrift have been arranged according to the chronology of their topics and, following two essays concerning general hermeneutical problems, they cover a wide variety of subjects, ranging from the Biblical book of the Chronicles, through classical Antiquity, the Middle Ages and the Modern Era, to the position and significance of Jewish Studies in the universitas litterarum today. The language of this volume is English, even though a significant number of the contributions is written in one of the other main European languages. The problem of preserving a homogeneous character to the book has been solved, hopefully, by adopting a solution of compromise: an absolute conformity would have been annoying in most cases. The articles originally being written in five languages (English, German, Italian, French and Spanish), I have agreed with Claus-Jürgen Thornton, editor in chief for Theology, Jewish Studies and Religious Studies of the publishing house Walter de Gruyter, to adopt the following conventions: for each language we have chosen a uniform style of quoting Biblical passages; in the articles written in English we have referred to SBL Handbook of Style for English language essays, Hendricksen, Peabody (Mass.) 1999; in the articles written in German: S.M. Schwertner, Internationales Abkürzungsverzeichnis für Theologie und Grenzgebiete, De Gruyter, 2. Aufl., Berlin 1992; for the Italian articles: La Bibbia di Gerusalemme, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, Bologna 1974 (with a few exceptions); for the French articles: La Bible de Jirusalem, nouvelle edition, Paris, Editions du Cerf, 1973 and, finally, for the Spanish articles: J. Trebolle, La Biblia judia y la Biblia Cristiana, Trotta, Madrid, 3a edition, 1998. As far as the reference to chapters and verses of Biblical, rabbinical and other texts concerns, we decided to use the comma and not the colon. For reference to rabbinical sources we have adopted the system used by the "Jewish Quarterly Review". As far as the transcription of Hebrew words and sentences is concerned, I could only come up with an intermediate solution: every time that a Hebrew text, either Biblical or rabbinical, is transliterated, I followed a system of transcription in which the length of the vowels is not rendered, nor the fricative pronunciation of the six consonants BGDKPT with the exception of B/V and ΡIF; I am aware that in English the fricative kaf is rendered with Kh, but for the sake of conformity I decided not to follow this usage in the transliteration of single words or sentences from the Hebrew. Nevertheless, it has been deemed advisable, following the suggestion of some contributors, to adopt the orthography of Halakhah, Midrash, Mishnah - as they appear in the English dictionaries - when these terms are used in the context of a non-Hebrew sentence, whereas, when they occur in the transcription of a larger sentence from Hebrew, they have been transcribed according to the general adopted criteria. Someone could remark that our compromise is not the best solution, but it is for sure the best under the given conditions.

Foreword

XI

The photograph of the honouree was taken by me in Bertinoro, hometown of Ovadiah Yare, the renowned commentator of the Mishnah, on May the 12th 2004 during the international congress Guerra santa, guerra e pace dal Vicino Oriente antico alle tradizioni ebraica, cristiana e islamica (Holy War, War and Peace from Ancient Near Orient to Jewish, Christian and Islamic traditions), when he was reading his paper on La guerra nella Misnah e nei midrasim halakici (The War in the Mishnah and in the Halakhic Midrashim), published on pp. 131-139 of the proceedings of the congress. May the flowers on the desk be a symbol of honour for him, so to speak, the DTPS, blossoming among the D'pHD, that are the chapters and the lessons of this great teacher. This volume could not have seen the light without the precious help of my assistants, Enrica Sagradini, Chiara Marucchi and Saverio Campanini: they engaged themselves tirelessly in the complex editing of the book, which we had to prepare as a camera ready printed copy, and for the compilation of the Index of the names. I want to express my sincere gratitude to all of them, to the contributors, and to the Walter de Gruyter publishing house.

Sli * Φ *

Π"3Χ3η u m Ύ'3 '3X1D VT1KD '3Χ 'ΒΠΒ 1133·? IDOn ΠΙ 'JlDnV •TOTaanw i n m w a r n D'W'wn i m V i n m' 1 ? Vav iddd aiuV r a r ' w V w ÜV T i x m x n DT! nsw VJ? π η η Τ Ϊ Π r n a V w m D'sVx n w a n row u a a α'Ώ' t r a n w n π τ η o m s ' D n a v m v .xaVv n x n n V » » ι D'wun m x a vnun m v u 13 x x i a n Vsi nisT 'jrr Inspired by the colophon (f. 104r) of the Ms. Paris, Bibliotheque National, hebr. 673, copied in Geraci Siculo (Sicily) by the copyist Mosheh ben Yishaq Hillel in the year 1342.

PREFACE Günter Stemberger - ein christlicher Spezialist für die rabbinische Literatur von KURT SCHUBERT u n d FRITZ WERNER

Günter Stemberger wurde am 7. Dezember 1940 in Innsbruck geboren und promovierte am 15. Juli 1967 an der theologischen Fakultät der Universität Innsbruck. Noch vor seiner Habilitation an der Universität Wien übernahm er am Institut für Judaistik Lehraufträge als Leiter des Proseminars und der Einführung in die rabbinische Literatur. 1972 veröffentlichte er in Rom seine Untersuchung zum Thema: ,Der Leib der Auferstehung' und ergänzte diese Thematik für die Habilitation durch zwei Beiträge: ,Das Problem der Auferstehung im Alten Testament' (Kairos 14 [1972], 273-290) und ,Zur Auferstehungslehre in der rabbinischen Literatur' (Kairos 15 [1973], 238-266). Aufgrund dieser Werke erhielt er am 29. Juli 1974 die Venia Legendi als Universitätsdozent für Judaistik. Schon während seines Habilitationsverfahrens arbeitete er intensiv mit an dem von Ursula Schubert geschaffenen Forschungsschwerpunkt am Institut für Judaistik: ,Die jüdische Kunst in der Spätantike', also in der talmudischen Zeit, der er überhaupt sein Hauptaugenmerk zugewandt hatte. Von entscheidender Bedeutung waren seine Beiträge zur jüdischen Ikonografie einiger Wandmalereien in der Katakombe in der Via Latina in Rom aus dem 4. Jahrhundert. Am 19. September 1977 wurde er zum außerordentlichen Universitätsprofessor für Judaistik ernannt und vertiefte seither immer mehr seine international anerkannte Kompetenz als Spezialist für die rabbinische Literatur, als der er sich durch eine Reihe fachlicher Publikationen immer mehr auswies. Wegen seiner Kompetenz wurde er auch ersucht, im Wintersemester 1985/86 wegen einer durch widrige Umstände entstandene Vakanz die Judaistik am Martin Buber Institut der Universität Köln zu supplieren, ohne dadurch seine gleichzeitigen Wiener Lehrveranstaltungen zu vernachlässigen. Am 1. März 1994 wurde er dann zum ordentlichen Universitätsprofessor ernannt, worauf weitere Ehrungen folgten: 16. Mai 1995 ao. Mitglied der philosophischhistorischen Klasse der Osterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien und das Ehrendoktorat der theologischen Fakultät der Universität Göt-

XIV

Kurt Schubert and Fritz Werner

tingen am 21. Januar 2005. Ab 1993 fungierte er turnusweise auch als Vorstand des Instituts für Judaistik. Als beliebter akademischer Lehrer hatte er auch eine Reihe von Studenten, die unter seiner Anleitung und Führung ihr Studium abschließen wollten. Wenn auch hier einige Themen aufscheinen, die über seinen eigenen Forschungsschwerpunkt hinausweisen, so geht auch aus diesen Themenstellungen hervor, wie sehr ihm die literarkritische Aufarbeitung von Themen der rabbinischen Literatur am Herzen liegt. ,Das Ende Judas und die Anfänge des Exils'; ,Die Collatio legum Mosaicarum Romanarum'; ,Zum Vermögensrecht der Frauen'; ,Gershom Scholem und Martin Buber - Die Geschichte eines Missverständnisses'; ,Der Ester-Midrasch in Megilla 10b-17a'; ,Das Bild Herodes des Großen im Spiegel talmudischer Erzählungen, b. Baba Batra 3b-4a und Sanhedrin 19a-b. Eine Textanalyse'; ,Die jüdische Widmungsinschrift aus Aphrodisias in Karien'; ,Die Rabbinerausbildving in Wien'; ,Das Capistrum Judaeorum des Raimund Martini'; ,Delmidegos Behinat Ha-Dat'; ,Benedetto Frizzi und die jüdische Aufklärung in Norditalien'; ,Die Josefserzählung in rabbinischer und islamischer Tradition'; 'Die Asche der Roten Kuh'. Auch für zwei Habilitationen war Stemberger der Hauptbetreuer: Ursula Ragacs, Die zweite Talmuddisputation von Paris 1269, Frankfurt a. M. 2001; Klaus S. Davidowicz, Zwischen Prophetie und Häresie - Jakob Franks Leben und Lehren, Wien 2004. Günter Stemberger wurde vielfach als auswärtiger Begutachter auch von ausländischen Universitäten herangezogen, war und ist ein beliebter Referent auf fachbezogenen Kongressen und Seminarien. Ihm gelang und gelingt es immer, seine internationalen Angebote mit Forschung und Lehre am Institut für Judaistik der Universität Wien harmonisch zu verbinden. Somit trug er bei und trägt bei zum ausgezeichneten wissenschaftlichen Ruf, den das Wiener Institut für Judaistik weltweit genießt.

A Brief Survey of Günter Stemberger's Scholarly Work by PETER SCHÄFER

Günter Stemberger has become, through his manifold interests as reflected in his published work, one of the most influential figures in the field of Jewish Studies in Europe and in the world. It is extremely difficult, within the few paragraphs granted me by the editor of this Festschrift, to do justice to Günter Stemberger's rich and multifarious work. I will summarize a few categories and single out some highlights - and the honoree, as well as his readers, will forgive me if my summary is overly selective and leaves out many important topics. Günter Stemberger began his career with a book on a theological subject Resurrection in Palestinian Judaism - which is characterized by his attempt to secure for the religion of post biblical Judaism its own and adequate place in what is called, from a Christian point of view, the "era of the New Testament". The relationship between "Judaism" and "Christianity" continued to occupy him (see his monograph no. 8 and quite a number of his articles), but it was always a "Judaism" in its own right, a vibrant religion and society, flourishing in Palestine side by side with the emerging "Christianity" - suffering from it, but also influencing it and being influenced by it. In the late seventies Günter Stemberger's scholarly acumen and creativity began to focus on what was to become his destiny: classical rabbinic Judaism. He prepared a reprint of Hermann L. Strack's famous Einleitung in Talmud und Midrasch (sixth edition 1976 of Strack's fifth edition of 1920) and published in swift succession Das klassische Judentum (1979), a comprehensive Geschichte der jüdischen Literatur (1979), and Epochen der jüdischen Literatur (1982). In the same year, 1982, he catapulted himself to the forefront of experts in this small but growing field with a completely revised seventh edition of Strack's Einleitung, still modestly co-authored by H.L. Strack and G. Stemberger. It would take ten more years until, in 1992, the Einleitung in Talmud und Midrasch, in its eighth and greatly enlarged incarnation, appeared under the name Günter Stemberger alone: "the Strack" had finally become "the Stemberger" and has since made its impact, in many translations, on generations of students of rabbinic literature. To be sure, it is not an easy read, but it is the most reliable and exhaustive treatment of rabbinic literature in all its trends and facets that we possess. (When my students wonder at how they can ever digest its disheartening rich-

XVI

Peter Schäfer

ness, I tell them to put it under their pillow at night and to use the appropriate magical adjuration.) Around the new Strack, Günter Stemberger has built an awe-inspiring array of specialized as well as more popular books and articles about many aspects of rabbinic literature. Examples of the latter are his separate introductions into the Talmud (no. 6) and into the Midrash (no. 9); examples of the former abound: I would like to draw the reader's attention to his early article about the history of research on rabbinic literature (no. 7, see also nos. 34 and 36), his well-balanced article on the dating of the Mekhilta (no. 15), his articles on some illustrative sugyiot in the Bavli (nos. 26, 27, 42) and on the narrative Baraitot in the Yerushalmi (no. 59), and his pioneering series of articles on Pirke Avot (nos. 52, 103, 105, 107, 120, 121, 126). To the same category belong articles dealing with the manuscript tradition and the redaction process of rabbinic works such as the Tosefta (nos. 45, 79), Sifra (nos. 56, 76, 119), the Yerushalmi (no. 93), and Tanhuma (no. 127), many of them inspired by the discoveries of the "Italian Geniza." He even managed to smuggle into a book about no lesser a subject than the Holy War in the ancient Near East an article about "La guerra nella Mishnah e nei Midrashim halakici" (no. 122) - a creative way indeed to present the age-old and insoluble question of what is original: the halakhic decision as presented in the Mishna (with no or little linking to the Scripture) or in the Midrash (explicitly deduced from Scripture). Günter Stemberger's achievements in the field of rabbinic Judaism are by no means restricted to its religion and literature; he has also made important contributions to the history of post biblical and rabbinic Judaism (and even beyond). Here I should mention his classic treatment of how Roman rule is reflected, and judged, in rabbinic literature (first in a long essay in that notorious monster publication Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt [no. 13] and then in book form [no. 7]), his book on Jews and Christians in the Holy Land (no. 8, see also no. 130), and articles about specific historical issues: the Jews as a minority in the Roman Empire (no. 30), the Maccabees in rabbinic tradition (no. 35), Jerome and the Jews (no. 37), or forced conversions of Jews from the fourth to the seventh century (no. 38). Also to this category belongs a series of articles on the emergence and diversification of various groups and sects in late antique Judaism such as the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the Essenes, and not least the rabbinic movement (nos. 62, 70, 77, 78, 80, 87, 88, 90, 92, 126, and in book form no. 11). Of fundamental methodological significance is his article about the use of rabbinic sources for historical study (no. 69). To the earlier stage of his career belong some remarkable contributions to ancient art: the frescoes in the catacombs of the Via Latina in light of the Jewish tradition (nos. 4 and 5) and the representation of the zodiac on mosaic floors of late antique synagogues (nos. 6,11, 67). Günter Stemberger has also reflected on his field, Jewish Studies, which he

A Brief Survey of Günter Stemberger's Scholarly Work

XVII

helped to shape decisively through his teaching and his research over more than 30 years. After two smaller articles (nos. 22 and 25) he published, in 2002, an extremely sober and pragmatic Introduction into Jewish Studies (no. 16) which outlines the major topics and tools. Whereas others in the German language context have been pondering and agonizing for decades over how to cope methodologically with this enormous, somewhat superhuman, task of writing an introduction into their own field - and never overcoming their scruples and inhibitions - Günter Stemberger just did it: probably not in the most ideal and perfect way one could think of, but we don't live in an ideal and perfect world, also not in scholarship, and he certainly performed a most useful service to the practitioners as well as to the students. Last but not least it is worth mentioning that Günter Stemberger did not consider himself too good for writing an impressive number of articles for encyclopedias and handbooks. He was the Jewish Studies subfield editor of the just completed new version of the Lexikon fiir Theologie und Kirche as well as for the Theologische Realenzyklopädie (since vol. 23, 1994) and contributed a great many articles in particular to the latter. His always methodologically sound, highly informed, well-balanced, fair, and never aggressive way of writing imbues all of his publications but probably is best expressed in these articles (and some of his numerous reviews). Tolle, lege!

The Bibliography of Günter Stemberger by M a u r o

Perani

Books

1.

2.

3.

4.

5. 6.

7. 8.

9.

10. 11.

La symbolique du bien et du mal selon saint ]ean, Coll. Parole de Dieu, Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1970; (Italian translation: La simbolica del bene e del male in San Giovanni, Torino: Edizioni Paoline, 1972). Der Leib der Auferstehung: Studien zur Anthropologie und Eschatologie des palästinischen Judentums im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter, Analecta Biblica 56, Roma: Biblical Institute Press, 1972. Das klassische Judentum: Kultur und Geschichte der rabbinischen Zeit, Beck'sche Elementarbücher, München: Verlag C.H. Beck, 1979; (Italian translation: II Giudaismo classico, Roma: Cittä Nuova Editrice, 1991). Geschichte der jüdischen Literatur, Beck'sche Elementarbücher, München: Verlag C.H. Beck, 1979; (Czech translation, Prague 1985; Hungarian translation, Budapest 2001). Epochen der jüdischen Literatur, an ausgewählten Beispielen erläutert, Beck Schwarze Reihe 249, München: Verlag C.H. Beck, 1982. Der Talmud. Einfiihrung, Texte, Erläuterungen, München: Verlag C.H. Beck, 1982, 2 1987, 3 1994; (Italian translation: II Talmud. Introduzione, testi, commenti, Bologna: Edizioni Dehoniane, 1989, 2 1994, ristampe 1997 e 1999). Die römische Herrschaft im Urteil der Juden, Erträge der Forschung 195, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1983. Juden und Christen im Heiligen Land: Palästina unter Konstantin und Theodosius, München: Verlag C.H. Beck, 1987; (English updated translation, T&T Clark, Edinburgh 2000). Midrasch. Vom Umgang der Rabbinen mit der Bibel. Einführung, Texte, Erläuterungen, München: Verlag C.H. Beck, 1989; (Italian translation: II Midrash: Uso rabbinico della Bibbia: Introduzione, testi, commenti, Bologna: Edizioni Dehoniane, 1992, 2 1996). Studien zum rabbinischen Judentum, SBAB 10, Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1990. Pharisäer, Sadduzäer, Essener, SBS 144, Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1991; (Italian translation: Farisei, sadducei, esseni, Brescia: Pai-

XX

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

Mauro Perani

deia Editrice, 1993; English translation, Minneapolis 1995). Einleitung in Talmud und Midrasch, 8th edition, C.H. Beck Studium, München: Verlag C.H. Beck, 1992; (Italian translation: Introduzione al Talmud e al Midrash, Roma: Cittä Nuova Editrice, 1995; updated translations also in French, English, Spanish and Czech). Jüdische Religion, Beck'sche Reihe 2003, München: Verlag C.H. Beck, 1995, 21996, 42002; (Italian translation: La religione ebraica, Bologna: Edizioni Dehoniane, 1996,21998). Hermeneutik der Jüdischen Bibel und des Alten Testaments, (in collaboration with CHR. DOHMEN), Kohlhammer Studienbücher Theologie 1, 2, Stuttgart: Kohlhammer Verlag, 1996; (Italian translation of my part, with two other articles: Ermeneutica giudaica della Bibbia, Brescia: Paideia Editrice, 2000). Saadia Ibn Danan. El Orden de las Generaciones. Seder ha-Dorot, (in collaboration with C. DEL VALLE), Espana Judia, ser. I: Autores judios de alAndalus, Madrid: Aben Ezra Ediciones, Alcobendas, 1997. Einführung in die Judaistik, München: Verlag C.H. Beck, 2002.

Books edited 1.

3.

Die Bibel, 8 vol. (vol. 1-5 with M. PRAGER), Salzburg: Andreas-Verlag 1975-8; edition in 10 vol. Salzburg 1980-1981; special edition of vol. 6-7 with the title: 2000 Jahre Christentum, Salzburg 1981. Die Juden: Ein historisches Lesebuch, Beck'sche Reihe 410, München: Verlag C.H. Beck, 1990, 4 1995 (Beck'sche Reihe 4005). Bibel in jüdischer und christlicher Tradition: Festschrift für Johann Maier,

4.

Beiträge 88, Frankfurt: Verlag Anton Hain, 1993. Judentum - Ausblicke und Einsichten, Festgabe für Kurt Schubert, ed. by

2.

ed. b y Η. MERKLEIN, Κ. MÜLLER, G. STEMBERGER, B o n n e r Biblische

C. THOMA, G. STEMBERGER, J. MAIER, J u d e n t u m u n d U m w e l t 43,

Frankfurt: P. Lang, 1993.

Articles 1. "Das Problem der Auferstehung im Alten Testament", in Kairos 14 (1972), 273-290. 2. "Zur Auferstehungslehre in der rabbinischen Literatur", in Kairos 15 (1973), 238-266. 3. "Galilee, Land of Salvation?", in The Gospel and the Land. Early Christianity and Jewish Territorial Doctrine, ed. by W.D. DAVIES, Berkeley 1974,409^38.

The Bibliography of Günter Stemberger

XXI

4. "Die Patriarchenbilder der Katakombe in der Via Latina im Lichte der jüdischen Tradition", in Kairos 16 (1974), 19-78. 5. "The frescoes of the Catacomb Via Latina in Rome and Jewish Tradition", in Sidic 7 (1974), 28-30. 6. "Die Bedeutung des Tierkreises auf Mosaikfußböden spätantiker Synagogen", in Kairos 17 (1975), 23-56. 7. "La recherche rabbinique depuis Strack", in RHPR 55 (1975), 543-574. 8. "Die Stephanusrede (Apg 7) und die jüdische Tradition", in Jesus in der Verkündigung

der Kirche,

e d . b y Α . FUCHS, S N T S U A 1, L i n z 1 9 7 6 , 1 5 4 - 1 7 4 .

9. "Stammt das synodale Element der Kirche aus der Synagoge?", in Annuarium Historiae Conciliorum 8 (1976), 1-14; idem, in Synodale Strukturen der Kirche. Entwicklung und Probleme, ed. by W. BRANDMÜLLER, Donauwörth 1977, 7-26. 10. "Die sogenannte ,Synode von Jabne' und das frühe Christentum", in Kairos 19 (1977), 14-21. 11. "Der Tierkreis in der jüdisch-christlichen Tradition", in Kosmische Dimensionen religiöser Erfahrung, ed. by W. STROLZ, Freiburg 1978,101-127. 12. "Heilsvorstellungen im nachbiblischen Judentum", in Bibel und Kirche 1978, 115-121. 13. "Die Beurteilung Roms in der rabbinischen Literatur", in Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, II 19/2, ed. by Η. TEMPORINI, W. HAASE, Berlin/New York 1979, 338-396. 14. "Auferstehung 1/2. Judentum", in TRE IV (1979) 443-450. 15. "Die Datierung der Mekhilta", in Kairos 21 (1979), 81-118. 16. "Die Erwählung Israels und das nachbiblische Judentum", in Bibel und Kirche 1980, Heft 1, 8-12. 17. "Das rabbinische Judentum in der Darstellung Max Webers", in Max Webers Studie über das antike Judentum. Interpretation und Kritik, ed. by W. SCHLUCHTER, STW 340, Frankfurt 1981,185-200. 18. "Dämonen III. Judentum ", in TRE VIII (1981), 277-279. 19. "Esoterik II. Judentum ", in TRE X (1982), 368-374. 20. "Die Bedeutung des ,Landes Israel' in der rabbinischen Tradition", in Kairos 25 (1983), 176-199. 21. "Maimonides als Mischna-Ausleger", in Kairos 28 (1986), 196-208. 22. "Judaistik", in TRE XVII (1987), 290-296. 23. "Pesachhaggada und Abendmahlsberichte des Neuen Testaments", in Kairos 29 (1987), 147-158. 24. "Jabne und der Kanon", in JBTh 3 (1988), 163-174. 25. "Aufgaben und Ziele der Judaistik", in Der Aquädukt: 1763-1988; ein Almanach aus dem Verlag C.H. Beck im 225. Jahr seines Bestehens, München 1988, 312-317. 26. "Midrasch in Babylonien. Am Beispiel von Sota 9b-14a", in Henoch 10 (1988), 183-203.

XXII

Mauro Perani

27. "Münchhausen und die Apokalyptik. Baba Batra 73a-75b als literarische Einheit", in JSJ 20 (1989), 61-83. 28. "Der Dekalog im frühen Judentum", in JBTh 4 (1989), 91-103. 29. "Das Fortleben der Apokalyptik in der rabbinischen Literatur", in Biblische und Judaistische Studien. Festschrift für P.Sacchi, ed. by A. VIVIAN, Frankfurt 1990, 335-347. 30. "Die Juden im römischen Reich: Unterdrückung und Privilegierung einer Minderheit", in Christlicher Antijudaismus und jüdischer Antipaganismus, e d . b y Η . FROHNHOFEN, H a m b u r g 1 9 9 0 , 6 - 2 2 .

31. "Vom Umgang mit der Bibel im Judentum", in Concilium 27,1 (1991), 31-36. 32. "Narrative Theologie im Midrasch", in JUDAICA 47 (1991), 155-167. 33. "Juden und Christen in der spätantiken Umwelt", in Die Juden in ihrer mittelalterlichen Umwelt, ed. by H.BIRKHAN, Bern 1992, 25-35. 34. "La recherche de la litterature rabbinique: L'etat de la question", in La Voix de la Victoire, Paris, Sept. 1992, 2-5. 35. "The Maccabees in Rabbinic Tradition", in The Scriptures and the Scrolls. Studies in Honour of A. S. van der Woude, ed. by F. GARCIA MARTINEZ, Α. HILHORST, C . J . LABUSCHAGNE, V T S 4 9 , L e i d e n : B r i l l , 1 9 9 2 , 1 9 3 - 2 0 3 .

36. "La investigation actual en torno al judaismo rabinico. Status quaestionis", in Miscelanea de Estudios Arabes y Hebraicos 41/2 (1992), 63-84. 37. "Hieronymus und die Juden seiner Zeit ", in Begegnungen zwischen Christentum und Judentum in Antike und Mittelalter, Festschrift H. Schreckenberg, e d . b y D . A . KOCH, H . LICHTENBERGER, G ö t t i n g e n : V a n d e n h o e c k

38.

39. 40.

41.

42.

43.

&

Ruprecht, 1993, 347-364. "Zwangstaufen von Juden im 4.-7. Jahrhundert. Mythos oder Wirklichkeit?", in Judentum - Ausblicke und Einsichten, FS Kurt Schubert, ed. by C. THOMA, G. STEMBERGER, J. MAIER, Judentum und Umwelt 43, Frankfurt: P.Lang, 1993, 81-114. "Messias/Messianische Bewegungen Π: Judentum", in TRE ΧΧΠ (1993), 622-630. "Zum Verständnis der Schrift im rabbinischen Judentum", in Bibel in jüdischer und christlicher Tradition. FS J. Maier, ed. by Η. MERKLEIN, Κ. MÜLLER, G. STEMBERGER, Bonner Biblische Beiträge 88, Frankfurt: Verlag A. Hain, 1993, 212-225. "Die Geschichte Israels in Midraschim zum Hohenlied", in Rashi 1040-1990. Hommage α E.E.Urbach. Congres europeen des etudes juives, ed. by G. SEDRAJNA, Paris 1993, 313-319. "II contributo delle baraitot babilonesi alla conoscenza storica della Palestina prima del 70 d.C. (Shabbat 13b-17b: Le 18 halakot e tradizioni connesse) ", in II Giudaismo palestinese: dal I secolo a.C. al I secolo d.C. Atti dell'VIII congresso internazionale dell'AISG. San Miniato 1990, ed. by P. SACCHI, AISG: Testi e Studi 8, Bologna 1993, 213-229. "La festa di Hanukkah, il libro di Giuditta e midrashim connessi", in WEZO'T LE-ANGELO. Raccolta di studi giudaici in memoria di Angelo Vivian,

The Bibliography of Günter Stemberger

XXIII

ed. by G. Busi, AISG: Testi e Studi 11, Bologna 1993,527-545. 44. "Die Messiasfrage in den christlich-jüdischen Disputationen des Mittelalters", in JBTh 8 (1993), 239-250. 45. M. PERANI, G. STEMBERGER, "Nuova luce sulla tradizione manoscritta della Tosefta: I frammenti rinvenuti a Bologna", in Henoch 16 (1994), 227251. 46. "Non-Rabbinic Literature", in Judaism in Late Antiquity, ed. by J. NEUSNER, Handbuch der Orientalistik 1,16, Leiden: E.J.Brill, 1995,1,13-39. 47. "Opfer III. Judentum", in TRE 25 (1995), 267-270. 48. "Grundzüge rabbinischer Hermeneutik", in Stimuli. Exegese und ihre Hermeneutik in Antike und Christentum. Festschrift für Ernst Oassmann, ed. by G. SCHÖLLGEN, C. SCHÖLTEN, JAC.E 23, Münster 1996, 34-42. 49. "Contacts between Christian and Jewish Exegesis in the Roman Empire", in Hebrew Bible/Old Testament. The History of Its Interpretation. Vol. Hl: Antiquity, ed. by M.S/EB0, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996, 569-586. 50. "H.L. Stracks Beitrag zur Erforschung der rabbinischen Literatur", in Hermann L. Strack und das Institutum Judaicum in Berlin, ed. by R. GOLLING, P . VON DER OSTEN-SACKEN, S K I 1 7 , B e r l i n 1 9 9 6 , 5 3 - 6 9 .

51. "Zum Verständnis der Tora im rabbinischen Judentum", in Die Tora als Kanonfür Juden und Christen, ed. by Ε. ZENGER, Herder Biblische Studien 10, Freiburg 1996, 329-343. 52. "Die innerrabbinische Überlieferung von Mischna Abot", in Geschichte Tradition - Reflexion. Festschrift für M.Hengel, ed. by Η. C ANCIK, H. LICHTENBERGER, P. SCHÄFER, Tübingen: Verlag J.C.B. Mohr, 1996, Bd I (Judentum), 5 1 1 - 5 2 7 .

53. "Von einer jüdischen Sekte zur Weltreligion", in Wahrnehmung des Fremden. Christentum und andere Religionen, ed. by R. KAMPLING, B. SCHLEGELBERGER, Berlin: Morus Verlag, 1996, 73-85. 54. "Öffentlichkeit der Tora im Judentum - Anspruch und Wirklichkeit", in JBTh 11 (1996), 91-101. 55. "Art. Pseudepigraphie Oudentum)", in TRE 27 (1997), 656-659. 56. "Historia de la redaction de Sifra", in Sifra I. Edicion bilingüe, notas, introduction, ed. by Μ. PEREZ-FERNÄNDEZ, Valencia 1997, 17-65; German version: "Zur Redaktionsgeschichte von Sifra", in Approaches to Ancient Judaism, ed. by J.NEUSNER, New Series, vol. 11, Atlanta 1997,39-82. 57. "Vollkommener Text in vollkommener Sprache. Zum rabbinischen Schriftverständnis", in JBTh 12 (1997), 53-65. 58. "Appendice bibliografica", in E. SCHÜRER, Storia del popolo giudaico al tempo di Gesu

Cristo,

e d . b y G . VERMES, F. MILLAR, M . BLACK, v o l . I I I , 2, B r e -

scia: Paideia, 1998,1182-1207; 1228-1233. 59. "Narrative Baraitot in the Yerushalmi", in The Talmud Yerushalmi Graeco-Roman Culture, ed. by P. SCHÄFER, Tübingen 1998, 63-81.

and

Mauro Perani

XXIV

60. "Jewish-Christian Contacts in Galilee (Fifth to Seventh Centuries)", in Sharing the Sacred. Religious Contacts and Conflicts in the Holy Land, ed. by A. KOFSKY, G. STROUMSA, Y a d Izhak Ben-Zvi, J e r u s a l e m 1998, 131-146.

61. "Salomo /Salomoschriften (Judentum)", in TRE 29 (1998), 727-730. 62. "Qumran, die Essener und andere jüdische Gruppen der Zeit", in Welt und Umwelt der Bibel, 9 (1998), 67-70. 63. "Psalmen in Liturgie und Predigt der rabbinischen Zeit", in Der Psalter und seine Rezeption in Judentum und Christentum, ed. by Ε. ZENGER, Herder Biblische Studien 18, Freiburg: Verlag Herder, 1998,199-213. 64. "Verdienst und Lohn - Kernbegriffe rabbinischer Frömmigkeit?", in Überlegungen zu Mishna Avot. Franz-Delitzsch-Vorlesung 1997, Franz-DelitzschVorlesung Heft 7, Institutum Judaicum Delitzschianum, Münster 1998, 33 S. Idem, in FJB 25 (1998), 1-21. 65. "Art. Juden, Realenzyklopädie für Antike und Christentum" 19 fasc. 146147 (1998), 160-228. 66. "Art. Judenchristen, Realenzyklopädie für Antike und Christentum" 19 fasc. 147 (1998), 228-245. 67. "Biblische Darstellungen auf Mosaikfußböden spätantiker Synagogen", in JBTh 13 (1998), 145-170. 68. "Jerusalem in the Early Seventh Century: Hopes and Aspirations of Christians and Jews", in Jerusalem. Its Sanctity and Centrality to Judaism, Christianity and Islam, ed. by L.I. LEVINE, New York: The Continuum Publishing Company, 1999, 260-272. 69. "Rabbinic Sources for Historical Study", in Judaism in Late Antiquity 111,1: Where We Stand. Issues and Debates in Ancient Judaism, ed. by J. NEUSNER, A.J. AVERY-PECK, Handbuch der Orientalistik, 1. Abteilung Bd 40/3.1, Leiden: E.J.Brill, 1999,169-186. 70. "Qumran, die Pharisäer und das Rabbinat",in Antikes Judentum und frühes Christentum.

71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77.

78.

FS ßr

H.Stegemann,

ed. b y Β. KOLLMANN, W . REINBOLD, A.

STEUDEL, BZNW 97, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1999, 210-224. N. SAMUELSON, G. STEMBERGER, "Schöpfung (Judentum)", in TRE 30 (1999), 292-296. "Schrift, hl. (Judentum)", in TRE 30 (1999), 4 0 7 ^ 0 9 . "Schriftauslegung (Judentum)", in TRE 30 (1999), 442-457. "Schriftlesung (Judentum)", in TRE 30 (1999), 558-563. "Seele (Judentum)", in TRE 30 (1999), 740-744. "Sifra - Tosefta - Yerushalmi. Zur Redaktion und frühen Rezeption von Sifra", in JSJ 30 (1999), 277-311. "I farisei: quadro storico e ideale", in Fariseismo e origini cristiane. Atti del VII Convegno di Studi Neotestamentari (Rocca di Papa, 12-15 settembre 1997), Ricerche storico-bibliche 11 (1999/2), 11-22. "Die Umformung des palästinischen Judentums nach 70: Der Aufstieg der Rabbinen", in Jüdische Geschichte in hellenistisch-römischer Zeit. Wege der

XXV

The Bibliography of Günter Stemberger

Forschung: Vom alten zum neuen Schürer, ed. by Α. OPPENHEIMER, Schriften des Historischen Kollegs. Kolloquien, 44, München: R. Oldenbourg Verlag, 1999, 85-99. 79. "I frammenti della Tosefta di Norcia e il loro contributo alio studio della tradizione testuale", in La 'Genizah italiana', ed. by Μ. PERANI, Bologna: II Mulino, 1999, 267-273. 80. "The Sadducees - Their History and Doctrines", in Cambridge History of Judaism

III,

e d . b y W . HORBURY, W . D . DAVIES, J. STURDY,

Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 1999, 428-443,1129-1131. 81. "Propheten und Prophetie in der Tradition des nachbiblischen Judentums", mJBThU (1999), 145-174. 82. "Griechisch-römische und rabbinische Hermeneutik", in Communio Viatorum 41 (1999), 101-115. 83. "Rituale im jüdischen Familienleben", in Zeichen des Lebens: Sakramente im Leben der Kirchen — Rituale im Leben der Menschen, ed. by P.M. ZULEHNER, H . AUF DER MAUR, J. WEISMAYER, O s t f i l d e r n 2 0 0 0 , 2 3 - 3 7 .

84. "Talmud und Rabbinische Literatur", in Wissenschaft vom Judentum. Annäherungen nach dem Holocaust, ed. by Μ. BRENNER, S. ROHRBACHER, Göttingen 2000, 121-133, 225-227. 85. "Elements of Biblical Interpretation in Medieval Jewish-Christian Disputation", in Hebrew Bible/Old Testament. The History of its Interpretation. Vol. 1/2, ed. by Μ . S^EB0, C. BREKELMANS, Μ. HARAN, Göttingen 2000, 5 7 8 -

590. 86. "Midräs Wa-yosa: Fuentes y tendencias de una narracion medieval", in Exigesis Rabinica: Lengua y Literatura, ed. by L.F. GIRON BLANC, Cuadernos 'Ilu 3, 2000, Madrid 2000,11-27. 87. "The Formation of Rabbinic Judaism, 70-640", in The Blackwell Companion to Judaism, ed. by J. NEUSNER, A.J. AVERY-PECK, Oxford 2000, 78-92. 88. "The Formation of Rabbinic Judaism, 70-640. Selected Texts", in The Blackwell Reader in Judaism, ed. by J. NEUSNER, A.J. AVERY-PECK, Oxford 2001,60-72. 89. "Tanach", in TRE 32 (2001), 636-639. 90. "La vie religieuse du peuple juif. I. Pharisiens, Sadduceens, Esseniens", in L'Histoire du Christianisme, vol. XIV: Anamnesis, ed. by F. LAPLANCHE, Paris: Editions Desclee, 2001, 4 2 3 ^ 4 4 . 91. "Tod (Judentum)", in TRE 33 (2001), 600-605. 92. "Was there a 'Mainstream Judaism' in the Late Second Temple Period?", in Review of Rabbinic Judaism 4 (2001), 189-208. 93. M. PERANI, G. STEMBERGER, "The Yerushalmi Fragments Discovered in the Diocesan Library of Savona", in Henoch 23 (2001), 267-303. 94. "Trost (Bibel und Judentum)", in TRE 34 (2002), 143-147. 95. "Die Verbindung von Juden mit Häretikern in der spätantiken römischen Gesetzgebung", in Hairesis. Festschrift für Karl Hoheisel, ed. by Μ. ΗυτTER, W . KLEIN, U . VOLLMER, M ü n s t e r 2 0 0 2 ( J A C . E 3 4 ) , 2 0 3 - 2 1 4 .

XXVI

Mauro Perani

96. "Reaktionen auf die Tempelzerstörung in der rabbiriischen Literatur", in Zerstörungen des Jerusalemer Tempels. Geschehen — Wahrnehmung - Bewältigung, ed. by J. HAHN, WUNT 147, Tübingen: Verlag J.C.B. Mohr, 2002, 207-236.

97. "Verheißung (Judentum)", in TRE 34 (2002), 711-714. 98. "Jüdische Apokalyptik in Spätantike und Mittelalter", Schlaraffenland-Jahrtausendwende,

in

Apokalypse-

ed. by S. HARTMANN, U. MÜLLER, Jahr-

buch der Oswald von Wolkenstein Gesellschaft 13 (2001/02), 11-28. 99. "Kinder lernen Tora. Rabbinische Perspektiven", in JBTh 17 (2002), 121-137. 100. "Einführung in die Tora. Pflichten eines Vaters aus Sicht der Rabbinen", in Schöpfungsplan und Heilsgeschichte. Festschrift für Ernst Haag zum 70, ed. by R. BRANDSCHEIDT, T. MENDE, Greburtstag, Trier: Paulinus Verlag, 2002, 299-317. 101. "Samael und Uzza: Zur Rolle der Dämonen im späten Midrasch", in Die Dämonen/Demons. Die Dämonologie der israelitisch-jüdischen und frühchristlichen Literatur im Kontext ihrer Umwelt, ed. by Η. LICHTENBERGER, Α. LANGE, D. RÖMHELD, Tübingen: Verlag J.C.B. Mohr, 2003, 636-661. 102. "Im Himmel gestiftet", in Jüdische Ehe zwischen Recht, Religion und Liebe, Religionen unterwegs, 9/1 (2003), 10-16. 103. "Wende und wende sie...", (mAvot 5,22), Biblische Notizen 116 (2003), 87-94. 104. "Die jüdische Danielrezeption seit der Zerstörung des zweiten Tempels am Beispiel der Endzeitberechnung", in Europa, Tausendjähriges Reich und Neue Welt. Zwei Jahrtausende Geschichte und Utopie in der Rezeption des Danielbuches,

e d . b y Μ . DELGADO, Κ . KOCH, E . MARSCH, S t u d i e n z u r

christlichen Religions- und Kulturgeschichte Bd. 1, Stuttgart: Universitätsverlag Freiburg Schweiz/Verlag W. Kohlhammer, 2003,139-158. 105. "Ich habe nichts Besseres für den Menschen gefunden als Schweigen", (mAv 1,17) in Auf den Spuren der schriftgelehrten Weisen: FS für Johannes Marbeck, ed. by I. FISCHER, U. RAPP, J. SCHILLER, BZAW 331, Berlin: De Gruyter, 2003, 401-411. 106. "Hebräisch als ideale Sprache - Konsequenzen für die Hermeneutik", in Die Sprachen der Religion, ed. by F. UHL, A. BOELDERL, Schriften der Österr. Gesellschaft für Religionsphilosophie 4, Berlin: Parerga Verlag, 2003,113-129. 107. "Moses received Torah... (M. Avot 1,1): Rabbinic Conceptions of Revelation", in Rome, Athens and Jerusalem. Studies in Ancient Cultural Interaction in Honour

of A. Hilhorst,

e d . b y F. GARCIA MARTINEZ, G . P . LUTTIK-

HUIZEN, JSJ Supplements 82, Leiden: Brill, 2003, 285-299. 108. "Wirtschaft/Wirtschaftsethik (Judentum)", in TRE 36,1 (2003), 140-144. 109. "Die Megillot als Festlesungen der jüdischen Liturgie", in JBTh 18 (2003), 261-276. 110. ",Himmlische' und ,irdische' Liturgie in der rabbinischen Zeit", in Dialog oder Monolog? Zur liturgischen Beziehung zwischen Judentum und Chris-

The Bibliography of Günter Stemberger

111. 112.

113. 114. 115. 116.

117.

118.

119. 120. 121.

122.

123.

124. 125.

126. 127.

XXVII

tentum, ed. by A. GERHARDS, H.H. HENRIX, Quaestiones Disputatae 208, Freiburg i. Br.: Verlag Herder, 2004, 92-102. "Wort Gottes (Judentum)", in TRE 36 (2004), 311-315. "La formation et la conception du canon dans la pensee rabbinique", in Recueils normatifs et canons dans I'Antiquite, ed. by E. NORELLI, Publications de l'Institut romand des sciences bibliques 3, Lausanne: Editions du Zebre, 2004, 113-131. "Cultural Interaction in Rabbinic Judaism", in L'interculturalitä dell' ebraismo, ed. by M. PERANI, Ravenna: Longo, 2004, 59-68. "Rabbinische Literatur", in RGG VII (2004), 5-10. "Leopold Zunz - Pioneer of Midrash Research", in EAJS Newsletter 15 (2004), 33-49. "Leviticus in Sifra", in Encyclopedia of Midrash: Biblical Interpretation in Formative Judaism, ed. by J. NEUSNER, A.J. AVERY-PECK, Leiden: Brill, 2 2004,1 429-447. "Preface", in M. PERANI, E. SAGRADINI, Midrashic and Talmudic Fragments from the 'Italian Genizah': Reunification of the Manuscripts and Catalogue, Firenze: La Giuntina 2004, 7-9. "Gli 'ebraismi' nel periodo del Nuovo Testamento", in Saggezza straniera: Roma e il mondo della Bibbia, Atti del seminario invernale (Verbania-Intra 30 gennaio-3 febbraio 2002), BIBLIA, Firenze: Tipografia Giuntina, 2004,33-50. "Zu Eigenart und Redaktion von Sifra Behuqqotai", in FJB 31 (2004), 1-19. "Los dichos arameos de Hillel en el tratado Abot", in MEAH, Secdon Hebreo, 53 (2004), 387-405. "Schaff dir einen Lehrer, erwirb dir einen Kollegen (mAv 1,6): Lernen als Tradition und Gemeinschaft", in Religiöses Lernen in der biblischen, frühjüdischen und frühchristlichen Uberlieferung, ed. by Β. EGO, Η. MERKEL, WUNT, Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 2005,112-126. "La guerra nella Misnah e nei Midrasim halakici", in Guerra santa, guerra e pace dal Vicino Oriente Antico alle tradizioni ebraica, cristiana e islamica, ed. by Μ. PERANI, AISG: Testi Ε Studi, 14, Firenze: La Giuntina, 2005,131-139. "The Pre-Christian Paul: Reflections on Recent Publications", in The Origins of Christianity: A Collection of Articles, ed. by J. PASTOR, M. MOR, Jerusalem: Yad Ben Zvi, 2005, 65-81. "Talmud", in RGG VIII (2005), 24-28. "Die Mischna-Ubersetzung von Johann Jacob Rabe", in Reuchlin und seine Erben. Gelehrte, Denker, Ideologen und Spinner, ed. by P. SCHÄFER, I. WANDREY (Pforzheimer Reuchlinschriften 11), Stuttgart 2005. "Mischna Avot. Frühe Weisheitsschrift, pharisäisches Erbe oder spätrabbinische Bildung?", in ZNW 96 (2005), 243-258. M. PERANI, G. STEMBERGER, "The Most Ancient Manuscript of Tanhuma. The Fragments Found in Raverina and their Textual Tradition", in Materia Giudaica X/2 (2005).

XXVIII

Mauro Perani

Articles in print 128. "Die Frage nach einem ,mainstream Judaism' in der Spätzeit des Zweiten Tempels", in Qumran kontrovers 2. Beiträge zu den Textfunden vom Toten Meer, ed. by U. DAHMEN, Paderborn: Bonifatius Verlag, 2005. 129. "Das allgemeine Priestertum im rabbinischen Denken", in Gottesvolk als Tempel. Symposium Innsbruck November 2004. 130. "Christians and Jews in Byzantine Palestine", in History of Christianity in the Holy Land, Cultural Encounters in Late Antiquity and The Middle Ages 5, ed. by G. STROUMSA, O. LIMOR, Turnhout: Brepols, 2006. 131. "Die Ordination der Rabbinen - Idealbild oder historische Wirklichkeit?", in TRUMAH14 (2006). 132. "Sages, Scribes, and Seers in Rabbinic Judaism", in Scribes, Sages, and Seers. The Sage in the Eastern Mediterranean World, ed. by L.G. PERDUE, (FRLANT), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2006.

Reviews (since 1988) 1. 2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7. 8.

S. SAFRAI (ed.), The Literature of the Sages, Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum n/3a, Assen: Van Gorcum, 1987, in ]SJ 19 (1988), 117-123. A.M. RABELLO, Giustiniano, Ebrei e Samaritani. Alia luce delle fonti storicoletterarie, ecclesiastiche e giuridiche, vol. I, Monografie del Vocabolario di Giustiniano 1, Milano: A. Giuffre Editore, 1987, in JSJ 19 (1988), 254256. A. LINDER, The Jews in Roman Imperial Legislation. Edited with Introduction, Translations, and Commentary, Detroit/Jerusalem: Wayne State University Press and Israel Academy of Sciences, 1987, in JSJ 20 (1989), 97-99. H.P. RÜGER, Die Weisheitsschrift aus der Kairoer Geniza. Text, Ubersetzung und philolog. Kommentar, (WUNT 53), Tübingen: Verlag J.C.B. Mohr, 1991, in Kairos 32-33 (1990-91), 253-255. A.M. RABELLO, Giustiniano, Ebrei e Samaritani. Alia luce delle fonti storicoletterarie, ecclesiastiche e giuridiche, vol. II, Monografie del Vocabolario di Giustiniano 2, Milano: A. Giuffre Editore, 1988, in JSJ 21 (1990), 269-71. M. HENGEL, U. HECKEL (eds.), Paulus und das antike Judentum. TübingenDurham-Symposium zum 50. Todestag von A. Schlatter (t 19.5.1938), (WUNT 58), Tübingen: Verlag J.C.B. Mohr (P. Siebeck), 1991, in Kairos 34-35 (1992-93), 237-239. M. HADAS-LEBEL, Jerusalem contre Rome (Patrimoines Judaisme), Paris: Les Editions du Cerf, 1990, in JSJ 23 (1992), 111-114. J. NEUSNER, Confronting Creation: How Judaism Reads Genesis. An Anthology of Genesis Rabbah, Columbia, S.C.: University of South Carolina Press,

The Bibliography of Günter Stemberger

9. 10.

11.

12. 13.

14.

15.

16. 17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

XXIX

1991, in JSJ 23 (1992), 125-128. M. PEREZ FERNANDEZ, La Lengua de los Sabios. I. Morfosintaxis, Biblioteca Midräsica 13, Estella: Editorial Verbo Divino, 1992, in JSJ 23 (1992), 283-284. H.-P. KUHNEN, Palästina in griechisch-römischer Zeit, Handbuch der Archäologie: Vorderasien II, Bd. 2, München: C.H. Beck 1990, XXI, 424 S„ in HZ 256 (1993), 4 3 2 ^ 3 3 . J. LIEU, J. NORTH, T. RAJAK (eds.), The Jews among Pagans and Christians in the Roman Empire, London/New York: Routledge, 1992, XVII, 198 S., in HZ 258 (1994), 765-766. C. HEZSER, Form, Function and Historical Significance of the Rabbinic Story in Yerushalmi Nezicjin, Tub. 1993 (TSAJ), in FJB 21,1994, 177-179. J. NEUSNER (ed.), Judaism in Late Antiquity, Part 1: The literary and archaeological sources. Part 2: Historical Syntheses, (HdO 1.16-17), Leiden: E.J.Brill, 1995, in ZDMG 146 (1996), 522-524. M. JACOBS, Die Institution des jüdischen Patriarchen: Eine quellen- und traditionskritische Studie zur Geschichte der Juden in der Spätantike, Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1995 (TSAJ 52), in FJB 23 (1996), 185-189. A. HOUTMAN, Mishnah and Tosefta. A Synoptic Comparison of the Tractates Berakhot and Shebiit, Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1997, XI, 255 S. Appendix Volume: Synopsis of Tosefta and Mishnah Berakhot and Shebiit, (TSAJ 52), in FJB 24 (1997), 157-162. J. NEUSNER, II giudaismo nella testimonianza della Mishnah, Bologna: EDB, 1995, in RivBiblt 45 (1997), 108-111. M. PERANI, S. CAMPANINI, I frammenti ebraici di Bologna. I frammenti ebraici di Modena (Inventari dei Manoscritti delle Biblioteche d'ltalia, CVIIICX), Firenze 1997, in Henoch 19 (1997), 251-255. M.S.TAYLOR, Anti-Judaism and Early Christian Identity. A Critique of the Scholarly Consensus, Leiden/New York/Köln: E.J.Brill, 1995 (Studia Post-Biblica 46), in ThRevue 94 (1998), 265-266. C. HEZSER, The Social Structure of the Rabbinic Movement in Roman Palestine, Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1997, (TSAJ 66), in FJB 25 (1998), 163-169. B. WANDER, Gottesfürchtige und Sympathisanten. Studien zum heidnischen Umfeld von Diasporasynagogen, Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1998 (WUNT 104), in JBAC 42 (1999), 184-188. L.V. RUTGERS, The Hidden Heritage of Diaspora Judaism, Leuven: Peeters 1998, (Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology, 20), in JBAC 43 (2000), 210-212. R. REICHMAN, Mishna und Sifra. Ein literarkritischer Vergleich paralleler Überlieferungen, Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1998 (TSAJ 68), in FJB 26 (1999), 189-197; different version in English in Annual of Rabbinic Judaism 3 (2000), 207-214. R. DEINES, Die Pharisäer: Ihr Verständnis im Spiegel der christlichen und jüdi-

XXX

24. 25. 26.

27.

28.

29. 30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

Mauro Perani

sehen Forschung seit Wellhausen und Graetz (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 101), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997, in JSS 45 (2000), 377-379. M. IDEL, M. PERANI, Nahmanide esegeta e cabbalista, AISG: Testi e Studi, Firenze 1998, in Henoch, 21 (1999), 224-226. F. GARCIA MARTINEZ (ed.), Testi di Qumran, Italian translation by C. Martone, Brescia 1996, in RQ 19 (1999), 102-105. H.-J. BECKER, Die großen rabbinischen Sammelwerke Palästinas. Zur literarischen Genese von Talmud Yerushalmi und Midrash Bereshit Rabba, Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1999 (TSAJ 70), in FJB 26 (1999), 197204. J. ULRICH, Euseb von Caesarea und die Juden. Studien zur Rolle der Juden in der Theologie des Eusebius von Caesarea (Patristische Texte und Studien 49), Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1999, in ZAC 4 (2000), 388-392. SH. FRIEDMAN, Talmud Arukh: BT BAVA ΜΕΖΓΑ VI: Critical Edition with Comprehensive Commentary, New York/Jerusalem: Jewish Theological Seminary, Text 1996; in Commentary 1990, JSJ 31 (2000), 81-86. H. Fox, T. MEACHAM (eds.), Introducing Tosefta: Textual, Intratextual and Intertextual Studies, Hoboken NJ: Ktav, 1999, in JJS 51 (2000), 338-340. M. PERANI, S. CAMPANINI (eds.), Iframmenti ebraici di Modena Archivio Capitolare - Archivio della Curia, e di Correggio Archivio Storico Comunale. Inventario e catalogo (Inventari dei Manoscritti delle Biblioteche d'ltalia, CXI), Firenze: Leo S. Olschki, 1999, in JJS 51 (2000), 344-345. L. KUNDERT, Die Opferung/Bindung Isaaks. Vol. 1: Gen 22,1-19 im Alten Testament, im Frühjudentum und im Neuen Testament. Vol. 2: Gen 22,1-19 in frühen rabbinischen Texten, WMANT 78-79, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1998, in Shofar 20/2 (2002), 161-163. A. LEHNARDT, Rosh ha-Shana - Neujahr (Übersetzung des Talmud Yerushalmi II/7), Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 2000, in JSJ 32 (2001), 313-315. F. Β URGHARD, Α. Η AVERKAMP, G. Μ ENTGEN ( e d s . ) , Judenvertreibungen

in

Mittelalter und früher Neuzeit, Hannover: Hahnsche Buchhandlung, 1999, VI, 276 S. (Forschungen zur Geschichte der Juden. Abteilung A: Abhandlungen, 9), in ThRev 98 (2002), 69-70. M. GROHMANN, Aneignung der Schrift. Wege einer christlichen Rezeption jüdischer Hermeneutik, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2000, in ThRev 98 (2002), 346-348. P. EGGER, Verdienste vor Gott? Der Begriff z'khut im rabbinischen Genesiskommentar Bereshit Rabba, Freiburg (Schweiz)/Göttingen: Universitätsverlag/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000, 478 S. (Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus, 43), in ThRev 97 (2001), 296-298. P. SCHÄFER, H.-J. BECKER (eds.), Synopse zum Talmud Yerushalmi. Vol. II/1-4. Ordnung Mo'ed: Shabbat - Yoma; vol. II/5-12 Ordnung Mo'ed: Sheqalim -

The Bibliography of Günter Stemberger

37. 38.

39.

40. 41. 42. 43.

44.

45.

46. 47.

48.

49.

50.

XXXI

Mo'ed Qatan (Texte und Studien zum Antiken Judentum 82-83), Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 2001, in JSJ 33 (2002), 342-344. SH.J.D. COHEN (ed.), The Synoptic Problem in Rabbinic Literature (Brown Judaic Studies 326), Providence, Rhode Island 2000, in JSJ 33 (2002), 324-325. A. GOSHEN-GOTTSTEIN, The Sinner and the Amnesiac. The Rabbinic Invention of Elisha ben Abuya and Eleazar ben Arach (Contraversions. Jews and Other Differences), Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2000, in JSJ 34 (2003), 81-84. J. VAZQUEZ ALLEGUE, LOS Hijos de la Luz y los Hijos de las Tinieblas. El prologo de la Regia de la Comunidad de Qumrän (Biblioteca Midräsica de la Institution San Jeronimo 21), Estella: Editorial Divino, 2000, in Biblica 84 (2003), 295-299. M. WYSCHOGROD, Gott und Volk Israel. Dimensionen jüdischen Glaubens, Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 2001, in ThRev 100 (2004), 77-79. A. SAMELY, Rabbinic Interpretation of Scripture in the Mishnah, Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press, 2002, in JSJ 35 (2004), 102-105. H. MACCOBY, Jesus the Pharisee, London: SCM Press, 2003, in JSJ 35 (2004), 90-94. A. GERHARDS, A. DOEKER, P. EBENBAUER (eds.), Identität durch Gebet. Zur gemeinschaftsbildenden Funktion institutionalisierten Betens in Judentum und Christentum, Paderbom/München/Wien/Zürich: Schöningh, 2003 (Studien zu Judentum und Christentum), in ThRev 100 (2004), 72-74. I. GRUENWALD, Rituals and Ritual Theory in Ancient Israel (The Brill Reference Library of Judaism 10), Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2003, in Revieiu of Rabbinic Judaism 7 (2004), 264-270. Μ. SOKOLOFF, A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic of the Talmudic and Geonic Periods (Dictionaries of Talmud, Midrash and Targum III), Ramat-Gan: Bar Ilan University Press; Baltimore/London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002, in JSJ 35 (2004), 340-342. M. SOKOLOFF, A Dictionary of Judean Aramaic, Ramat-Gan: Bar Ilan University Press, 2003, in JSJ 35 (2004), 342-343. P. WICK, Die urchristlichen Gottesdienste. Entstehung und Entwicklung im Rahmen der frühjüdischen Tempel-, Synagogen- und Hausfrömmigkeit, Stuttgart/Berlin/Köln 2002, (Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament, Achte Folge, Heft 10), in ThRev 100,4 (2004), 293-295. E. MAR™ CONTRERAS, La interpretacion de la creacion: Tecnicas exeg0ticas en "Genesis Rabbah" (Biblioteca Midräsica, 24), Estella: Editorial Verbo Divino, 2002, 244, in Henoch 26 (2004), 374-377. B.L. VLSOTZKY, Golden Bells and Pomegranates. Studies in Midrash Leviticus Rabbah, Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 2003 (TSAJ 94), in FJB 31 (2004), 155-159. A. TROPPER, Wisdom, Politics, and Historiography - Tractate Avot in the Context of the Graeco-Roman Near East (Oxford Oriental Monographs), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004, in JSJ 36 (2005), 129-132.

Transcription of Hebrew

»

m

g d

D

s

π

h

D

τ

w

τ

ζ

π

Ό

h t

3

y k

X η

b/v

λ

Ί

57

η r

p/f

s Ρ -I

q r

to

s

to

s

η

t

I

Alef at the beginning and at the end of a word is not transcribed; the length of the vowels is not indicated.

Grenzen der Interpretation für die von Gott zur Auslegung gegebene Torah? von CHRISTOPH DOHMEN

Jüdisch-christlicher Dialog basiert in seinem Zentrum auf der Gemeinsamkeit der Heiligen Schrift. Diese gemeinsame Heilige Schrift führt unmittelbar zur Frage nach ihrer Auslegung, weil sich der Gedanke geradezu aufdrängt, dass die Unterschiede zwischen Juden und Christen auf eine je eigene Auslegung derselben Texte zurückzuführen seien. In zahlreichen Arbeiten hat Günter Stemberger jüdische Schriftauslegung christlichen Lesern erschlossen, und so die Möglichkeit geschaffen, zu einem vertieften, vom Ursprung bestimmten, Verständnis der christlichen Bibel zu gelangen. 1 Die folgenden Überlegungen nehmen diesen Faden dankbar zu Ehren des Jubilars in einem kleinen Detail auf, das allerdings unter inhaltlichem Gesichtspunkt keine Marginalie darstellt, sondern das OffenbarungsVerständnis selbst betrifft. Fragt man nach dem Wesen der Heiligen Schrift, dann stößt man im Christentum wie im Judentum auf das Problem, wie der göttliche und der menschliche Ursprung dieses Buches zu denken und zu verstehen ist. 2 Im Judentum begegnet das Problem in der Spannung, dass die Torah vom Himmel und doch in menschlicher Sprache sei. Die Schule, die sich auf R. Jischmael beruft, geht davon aus, daß die Tora ein Text wie jeder andere ist, soweit das den Ausleger betrifft. Vielfalt und Möglichkeit menschlicher Ausdrucksweisen sind zu berücksichtigen, poetischer Stil (etwa der Parallelismus), Bildsprache und historische Entwicklung der Sprache ernstzunehmen. Dagegen steht die auf R. Aqiba zurückgeführte Schule, die die Tora nicht nur der Herkunft nach, sondern auch in ihrer äußeren Form als göttlichen Text versteht. Die Tora ist demnach ein vollkommener Text, 1

Vgl. u.a. G. STEMBERGER, Der Talmud. Einßhrung, Texte, Erläuterungen, München 2 1987; DERS., Midrasch. Vom Umgang der Kabbinen mit der Bibel, München 1989; DERS., Einleitung in Talmud und Midrasch, München 8 1992; C. DOHMEN, G. STEMBERGER, Hermneutik der Jüdischen Bibel und des Alten Testaments, Stuttgart 1996.

2

Vgl. E. DlRSCHERL, „Gottes Wort im Menchenwort", in Monotheismus licher Trinitätsglaube,

QD 210, hg. von M. STRIET, Freiburg 2004, 11-32.

Israels und christ-

2

Christoph D o h m e n

in dem nichts zufällig und ohne Bedeutung ist. Es gibt in ihr keine Widersprüche, aber auch keine Wiederholungen, da zur Vollkommenheit auch das Prinzip der Sparsamkeit gehört. Wörter, die für die nackte Aussage nicht notwendig sind, sind bewusst als Steuerzeichen gesetzt, um den Text mit einer anderen Bibelstelle zu verbinden, wo derselbe Ausdruck vorkommt; Akkusativpartikel und Artikel verweisen darauf, daß etwas zusätzlich zum direkt Ausgesagten Inbegriffen ist usw. Jeder Buchstabe ist für diese Schule von Bedeutung, darum ist auch auf die überlieferte Piene- oder Defektivschreibung zu achten. Geoffenbart ist primär nicht eine bestimmte Bedeutungsmenge, sondern eine geordnete Reihe von Konsonanten, die erst verbunden, gelesen und mit Sinn gefüllt werden müssen. Wie A. Goldberg formuliert hat, ist die Schrift, „eine genau definierte Menge graphischer Zeichen. Das Artefakt ,Schrift' ist präzise festgelegt und kann keiner Veränderung unterliegen. Dieser bestimmten, endlichen Menge graphischer Zeichen entspricht eine noch offene Menge sprachlicher Zeichen. Die Menge der sprachlichen Zeichen nimmt in der Auslegung zu, weil immer mehr entdeckt wird, was alles sprachliches Zeichen ist". 3 Der die menschliche Seite der Torah ausdrückende Satz, der Rabbi Jischmael zugeschrieben wird, „Die Torah spricht in der Sprache der Menschen" (dibberah torah kilson bene adamY markiert die offenbarungstheologische Gegenposition zu der im Talmud zu findenden Lehre, dass die Torah vom Himmel sei, also göttlichen Ursprungs. 5 Interessanterweise diskutiert der Talmud aber in Verbindung mit dem zitierten Satz nicht das Wesen der Torah, sondern allem Anschein nach nur marginale exegetische Details. Über 30mal findet sich im Talmud der Satz, 6 dass die Torah in menschlicher Sprache abgefasst ist (dibberah torah kilson bene adam). Der Satz wird fast ausschließlich gebraucht, wenn die Frage begegnet, ob Doppelungen eines Wortes (z.B. is is für „jeder") oder Wiederholungen des Wortstamms (z.B. beim Infinitivus absolutus neben einer finiten Verbform) u.ä. eine besondere Bedeutung zukommt. Die im Talmud mit dem zitierten Satz gegebenen Hinweise auf Spracheigentümlichkeiten bzw. übliche grammatikalische Gestaltungen, denen keine eigene Bedeutung beizumessen ist, wobei teilweise auch die Gegenpositionen diskutiert werden, wenden sich gegen eine offensichtlich zu weitgehende Exegese. Genau betrachtet geht es an all diesen Stellen darum, die Auslegung an den Text zurück zu binden.

3

G. STEMBERGER, „ Z u m Verständnis der Tora im rabbinischen J u d e n t u m " , in Die als Kanon für Juden und Christen,

4

Sifre Be-midbar

5

Vgl. San 10a.

6

Tora

H B S 10, hg. von E. ZENGER, Freiburg 1996, 3 3 7 - 3 3 8 .

§ 112; vgl. Ibid., 337.

Vgl. A Z 27a; San 56a. 64b. 85b.90b; B M 31b, 94b. K i d d 17b; Git 41b; Ket 67b; Ned 3a.b; Yev 71a; 'Ark 3a; M a k 12a; Zev 108b; Ber 31b; Ker I I a ; Nid 32b. 44a

Grenzen der Interpretation für die Torah?

3

So wird beispielsweise in Sanh 90b im Zusammenhang der Frage nach der Auferstehung der Toten diskutiert, ob aus der Strafformulierung von Num 15,31 (hikkaret tikkaret „[der] soll unbedingt ausgemerzt werden") zu schließen sei, dass die Strafe sich auf diese und die künftige Welt beziehe, oder ob die Doppelung des Wortstamms krt nur üblicher Sprachgebrauch, also ohne besondere Bedeutung, sei, weil die „Torah die Sprache der Menschen spreche", so dass die Wendung so zu betrachten sei, als stünde dort das krt nur einmal. Bei aller möglichen Vielfalt der Auslegungen und der Auffassung, dass die Torah zur Auslegung gegeben sei (nitna le-hiddares: yMeg 1,1,70a),7 scheint die Begründung einer spezifischen Auslegung, die sich nur auf ein Einzelelement eines Textes berufen kann, nicht auszureichen. Das Argument, dass die Torah den Regeln menschlicher Sprache folgt, beinhaltet die Forderung nach einem eindeutigen textinternen Signal für eine anzusetzende besondere Bedeutung. Solange eine Position sich aber nur auf ein Phänomen bezieht, das aus der gängigen Sprachkonvention bzw. Grammatik zu erklären ist, steht sie folglich auf schwachen Beinen. Die Interpretationsstruktur, die der Talmud im Zusammenhang dieses Gedankens von der menschlichen Sprachgestalt der Torah zugrundelegt, entspricht modernen literaturwissenschaftlichen Ansätzen, wie sie beispielsweise Umberto Eco in seinem Buch „Die Grenzen der Interpretation" dargelegt hat. Hat die moderne Literaturwissenschaft als Kommunikationswissenschaft gezeigt, dass die Vielfalt der Interpretationen und die Interpretationsfreiheit von Texten dadurch entsteht, dass ein Text nur durch seine Rezipienten lebendig wird, weil sie es sind, die durch ihre Möglichkeiten und Intentionen im Zuge der Auslegung den jeweiligen Sinn eines Textes entstehen lassen, so hat Umberto Eco sich der daraus entstehenden Frage gestellt, ob es noch möglich ist, von Fehlinterpretation zu sprechen. Im Sinne einer logischen Falsifikation sucht Umberto Eco ein Beispiel für eine allgemein abzulehnende Interpretation und legt dazu folgendes Beispiel vor: „Würde Jack the Ripper uns sagen, er habe seine Taten aufgrund einer Inspiration begangen, die ihn beim Lesen des Evangeliums überkam, so würden wir zu der Ansicht neigen, er habe das Neue Testament auf eine Weise interpretiert, die zumindest ungewöhnlich ist. Und dasselbe würden wohl auch die nachsichtigsten Verfechter des Prinzips der völligen Interpretationsfreiheit einräumen. Man kann vielleicht sagen, Jack habe die Evangelien auf seine Weise benutzt (...), und man könnte auch sagen, dass seine Auffassimg respektiert werden müsse - obwohl ich freilich, wenn das die Ergebnisse seines misreading sind, froh wäre, wenn Jack nie mehr lesen würde. Aber man kann nicht sagen, Jack sei ein Vorbild, anhand dessen man den Kindern in der Schule erklären sollte, wie man mit einem Text umgeht. Das Beispiel ist durchaus ernst gemeint: es soll verdeutlichen, dass in manchen Fällen niemand daran zweifelt, dass eine bestimmte Interpretation unhaltbar 7

Vgl. C. DOHMEN, G. STEMBERGER, Hermeneutik

(s.o. A n m . 1), 79.

Christoph Dohmen

4

ist. Als Falsifikationsbeweis genügt das. Man braucht nur sagen zu können, dass es zumindest eine inakzeptable Interpretation gibt, und sofort stellt sich das Problem, aufgrund welchen Parameters wir zwischen verschiedenen Interpretationen unterscheiden können". 8 Eco greift in diesem Beispiel auf eine Unterscheidung zurück, die er in einem früheren Buch (Lector in fabula) schon eingeführt hatte, nämlich die zwischen benutzen und interpretieren. Während beim Benutzen der Leser Einzelelemente des Textes aufgreift, sie mit außertextlichen Elementen in Verbindung bringt und so schließlich einen neuen Kontext mit eigenem Sinnkonzept herstellt, stützt sich das Interpretieren darauf, die verschiedenen Elemente des Textes in einen einzigen Sinnzusammenhang zu bringen. Dem Interpretieren geht es folglich um die Aussageabsicht des Textes, die intentio operis. Die intentio operis kann aber letztendlich nur durch die sprachliche Konvention ermittelt werden. Es gilt zuerst zu erheben und zu erkennen, was durch die Sprache, d.h. die lexikalische Bedeutung der Worte und die grammatikalischen und syntaktischen Regeln, gegeben ist. Im Bereich der sprachlichen Konvention liegt auch die Vermittlung zwischen den sprachlichen Zeichen (als visuelle und/oder phonetische) und der durch diese bezeichneten Sachen. Die intentio operis eines Textes erschließt sich folglich aufgrund der Konvention der Sprache und kann von hierher als Kriterium für eine Fehlinterpretation dienen. Insofern man feststellen kann, dass manche Interpretation näher am Text und andere weiter weg von ihm liegt, kann man schließen, dass der „Text als Parameter seiner Interpretation" 9 herangezogen werden muss. Umberto Eco hat damit im Kontext der Vielfalt der Interpretationen einen Interpretationsrahmen benannt, insofern die „Grenzen der Interpretation" durch den Text selbst festgelegt werden. Jede Auslegung muss sich also an dem, was der Text - in einem einfachen oder auch wörtlichen Sinn ausgehend von der sprachlichen Konvention - sagt, messen lassen. Positiv gewendet bedeutet das, dass es zwar nicht eine einzige richtige Interpretation gibt, aber dass die vielen verschiedenen „richtigen" Auslegungen nur in der korrelierenden Begegnung von intentio operis und intentio lectoris zu finden sind.10 Für unser Verstehen von Texten der Vergangenheit ist folglich die Ermittlung der intentio operis der entscheidende Punkt. „Die Initiative des Lesers besteht im Aufstellen einer Vermutung über die intentio operis. Diese Vermutung muss vom Komplex des Textes als einem organischen Ganzen bestätigt werden. Das heißt nicht, dass man zu einem Text nur eine einzige Vermutung aufstellen kann. Im Prinzip gibt es unendlich viele. Zuletzt aber müssen diese Vermutungen sich an der Kongruenz der Texte bewähren, und die Textkongruenz wird zwangsläufig bestimmte voreilige Vermutungen als falsch ver-

8

U. E c o , Die Grenzen der Interpretation,

9

Ibid., 51.

München 1992, 77f.

10

Vgl. C. DOHMEN, Die Bibel und ihre Auslegung,

München 2 2003, 39ff.

Grenzen der Interpretation für die Torah?

5

werfen. Ein Text ist ein Mechanismus, der seinen Modell-Leser hervorbringen möchte. Der empirische Leser ist ein Leser, der eine Vermutung über den vom Text postulierten Modell-Leser aufstellt. Das heißt, dass der empirische Leser nicht über die Intentionen des empirischen Autors, sondern über die des Modell· Autors Vermutungen anstellt. Der Modell-Autor ist jener Autor, der, als Textstrategie, einen bestimmten Modell-Leser hervorbringen möchte. Und das ist der Punkt, an dem die Suche nach der intentio autoris und die nach der intentio operis zusammenfallen". 11 Der Hinweis darauf, dass also die sprachliche Konvention und nicht die Autoren intention über die Interpretation eines Textes entscheidet, führt zurück zum behandelten Beispiel aus dem Talmud. Der Talmud legt dieses Prinzip insofern schon zugrunde, als er an den Stellen, die den Gedanken, dass die Torah die Sprache des Menschen spreche, zitieren, Auslegungen zurückweist, die die sprachliche Konvention ignorieren. Der dazu herangezogene Satz, dass die Torah die Sprache des Menschen spreche, steht, wie gesehen, in einem offenbarungstheologischen Kontext und hat in Bezug auf die Heilige Schrift das Problem des „Autors" zum Hintergrund. Insofern der Satz aber nicht sagen will, dass die Torah rein und allein menschliches Produkt ist, sondern durchaus göttlichen Ursprungs, ergibt sich daraus die Lehre vom Wesen der Torah als „Gotteswort im Menschenwort". Dieser für das Wesen der Torah bestimmende Gedanke ist gerade in den Texten der Sinaiperikope (Ex 1 9 ^ 0 ) vielfältig im Zusammenhang mit der Person und Position des Mose als Offenbarungsmittler in der Schrift selbst entfaltet. Allem anderen voran ist hier auf Ex 19,19 zu verweisen, wo davon die Rede ist, dass Gott dem Mose in menschlicher Sprache antwortet (mosae yedabber we-ha-elohim yaanaenu beqol „So wie Mose spricht, antwortet Gott ihm in einer Stimme"). 12 Dass die Torah als menschlich vermitteltes Gotteswort den Regeln der menschlichen Sprache unterliegt,13 begründet die Notwendigkeit ihrer ständigen Auslegung, aber es ist eben dieser Gedanke, der im Talmud auch die Grenzen der Interpretation festlegt, weil keine Auslegung sich darauf berufen soll und kann, einen tieferen „göttlichen Sinn" entdeckt zu haben, wenn sie dazu den „menschlichen Sinn", der in den Regeln der Sprache greifbar ist, vernachlässigen muss. Das Wesen der Torah als - durch Menschen - über- und vermitteltes Gotteswort bestimmt ihr Verständnis und entscheidet über ihre Interpretation. So banal die Benutzung des zitierten Satzes im Talmud auf den ersten Blick zu sein scheint, so tiefgründig ist doch das hermeneutische Konzept, das hinter ihm aufscheint.

11

U. ECO, Grenzen (s.o. Anm. 8), 49.

12

Zur Übersetzung und weiteren Bedeutung des Verses vgl. C. DOHMEN, Exodus

19-40,

Freiburg 2004, 48.71ff. 13

Zu weitergehenden Überlegungen zur Bedeutung der Sprache der Offenbarung vgl. J. WOHLMUTH, Die Tora spricht die Sprache der Menschen, Paderborn 2002.

Rabbinic Interpretation of the Bible in the Light of Ancient Hermeneutical Practice The Question of the Literal Meaning* by Chaim

Milikowsky

In an important work dealing with allegorical reading David Dawson writes, Consequently, although the 'literal sense' has often been thought of as an inherent quality of a literary text that gives it a specific and invariant quality..., the phrase is simply an honorific title given to a meaning that is culturally expected and automatically recognized by readers.1 According to this approach there is no "literal sense" to any text: all meanings and senses are created by the ideational world that the reader creates when he reads the text. Dawson claims that there is no sense inherent to a text which can be termed a "literal sense". What is often termed the "literal sense" is simply the result of the expectations of the reader, which are based upon his cultural background, and have no actual inherency. A somewhat similar claim was made by Boyarin in discussing midrash: Midrash is a reading of the 'plain sense of things,' but only if we recognize that the plain sense grows and changes throughout history and this is the Bible's underlying meaning. However, I will also accept the characterization of midrash as the product of a disturbed exegetical sense,

*

It is deeply satisfying to offer these reflections in honor of Prof. Dr. Günter Stemberger. I well r e m e m b e r the several discussions w e h a v e h a d on these matters. M u c h of this paper is a reworking of parts of the second chapter of m y forthcoming introduction to Seder Olam

(Seder Olam: Critical

Edition,

Introduction

and Commentary,

Jerusa-

lem: Israel A c a d e m y of Sciences and Humanities, in press); it w a s presented as a lecture at various institutions, and the lecture format has been in part retained. Fuller argumentation, as well as m o r e detailed annotation, will b e found in m y introduction. 1

D. DAWSON, Allegorical Readers and Cultural Revision in Ancient Alexandria, Berkeley 1992, 7 - 8 .

8

Chaim Milikowsky

but only if we recognize that all exegetical senses are disturbed. 2 Like Dawson, Boyarin equates and levels all exegetical activity: all exegetical senses are simultaneously literal exegeses and disturbed exegeses. This conception of exegetical activity - that there is no possibility of an essential distinction between the literal meaning of a text and its other senses - is often ascribed to those two famous post-modern thinkers, Foucault and Derrida. Thus, Hayden White has attributed to Foucault the position that "literal meaning... is the product of the application of a norm, social in nature, hence arbitrary, rather than a result of the operation of a law". 3 Derrida, as is well known, does not emphasize the socio-political context of meaning and knowledge, but rather the philosophical - or perhaps better, the anti-philosophical - aspect of giving meaning to a text, but for our purposes the result is the same. As Richard Rorty writes, "In Derrida's view, nothing ever speaks 'by itself', because nothing ever has the primordiality... metaphysicians seek". 4 I do not find this approach cogent or persuasive, and it is worth quoting on this point Umberto Eco: I admit that in order to make such a statement one must first of all assume that sentences can have a "literal meaning", and I know that such a point is controversial. But I keep thinking that, within the boundaries of a given language, there is a literal meaning of lexical items and that is the one first listed by dictionaries as well as the one that Everyman would first define when requested to say what a given word means. 5 With regard to rabbinic literature Jonah Fraenkel has expressed himself very clearly on the matter: "All these prove what is so immediately obvious, that the initial understanding of the Rabbis in Scripture is naturally the peshat understanding". 6 It must however directly be noted that this "immediately obvious" conclusion - with which I concur - can be impugned from a very empirical point of reference.7 2

D. BOYARIN, Intertextuality and the Reading of Midrash, Bloomington 1 9 9 0 , 1 8 - 1 9 .

3

H. WHITE, The Content of the Form, Baltimore 1 9 9 0 , 1 1 5 .

4

R. RORTY, Contingency,

5

U. ECO, The Limits of Interpretation,

Irony and Solidarity,

Cambridge 1 9 8 9 , 1 2 9 .

Bloomigton 1990, 5. It should be noted that Eco in-

dulges in s o m e sleight-of-hand in this argument. H e begins with " s e n t e n c e s " and then continues with "lexical i t e m s " listed in dictionaries. 6

J. FRAENKEL, Darkei ha-aggadah

7

At this point, as I m o v e from citations of scholars to m y o w n thoughts, I must stop

ve-ha-aggadah,

Givatayim 1991, 3 8 - 3 9 .

and note that I h a v e used the notion of "literal m e a n i n g " , but h a v e not defined it; this is deliberate, and I can but point to my quote from U m b e r t o Eco above. The bibliogra-

Rabbinic Interpretation of the Bible: The Question of the Literal M e a n i n g

9

As scholars have noted in many contexts, the commentary genre is not very prevalent in the ancient world.8 Examining a few exemplars of commentary which have survived from several different ancient cultures leads us to a series of "facts" which seems to me to be extremely significant. Let us begin with some cultural artifacts from ancient Judaism. The first commentary-type compositions known to us stem from the last few centuries of the Second Temple period and from the rabbinic period. Arranged in chronological order they are the peser compositions from Qumran, the exegetical compositions of Philo, and of course the midrasim.9 Note well: all of these compositions place in the center of their interest what would definitely be called non-literal exegesis of Scripture. The exegetical methodology of the pesarim and of the midrasim exhibits a pronounced and, most probably, a deliberate disregard of the rules of grammar and language, of context and logic.10

phy on this question is vast; see O. BARFIELD, " T h e Meaning of the W o r d 'Literal'", in Metaphor

and Symbol, ed. by L.C. KNIGHTS, B. COTTLE, L o n d o n 1960, 4 8 - 6 3 ; B.S. CHILDS,

" T h e Sensus Literalis of Scripture: A n Ancient and M o d e m P r o b l e m " , in Beiträge alttestamentlichen

Theologie:

Festschrift für Walther Zimmerli

zum 70. Geburtstag,

zur

ed. by Η.

DONNER, R. HANHART, R. SMEND, Göttingen 1977, 8 0 - 9 5 ; J.R. SEARLE, "Literal Meaning", in Expression

and. Meaning:

Studies

in the Theory of Speech Acts, C a m b r i d g e 1979,

1 1 7 - 1 3 6 ; S. FISH, " N o r m a l Circumstances, Literal Language, Direct Speech Acts, the Ordinary, the Everyday, the Obvious, What Goes without Saying, a n d Other Special Cases", in Is There a Text in This Class?: The Authority

of Interpretive

Communities,

Har-

vard 1980, 2 6 8 - 292; N. FRYE, The Great Code, L o n d o n 1982, Chapters 2 and 3; F. KERMODE, " T h e Plain Sense of Things", in Midrash and Literature,

ed. by G.H. HARTMAN, S.

BUDICK, N e w H a v e n 1986, 1 7 9 - 1 9 4 ; H . W . FREI, " T h e 'Literal Reading' of Biblical Narrative in the Christian Tradition: Does it Stretch or Will it Break?' in The Bible and the Narrative

Tradition,

ed. by F. MCCONNELL, N e w York/Oxford 1986, 3 6 - 7 7 ; M. DASCAL,

" D e f e n d i n g Literal M e a n i n g " , in Cognitive tation and Overinterpretation,

Science 11 (1987), 2 5 9 - 2 8 1 ; U. ECO,

Interpre-

with R. RORTY et al., ed. by S. COLLINI, C a m b r i d g e 1992;

P.R. NOBLE, " T h e Sensus Literalis: Jowett, Childs, and B a r r " , in JTS 44 (1993), 1 - 2 3 ; M. GAIPA, R. SCHOLES, " O n the Very Idea of a Literal M e a n i n g " , in Literary Davidson,

Theory

after

ed. by R . W . DASENBROOK, University Park, Pennsylvania 1993, 160-179; R.

BARTSCH, " T h e M y t h of Literal Meaning", in Lexical Structures

and Language

Use, ed. by

E. WEIGAND, F. HUNDSNURSCHER, Tübingen 1996, 3 - 1 6 ; Μ. ARIEL, " T h e D e m i s e of a Unique Concept of Literal M e a n i n g " , in Journal also the bibliography cited by DAWSON, Allegorical 8

of Pragmatics

See J. ASSMANN, B. GLADIGOW (eds.), Text und Kommentar: literarischen Kommentare, Kommentar

Kommunikation

4,

Munich

1995;

34 (2002), 3 6 1 ^ 0 2 . See

Readers, 2 4 8 - 2 4 9 , notes 28, 29. G.W.

Beiträge MOST

zur Archäologie

(ed.),

A p o r e m a t a 4, Göttingen 1999; W . GEERLINGS, C. SCHULZE (eds.), in Antike und Mittelalter:

Beiträge zu seiner Erforschung,

der

CommentariesDer

Clavis commentari-

orum, Antiquitatis et Medii Aevi 2, Leiden 2002; R.K. GIBSON, C . SHUTTLEWORTH KRAUS (eds.), The Classical

Commentary:

Histories,

Practices,

Theory, M n e m o s y n e biblio-

theca classica Batava S u p p l e m e n t u m 232, Leiden 2002. 9

See S.D. FRAADE, From Tradition to Commentary: Torah a n d Its Interpretation in the Midrash Sifre to Deuteronomy, Albany 1991, 3.

10

On the extent of the commonality between the exegetical techniques of midrash and

10

Chaim Milikowsky

With regard to the allegorical readings of Philo, the removal of plot and character from the biblical story-line to a different level of meaning, to the sublime realities of physics and metaphysics and to the interplay of ethical forces, though these readings have no common technical exegetical ground with those performed by the pesarim and the midrasim, they are also clearly and purposefully non-literal textual readings. Jumping back many, many centuries and looking at some exemplars of commentary-writing in Mesopotamian culture, it is well worth noting that the claim of a nexus of some sort between exegetical techniques found in cuneiform literature and those found in some genres of Jewish literature of the Roman period has been put forth by several scholars.11 In a book on Mesopotamian exegesis published at about the same time that the articles of Lieberman and Cavigneaux appeared, 12 Alasdair Livingstone showed that the phenomenon of non-literal exegesis in Mesopotamian literary culture was quite widespread.13 In a number of cuneiform works there is a remarkable predominance of exegetical techniques similar to those we find in the pesarim and in the midrasitn, such as the transposition of letters in a word, the use of a foreign language to construct an etymology of a word, and the division of one word into several components, each with its own semantic sense. To my mind, these similarities can tell us nothing of the supposed "sources" or "background" of midrashic technique, but should lead us to posit parallel hermeneutic presuppositions operating in both cultures. those of the pesher, see M. FLSHBANE, " T h e Q u m r a n Pesher and Traits of Ancient H e r m e n e u t i c s " , in Proceedings

of the Sixth World Congress

salem 1977, 9 7 - 1 1 4 ; M.P. HORGAN, Pesharim:

Qumran

of Jewish

Studies,

Interpretations

Vol. 1, Jeru-

of Biblical

Books,

Catholic Biblical Quarterly M o n o g r a p h Series 8, Washington 1979; G.B. BROOKE, Exegesis at Qumran:

4QFlorilegium

in its Jewish

Context,

Journal for the Study of the Old

Testament Supplement Series 29, Sheffield 1985; B. NLTZAN, Pesher Habakkuk: from

the Wilderness

of Judaea

(lQpHab),

A Scroll

Jerusalem 1986, (in Hebrew); H.J. FABRY,

" M e t h o d e n der Schriftauslegung in den Qumranschriften", in Stimuli: Exegese und ihre Hermeneutik

in Antike

und

Christentum.

Festschrift

für

Ernst

Oassmann,

ed. by G.

SCHÖLLGEN, C. SCHÖLTEN, Jahrbuch für Antike u n d Christentum E r g ä n z u n g s b a n d 23, Münster 1 9 9 6 , 1 8 - 3 3 . 11

See FlSHBANE, " T h e Q u m r a n Pesher" (see above Η. 10), 9 7 - 1 1 4 ; J. Η. TLGAY, " A n Early Technique of Aggadic Exegesis", in History,

Historiography

and Interpretation,

ed. by H.

TADMOR, M . WEINFELD, Jerusalem 1983, 169-189; S. LIEBERMAN, " A Mesopotamian Background for the So-Called Aggadic 'Measures' of Biblical Hermeneutics?" HUCA

in

58 (1987), 1 5 7 - 2 2 5 ; A. CAVIGNEAUX, " A u x sources du Midrash: 1'hermentique

babylonienne", in Aula Orientalis

5 (1987), 2 4 3 - 2 5 5 .

12

See previous note.

13

A. LIVINGSTONE, Mystical and Mythological Explanatory W o r k s of Assyrian and Babylonian Scholars, Oxford 1986; see also P. MLCHALOWSKI, " C o m m e m o r a t i o n , Writing, and Genre in Ancient M e s o p o t a m i a " , in The Limits of Historiography: Genre and Narrative in Ancient Historical Texts, ed. by C.S. KRAUS, M n e m o s y n e S u p p l e m e n t u m 191, Leiden 1999, 74.

Rabbinic Interpretation of the Bible: The Question of the Literal Meaning

H

T h e third cultural s y s t e m I w i s h to touch u p o n is that of G r e e c e . W e shall see that there also the earliest c o m m e n t a r y - t y p e c o m p o s i t i o n w h i c h h a s survived utilized typical a n d significant non-literal techniques. Exegesis w a s a p r o m i n e n t part of later G r e e k elite culture, p r e d o m i n a n t l y , t h o u g h n o t solely, exegesis of H o m e r . 1 4 W h e n o n e looks at the characteristics of this H o m e r i c exegesis, especially at the exegesis p r a c t i c e d in the philological schools of A l e x a n d r i a a n d P e r g a m u n , and w h i c h is also e v i d e n c e d in Aristotle's writings - this exegesis is literal a n d explicative. Allegorical exegesis of H o m e r is already attested in t h e fifth century B C E , a n d i n d e e d Plato attacks those w h o interpret H o m e r allegorically. N o n e t h e less, it d o e s n o t a p p e a r that there w a s at this early date a c o n c e r t e d effort to interpret the entire H o m e r i c corpus in this m a n n e r , b u t o n l y a series of isolated interpretive acts relevant to specific passages in H o m e r , p a s s a g e s , w h i c h w h e n

14

On exegesis, interpretation and commentary in the Greek intellectual tradition I have found the following useful: M. CARROLL, Aristotle's Poetics, C. XXV: In the Light of the Homeric Scholia, Baltimore 1895; H.V. APFEL, "Homeric Criticism in the Fourth Century B.C.", in Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 69 (1938), 245-258; R. PFEIFFER, History of Classical Scholarship From the Beginnings to the End of the Hellenistic Age, Oxford 1968; A.J. PODLECKI, "The Peripatetics as Literary Critics", in Phoenix 23 (1969), 114-142; C. SCHÄUBLIN, Untersuchungen zu Methode und Herkunft der antiochenischen Exegese, Theophaneia: Beiträge zur Religions und Kirchengeschichte des Altertums 23, Cologne 1974; R.R. SCHLUNK, The Homeric Scholia and the Aeneid, Ann Arbor 1974; N.J. RICHARDSON, "Homeric Professors in the Age of the Sophists", in Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society 21 (1975), 65-81; W. BÜHLER, "Die Philologie der Griechen und ihre Methoden", in Jahrbuch der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, 1977, 44-62; G.W. MOST, "Rhetorik und Hermeneutik: Zur Konstitution der Neuzeitlichkeit", in Antike und Abendland 30 (1984), 62-79; R. LAMBERTON, Homer the Theologian, Berkeley 1986; Β. NEUSCHÄFER, Origenes als Philologe, Schweizerische Beiträge zur Altertumswissenschaft 18, Basel 1987; R. LAMBERTON, J. J. KEANEY (eds.), Homer's Ancient Readers, Princeton 1992; R. SCHLUNK (ed. and trans.), Porphyry. The Homeric Questions, Lang Classical Studies 2, New York 1993; J. MANSFELD, Prolegomena: Questions to Be Settled before the Study of an Author, or a Text, Philosophia antiqua 61, Leiden 1994; J.J. KEANEY, R. LAMBERTON (eds. and trans.), Plutarch. Essay on the Life and Poetry of Homer, American Classical Studies 40, Atlanta 1996; F. MONTANARI, "The Fragments of Hellenistic Scholarship", in Collecting Fragments - Fragmente sammeln, ed. by G.W. MOST, Aporemata 1, Göttingen 1997, 273-288; D. SEDLEY, "Plato's Auctoritas and the Rebirth of the Commentary Tradition", in Philosophia Togata II: Plato and Aristotle at Rome, Oxford 1997, 113-114; N. WILSON, "Griechische Philologie im Altertum", in Einleitung in die Griechische Philologie, ed. by H.-G. NESSELRATH, Stuttgart/Leipzig 1997, 87-103; J. DILLON, "A Case-Study in Commentary: The Neoplatonic Exegesis of the Prooimia of Plato's Dialogues", in Commentaries - Kommentare, ed. G.W. MOST, Aporemata 4, Göttingen 1999, 206-223; K.A. MORGAN, Myth and Philosophy from the Presocratics to Plato, Cambridge 2000, 94^105; I. SLUITER, "The Dialectics of Genre: Some Aspects of Secondary Literature and Genre in Antiquity", in Matrices of Genre: Authors, Canons, and Society, ed. by M. DEPEW, D. OBBINK, Center for Hellenic Studies Colloquia 4, Cambridge 2000,182-203.

12

Chaim Milikowsky

read literally, made some readers uncomfortable. These tendencies strengthened as more and more readers were made uneasy by the actions of Homer's gods and heroes, but the apex of this trend only came much later, when the Neoplatonic philosophers radically and comprehensively interpreted all of Homer as allegory, in a manner similar to what Philo and the Church Fathers did to the Bible. Inasmuch as this school of philosophy only developed in the third century CE, it is tempting to conclude that it is the literal and explicative modes of exegesis which predominated in centers of Greek culture during the last centuries BCE and the first centuries CE. This may be true, but it is not the whole story. It is worth focusing upon a fascinating composition, called in scholarly discussion the Derveni Papyrus, which is in fact the earliest extant independent commentary-type work written in Greek.15 Derveni is the name of a small village in Macedonia, and it was there in 1962 that fragments of a papyrus roll, dated to the fourth century BCE, were found. The generally-accepted scholarly consensus maintains that this papyrus contains an Orphic poem describing the birth of the gods and a commentary on this poem, within which it is interpreted, using both allegorical and non-allegorical modes of exegesis, in accordance with the ideas and beliefs of some pre-Socratic thinkers. The description given by Glenn Most of an aspect of this exegetical technique is well worth citing, "There is a kind of a wit in the way the Derveni author deals with a traditional text - wit not in the sense of humor, but in that of ingenuity". 16 It is worthy of note that these words of Most about the Derveni papyrus can easily be used to describe the exegetical technique of midrashic literature. It is of course impossible for us to know how prevalent in fourth century BCE Greek culture these modes of exegesis were. However, we must not allow the uniqueness of this literary find to be a deciding factor, for we must always be aware that our knowledge of Greek intellectual life is skewed by two major historical determinants: (1) later generations copied and preserved only those works whose intellectual interests conformed to their own; and (2) material remains of non-preserved Greek literary culture can generally only be recovered from Hellenistic Egypt. To conclude this point then: we have rapidly surveyed three cultures, Jewish, Mesopotamian, and Greek, and in all three we have found that the earliest commentary-type compositions of which we know contain large elements of non-literal exegesis. This conclusion seemingly contradicts the position I asserted above - that there is merit in talking of an immediate literal meaning and that it is wrong to efface distinctions between literal meaning and nonliteral meaning. How is it possible to bridge the gap between this hermeneutic

15 16

This was asserted matter-of-factly by E.G. TURNER, Greek Papyri, Oxford 1980, 205. G.W. MOST, "The Fire Next Time: Cosmology, Allegoresis, and Salvation in the Derveni Papyrus", in Journal of Hellenic Studies 117 (1997), 125.

Rabbinic Interpretation of the Bible: The Question of the Literal M e a n i n g

13

position and the discovery that the earliest commentaries are replete with nonliteral interpretations? This question is more rhetorical than real, and the answer is of course obvious. At its base the central point is that just because there is an immediate literal meaning does not mean that that meaning is the privileged meaning of any text. But there is more to it than that. The idea I wish to present is basic, well-known, and very much worthy of repetition: What unites all these compositions is that they comment upon a text which has some sort of relationship to the divine; they come to reveal the word of God to man. Thus, granted that every text has an immediate literal meaning, the hermeneutic presuppositions acting upon theological compositions are different from those acting upon other works. In the ancient world it was a common belief that divine truths are revealed, not directly, but only by opacity and allusion. 17 This belief is fertile ground for the development of its natural corollary - a text created by God or for God will let its reader know what it means for him only after that reader has sufficiently mastered the ways by which God wants man to discover his hidden and allusive revelation. Midrashic exegesis - an exegesis which disregards logic, grammar and context - conforms then exactly with what we would expect whenever a specific group places a specific authoritative text at the center of theological and ideological concerns. The group finds in it what God must have put into it, and the question of the specific hermeneutical method used, creative philology or allegoresis, is secondary. 18

17

See F. KERMODE, The Genesis 1979; W. BURKERT, Ancient

of Secrecy:

Mystery

On the Interpretation

ance and Obscurity in Biblical Narrative", in Scriptural tation: Essays on the Occasion

of Narrative,

of the Sixty-fifth

Birthday

Authority

and Narrative

10 (1992), 2 6 8 - 2 7 4 ; M. SLMONEM, Biblical Interpretation

An Historical

Introduction

to Patristic

Exegesis,

tian Mysticism,

Wisdom:

in

Ancient Church:

trans, by J.A. Hughes, Edinburgh 1994,

and Near Eastern Religions,

Leiden 1995; G.G. STROUMSA, Hidden

Studies

in the Early

24; H.G. KIPPENBERG, G.G. STROUMSA (eds.), Secrecy and Concealment: tory of Mediterranean

Interpre-

of Hans W. Frey, ed. by G. GREEN,

Philadelphia 1987, 2 1 ^ 1 ; J. BARNES, " M e t a c o m m e n t a r y " , in Oxford Philosophy

Cambridge

Cults, Cambridge 1987, 79; R.F. THIEMAN, "Radi-

Studies in the His-

Studies in the History of Religions 65, Esoteric

Traditions

and the Roots of Chris-

Studies in the History of Religions 70, Leiden 1996; R.A. KUGLER, " T y -

conius's Mystic Rules and the Rules of Augustine", in Augustine

and the Bible, ed. by P.

BRIGHT, T h e Bible T h r o u g h the Ages 2, Notre D a m e 1999, 1 2 9 - 1 4 8 ; I. SLUITER, " C o m mentaries and the Didactic Tradition", in Commentaries

- Kommentare,

ed. by G.W.

Most, A p o r e m a t a 4, Göttingen 1999, 173-205; E.R. WOLFSON (ed.), Rending Concealment 18

and Secrecy in the History of Religions,

LIVINGSTONE, Mystical

and Mythological

the

Veil:

N e w York 1999.

Explanatory

Works

(see a b o v e n. 13), 50 and

passim, uses the terminology "artificial philology", but I prefer the usage "creative philology" coined by I. HEINEMANN, Darkei Ha-Aggada, sim.

Givatayim 1970, 96 and pas-

14

Chaim Milikowsky

This leads to the further conclusion that the immediate literal meaning inherent to every text is of little consequence when discussing midrashic literature.19 For if the presupposition implicit in this corpus is that a divinelyinspired work - in our case, the Bible - demands exegesis which disregards logic, grammar, and context, i.e. sanctions the use of non-literal exegetical techniques, then the literal meaning can often be disregarded. It of course exists, but would not be considered a privileged meaning. And indeed, to my mind, these hermeneutic principles characterize rabbinic literature in general. It is incorrect to assert that rabbinic literature evinces no awareness that there is such a thing as the literal meaning of a word, phrase, or sentence. Rather, the Rabbis, in their concern for discerning the manifold voices of God concealed in the biblical text, had little interest in what was manifest to all. All this is well and true when talking about rabbinic attitudes to the biblical text and its meaning, what we can call the hermeneutical question. But for the purpose of further elucidating rabbinic attitudes to literal exegesis I think it important to move the discussion to a slightly different question, to what I call the hermeneutic-historiographic question. The hermeneutic question deals solely on the meaning of the text while the hermeneutic-historiographic question focuses upon those texts which present descriptions of past events. When a text is understood by a group of its readers as coming to disclose divine intention, there is no reason to limit this intention to one specific message from God. Indeed, as is well-known, among the various groups who interpret the Bible using non-literal modes of exegesis, most emphasize the additional point that God's message is multivocal, though others do seem to insist upon univocality.20 However, when a divine text also purports to recount events of the past, the situation is radically different. Ostensibly, it would seem inevitable that any exegesis which uses the biblical telling of the past to create its own narrative of the past cannot use non-literal exegetical techniques, for non-literal exegetical techniques will, by definition, create a different narrative of the past than that created by literal exegetical techniques. One can easily imagine that one text can contain several messages or meanings - even if the text is not divine, and assuredly so if it is considered to be divine - but how can one text re19

The question is also relevant to any other genre of works pertaining to the divine, but our specific interest is of course with midrash.

20

Philo, the Rabbis, and many of the Church Fathers all presume multivocality; the pesarim from Qumran, it appears to me (though the question is debated), seem to insist upon univocality. With regard to the Rabbis the presumption of multivocality is manifest when taking rabbinic literature as a whole; I am not sure this presumption should necessarily be applied to every rabbinic figure as they are portrayed and presented in the corpus of rabbinic texts, and I am especially doubtful with regard to some early rabbinic figures.

Rabbinic Interpretation of the Bible: The Question of the Literal M e a n i n g

15

count two different "pasts"? Let us look at an example, one of thousands extant in rabbinic literature the Rabbis' statement about Rebekkah's death.21 Rebekkah's death is not mentioned in the Bible, and a rabbinic tradition maintains that she died at the same time that her nursemaid Deborah died, whose death is mentioned explicitly, "And Deborah, Rebekkah's nurse, died, and she was buried beneath Bet-El under an oak; and the name of it was called Allon-Bakut" (Gen 35,8). The original Amoraic exegesis appears in Be-resit Rabbah and in Pesicjta de-Rob Kahuna•. they construe the word "allon" in the verse to represent the Greek word with that pronunciation, which of course means "other", and so allon bakut, the name given to the oak, becomes "an other crying". 2 2 The verse so interpreted tells us that at the same time that there was one "crying" (bakut), because of the death of Deborah, there was also an other crying, that caused by the death of Rebekkah. 23 The use of a homophone from one language to interpret a sentence in another language is a manifest example of non-literal exegesis; the question I wish to pose is obvious, and I advisedly phrase it in the most straightforward and simple manner. Did the exegete who used the Greek word allon to tell us that Rebekkah died at the same time that Deborah died believe that with that exegetical act, with that penetration into the scriptural text, he discovered an historical fact? Or, perhaps, this was but an attempt to reveal God's message to man, and has no ramifications for an entirely unrelated endeavor - the reconstruction of historical facts. In other words, when this exegete - or anyone else - would record in a historical-chronological composition all the Patriarchs and Matriarchs and the dates of their death, would he include this exegeticallyderived date of Rebekkah's death or not? Immediately upon raising this question it must be emphasized that essentially the Rabbis had no interest in history. The sharp contrast between the biblical corpus, on the one hand, with its heavy concentration of compositions consisting primarily of the retelling of historical events, 24 and the rabbinic cor-

21

In the ensuing discussion it will become clear that I h a v e an ulterior motive in choosing specifically this tradition.

22

Be-resit

Rabbah 81,5, ed. by J. THEODOR, Ch. ALBECK, Jerusalem 2 1965, 6 7 9 - 6 8 0 ;

Pesiqta

de-Rab Kahana, Zakor, ed. by B. MANDELBAUM, N e w York 2 1987, 40. 23

See also Pesiqta Rabbati, 7,2,3; Tanhuma,

12, ed. M. FRIEDMANN, Jerusalem 1963, fol. 48b; Qohelet

Rabbah

Ki Tese, 4. These later rabbinic works do not use the Greek homo-

phone exegetical ploy; rather, they interpret bakut as if it w e r e a plural form. 24

This is not the place to discuss the question of historiography and the Bible. It is true that a n u m b e r of scholars - those w h o focus upon the notions of change, cause and effect, and critical questioning in their definition of historiography - deny that the Bible contains any historiography, but to m y mind such a position has little merit. Especially as all it w o u l d do w o u l d b e to limit the application of the term "historiography" to the retelling of historical events as practiced in the modern age and in a very few pre-

16

Chaim Milikowsky

pus, containing just about no such compositions, is well-known, and the conclusion that the Rabbis in general had no historical or historiographical interest in the events of the period of the Bible, in the events of the period of the second temple, or in the events of their own days is completely justified. 25 Nonetheless, and in spite of this conclusion, I still think it worthwhile to ask what did that exegete who deduced from the word "allon" that another death accompanied the death of Deborah think he was doing: is this an attempt to reconstruct a fact relevant to the past, or it is but the result of a seeking into the biblical to find an additional story, not necessarily a factualhistorical one, which had been hidden and obscured in the Divine Word? This very way of phrasing the question shows why what I called above the hermeneutic-historiographic question is so important. For it is by means of this question - and not by means of the general hermeneutic question - that we have a better conduit to discern what were the Rabbis' thoughts on the relationship between the literal meaning of a verse and the non-literal meaning of the verse. Did they distinguish between them, or perhaps they saw no reason in any context to see one meaning more privileged than any other? Before attempting to respond to this question, I wish to consider various other types of biblical exegesis found in Judaism of the Hellenistic-Roman period in order to highlight various aspects of rabbinic biblical exegesis by means of comparison and contrast. It was mentioned above that the first Jewish commentary-type compositions known to us are the peser compositions from Qumran, the exegetical modern works, and necessitate the creation of a n e w term to delineate the vast majority of compositions in the ancient and medieval worlds whose primary purpose was recounting historical events. At any rate, the question is basically irrelevant for our purposes inasmuch as the contrast on this point between biblical literature and rabbinic literature is so great. On the question of biblical historiography, see in general J. VAN SETERS, In Search of History: Biblical History,

Historiography

in the Ancient

N e w H a v e n 1983; M.Z. BRETTLER, The Creation

rael, London 1995; B. HALPERN, The Tirst Historians,

World and the Origins of History

in Ancient

of Is-

University Park, Pennsylvania

1996. Still very worthwhile is the formulation of A. MOMIGLIANO, " R e m a r k s on Eastern History W r i t i n g " , in Terzo contribute

alia storia degli studi classici e del Mondo

Antico,

Vol. 1, R o m e 1966, 2 3 6 - 2 3 8 , and a slightly revised version of the same idea in his The Classical

Foundations

of Modern

Historiography,

Sather Classical Lectures 54, Berkeley

1994, 2 2 - 2 3 . A fundamentally different position on this question is presented by I. BARR, "Story and History in Biblical Theology", in Journal of Religion 56 (1976), 1 - 1 7 . 25

The attempt of BEN-ZLON DLNUR ["Historiographical F r a g m e n t s in T a l m u d Literature and Their Investigation (in H e b r e w ) " in Proceedings Studies,

of the Fifth World Congress

of Jewish

Vol. 2, Jerusalem 1972, 137-146] to find traces and fragments of historical

compositions

in rabbinic literature was singularly unsuccessful,

as

conclusively

shown by MOSHE DAVID HERR ["The Conception of History a m o n g the S a g e s " (in Hebrew), in Proceedings

of the Sixth World Congress of Jewish Studies, Vol. 3, Jerusalem 1977,

129-142], T h e exception to this generalization is of course the composition known as Seder Olam,

which will b e discussed below.

Rabbinic Interpretation of the Bible: The Question of the Literal Meaning

17

compositions of Philo, and the midrasim, and it was also noted that none of them place in the center of their interest anything close to what we would call the literal meaning of Scripture.26 It is therefore valid to ask if indeed there existed in Judaism of the Hellenistic-Roman period any free-standing commentary-type compositions that propose to explicate the Bible according to context, grammar and logic. Did this type of interpretative activity at all exist in Judaism of late antiquity? I think the answer to both of these two questions should be in the affirmative and I will try to ground this position. The first point concerns Philo. Though Philo focuses primarily upon the allegorical interpretation of the Bible, his works contain a not-insignificant number of non-allegorical exegetical movements. Of the three types of exegetical compositions found in his ceuvre,27 it is the third, the Questions and Answers which is especially important for us. In this type of composition there is a set formal structure: Philo cites a verse, asks a question or raises a problem about the verse, and then supplies one or more answers. Answers of both types, literal and allegorical, are variously supplied: sometimes one or the other type is found and quite often Philo presents a nonallegorical, literal solution, and then an allegorical interpretation of the verse. Philo does not attribute the literal interpretations he cites to particular exegetes, and it is difficult to determine if any specific literal interpretation is his own, or if he received it from an exegetical predecessor. Sometimes, however, he precedes his citation of the non-allegorical exegesis of the verse with phrases like "some say that" or "people suggest that". Obviously, not every mention of a non-allegorical reading found in Philo's corpus is indicative of a specific explicative act. After all, inasmuch as Philo's concern is with the juxtaposition of the allegorical reading, with its attendant

26

W h e n dealing with an exegete w h o interprets texts allegorically, it is difficult to disregard the question of the intentionality of the putative author of the text being interpreted in the eyes of the exegete, for an exegete w h o insists u p o n an exclusively allegorical interpretation, as I imagine all of us would with specific compositions such as the medieval morality play Everyman

or the seventeenth century Pilgrim's

Progress,

does not allow for any valid non-allegorical interpretation of that composition. Thankfully, Philo saves us from this theoretical predicament, for he himself makes it clear that the literal interpretation of the Bible is a valid interpretive tool. Indeed, he refers to the reading of the Bible kata rheton, which should b e translated as "according to the obvious (i.e. literal) m e a n i n g " , many, m a n y times; see discussion below.

Naomi

Cohen has recently argued that kata rheton should not b e taken to mean the "literal m e a n i n g " of the text (N. COHEN, "Philo's 'Literal Meaning' and Rabbinic ' P e s h a t ' " , in Proceedings

of the Eleventh

World Congress

of Jewish Studies, Division A, Jerusalem 1994,

171-178); I find her arguments unpersuasive and h a v e presented m y position in m y forthcoming introduction to Seder Ύ1

Olam.

T h e y are generally called the Exposition (an exposition of parts of the Torah with only a minor allegorical component), the Allegorical C o m m e n t a r y (a full-fledged allegorical commentary), and the Questions and Answers (discussed below).

18

Chaim Milikowsky

higher truth, to the non-allegorical reading, it makes no difference from his perspective if the allegorical reading is contrasted with a reading based upon an actual explicative act, or simply set off from an unadorned recitation of the biblical text in Greek. But for us, wishing to draw from Philo's writings evidence of pre-Philonic non-allegorical exegetical activity, this distinction is crucial: quite obviously, many instances of non-allegorical readings of the biblical text cited by Philo are not the outcome of any exegetical act. Nonetheless, I think we can find some indications in support of the conclusion that Philo knew and used exegetical compositions which focused upon the explication of the biblical text exclusively in the light of its grammar, logic and context. So, for example, in Questions and Answers on Genesis (2,79), Philo asks why Shem the son of Noah appears first in the list of the sons of Noah in Genesis 5,32, while Japhet's descendents are the first listed in Genesis Chapter 10, and in response cites first "those who investigate the literal nature of Holy Scripture" who "have reason to believe" that Shem is the oldest, and then finds another, more satisfactory explanation for "us who investigate the intelligible nature". Similarly, later in that same work (4,196), Philo wonders what is the meaning of "And Isaac became old, his eyes became weak in seeing" (Gen 27,1), and from the context it appears that his question presumes the fact that many more years passed until Isaac dies and assumes that Isaac was not blind when he died. In his response, he first cites "those who give a literal explanation", and then his allegorical interpretation. These substantiations, and others like them, are not certain: there is no explicit mention of a written composition, and it can be argued that that Philo is referring to exegetical activity, and not to a written work. Nonetheless, the language used, expressions such as "those who search out the non-allegorical meaning of Holy Scripture" seem to point to independent exegetical sources being used by Philo, and that he is not referring to sundry explanations he heard on haphazard occasions. Moreover, occasionally Philo cites several non-allegorical solutions to the question he raised, sometimes before he offers his allegorical solution and sometimes without offering any allegorical solution at all. Also in these instances it cannot be proven that it was not Philo himself who generated all these solutions, and even if they do not stem from Philo himself, it cannot be proven that they originate in written works. But again, in spite of all these qualms, the most convincing explanation for all these phenomena is that extensive literal exegetical activity was widespread before and during the days of Philo and that access to this exegetical activity was by means of the written book. 28 Another place to search for explicative-literal exegesis of the Bible in the Hellenistic-Roman period is of course the Jewish Antiquities of Josephus. Be28

This is not to say that it was only by means of the written book. I assume that this type of exegetical matter was also transmitted orally in various contexts.

19

Rabbinic Interpretation of the Bible: The Question of the Literal M e a n i n g

cause of its importance for our subject, we will need to deal with various aspects of this work rather thoroughly. Though the explicit purpose of Josephus in writing his Jewish Antiquities was to compose an historical work, and not an exegetical work, it is of course obvious that any historical work which deals with the biblical period must be, by definition, also an exegetical work. And, indeed, Antiquities contains hundreds of exegetical traditions, which come to explicate difficult verses, fill in gaps in the biblical narrative, and add explanations to the biblical story-line. The vast majority of these exegetical traditions do not ignore the biblical context, and it is rare to find in Josephus elaborate additions to the biblical plot and even shorter additions which are not easily assimilated into the contextual logic of the verse. It is beyond belief that Josephus himself was the exegete who interpreted and augmented all that we find in the first half of the Antiquities - the part that deals with the biblical period - which is not directly culled from the Bible itself. Many have emphasized that Josephus is clearly dependent upon many predecessors in this part of Antiquities.29 Since Josephus tells us nothing about the non-biblical sources he used for his retelling of the biblical story, and indeed promised in the very beginning of Antiquities (1,71) that he will neither add nor subtract anything from the biblical account, a promise which is blatantly violated, the only possible way to determine anything about his sources is by a perusal of the work itself. As could have been expected, scholars disagree widely with regard to the nature of these sources and the ways that Josephus utilized them. According to one extreme position promulgated in the nineteenth century, Josephus can barely be considered an author. Hölscher presented this viewpoint with the greatest erudition and he claimed that in the first part of Antiquities Josephus simply copied and pasted together material taken from several Jewish-Hellenistic 29

A study of biblical exegesis in Josephus remains a desideratum; basic bibliography can be found in H . W . ATTRIDGE, "Josephus and his W o r k s " , in Jewish Writings

of the

Second

Temple Period, ed. by M.E. STONE, Compendia rerum iudaicarum ad n o v u m testamentum II.2, Philadelphia 1984, 2 1 1 - 2 1 7 ; L.H. FELDMAN, " U s e , Authority and Exegesis of Mikra in the Writings of Josephus", in Mikra: Text, Translation, tion of the Hebrew

Bible in Ancient

Judaism

Reading

and Early Christianity,

and

Interpreta-

ed. by M.J. MULDER,

C o m p e n d i a rerum iudaicarum ad n o v u m testamentum II.l, Philadelphia 1988, 4 7 0 476; see also H . W . BASSER, "Josephus as Exegete", in Journal Society 107 (1987), 2 1 - 3 0 ; P. BILDE, Flavius Josephus his Works,

and their Importance,

of the American

between Jerusalem

Oriental

and Rome: His Life,

Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supple-

ment Series 2, Sheffield 1988, 8 0 - 1 0 4 ; S. SCHWARTZ, Josephus

and Judaean

Politics,

lumbia Studies in the Classical Tradition 18, Leiden 1990, 2 3 - 5 7 ; S. MASON, Josephus

on the Pharisees:

A Composition-Critical

1991, 4 5 ^ 8 ; C. BEGG, Josephus' Rewriting ven 1993.

Account

Study,

Co-

Flavius

Studia Post-Biblica 39, Leiden

of the Early Divided

Monarchy,

(AJ

8,212-420):

the Bible, Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium 108, Leu-

20

Chaim M i n k o w s k y

compositions, which were apparently composed in Alexandria. 30 In complete contrast to this position, more recently it has been claimed that the vast majority of material found in the first part of Antiquities and not taken from the Bible stem from oral traditions that Josephus heard, and there is little reason to search for written sources.31 There is little doubt that in a general sense these latter summings-up emphasizing the independent and original work of Josephus are correct: he should not be seen as a mindless conduit who simply passes on to us sections of earlier compositions. On the other hand, I do think that Josephus used in the first half of Antiquities many written sources in addition to the Bible. Very basic support for this conclusion comes from a study of the chronological statements found in disparate sections of the Josephean corpus, both in the Jewish Antiquities and in the Jewish War. I have shown elsewhere that several of these statements are obviously dependent upon disparate, contradicting chronological traditions, whose authors disagreed among themselves just how to calculate the various periods of the history of Israel based upon the biblical data,32 and there can be little doubt that these traditions reached Josephus in the form of written compositions. Other weighty grounds for the proposition that Josephus used written compositions can be found among the various claims Hölscher makes. As noted, I do not agree with his basic interpretative stance. For Hölscher, all of Greek culture was radically foreign to Josephus, and since Hölscher was convinced that an awareness of various aspects of this culture permeates much of Antiquities, he concluded that Josephus was more of a compiler of earlier Hellenistic works than an author. The sharp break lying at the base of Hölschers argument, between Hellenistic culture, on the one hand, and the Weltanschauung of an aristocratic priest of Israel, on the other, assuredly does not correspond to the socio-cultural reality in Judea at the period of the end of the second temple. Furthermore, it must not be forgotten that Josephus wrote Antiquities after approximately two decades

30

G. HÖLSCHER, "Josephos (2)", in Paulys wissenschaft,

Realencyklopädie

der classischen

Altertums-

ed. by A. PAULY, G. WlSSOWA, W . KROLL, IX.2, Stuttgart 1916, cols. 1 9 5 0 -

1994. 31

See, e.g., H . W . ATTRIDGE, The Interpretation of Flavius Josephus,

of Biblical History

in the Antiquitates

Judaicae

H a r v a r d Dissertations in Religion 7, Missoula, M o n t a n a 1976, 2 9 -

38. 32

One classic e x a m p l e pertains to the period between the exodus from Egypt and the building of the first temple: Josephus gives us two explicit n u m b e r s in various places, 592 and 612; other passages presume one of these two figures; a n d a third figure, 630, is presumed by two additional passages. A brief discussion of these matters can b e found in m y article, "Josephus Between Rabbinic Culture a n d Hellenistic Historiograp h y " , in Shem in the Tents of Japhet: Judaism

in Hellenistic

Garb, ed. by J. KUGEL, Sup-

plements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 74, Leiden 2002, 1 5 9 - 1 9 7 , and a fuller analysis is included in m y forthcoming introduction to Seder

'Olam.

21

Rabbinic Interpretation of the Bible: The Question of the Literal M e a n i n g

in Rome. Nonetheless, in spite of all this justified criticism of Hölscher,33 a good case can be made that several important points in his article have not been sufficiently taken into account. One matter, crucial for our discussion here, is the manner in which Josephus transcribes Semitic names. Hölscher shows that Josephus often transcribes the same name in various different ways. True that in a work of twenty books absolute uniformity should not be expected, but the extent of the variation, and especially the variation with regard to the correspondences between Semitic consonants and Greek consonants, strongly suggests that Josephus used a variety of different written works.34 Hölscher also notes that Josephus' Antiquities evinces an extraordinary acquaintance with various aspects of Egyptian realia and culture - an acquaintance unexpected in a Jew from Judea exiled to Rome. Indeed, this claim of Hölscher can be buttressed by other passages in Antiquities which point to an Egyptian milieu. It is difficult to imagine that Josephus himself would write that Abraham traveled to Egypt "to become a listener to the priests in order to know what are their teachings about the gods, and to follow them if he finds them better [than his own teachings]" (Antiquities 1.161), or that he would emphasize that Potiphar gave Joseph the "the education of a freeman" (Antiquities 2.39), or that he would have Moses say that he does not "scorn the wisdom of the Egyptians" (Antiquities 2.286). Also the long narrative about Moses' war against the Ethiopians and his marriage with the daughter of the king of the Ethiopians (Antiquities 2.238-257) surely derives from a work with an Egyptian provenance. All these phenomena are best explained by the simple hypothesis that when composing his history of the biblical period Josephus drew upon, among others, Jewish-Hellenistic compositions authored in Alexandria. Also the fact that there are a not inconsiderable number of parallels between Josephus and second century Jewish-Hellenistic authors like Ezekiel and Artapanus,35 and also between Josephus and Philo,36 leads me to the conclu33

See BILDE, Flavius Josephus the Pharisees

34

(see above note 29), 1 2 6 - 1 2 7 , and MASON, Flavias Josephus

on

(see a b o v e note 29), 2 1 - 2 2 .

For an excellent example of this p h e n o m e n o n (not cited b y Hölscher) see Thackeray's note on the n a m e H e b r o n [H.St.J. THACKERAY (ed. and trans.), Josephus.

IV. Jewish

An-

tiquities, Books 1 - 4 , Loeb Classical Library, Cambridge 1967, 84, note a], 35

O n Josephus and Ezekiel see H. JACOBSON, The Exagoge of Ezekiel, C a m b r i d g e 1 9 8 3 , 1 5 5 , 177, note 10. l a c o b s o n asserts that Josephus used Ezekiel, but his argument seems to be based u p o n the presupposition that there are only two possibilities, either Josephus used Ezekiel or the parallel traditions were authored independently. O n Josephus and Artapanus see D. RuNNALLS, " M o s e s ' Ethiopian C a m p a i g n " , in Journal for the Study of Judaism

in the Persian,

Hellenistic

and Roman Period 14 (1983), 1 3 5 - 1 5 6 , and the earlier

literature he cites. 36

On Josephus and Philo see G.P. CARRAS, " D e p e n d e n c e or C o m m o n Tradition in Philo Hypothetica VIII 6.10—7.20 and Josephus Contra A p i o n e m 2 . 1 9 0 - 2 1 9 " , in Studia nica Annual

Philo-

5 (1993), 2 4 ^ 7 ; T. RAJAK, " T h e 'Against A p i o n ' and the Continuities in

22

Chaim M i n k o w s k y

sion that there existed in Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt continuous traditions focusing upon biblical exegesis, which were not limited to homiletical contexts, but were compiled in book form. Inasmuch as just about all of Judaeo-Greek cultural activity was lost for posterity - other than the works of Philo and Josephus, as well as other bits and pieces, which were preserved by Christian transmission37 it should not surprise us that none of these works are extant.38 I think it probable that Josephus used primarily works of an exegetical nature, and not works of historiography, and thus my hypothesis, if correct, would suggest that notwithstanding the obvious and inherent difficulties in characterizing non-extant compositions, we shall not be far off the mark if we attribute to the sources Josephus used for composing Antiquities the same characteristics we find in Antiquities. And, as noted above, Antiquities contains hundreds of exegetical traditions, which come to explicate difficult verses, fill in gaps in the biblical narrative, and add explanations to the biblical story-line, but in general they do not ignore the biblical context nor add major elaborations to the biblical plot-line. On this point it is worth comparing Josephus' retelling of the biblical narrative to another retelling of the biblical narrative, that of Jubilees. Taking the biblical story of Abraham as our basis of comparison, the relevant section of Antiquities (1,151-259) contains about 25 details, explanations, and additions not found in the biblical story, and in the parallel section of Jubilees, (11,1421,3) there are a similar number of additions. A comparison of the two lists is very enlightening. Many of the additions in Josephus are obviously and unmistakably grounded in the desire to explicate the verse, following, of course, Josephus's Political T h o u g h t " , in Understanding

Josephus:

Seven Perspectives,

ed. S. MA-

SON, Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha S u p p l e m e n t Series 32, Sheffield 1998, 22 . 37

Other than the w o r k s of Philo and Josephus and a few compositions (e.g. W i s d o m of Solomon, 3 Maccabees) preserved in various manuscripts of the (Christian) Greek Bible, there are also a n u m b e r of fragments which w e r e preserved b y their citation in works of Clement and Eusebius; see J.H. CHARLESWORTH (ed.), The Old Pseudepigrapha,

Vol. 2: Expansions

of the Old Testament

and Legends

Testament

..., G a r d e n City, N e w

York 1985, 7 7 3 - 9 1 8 ; and the four volumes of C.R. HOLLADAY (ed. and trans.), Fragments from Hellenistic 38

Jewish Authors,

Chico, California/Atlanta, Georgia 1 9 8 3 - 1 9 9 6 .

To m y mind, the implausibility of assuming that Christian transmitters chose to retain just about all of Jewish-Hellenistic literature is sufficient to justify the conclusion that only a small percentage of that literature was preserved; see M.D. HERR, " L e s raisons de la conservation des restes de la litterature juive de l'epoque du Second T e m p l e " , in Apocrypha

1 (1990), 2 1 9 - 2 3 0 ; IDEM, " T h e End of Jewish Hellenistic Literature: W h e n

and W h y ? " (in Hebrew), in The Jews in the Hellenistic-Roman of Menahan

Stern,

World: Studies in

Memory

ed. by I.M. GAFNI, A. OPPENHEIMER, D.R. SCHWARTZ, Jerusalem

1996, 3 6 1 - 3 7 5 ; and for a different perspective, see G. VERMES, M. GOODMAN, "La litterature juive intertestamentaire ä la lumiere d'un siecle de recherches et de decouvertes", in Etudes Paris 1984, 3 0 ^ 9 .

sur le Judaisme

Hellenistique,

ed. by R. KUNTZMANN, J. SCHLOSSER,

Rabbinic Interpretation of the Bible: The Question of the Literal Meaning

23

the hermeneutical guidelines of Josephus or his sources; others, which add details without any biblical warrant (at least, not any that I could determine), generally fit quite well into the basic plot-line explicit in the biblical narrative. Very few of the additions seem to have no ground or starting point in the Bible itself. And in contrast to this state of affairs, most of the additions found in Jubilees tell of events neither connected to the biblical narrative nor derived exegetically in any obvious way from the biblical text. Also regarding those additions in Jubilees which expand on a story-line already in the Bible, the linkage to the biblical story-line is considerably less than the norm in Josephus. Having seen so far clear indications of a literal-contextual mode of exegesis in the compositions of the two Jewish-Hellenistic authors whose works have survived, Philo and Josephus, we turn now to a third Jewish-Hellenistic author, Demetrius. 39 Only fragments of his composition have survived, but from the little there is, we can determine that it contained a strong element of literalcontextual exegesis. The extant fragments of Demetrius contain, in addition to dozens of biblically-oriented chronological assertions, three exegetical passages having no chronological element at all: (1) Why did Joseph not bring his father and brothers to Egypt immediately after his appointment as vice-regent to the king? (2) Why did Joseph give more presents of Benjamin than to his other brothers? (3) How did the Israelites obtain weapons with which to use in their wars while in the desert after the Exodus? The formal structure of these three passages is unique in that they are presented in a very formal commentary mode of composition. In general, Demetrius presents a flowing narrative of the biblical events and does not make explicit the processes by which he derives his chronological conclusions. He includes them within his narrative in such a way that the reader cannot tell which assertions are explicit in the Bible and which were generated by exegesis of the biblical text. In contrast, these three non-chronological passages consist of a citation of the biblical verse under discussion, an explicit phrasing of the exegetical question, and a response. This double contrast - in both form and content - between these three nonchronological Question-and-Answer passages and the rest of the work extant leads me to conclude that the exegetical passages stem from an earlier composition upon which Demetrius has drawn. Demetrius included these specific passages because they bear upon historical questions: they deal not with the meaning of the biblical text, but with historical events and character motivation. Whether this suggestion is accepted or not, it is clear that the ambience of Demetrius's composition is that of literal-contextual exegesis. All of it adheres very closely to the biblical plot and interprets it in complete concord with its 39

See C.R. HOLLADAY (ed. and trans.), Fragments from Hellenistic Historians, Chico, California 1983, 51-91.

Jewish Authors,

Vol. 2:

24

Chaim Milikowsky

context and according to the rules of grammar and language. Indeed, I know of no other Judaeo-Greek work which exhibits such a pure concentration of literal exegesis. Surveying all that we have seen until now, I would like to propose that the most suggestive aspect of all these conclusions about early literal exegesis is the focus upon Egypt. This point is immediately manifest with regard to Demetrius and Philo, both of whom lived in Egypt,40 and we also saw that there is solid support for the suggestion that Josephus made extensive use of Jewish compositions stemming from Egypt. Moving now to compositions stemming from the land of Israel, it will be my contention that the evidence for the differentiation between different modes of exegesis does not exist. We have mentioned above already two corpora which stem from the Hellenistic-Roman period and which were composed in the land of Israel, the peser compositions from Qumran and the midrasim, and noted that these compositions place in the center of their interest what would definitely be called nonliteral exegesis of Scripture. Other works composed during this period in the land of Israel are included in what is often called the pseudepigraphal literature. As is well-known, the many works generally included in collections of pseudepigraphal literature have little in common with each other, and should not be considered a specific corpus of literature, not from the point of view of genre, nor from those of style and ideology. The compositions included in these collections were written over hundreds of years and have widely diverging goals and points of view. From our perspective these reflections are not very significant, for biblical exegesis in the sense of the explication of specific verses, the resolution of interpretive difficulties, the insertion of elements lacking in the biblical story, and the inclusion of explanatory elaborations is rare in most of these works. Works such as the books of Enoch and 4 Ezra are in a sense based upon the Bible - inasmuch as they present themselves as the words of biblical figures and even include a not-insignificant amount of exegetical traditions, but biblical exegesis is far from being their fundamental characteristic. There is however one group, often termed the genre of the Rewritten Bible, within which biblical exegesis is abundant. Works such as Jubilees, Genesis Apocryphon, Biblical Antiquities, Aramaic Testament of Levi, and parts of the Ethiopic Book of Enoch are characterized by a retelling of the biblical story with many additions, some of them being new plot-lines added to the biblical narrative and others being details added to pre-existing plot-lines. I would venture to suggest that no one doubts that these works contain traditions which developed as a result of intensive interpretative activity in the biblical 40

Since Demetrius mentions a Ptolemaic king, the common assumption is that he lived in Egypt, though not all agree.

Rabbinic Interpretation of the Bible: The Question of the Literal Meaning

25

text and others which were generated without relation to any biblical verse, though the exact proportion of the two types of creative activity is obscure.41 I mentioned above that most of the additions in the book of Jubilees describe events not mentioned in the biblical text, and even with regard to those additions which do relate to already existing biblical plot-lines, the connection to these prior plot-lines is generally quite weak. Whether we emphasize the role of creative imaginative activity or that of creative exegetic activity, quite clearly the Bible is not being interpreted in a literal manner. Furthermore, the narrative leveling, the unified plot-line - that is, the lack of any marking in this genre between what is explicit in the biblical text and what is added to the biblical story - leads me to conclude that for the author and his readers there is no distinction between the events detailed in his book which appear explicitly in the Bible and the events detailed in his book which do not appear explicitly in the Bible. This last point brings me back, finally, to rabbinic literature. It is especially noteworthy that in early midrashic literature, no narrative leveling, no unification of all material into one plot-line takes place. The recognition that narrative leveling, such as that which we find in the book of Jubilees and in Biblical Antiquities, is common in the pre-rabbinic period and reappears in late midrashic works, already to a certain extent in the Tanhuma literature and very much so in Pirke de Rabbi Eli'ezer, makes its absence in early midrashic literature even more significant. Another consequential phenomenon found in midrashic literature is its extreme indulgence and lack of restraint when creating new plot-lines, when compared to a work like Jubilees. I do not think one will find in Jubilees nor in other works of the rewritten Bible genre statements such as those which say "the manna was sixty cubits high", or that "a woman... would stretch out her hand between the waves of the sea, would pluck figs, pomegranates, and peaches and give them to her son". 42 In this context the composition Seder Olam is of especial importance. It differs from all other works in the rabbinic corpus which focus upon the Bible in two central aspects.43 It contains none of that typically non-literal midrashic

41

James KUGEL has especially emphasized the exegetical bases of the traditions found in the rewritten Bible compositions; see his Traditions Was at the Start of the Common

of the Bible: A Guide to the Bible As It

Era, Cambridge 1998, and his m a n y earlier articles,

which generally present m o r e detailed argumentation, cited in his bibliography; cfr. E. YASSIF, Sipur ha-'am ha-'ivri, Jerusalem 1994, 5 8 - 5 9 . 42

The first passage appears in Mekilta

de-Rabbi

Yisma'el,

HOROVITZ, I.A. RABIN, Jerusalem 2 1 9 6 0 , 1 6 6 ; Mekilta de-Rabbi

W a - Y a s s a ' , 3, ed. by H.S. Simon ben Yohay,

ad Exo-

dus 16,14, ed. by J.N. EPSTEIN, E.Z. MELAMED, Jerusalem 1955, 1 0 0 - 1 0 1 ; and b Y o m 76a; the second appears in Yalqut Sim'oni, Huqat, 764, ed. by Y. SHILONI, Jerusalem 1986, 436. 43

The presumption here is that Seder 'Olam in its present form must be considered part

26

Chaim Minkowsky

type of exegesis: it does not use interpretive modes which ignore grammar, context and simple logic. In addition, it contains just about no additions to the biblical story-line: of the approximately two hundred statements appearing in the first ten chapters of Seder 'Olam - which tell the story of the world from the creation until the death of Moses - only five recount a plot-line elaboration: (1) Abraham was in Canaan, returned to Haran and then arrived in Canaan a second time; (2) Jacob studied with Eber fourteen years; (3) Moses assembled and dismantled the Tabernacle during each one of the seven days of dedication; (4) the Israelites traveled backwards from Mount Hor to Moserah after the death of Aharon; (5) the well of water and the cloud pillar departed and then returned.44 Four of these five plot-line elaborations were generated by the necessity of solving very difficult cruces in the biblical narrative, as Seder Olam understood it. In other words, they are grounded in the literal-contextual mode of exegesis which is prevalent throughout Seder Olam. Let us now look at these last three points together: early midrashic literature has no narrative leveling; it allows itself extreme freedom in the types of plot additions it presents; there is one work in the rabbinic corpus which uses no non-literal exegetical techniques and has just about no plot-line elaborations. I argued above that an analysis of the extant compositions which were authored in the land of Israel leads us to conclude that towards the end of the second temple period there was no consciousness of a distinction between literal and non-literal exegesis.45 That is to say, the modes of scrutinization of a divine text were not limited to the hermeneutical rules and general logic which would be applied to other texts. But in Jewish-Hellenistic literature we find clear indications of a literal exegetical mode, and also of an awareness of the basic distinction between the different modes. I would like to suggest now that the confrontation between these two perceptions of the correct way to interpret God's word is what led to the phenomenon of midrash as we know it. On the one side stood the basic recognition that a divine text cannot be limited by those rules governing the reading of non-divine texts, and on the other side stood the logical conundrum of concluding by means of non-literal exegetical techniques that Abraham did something - when in truth he did not. The solution was extraordinary - the severance of any linkage between the text and the seeming referent of the text, that is, the events of the past. The text is God's word to his people, and his words have meaning without any necesof the rabbinic corpus. The names of rabbinic sages are cited nineteen times in the composition, and it contains approximately one hundred parallels to other rabbinic works. 44

These passages are found, respectively, in chapters 1, 2, 7, 9 and 10.

45

To my mind, this is the most questionable of the various propositions I am presenting in this paper.

Rabbinic Interpretation of the Bible: The Question of the Literal Meaning

27

sary connection to any events which they ostensibly represent. If someone wishes to deal with the events of the past, then there is no room for non-literal exegetical techniques, for the events are not God's word. Therefore, Seder Olam, which deals with the detailed reconstruction of the biblical chronology uses no non-literal exegetical techniques and adds just about no plot-line elaborations to the biblical story-line.46 This also explains the unrestrained freedom found in midrashic literature to create new elements of story. When plot-line additions were considered to be connected both to the biblical text and to the events of the past, then a certain amount of restraint was natural. But after the text is no longer explicated as necessarily referring to any event, then there is no impediment in generating the most illogical conclusions from the biblical text, for the exegete is most emphatically not claiming that the story he is telling has any relationship to events which occurred. Non-literal exegetical techniques are used, not to establish "the facts", but to uncover the theological meanings of the text. It is thus obvious why there is no narrative leveling in midrashic literature: such a leveling would destroy the essence of the midrashic enterprise, which posits a crucial distinction between a scrutiny of the text oriented towards the factual and the historical and a scrutiny of the text oriented towards the theological and the moral. Let us look again at the two midrashic traditions cited above - (1) "the manna was sixty cubits high"; (2) "a woman... would stretch out her hand between the waves of the sea, would pluck figs, pomegranates, and peaches and give them to her son". These two tannaitic statements are especially important in that for both of them not only has the statement itself been preserved, but also a narrative context which contains a fascinating dialogue between the speaker and one or more discussants. In both of these narrative contexts the speaker is attacked for forsaking common logic and biblical context - "for how long will you continue to say baffling things?" "you also are of the bafflers?" and the speaker replies, "I am dealing with midrash on the Bible", cites a biblical verse and expounds upon it. Since the biblical verses cited are not capable of proving the facticity of the events being discussed, clearly the speaker's response is to tell his critic that he has been misunderstood - his intention was not to deal with historical events, in which case indeed his conclusion would have been baffling, but with the meaning of God's word. In the midrashic context, historical facts are simply irrelevant. In the final analysis, however, we must remember that rabbinic literature was created and formulated during the course of many centuries, and we should consequently not expect to find that the distinction so central to my 46

I am equating here (and above) the use of non-literal exegetical techniques and the addition of new plot-lines in terms of their distance from the norms of literal exegesis; in truth, however, there are important distinctions between them.

28

Chaim Milikowsky

discussion - between a literal mode of exegesis and a midrashic mode of exegesis - remained fundamental in the rabbinic self-consciousness of the exegetical enterprise. I wish to illustrate the importance of the need for prudence in these matters by the further analysis of an exegetical tradition already discussed. As explained above, the word allon in the verse "And Deborah, Rebekkah's nurse, died, and she was buried beneath Bet-El under an oak; and the name of it was called Allon-Bakut" (Gen 35,8) is explicated in Be-re'sit Rabbah on the basis of the Greek word of that pronunciation, and taken to tell us that another death, that of Rebekkah, occurred at the same time as that of Deborah. However, this assertion that Rebekkah died at the same time that Deborah died also appears in Seder 'Olam, chapter 2. Following my earlier conclusions, it is immediately obvious that the radically non-literal exegetical technique of explicating a biblical word in accordance with its Greek homophone was not the basis for Seder 'Olam's conclusion. 47 Nonetheless, when this tradition reached later generations, a new midrash was created - to retroactively explain the generation of the tradition - and thereby obscure the distinction I wish to reconstruct in this paper, a distinction between the two modes of exegesis prevalent in Jewish circles of the Hellenistic-Roman period, between, on the one hand, the desire to apprehend the literal-contextual meaning of the verse and the exegetical techniques used to fulfill that desire and, on the other hand, the desire to apprehend the ultimate non-literal God-determined meaning/meanings of the verse and the exegetical techniques used to fulfill that desire. 48

47 48

The literal-contextual exegetical moves which led to this conclusion are reconstructed in my forthcoming commentary to Seder 'Olam. In this paper I have not touched upon many relevant subjects, such as the meaning of the word pesat (which is actually irrelevant to the study of early rabbinic exegesis), the claims of many scholars that midrash is found in the Bible and in the Septuagint, the exegetical self-consciousness of the Qumran writings, the various types of "literal exegesis"; for these matters, and many others, I refer the reader to my forthcoming introduction to Seder 'Olam (see note at beginning of paper).

Authoritative Literature and Scripture in the Chronistic Corpus* The Use of DirD-Formulas in Ezra-Nehemiah and 1-2 Chronicles by ARMIN LANGE

Günter Stemberger is one of the few scholars who is at home both with the literature of Second Temple Judaism and Rabbinic Judaism, and whose work guided the research in both fields in new directions. Günter Stemberger wrote two articles dealing with the canonical history of the Hebrew Bible 1 in which he criticizes the hypotheses of a council at Jabneh-Jamnia. With this criticism, Stemberger participated in an overall criticism 2 of the three-step-model of the canonical history of the Hebrew Bible developed by Heinrich Graetz and others. 3 Stemberger opened the way to a better understanding of how the canon of the Hebrew Bible developed. I would therefore like to contribute an article to his Festschrift dealing with another important aspect of the Hebrew Bible's canonical history, the use of mrO-quotation formulas in Ezra-Nehemiah and 1 - 2 Chronicles. First I will discuss some terminological issues and sketch the use of quotation formulas in the Jewish literature written between the conquests of Syro-Palestine by Alexander the Great (333 B.C.E.) and Pompey the Great (63 B.C.E.), and afterwards I will analyze the use of 2irD-quotation *

I am indebted to Mr. Matthias Weigold and Mr. Michael Lesley for editing and reworking this article. It is a special pleasure for m e to thank both of them for their help.

1

G. STEMBERGER, " D i e sogenannte 'Synode von Jabne' u n d das frühe Christentum", in Kairos 19 (1977), 1 4 - 2 1 ; IDEM, " J a b n e und K a n o n " , in JBTh 3, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1988, 163-174.

2

J.P. LEWIS, " W h a t D o W e M e a n By Jabneh?", in JBR 32 (1964), 1 2 5 - 1 3 2 ; P. SCHÄFER, " D i e sogenannte S y n o d e von Jabne: Zur T r e n n u n g von J u d e n und Christen im ersten/ zweiten Jh. n. C h r . " , in Jud. 31 (1975), 5 4 - 6 1 , 1 1 6 - 1 2 4 ; S.Z. LEIMAN, The Canonization Hebrew Academy

3

Scripture:

The Talmudic

and Midrashic

Evidence,

in Transactions

of the

of

Connecticut

of Arts and Sciences 47, Hamden, Conn. 1976, 5 1 - 1 2 4 .

H. GRAETZ, Kohelet oder der Salomonische

Prediger:

Ubersetzt

und Kritisch

Erläutert,

Leip-

zig 1 8 7 1 , 1 4 7 - 1 7 3 ; IDEM, " D e r Abschluss des Kanons des Alten T e s t a m e n t s " , in MGWJ 35 (1886), 2 8 1 - 2 9 8 ; F. BUHL, Kanon

und Text des Alten

WLLDEBOER, The Origin of the Canon of the Old Testament: L o n d o n 1895; H.E. RYLE, The Canon of the Old Testament: and Formation

of the Hebrew

Canon of Scripture,

Testamentes,

Leipzig 1891; G.

An Historico-Critical An Essay on the Gradual

London 1892.

Enquiry, Growth

30

Armin Lange

formulas in 1 - 2 Chronicles and in Ezra-Nehemiah. In the final section of this article I will discuss what caused the development of the concept of scripture in 1-2 Chronicles and in Ezra-Nehemiah.

1. Terminology The earliest use of the Greek word κανών as a designation of a list of books is Athanasius' thirty-ninth Easter letter dated to 367 C.E. To use the term 'canon' in modern scholarship on ancient Judaism therefore runs the danger of crosscultural misconceptions. I therefore use the nuanced terminology as introduced into the study of the Hebrew Bible's canonical history by Eugene Ulrich.4 Ulrich distinguishes between an authoritative text, "that a community, secular or religious, acknowledges to hold authority" and a book of scripture as "a sacred authoritative text which, in the Jewish or Christian context, the community acknowledges as having authority over the faith and practice of its members". The term canon refers to "the established and exclusive list of books that hold supreme authoritative status for a community". Finally, the term canonical process or canonical history designates the process beginning with the recognition of authoritative texts and ending in an exclusive canonical list of books having binding authority.

2. Quotation Formulas in Ancient Jewish Literature from Alexander the Great to Pompey the Great In an earlier study, I analyzed the quotations of and allusions to authoritative books in the Jewish literature between the conquests of Syro-Palestine by Alexander the Great in 333 B.C.E. and Pompey the Great in 63 B.C.E. 5 By comparing the evidence before and after the Hellenistic religious reforms, I argued in this study that the desecration of the Jerusalem temple in the years 167-164 B.C.E. was a catalyst that led to the development of the idea of scripture in ancient Judaism. One of the major changes I observed in the way authoritative 4

E. ULRICH, "The Canonical Process, Textual Criticism, and Latter Stages in the Composition of the Bible", in Sha'arei Talmon: Studies in the Bible, Qumran, and the Ancient Near East Presented to Shemaryahu Talmon, ed. by M. FLSHBANE et al., Winona Lake, Ind. 1992, 267-291, esp. 269-276; IDEM, "Canon", in Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls 1, ed. by L.H. SCHIFFMAN, J.C. VANDERKAM, Oxford 2000,117-120, esp. 117.

5

A. LANGE, "From Literature to Scripture: The Unity and Plurality of the Hebrew Scriptures in Light of the Qumran Library", in One Scripture or Many ? Canon from Biblical, Theological, and Philosophical Perspectives, ed. by CHR. HELMER, CHR. LANDMESSER, Oxford et al. 2004, 51-107.

Authoritative Literature and Scripture in the Chronistic Corpus

31

literature was referred to before and after the Hellenistic religious reforms was a significant increase in the use of quotation formulas. Before Jason became high priest in 175 B.C.E., only 4% of all quotations and allusions contained quotation formulas. The majority of these quotation formulas and all formulas are found in the books of Ezra-Nehemiah and 1 - 2 Chronicles. In the time before Jason gained power, the texts alluded to or quoted seem to have been of interest only in so far as they communicated God's revelation to his people and God's history with his people. Authoritative literature had no standing of its own. Its only purpose was to serve as a literary means that communicated the events and revelation of the past. The quotation of Gen 2,18 in Tob 8,6 is a good example: "You said, 'It is not good that the man should be alone; let us make a helper for him like himself'". The quotation formula σύ εΐπας ("you said") refers to an utterance of God, and not to the book it is preserved in. From Jason onwards, four times as many quotation formulas were used than before. The increase in the use of quotation formulas suggests an altered attitude towards authoritative literature. Two examples demonstrate the direction in which this paradigm shifts. In 4QMidrash on Eschatology 3 (4Q174) III 15, a quotation of Isa 8,11 is introduced as "what is written in the book of Isaiah the Prophet concerning the end of days". In a similar way, 4QMiscellaneous Rules (4Q265) 1 3 introduces a quotation of Isa 10,34^11,1 as "it is written in the bo[ok ]of Isaiah the prophet". The Midrash on Eschatology and Miscellaneous Rules do not refer to Isaiah himself, but rather to the book of Isaiah. It is the written text and not the prophet that is of interest. This is confirmed by the fact that in the time after Jason's rise to power the most popular quotation formulas are always constructed with the passive participle ΠΊΓΰ ('it is written'). In pre-Maccabean Jewish literature from Hellenistic times, the 21ΓΟformula is only employed in the books Ezra-Nehemiah and 1-2 Chronicles, 6 while it is increasingly more prominent in Maccabean and post-Maccabean times. The evidence requires a closer examination of the use of 2irD-formulas in Ezra-Nehemiah and 1-2 Chronicles, an analysis which due to space constraints was not possible in my earlier study. Does the use of quotation formulas in Ezra-Nehemiah and 1-2 Chronicles attest to a prefiguration of the concept of scripture in pre-Maccabean times?

6

At first glance, the phrase καθώς γέγραπται παντί τφ Ισραήλ ένπροστάγματι αιωνίω (Tob 1,6) seems to attest to the use of a mrD-formula. But in this case γέγραπται means "prescribed" and not "written". The phrase should thus be translated as "it is prescribed in all of Israel as an eternal c o m m a n d " . See the translations of C.A. MOORE, Tobit: A New Translation

with Introduction

and Commentary,

AncB 40A, N e w York 1996,

1 0 4 , 1 0 8 , and B. EGO, Buch Tobit, JSHRZ 2.6, Gütersloh 1999, 919.

32

Armin Lange

3. SITO-Formulas in 1-2 Chronicles 7 For a long time, 1-2 Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah have been regarded as one literary work which had undergone (several) redactions and was called the Chronistic history. 8 More recently, attempts have been made to understand 1-2 Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah as two separate literary works, 9 but for reasons of limited space I cannot at present discuss this question. In the following, Ezra-Nehemiah and 1-2 Chronicles are understood as two separate books written successively in the same priestly scribal milieu in late Persian or early Hellenistic times.10 Both works seem to have experienced several redactions in early Hellenistic times. In this article I will analyze only the final stage of 1-2 Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah. I will begin my analysis with the Π1ΓΟformulas in 1 - 2 Chronicles. As the deuteronomistic history is the hypotext11 underlying 1-2 Chronicles, a synoptic comparison between the two literary works allows for an in-depth analysis of Chronicles' DirD-formulas.

7

In I Chr 15,15, the LXX or its Hebrew Vorlage misreads QSnD3 ("on their shoulder") to 3WD3 ("as is written"; κατά τήν γραφήν "according to the scripture"). Therefore, 1 Chr 15,15 attests not to the use of a DirO-formula. The same is true for 1 Chr 28,19. Here the word 3Π3 refers to a royal edict containing the plan of the temple given by David to Solomon. See S. JAPHET, I & II Chronicles:

A Commentary,

OTL, Louisville, Ky. 1993,

498: " O u r reading would, then, be: 'All this in writing, from God, as he had made me/him understand', thus completing the sentence which began in v. 11: 'Then David gave Solomon his son the plan . . . " ' . 8

See e.g. L. ZUNZ, Die gottesdienstlichen

Vorträge

trag zur Alterthumskunde

Kritik, zur Literatur

und biblischen

lin 1832, esp. 22; F.C. MOVERS, Kritische Beitrag

zur Einleitung

schichtliche 9

der Juden, historisch

Untersuchungen

in das Alte Testament,

entwickelt:

Ein Bei-

und Religionsgeschichte, über die biblische

Bonn 1834; M. NOTH,

Ber-

Chronik:

Studien, Halle 1 9 4 3 , 1 1 0 - 1 8 0 , esp. 110.

See e.g. S. JAPHET, " T h e Supposed C o m m o n Authorship of Chronicles and E z r a Nehemiah Investigated A n e w " , in VT 18 (1968), 332-372; EADEM, Commentary above n. 7), esp. 3 - 7 ; H.G.M. WILLIAMSON, Israel in the Book of Chronicles, al. 1977, 5 - 8 2 , esp. 70; IDEM, 1 and 2 Chronicles:

Based on the Revised

NCBC, Grand Rapids 1982, 5 - 1 1 ; G.N. KNOPPERS, I Chronicles with Introduction

and Commentary,

Die Chronik als kanonisches 10

Ein

Überlieferungsge-

(see

Cambridge et

Standard

1-9: A New

Version, Translation

AncB 12, N e w York et al. 2003, 96-100; cfr. G. STEINS,

Abschlußphänomen,

BBB 93, Weinheim 1995, 4 9 - 8 2 .

For a good s u m m a r y of the arguments for this dating of both E z r a - N e h e m i a h and 1 - 2 Chronicles, see O. KAISER, Grundriß

der Einleitung

schen Schriflen

1: Die erzählenden

des Alten Testaments

in die kanonischen

cfr. also WILLIAMSON, Israel (see above n. 9), 83-86; IDEM, Chronicles 15-17; IDEM, Ezra, Nehemiah, Israel:

Die "genealogische

und

deuterokanoni-

Werke, Gütersloh 1992, 147-148; (see above n. 9),

W B C 16, Waco, Tex. 1985, XXXVf.; M. OEMING, Das wahre

Vorhalle"

1990, 44^15; JAPHET, Commentary

1 Chronik

1-9, B W A N T 128, Stuttgart/Berlin/Köln

(see above n. 7), 2 3 - 2 8 ; KNOPPERS, I Chronicles

1-9

(see above n. 9), 101-117; J. BECKER, 1 Chronik, NEB 18, W ü r z b u r g 1986, 7 - 8 . 11

For the relation between hypotext and hypertext see G. GENETTE, Palimpsests: in the Second Degree, Lincoln, Nebr. 1997.

Literature

Authoritative Literature and Scripture in the Chronistic Corpus

33

3.1 airO-Formulas Taken from 1 Samuel-2 Kings 2 Chr 25,4 is a key reference as it derives its airD-formula from its hypotext in 2 Kgs 14,6. The evidence is complicated by the textual history of 2 Chr 25,4. In 2 Kgs 14,6, MT, LXX and V are in agreement: MT

LXX

V

nnxV mrr mx nwx m m "isoa arnaa ("according to what is written in the book of the law of Moses which the LORD commanded saying") καθώς γέγραπται έν βιβλίω νόμων Μωυσή, ώς ένετείλατο κύριος λέγων ("according to what is written in the book of the laws of Moses which the Lord commanded saying") iuxta quod scriptum est in libro legis Mosi sicut praecipit Dominus dicens ("according to what is written in the book of the laws of Moses which the Lord commanded saying")

In 2 Chr 25,4, MT, LXX, and V attest to textual multiplicity: MT

LXX

V (S)

mrr mx -uvx nwa nsoa n n n a a m a a ό ("because: according to what is written in the law, i.e. in the book of Moses, where the LORD commanded saying") κατά τήν διαθήκην του νόμου κυρίου, καθώς γέγραπται, ώς ένετείλατο κύριος λέγων ("according to the covenant of the law of the Lord, according to what is written, as the Lord commanded saying") sicut scriptum est in libro legis Mosi ubi praecepit Dominus dicens ("according to what is written in the book of the law of Moses where the Lord commanded saying")

In 2 Chr 25,4, LXX, V, and S attest to later interpretations or harmonizations of MT. The Vulgate and the Peshitta agree in 2 Kgs 14,6 and 2 Chr 25,4 with M T Reg. This suggests that both Jerome and the Peshitta translated 2 Chr 25,4 from a Hebrew Vorlage, which reads with the text of 2 Kgs 14,6. The reading of the Chr-LXX is remarkable, as it disagrees with the other witnesses. As the ChrLXX belongs to the fcaige/Theodotion recension/translation group, 12 and idiosyncratic translations are rare in the kaige, it seems plausible that LXX goes back to a different Hebrew Vorlage, which can be reconstructed as follows: "lEXV mrr ΓΠΧ ItPX a m a a mrr m m rmn3. Both the Vulgate and the Peshitta should be understood as later harmonizations of 2 Chr 25,4 with 2 Kgs 14,6, while MT and LXX seem to attest to more original readings. The Hebrew Vor12

L.C. ALLEN, The Greek Chronicles: Massoretic

The Relation of the Septuagint

Text, VT.S 25 and 27, Leiden 1974.

of I and II Chronicles

to the

34

Armin Lange

läge of the LXX provides a later covenantal interpretation of Amaziah's acts, i.e. Amaziah kept the covenant by adhering to the command of Deut 24,16 in sparing the children of his father's murderers.13 2 Chr 25,4 alters the text of Deut 24,16 quoted in 2 Kgs 14,6 slightly. 2 Kgs 14,6 (cfr. Deut 24,16) phrases in the Hoph'al: "fathers shall not be killed for sons and sons shall not be killed for fathers, for a man shall die for his own sin". 2 Chr 25,4 uses the Qal: "fathers shall not die (IHW) for sons and sons shall not die (WID') for fathers; for a man shall die (WID'') for his own sin". The Chronicles' text thus extends the rule in 2 Kgs 14,6 to also apply to the divine management of the world; "the strictly individual character of retribution is a universal and absolute rule". 14 In 2 Chr 25,4, the universal character of the law is also the reason why 2 Chr 25,4 moves the word Torah to a different position in the quotation formula than it is in 2 Kgs 14,6:

W » ison mina ("in the law, i.e. in the book of Moses"; 2 Chr 25,4) TO» m m 1DD3 ("in the law of the book of Moses"; 2 Kgs 14,6). In 2 Chr 25,4, the law is an independent entity, one which is expressed in the book of Moses. The different wording of the law quoted from Deut 24,16 in 2 Chr 25,4 as opposed 2 Kgs 16,4 shows that the law expressed in the book of Moses is universal and governs the actions of both earthly and heavenly rulers. In Chronicles, the book of Moses reflects a higher law, and thus carries a status far beyond the normal written word. It can be described as scripture. The special respect 2 Chr 25,4 pays to the book of the law is expressed in another alteration of the quotation formula from 2 Kgs 14,6. 2 Chr 25,4 introduces the quotation formula with a redundant Ό: "because: according to what is written" (31Γ03 Ό). In 2 Kgs 14,6, the formula 31Π33 ("according to what is written") states that Amaziah's actions are in accordance with the law of the book of Moses, i.e. the book of Deuteronomy. 15 In view of the deuteronomistic history, as the book of Deuteronomy was only found by Josiah (see 2 Kgs 2213

ALLEN, ibid., vol. 1, 113, and vol. 2, 83, 122, 128, 131, explains the textual deviations between the L X X and the M T as being due to various scribal errors in the Greek and Hebrew textual traditions, but neglects the different meanings implied by the two versions. E.M. DÖRRFUSS, Mose erwartung, original

in den

Chronikbüchern:

Garant

theokratischer

Zukunfts-

B Z A W 219, Berlin/New York 1994, 2 2 1 - 2 2 2 , regards the L X X reading as and understands

Ί203

as a later specification

explaining

where

A m a z i a h ' s law can b e found. 14

LAPHET, Commentary

(see above n. 7), 861; cfr. M. GREENBERG, " S o m e Postulates of Bib-

lical Criminal L a w " , in Y. Kaufmann Dedicated

to Y. Kaufmann

Jubilee Volume:

on the Occasion

Studies

of his 70th Birthday,

in Bible and Jewish

Religion

ed. by M. HARAN, Jerusa-

lem 1960, 5-28: 20-27.

15

For this function of 3irD-formulas, see M. FlSHBANE, Biblical Israel, Oxford 1985, 213.

Interpretation

in

Ancient

35

Authoritative Literature and Scripture in the Chronistic Corpus

23), it was thus unknown to King Amaziah. Therefore, 2 Kgs 14,6 can only claim a correlation 16 between Amaziah's actions and the book of Deuteronomy. By prefixing Ό ("because") to the quotation formula of 2 Kgs 14,6, 2 Chr 25,4 goes beyond a correlation between Amaziah's actions and Deuteronomy. For Chronicles, Amaziah's actions are motivated by Deuteronomy. He spares the sons of his father's murderers because of the universally binding law of Deut 24,16. The only other 3W3-formula in Chronicles taken from its hypotext can be found in 2 Chr 35,12. 2 Chr 34-36 restructures the narrative about Josiah's reform in 2 Kgs 22-23. As opposed to the one-time event from 2 Kgs 22-23, 2 Chr 34-36 describes Josiah's reform as a prolonged process starting in the 8th year of Josiah's reign, culminating in the making of a covenant and the celebration of Passover in the 18th year of his reign.17 Furthermore, 2 Chr 34-36 gives the celebration of the Passover and the narrative about Josiah's death a more prominent role.18 Between 2 Kgs 21,21a (= 2 Chr 35,1a) and 2 Kgs 21,22-23 (= 2 Chr 35,18-19) the Chronicler inserts a large elaboration about Josiah's Passover celebration, including detailed cultic regulations for preparing the feast (2 Chr 35,2-9), and a report about the Passover feast itself (2 Chr 35,10-15). The latter focuses on the Passover sacrifice, into whose description the quotation formula from 2 Kgs 21,21b (= part of 2 Chr 35,12a) is inserted. 2 Chr 35,16 emphasizes the paradigmatic character of Josiah's Passover celebration. The narrative thus adds a heavy emphasis on priestly matters (sacrificial cult, roles of priests and Levites) to the report of 2 Kgs 23,21-23. 19 Another added emphasis is the repeated reference to authorities and authoritative texts: 2 Chr 35,4 mentions cult-edicts of David and Solomon. 20 2 Chr 35,10.16 refer to the king Josiah's command and 2 Chr 35,6 mentions that Josiah's cultic regulations were "in accordance with the word of the LORD through Moses" ( T 3 mm). But only 2 Chr 35,12 states explicitly, "according to what is written in the book of Moses" (ΓΝΡ0 1SD3 21Γ03). The duality between oral word and written book in 2 Chr 35,6.12 might already hint to the later concept

16

For this meaning of the preposition 3, see E. JENNI, Die hebräischen Präposition

17

Präpositionen

2: Die

Kaph, Stuttgart/Berlin/Köln 1994, 6 4 - 8 3 .

JAPHET, Commentary

(see above n. 7), 1017-1018; cfr. Steins, Chronik

(see above n. 9),

212-217. 18

JAPHET, Commentary

19

Cfr. E.L. C Ulms, A.A. Μ ADSEN, A Critical Chronicles,

(see above n. 7), 1018.

120; JAPHET, Commentary 20

and Exegetical

ICC, Edinburgh 2 1952, 512; J. BECKER, 2 Chronik,

Commentary

on the Book

of

N E B 20, W ü r z b u r g 1988,

(see above n. 7), 1040.

In the books of E z r a - N e h e m i a h and 1 - 2 Chronicles, the n o u n 3ΓΟ always designates an edict of a king, but never a book (see The Dictionary

of Classical

Hebrew,

ed. by D.J.A.

CLINES, vol. 4, 474). Similarly, the noun 3fDD designates a piece of writing or document but not a book (see ibid., vol. 5, 274).

Armin Lange

36

of oral and written Torah. 21 But if 2 Chr 25,4 attests to the concept of a scriptural law, why does only one of the six references to authority mention the Pentateuch in the Chronicler's description of this key event of Judah's history? According to 2 Chr 35,16, the main purpose of 2 Chr 35,1-19 is not to describe the reinstallation of Passover by Josiah, but to establish its cultic regulations ("and all the service of the LORD on this day was established, i.e. to celebrate the Passover and to offer burnt offerings on the altar of the LORD"). If the focus of 2 Chr 35,1-19 is indeed the Passover ritual, only one reference to the scriptural authority of the Pentateuch was possible, i.e. 2 Chr 35,12: "Details of this ritual are not prescribed in the legislation pertaining to Passover; rather, the appeal to what was 'written in the Book of Moses' ... probably pertains to provisions for fellowship offerings". 22 A comparison between the two quotation formulas in 2 Kgs 23,21 and 2 Chr 35,12 hints again to an increased authority and different character of the book of Moses. 2 Kgs 23,21 2 Chr 35,12

m a n Ί30 bv airon ("according to what is written on the scroll of the covenant") ΊΒ03 3W33 ("according to what is written in the book of Moses")

Rather broadly, 2 Kgs 23,21, refers to the authority of what is "written on the scroll of the covenant" found in the temple according to 2 Kgs 22. The authority referred to in this text is not the authority of the written word but of the covenant obligations communicated by it. The Chronicler changes the quotation formula in two instances. It speaks not of the book of the covenant but of the book of Moses. 2 Chr 35,12 thus invokes the authority of a Mosaic book, i.e. the Pentateuch, and not the Lord's covenant. Furthermore, the Chronicler refers to what is written in, i.e. inside, the book of Moses while 2 Kgs speaks of what is written on the scroll. The difference in the meanings carried by the prepositions 3 and bv might be minute, but it illustrates again that the Chronicler is concerned with a book of highest religious authority, and not a scroll documenting a covenant between God and his people. 2 Kgs 23,21 refers to a "scroll of this covenant" and shows in this way, that Josiah's Passover celebration is a fulfilment of the long neglected covenant. But in 2 Chr 35,1-19, the book of Moses itself and not the covenant carries ultimate authority. 21

22

Cfr. U. KELLERMANN, "Anmerkungen zum Verständnis der Tora in den chronistischen Schriften", in BN 42 (1988), 49-92: 89-91; G. STEINS, "Torabindung und Kanonabschluß", in Die Tora als Kanon ßr Juden und Christen, ed. by Ε. ZENGER, Herders Biblische Studien 10, Freiburg et al. 1996, 213-256:230-232. R.B. DILLARD, 2 Chronicles, WBC 15, Waco, Tex. 1987, 291; cfr. WILLIAMSON, Chronicles (see above Η. 9), 407, and C.F. KEIL, Apologetischer Versuch über die Bücher der Chronik und über die Integrität des Buches Esra, Berlin 1833, 502.

Authoritative Literature and Scripture in the Chronistic Corpus

37

To summarize, in 2 Chr 25,4 and 35,12 the Chronicler-altered quotation formulas and quotations give the book of Moses a standing of its own as scripture. Its laws are binding for both the human and the divine. There can be no doubt that in 1-2 Chronicles this universally binding law is the Pentateuch. 23

3.2 3W3-Formulas Not Taken from 1 Samuel-2 Kings The remaining six DirD-formulas in 1-2 Chronicles are unrelated to the Chronicler's hypotext. In Chronicles, Moses is mentioned one more time in a quotation formula, i.e. in 2 Chr 23,18. In 2 Chr 23,18-20, the Chronicler inserts vv. 18aß-19a into the narrative of 2 Kgs ll,18b-19. In the Chronicler's view, the idolatry during the reign of Athaliah necessitated a renewal of the temple cult and personnel, as well as a restoration of the sanctuary. The latter is described in 2 Chronicles 24 while the former is reported in the insertion 2 Chr 23,18aß-19a. 24 The law of Moses is the guiding authority for the performance of the sacrificial cult: ΓΠ1ΓΠ 31Γ03 ("according to what is written in the law of Moses"). 25 In 2 Chr 23,18, the law of Moses thus has ultimate cultic authority. The three remaining 31J"D-formulas of 1-2 Chronicles (1 Chr 16,40; 2 Chr 31,3; 35,26) do not mention Moses, but speak of the law of the LORD (ΓΠ1Π mrr). After David brought the ark to Jerusalem, 1 Chr 16,37-43 describes how the king assigned different cultic roles to different priestly families. To Zadok and his brothers David assigns a special duty, "to offer burnt offerings to the LORD on the altar of the burnt offering continuously from morning to evening" (1 Chr 16,40). This marks the beginning of the sacrificial cult in Jerusalem. In 1 Chr 16,40, the law is the guiding authority which regulates the Tamid offerings performed by the Zadokites: Vi? r m HPS ΠΊΠ' ΠΠΠ3 31Π3Π VsVl 23

Cfr. e.g. STEINS, "Torabindung" (see above n. 21), 228: "Daß der Chronist sich auf den Pentateuch bezieht, wenn er das geschriebene 'Gesetzbuch' meint, ist - soweit ich sehe - in der Forschung nicht strittig" (see also pp. 225-232). Different S.B. CHAPMAN, The Law and the Prophets: A Study in Old Testament Canon Formation, FAT 27, Tübingen 2000, 229-230, who claims that for the Chronicler, prophetic scriptures were also a part of the Torah. In his claim, Chapman ignores that 3in3-formulas refer exclusively to passages of the Pentateuch.

24

For this interpretation of 2 Chr 23,18-20, see JAPHET, Commentary

25

Against JAPHET, Commentary (see above n. 7), 836, "and through the hand of David" is not a referral to a second authority next to the law of Moses. Different from what is suggested by the Atnah below TIÖ31 in the Masoretic text, Τ Π ' T bv T u m ΠΠη^Π is to be read with LXX as one adverbial phrase which belongs to the infinitive clause mrp mVi? mVsnV. The whole subordinate clause translates thus: "to perform burnt offerings according to what is written in the law of Moses with joy and with song by the hands of David".

(see above n. 7), 836.

38

Armin Lange

VXHP' ("that is with respect to everything that is written in the law of the LORD which he commanded over Israel").26 The Chronicler is referring to Exod 29,38^2 and Num 28,3-8. 1 Chr 16,40 marks the first use of a ηίΓΟformula in 1-2 Chronicles. This hints to a special relation between 31Π3formulas and sacrificial cult in 1-2 Chronicles. Furthermore, the use of a 31Π3formula highlights the great significance of David's appointment of the Zadokites, as it marks the beginning of the sacrificial cult in Jerusalem. With concern to burnt offerings, the formula ΓΠΓΡ ΓΠΙΓΟ 31Π33 ("as it is written in the law of the LORD") is also used in 2 Chr 31,3. 2 Chr 31,3 describes how king Hezekiah, as part of his cultic reforms, gave a portion of his wealth for the different burnt offerings "as it is written in the law of the LORD." 27 Afterwards, 2 Chr 31,4-7 reports how the king ordered the people to follow his example. As in 1 Chr 16,40, the 3inD-formula emphasizes the special significance of Hezekiah's deed. After the old cult, pillars, Asherahs, high places and altars were abolished, Hezekiah enables the reinstallation of the proper sacrificial cult by way of reinitiating the "tithing" of king and people. This interpretation is supported by the use of 3irD-formulas in 2 Chr 30,5.18. 2 Chr 30,5 states that Passover was not celebrated "according to what is written" pmD3) before Hezekiah's reforms, and 2 Chr 30,18 attacks the tribes Ephraim, Manasseh, Issachar, and Zebulun for eating the Passover sacrifice when they are unclean "contrary to what is written" (2W33 xVn). The SirD-formulas in 2 Chr 30,5.18; 31,3 highlight the significance of Hezekiah's act which reinitiated the proper cult. 2 Chr 35,26 marks the last use of a 3irD-formula in 1-2 Chronicles. In the conclusion of his Josiah narrative, 2 Chr 35,26-27, the Chronicler alters his hypotext 2 Kgs 23,28. The Chronicler replaces the middle clause of 2 Kgs 23,28 "with a longer statement, referring to 'his good deeds according to what is written in the law of the LORD, and his acts, first and last'". 28 In 1-2 Chronicles, Josiah is the only king whose acts are authorized in the final statement about him with a 2in3-formula. His good deeds where "according to what is written" (ΠΊΠ1 ΓΠ1ΓΟ 31Γ03). This is the Chronicler's response to Josiah's cultic reforms and cult centralization. That a referral to the Torah, i.e. to the Pentateuch, and not to the book of Jeremiah can create such a special emphasis, shows that the Pentateuch and not any other religiously authoritative book 26

27

28

The longer LXX-reading δσα ένετείλατο έφ' υίοΐς Ισραήλ έν χειρί Μωυσή τού θεράποντος του θεοϋ ("which he commanded on behalf of the sons of Israel through Moses, the servant of God") is a later expansion of the protoMT clarifying that 1 Chr 16,40 refers to the Mosaic law. Although none of them mentions the king in particular, several passages of the Pentateuch could apply: Exod 23,19; Lev 27,32; Num 28,26-31; and Deut 14,22-23; Cuims, MADSEN, Chronicles (see above n. 19), 478, and BECKER, 2 Chronik (see above n. 19), 102, suppose Num 28-29. JAPHET, Commentary (see above n. 7), 1058.

Authoritative Literature and Scripture in the Chronistic Corpus

39

was of special significance to the Chronicler. After all, Jeremiah began his prophetic career during the reign of Josiah, and is not only known to the Chronicler (see 2 Chr 35,25; 36,12), but also quoted by him (see 2 Chr 36,21-22). To summarize, so far: 1. In the book of Chronicles, the mrO-forrnulas mostly emphasize key events in the cultic history of Israel. 2. Except for 2 Chr 25,4 and 35,26, the 31D0-formulas are always connected with cultic matters pertaining to the sacrificial cult. 3. DirD-formulas are used only in connection with the Pentateuch, which is often called the book of Moses or the law of the Lord. 29 4. With the exception of 2 Chr 25,4, 3irQ-formulas do not introduce verbal quotations, but claim accordance with the Pentateuch. 5. The Pentateuch referred to by the SirD-formulas has a special status, which distinguishes it from all other authoritative texts. It is binding even to the divine and can be described as scripture. The evidence provided by the Chronicler's use of quotation formulas agrees well with the observations of Thomas Willi and Brevard Childs: 2 6,16 (i.e. 2 Chr 6,16) ist eine der Schlüsselstellen für die chronistische Theologie, die - auf diesen Nenner läßt sich die ganze Arbeits- und Denkweise der Chronik, auch in Sachen Wortersetzung bringen - eine Theologie der heiligen Schrift ist. Der "Wandel vor mir" (1 Kgs 8,25) wird vom Chronisten in einen "Wandel nach meiner Thora" konkretisiert.30 Perhaps the crucial discovery of the modern study of Chronicles is the extent to which the Chronicler sought to interpret Israel's history in relation to a body of authoritative scripture. ... When the Chronicler in 2. 6.16 alters the text of 1 Kings 8.25 from "walk before me" to "walk in my Torah", Willi (125) characterizes this move as stemming from a theology of sacred scripture.31 How does the use of 2inD-quotation formulas in Ezra-Nehemiah relate to these observations?

29

For the different designations used for the Torah in 1 - 2 Chronicles see below, 4.2 3ΊΓΟ-

30

T. WILLI, Die Chronik als Auslegung:

Formulas With Quotations (pp. 41-46). torischen Überlieferung 31

B.S. CHILDS, Introduction 648; cfr. also 648-653.

Untersuchungen

zur literarischen

Gestaltung

der his-

Israels, FRLANT 106, Göttingen 1972,125; cfr. also 124-126. to the Old Testament as Scripture, Philadelphia, Pa. 1979, 6 4 7 -

40

Armin Lange

4. mrO-Formulas in Ezra-Nehemiah 4.1 3W3-Formulas Without Quotations Ezra 2,68-3,6 describes how funds were raised to rebuild the Jerusalem temple (Ezra 2,68-70), how Jeshua and Zerubabel built the altar (Ezra 3,1-2), and how they restarted the sacrificial cult and celebrated the feast of booths (Ezra 3,3-6). In its use of the 3in3-formula, Ezra 3,2 recalls 1 Chr 16,40; 2 Chr 23,18; 31,3; 35,12. For the burnt offerings to be permitted to be sacrificed on the newly rebuilt altar, the mD3-formula claims accordance with the law of Moses: DTiVxn WX n m r o ("as is written in the law of Moses, the man of God"). The formula thus pertains not to the building of the altar itself, 32 but rather ensures the correct performance of the burnt offering on it.33 After the lawfulness of the burnt offerings has been assured in Ezra 3,2, a 3W3-formula in Ezra 3,4 assures the reader that the same is true for the feast of booths celebrated by Jeshua and Zerubabel. As in Chronicles, the 3in3-formulas of Ezra 3,2.4 claim the accordance of the reinstalled temple cult with the law (cf. Num 29,12-38). Differing from Chronicles, this statement is not restricted to the sacrificial cult but pertains also to a religious feast, the feast of booths. As in Ezra 3,2.4, the two 3in3-formulas in Neh 10,35.37 claim that the rituals described in Neh 10,35.36-37 are in accordance with the law, without quoting it. Nehemiah 10 describes the covenant made after Ezra read the law (Neh 8,1-12), after the feast of booths was celebrated (Neh 8,13-18), and after a confessional prayer was said (Neh 9). The covenant includes a general commitment to keep "the law of god, which was given through Moses the servant of god" (Neh 10,30) and a long list of specific covenant obligations mostly concerned with the temple cult (Neh 10,31-40). For two of these covenant obligations, their accordance with the law is explicitly stated by way of a 31Π3formula. Neh 10,35 pledges that the sequence in which priests, Levites, and people should bring the wood offering to the house of god will be determined by the oracle of the lot "according to what is written" (31Π33). Neh 10,35 refers to a prescription which can be found in a non-aligned Pentateuch manuscript from the Qumran library, 4QRPC (4Q365) 23 9-11, 3 4 but in no other textual wit-

32

Against

J. BLENKINSOPP,

Ezra-Nehemiah:

A Commentary,

OTL, Philadelphia, Pa.

1988,

97.

33

See

Esra und Nehemia: Samt 3. Esra, HAT 20, Tübingen 1949, 31; W I L Ezra, Nehemiah (see above n. 10), 46. For the dependence of Neh 1 0 , 3 5 on the text attested to by 4QRP C see L A N G E , "From Literature to Scripture" (see above n. 5 ) , 7 7 - 7 9 . For the Reworked Pentateuch manuscripts from Qumran as non-alligned witnesses, see E. U L R I C H , "The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Biblical Text", in The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment 1, ed. by P.W. F L I N T , J . C . V A N D E R K A M , Leiden 1 9 9 8 , 7 9 - 1 0 0 , esp. 8 8 - 8 9 . See also W.

RUDOLPH,

LIAMSON,

34

Authoritative Literature and Scripture in the Chronistic Corpus

41

ness to the Pentateuch. With the exception of Neh 10,37, the mnD-formula is used in Neh 10,31-40 only with concern to the wood-offerings. This hints to a sensitivity of the author that the law in question is not attested in all textual witnesses. The use of a DinD-formula in Neh 10,37 expresses special concerns of the author, too. Neh 10,36^0 deals with the offerings which support the temple and its priestly personnel. Mentioned are first fruits, firstborn, prime produce, and tithing. Of these offerings, only the offering of firstborn sons and firstborn livestock is pledged as done "according to what is written" (Neh 10,37). According to J. Blenkinsopp, the quotation formula serves as an "implicit allusion to redemption". 35 The formula is thus introduced to clarify that the covenantal obligations of Nehemiah 10 include neither the sacrifice of the firstborn son nor the sacrifice of unclean animals but allows for their redemption. The law that the author had in mind can probably be found in Exod 10,11-13. That a simple referral without a verbal quotation clarifies such a difficult question like the redemption of the firstborn son and firstborn unclean animals hints to a wide acceptance and knowledge of the book of Moses, i.e. the Pentateuch.

4.2 3irD-Formulas With Quotations Different from the airD-formulas in Neh 3,2.4, 6,18,36 and 10,35.37, the mroformulas of Neh 8,14-15 and 13,1 introduce more or less accurate quotations of the Pentateuch. Ezra's reading of the Torah in Neh 8,1-12 is one of the key texts in the discussion about the canonical history of the Hebrew Bible. Based on this text, in their three-step-model of the canonical history of the Hebrew Bible Heinrich Graetz and others37 saw the Torah as being canonized by Ezra. More recently, Peter Frei38 understood this passage as evidence for the Persian imperial authorization of the Torah. Lately the significance of Nehemiah 8 for the canonical history of the Hebrew Bible has often been dismissed.39 Both the

35

36 37 38

39

the discussion in Ε. TOV, S. WHITE, "Reworked Pentateuch", in Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 13 (1994), 187-351, esp. 192-196. BLENKINSOPP, Ezra-Nehemiah (see above n. 32), 318; compare also WILLIAMSON, Ezra, Nehemiah (see above n. 10), 337; FLSHBANE, Biblical Interpretation (see above n. 15), 213216; J. PAKKALA, Ezra the Scribe: The Development of Ezra 7-10 and Nehemia 8, BZAW 347, Berlin/New York 2004, 197-198. See below. See n. 3. P. FREI, Κ. KOCH, "Zentralgewalt und Lokalautonomie im Achämenidenreich", in Reichsidee und Reichsorganisation im Perserreich, OBO 55, Freiburg, Switzerland/Göttingen 2 1996,5-131. For critical evaluations of Frei's ideas, see for example, J. WLESEHÖFER, "'Reichsgesetz' oder 'Einzelfallgerechtigkeit'? Bemerkungen zu Peter Freis These von der achaimenidischen 'Reichsautorisation'", in Zeitschrift für die altorientalische und biblische Rechtsge-

42

Armin Lange

small time window (one morning; Neh 8,3) as well as the laws mentioned in the covenantal ceremony, which was a result of Ezra's public reading, show that Nehemiah 8-10 do not describe a public reading of the whole Torah but a reading of a less extensive cultic law. Therefore, even the narrative of Nehemiah 8 does thus not envision a public reading including the whole Torah. If there is any historic reality behind the report of Nehemiah 8, it was such a cultic law that Ezra authorized with the authority of a Persian official and not the whole Torah. Such an authorization of an individual cult law agrees well with other attestations of Persian imperial authorizations of the cultic laws of individual temples such as the Letoon trilingual inscription, or a 2 nd century C.E. inscription from Sardes, which goes back to an original from Persian times.40 Following the public reading of the book of the law of Moses (ΓΠΊΠ ISO iWtt), Ezra teaches the heads of the people's ancestral houses, the priests, and the Levites, "about the words of the law" (ΠΠΠΠ *7Χ; Neh 8,13). During Ezra's teaching, the regulations for the feast of booths are discovered (Neh 8,14) and the festival is celebrated (Neh 8,15-18). During the eight days of the festival, the book of the law of god is read every day ( D'nVxn ΠΠΠ 1 3 0 3 Xlp 1 ! ov ova).

In Nehemiah 8 as well as in the following chapters, the names of the document taught and read by Ezra vary, but are interchangeable: 41

schichte

1 (1995), 3 6 - 4 6 ; U. RÜTERSWÖRDEN, " D i e persische Reichsautorisation der Tho-

ra: fact or fiction?", in Zeitschrift

für die altorientalische

und biblische

(1995), 4 7 - 6 1 ; J.W. WATTS (ed.), Persia and Torah: The Theory of Imperial the Pentateuch,

Rechtsgeschichte

1

Authorization

of

S B L S y m p o s i u m Series 17, Atlanta 2001. For an instructive history of re-

search on Ezra's Torah,

see C. HOUTMAN, " E z r a and the L a w : Observations on the

Supposed Relation Between Ezra and the Pentateuch", in OTS 21 (1981), 9 1 - 1 1 5 : 9 1 111. 40

See FREI, KOCH, "Zentralgewalt" (see above n. 38), 12-16, 2 3 - 2 6 , for the procedures of

41

This corresponds to the different designations used in 1 - 2 Chronicles: 1 Chr 22,12

Persian imperial authorization described in these inscriptions. ("the law of the L O R D your g o d " T n V x m r p m m ) ; 2 Chr 6,16 ("in m y l a w " T H i m ) ; 12,1 ("the law of the L O R D " ΠΙΓΡ ΠΠΠ); 14,3 ("the law and the c o m m a n d m e n t " ΓΠ1ΓΙΠ n i s n m ) ; 15,3 ( " l a w " m m ) ; 17,9 ("the book of the law of the L O R D " ΠΙΠ1 ΓΠΙΠ TDD); 23,18 ("in the law of M o s e s " nttf» m i r o ) ; 25,4 ("in the law in the book of M o s e s " nu>n TD03 ΓΓΠΓΠ); 30,16 ("according to the law of Moses, the m a n of g o d "

ΓΙΠΓΟ

t r n V x n IP'N); 31,4 ("in the law of the L O R D " ΠΊΓΡ ΠΠΓΟ); 33,8 ("with regard to all of the l a w " ΠΠΓΙΠ bzb);

34,14 ("the book of the law of the L O R D t h r o u g h M o s e s " TDD

nu>n T 3 mrt' m m ) ; 34,15 ("the b o o k " TDDH); 34,18 ( " b o o k " TDD); 34,21 ("the b o o k " TDDH); 34,24 ("the b o o k " Ί30Π); 34,30 ("the book of the c o v e n a n t " m a n TDD); 34,31 ("this b o o k " ΠΤΠ Ί30Π); 35,12 ("in the book of M o s e s " ΠΕΉ TSDa); 35,26 ("in the law of the L O R D " ΠΙΠ' ΓΠ1ΓΟ). For a survey of all references to the Pentateuch in E z r a Nehemiah and 1 - 2 Chronicles see STEINS, " T o r a b i n d u n g " (see above n. 21), 2 2 6 - 2 2 8 . C o m p a r e also KELLERMANN, " A n m e r k u n g e n " (see above n. 21), 50f.

Authoritative Literature a n d Scripture in the Chronistic Corpus

43

The law (ΠΠΠΠ): Neh 8,2; 10,37; 13,3 The law that the Lord commanded through Moses (Π1ΓΡ Π1Χ TOX m i n TO» T 3 ) : Neh 8,14 The law of God that he gave through Moses, the servant of God (ΠΠΠ D'nVXH "DJ? TO73 T 3 Π3Π3 TOX Q'nVxn): Neh 10,30 Words of the law (ΠΠΠΠ Π31): Neh 8,9.13 Book of the law (ΠΠΠΠ ISO): Neh 8,3 Book of the law of Moses (TO» m m ISO): Neh 8,1 Book of Moses (TO!3 nSD): Neh 13,1 (compare Ezra 6,18) Book of the law of God (Β'Π'τΧΠ m W TDD): Neh 8,14 The book with the law of God (D'nVxn m W 3 nSDH): Neh 8,18 Book of the law of the Lord your God (On'nVx ΓΠΓΡ m m ISO): Neh 9,3 The book (nSDH): Neh 8,5 In the book of Ezra-Nehemiah, such a document is mentioned only in two other contexts, i.e. the rebuilding of the Jerusalem temple and the qualifications of Ezra: Ezra 3,2 claims that the (daily) burnt offerings which were restarted on the newly rebuilt altar of the Jerusalem temple were in accordance with the law of Moses (TOÖ ΓΠ1ΓΙ; see above) and Ezra 6,18 makes the same claim for the allocation of the priests and Levites to their divisions. Ezra 7,6.10 describe the special qualifications of Ezra: He is "experienced in the law of Moses, which the LORD, the god of Israel, had given" (TOX TO73 m W 3 ΤΠΏ ^XTO' TI^X ΓΠΠ' |Π3; Ezra 7,6). The gracious hand of god was upon him, "because Ezra had set his heart on studying the law of the LORD" 0|ΌΠ X1TJ7 Ό mn> m m nx Wl-nV 133V; Ezra 7,10).42 A clear pattern in the book of Ezra-Nehemiah evolves. The book of the law or the book of Moses is mentioned only in connection with returnees. Jeshua and Zerubabel know it and reinstall the daily burnt offering and then recreate the priestly divisions according to it. Ezra is experienced in the law of Moses. Only after Ezra reads it publicly is it quoted verbally. This means that only after Ezra reads the book of the law of Moses publicly it becomes known to a broader public; only after it is publicly known, can it become a binding authority for everyone. This also shows that the 3U"D-formulas in Ezra-Nehemiah had been introduced into the Ezra-Nehemiah book at a stage when Nehemiah 8-10 were already part of the book of Nehemiah, i.e. in a late, if not the final stage of the redactional history of Ezra-Nehemiah. The concept of a book that is read publicly and taught is a new one.43 In early and even somewhat later Second Temple literature the commandments

42

C o m p a r e the use of the A r a m a i c n o u n ΓΠ in the edicts of Artaxerxes in Ezra 7,12.14.21. 25.26.

43

See Z. TALSHIR, "Several Canon-Related Concepts Originating in Chronicles", in Ζ A W 113 (2001), 3 8 6 - 4 0 3 : 3 8 6 - 3 9 0 .

44

Armin Lange

of God are taught or preached etc. (see e.g. Deut 4,5.14; 5,31; 6,1; Ps 119,108; 4QNarrative and Poetic Composition 13 1 27). That in Nehemiah 8-10 a book is the object of teaching marks a paradigm shift. Now the book as such, and not only its content is taught, i.e. is of authority. That this documents is designated by a large number of different names could hint at the newness of the idea of a book with utmost authority. This change in attitude is reflected in the linguistic shape of the 31ΓΟformula used in Neh 8,14: -WK nira τ η m r r mx "iwx rrnna m r o i x x n 1 ! And they found written in the law, which god commanded through Moses: In all other references, the formula ("IttfX) ...2 3ΊΓΟ XXD, introduces a direct quotation of archival documents (Neh 7,5) or books (Neh 13,1; Dan 12,l). 44 In Neh 8,14-15 the emphasis put on the quotation is especially strong, as not only one, but two 3in3-formulas are used. In the manner of an inclusion, the regulations for the feast of booths are concluded in Neh 8,15 with 31Γ03 ("according to what is written"). It is all the more surprising because in Neh 8,14bß-15 the festival regulations have no direct parallel in those passages of the Pentateuch which deal with the feast of booths (Exod 23,16; Lev 23,39-43; Num 29,12-38; Deut 16,13-15). Only the brief sentence ΓΠ303 VxiW 'ΙΟ ("the Israelites shall live in booths") has an almost verbal parallel in Lev 23,42 (maoa 13W Vx-W ΠΎΓΧΠ Vd "all the citizens of Israel shall live in booths"). 45 The rest of the festival regulations in Neh 8,14-15 seem to be deduced from Lev 23,2.4.40 and Deut 16,15 and thus presents a summary of the laws in Lev 23,1-4. 39-43 and Deut 16,13-15 added to the actual quote.46 To summarize, the double 2irO-formula in Neh 8,14-15 and its special form in Neh 8,14 (...3 31Π3 XXÖ) are due to the reading and teaching of the law by Ezra. According to Neh 8,14-15 it is a book that motivates the celebration of the festival of booths, i.e. the book of the law of Moses mentioned in Neh 8,1. And it is the book of the law of Moses that is referred to and quoted with the double 3inD-formula. This means in Neh 8,14-15 as well as in the whole passage Nehemiah 8-10, a book has the utmost authority and carries a special status and significance. Therefore, the book of the law of Moses functions as scripture in Neh 8,14-15. Neh 13,1-2 is part of the description of reforms initiated by Nehemiah. Neh 12,44-47 deals with the different dues which support the priests, as well

44

Cfr. FlSHBANE, Biblical Interpretation

45

See ibid., 1 0 9 - 1 1 0 .

46

See WILLIAMSON, Ezra, Nehemiah ννηΌ

η 10 Ii? aip

(see above n. 15), 1 0 9 - 1 1 0 n. 13. (see above n. 10), 295; cfr. Y. KAUFMANN,

ΠΠ^ΙΠ

ΌΌ ;j7'^/V7£J"/7ΠΠΟΚΠ, vol. 4, Jerusalem/Tel Aviv 6 1969, 3 2 7 - 3 2 9 .

Authoritative Literature and Scripture in the Chronistic Corpus

45

as the liturgical responsibilities of the priests, especially the singing of the different levitical groups. Neh 13,1a reports on another public reading of the book of Moses (ntt>73 ΊΒΟ). This report is followed in Neh 13,lb-3 by the exclusion of Moabites and Ammonites from the community of God, i.e. the community of Judah organized around the temple. The passage about Nehemiah's reforms in Neh 12,44-13,3 contrasts with the narrative in the Nehemiah memoir about Nehemiah's responses to the bad state of the community after his return from the Persian court (Neh 13,4-31): A man of Ammonite descent, Tobiah, owns a room in the temple courts and is evicted by Nehemiah (Neh 13,4-9). The Levites do not receive their portions and both Levites and musicians have departed; Nehemiah reinstates them and restores the payment of dues (Neh 13,10-14). People work during the Sabbath; Nehemiah governs for correct observance of the Sabbath (Neh 13,15-22). Jews practice intermarriage with Ashdodite, Moabite, or Ammonite women but Nehemiah discontinues intermarriage (Neh 13,23-31). 47 Neh 13,1-2 quotes the book of Moses at a crucial point in the last part of the book of Nehemiah. The Jerusalem wall is dedicated and the temple community is in an ideal state of affairs. At the end of Nehemiah's reform of the temple community, Neh 13,1-2 quotes Deut 23,4-6 to claim the accordance of Nehemiah's expulsion of the Moabites and Ammonites with the law. With regard to its accordance with the law, the quote of Deut 23,4-6 stands pars pro toto for the ideal situation of the temple service and temple community in general. On that day they read from the book of Moses in the hearing of the people; and in it was found written: "no Ammonite or Moabite shall ever enter the assembly of God, 2 because they did not meet the Israelites with bread and water, but hired Balaam against them to curse them - yet our God turned the curse into a blessing". 3 When the people heard the law, they separated from Israel all those of foreign descent (Neh 13,1-3). Compared with Deut 23,4-5, Neh 13,1-2 presents a shorter text.48 No Ammonite or Moabite shall enter the assembly of the LORD. Even to the tenth generation, none of their descendants shall ever enter to the assembly of the LORD, 4 because they did not meet you with food and water 3

47

FlSHBANE, Biblical

Interpretation

(see above n. 15), 126, argues for an allusion to Deut

2 3 , 4 - 9 in Neh 13,23-27, at the end of the reports of N e h e m i a h ' s reforms. Although this passage is certainly related to Neh 13,1-3, Neh 13,23-27 attests to no close verbal parallels to Deut 2 3 , 4 - 9 , and should therefore not be interpreted as an allusion to this passage. 48

Passages missing in Neh 1 3 , 1 - 2 are written in italics.

46

Armin Lange

on your journey out of Egypt, and because they hired against you Balaam son of Beor, from Pethor of Mesopotamia, to curse you. 5Yet the LORD your God refused to heed Balaam; the LORD your God turned the curse into a blessing/or you, because the LORD your God loved you (Deut 23,4-5). The text of Deut 23,4-5 quoted by Neh 13,1-2 has no parallel in any textual witness of the Pentateuch. There can be no certainty as to whether Neh 13,1-2 abridges Deut 23,4—5 or if it quotes a non-aligned shorter text. It should be remembered that Neh 10,35 refers to a cultic law otherwise attested to only in the Reworked Pentateuch and the Temple Scroll. It does not seem impossible, therefore, to assume that Neh 13,1-2 draws on a shorter text of Deuteronomy. Excepting the missing text, Neh 13,1-2 attests to only minor deviations from the MT-Deut. 49 The mrD-formula used in Neh 13,1-2 is similar to Neh 8,14-15, but different from the formulas used elsewhere in Ezra-Nehemiah or 1-2 Chronicles. On that day they read from the book of Moses (iHtfö 1SD2)50 in the hearing of the people; and in it was found written: ("1U>K 31ΓΟ Ν^ΰϋΐ) Neh 13,1 clearly refers to a written document, the book of Moses, as the ultimate authority. It is the book of Moses that decides cultic matters. It is the book of Moses which causes the expulsion of Ammonites and Moabites. And according to Neh 13,3 it is the book of Moses which is the source of the law: "And it happened, when they heard the law (ΠΠΠΠ ΠΧ DVÖtPS) that they separated from Israel all those of mixed descent". As in Neh 8,14-15, in Neh 13,1-3, a book, i.e. the book of Moses, gains ultimate authority and has a standing of its own. It is thus regarded as scripture in Ezra-Nehemiah.

4.3 An Aramaic mrD-Formula A ainO-formula that is somewhat untypical in its wording can be found in one of the Aramaic passages of Ezra-Nehemiah, i.e. in Ezra 6,18. Different from the Hebrew 3inD-formulas, Ezra 6,18 uses the Aramaic noun 2Γ13 and not the passive mode (Qal passive participle). In Aramaic, the noun 3Π3 can designate a book (see lQapGen V 29) or an inscription or writing (see Dan 5,7-8.15-17.24-25). In Ezra 6,18, the following ISO shows that here the meaning "writing" applies. The

49

Cfr. WILLIAMSON, Ezra, Nehemiah

50

One Masoretic manuscript, LXX L and Ρ read ΠΒ>8 ΓΠΙΠ Ί30Π ("in the book of the law

(see above n. 10), 385.

of M o s e s " ) as opposed to iTOB 1S0D ("in the book of M o s e s " ) . This longer reading is a later harmonization with N e h 8,1.

Authoritative Literature and Scripture in the Chronistic Corpus

47

unusual wording of the formula is due to the Aramaic nature of Ezra 6,18. Ezra 6,13-15 describes the rebuilding of the Jerusalem temple. Ezra 6,16-17 describes the dedication ceremony of the second temple and its sacrifices. Afterwards, Ezra 6,18 states, Then they set the priests in their divisions and the Levites in their courses for the service of God at Jerusalem, according to the writing of the book of Moses (TOÖ ISO 3Π33). Ezra 3,2 claimed that the sacrificial cult, which was reinstalled by Jeshua and Zerubabel when the altar of the second temple was built, was performed "according to what was written in the law of Moses, the man of god". Now, Ezra 6,18 claims the same concomitance for the allocation of priests and Levites into their divisions. The DirD-formula from Ezra 6,18 highlights therefore another key event in the cultic history of Judah by way of a DirD-formula.51 To summarize, in Ezra-Nehemiah the use of 3m3-formulas is related to but different from their use in 1-2 Chronicles. 1. As in the book of Chronicles, in the book of Ezra-Nehemiah the 21ΓΟformulas are connected with key events in the cultic history of Israel, namely the restarting of the sacrificial cult and the reinstallation of the priestly divisions, the feast of booths following Ezra's public reading of the cultic law and the resulting covenant, as well as Nehemiah's reforms. 2. As in the book of Chronicles, in the book of Ezra-Nehemiah 2ΊΓΟformulas are used only in connection with the Pentateuch, which is called by different names but is often designated as a book. 3. As in the book of Chronicles, in the book of Ezra-Nehemiah the Pentateuch, referred to by the 2inD-formulas, has a special status which distinguishes it from all other authoritative texts. It is the book of Moses itself that is of ultimate authority to the cultic community, and can thus be described as scripture. 4. Two out of seven mrD-formulas introduce somewhat freely phrased quotations of the Pentateuch (Neh 8,14; 13,1). 5. Different from 1 - 2 Chronicles, the 3in3-formulas of Ezra-Nehemiah are not so much focused on the sacrificial cult. Next to the sacrificial cult (Ezra 3,2), SirD-formulas are applied to other cultic matters like the feast of booths (Ezra 3,4; Neh 8,14-15), wood offerings (Neh 10,35), the 51

It should not come as a surprise that Ezra 6,18 refers to the Pentateuch and not to David's original cult regulations. In Ezra 6,13-18 "the reorganization was preparation for a Passover which, like that of Josiah's, had to be carried out in conformity with Mosaic law (1 Chr 35,6)" [BLENKINSOPP, Ezra-Nehemiah

(see above n. 32), 131; contra

A.H.J. GUNNEWEG, Esra, ΚΑΤ 19,1, Gütersloh 1985, 115; WILLIAMSON, Ezra, (see above n. 10), 84],

Nehemiah

48

Armin Lange

redemption of the firstborn son and firstborn unclean animals (Neh 10,37), and the membership of non-Israelites in the cultic community.

5. Conclusions In comparison with other Jewish writings from early Hellenistic times, the books of Ezra-Nehemiah and 1-2 Chronicles attest to an untypical use of quotation formulas, and in particular DinD-formulas. Of the preserved Jewish literature from pre-Maccabean Hellenistic times, Ezra-Nehemiah and 1-2 Chronicles seem to be the only books, which use 2W3-formulas to refer to authoritative literature. In Ezra-Nehemiah and 1 - 2 Chronicles, DirD-formulas refer exclusively to the Pentateuch and mostly to its cultic laws. 52 In EzraNehemiah and 1 - 2 Chronicles, mrD-formulas either state accordance with the Pentateuch without quoting it, or they introduce a more or less verbal quotation. In several cases the text quoted or referred to is designated by a wide range of names. Examples are "the Torah" (e.g. Neh 8,2), "the book of the Torah" (e.g. Neh 8,3), "the book of Moses" (e.g. Neh 13,1), and "the book of the Torah of Moses" (e.g. Neh 8,1). All of these designations refer to the Pentateuch. While in connection with religious law other texts from this period use neither mrD-formulas nor speak of a book, Ezra-Nehemiah and 1-2 Chronicles refer to a book and what is written in it, but not to the laws as such. With concern to the Pentateuch, the attitude towards authoritative literature changes in Ezra-Nehemiah and 1-2 Chronicles. It is not the individual law that carries the authority of God and is communicated by a collection of laws, it is the book of Moses that is of authority. 53 The book thus has a special status, i.e. it is scripture. This observation is supported by the verbal quotation of Deut 24,16 in 2 Chr 25,4, taken out of 2 Kgs 14,6. The wording of the DWD-formula is altered in a way that in 2 Chr 25,4 the book of Moses becomes the cause of Amaziah's actions. And the text of the quotation itself is altered in a way that Deut 24,16 is transformed into a universal law that is binding for both the divine and the human. For the Pentateuch in its different textual versions, Ezra-Nehemiah and 1-2 Chronicles attest therefore to the concept of scripture. But is only the Pentateuch authoritative in Ezra-Nehemiah and 1-2 Chronicles or are other texts authoritative as well? Both books clearly recognize the authority of other texts, too. For example, Neh 9,26 refers to both law and prophets: 52

For a more detailed discussion of this phenomenon see KELLERMANN, " A n m e r k u n gen" (see above n. 21), 5 0 - 5 1 , 5 9 - 7 0 .

53

For a novel attitude to the Torah in 1 - 2 Chronicles, see TALSHIR, "Canon-Related Concepts" (see above n. 43), 3 8 6 - 3 9 0 .

Authoritative Literature and Scripture in the Chronistic Corpus

49

Nevertheless they were disobedient and rebelled against you and cast your law behind their backs and killed your prophets, who had warned them in order to turn them back to you, and they committed great blasphemies. The book of 1 - 2 Chronicles highly appreciates the messages of Isaiah and Jeremiah (see 2 Chr 26,22; 32,20.32; 36,12.21). It derives its hypotext from the books of 1 Sam-2 Kgs. 2 Chr 35,25 alludes to Jer 22,10-12 and 1 Chr 16,7-36 merges Ps 105,1-15, Ps 96, and Ps 106,1-47-48 into a new song. "For the Chronicler, the Torah, Sam-Reg, probably also the classical Prophets and Psalms, as well as other books, constitute an existing, authoritative literary tradition". 54 But in Ezra-Nehemiah and 1 - 2 Chronicles, for no other religiously authoritative text SlHD-formulas are used, and no other religiously authoritative text is referred to as a book. For example, 2 Chr 36,21 refers to the word of the Lord through the mouth of Jeremiah himself and not to his book: to fulfill the word of the LORD by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had made up for its sabbaths. All the days that it lay desolate it kept sabbath, to fulfill seventy years. Thus while recognizing other religiously authoritative literature, EzraNehemiah and 1 - 2 Chronicles apply the concept of scripture only to the Pentateuch. In the Second Temple literature outside of Ezra-Nehemiah and 1 - 2 Chronicles, this new idea of scripture can only be found from the time of the Hellenistic religious reforms onwards. The use of 2in3-formulas in EzraNehemiah and 1 - 2 Chronicles thus attests to a prefiguration of the concept of scripture which was developed in elite circles. When the political, religious, and cultic crisis of the Hellenistic religious reforms demanded new religious concepts and ideas, Judaism could resort to the new concept. Now the idea of scripture won a broad acceptance. Furthermore, the concept of scripture was now applied to a broader range of authoritative literature and not restricted to the Pentateuch. How did this new concept of scripture develop and who developed it? It cannot be denied that the Chronicler found 3irD-formulas already in his hypotext in 1 Samuel-2 Kings (see e.g. 1 Kgs 2,3; 2 Kgs 14,6; 22,13; 23,21). In other parts of the deuteronomistic history, DirD-formulas even refer to "the book of the Torah" (Josh 1,8; 8,34) or to the "book of the Torah of Moses" (Josh 8,31; 23,6). 55 As Ezra-Nehemiah also attest to knowledge of deuteronomistic

54

Ibid., 401 and passim.

For other literature which was recognized as authoritative by 1 -

2 Chronicles and E z r a - N e h e m i a h alongside the Torah, see e.g. CHAPMAN, The Law and the Prophets

(see above n. 23), 2 1 8 - 2 3 9 .

50

Armin Lange

23,6).55 As Ezra-Nehemiah also attest to knowledge of deuteronomistic motifs (see e.g. Neh 9,26), both Ezra-Nehemiah and 1-2 Chronicles are influenced by the deuteronomistic use of 2in0-formulas. 56 The cultic focus of the DIIO-formulas in Ezra-Nehemiah and 1-2 Chronicles could point to another influence. Different 3in3-formulas were used widely in preexilic, exilic, and postexilic Jewish literature to refer the reader to historical sources and other documents. Good examples are the concluding formulas in the books 1-2 Kings and 1-2 Chronicles referring the reader to additional sources which would provide more information about the life and deeds of a specific king, etc. Good examples are 2 Chr 20,34 and 1 Kgs 11,41. Now the rest of the acts of Jehoshaphat, from first to last, are written (D'SirD) in the Annals of Jehu Son of Hanani, which are recorded in the Book of the Kings of Israel. (2 Chr 20,34) Now the rest of the acts of Solomon, all that he did as well as his wisdom, are they not written (OOnD) in the Book of the Acts of Solomon? (1 Kgs 11,41) Otherwise, DlHD-formulas are used to refer to letters or archival documents: The men of his city, the elders and the nobles who lived in his city, did as Jezebel had sent word to them. Just as it was written (31Π0) in the letters that she had sent to them, they proclaimed a fast and seated Naboth at the head of the assembly. (1 Kgs 21,11-12) It was found written (31Π3 Χ^ΏΉ) how Mordechai had told about Bigthana and Teresh, two of the king's eunuchs, who guarded the threshold, and who had conspired to assassinate King Ahasuerus. (Esth 6,2) Even in its phrasing, the 3in3-formula of Esth 6,2 reminds of Neh 8,14; 13,1. And in Neh 6,6, comparable to 2 Kgs 21,11-12, a mrD-formula refers to a letter which the Samarian governor Sanballat addressed to Nehemiah.

55

For use of 31DD-formulas in Deuteronomy and the deuteronomistic history, see S.J. DE VRIES, "Moses and David as Cult Founders in Chronicles", in JBL 107 (1988), 619-639: 621-626; H. HAAG, "3ΓΙ3 kätab; 3ΓΙ3 k'täb; 3Γθα miktäb; Π3'Π3 Höbet", in TDOT 7 (1995), 371-382: 379. Due to space constraints, a discussion of the deuteronomic and deuteronomistic use of airD-formulas needs to be addressed in a later publication.

56

Cfr. H. Rechenmacher's deliberations about the view of Moses in Ezra-Nehemiah and 1 - 2 Chronicles [H. RECHENMACHER, "Das Mosebild im Chronistischen Geschichtswerk", in RB 109 (2002), 57-65]; different DE VRIES, "Moses and David" (see above η. 55), 624 η. 15.

Authoritative Literature and Scripture in the Chronistic Corpus

51

In the same way Sanballat for the fifth time sent his servant to me with an open letter in his hand. In it was written (i"Q SIDD). (Neh 6,5-6) But the cultic focus of Ezra-Nehemiah and 1-2 Chronicles might hint to a more specific origin of the use of airO-formulas in these books. Regardless of the historical truth of 2 Kgs 22,3-23,3, the employment of mra-formulas in 2 Kgs 22,13; 23,21 shows that the formula was used to refer to documents and scrolls kept in a temple archive or library. In the Ancient Near East, at least the more significant temples had a library and/or archive in which they kept (legal) documents of importance for the temple cult, literary works, and, most importantly, liturgical texts. In cultic and liturgical matters, the priest referred to the scrolls and/or cuneiform tablets stored in these libraries.57 For the Jerusalem temple, 2 Macc 2,13-15 attests to the existence of such a temple library at least from the time of Nehemiah onwards. Regardless of the historical truth of the legendary tale about Nehemiah's founding of the Jerusalem temple library related by 2 Macc 2,13-14, that such a legend developed argues for the existence of a temple library in Hellenistic times.58 That Ezra-Nehemiah and 1-2 Chronicles use most of their DirD-formulas in connection with cultic issues would argue that the authors of EzraNehemiah and 1 - 2 Chronicles adapted their usage of DIHD-formulas out of a cultic context, i.e. they were influenced by the common practice of referring to the liturgical and other documents kept in the Jerusalem temple library by way of DirO-formulas. This practice is attested in Neh 7,5 were a 2irO-formula refers to a scroll containing a register of the first returnees from Babylon: And I found the book of the register of those who were the first to come back, and I found the following written in it (ID 21Γΰ XXÜX1): Again, the wording of the 2irQ-formula in Neh 7,5 closely resembles the wording of the mrD-formulas in Neh 8,14; 13,1. Similarly 2 Chr 29,25; 35,4 refer to a royal edict of David (see 1 Chr 28,19) regulating the temple cult. The quotations of and referrals to the Pentateuch in Ezra-Nehemiah and 1-2 Chronicles show that for these books the Torah is the ultimate cultic and liturgical authority. Ezra-Nehemiah and 1-2 Chronicles refer therefore to the Torah like any other document from the temple library, i.e. by way of 31!"D57

A good example is the temple library at Sippar. For a brief description and a bibliography, see O. PEDERSEN, Archives and Libraries in the Ancient Near East 1500-300 B.C., Bethesda, Md. 1988,194-197.

58

For 2 Macc 2,13-15 and the Jerusalem temple library see A. LANGE, "2 Maccabees 2:1315 - Library or Canon?", in The Books of Maccabees: History, Theology, Ideology, ed. by G.G. XERAVITS and J. ZSENGELLER, JSJ Supplements, Leiden, forthcoming, and the literature quoted therein.

52

Armin Lange

formulas. In Ezra-Nehemiah and 1-2 Chronicles, the ultimate cultic authority of liturgical texts and their prescriptions has influenced the understanding of the Torah. As with cultic or liturgical texts regulating the temple cult, the book of Moses itself became authoritative. Ezra-Nehemiah and 1-2 Chronicles thus merge the idea of religiously authoritative literature, whose claim to authority came from the divine message they communicated, with the authoritative claim of cultic and liturgical documents, which were authoritative as documents and not because of their divine message. Out of the blending of these two ideas was born the concept of scripture.

The Parables of Enoch and the Foundation of the Rabbinic Sect: A Hypothesis* by DANIEL BOYARIN

Among the many interests of Prof. Günter Stemberger's careful and creative scholarship over the decades has been the nexus among second-temple Judaism, early Christianity, and rabbinic Judaism. This offering in his honor is intended as a contribution to that study. The second booklet of the Ethiopean Enoch, known as 1 Enoch, namely the Parables of Enoch, may provide important clues for unlocking the mysteries of that nexus. 1 This is a text, apparently originally written by a Jew or Jews in either Hebrew or Aramaic sometime in the first century, translated into Greek in some form of a Greek Bible, and only known to us from a late-ancient translation into Ethiopic. While some parts of the text of 1 Enoch as a whole are known from other sources (either Aramaic ones or Greek), the Parables have only survived in the Ethiopic version. Their provenance (at the level of generality in which I have given it) seems relatively secure. In a recent, as yet unpublished study of the Parables (also known as the Similitudes of Enoch), Pierluigi Piovanelli uses rhetorical analysis "in order to reconstruct the profile of the implied audience and community" of the Parables of Enoch and compellingly argues that the producers of this document did not belong to an embattled and oppressed sect but identified themselves, in fact, in some important sense with Israel as a whole. His interpretative assumption is that the "kings and the mighty" who are the declared enemies of the author(s) of

*

This paper was originally prepared for the third Enoch Workshop held at Camaldoli, Tuscany in June of 2005 under the auspices of Prof. Gabriele Boccaccini. It will be published, deo volente, in a much expanded form in the volume that emerges from that conference, including a fuller consideration of the evidence in the Hekhalot literature and a more detailed study of the Parables of Enoch themselves. Until then, it is a pleasure and an honor to send this thesis on its maiden voyage in a Festschrift

for

Prof. Stemberger. 1

For an excellent translation and introduction to the scholarly issues surrounding this work, see G.W.E. NICKELSBURG, J.C. VANDERKAM (eds.), I Enoch: A New Minneapolis 2004. The Parables, themselves, are there on pp. 50-95.

Translation,

54

Daniel Boyarin

the Parables are gentile (probably Roman) rulers.2 What I wish to do here is to explore some potentially highly significant implications of this argument for the investigation of rabbinic literature and for the history of the rabbinic movement as part and parcel of a much larger phenomenon that we might call Judaism. Piovanelli posits two alternative possibilities for conceiving of the place of the Parables of Enoch, writing: To posit an Aramaic Urtext is to stress the continuity existing between the Enochic writings found in Qumran and the Book of Parables, which is, after all, an integral part of the 1 Enoch collection. Conversely, to opt for a Hebrew text would emphasize its affinity with the 3 Enoch writings, as if the Book of Parables were the forerunner of the Hekalot literature. While I am less than convinced of the necessary ties between language and affinity, I do find that the distinction between Qumranic connections on the one side and Hekalot connections on the other side is a deeply compelling one. (I must say, however, that I am rather unimpressed with the arguments offered, on all fronts, for a particular, specific historical background for the text; my own suggestions here are not in any way dependent on any specific dating for the text). It seems to me that Piovanelli is right to stress these different alternatives, not only as mere matters of literary history but as powerful and significant indicators of the social location of the group that formed the text. Piovanelli's observations on the relatively nonsectarian (or non-sect-like) character of the Parables suggest, in fact, a disjunction between them and Qumran, as there may be no doubt but that the Qumran community is sociologically a kind of sect. As Gabriele Boccaccini has written, at Qumran, we find "the first example of an underground trend of thought that would often resurface in the history of Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism. The outside world is the realm of Belial... The one who does not join the community will not become clean by the acts of atonement, nor shall he be purified by the cleansing waters, nor shall he be made holy by the seas or rivers, nor shall he be purified by all the water of ablutions". 3 Aharon Shemesh has, moreover, argued in two closely-reasoned articles that from a halakhic standpoint, the members of the Qumran community understood themselves as

2

P. PIOVANELLI, " Ά Testimony for the Kings and Might Who Possess the Earth': The Thirst for Justice and Peace in the Parables of Enoch", paper presented at The 111 Enoch Seminar Camaldoli, 6-11 Giugno 2005.

3

G. BOCCACCINI, Beyond the Essene Hypothesis: The Parting of the Ways Between and Enochic Judaism, Grand Rapids, Mich. 1998, 67.

Qumran

55

The Parables of Enoch and the Foundation of the Rabbinic Sect

Israel and all others, including other Israelites, as Gentiles. 4 This is, of course, consistent with other aspects of the ideology of the sectarian scrolls which seem to imply such an identification of the Community with Israel tout court.5 Indeed, Albert Baumgarten has proposed that this is the very definition of Jewish sectarianism: "Ancient Jewish sectarians... turned the means of marking separation normally applied against non-Jews against those otherwise regarded as fellow Jews, as a way of protesting against those Jews, and/or against Jewish society at large. As a result of these actions all Jews were no longer on the same footing: sectarian Jews treated other Jews as outsiders of a new sort".6 At the same time, however, Baumgarten makes clear that there were significant differences in this respect between the "introvertionist" and "greedy" Qumranite sectarianism which allowed virtually no value at all to any other form of Judaism and the "reformist" sects of the Pharisees and Sadducees. The latter "hold hopes of reforming the larger society, and have not given up on it or renounced it totally, still perceiving themselves as members of the whole", while the "introvertionist sort of sect, by contrast, has so finally rejected the institutions of the society as a whole as to turn in on itself completely, and to rank those outside its bounds as irredeemable". 7 One way to think of this is that a sect describes themselves as having left the larger group, owing to the corruption of that larger group, while a Church, as it were, describes the others as having left (or been pushed out) of the larger group owing to their defalcation from the true way and concomitant corruption, or even as representing a contaminating force that comes from the outside. This does not represent, of course, necessarily a difference in "reality", but it does constitute an important difference in representation and self-fashioning. In terms of discourse, one distinction will be with respect to legitimation. While the "Church" will frequently present itself as the heir to an apostolic succession, the "sect" will as frequently present itself as the heirs to a new revelation. As M.D. Herr has written, "Rabbinic thought projects a definite attitude regarding continuum and continuity in the chain of Torah transmission. In direct contrast to this approach the writings of the Dead Sea Sect (Damascus Document V,2) contend that the Torah was not known at all from the era of the

4

A. SHEMESH, " T h e Origins of the L a w s of Separatism: Q u m r a n Literature and Rabbinic Halacha", in Revue de Qumran

18, no. 2 (1997), 2 2 3 - 2 4 1 ; IDEM, " ' T h e One W h o Divides

Between the Children of Light and the Children of Darkness, B e t w e e n Israel and the Nations'" (in Hebrew), in Atara Literature

in Honor

of Professor

I'Haim: Haim

Studies

Zalman

in the Talmud

Dimitrovsky,

and Medieval

Rabbinic

ed. by D. BOYARIN et al.,

Jerusalem 2000, 2 0 9 - 2 2 0 . 5

BOCCACCINI, Beyond the Essene Hypothesis

6

A.I. BAUMGARTEN, The Flourishing

(see above n. 3), 66.

of Jewish Sects in the Maccabean

Era: An

Interpretation,

Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 55, Leiden 1997, 9, emphasis original. 7

BAUMGARTEN, The Flourishing

of Jewish Sect (see above n. 6), 1 2 - 1 3 .

56

Daniel Boyarin

Judges until the end of the First Temple period. Even after the destruction, they maintain, the Torah was not really understood until the founding of the sect". 8 As has been frequently pointed out, the sociological situation of the Qumran group answers precisely to the description of a sect in the sense of a group that has broken off from the main part of a religious community in search of greater purity or stringency. In a sense the rhetoric of Qumran in this respect is similar to that of the Fourth Gospel. Indeed, following Boccaccini, it seems more attractive to find the roots of supersessionism, Verus Israel, rather than the roots of heresiology in Qumran. This point comes out very clearly in another discussion by Shemesh. 9 Certain members of the House of Israel have been, owing to their righteousness vouchsafed additional revelation, and they - the Dead Sea community - now constitute Israel. The structure is, then, seemingly analogous to Pauline thought, whereby a new revelation has taken place and, whether voluntarily or involuntarily, only some of Israel have heard it, and these constitute a New Israel. Piovanelli, on the other hand, convinces at least this reader that the Parables of Enoch are not the product of a sect, that indeed they show none of the signs of the particular apocalyptic imagery that characterize such groups, that rather the Parabolists, if I may coin yet another term, speak for VxitP' VVs against a common outside oppressor, the Romans, of course. As he concludes, "the intended audience to whom the Book of Parables addresses its message of solace and hope is but the ensemble of the Jewish People fallen under the domination of a new and merciless dynasty". Whether or not we need to speak of a full-blown parting of the ways, it seems nevertheless compellingly the case that Qumranic sectarianism and the ethos behind The Parables of Enoch represent distinct forms of Jewish religious imagination and distinctly different types of community. It becomes even less plausible than previously thought to seek to date the Parables on the basis of their absence from the Enoch of Qumran. The suggestion that I want to make is that this conclusion is a highly important one for an understanding of the provenience and inner development of rabbinic Judaism. I wish to offer here a very preliminary sketch of an hypothesis that although it is (intentionally) hidden within rabbinic texts, there is, nonetheless, evidence there to suggest that rabbinic Judaism grows out of a Judaism deeply informed by the sort of religiosity that is manifest in the Parables.

8

M.D. HERR, "Continuum in the Chain of Torah Transmission", in Zion XLIV (1979), x, (in Hebrew with English summary).

9

A. SHEMESH, "Expulsion and Exclusion in the Community Document", in Dead Sea Discoveries 9, no. 1 (2002), 44-74.

Rule and the

Damascus

The Parables of Enoch and the Foundation of the Rabbinic Sect

57

T h e S o n of M a n in the Parables of E n o c h The fact that in the Parables we find the Son of Man as a redeemer figure without reference to any particular Christian context provides in my view a highly significant clue to the history of Judaism and in particular to the transitions from the Second-Temple to the late ancient forms of the religion. 10 In the present context, it would be hardly apposite to go into the rich and extensive debates and controversies around the term "Son of M a n " as used in the Gospels, so I will only sketch out my own view. To my mind, the use of this term as a n a m e for a specific figure is unintelligible in Hebrew, Aramaic, or a fortiori Greek, unless it is an allusion to a specific Son of Man. It is well known by n o w that the term in its Hebrew and Aramaic originals simply means a human being. A usage such as that of Jesus, referring to himself in both the Synoptics and the Fourth Gospel as "the son of m a n " only makes sense if the son of man is a known figure already in the discursive world of the Gospels, and indeed we do not have to travel far to find out his origins and to what the dominical sayings are alluding, namely Daniel 7, in which the prophet sees two divine figures, one an Ancient of Days and the other "like a human being". This figure, seen by Daniel in his vision, and understood in various different ways as a second divine person and redeemer takes on a life of his own as "the Son of M a n " until by the time of the Gospel writers, the term Son of Man is simply another name for the Redeemer, second person, or even junior divinity who is identified with Jesus of Nazareth, or, more precisely, with w h o m Jesus of Nazareth identifies himself. A key piece of evidence for this suggestion is provided by the Parables of Enoch, chapter 46. 11 In this chapter we are provided with the following vision: There I saw one who had a head of days, 12 and his head was like white wool. And with him was another, whose face was like the appearance of a man; and his face was full of graciousness like one of the holy angels. And I asked the angel of peace, who went with me and showed me all the hidden things, about that son of man — who he was and whence he was (and) why he went with the Head of Days. And he answered me and said to him, "This is the son of man who has righteousness... ".

10

The term, religion, is both an anachronism and a m i s n o m e r in m y view, as readers of m y recent work will know, but still I find it hard to do without it entirely; cfr. D. BOYARIN, " T h e Christian Invention of Judaism: T h e Theodosian E m p i r e and the Rabbinic Refusal of Religion", Representations

85 (2004), 2 1 - 5 7 .

11

NlCKELSBlIRG, VANDERKAM, I Enoch: A New Translation

12

It is not clear to m e h o w the Aramaic J'ttV p'Hi?, something like Ancient of Days,

(see a b o v e η. 1), 5 9 - 6 0 .

yields " h e a d of days", but this is immaterial for the present case.

58

Daniel Boyarin

The text goes on to describe the messianic and other activities and traits of the Son of Man, activities and traits that are familiar from the figure of Jesus as well. This son of man text is, however, typologically earlier than the Gospels in that the close connection with the exegetical source in Daniel is maintained throughout. We know here precisely what son of man we are talking about, the one who comes, in Daniel with the Ancient of Days of the snowy beard and two thrones, as well. In the Gospels, this figure is already free of his exegetical moorings and sailing on his own. This does not, I emphasize, constitute a claim that the Parables of Enoch are earlier chronologically than the Gospels, nor certainly that they influenced the Gospels, but it does enable me to hypothesize a very widespread development of the figure originally known as one like a human being and still appearing as such in the Parables but shading over into being the Human Being, with the Gospel representing another typological moment in the development of this form of redeemer myth. Since, as I have already said, there is not the slightest reason to consider the Parables of Enoch a Christian text, as opposed to a Jewish one, I think we have prima facie grounds for a wild guess of Son of Man spirituality as being a very widespread form of Jewish belief at the end of the Second-Temple period. Given this, the developments of the Son of Man, through Enoch into Metatron, the one beside the Throne, are not hard to imagine either. Gospel Christianity turns out to be simply one of the best attested forms of Judaism in the first century A.C., and one, moreover, that was seemingly much closer to the heart of general Jewish belief than the rabbinic offshoot of Judaism from which the Son of Man has been quite purged, and possibly so well into late antiquity (if not later than that). My best evidence, for the nonce at any rate, for this latter conjecture is rabbinic literature itself and its apparent attempts to censor, suppress, and quash any such ideas and representations of Godhead. 13

Suppressing the Son of Man One very rich example is from the fourth-century midras, the Mekilta de-Rabbi Isma'el to Exodus 20,2: I am the Lord your God (Exod 20,2): Why was it said? For this reason. At the sea He appeared to them as a mighty hero doing battle, as it is said: "The Lord is a man of war". At Sinai he appeared to them as an old man full of mercy. It is said: "And they saw the God of Israel" (Exod

13

The argument of the next section is a revised (and hopefully improved) version of a thesis first laid out by m e in D. BOYARIN, " T w o Powers in Heaven; or, the M a k i n g of a H e r e s y " , in Festschrift for James Kugel, ed. by Η. NAJMAN, Leiden 2003, 3 3 1 - 3 7 0 .

The Parables of Enoch and the Foundation of the Rabbinic Sect

59

24,10), etc. And of the time after they had been redeemed what does it say? "And the like of the very heaven for clearness" (ibid.). Again it says: "I beheld till thrones were placed, and one that was ancient of days did sit" (Dan 7,9). And it also says: "A fiery stream issued", etc. (v. 10). Scripture, therefore, would not let the nations of the world have an excuse for saying that there are two Powers, but declares: "The Lord is a man of war, the Lord is His name". He, it is, who was in Egypt and He who was at the sea. It is He who was in the past and He who will be in the future. It is He who is in this world and He who will be in the world to come, as it is said, "See now that I, even I, am He", etc. (Deut 32,39). And it also says: "Who hath wrought and done it? He that called the generations from the beginning. I, the Lord, who am the first, and with the last am the same" (Isa 41,4).14 It is the passage from Daniel that is alluded to, but not cited in the anti"heretical" discourse, the "Son of Man" passage so pivotal for the development of early Christology, that is the real point of contention here and the reason for the citation of the verse Exodus 20,2. There are two descriptions of God as revealed iri the Torah, one at the splitting of the Red Sea and one at the revelation of the ten commandments at Sinai. In the first, God is explicitly described as a warrior, that is, as a young man, as it were, while at the latter, as the Rabbis read it, God is described as an elder, full of wisdom and mercy. The problem is the doubling of descriptions of God as senex (judge) and puer (man of war) and the correlation of those two descriptions with the divine figures of Ancient of Days and Son of Man from Daniel, which together might easily lead one to think that there are Two Powers in Heaven, indeed that God has two persons, a Father-person and a Son-person. These were, of course, crucial loci for Christological interpretations. The citation of God's Name in Exodus 20,2, at the beginning of those same ten commandments, thus answers possible heretical implications of those verses by insisting on the unity of H' in both instances. The text portentously avoids citing the Daniel verse most difficult for rabbinic Judaism, vv. 13-14: "I saw in the vision of the night, and behold with the clouds of the Heaven there came one like a Son of Man and came to the Ancient of Days and stood before him and brought him close, and to him was given rulership and the glory and the kingdom, and all nations, peoples, and languages will worship him. His rulership is eternal which will not pass, and his kingship will not be destroyed". 15 The tacit contention with the Logos

14

S. HOROVITZ, I.A. RABIN (eds.), Mechilta d'Rabbi Ismael, Jerusalem 1970, 220-221.

15

For another instance in which, also in a polemical context, the Rabbis avoid citing the really difficult part of Daniel 7, see A.F. SEGAL, Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports About Christianity and Gnosticism, Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity XXV, Leiden 1977,132.

60

Daniel Boyarin

(.Memra) theology of the Targum appears especially strong when we remember that in targumic texts, we can find the Son of Man identified as the Messiah. 16 Furthermore, in a talmudic passage to be discussed below (p. 61; bHag 14a), Rabbi Aqiva himself is represented as identifying the "Son of Man" with the heavenly David, and thus with the Messiah, before being "encouraged" by his fellows to abandon this "heretical" view. This would suggest the possibility that there were non-Christian Jews who would have identified the Messiah himself (necessarily incarnate) as the Son of Man. In the text of rabbinic literature which deals most extensively (if somewhat obliquely) with Son of Man traditions, namely the second chapter of bHag, 17 we find, on my reading some commanding evidence that such traditions were extant within the circles that produced rabbinic literature itself and that the 3 Enoch and the Hekalot cannot be neatly separated from those circles at all. I emphasize that I am not referring to early Palestinian rabbinic traditions, the object of the narratives of the Babylonian Talmud, but rather to traditions that I assume were formed in late antiquity and in Babylonia, not to the Rabbis who are told about but to the Rabbis who did the telling. One of the most evocative and revealing of these texts involves the "heresy" of Rabbi Aqiva in a discussion about the "Son of Man" passage from Daniel: One verse reads: "His throne is sparks of fire" (Dan 7,9) and another [part of the] verse reads, "until thrones were set up and the Ancient of Days sat" (7,9). This is no difficulty: One was for him and one was for David. As we learn in a baraita [non Mishnaic tannaitic tradition]: One for him and one for David; these are the words of Rabbi Aqiva. Rabbi Yose the Galilean said to him: Aqiva! Until when will you make the Sekina profane?! Rather. One was for judging and one was for mercy. Did he accept it from him, or did he not? Come and hear! One for judging and one for mercy, these are the words of Rabbi Aqiva [bHag 14a]. As we see from this late third-century or so passage, the second-century Rabbi Aqiva is portrayed as interpreting these verses in a way that certainly would

16

S.O.P. MOWINCKEL, He That Cometh: Judaism, Mystics,

17

The Messiah

Concept

in the Old Testament

trans, by G . W . Anderson, Oxford 1956, 357. See also M . IDEL,

and

Later

Messianic

N e w H a v e n 1998, 89.

In the expanded version of this paper, more of this chapter will be considered as well. For the nonce, let m e just mention the evident parallels (not necessarily genetic in origin, but perhaps so) in interest in meteorological p h e n o m e n a .

T h e Parables of Enoch and the Foundation of the Rabbinic Sect

61

seem consistent with "Two Powers in Heaven", 18 which, given its context, should be identified, I suggest, with speculation about the Son of Man as a second, youthful divine figure alongside the Ancient of Days. The crux is his identification of David, the Messiah, as the "Son of Man" who sits at God's right hand, thus suggesting not only a divine figure but one who is incarnate in a human being as well 19 - "I am [the Messiah] and you shall see 'the son of man' sitting on the right hand of power and coming in the clouds of heaven" (Mark 14,62). Hence, his objector's taunt: "Until when will you make the Divine Presence profane"?!, that is, imply that the Son of Man has become incarnate in the human figure of the Davidic Messiah. Rabbi Aqiva seems to be projecting a divine-human, Son of Man, who will be the Messiah. His contemporary R. Yose the Galilean strenuously objects to Rabbi Aqiva's

18

In a recent article [D.D. HANNAH, " T h e Throne of His Glory: The Divine Throne and Heavenly Mediators in Revelation and the Similitudes of E n o c h " , in Ζ NW 94 (2003), 68-96], Darrell H a n n a h notes the significance of this text but doesn't do m u c h with it partly, I think, owing to his dependence on earlier traditions of rabbinic scholarship. First of all, it is highly unlikely, pace Alan Segal (cautiously), that w e are dealing here with a " g e n u i n e " tradition about Rabbi Aqiva from early in the second century, this on general methodological grounds. Secondly, the tenor of H a n n a h ' s

comments

indicate that he just doesn't appreciate the force of exegesis in texts such as these. Of course Rabbi Aqiva doesn't speak about one throne but about two; that is, after all, the point of his w h o l e comment, namely to account for two thrones. Although, as I have suggested, the text (and other rabbinic texts) carefully, gingerly avoid actually citing the Son of M a n passage in these very verses, it is on these verses that they indeed rely. Rabbi A q i v a ' s point is that one of the two thrones w a s for the Ancient of Days a n d one for David. The question

to which he is addressing himself, however, namely the

seeming contradiction between one verse in which a single throne is spoken of and one in which two thrones are spoken of m a y itself h a v e in the background the controversy with which Hannah deals as to whether the second person occupies the same throne or an adjacent one with the first person. I simply don't understand h o w this entire question can be dealt with without paying close attention to the fact that in the Similitudes, as in the Gospels, and in early rabbinic literature, the Son of M a n is always an allusion to the passage in Daniel. Were more attention paid to this simple principle, m u c h less ink would need to be spilt. It is not sitting in heaven that has become suspect (although of course that is what the text says) but the sitting of the Son of M a n in such wise that he could be construed as of equal or even near-equal status to the Ancient of Days. The retort to Rabbi Aqiva is precise, implying as it does, a close approach to Christology. By the way, H a n n a h is slightly mistaken on yet another point about this text; Rabbi Yose the Galilean does not say that the two chairs are for the attribute of justice and the attribute of mercy but for God w h e n he sits in judgment and w h e n he sits, as it were, in mercy, quite a different thing. Even that was too close to binitarianism, it seems, for the later generation that insisted that there aren't two thrones at all but a throne and a footstool. The entanglements of these rabbinic texts with non-rabbinic and Christian texts has not yet b e e n fully unravelled, I think. 19

SEGAL, TWO Powers in Heaven (see above n. 15), 47.

62

Daniel Boyarin

"dangerous" interpretation and gives the verse a "Modalist" interpretation. Of course, the Talmud itself must record that Rabbi Aqiva changed his mind in order for him to remain "orthodox". The Son of Man, aka "Two Powers in Heaven", is thus not foreign even at the very heart of the rabbinic enterprise. Even a figure like Rabbi Aqiva has to be educated as to the heretical nature of his position. Moreover, as pointed out by Segal, "nor was R. Akiva alone in the rabbinic movement in identifying the figure in heaven as the messiah". 20 It is not too much to suggest, I think, that the pressure against "Rabbi Aqiva's" position was generated by the explicit identification of the Son of Man with the Logos Incarnate in Jesus of Nazareth. "Orthodox" Jewish versions of this theologoumenon had then to be "corrected" - not incidentally with many of the techniques which Christians were in the post-Nicene era were to use in order to produce the "Fathers" as speaking with one theological voice. Segal also writes, "By the third century... the rabbis seem to be fully aware of the kinds of claims that could be made about a 'son of man' or Metatron or any other principal angel. So they reject the idea of divine intermediaries totally" 21 I would agree with Segal but argue that there is important evidence that they did not do so successfully. In the late-ancient mystical text known as "The Visions of Ezekiel", a secondary divine figure, Metatron is posited on the grounds of Daniel 7,9 f. This is the same figure who in other texts of that genre is called "The Youth" 15Π, i.e., that figure known by other Jews (e.g., the fourth evangelist) as the "Son of Man"! 22 Putting together the different bits and pieces that other scholars have constructed into a new mosaic, I would suggest that we have a very important clue here to follow. From the text in Daniel it would seem clear that there are two divine figures pictured, one who is ancient and another one who is young. "Son of Man" here in its paradigmatic contrast with the Ancient of Days should be read as youth, young man (as it is even in the rabbinic texts that deny that it represents a second person). The usage is similar to "sons of doves" meaning young of the dove as in Numbers 6,10. It should be noted that the figure of the "Youth" appears as well (at least once) in texts accepted into the rabbinic canon itself, such as Be-midbar Rabbah 12,12 and explicitly denoted there as Metatron. 23 We end up with a clear indication of a second divine person, called the Youth (Son of Man), about whom it can be discussed whether he is homoousious, homoiousious, homoian, or anomoian with the first person, and indeed discussions of this sort about Metatron take place in medieval Jewish

20 21 22 23

SEGAL, TWO Powers in Heaven (see above n. 15), SEGAL, TWO Powers in Heaven (see above n. 15), SEGAL, TWO Powers in Heaven (see above n. 15), Contra SEGAL, Two Powers in Heaven (see above is never used in this sense in rabbinic literature

48. 71. 67. n. 15), 67 who claims that the name "I Si 3 (unless I have misread him).

63

The Parables of Enoch and the Foundation of the Rabbinic Sect

theological and mystical writings. 24 When he is called or calls himself the "Son of Man", this is a citation of the Daniel text.25 He is called the "Youth", i.e., the "Son of Man" in contrast to the "Ancient of Days". These traditions all understand accordingly that two divine figures are portrayed in Daniel 7, whom we might be tempted to call the Father and the Son. Evidence for this concatenation of Enoch, Metatron, and the Son of Man can be adduced, of course, from the Parables of Enoch at 1 Enoch 71, in which Enoch is explicitly addressed as the Son of Man, and Enoch is, of course, Metatron before his apotheosis.26 As in the case of the Logos itself, the question is not whether this or that Jewish text influenced the Gospels, nor yet is it whether or not a particular text is or is not "Christian" or Jewish but rather the ways that we can see, increasingly see, the commonalities of tradition histories that cross over what would only later harden into separate "religions". 27 It is not then, as Segal would have it, that "other groups beside Christians were making 'dangerous' interpretations of that verse [Dan 7,9]", as that this commonplace of theological, mystical hermeneutics had become dangerous to the Rabbis and had to be expelled from its original home. For Segal, the "enemy" is still outside, external, marginal to the rabbinic community and religious world: "Identifying the specific group about whom the rabbis were concerned in this passage can not be successful". 28 He still worries that "determining the identity of the group of heretics in question remains a serious problem", 29 as if there were a real group of external heretics to whom the texts refer, while from my point of view, the Rabbis are effectively expelling the Two-Powers heresy from within themselves. The Enoch traditions were indeed, and continued to be right into and through late antiquity, the province of Israel simpliciter (including much of the Christian communities) and not of a sect within Israel (of course this doesn't mean that they were of interest to all Jews or all Jewish groups). This approach quite obviates, I think, some traditional forms of posing the question as represented in David Suter's formulation: 24

D. ABRAMS, " T h e Boundaries of Divine Ontology: T h e Inclusion and Exclusion of Metatron in the G o d h e a d " , in Harvard

25

Theological

Review 87, no. 3 (July 1994), 2 9 1 - 3 2 1 .

Although Scholem famously interpreted " y o u t h " in these contexts as " s e r v a n t " , there is, therefore, little warrant for this interpretation D.J. HALPERIN, " A Sexual Image in Hekhalot Rabbati and Its Implications", in Jerusalem

Studies in Jewish Thought 6, no. 1 - 2

(1987), 125. 26

See on this also N. DEUTSCH, Guardians Antiquity,

27

of the Gate:

Angelic

Vice

Regency

in

Late

Brill's Series in Jewish Studies 32, Leiden/Boston 1999. For Metatron as

Enoch, see M. IDEL, " E n o c h is Metatron", Immanuel

24/25 (1990), 2 2 0 - 2 4 0 .

G.

A

HASAN-ROKEM,

"Narratives

in

Dialogue:

Folk

Literary

Perspective

on

Interreligious Contacts in the Holy Land in Rabbinic Literature of Late Antiquity", in Sharing Centuries

the Sacred:

Religious

Contacts

and

Conflicts

in the Holy

Land

CE, ed. by G. STROUMSA, A. KOFSKY, Jerusalem 1998, 1 0 9 - 1 2 9 .

28

SEGAL, TWO Powers in Heaven (see above N. 15), 71.

29

SEGAL, TWO Powers in Heaven (see above n. 15), 55.

First-Fifteenth

64

Daniel Boyarin

Black calls for a reassessment of the question of the influence of the Parables on the gospels and indicates that he has committed himself to the proposition that there are pre-Christian Jewish traditions in the Parables, including the Son of Man passages, that have exercised an influence on Christian usage, although we cannot also rule out Christian editing of those traditions. Even so, exercising an influence upon Christian usage is a far cry from when the Parables was taken as prima facie evidence for the apocalyptic Son of Man in ancient Judaism. 30 Once we fully take in that "Christianity" is simply part and parcel of ancient Judaism, this very way of posing the issue becomes immaterial, in my humble opinion. I would read the famous narrative of Elisha ben Abuya's apostasy, in the sequel to the story of Rabbi Aqiva, where upon seeing a vision of the glorious being named Metatron sitting at the right hand of God, he concluded that there are "Two powers in heaven" and became a heretic, as a further oblique recognition and allegorical representation of the fact that this "heresy" was once comfortably within "Judaism" and has only lately become Aher, "Other;" Aher being, of course, the pejorative nickname for this once "kosher" Rabbi after his turn to "heresy". 31 A brief look at this text will help make this point. According to the Talmud: Our Rabbis have taught: Four went into the Pardes, and who are they? Ben 'Azzai and Ben Zoma, Aher, and Rabbi Aqiva... Aher chopped down the shoots. Rabbi Aqiva came out safely... 'Aher chopped down the shoots': Of him the verse says, "Do not let your mouth cause your flesh to sin" [Eccl 5,5], What does this mean? He saw that Metatron had been given permission to sit and write the good deeds of Israel. He said, but it is taught that on high there will be no sitting, no competition, no... , and no tiredness! Perhaps, G-d forbid, there are two powers! They took Metatron out and whipped him with sixty whips of fire. They said to him: "What is the reason that when you saw him, you did not get up before him?" He was given permission to erase the good deeds of Aher. A voice came out from heaven and said: Return Ο backsliding ones [Jer 3,14-22] - except for Aher. 30

D. SUTER, " E n o c h in Sheol: Updating the Dating of the Parables of E n o c h " , paper presented at The III Enoch Seminar Camaldoli,

31

6-11 Giugno

2005.

The position I a m taking here bears comparison with Walter Bauer, Gerhard Krodel, and Robert A. Kraft (W. BAUER, G. KRODEL, R.A. KRAFT, Orthodoxy Earliest

Christianity.,

and Heresy

in

ed. by G. KRODEL, Philadelphia 1971), except that w e must avoid

entirely such absurd formulations as heresy precedes orthodoxy as if there are real entities and not merely the constructions of particular politically powerful religious parties at particular historical moments.

65

The Parables of Enoch and the Foundation of the Rabbinic Sect

He said, "Since that man has been driven out of that world, let him go out and enjoy himself in this world!" He went out to evil culture. He went and found a prostitute and solicited her. She said, "But aren't you Elisha ben Abuya!?" He went and uprooted a radish on the Sabbath and gave it to her. She said, "He is an other [Aher]". (bHag 15a) This is a remarkable story, that as can well be imagined, has excited much scholarly attention. Yehuda Liebes emphasizes correctly that it is impossible to see this as a narrative of a real Elisha who joined a heretical sect.32 Segal nicely observes that "in its present context [the story] is an etiology of heresy. It explains how certain people, who had special Metatron traditions, risk the heretical designation of 'two powers in heaven'". 33 This can be pushed a bit further. The structural comparison with Christian etiologies of heresy and heresiarchs suggests that, like those, Aher represents older theological traditions which have been anathematized as heresy by the authors of the story.34 Almost certainly underlying Aher/Elisha's vision of Metatron is the same passage in Daniel that "misled" Rabbi Aqiva, taking the "One like a Son of Man" as a separate person. The latter's error was hermeneutical/theological, the former's is visionary/theological, but the error is essentially precisely the same, the assumption that the second throne is for a second divine figure. Whether called Metatron or David, the second divine figure is the Son of Man.35 Locating this "heretical" interpretation right at the heart of the rabbinic academy and indeed among some of its leading figures strongly suggests that these views had been current in the very Jewish circles from which the Rabbis emerged and were eventually anathematized by them and driven out. Metatron is punished by being scourged with sixty pulse of fire. As we learn

32

Y. LIEBES, The sin of Elisha: Four Who Entered Mysticism, Jerusalem 1990,12 (in Hebrew).

Pardes and the Nature

of

Talmudic

33 34

SEGAL, TWO Powers in Heaven (see above n. 15), 62. For comparison to an actual observable historical instance within late ancient Christianity, see V. BURRUS, The Making of a Heretic: Gender, Authority, and the Priscillianist Controversy, Transformations of the Ancient World, Berkeley/Los Angeles 1995.

35

According to this reading, it is the "sitting" that is the crux of the matter, as it invokes the Daniel 7 passage as interpreted, e.g., in Mark with the "Son of M a n " sitting at the right hand of God, the source of Rabbi Aqiva's "error" as well, for which see p. 61 above. This passage deserves a longer treatment than I can give it here, particularly in the light of questionable interpretations of the textual evidence that have been offered recently DEUTSCH, Guardians (see above n. 26), 48-77. Since these interpretations rely on variant readings within the Ashkenazi ms. tradition as relating to different stages of redaction within the rabbinic period, they rest on a very weak reed, but fuller demonstration of this point as well as reinterpretation will have to wait for another context. In my more expansive text, I plan, as well, to explore the significance of Metatron's name, taking it to mean "[The one who is] Beside the Throne".

66

Daniel Boyarin

from bBM 47a, this practice [whatever it quite means in terms of realia] represents a particularly dire form of anathema or even excommunication. The dual inscription of excommunication in the narrative, that of Metatron on the one hand and of his "devotee" on the other, suggests strongly to me that it is the belief in this figure as second divine principle that is being anathematized (although somehow the Rabbis seem unable to completely dispense with him he was just too popular it would seem). A further parallel is instructive. In an amazing passage in Yoma 77a which I cannot discuss here at length, the archangel Gabriel is taken out to be scourged with the sixty pulse, because he acted independently of the divine will, another seeming case of "Two powers in heaven". Note that in that story, as opposed to the Aher one, the possibility of the high angel acting independently is comprehended. It is almost as if not only the heresy of Two Powers but the Second Power itself that is being suppressed in these accounts. There is another fascinating piece of possible evidence for Jewish virtual worship of Metatron as redeemer in late antiquity and its suppression by the Rabbis. In the bSan 38b, we read: - xV .-nrr 1 ? - η ' τ κ 3ns d'to 1 ? mnnxV 2 π ή i x n ' x n ? p m m nax nVi? nnx nwa Vxi [ t ' d man»] 3>γο : Π ' τ χ 3nV x m χίπη ίώχ .nnrrV xV d t d i ,·πη duo .jviödö i m ίΠ'1? nax ! n'V ' s n ' ö 'Vx nVs? / π Vx Vx [ j " 3 m»U>] 3'nD - ! n ^ wVB'J '3Π 'X - .131j?3 WW ' 3 [ j " 3 ΠΙΏΪ?] tn'V n»x - ?>'7 noV n s r ^ s 1 ? x ^ ' xV αχ - .13 τ ρ ώ π Vx - 13 nan nas'i [ r V 3'n3n .n'aV'Sj? x"7 wi x p m n s 3 iV'sxn , ρ ' 3 x m w n .ΊΛ1 D'sVn T»3S 1'K DX vVx Rav Nahman said: A person who knows how to answer the minim as Rav Idit, let him answer, and if not, let him not answer. A certain min said to Rav Idit: "It is written, 'And to Moses he said, come up unto the H' [Exod 24,1].' It should have said, 'Come up to me'!" He [Rav Idit] said to him: "This was Metatron, whose name is like the name of his master, as it is written, 'for My name is in him' [Exod 23,21]". "But if so, we should worship him!" "It is written, 'Do not rebel against him' [Exod 23,21] - Do not confuse him with me!" "If so, then why does it say 'He will not forgive your sins'"? "We have sworn that we would not even receive him as a guide, for it is written 'If Your face goes not [do not bring us up from here]' [Exod 33,15]" (bSan 38b).36 36

I have included the Hebrew here, since the text depends on a pun that Hebrew readers will best understand in the original.

The Parables of Enoch and the Foundation of the Rabbinic Sect

67

This extraordinary bit of rhetoric needs some glossing and then a deeper consideration of modalities for its reading than it has received so far.37 The min produces a seemingly compelling argument that there are two powers in heaven. God has been addressing the Jewish People as a whole (in chapter 23), informing them that he will send his angel before them and instructing them how to behave with respect to this angel. He then turns to Moses and tells him to come up to H' (the Tetragrammaton), implying quite strongly that H' is not the same person as the speaker of the verse.38 This is, in fact, precisely the sort of argument that a Justin Martyr would have produced from Scripture to argue for a "second person" (the Logos). Rav Idit turns back to the previous chapter and remarks that verse 21 there explicitly says that "My name is in him [that is, in the angel]". Metatron, that angel, therefore could be called by the name H', and it is to him that Moses is being instructed to ascend. At this point, the min responds by saying that if Metatron is indeed called by the ineffable name, then we ought to worship him as well; in other words, that Rav Idit's own answer can be turned against him. To this, Rav Idit retorts that the verse also says "Do not rebel against him", which by a typical midrashic sleight of hand can be read as "Do not substitute him", that is, even though Metatron is called by God's name, do not pray to him. The min says if that is what is meant, then why does it continue in the verse and say that he, Metatron, will not forgive sins? The min is arguing that if the people are being warned not to rebel against Metatron, because he is as powerful as God, then it makes sense to tell them that he will not forgive their sins if they do rebel, but if he is no God at all, then it is otiose to tell them that he will not forgive sins. Only if he has the power to redeem sins does it make sense to declare that he will not forgive their sins if they rebel against him. (Of course, the rabbinic reading is: Don't confuse him with me for he cannot redeem sins but only I can. The "heretical" reading, I'm afraid, is much stronger and more adequate to the language.) In other words, the min argues that Metatron seemingly has precisely the redeemer features that are characteristic of his direct ancestor, Enoch the Son of Man. I would suggest, moreover, that, in typical midrashic fashion, another verse lies underneath this comment of the min. Joshua 24,19 reads: "It will be very difficult for you [lit. you will not be able to] to worship H', for He is a holy God; He is a jealous God; He will not forgive your sins and your iniquities". In other words, the logic would run: if there it remarks of H' that he will not forgive sins and iniquities, then if the same language is being used

37

For previous readings, see SEGAL, Two Powers in Heaven (see above n. 15), 68-69, and DEUTSCH, Guardians (see above n. 26), 49. For a much older reading, see R. TRAVERS HERFORD, Christianity in Talmud & Midrash, reprint 1903, New York 1978, 285-290.

38

The medieval Bible commentary of Ibn Ezra solves this problem by referring to other verses in which a speaker refers to himself by his own name.

68

Daniel Boyarin

here, ought it not indicate that the divine figure being spoken of has the same attributes as H'? 39 The comparison is rendered even stronger when we notice that exactly the same context is involved in both the Exodus and the Joshua verse, namely the expulsion of the Canaanites from the land of Israel and the warnings to the people of Israel to be worthy of this benefit and to worship H', or their sin will not be forgiven at all. It certainly seems as if the verse in Exodus can be read as equating Metatron to H' and therefore demanding worship for both figures. To this the answer comes that "we" the Jews, through our leader Moses, already have declared that we do not even want him, Metatron, to be our guide in the desert, as the cited verse says: "If Your face goes before us not". In other words, the angelic regent was of such non importance that, far from considering him worthy of being worshiped, Moses would not even accept him as guide. The rhetoric of this text is quite astounding, and analysis of it should prove illuminating. In this, as in many other cases of such hermeneutical encounters, the min certainly seems to have the upper hand to begin with, for there are many, many scriptural texts that support the notion of an angelic vice-regent with many of the powers of God, or even the notion of a virtual second God. Indeed, more than anything else, this very scriptural background may have given the greatest impetus to the various second-God theologies of Jews, including Logos, Memra, Sophia, Metatron, and others. In order to discredit the min's quite straightforward interpretation of the verses in question: "Behold I send before you an angel, to watch over you on the way and to bring you to the place I have prepared. Be careful before him and obedient to him. Do not disobey him, for he will not forgive your sins, for My name is in him". Although, to be sure, the second of these two verses presents difficulties, at the very least it would seem that this - fairly straightforward - translation does imply that this angel has the power to command and to remit sins (which he will not employ), as God has delegated to him something of divine power. The min quite reasonably suggests that one ought to pray to such a divine being, Metatron on Rav Idit's showing. 40 In order to escape this seemingly ineluctable conclusion, Rav Idit proposes to read "Be careful before him and obedient to him. Do not confuse him with me, for he will not forgive your sins, for my name is in him". Aside from the fact that this translation renders the verse considerably less coherent in its logic, it also makes this angel seem absolutely

39

SEGAL, TWO Powers

in Heaven

(see above n. 15), 131-132, shows that this verse was a

locus for controversy b e t w e e n Rabbis and others independently of this particular text. 40

In previous work, I h a v e employed this argument to suggest the possibility that the Logos (now I w o u l d include or specify Son of Man) w a s w o r s h i p p e d in non-Christian Jewish circles, as well, weakening H a y w a r d ' s argument for this as a unique feature of Christianity (D. BOYARIN, Border Lines: The Partition

of Judaeo-Christianity,

Rereading Late Ancient Religions, Philadelphia 2004, chapter 5).

Divinations:

T h e Parables of Enoch and the Foundation of the Rabbinic Sect

69

insignificant, hardly worthy of mention, to which Rav Idit answers (and this is his brilliant move) that indeed that is so. The Israelites have already registered their rejection of any interest in this insignificant angel when they insisted that God Himself must go before them and no other, thus dramatizing the rejection of the Son of Man theology that the Rabbis themselves perform. I am not suggesting, of course, that there was necessarily actually a min of the precise sort that this text projects.41 Where Segal, in general, seeks the actual groups to which minim can be posited as belonging- "In order to identify the various sectarian groups, one must also identify the heretical doctrine espoused by those groups and find evidence that the doctrine can be clearly associated with an historical group at the time the rabbinic tradition arose" 42 - my own method and ambitions are quite different. I seek to see how rabbinic Judaism was carving out an orthodox space for itself by naming other Jewish beliefs as heresies, thus possibly (but not always and not necessarily) producing "heresies" and even "heretical" social groups, and likewise for Christianity as well. Thus, my question here will not be to what group did the min "really" belong but, rather, what are the Rabbis seeking to accomplish by representing a min who argues in this way. This suggests to me that in their project of producing an orthodoxy for Judaism, the Rabbis were disowning a Jewish practice of worship of the second God, the lesser H' [My name is in him], Metatron, the Son of Man. The famous statement at the end of the narrative of the four who went into Pardes to the effect that Rabbi Aqiva came out "safely [lit. in peace]", while Aher died in infamy, would, on this possible but by no means proven interpretation, then represent a Rabbi Aqiva who turned away from "heresy" to orthodoxy and an Elisha who remained adamant in the old traditions. The drama of this parting of the ways within Enochic Judaism, as it were, surely is to be set in late antiquity and not before. There is no reason to assume that we are talking about the real Rabbi Aqiva and the real Elisha ben Abuya here, nor about early second-century realities and everything, in fact, that we know of rabbinic literature and its practices of ascription militates against such a conclusion. What we have before us, in my view, is a virtual allegory of different historical trends within historical Judaism, those who remained faithful to the old ways, continuing to believe in the Son of Man, and were declared heretics and those who turned from such beliefs and adopted the

41

But see Justin's Dialogue at 75. Even though for our rabbinic min, this angelic viceregent is Metatron, for Justin, he is clearly the Christ.

42

SEGAL, TWO Powers in Heaven

(see above n. 15), 7. Segal goes so far as to propose that,

by dating various shifts within the rabbinic representation of minim, w e can suggest "a progression and relative chronology of apocalypticism, mysticism, Christianity and gnosticism as historical m o v e m e n t s " [SEGAL, Two Powers in Heaven 18-19],

(see above n. 15),

70

Daniel Boyarin

new, improved, "purer", rabbinic Judaism. It should be noted, however, that both groups are apparently observers of the same basic halakhic norms, at least by late antiquity, and this is, after all, precisely what the Hekhalot literature would lead us to expect.43 Piovanelli's comments anent the social background of the Parables of Enoch strongly support, in my opinion, the point of view that I have just sketched in. If the Enochic traditions, as they extend from the Parables forward into 3 Enoch and into Metatron literature, represent indeed the common religious heritage of much of Israel and not particular sectarian formations, as I am convinced they do, then the evidence just offered for such theology in the heart of the rabbinic socio-cultural world is rendered even more cogent. As Pogo would have put it, we have met the heresy and it is us. I would go so far as to suggest (but in a very tentative and preliminary fashion), that on the basis of the rabbinic material adduced it is the Son of Man, Enoch, Metatron, Christ, who is always at issue when "Two Powers in Heaven" is broached in rabbinic literature. It is, however, not the continuing fact of these traditions themselves that so mobilize the later Babylonian Rabbis, however, to expel from within their own hearts such "heresies", but the way the Son of Man was taken up in Christianity beginning, of course, with the Gospel itself that explains the horror which these late Babylonian rabbinic texts express at the very thought of a messianic figure in human shape sitting at the right hand of the Lord. Rather than being the product or the origin of a Jewish-Christianity, pace Mearns, but also not the product of a Judaism that is not Christian, the Son of Man, i.e., the Parables of Enoch and the later avatars of this tradition, such as 3 Enoch (the Hebrew Enoch) become a touchstone precisely in the institution of such a Judaism and, moreover, an unsuccessful one to boot as Metatron (and even the Son of Man by this name) 44 becomes the very heart of later kabbalistic speculation).45

Bibliography ABRAMS, DANIEL, "The Boundaries of Divine Ontology: The Inclusion and Exclusion of Metatron in the Godhead", in Harvard Theological Review 87, no.3 July 1994, 291-321. BAUER, WALTER; KRODEL, GERHARD; KRAFT, ROBERT Α . , Orthodoxy

and Heresy

in

Earliest Christianity, ed. by G. Krodel, Philadelphia 1971.

43 44

The implications of this point for the history of so-called Enochic Judaism will be explored in the fuller form of this paper. As I am informed by Moshe Idel with respect to work of his yet to be published.

45

ABRAMS, "The Inclusion and Exclusion of Metatron" (see above n. 24).

The Parables of Enoch and the Foundation of the Rabbinic Sect

71

BAUMGARTEN, ALBERT I., The Flourishing of Jewish Sects in the Maccabean Era: An Interpretation, Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 55, Leiden 1997. BOCCACCINI, GABRIELE, Beyond the Essene Hypothesis: The Parting of the Ways Between Qumran and Enochic Judaism, Grand Rapids, Mich. 1998. BOYARIN, DANIEL, Border Lines: The Partition of Judaeo-Christianity, Divinations: Rereading Late Ancient Religions, Philadelphia 2004. IDEM, "The Christian Invention of Judaism: The Theodosian Empire and the Rabbinic Refusal of Religion", in Representations 85 (2004), 21-57. IDEM, "TWO Powers in Heaven; or, the Making of a Heresy", in Festschrift for James Kugel, ed. by Η. Najman, Leiden 2003, 331-370. BURRUS, VIRGINIA, The Making of a Heretic: Gender, Authority, and the Priscillianist Controversy, Transformations of the Ancient World, Berkeley/Los Angeles 1995. DEUTSCH, NATHANIEL, Guardians of the Gate: Angelic Vice Regency in Late Antiquity, Brill's Series in Jewish Studies, Leiden/Boston 1999. HALPERIN, DAVID J., "A Sexual Image in Hekalot Rabbati and Its Implications", in Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought 6, nos.1-2 (1987), 117-132. HANNAH, DARRELL D., "The Throne of His Glory: The Divine Throne and Heavenly Mediators in Revelation and the Similitudes of Enoch", in ZNW 94 (2003), 68-96. HASAN-ROKEM, GALIT, "Narratives in Dialogue: A Folk Literary Perspective on Interreligious Contacts in the Holy Land in Rabbinic Literature of Late Antiquity", in Sharing the Sacred: Religious Contacts and Conflicts in the Holy Land First-Fifteenth Centuries CE, ed. by G. Stroumsa, A. Kofsky, Jerusalem 1998,109-129. HERFORD, R. TRAVERS, Christianity in Talmud & Midrash, London ^903; New York 1978. HERR, MOSHE DAVID, "Continuum in the Chain of Torah Transmission", in Zion XLIV (1979), 43-56, x-xi, (in Hebrew with English summary). HOROVITZ, SAUL; ISRAEL ABRAHAM RABIN, Mechilta

d'Rabbi

Ismael,

ed. b y

S.

Horovitz, Jerusalem 1970. IDEL, MOSHE, " E n o c h is M e t a t r o n " , in Immanuel

2 4 / 2 5 (1990), 2 2 0 - 2 4 0 .

IDEM, Messianic Mystics, New Haven 1998. LIEBES, YEHUDA, The sin of Elisha: Four Who Entered Pardes and the Nature of Talmudic Mysticism, Jerusalem 1990, (in Hebrew). MOWINCKEL, SIGMUND OLAF PLYTT, He That Cometh:

The Messiah

Concept

in the

Old Testament and Later Judaism, trans, by G.W. Anderson, Oxford 1956. NICKELSBURG, GEORGE W.E., VANDERKAM, JAMES C. (trans, a n d eds.), I Enoch:

A

New Translation, Minneapolis 2004. SEGAL, ALAN F., Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports About Christianity and Gnosticism, Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity XXV, Leiden 1977. SHEMESH, AHARON, "Expulsion and Exclusion in the Community Rule and the

72

Daniel Boyarin

Damascus Document", in Dead Sea Discoveries 9, no. 1 (2002), 44-74. "The Origins of the Laws of Separatism: Qumran Literature and Rabbinic Halacha", Revue de Qumran 18, no. 2 (Decembre 1997), 223-241. IDEM, "The One Who Divides Between the Children of Light and the Children of Darkness, Between Israel and the Nations" (in Hebrew), in Atara I'Haim: Studies in the Talmud and Medieval Rabbinic Literature in Honor of Professor Haim Zalman Dimitrovsky, ed. by D. Boyarin, S. Friedman, M. Hirshman, M. Schmelzer, and I.M. Tashma, Jerusalem 2000, 209-220.

IDEM,

Sur les expressions « elus de verite », « elus de justice » et « Elu de justice et de fidelite » Contribution ä l'etude du sociolecte esseno-qoumränien par MARC PHILONENKO

Des la publication des premiers manuscrits de Qoumrän, il y a plus d'un demisiecle, les philologues se sont engages dans l'etude de la langue des textes hebreux decouverts. Ces recherches ont porte, le plus souvent, sur la phonetique, la morphologie et la syntaxe, plus rarement sur le lexique. Les enquetes phraseologiques sont restees rares, en dehors de l'ouvrage dejä ancien de Hans Kosmala qui abonde en observations precieuses. 1 Or, on releve dans les textes de Qoumrän nombre d'expressions originales, inconnues de la Bible hebra'ique. II faut accorder une attention soutenue ä ces locutions speciales, ä leurs parcours souterrains et ä leur surgissement: mieux que des parentes de type doctrinal, elles indiquent des filiations. Nous avons propose de reconnaitre en ces locutions un veritable langage de secte, un sociolecte, entendons par lä le parier propre ä un groupe socio-culturel donne. 2 Un seul exemple, celui des expressions antithetiques « fils de lumiere », « fils de tenebres », propres ä la secte et etrangeres ä la Bible hebra'ique, suffit ä l'illustrer. 3 Des tournures idiomatiques de ce type n'ont pu naitre, se developper et se fixer que dans un groupe ferme, replie sur lui-meme, ayant une conscience exacerbee de sa legitimite et de sa singularite. Les denominations que les membres de la secte s'appliquaient ä euxmemes sont, ä cet egard, tres significatives. Iis s'appelaient les « saints », les « pieux », les « parfaits », les « volontaires », les «justes », les « pauvres », les « hommes droits », les « elus de Dieu », les « elus de la Bienveillance », les

1

H. KOSMALA, Hebräer-Essener-Christen,

2

Voir Μ. PHILONENKO, " 'Faire la verite'. Contributions ä l'etude du sociolecte essenoqoumränien " , in Jüdische

Schriften

Leyde 1959. in ihrem antik-jüdischen

und urchristlichen

Kontext,

eds par Η. LICHTENBERGER, G.S. OGEMA, Gütersloh 2002, 2 5 1 - 2 5 7 . 3

Voir Μ. PHILONENKO, " La doctrine qoumränienne des deux esprits " , in iranienne

et

dualisme

qoumränien,

eds

par

PHILONENKO, Paris 1 9 9 5 , 1 6 3 - 2 1 1 : 1 6 7 - 1 6 9 .

G.

WLDENGREN,

A.

Apocalyptique

HULTGÄRD,

M.

74

Marc Philonenko

« elus de verite », les « elus de justice ».* Ces titres, nombreux, choisis parmi d'autres, ont un soubassement biblique apparent, mais, en milieu essenien, ils ont ete travailles, remanies et transformes, jusqu'ä donner naissance ä des expressions nouvelles, typiques et proprement sectaires. II s'agit souvent de locutions genitivales, oü le second terme exprime la qualite par un nom abstrait5 comme dans l'expression « hommes de verite » (lQH a 6,2). Chacun des titres evoques meriterait une etude particuliere. On se limitera ici ä deux appellations speciales, « elus de verite » et « elus de justice », particulierement topiques. Elles designent, l'une et l'autre, les fideles de l'Alliance. La premiere, « elus de verite » (behire emet), inconnue de la Bible hebraique, est attestee une fois dans un document de la grotte IV (4QInstruction d 418, 69, ii, 10): « Mais vous qui etes des elus de verite et qui poursuivez... ». Cet unique exemple n'a rien pour surprendre dans les textes de Qoumrän: il reflete, tout ä fait, l'interet passionne que les adeptes de la secte avaient pour la « verite ». Elle est pour eux si fondamentale qu'elle est rappelee dans plusieurs denominations qu'ils revendiquaient: « fils de verite »,6 « hommes de verite »,7 « volontaires pour Sa verite ».8 L'auteur des Hymnes peut done dire: « Car toi, tu es juste et verite sont tous tes elus »,9 La secte, elle-meme, est « la Maison de verite en Israel ».10 La deuxieme appellation, « elus de justice » (behire sedecj), est, eile, sans exemple dans la Bible hebraique. On la releve ä trois reprises dans les textes de Qoumrän.' 1 La premiere attestation se lit dans un passage important du livre des Hymnes oü le Maitre de justice declare: « Mais toi tu as fait de moi une banniere pour les elus de justice » (lQH a 10,13); la deuxieme attestation figure dans 4QTemps de justice (4Q215, 1, ii, 3), dont le caractere qoumranien nous parait tres accuse, et qui, dans un contexte eschatologique, fait mention des « elus de justice »; la troisieme attestation se trouve dans les « Pieges de la femme » (4Q184,14) qui cherche ä mettre en garde « les elus de justice » contre les ruses de la Femme. Une quatrieme attestation est presente dans l'un des

4

Voir A. DUPONT-SOMMER, Les ecrits esseniens 69;

A.

CAQUOT,

intertestamentaires,

in

DUPONT-SOMMER,

Paris

2002,

XXXIX;

decouverts M. J.

pres de la mer Morte, Paris 6 1996,

PHILONENKO JEREMIAS,

(eds.),

La

Neutestamentliche

Bible.

Ecrits Theologie,

Gütersloh " 1 9 8 8 , 1 6 9 . 5

Voir, par exemple, J. JOÜON, Grammaire

6

Voir 1QS 4, 5; 4, 6; 1 Q M 17, 8; l Q H a 15, 29; 17, 35; 18, 27; 19, 11; 4 Q 266, 11, 7; 4Q270, 7,

de Vhebreu biblique, R o m e 1923, 3 8 9 - 3 9 0 .

i, 20; 4Q277, 7, ii, 14; 4 Q 416, 1, 10; 4 Q 491, 11, ii, 15. 7

l Q p H a b 7 , 1 0 ; l Q H a 6, 2; 4 Q 298, 3 - 4 , ii, 7.

8

1QS 1 , 1 1 .

9

lQHa 6,15.

10

1QS 5, 6.

11

Et non pas « u n e seule fois » c o m m e l'ecrivent E.G. CHAZON, M. STONE, 4QTime Righteousness,

D J D X X X V I , Oxford 2 0 0 0 , 1 7 5 .

of

75

Contribution ä Γ etude du sociolecte esseno-qoumränien

« Quatre Chants de David », trouves dans la geniza du Caire et dont nous avons montre l'origine esseno-qoumränienne. 12 Une cinquieme attestation se lit dans un manuscrit de la geniza du Caire.13 Enfin, on releve une autre attestation de l'expression « elus de justice » dans le targoum d'Esaie 12,3. Cet exemple soulevc, de fa con pressante, la question de la prehistoire du targoum d'Esaie. C'est que l'idee de «justice » tient dans les textes esseno-quomräniens une place essentielle. Les membres de la secte sont «les fils de justice », ils observent « les commandements de justice », les « decrets de justice »; ils sont au « service de la justice »; leurs ceuvres sont des « oeuvres de justice »; ils marchent selon des « voies de justice ». Le chef de la secte est « le Maitre de justice ». «Verite et justice » peut passer pour le mot d'ordre du mouvement essenien.14 Les adeptes sont, tout naturellement, les « elus de verite » et les « elus de justice ». Alleguons maintenant un temoignage d'un exceptionnel interet: celui du livre d'Henoch. L'ouvrage, dans ses cinq parties, doit etre considere « comme l'un des grands classiques de la Congregation essenienne, peut-etre le plus fondamental de tous ».15 II n'est done nullement etonnant d'y relever, du moins dans certains manuscrits, en 39,6, une mention des « elus de justice et de fidelite », alors que dans les meilleurs manuscrits il est question de «l'Elu de justice et de fidelite », au singulier. Cette hesitation de la tradition textuelle fait qu'il est impossible de ne pas rapprocher l'appellation « elus de justice », au pluriel, du titre « Elu de justice et de fidelite » donne au heros eschatologique dans les « Paraboles » d'Hinoch, en 39,6. Cette double construction genitivale est l'equivalent de deux genitifs de qualite: « l'Elu de justice » et « l'Elu de fidelite ». L'« Elu de justice » est la personnification des « elus de justice »; 1'« Elu de fidelite » est tire de l'oracle d'Esaie 11,1-5 ou «justice » e t « fidelite » sont en parallelisme. « Elus de verite », « elus de justice »: cette terminologie specifiquement qoumränienne a trouve de surprenants prolongements dans la litterature mandeertne. Les fideles de la secte baptiste sont appeles ä maintes reprises bhiria Kusta, « elus de verite »16 et bhiria zidqa, « elus de justice ».17

12

M. PHILONENKO, A. MARX, " Q u a t r e Chants pseudo-davidiques gueniza Philosophie

du Caire et d'origine esseno-qoumränienne", religieuses

in Revue

trouves dans la d'Histoire

et

de

77 (1997), 3 8 5 - 4 0 6 : 395.

13

Voir The Dictionary

14

Voir H. KOSMALA, Hebräer-Essener

of Classical Hebrew, II, Sheffield 1 9 9 5 , 1 3 6 a .

15

A. DUPONT-SOMMER, in Annuaire

(voir plus haut η. 1), 194, 372. du College de France, 71 E annee, R e s u m e des cours de

1970-1971, 3 7 5 - 3 9 1 : 379.

16

Ginza 296, 21 (traduction Lidzbarski); AlfTrisar

17

Ginza 51, 30 (traduction Lizbarski); Alf Trisar Suialia, II, iii, a, 11.

Suialia, I, ii, 230.

76

Marc Philonenko

Avec line extreme intuition, Theodor Nöldeke a expressement suggere, il y a plus d'un siecle, que ces expressions pouvaient avoir ete empruntees ä des sectes plus anciennes. 18 E.S. Drower et R. Macuch ont cru que les expressions mandeennes « elus de verite » et « elus de justice » etaient traduites du grec έκλεκτοι της ά λ η θ ε ί α ς , « elus de verite »;19 έκλεκτοί; της δικαιοσύνης « elus de justice »,20 La difficulte est que ces expressions restituees ne sont apparemment pas connues en grec. En revanche, les expressions « elus de verite » et « elus de justice » sont attestees, sans contestation possible, dans les textes de Qoumrän. 21 II apparait, aujourd'hui, que les expressions mandeennes considerees sont de simple caiques des expressions qoumräniennes correspondantes. Le titre « Elu de justice » (bhir zidqa) est meme attribue dans les Liturgies22 et dans le Ginza ä une haute entite de la gnose mandeenne. 23 On notera, en outre, que, dans le targoum d'Esaie 41,2, Abraham est appele « elu de justice en verite » et qu'il est, enfin, fait mention dans un texte qoumränien en arameen de « l'Elu pour la verite ».24 Ces recoupements entre litteratures qoumränienne, targoumique et mandeenne sont extremement frappants. II parait assure que ces expressions sectaires, si typiques, ont ete empruntees, ä une epoque ancienne, par des Mandeens etablis dans la vallee du Jourdain, ä la secte de Qoumrän.

18

TH. NÖLDEKE, Mandäische

19

E.S. DROWER, R. MACUCH, A Mandaic Dictionary, Oxford 1963, 53a, s.v. bhir, bhira; R. MACUCH, Handbook of Classical and Modern Mandaic, Berlin 1965, 391.

Grammatik, Halle 1875, XXVIII.

20

DROWER, MACUCH, Mandaic (see above n. 19), 165 b, s.v. zidqa; MACUCH, Handbook. (voir plus haut n. 19), 391; M. LLDZBARSKL, Das Johannesbuch der Mandäer, Gießen 1915, 50, note 3, traduisait l'expression mandeenne: « D i e Männer von erprobter Gerechtigkeit»; la traduction de MACUCH, Handbook (voir plus haut n. 19), 403: electi integritatis, nous parait bien preferable.

21

Κ. RUDOLPH, " War der Verfasser der Oden Salomos ein 'Qumran-Christ'? ", in Revue de Qumran 16 (1964), 523-555: 553, note 96 et D. FLUSSER, Judaism and the Origins of Christianity, Jerusalem 1988, 30, note 25 ont rapproche, l'un et l'autre, l'expression qoumränienne « elus de justice » de l'expression mandeenne correspondante.

22

Liturgies 94, 2; 192,10; 194, 3; voir aussi AlfTrisar

23

Ginza 213 15; 379, 32; 533, 5; 564, 20 (traduction Lidzbarski).

24

4Q 580,1, i, 10.

Suialia I, ii, 230.

How Important was the Destruction of the Second Temple in the Formation of Rabbinic Judaism? Some Reconsiderations by JACOB NEUSNER

Günter Stemberger stands in the front ranks of scholars on ancient Judaism, because he combines erudition with analytical skills and critical judgment. His perspective on the state of questions of debate defines issues and settles questions for the many colleagues who have come to rely on his mastery of sources and scholarship on them. His own contributions to learning, which have enriched the study of Rabbinic literature, history, and religion, exemplify the academic virtues. He has made Vienna a center of the study of Judaism. His personal virtues - generosity, loyalty, good will, humility - embody the ideals of Rabbinic Judaism for the talmid hakamim, a true disciple of the sages. It is a joy to greet him on his sixty-fifth birthday and to wish him to 120 years of health and productive learning.

I. Context Since I propose to assess the importance, in the context of Rabbinic Judaism in its formative centuries, the first through the sixth C.E., of the destruction of the Second Temple, I have to answer a basic question. It is, What marks a corpus of thought as important? First, the set of ideas will make its presence felt in both native categories of Rabbinic Judaism, Halakhah and Aggadah. An idea paramount in Aggadic writings but without a Halakhic counterpart is not primary to the Rabbinic system. Second, an important idea or doctrine will come to the surface in diverse settings, being invoked finally to solve a broad variety of fresh questions. The destruction of the Second Temple in 70 is treated in both the Halakhic and the Aggadic sectors of the Rabbinic canon. The topic surfaces in a variety of Halakhic settings and plays a role in a range of Aggadic expositions as well. So on the face of the matter, we deal with a significant matter. But how important? As to the topics, 586, the destruction of the first Temple, 70, the destruction

78

Jacob Neusner

of the Second Temple, and 132-135, the disaster of the Bar Kokhba War: in the presentation of these events in the Rabbinic writings we possess a fairly simple set of ideas, elaborately instantiated. What I show is that the Rabbinic reading of the destruction of the Second Temple merely recapitulates in a fresh context quite commonplace ideas of Scripture, Ezekiel for the ultimate restoration of the cult, and Lamentations, for the reading of the destruction as a penalty for violating the Torah, for example. The Rabbinic reading of 70 continues the scriptural-prophetic reading of 586. It is thus difficult to affirm that the destruction of the Second Temple marked an important turning in the formation of Rabbinic Judaism. Rather, it is continuous with Scripture and scarcely does more than adapt a received scriptural conception to a new context. So we form the impression of a secondary recapitulation of an established and conventional construction of ideas. We deal in the Rabbinic reading of the destruction of the Second Temple with familiar forms imposed on fresh facts: adaptation, not innovation. The established system of Scriptural prophecy shaded over into a Rabbinic recapitulation of the same system. The event of 586 governs, the event of 70 conforms to the received paradigm, and the events of 132-135 scarcely register except for propositions meant to account for the disaster and exculpate the Rabbinic sages from responsibility therefore.

II. The Halakhic Perspective The Halakhic component of my argument is simply stated: The Halakhah of the Misnah in its articulation of its category-formations absorbs the pattern of catastrophe into its encompassing system but does not permit that pattern to shape the Misnah's own structure of category-formations. These presuppose inform and substance that the Second Temple, priesthood, altar and its blood-rite of atonement all flourish; that the principal locus of celebration of appointed times is the Temple in Jerusalem; that the priests continue to receive God's share in the produce of the Land; that nothing has changed that matters. All this is implicit in the formulation of Misnah-tractate Hullin and articulated in a wide range of category-formations of cultic topics. Let us consider once more the Misnah's eloquent statement that Israel's sanctification endures without regard to the temporal or locative context. Misnah, Hullin 5,1 The prohibition against slaughtering on the same day it and its young, Lev 22,28, applies (1) in the Land and outside the Land, (2) in the time of the Temple and not in the time of the Temple, (3) in the case of

The Destruction of the Second Temple and the Formation of Rabbinic Judaism

79

uriconsecrated beasts and in the case of consecrated beasts. Misnah, Hullin 6,1 The requirement to cover up the blood applies in the Land and abroad, (2) in the time of the Temple and not in the time of the Temple, (3) in the case of unconsecrated beasts, but not in the case of Holy Things. Misnah, Hullin 7,1 The prohibition of the sinew of the hip sciatic nerve, Gen 32,32, applies (1) in the Land and outside of the Land, (2) in the time of the Temple and not in the time of the Temple, (3) to unconsecrated animals and to Holy Things. Misnah, Hullin 10,1 The requirement to give to the priests the shoulder, the two cheeks, and the maw, Dtn 18,3, applies (1) in the Land and outside of the Land, (2) in the time of the Temple and not in the time of the Temple, (3) to unconsecrated beasts, but not to consecrated beasts. Misnah, Hullin 11,1 The requirement to give to the priest the first of the fleece, Dtn 18,41, applies (1) in the Land and outside of the Land, (2) in the time of the Temple and not in the time of the Temple, (3) to unconsecrated beasts but not to consecrated beasts. Misnah, Hullin 12,1 The requirement to let the dam go from the nest, Dtn 22,6-7, applies (1) in the Land and outside of the Land, (2) in the time of the Temple and not in the time of the Temple, (3) to unconsecrated birds but not to consecrated ones. The sanctity of Israel, expressed here in the Halakhic system, endures beyond the loss of the holy city, the holy Temple, and, ultimately, the holy Land. The events of 132-135 registered in the same context. As to fundamental facts of the social order, Israel remains holy after 70 as before 70 and beyond the bounds of the Holy Land as much as within the Land. Misnah-tractate Hullin shows what the Misnah could have accomplished had its framers wished articulately to legislate for the interim without the

80

Jacob Neusner

Temple. Between Misnah-tractate Ros ha-Sanah and Misnah-tractate Ta'anit, a tractate on the 9th of Ab and the Temple after that event takes shape, and one need not tax the imagination to conceive of other candidates. But the Rabbinic sages did not choose to legislate for what they did not plan to acknowledge. Nowhere else are we told about how to conduct affairs both now and then, both here and there, both with and without a building, a working priesthood, a corps of Levites, and all Israel assembled for the pilgrimage to see God on the festival. For one example, Bikkurim, on the presentation of firstfruits, does not explain how absent the Temple one hands over to the priest the firstfruits of the Land. Is that rite suspended now, and are the priests deprived of the firstfruits of the Land? The Misnah's topical exposition does not respond. Misnahtractate Tamid on the daily whole-offering does not propose a surrogate for the present age or acknowledge that today differs from yesterday and, it is hoped, also from tomorrow. Misnah-tractate Yoma Chapters One through Seven describe the progression of the rite of atonement on the Day of Atonement, without taking note that "in this time" it is null. Only its exposition of repentance and self-affliction as media of atonement, Misnahtractate Yoma Chapter Eight, shades over into an answer to the question of Israel in the here and now of deprivation. Misnah-tractate Sekalim describes the management and financial arrangements of the Temple as though the enterprise was in full swing. No one makes provision for the utilization of the half-seqel offering for the public sacrifice of atonement in the age in which at sunrise and sunset there is no public offering. Perhaps everybody knew the Romans were collecting it from 70. But there is a great deal else that everybody knew but that the Misnah records: 70 did happen, and the conditions brought about by the war of 132-135 continued to define the politics of Israel in the Land of Israel, beginning with the status of Jerusalem. What difference in the norms of conduct then did the destruction make? For the law of the Misnah the destruction of the Second Temple formed an established fact bearing obvious liturgical consequences. These were deemed transient and trivial, readily coped with. When it comes to the destruction of the Second Temple in 70, the Misnah concerns itself with these issues: Sukkot after 70; the Shofar after 70; taking testimony of the New Moon; the 17th of Tammuz and the ninth of Ab and rules covering the categories in which each falls; the status of Nazirites after 70, signs of mourning for the Second Temple after 70 (with stress on avoiding excessive asceticism); and the status of new produce on the 15th of Nisan after 70. These few items add up to very little. To repeat, they do not comprise a Halakhic category-formation, but rather footnotes to received category-formations, details of a larger whole. How does the Misnah place into its distinctive perspective the historical moments of 586, 70, and 132-135? Once more to review a familiar passage:

The Destruction of the Second Temple and the Formation of Rabbinic Judaism

81

Misnah, Ta'anit 4,6 A. Five events took place for our fathers ... on the 9th of Ab C. On the 9th of Ab (1) the decree was made against our forefathers that they should not enter the land, (2) the First Temple and (3) the second [Temple] were destroyed, (4) Betar was taken, and (5) the city was ploughed up [after the war of Hadrian]. In the Halakhic system, with its stress on the classification of actions and transactions and events and the rule governing all those that fall into a single classification, history loses all weight. Events abandon their singularity, their individual implications. They are homogenized into a classification of events and yield not markers of time but timeless laws for the enduring social order. They bear not consequences unique to themselves but rules common to a given type. History thus loses its specificity and becomes a source of exemplary data yielding social rules that predict the consequence of actions. The events of 586, 70, and 132-135 in the Misnah are treated as not unique that is, as turning points in the cosmos - but exemplary. They registered not the end of time but mere symptoms of the human condition of Israel, merely deplorable turnings in Israel's condition, to be responded to in accord with the Torah's enduring lessons. The happenings brought about changes, to be sure, but they left intact that pattern of sanctification in Israel's way of life that the Misnah defines in its systematic manner. And the Misnah's Halakhic category-formations affirm the cult, priesthood, Temple, Jerusalem - the whole institutional system of sanctification that succeeded the destruction of the First Temple in 586. A superficial survey of the Misnah, accordingly, yields the generalization that 70 and 132-135 do not define decisive events in the supernatural life of holy Israel, which is lived beyond time and above history. In the language of the Misnah and of the Tosefta nothing has changed in 70 and 132-135, except for Israel's circumstance, and that change is transient. What endures is the corpus of rules that, when realized, bring about sanctification. The Misnah, reaching closure perhaps two generations after 132-135, describes an Israelite social order centered on the Temple and its rites, governed by priest and king (Misnah-tractate Sanhedrin Chapter Two). The focus of the Misnah on the Temple and priesthood forms a definitive fact: the destruction is for the moment, the holy place and its sacrifices are for all time. To express this conviction in form, not only in substance, the Halakhah employs a rhetoric of an eternal present tense: this is how things are and how they are perpetually done. Its narratives of specific Temple rites form scripts for recapitulation of permanent liturgical or ritual patterns. That about which the Misnah is silent is not the events of 586, 70, and 132-135, but about the destruction of the Temple and the cessation of its blood rite of atonement. That

82

Jacob Neusner

fact is shown in both affirmative and negative facts. The affirmative fact is that the greater part of the Misnah - four of its six divisions - explicitly focuses on the Temple: support for the priesthood (all of Zera'im), its rites for Appointed Times (most of Mo'ed), the conduct of the offerings and the upkeep of the Temple (all of Kodasin), and cultic purity, sacerdotal and domestic alike (Toharot). Strictly speaking, then, an account of the Rabbinic canonical account of the events of 70 and 132-135 must begin with the massive record of remembered rules and rites of the Temple. The way to the restoration lay open, fully mapped. The whole describes how things are done, not conceding that this is a record out of the past. The rhetoric on the liturgies of the Temple speaks of the Temple as it is, not as it was or will be. If we permitted the allegations of a document and the language that conveys them to dictate the venue in which a document was written, then the Misnah was written when the Second Temple was standing and in operation. For Misnah-tractates Yoma, Nega'im, Parah, Sotah, Menahot, Sekalim, and others contain elaborate, continuing-presenttense narratives about what at specific liturgical turnings the priest does and says, where he goes or does not go, what he does or does not do. These narratives of the Second Temple are the only ones in the Misnah that exhibit the indicative formal traits noted just now. When the Misnah's writers devote themselves to the conduct of the Second Temple, its management and its offerings and its upkeep, the whole is scripted, word and deed alike, for an abiding portrait, a motionless tableau. Slight provision is made for the present age, lacking a Second Temple and an altar. And, more to the point, there is no narrative counterpart for any other rites than the Second Temple's and the priesthood's, for example, involving the synagogue on a given occasion or the public life of the Rabbinic sages themselves, to the ritualization of which much attention is paid in the later Halakhic compilations. What might we have anticipated had 70 denoted a decisive turning? An obvious candidate is an account of the life and affairs of the synagogue, supposedly the surrogate for the ruined Temple, its rites replacing, for the interim, the altar's offerings. For one striking instance, the Halakhah in the Misnah's category-formations never provides for rites to replace those of the Temple during the interim of the Temple's ruin. Prayer is supposed to be the surrogate, but that is a generic judgment, not made specifically in the context of a particular prayer corresponding to a particular offering. True, the canon contains sayings that the study of the laws of sacrifice yields the same result as if one had actually made the offering. But when it comes to practice, these allegations yield nothing. Study of the Torah is not characterized by any Halakhic category-formation as the substitution for the Temple offerings. For example, we have not got in the Rabbinic canon a single story or saying about a master who unintentionally violated the law of the Sabbath and consequently studied Misnah-tractate Zevahim. Rather, we have the

The Destruction of the Second Temple and the Formation of Rabbinic Judaism

83

following:

Tosefta Sabbat 1,13 A. Said R. Ishmael, 'One time I read by the light of a lamp, and [forgetfully,] I wanted to tilt it [to get more oil on the wick]'. Β. I said, 'How great are the words of sages', who rule, 'They do not read on Sabbath nights by the light of a lamp'. C. R. Nathan says, 'He [Ishmael] most certainly did tilt it'. D. And written on his notebook is the following: 'Ishmael b. Elisha tilted a lamp on the Sabbath'. E. 'When the sanctuary will be rebuilt, he will bring a sin-offering'. So much for the standing of claims that studying the law of the Torah of sacrifice is tantamount to making the sacrifice. They have no Halakhic standing whatsoever, because they generate no specific rules. And as to prayer taking the place of sacrifice, the rites of the synagogue in no way replaced, but only corresponded with, the rites of the Temple as in the case of the Additional Service on Sabbaths and Festivals. More to the point, in the Misnah the synagogue prayers centered on the declamation of the Torah figure casually and in severely limited aspects, for example in Misnah-tractate Megillah. The liturgical wording and regulations figure in Misnah-tractate Berakhot. In neither instance does substitution of prayer for sacrifice in the ruined Temple figure as a motivation. The Misnah's Halakhic system, indeed, never acknowledges the synagogue with a category-formation at all, for example, and legislates for the synagogue only partially, for its presentation of the declamation of the Torah. The latest Rabbinic documents contain statements that prayer takes the place of animal sacrifice, acts of loving kindness substitute for atonement-offerings, study of Torah forms the counterpart of sacrifice, and the like. But no Halakhic consequences follow from these statements; there is no Halakhah, let alone a Halakhic category-formation, to realize the conception that loving kindness serves as atonement as the Temple sacrifice once did. I cannot point to a single Halakhic ruling that realizes the beautiful idea that acts of loving kindness atone as sin-offerings atone, e.g., the sage said to him, "Go, atone by an act of altruism". I stressed the probative standing of the category-formations of the Halakhah as systemic indicators. The synagogue offers a striking case: there is a tractate Middot to describe the architecture of the Second Temple and a tractate Tamid to portray its liturgy. There is no counterpart tractate devoted to the building used for a synagogue (one cannot speak of a synagoguebuilding), nor does the Misnah assign to the synagogue the unique locus for the recitation of prayers, the Sema and the Prayer, for example. These may be

84

Jacob Neusner

recited nearly anywhere. Why not provide rules for synagogue buildings and their liturgy? To provide for buildings and rites uniquely performed in them would have required acknowledging the loss of the holy house and its atonement-rites. That the Misnah declined to do, and with that decision, the Halakhic categorical system for a thousand years took shape. The opposite is the case. In the Misnah's vast, detailed account of Israel's holy life portrayed in the building blocks of large-scale, topical expositions, the priesthood has not lost its position at the side of the altar and the Levites have not fallen off their platform for singing. The sacerdotal estate continues to receive its holy rations from the Land of Israel and to eat its food in a state of cultic cleanness, as if in the Second Temple, as if in Jerusalem. Nor is this only in the realm of imagination. The Halakhah provides for the priests to continue to receive their holy rations, as Misnah Hullin says in so many words noted earlier, and as is implicit in Misnah-tractates Ma'aserot and Terumot and elsewhere. Jerusalem is still the metropolis and goal of pilgrimage, as Misnahtractate Ma'aser Seni indicates. There is no thought given to other loci for pilgrimage. No one suggests - or troubles to condemn - spending Passover at the Temple of Onias in Egypt, for example. Consider the alternative, which is, the formation of the Misnah without the Second Temple as a paramount motif. If we were to remove from the Misnah every paragraph, every chapter, every tractate that describes the status quo of an Israel restored to its holy place and holy vocation, of Jerusalem and its Temple offerings, we should be left with bits and pieces, shards and remnants of this and that - but the Halakhic system as we know it would be lost. It would consist of the larger part of the division of women and much of the division of damages (civil law). But lacking all supernatural connection, what is left would form no system at all, only components awaiting further required parts for composition into one. More to the point: we should have nothing like the recognizable ruins of the Misnah as we know it. The discernible pattern would disappear, the system not only diminished but also destroyed, and the surviving ruins in their chaotic incoherence would not allow for its recovery. To state the matter simply: the Misnah, the first document of Rabbinic Judaism beyond Scripture, without its account of the working cult of the Temple, without its lines of structure and order radiating out into the Land of Israel and into the life of the people of Israel in the villages and in the fields, in time and out of time, the Misnah is something other, utterly beyond imagining. For every passage that for local exigencies acknowledges the destruction of the Second Temple, the cessation of the cult, and the loss of Jerusalem, as at such passages as at Misnah, Hullin 5,1 or Misnah, Ta'anit 4,6, there are tens, indeed, hundreds of passages that describe the sanctification of Israel in its priesthood, cult, holy place, and holy city in an ideal present tense of realized eternity.

The Destruction of the Second Temple and the Formation of Rabbinic Judaism

85

What proposition is presented in the law and its normative narratives? The obvious answer is, denial, denial, denial. Nothing has happened that cannot be corrected: Israel endures holy and unique. That is why the destruction of the Second Temple cannot claim a primary place in Rabbinic Judaism's Halakhic statement. To the Halakhah the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 is temporary and superficial and raises only some few minor questions of accommodation. That is because in the conception of the Halakhic system and in its paramount rhetoric, the Second Temple still stands. It has not been, and cannot be, razed. It forms the heart and center of the legal system realized in rich detail in the Misnah and the Tosefta and the articulation of the Halakhah. That is why the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 cannot be assigned a critical place in the formative history of Rabbinic Judaism. It was more than a footnote, but less than a principal text: to be coped with, not to be confirmed let alone affirmed as enduring. What about adaptations to the new situation? Misnah-tractate Ros haSanah Chapter Four (and parallels) logs in changes in the Halakhah by reason of the destruction of the Second Temple, and these concern the conduct, after the 9th of Ab in 70, of Temple-rites on festivals. Misnah-tractate Hullin Chapters Five through Seven and Ten through Twelve catalogues rules governing food and insists that they continue even after 70. By any criterion the changes in the Halakhah, transient to begin with, are vastly outweighed in practical importance by the rules that survived the Second Temple's ruin. The Misnah's Halakhic system acknowledges that the Temple is for the moment inaccessible but does not recognize as the end of Israel's story that temporary circumstance. The Halakhic system not only trivializes in its principal category-formations the destruction of the Second Temple but in its affirmative statements denies that beyond the lamentable facts known to all, anything much has changed. Now briefly to answer out of the Halakhah the question, how important was the destruction of the Second Temple to Rabbinic Judaism? The Halakhic answer is, nothing that matters has permanently changed. The sanctification before 70 of city, people, and Land, sacrifice, priesthood, and Temple, endures afterward. The destruction of the Second Temple in 70 recapitulated the lessons of 586 and yielded no new ones: it cannot be judged as important to the Halakhic system of Rabbinic Judaism, where the systemic theology came to realization in norms of conduct. When we come to the matter of norms of conscience, beliefs not behavior, the picture changes, but the outcome is the same.

86

Jacob Neusner

III. The Aggadic Perspective The components of the Rabbinic response to 586, 70, and 132-135 all together set forth the following Aggadic proposition, summarizing the theological components of the system: 1. The destruction in each case (586, 70) and the disaster of 132-135, came about because of Israel's own failings or sins, chief among them arrogance. For this Israel can atone by humility expressed through repentance, on the one side, study and fulfillment of the Torah, inclusive of acts of loving kindness, keeping the Sabbath, and other specified remedies, on the other. 2. Meanwhile Israel mourns appropriately, but, as in Aqiba's construction of matters, finds hope for the restoration in the realization of the prophetic admonitions. 3. All in all, Israel preserves its uniqueness among the nations. The pattern is clear: sin, punishment, repentance, atonement, reconciliation - all possible because of God's own passionate engagement with Israel. The premises of the statement derive from the Torah, e.g., the second paragraph of the Sema: "If you will earnestly heed the commandments... I will favor your land...Take care lest you be tempted to forsake God and turn to false gods ... for then the wrath of the Lord will be directed against you" (Dtn ll,113ff.) When Israel meets misfortune, it is because of the violation of the Torah. The destruction of the Temple in 586, then in 70, represents the loss of the medium for the atonement of sin - the last step in total estrangement. Yet, in line with the message of prophecy, the Rabbinic response reaffirms Israel's place in the relationship with God: sin punished by suffering produces repentance, atonement, and reconciliation. The lesson of 586, repeated in 70, animates the Rabbinic response throughout. But the event of 70 taught no lessons not already imparted in 586. That statement presents as general propositions of theology the particular allegations of Aggadic exposition and exegesis. The Tosefta, beyond its Halakhic program, sets forth these Aggadic propositions: the destruction effected atonement for sins, the Temple was destroyed for Israel's sins, the restoration of Jerusalem will take place in the end of days, and until that point a curse affects the world. There are valid reasons to account for what has happened, first, idolatry, licentiousness, and bloodshed, second, avarice or neglect of Torah. If we take together the Misnah's Halakhic program in response to the destruction and the Tosefta's supplementary theological program, accordingly, we find in hand the entire Rabbinic system, lacking only Aggadic refinements and theological amplifications, e.g., the matter of martyrdom. The next set of documents, the Tannaite Midras-compilations, would address that matter and would in addition state the eschatological doctrine that completes the construction. Are we able to position in time the set of ideas just now summarized? If

The Destruction of the Second Temple and the Formation of Rabbinic Judaism

87

we follow conventional opinion and date the Misnah to 200, the Tosefta to 250 and the Tannaite Midras-compilations to 300, we may say that the entire system had emerged fully exposed within the framework of the Misnah and the Tosefta, that is, not before 150 (the martyrs of the post-135 repression are integral), not after 250. And - returning to our question, how important was 70 - of what did that system consist? In its generative principles, stressing God's justice and focusing on theodicy, it represented nothing more than a reprise of the original statement of Moses and the prophets: the Temple was burned for Israel's faults, but Israel remained holy and possessed the means of reform. The Aggadic corpus answers the question, how and what is Israel to think between Temples, the Second and the Third and last? And the answer proves blatant: Israel is to think precisely how and what Moses and the other prophets had taught them to think. Rabbinic Judaism recapitulates the prophetic theology of sin and repentance, atonement and forgiveness, in response to the loss of the Land and the Metropolis and the holy altar. True, the details vary. But the received theological principles describing the just God govern, with their contemporary realizations fully exposed. Matters do not conclude with the doctrine of Israel's enduring sanctification. The Aggadic contribution encompassed the status of all of humanity. That is because the Aggadah reflected on the event of 70 in the setting of the entire narrative of Scripture. The loss of the Temple and city figured for the Rabbinic sages not only in Israel's own setting - as the Halakhah in all its inferiority would have it - but in reflection on the entire history of humanity from Eden onward. What happened, in the later phases in the formation of the Rabbinic system in its late antique canon, was the recasting of the system into an account of Israel as counterpart to humanity. The condition of humanity in cosmic proportions encompasses the experience of not only Adam but also Israel, and the experience of the one is deemed paradigmatic for that of the other. That universal vision of God in relationship to humanity in general and Israel in particular is captured by the exile of Adam and Eve from Eden, with its counterpart, the exile of Israel from Jerusalem (and God from the Temple). The Aggadic perspective that shaped the vision of the Tosefta and the Tannaite Midras-compilations thus crossed the boundaries of Israel's circumstance and drew that analogy that marked the fulfillment of monotheism: the comparison of Adam and Israel. The events of 586, 70, and 132-135 then serve to make concrete the condition of exile to which the Aggadic narrator refers. But the Rabbinic theologians, particularly of the fifth and sixth centuries C.E., simply assessed the condition of Israel in the aftermath of 70 and 132-135: the loss of the Land comparing with Adam's loss of Eden. We find that statement precisely where it should be located, which is in their systematic exegesis of the book of Lamentations in Ekah Rabbah IV.I.l (but not only there, also at Be-re'sit Rabbah ΧΙΧ,ΙΧ.1-2 = Pesiqta de-Rab Kahana ΧΥ,Ι.1.):

88

Jacob Neusner

Ekah Rabbah IV.I.l (Be-re'sit Rabbah ΧΙΧ,ΙΧ.1-2 = Pesiqta de-Rab XV,I.l):

Kahana

A. R. Abbahu in the name of R. Yose bar Haninah: "It is written, 'But they [Israel] are like a man [Adam], they have transgressed the covenant'" (Hos 6,7). B. 'They are like a man', specifically, like the first man. [We shall now compare the story of the first man in Eden with the story of Israel in its land.] C. "In the case of the first man, I brought him into the garden of Eden, I commanded him, he violated my commandment, I judged him to be sent away and driven out, but I mourned for him, saying 'How...'" [which begins the book of Lamentations, hence stands for a lament, but which, as we just saw, also is written with the consonants that also yield, 'Where are you']. D. Ί brought him into the garden of Eden', as it is written, 'And the Lord God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden' (Gen 2,15). Ε. Ί commanded him', as it is written, 'And the Lord God commanded...' (Gen 2,16). F. 'And he violated my commandment', as it is written, 'Did you eat from the tree concerning which I commanded you' (Gen 3,11). G. Ί judged him to be sent away', as it is written, 'And the Lord God sent him from the garden of Eden' (Gen 3,23). H. 'And I judged him to be driven out'. 'And he drove out the man' (Gen 3,24). I. "But I mourned for him, saying, 'How...'". And he said to him, 'Where are you' (Gen 3,9), and the word for 'where are you' is written, 'How....' J. "So too in the case of his descendants, [God continues to speak,] I brought them [Israel] into the Land of Israel, I commanded them, they violated my commandment, I judged them to be sent out and driven away but I mourned for them, saying, 'How....'" Κ. Ί brought them into the Land of Israel'. 'And I brought you into the land of Carmel' (Jer 2,7). L. Ί commanded them'. 'And you, command the children of Israel' (Ex 27,20). 'Command the children of Israel' (Lev 24,2). M. 'They violated my commandment'. 'And all Israel have violated your Torah' (Dan 9,11). Ν. Ί judged them to be sent out'. 'Send them away, out of my sight and let them go forth' (Jer 15,1). O. '.... and driven away'. 'From my house I shall drive them' (Hos 9,15).

The Destruction of the Second Temple and the Formation of Rabbinic Judaism

P.

89

"But I mourned for them, saying, 'How....'" 'How has the city sat solitary, that was full of people' (Lam 1,1).

Appropriately, this climactic response to 586/70, placing the condition of Israel as counterpart to the condition of all humanity, comes to expression in Ekah Rabbah, in the context of the book of Lamentations, the writing of mourning attributed to Jeremiah and produced after the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 586 by the Babylonians. Here we end where we began, Israel in exile from the Land, like Adam in exile from Eden. But the Torah is clear that there is a difference: Israel can repent. Jerusalem and Eden, Israel and Adam this ultimate interpretation of 586 places the event of 70 in the center of universal history: the entire human race is involved in Israel's fate, and Israel in humanity's. The Misnah, Tosefta, and Tannaite Midras-compilations, accordingly, invite the theologization of the destruction of the Temple, invoking the case of 586 to find the rule for 70. Then the late Rabbah-Midras compilations and Pesiqta de-Rab Kahana would complete the process.

IV . How Important was the Destruction of the Second Temple in the Formation of Rabbinic Judaism? Now to answer the question: To the formation of that prophetic-Rabbinic Judaism how important was the event of 70? The answer lies right on the surface. God had dwelt in the Temple but now has abandoned it. What could lay claim to greater importance than that event of cosmic consequence? The destruction of the Temple in 586, as interpreted in the Torah and prophets, defines the precipitating event in the composition of the Rabbinic system: sin, punishment, repentance, atonement, reconciliation as the prophets had admonished but also promised, all realized in that event and its aftermath. So if we ask, how important was the destruction of the Second Temple in the formation of the prophetic-Rabbinic Judaism, of necessity we respond: which Temple, First or Second? The event of 586 precipitated the construction of model to which the Rabbinic system too conformed. The event of 70 merely confirmed the original paradigm. Without that confirmation, however, the paradigm still governed. Which Temple mattered? As to the Temple destroyed in 586: nothing in the Rabbinic canon does more than explore the implications embedded in the original construction of 586 as laid out in the Torah and the Prophets. That point is best illustrated by the repertoire, beginning with the Tosefta's, of reasons for the loss of the Temple, the bulk of them located in the flaws and failures of the Israelite social order as the prophets before and after 586 would have it. So much for 586.

90

Jacob Neusner

As to the Second Temple destroyed in 70: to answer the question, how important? a mental experiment is required. We must commit an act of imagination. To do so we begin with the premise contained in another question: what if Israel had not raised a rebellion against Rome and what if the Second Temple had not been destroyed by the Romans in 70? The answer is clear: nothing new would have happened, the Second Temple offerings would have continued for centuries. For the established system in response to 586 had made its points. It had met the challenge of change by recasting its statement, never intact, but always unimpaired, from the formation of the Torah-book and the prophetic collections forward. If, in the prophetic-Rabbinic system, nothing much changed with the destruction of the Second Temple, nothing in the established paradigm would have changed by reason of the Second Temple's continuing to flourish for a long time to come. The prophetic-Rabbinic Judaism reinforced by the Temple's powerful presence would have endured because it had the power to accommodate new challenges and respond to new crises. The Halakhic category-formations and Aggadic theology accommodated the Temple, whether standing or whether in ruins or whether restored once more. The event of 70 brought no new challenge to the system. And without that event, the received system with category-formations that matched the social order of pre-70 Jerusalem and the people of Israel surrounding the metropolis, served perfectly well. That is not to suggest that absent the Zealots and their wars against Rome the Jerusalem Temple would have survived indefinitely. Only when the Roman Empire had definitively adopted Christianity as the state religion in the fifth century (not merely as a licit religion, which Constantine accomplished in the early fourth century) and campaigned to destroy paganism and its Temples would the Israelite Temple in Jerusalem been endangered, as synagogues in various cities were. At that time synagogue buildings suffered assaults, so why not the very Temple itself? But who knows what might have happened had the Second Temple stood for three or four more centuries than it did? So had Yohanan ben Zakkai's nephew opposed the Zealots and, taking over, sued for peace, the original message of 586 and Ezekiel would have persisted unaffected. The enduring Second Temple, the on-going sacrificial system - these would have lasted so long as the narrative of 586 and the restoration that followed enjoyed prominence in Israel's politics and culture. The reading of 586 will have yielded the lesson: Israel has kept the Torah, so God has kept Israel. How far distant was that celebration of grace from its opposite: Israel has not kept the Torah, so God has punished Israel? True, that view of the Second Temple and Jerusalem as media of the relationship did not enjoy universal assent. Groups of Israelites turned their backs on the Temple and its offerings, Jerusalem and its pilgrimages. For still

The Destruction of the Second Temple and the Formation of Rabbinic Judaism

91

others, distance had the same consequence as doctrinal difference. The Samaritans, the community represented by the Dead Sea library, the Israelites in Egypt who sacrificed in the Temple of Onias and the Christians all found in the language of Yohanan ben Zakkai to Joshua b. Hananiah - a means of atonement that yielded the same result as the atonement offerings set forth morning and night: another metropolis, another Israel. And the Jews of the distant Diasporas, Babylonia and Rome, for example, of necessity found other centers for their encounter with God and other media of atonement and conciliation, besides Jerusalem and its offerings. In that context, the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 cannot be deemed an important, let alone a unique, event in the history of Judaism. For those components of Israel that did not value the Second Temple, the destruction confirmed their negative judgment of Jerusalem and its offerings, and for those that did, the destruction produced no theological consequences that had not already come to full exposure in Scripture. How important was the destruction of the Second Temple in 70? To those to whom it was important, it mattered only to confirm what they already knew, to others, it also confirmed what they already knew. For neither sector of Israelite opinion did the destruction of 70 matter much, make much difference. That does not complete matters, for we have to ask also about what importance the Bar Kokhba fiasco made in the formation of Rabbinic Judaism. To be sure, without 70 there was no 132-135. But 70 did take place, so we are constrained to ask, what can we say if matters had turned out differently in 132-135? Specifically, would Rabbinic Judaism as we know it in the Misnah and the Tosefta, the exegetical compilations of Midrasim and the Talmuds, have come to systemic fulfillment had Bar Kokhba won the second war against Rome? That is to say, what would have followed the destruction of the Second Temple and its restoration three generations later, under the auspices of Bar Kokhba? Had Bar Kokhba rebuilt the Second Temple in 135, I do not think the Rabbinic system would have made a statement substantially different from the one that it made in the Misnah, which better suits an age of restoration than an age of repression. On the contrary, had Bar Kokhba won, the Misnah would all the more so have organized the Israelite social order within its familiar category-formations. For the Misnah's category-formations will have better matched the configuration of the Israelite social order in the Land of Israel with a Temple than without. But would not the Rabbinic sages have faced a political calamity in the victory of Bar Kokhba, in some narratives represented as a Messiah, a matter on which the Rabbinic sages took conflicting positions? The Rabbinic sages are represented by the Misnah as clerks in the patriarchal government from 70 forward. The government organized by Rome after 70 and governed by the patriarch sponsored by Rome would have been discredited had Bar Kokhba won. So what would have happened in the aftermath of a Zealot victory to

92

Jacob Neusner

what we call prophetic-Rabbinic Judaism as portrayed by the Misnah and the Tosefta? We cannot take at face value the narrative of Aqiba's recognition of Bar Kokhba as a Messiah. But for the present speculation, we do not have to. It suffices to observe that the Rabbinic sages did not require political hegemony in order to accomplish their systemic goals of social reconstruction of Israel in the model of the Torah. They worked with the patriarchate of the Land of Israel and the exilarchate of Babylonia and ultimately subverted both institutions to their purpose. And Bar Kokhba's post-war administration required trained clerks too. The archaeology of the war has yielded wellprepared documents, and someone had to have written them and would be needed in the future. Where better to find scribes and lawyers than in the ranks of masters of the Torah out of whose circles - if the martyrologies are to be believed - martyrs in the recent war had emerged? So how important was the destruction of the Second Temple in the formation of Rabbinic Judaism? Two facts answer the question. The destruction of the First Temple marked the beginning of the Rabbinic system, law and theology alike. And the destruction of the Second Temple precipitated the recapitulation of the original event. The first time presented a crisis, the second merely an opportunity to confirm the systemic outcome of the original crisis. The war of Bar Kokhba whether won, whether lost, made, and could have made, no difference in the Rabbinic sages' progress to power. We may then wonder whether that outcome - the destruction of the Second Temple was not an important event in the formative history of Rabbinic Judaism - is not counter-intuitive. After all, the destruction of the Second Temple surely is treated in the formative canon as a critical, epochmaking event. But a second look at the question, what importance did Rabbinic Judaism impute to the destruction of the Second Temple? produces a different result. Just as the Halakhah treats as trivial and transient the effects of 70, so the Aggadah affords evidence of a balanced, moderate reading of matters. Rabbinic Judaism represented by Joshua and Ishmael in their meetings with mourners of Zion did not treat 70 as an apocalyptic caesura in the history of God's relationships with humanity through the extended family of Israel. Rather, the Rabbinic sages took the middle path, between dismissing as null the event of 70 and 132-135 (as did the Christians) and designating the destruction of the Second Temple as the end of days. Rabbinic Judaism represents a very particular reading of 586, 70, and 132135. It self-evidently dismisses the Christian interpretation of the destruction as the signal of God's rejection of the old Israel. But it also rejects the judgment of those who deem the destruction to mark the end of days. The Rabbinic view that matches the Halakhic evaluation of matters surfaces in a composition in the Tosefta. It makes explicit the Rabbinic rejection of the rejectionist position: not to mourn "too much". The Rabbinic sages thereby deny that the

The Destruction of the Second Temple and the Formation of Rabbinic Judaism

93

destruction of the Second Temple and cessation of its cult mark the end of days for Israel. But the Halakhic statement of matters is probative. As we have seen, the governing category-formations recognize liturgical problems in the context of a recapitulation of the entire, enduring sacrificial system. The implication of that fact is readily seen: in the Rabbinic system the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 constitutes a mournful event but not a unique catastrophe and not a caesura in the life of still - and eternally - holy Israel. And that position on the meaning of a historical catastrophe simply repeats the lessons of 586: suffering and repentance, exile and return. The Temple did not have to suffer destruction for the lessons of 586 to be incorporated into a Judaic system for Israel's social order, and in 70 the prophetic-Rabbinic system in Judaism did not have to come into being to teach them. The destruction of the Second Temple made no difference in the received system and was readily absorbed into the established structure of law and theology. The received category-formations of the law easily accommodated the new data presented by history, the established dialectics of the ancient theology encompassing with facility the renewed task of theodicy. The prophetic-Rabbinic Judaism began not in 70 but in the aftermath of 586 with the formation, by the priests of the Temple, of Scripture - the Torah of Moses and the teachings of the prophets. In its late antique canon propheticRabbinic Judaism would simply recapitulate the theology of the Torah of Moses and its law. To that enterprise of reiteration the destruction of the Second Temple presented an occasion to recapitulate, to enunciate merely a chronic and recurrent concern, not an acute crisis. The emergence of Rabbinic Judaism did not depend upon, and was not precipitated by, the destruction of the Second Temple in 70, but the destruction of the First Temple in 586 and its restoration afterward.

Josephus in Praise of Mosaic Laws on Marriage (Contra Apionem, II, 199-201) by ARYEH KASHER

Chapters 15-21 in Contra Apionem II are dedicated by Josephus to the description of Moses' multilateral character as a leader, a statesman, a commander and a legislator. The following article will focus solely on Mosaic legislation of marriage, emphasizing its ethical advantage over non-Jewish laws as perceived by Josephus. It should be mentioned from the very outset that Josephus was deeply influenced by Philo Alexandreus, who presented a propagandist outlook of the Biblical laws symbolizing the ideal constitution expected from a perfect legislator. 1 Today this issue of dependency on Philo has been well established and is generally accepted by modern scholarship. 2 Already at the outset of his reflections on marriage laws Josephus stated that "Law recognizes no sexual connections, except the natural union of man and wife and that only for the procreation of children". 3 Since there is no restriction of marriage as such in the Written Law (the Pentateuch), it must have been an inference of the Oral Law that circulated in the first century. Moreover this same theme was echoed in other Jewish sources as will be shown below. The idea could well have been intended as a propagandist glorification of the morality embodied in the Torah, especially in view of the promiscuity generally accepted in the Hellenistic and Roman societies of Josephus' days. In other words, it is reasonable to accept that this praise also embodied indirect critical allusions to 1

This subject was already dealt with at length in my Hebrew article: "Reflections on Issues related to Constitution and Government in the writings of Philo Alexandreus", which was published in Z. RUBINSON, H. ROISMAN (eds.), Commentationes classicam

eiusque

hereditatem

pertinentes,

Docto

Viro Emerito

Shalom

ad

antiquitatem

Perlman,

Tel-Aviv

University 1989, 218-242 (Hebrew). 2

See e.g. G.P. CARRAS, "Philo's Hypothetica,

Josephus' Contra Apionem,

and the Question

of Sources", SBL Seminar Papers XXIX (1990), 431-450; IDEM, "Dependence or Common Tradition in Philo Hypothetica The Studia Philonica

Annual

VIII 6.10-7.20 and Josephus Contra Apionem

Josephus and the Essenes", in F. PARENTE & J. SIEVERS (eds.), Josephus the Greco-Roman 3

and the History of

Period: Essays in Memory of Morton Smith, Leiden 1 9 9 4 , 1 4 1 - 1 6 0 .

See Contra Apionem

(hence: CA), II, 199 (Loeb Classical Library edition, English transla-

tion by H. ST. JOHN THACKERAY, Josephus: Mass. 1926).

2.190-219",

V (1993), 22-47; T. RAJAK, " C i ö che Flavio Giuseppe vide:

Against

Apion,

vol. I, London/Cambridge,

96

Aryeh Kasher

the accepted norms of those societies. Indeed, Roman legislation itself tried to correct the situation with regard to marriage, as can be judged from Lex Julia de maritandis ordinibus (18 B.C.E.) and Lex Papia Poppaea (9 B.C.E.) which promoted, if not compelled marriage and adjudicated punishment on those who up to a certain age refused such a status and the necessary procreation that matrimony entailed.4 Yet it is doubtful whether Josephus was influenced by these laws, as he consolidated his view on the Biblical and post-biblical Jewish background. 5 Indeed, in the matter at hand, the vocabulary of concepts adopted by him is fully based on these sources, apparently for reasons of convenience and maybe for fear of being accused of directly criticizing the moral code of Rome. He was referring to Lev 18,3ff. (cfr. 18,22-23) on the abominations of Egypt and Canaan with regard to incest, intercourse with a menstruating woman, male homosexual acts, and bestiality.6 The explicit statement on these matters in the Letter of Aristeas, 152 should also be taken into consideration as a source of inspiration on Josephus, the more so as he was very well versed with this Jewish pseudepigraphic work. It is reasonable, however, to assume that, by "union of man and wife", he also had in mind the law set forth in Deut 22,22-27 concerning the prohibition against lying with another man's wife or with a virgin betrothed to another man. When he singled out the natural union between man and wife for the procreation of children (cfr. CA, II, 202), he probably wanted, in addition, to offer his interpretation of the Biblical precept "Be fruitful and multiply" (Gen 1,28).7 This puts us in mind of the warning against prostitution expressed in Sir 26,1921, and also recalls Josephus' own testimony on the Essenes, whose purpose of marriage did not consider the satisfaction of fleshly lust, but intended solely for procreation.8 An identical viewpoint was expressed also in the explanation of 4 5 6

7

8

For details see A. SCHREMER, Male and Female He created them: Jewish Marriage in the late Second Temple, Mishnah and Talmud Periods, Jerusalem 2003, 33-44 (Hebrew). Cfr. J. COHEN, "Be Fertile and Increase, Fill the Earth and Master It": The Ancient and Medieval Career of a Biblical Text, Ithaca/London 1989,158-165. Cfr. also Antiquitates Judaicae (hence: AJ), III, 274-275 and CA, II, 215; see M. ZlPSER, Des Flavius Josephus Werk „Über das hohe Alter des jüdischen Volkes gegen Apion" nach hebräischen Originalquellen erläutert von Dr. Maier Zipser, Oberrabbiner zu Rechtnitz. Nach dem Tode des Verfassers herausgegeben und bevorwortet von Dr. Adolf Jellinek, Wien 1871,163. ZlPSER, loc. cit.; cfr. also THACKERAY, Josephus (see above η. 3), 373, note b; L. TROIANI, Commento storico al "Contro Apione" di Giuseppe: Introduzione, commento storico, traduzione e indici, Pisa 1977, 188; G. VERMES, "A Summary of the Law by Flavius Josephus", in Novum Testamentum XXIV (1982), 296. See Bellum Judaicum (hence: BJ), II, 160-162; cfr. S. RlSKIN, The Halakhah in Josephus as reflected in Against Apion and The Life, M.A. Diss., Yeshiva University, New York 1970; L. H. FELDMAN, Josephus and Modern Scholarship (1937-1980), Berlin/New York 1984, 520; M. PESKOWTTZ, "Family/ies in Antiquity: Evidence from Tannaitic Literature and Roman Galilean Architecture", in The Jewish Family in Antiquity, ed. by S.J.D. COHEN, Atlanta 1993, 20.

97

Josephus in Praise of Mosaic Laws on Marriage

the "wayward and defiant son" (Deut 21,18-21) in A}, IV, 261. Later Jewish Halakha considered the precept "be fertile and increase" as the first of the 613 Biblical precepts, according to their order in the Bible, and deemed it to be a great precept, that would be a guideline, a basis of instruction given to human beings and not to ministering angels [Sefer Ha-Hinuk (= The Education Book), Precept I]. Ejaculation other than for purposes of procreation, or, as the Jewish Sages put it, "wasting semen", was viewed as a 'great sin'. This was first reflected in the incident of Er and Onan (Gen 38,7-10), although there is no specific support in the Torah's commandment. The Sages also appear to have been aware of the fact that the prohibition against having relations with a woman other than for procreative purposes was not mentioned in the Bible. The Mishnah (mGit 4,5) emphasizes: "And was not the world only created for fruition and increase, as it is written, 'He created it not a waste; he formed it to be inhabited' [Isa 45,18]". Similarly, mYev 6,6 states: "No man may abstain from keeping the law 'Be fruitful and multiply' [Gen 1,28] unless he already has children; according to the School of Shammai, two sons; according to the School of Hillel, a son and a daughter; for it is written, 'Male and female created He them' [Gen 5,2]". 9 We will apparently not be wrong in stating that Josephus was also referring to the observance of the precepts in the course of married life. In later generations, some sages viewed with great severity the duty of keeping this particular precept, if we may judge, for example, from a statement by Rabbi Johanan10: "Anyone who lets his semen go to waste deserves death"; such persons were even compared to murderers (bNid 13a). Some sages interpreted the prohibition against wasting semen as deriving from "You shall not commit adultery" (bNid 13b); others viewed it as a prohibition derived from "be on your guard against [all evil]" (Deut 23,10), which was intended to warn people "not to think [evil] thoughts by day and fall into impurity by night" (bAZ 20b).11 The fact that Philo Alexandreus gives a very similar interpretation leads us to believe that he was the direct source of interpretation for Josephus. 12 It appears that Josephus like Philo sought to emphasize that, by contrast to Gentile laws and customs, the Jewish laws, due to their stringent and uncompromising

9

Cfr. bYev 61b; Be-resit

Kabbah 34, 5 - 6 , ed. by C. ALBECK, 326-327; cfr. especially in the

Tosefla version - tYev 8,4, ed. by M.S. ZUCKERMANDEL, 2 4 9 - 2 5 0 . 10 11

The famous Amora of the second generation who probably acted during 2 5 0 - 2 9 0 C.E. On the prohibition against wasting semen, see Encyclopaedia

Talmudica,

XI, 129-141

(Hebrew). O n the prohibition against embryoctony (namely, abortion), see CA, II, 202; and in later generations consult the excellent research of J. COHEN (see above n. 5), passim. 12

See: De Specialibus

Legibus, III, 33ff. (esp. 36); Quod Deterius Potiori insidiari soleat, 102; cfr.

De Vita Mosis, I, 28; S. BELKIN, The Alexandrian Century CE, Philadelphia 1936, 39ff.

Halacha in Apologetic

Literature

of the First

98

Aryeh Kasher

nature, were not tainted with criminal and noxious permissiveness.13 However, Belkin offered some reservations with regard to this explanation, preferring to highlight a discrepancy between Josephus' position and another concept of the sages,14 so as to support another interpretative explanation of a different Biblical precept: "he must not withhold ... her food, her clothing, or her conjugal rights" (Exod 21,10). As Belkin sees it, another objection could be raised to this in consideration of an additional tradition (bShab 129b) related to the Rabbi Jose son of Halafta,15 who stated: "I have committed five cohabitations, and I have planted five cedars [i.e. fathered five Scholars of the Law] in Israel", indicating that he had intercourse with his wife for the sole purpose of bringing descendants into the world, and not for the sake of pleasure. Nevertheless, the tradition of the Jerusalem Talmud (yYev I, 2b) sheds additional light on this issue, stating that this was a special case of levirate marriage, in which Rabbi Jose son of Halafta refrained from any sexual intimacy with his dead brother's wife over and above what he was required to do by the relevant Biblical precept (Deut 25,5-6), which he believed to be no less important than the supreme precept of "Be fruitful and multiply". In fact, there is no contradiction between the two precepts in Talmudic literature, especially when both are rooted in a commentary to the Pentateuch. In any event, we should concord with Belkin's statement that Josephus' interpretation of "Be fruitful and multiply" was based on Philo. It should be noted here that already at the beginning of the Hellenistic era Hecataeus of Abdera admired Jews for their devotion to fertility, proliferation and education of children.16 This is also the case with regard to Strabo as quoted by Josephus (A], XIV, 115). It is, however, not inconceivable that this admiration resulted from criticism and reservations regarding the Gentile (especially the Greek) custom of abandoning newborn babies. Actually, the present passage complements Josephus' statement in CA, I, 60: "Above all we pride ourselves on the education of our children (παιδοτροφία) ...". It is interesting to note that Hecataeus also referred to the low level of economic expenses involved in raising children in Judaea. 17 When Josephus stated that the Torah "abhors Sodomy, and punishes any guilty of such assault with death" (CA, II, 199), he undoubtedly referred to the 13 14

See D. ROKEAH, "Hypothetica", in Philo of Alexandria. Writings, ed. by S. DANIEL-NATAF, Jerusalem 1986,155 (Hebrew). See e.g. mKet 5,6; cfr. also tKet V, 6, ed. by ZUCKERMANDEL, 266; BELKIN, The Alexandrian Halacha (see above n. 12), 37ff.

15 16

This sage acted in the fourth generation of Tannayim, namely around 135-170 C.E. See M. STERN, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism, I, Jerusalem 1974, No. 11 (§ 8); cfr. Josephus' statement concerning Hecataeus (CA, 1,194); cfr. also CA, II, 202.

17

This runs, however, counter to the Midrashic tradition of raising children in Galilee (Beresit Rabbah 20,19, ed. by ALBECK, 190), which may indicate some special distress under particular circumstances, which cannot be dealt with here.

99

Josephus in Praise of Mosaic Laws on Marriage

proscriptions and penalties set forth in Lev 18,22.29; 20,13.18 There can also be no doubt that this statement inferred criticism on the homosexual behavior so common throughout the Greek world.19 Advancing in his praise of Mosaic Law, Josephus was proud to state that the Torah "commands us, in taking a wife, not to be influenced by dowry". When saying "commands", he must have had in mind what Feldman has rightly commented, that the use of κελεύω, which generally means "to order" or "to command", should be understood in this context as parallel to the Latin iubeo, meaning also "to recommend" or "to advise". He found corroboration of this approach in Talmudic tradition (bKidd 70a) as well.20 When writing "not to be influenced by dowry" it is worth mentioning his own statement that "a member of the priestly order must, to beget a family, marry a woman of his own race, without regard to her wealth or other distinctions" (CA, I, 31). Müller felt that his statement here may have embodied a critical allusion to the common Spartan custom.21 Parents of Greek brides customarily provided them with an expensive dowry (προίξ, φερνή) as is first mentioned as early as the writings of Homer. This should be distinguished from another custom, which required bridegrooms to pay a bride-price for their brides.22 In the course of time, the concept of the dowry became a common norm in Greece. Nevertheless, it was more than occasionally criticized in Greek literature, especially with regard to high dowries, which some believed should be limited or abolished outright.23 It is not inconceivable that Josephus' praise of the Torah, which "commands us, in taking a wife, not to be influenced by dowry", was based on his knowledge of the popular criticism expressed against this accepted custom of the Greek world; in this, he would seem to have wished to prove the advantages of Jewish law to his Greek readers in terms familiar to them. The Roman marriage laws, which Belkin has compared with this statement by Josephus,24 distinguished between marriage with and without manus 18

See the parallel testimony of JOSEPHUS in A], III, 274-275; cfr. also Deut 23,18; 1 Kings 14,24; 15,12; Letter of Aristeas,

152; cfr. also PHILO, Hypothetica,

in Eusebius,

Praeparatio

Evangelien, VIII, 7,2; 1 Corinthians 6,9; 1 Timothy 1,10. 19

Cfr. CA, II, 273-275; and see in detail E.E. HALEVI, Values of Agadah

and Halacha

in the

Light of Greek and Latin Sources, I, Tel-Aviv 1979, 241ff. (Hebrew). 20

L.H. FELDMAN, "Josephus", in Anchor Bible Dictionary,

III, 1992, 993; IDEM, Jew and Gentile

in the Ancient World, Princeton 1993, 520. 21

J.G. MÜLLER, Des Flavius ]osephus

Schrift Gegen den Apion.

Text und Erklärung

aus dem

Nachlass, Basel 1877 (repr. Hildesheim 1969), 319; see ARISTOTLE, Politica, II, 6,10; but cfr. PLATO, Leges, V, 241c. 22

Iliad, IX, 147ff.; XI, 244ff.; XIII, 365ff.; XXII, 51, 88; Odyssey, II, 52ff.; VII, 314; VIII, 318; XI, 282; XV, 18, 367ff.; XVI, 392, 396; XVIII, 275ff.

23

See e.g. PLUTARCH, Solon, 20; PLATO, Leges, V, 742; VI, 774; for more discussion of this issue, see J. EFRON, The Hasmonean

Kingdom

and Simeon Ben Shatah, II, Jerusalem 1961,

291 (Ph.D. dissertation). 24

BELKIN, The Alexandrian

Halacha (see above n. 12), 4 3 - 5 3 .

100

Aryeh Kasher

(literally, "hand"; trans, "power", "jurisdiction") - meaning with and without a marriage contract. In marriages of the first type, the wife was considered her husband's property and was obligated to obey him in everything. As this meant that, in practice, many women were subjected to humiliation, the general tendency was toward marriages of the second type, without a contract, in which the wife's father was entitled to annul the marriage. In such a case, the wife was not obligated to live under one roof with her husband; on the other hand, she and her children were not recognized as the husband's legitimate heirs. The establishment of the institution of marriage which developed in this way made the practical status of a woman married without manus equivalent to that of a mistress. According to Belkin, it is reasonable to believe that Josephus sought to praise the Jewish marriage laws, which were based on a contract yet did not involve humiliation or deprivation of the wife. True, her status was subordinate to that of her husband; he, however, was obligated to treat her decently and not divest her from any marital rights.25 According to a familiar ancient custom from Biblical times, a man wishing to marry a woman paid mohar, namely a bride-price, either in cash or in kind, to his fiancee's parents, thus acquiring the right to wed her.26 The bride-price was interpreted in various ways, but was generally considered as a form of acquisition of property or a right of possession, which meant a sort of compensation to the bride's father for the loss of her working power. It was considered a surety paid in order to guarantee the success of the marriage, and connoted a sort of trade, or a sort of security fund for the woman.27 In the course of time, the bride-price ceased to exist as a reward without consideration, and the bride's father was committed to ensure the future of his daughter and her descendants by setting aside money and assets in real estate or chattels. It was apparently for this reason that Lea and Rachel expressed their anger at their father Laban by saying to Jacob, "Surely, he regards us as outsiders, now that he has sold us and has used up our purchase price. Truly, all the wealth that God has taken away from our father belongs to us and to our children" (Gen 31,15-16). The custom whereby a bride brought parental wedding gifts (siluhim) to her new home is therefore clearly anchored in the Bible.28 In the course of generations, the custom of dowry superseded that of bride-price, or rather, the bride-price became part of the dowry set aside as an additional means to ensure the future of the wife and her children as stated above. The

25 26

27 28

BELKIN, The Alexandrian Halacha (see above n. 12), 52-53; G. VERMES, "A Summary of the Law by Flavius Josephus", Novum Testamentum XXIV (1982), 296-297. See e.g. Gen 24,15ff.; 29,15.18.20.27-28.30; 34,12; Exod 22,15-16; Deut 22,29 (cfr. 22,19); see also S.E. LOWENSTAMM, S.V. "Mohar", Encyclopaedia Biblica, IV (1963), 702-706 (Hebrew); C. ALBECK, The Six Tractates of Mishnah, Jerusalem 1959: Nashim, 77ff. (Hebrew). See for details EFRON, The Hasmonean Kingdom (see above n. 23), 290. Gen 24,53; 29,24.29; Josh 15,19; Judg 1,15; 1 Sam 25,42; 1 Kgs 9,16; Mic 1,14.

101

Josephus in Praise of Mosaic Laws on Marriage

customs of bride-price and dowry as part of a contract (the Jewish ketubbah, namely marriage certificate, which literally means "writing") may also be alluded to in Tobit (7,12-14), which was apparently written during the Hellenistic Era and prior to the Hasmonaean Revolt, although the precise time of its writing is obscure and disputed.29 The Elephantine papyri also indicate clear traces of this reality,30 which undoubtedly developed on the basis of contemporary outside influences (Babylonian and Egyptian in particular); this is also the case with regard to a Jewish papyrus document dating from 218 B.C.E. found in Magdola in the Fayum,31 and another one dating from 13 B.C.E., found in Alexandria.32 The various details of the marriage engagement, including both bride-price and dowry, were set forth in contracts and bills which had the force of binding legal documents.33 Testimony with regard to bride-price and dowry has lately been found in an Edomite ostracon at Marissa (Maresha).34 Simeon ben Shatah's35 regulation that a man should negotiate when concluding the ketubbah for his wife (yKet VIII, 32b-c) was intended to ensure the woman's rights, to protect her and her status against arbitrary action by her husband, and

29

See A. KAHANA, Ha-Sefarim FLUSSER, Encyclopaedia

Ha-Hitzonim,

Ramat-Gan 1959, II, 309ff. (Hebrew); D.

Biblica, III (1958), 367f£., esp. 3 7 0 - 3 7 1 (Hebrew); E. SCHÜRER, The

History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, revised English edition by G. VERMES, F. MILLAR, M. GOODMAN, III, Edinburgh 1986, 222ff.; J. EFRON, Studies in the

Hasmonean

Period, Leiden 1 9 8 7 , 1 0 1 and note 206. 30

See e.g. A.E. COWLEY, Aramaic

Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C., Oxford 1923, No. 15 (pp.

44ff.); E.G.H. KRAELING, The Brooklyn Museum

Aramaic

Papyri, N e w Haven 1953, No. 2

(pp. 140ff.), No. 7 (pp. 201ff.); B. PORTEN, Archives from Elephantine.

The life of an

Ancient

Jewish Military Colony, Berkeley/Los Angeles 1968, 221ff. 31

See V. TCHERBCOVER (ed.), Corpus

Papyrorum

Judaicarum

(hence: CPJ), I, Cambridge,

Mass. 1957, No. 28. 32

Op. cit., I, No. 144.

33

For more details, see A. VAN PRAAG, Droit matrimonial 1945, 77ff.; E. NEUFELD, Ancient

Hebrew Marriage

assyro-babylonien,

Laws with special references

Amsterdam to

General

Semitic Laws and Customs, London 1954, passim; R. YARON, "Aramaic Marriage Contracts from Elephantine", in Journal

of Jewish Studies 3 (1958), 1 - 3 9 ; IDEM, "Aramaic Marriage

Contracts from Elephantine: Corrigenda and A d d e n d a " , op. cit. 5 (1960), 66-70; J. NEUBAUER, History of the Biblical and Talmudic Law of Marriage,

Jerusalem 1994 (Hebrew

updated and revised version of the German original), 148ff. 34

See E. ESHEL, A. KLONER, " A n Aramaic Ostracon of an Edomite Marriage Document from Maresha, Dated 176 B.C.E.", in Tarbiz: A Quarterly for Jewish

Studies 63.4 (1994),

4 8 5 - 5 0 2 (esp. 496ff.). 35

Shatah (not Shetah) was apparently his name and denoted his profession, namely an expert in spreading flax (linen) and other materials like carpets, leather, fruits etc. to be dried in the sun or in special ovens. This inference is offered and discussed at length by Efron (see above n. 23), 233-235. It should be noted here that the vocalization of the name 'Shatah' is based on the Mishnah

Codex Kaufmann

(ed. G. BEER), Den H a a g 1929,

157,163, 337. Furthermore, the term 'Shetah' is not found in any ancient Hebrew source, neither in the Bible nor in Talmudic literature.

102

Aryeh Kasher

to put a stop to the phenomenon of any hasty divorce inspired by greed on the husband's part. Efron has proved that this regulation is in direct line with the Jewish Halakha (e.g. mKet 4,7 etc.), which states that the husband's assets must stand as a surety for performance of that stated in the ketubbah.36 Indeed, Josephus' statements with regard to the Pentateuch, which charges men to marry without being influenced by their wives' dowry, are well in compliance with statements in the Mishnah and the Talmud.37 Even so, the custom of receiving a dowry is well evident in Talmudic literature. Josephus has also paid attention to the Torah commandment of "not to carry off a woman by force" (CA, II, 200). This, too, may constitute veiled criticism of the Greek tradition with regard to Spartan customs (Plutarch, Lycurgus, 15), as well as against the Roman etiological myth of the rape of the Sabine women (Livy, II, 18). Indeed, one might think that Josephus was hypocritical in this matter, as he was familiar with the story of the Benjaminites kidnapping the girls of Shiloh (Judg 21,6f£; cfr. A], V, 166-174); however, that was in fact a 'staged' kidnapping, and as such gained the approval of the kidnapped so this case was not analogous. Josephus has also emphasized that the Torah prohibits a man to win his wife by deceit, and "to sue [her] from him who is authorized" (CA, II 200); the Biblical example of this appears in Gen 34,4,8ff.38 The Greek term rather lengthily translated here as "authorized to give her away" is simply κύριος meaning "master" or "guardian" (έπίτροπος); its use in this passage was undoubtedly based on Greek and Roman norms, according to which a woman was not a legal personality in her own right, but was always under the protection of a master or guardian. Until her marriage, that person was her father, or another close male relative like a brother, an uncle etc.; following her marriage, it was her husband.39 The prohibited marriage to a close blood relative, which is defined by Josephus by the words: "not ineligible on account of nearness of kin", is to be compared with Lev 18,6ff. According to Müller, it is the Biblical prohibitions

36

See EFRON, The Hasmonean

Kingdom

(see above n. 23), 289ff., esp. 294ff.; M.J. GELLER,

" N e w Sources for the Origins of the Rabbinic Ketubah", in Hebrew 49 (1978), 227ff.; T. ILAN, Jewish Women in Gmeco-Roman 37

mKet 6,3ff.; bKidd 70a; cfr. also Mekilta Mispatim,

Union College

Annual

Palestine, Tübingen 1995, 89-94.

Neziqin, 17 (with reference to Exod

22,15); yKet III, 2 7 a - b ; bKet 10b, and more. 38 39

For more examples, see J. JEREMIAS, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus, London 3 1969, 365ff. Isaac Heinemann (I. HEINEMANN, Philons griechische

und jüdische

Bildung,

Breslau 1932,

309) has noted the similarity in this matter between the Hellenistic-Roman norms and those c o m m o n among the Jews in ancient Egypt; see also R. TAUBENSCHLAG, The Law of Greco-Roman

Egypt in the Light of the Papyri, I—II, Warszawa 2 1955, 107ff. and note 7; CPJ,

I, No. 26; II, Nos. 144, 146, 148, 149; III, Nos. 453, 455; A. KASHER, The Jews in

Hellenistic

and Roman Egypt, Tübingen 1985, 51ff., 158. This legal norm w a s also deemed valid in the Mishnah; see e.g. mKet 4,4-5, 6,4; mYev 13,1-2.

Josephus in Praise of Mosaic Laws on Marriage

103

against adoption of Egyptian and Canaanite customs, especially in sexual matters, that may be echoed in this statement by Josephus. 40 But this does not allude in any way to the prohibition against marrying Gentile women who were not of an Egyptian or Canaanite origin, a matter which will not be dealt with here.41 In CA, II, 201 Josephus says that according to the Torah "a woman ... is in all things inferior to the man", and indeed his descriptions of Biblical women deviate more than occasionally from the source, especially with regard to disparaging comments and the notation of negative characteristics, which he felt were stereotypical of women, such as arrogance, infidelity, foolishness, rudeness, slyness, deceit, jealousy and seductiveness. This, of course, is evident in regard to women who are described negatively in the Bible, like Potiphar's wife (AJ, II, 41-59), Delilah (A], V, 306ff.), Queen Jezebel (A], VIII, 318). In fact, in Antiquitates Judaicae he attributed such characteristics to quite a number of women whose basic character was not necessarily negative, for example, Eve [A], I, 40ff.), Hagar {A], 1, 188-189), Sarah (A], I, 215-216), the drawers of water from Aram-Naharaim who refused to serve Isaac (A], I, 246), Lea [A], I, 303), the daughters of Moab and Midian in the Balaam episode {A], IV, 131-155), Rahab {A], V, 10), the concubine of Gibeah (A], V, 136-137), Vashti, Queen of Persia [A], XI, 190-194), and the like. In a similar but much more colorful manner, he also described in his various works famous women of Second Temple times, such as Queen SalomeAlexandra (A], XIII, 417, 430-433); Alexandra II, daughter of John Hyrcanus II and mother of Mariamme wife of Herod (A], XV, 23-24, 35-38, 42ff„ 62, 69, 166, 168,183, 232ff.); Mariamme herself [A], XV, 69, 218ff„ 237-239); Salome, sister of Herod (AJ, XV, 81; XVI, 201ff.; XVII, 37ff„ 142; BJ, I, 439,443, 475ff„ 489ff., 534ff.); Pheroras' concubine-wife, her mother and sister (AJ, XVII, 33ff., 121; BJ, I, 568ff., 578); Doris, the first wife of Herod and mother of Antipater (AJ, XVII, 121; BJ, I, 473); Glaphyra, daughter of King Archelaus Philopatris of Cappadocia, wife of Alexander, Herod's son by Mariamme (AJ, XVII, 352); Herodias, wife of Herod Antipas (AJ, XVIII, 136, 240-246, 255); Drusilla and Berenice, sisters of Agrippa II (AJ, XX, 142-146); and many others. Some scholars believe that Josephus' demeaning attitude toward women resulted from bitter personal experience.42 This impression is corroborated by his comments on the woman whom he married

40 41

Cfr. CA, II, 275; MÜLLER, Des Flavins Josephus Schrift (see above n. 21), 319. Additional light on this issue is shed in I obi t, especially 4,12—13; 5,9—14; 6,12; cfr. Jubilees, 2,33; 4,15.16.20.27.33 etc.; see JEREMIAS, Jerusalem (see above n. 38), 365; D. GOODBLATT, "The Talmudic Sources on the Origins of Organized Jewish Education", in Studies in the History of the Jewish People and the Land of Israel, ed. by B. ODED, 5, Haifa 1980, 83ff. (Hebrew).

42

Cfr. D.R. SCHWARTZ, "Non Jewish Sympathizers (Acts 5, 13-14)", Biblica 64 (1983), 555, note 24.

104

Aryeh Kasher

by order of emperor Vespasian and who left him a short time thereafter (Vita, 414-415), as well as on his divorce from his other wife, of whose ways he did not approve (Vita, 426), and finally, by the fact that only the last of his four wives was praised by him (Vita, 427).43 It should be noted that a disparaging attitude toward women is also shown in Ecclesiastes (7,26) and Sirach (42,11-20; cfr. 7,25-26; 25,13-26; 26,6ff.), so that this could shape Josephus' ideas.44 On the other hand, however, Sirach also refers to a woman of valor, a good woman, and the like; on one occasion (36,31), matrimony is clearly recommended, because "without a wife [a man is] a wanderer and homeless... So is the man that hath no nest who resteth where evening befalls him". 45 According to Halevi, who cites many examples from Greek literature in an attempt to prove his point, the negative view of women expressed by Josephus, was the result of Greek influence.46 A similar position is actually reflected in Philo Alexandreus, Quaestiones et Solutiones in Exodum (Exod 1,7).47 However, like Ecclesiastes and Sirach, Philo should not arouse the impression that the attitude toward women in Jewish literature was basically reserved; he praised them on many occasions for being very modest. 48 The book of Judith offsets the negative trend described above in its enthusiastic description of Judith as a great Jewish heroine. I personally believe that the negative attitude toward women in Hellenistic Jewish literature resulted from criticism of the damaging promiscuity of pagan society. Indeed, a reservation from women is reflected in Prov 7,5-27, but it is restricted to an 'alien woman' who is an adulteress, and the same case is probably evident also in one of the Qumran scrolls (4Q 184). Josephus claimed that the Essenes also had similar reservations,49 but added that their reasons for this had to do with the fear of addiction to the pleasures of the flesh, fornication and adultery. Josephus' belittling attitude toward women is interestingly expressed in his discussion of the Jewish law which states that "From women let no evidence be 43

On Josephus' attitude to w o m e n in general, see E. & F. STAGG, Women

in the Words of

Jesus, Edinburgh 1978, 4 5 ^ 8 ; B.H. AMARU, "Portraits of Biblical W o m e n in Josephus' Antiquities", in Journal of Jewish Studies 39 (1988), 143-170. 44

See e.g. M. HIESCH SEGAL, The Complete Book of Sirach, Jerusalem 1 9 5 9 , 2 8 7 (Hebrew).

45

Trans, by H. Box, W.O.E. Osterley in R.H. CHARLES (ed.), 1913, The Apocrypha Pseudepigrapha

of the Old Testament,

and

Oxford 1963, 1, 443; for fuller details with regard to

the attitude shown toward w o m e n in Sirach, see W . C . TRENCHAND, Ben Sira's View of Women. A Literary Analysis,

Chico 1982.

46

HALEVI, Values (see above n. 19), II, 1980, 69ff.

47

See J.R. WEGNER, " T h e Image of W o m a n in Philo", in SBL Seminar Papers, ed. by K.H. RICHARDS, Chico 1982, 551-563.

48

See In Flaccum, 89; cfr. De Specialibus

Legibus, III, 169ff.; HEINEMANN, Philons Bildung

above n. 39), 233-235; H. BOX, Philonis Alexandrini JEREMIAS, Jerusalem 49

(see

Oxford 1939, 107-108;

(see above n. 38), 359ff.

BJ, II, 121; AJ, XVII, 21; cfr. PHILO, Hypothetica, 11,14-17.

In Flaccum,

apud Eusebius, Praeparatio

Evangelica,

VIII,

105

Josephus in Praise of Mosaic Laws on Marriage

accepted, because of the levity and temerity of their sex" (A], IV, 219). As the Pentateuch says nothing of this, it should be understood as a later commentary, especially as it is also reflected in the Talmud.50 At the same time, both the Talmudic Sages and the Essenes did not establish this attitude because women were deemed to be inferior to men, but because of their devotion to more important values. Thus, for example, if the Sages preached avoidance of social contact with women, it was so as to avoid diverting one's mind from the study of the Law. The Pharisees and the Qumran sect promulgated religious regulations designed to reduce the discrimination against women and to improve their status and treatment.51 When Josephus states what is expected from a wife - "Let her ... be submissive" (CA, II, 201) - he apparently alludes to what is written in Gen 3,16: "Yet your urge shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you." Indeed, Tal Ilan has shown that Jewish Midrash also explains the subordination of women to men as having originated in the Garden of Eden.52 She even proved, on the basis of references from the Apocrypha, as well as from the writings of Josephus and the Midrashic tradition, that the opposite situation, in which men would be ruled by women, would constitute not only an anomaly, but a disaster for the male sex.53 In my opinion, Josephus was also influenced in this mainly by Philo, as we have seen in so many other contexts, and as can be deduced from the following citation (Hypothetica, apud Eusebius, Praeparatio Evangelica, VIII, 7,3): "wives must be in servitude to their husbands, a servitude not imposed by any violent ill-treatment, but promoting obedience in all things". 54 Indeed, in contrast to the ideal of the modest and submissive woman, Josephus' comments

50

Cfr. m S h e v 4,1; yBer IX, 13b ( " A m a n must say three things each day: Blessed b e He W h o has not m a d e m e a Gentile; Blessed be He W h o has not m a d e m e an ignoramus; Blessed be H e W h o has not made m e a w o m a n " ) ; b Y o m 66b ("There is no wisdom for a w o m a n except at the distaff"); bBer 48b ( " W o m e n are talkative"); b S h a b 33b ( " W o m e n handle light-mindedly"); Be-resit

51

Rabbah 17,9; 18,3; b B K 88a; and many more.

On the entire issue, see BARUCH S h a r v i t , "The Attitude of the Pharisees and the Judean Desert Sect to W o m e n " , in B.-Z. LURIA (ed.), The Chayim Cevaryahu Bible

and

in Jewish

Philosophy,

SCHIFFMAN, Law, Custom

Jerusalem

and Messianism

1989, 3 0 1 - 3 0 7

Book - Studies in the

(Hebrew); cfr. also

L.H.

in the Dead Sea Sect, Jerusalem 1993, 170-171

(Hebrew). T h e status of w o m e n in Jewish society in Second T e m p l e times is extensively discussed by T. Ilan in her book (see above n. 36). 52

I l a n , Jewish Women (see above n. 36), 122ff.; see e.g. Aboth de-Rabbi

Nathan (Version II),

45, ed. by SCHECHTER, 116-117 and more. 53

Not in vain did Esther 1,22 state that "every man should wield authority in his h o m e " .

54

For this reason I do not share Martin Goodman's view (M. GOODMAN, "Josephus as R o m a n Citizen", in Josephus

and the History of the Greco-Roman

Period [see above n. 2],

335), that Josephus may have been thinking of the subordination of w o m e n to men in the R o m a n legal reality. B y contrast, I would say that the legal differences between Jewish and R o m a n legal perceptions on this matter are too m a n y and too deep for considering such a possibility.

106

Aryeh Kasher

on the Hasmonaean Queen Salome-Alexandra could be viewed as expressing a negative attitude, as a woman "who madly desired it [i.e. the throne] in her unreasonable love of power" (AJ, XIII, 417), since "she valued the present more than future, and making everything else secondary to absolute rule, she had, on account of this, no consideration for either decency or justice" (op.cit., 430^32). Although the source of this negative description could derive from the hostility of his source, Josephus' inference that "a husband must have union with his wife alone" (CA, II, 201) reflects the Biblical commandments of "You shall not commit adultery" and "You shall not covet your neighbor's wife" (Exod 20,13.14). If we isolate his inference and take it out of its subsequent context, it may appear that he believed that any sexual union between a man and a woman who is not his legal wife was wrong. Tal Ilan (loc. cit.) has exposed and emphasized the general condemnation of extramarital sex in various sources, such as the Apocrypha, the Qumran scrolls and the writings of the Talmudic Sages. It is evident, however, that Josephus was referring here to adultery with married women only. In this connection, by the way, it should be noted that Pythagoras has also been credited with stating that a man should not go to a strange woman, but only to his wife (Philostratus, I, 13). We should recall as well Josephus' statement that Pythagoras "not only knew of our institutions, but was even ... an ardent admirer of them" and that "it is actually said that that great man introduced many points of Jewish law into his philosophy" (CA, 1,162,165). Josephus took a radical stand when saying "it is impious to assault the wife of another" (CA, II, 201). As the use of the Greek word άυόσιος is very extreme indeed, it appears that Josephus sought to criticize the phenomena of adultery and licentiousness among the Gentiles (including Greeks and Romans), and by contrast to praise the Jewish people for its laws and moral values. This message is even more emphatic in terms when he concludes in stating that "For any guilty of this crime the penalty of death is inexorable" (CA, II, 201). This is well in line with Lev 20,10-12; Deut 22,23-27; cfr. also A}, IV, 251-252. It appears that one of Josephus' main goals was to exalt the angularity of Mosaic matrimonial laws in terms which could associate even indirectly his Roman readers with their admiration of Sparta, but in pure moral and ethical concepts which were familiar everywhere among Jews in daily life. However, his praise of the Mosaic laws on marriage absorbed its inspiration from Jewish sources and was aimed to exalt them as such. As far as ideological content is concerned, Josephus seems to stand on solid Jewish ground, especially when leaning on Hellenistic Jewish writers. At the same time, most of his inspiration in the appreciation of Moses and his laws, his opinions on the political regime depicted in the Torah, seem to have been drawn from Philo of Alexandria. His long discussion in praise of Moses and his laws (CA, II, 163-228) leaves the same impression that Philo was really his prime source and the principal inspiration for his interpretation of many Biblical issues. However, it should be noted that he did not directly refer to Philo's writ-

Josephus in Praise of Mosaic Laws on Marriage

107

ings even once, although he was aware of his eminent reputation as an important participant in a delegation to Emperor Gaius Caligula to defend the rights of the Alexandrian Jews (AJ, XVIII, 259-260). According to Gutman, Josephus' neglect of mentioning Philo is in line with the omission of sources which was a rather common trend in Hellenistic literature, and is by no means restricted to Josephus alone.55 My colleague Roman Wilk called my attention to the fact that Josephus never mentioned names of Sages as sources for his information in Halakhic matters. Actually, the same was true with Philo himself, who never cited his own Halakhic sources, although his writings show considerable knowledge of Jewish Oral Law as practiced in the Land of Israel.56 In view of the above, it does appear that Josephus should not be suspected of having deliberately concealed his sources in matters of Halakha, as this concealment corresponds to a fairly widespread literary practice in such matters. Nevertheless, by contrast to Philo, who emphasized his general Hellenistic culture and wrote nothing of his formal Jewish education, Josephus repeatedly noted his personal acquaintance with the various spiritual trends of Judaism (Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes) and their teachings. He even emphasized his close connections with the Pharisees (see e.g. Vita, 1-12). It seems that, in so doing, he wished to present himself not only as a historian but as an authority relying on primary sources with respect to matters of law and Jewish custom. In fact, a close study of his writings shows that he actually relied mainly on Philo, even if at times his words appear shallow and superficial by comparison to those of Philo. This reliance did not mean that he had to enlist aid in order to ascertain knowledge about the Jewish law practiced in Judaea, he was personally familiar and very well versed in both law and custom. But I believe that he used Philo due to his desire to enrich his interpretation of the Halakha with a philosophical and apologetic-propagandist touch. This applies especially to the long summary in Contra Apionem (II, 145ff.), in which he must have consulted Philo's writings, especially the Hypothetica, De Vita Mosis, and De Specialibus Legibus. He simply availed himself of a profusion of ready-made apologetic and propagandist explanations in praise of Judaism and its laws, written in the skilled hand of the greatest Jewish thinker of the Hellenistic-Roman era. As stated, Josephus never once mentioned his dependence on Philo. True, in this he was no different from other writers; but, it seems that, to no small degree, this omission also served his own ambition to wear the mantle of originality and personal wisdom. He should not, however, be censured as a cheap plagiarist, even if, in several cases, he made use of typical Philonian phrases and expressions almost word for word. After all, he did exploit Philo's ideas in an

55

Y. GUTMAN, The Beginnings (Hebrew).

of Jewish-Hellenistic

Literature,

I, Jerusalem 1958, 282

56

See B. RITTER, Philo und die Halacha, Leipzig 1879; HEINEMANN, Philons Bildung above n. 39); S. BELKIN, Philo and the Oral Lam, Philadelphia 1940.

(see

108

Aryeh Kasher

original manner, and even developed them independently and added nuances of his own. This can be demonstrated, for example, in his linguistic and philosophical innovation of the concept of "theocracy" (CA, II 165), which requires a separate study.

Some Aspects of Josephus' Theological Interpretation of the Jewish War by JONATHAN J. PRICE

Near the end of his life, writing about the political assassinations committed by the Sicarii in the temple before the outbreak of the Jewish rebellion, Josephus was led to reflect on the meaning of the catastrophe which ensued: In my opinion this was the reason why God, in abhorrence of their sacrilege, turned His face from the city, and judging that the holy place, being no longer pure, was no longer inhabitable by Him, brought the Romans against us and a purifying fire upon the city, and He inflicted slavery upon us together with our wives and our children, for He wished to chasten us through these disasters (AJ 20.166). 1 While a typical Greek or Roman reader would have no trouble understanding this statement — a god's temple was polluted, the divinity purged his place by fire and punished the guilty 2 — the statement had different, and quite more painful, reverberations for a Jewish reader searching for an answer to the existential catastrophe and most naturally looking for it embedded in a historical pattern of reward and punishment, a difficult and demanding love relationship between the Deity and His specially chosen people. Josephus' explanation of the Destruction does not differ in its essence from the rabbinical explanations committed to writing some centuries later, 3 and it is safe to say that his theological speculations reflect the anguished discussions in Jewish circles of many places and of many types after 70 CE. 4 Josephus conceived this understanding and explanation of the national trauma, written so

1

All translations from Greek b y m e unless otherwise indicated.

2

See e.g. R. PARKER, Miasma:

Pollultion

and Purification

in Early Greek Religion,

Oxford

1983, esp. 1 4 4 - 1 9 0 , 2 2 7 - 2 2 8 . 3

R. GOLDENBERG, " E a r l y Rabbinic Explanations of the Destruction of J e r u s a l e m " , in Journal

of Jewish

Studies 33 (1982), 5 1 7 - 5 2 5 ; R. KlRSCHNER, " A p o c a l y p t i c and Rabbinic

Responses to the Destruction of 7 0 " , in HTR 78 (1985), 4

E.g., 4 Ezra 5,21-6,34.

27-46.

110

Jonathan J. Price

concisely at the end of his life, when he began his career as a writer and historian, right after the fall of Jerusalem. 5 In his first surviving published work, the Greek Bellum Judaicum (BJ), which was completed within a decade of the Destruction,6 Josephus stressed repeatedly, and in various narrative contexts, that God destroyed His temple in order to punish the Jews for their sins and to cleanse the holy site which they had polluted (compare 2 Macc 5,17). His interpretation of the great historical event, and of historical process in general, has God firmly at the center. Despite his admiration for and imitation of Thucydides, who excluded divine involvement completely from human history, Josephus felt no need to justify his basic assumption that God intervened directly in events on earth according to a wise and just plan, revealed prophetically or over time, which explained the course of all human history from Adam to the end of time. This was Josephus' inescapable Biblical heritage. And unlike the many Greek historians of Rome, such as Dionysius of Halicarnassus, who adopted and elaborated the Romans' own story, according to which their unprecedented empire flowed from the gods' favor, 7 Josephus' view of God's favor of the Romans was neither flattering nor insincere — nor even, in its essence, recognizably Roman. This point is implict in the important discussion by the honorand of this volume, Professor Stemberger, in his Die römische Herrschaft im Urteil der Juden, Darmstadt 1983, 33-37 (the Roman empire is part of God's grand plan). 8

5

While there is a growing mass of literature on Josephus' use and interpretation of the Bible, the specific questions discussed in this article, as well as general treatments of Josephus' theology, are rarer; the entire subject still awaits systematic analysis. Some dismiss any serious theological thought in Josephus, but as I hope this paper will demonstrate, Josephus was not immune from the traumatic question which afflicted all Jews after 70 CE: why did God let it happen? On Josephus' theology in general see P. BILDE, Flavius Josephus between Jerusalem and Rome: His Life, his Works and their Importance, Sheffield 1988, 182-191; P. SPILSBURY, "Josephus", in Justification and Variegated Nomism,

e d . by D . A . CARSON, P.T. O'BRIEN, M . A . SEIFRID, T ü b i n g e n / G r a n d

Rapids

2001, 241-260; IDEM, "God and Israel in Josephus: A Patron-Client Relationship", in Understanding Josephus: Seven Perspectives, ed. by S. MASON, Sheffield 1998, 172-191; H. LINDNER, Geschichtsauffassung des Flavius Josephus im Bellum Judaicum, Leiden 1972. Still worth consulting are some earlier works: A. SCHLATTER, Die Theologie des Judentums nach dem Bericht des Josefas, Gütersloh 1932; IDEM, "Wie sprach Josephus von Gott?", in Kleinere Schriften zu Flavius Josephus, ed. by K.H. RENGSTORF, Darmstadt 1970, 65-142. R. SHUTT, "The Concept of God in the Works of Flavius Josephus", in JJS 31 (1980), 171-187, is disappointing and does not address the issues raised in this paper. 6

See n o w C . P . JONES, " T o w a r d s a C h r o n o l o g y of J o s e p h u s " , in SCI 2 1 ( 2 0 0 2 ) , 1 1 3 - 1 2 1 .

7

See LlVY's Praefatio; E. GABBA, Dionysius and the History of Archaic Rome, Sather Classical Lectures 56, Berkeley 1991. See also SCHLATTER, Theologie (see above n. 5), 252-263.

8

Josephus' Theological Interpretation of the Jewish War

111

The principle of God's intervention in history is established early in the work. 9 While the Jewish view of history suffuses the entire work, and could be teased out of the subtleties of syntax and semantics in innumerable sentences in the BJ, there are plenty of explicit authorial statements to illustrate the point. In Book 1, Pheroras' wife, who tried to commit suicide, was spared through the providence (pronoia) of God, who was seeking to punish Antipater (BJ 1.593). In the next book, significantly God intervened to thwart Caligula's installation of his own statue in the temple in Jerusalem (2.186). These examples could be greatly multiplied. 10 By the time Josephus reaches the outbreak of the Jewish war, he has already established amply that God takes particular care in what happens in the human drama on earth. Thus the reader is not surprised to find that God overturned John of Gischala's impious design to use wood stored in the temple for war machines (5.39), that God saved Titus from a Jewish attack when he arrived at Jerusalem, since "the vicissitudes of war and the perils of kings are under God's care" (5.60), that God gave both John and Simon bar Giora fitting punishments (6.433, 7.34-36, cfr. 271). This vein of historiographical presentation continues to the end of the work: the last thing written before the formal closure is that Catullus' death was an illustration of "God's providence, that He metes out justice to the wicked" (7.453). God's intervention in human history is thus per se a basic assumption which does not require justification or any special notice. 11 The question, which is the main topic of this paper, is when and why God decided to destroy His own temple. The why seems clear, on the surface: Josephus repeats his belief throughout the composition that God used the Romans to purge His temple by fire and punish Jewish sin. Just before the temple is set aflame, Josephus remarks, "God had long ago condemned it [the temple] to fire" (BJ 6.250), and so arranged, in His omnipotence, the second Destruction to coincide precisely with the first. But the why is connected with when: when was the awful decree made? When did the Jews' sins, their defilment of the holy, pass the point of forgiveness? The BJ contains no clear and unambiguous account of the realization of God's decree as historical events progressed. That is to say, disappointment and confusion await both the general Graeco-Roman reader expecting clarity in the historian's presentation of thesis and proof, and the Jewish 9

But not, surprisingly, in the praefatio, which introduces the work's content, themes and polemics. There are many places in the praefatio where Josephus could have inserted mention of God's role in the war and Destruction, e.g. cc. 10, 24, 27-9. One may wonder why he left God out in the praefatio, perhaps because he had a Roman audience in mind for that part, see S. MASON'S article in the forthcoming volume, Josephus between Jerusalem and Rome.

10 Poignant examples: 3.293, 4.361-2. 11 And Josephus' historical actors make the same assumption: 1.84, 215, 373, 378, 390, 631; etc.

112

Jonathan J. Price

reader seeking signs of God's growing wrath, of the dwindling chances for repentance and — the practically unthinkable question — of the point of no return, when the temple's fate was sealed. It turns out that the question, What was the Jews' unforgivable sin and when did they commit it, has no simple answer. Josephus says at BJ 2.455 that after the massacre of the Roman garrison in Rome in late summer 66 CE, the Jews, perceiving that the reasons for war were now irretrievable and that the city was defiled by such an enormous pollution that some sign of divine wrath could reasonably be expected, if not the vengeance of Rome, mourned openly and in public, their dejection magnified by the fact that the massacre took place on the Sabbath, which could not but have compounded the religious offense. This statement, it is true, is not made strictly in the authorial voice — and distinguishing between Josephus' authorial voice and that of his historical actors is, as we shall see, crucial to the interpretation of the BJ — but manifestly in this instance, given the resonances between this statement and others Josephus does make in his own name, it reflects Josephus' own mind. Thus we see that, as war with Rome becomes inevitable, Josephus suggests that the Jews' act of violence inflicts a stain of pollution on them which will have to be cleansed by their own suffering, at once foretelling and justifying God's "cleansing" of His people and holy place, but also deflecting all thought of God fighting on the Jewish side against the gentile Romans. Such were the morbid apprehensions of the Jews at the time, but long before they had committed real defilement of the holy place, and long before the civil conflict had produced its worst horrors. Next, Josephus allows himself a theological speculation when narrating Cestius Gallus' astonishing and inexplicable retreat from Jerusalem when on the verge of victory. Josephus lacks all rational explanation for Cestius' failure anyway, and offers: But I think that God, because of those criminals, had already turned away from His sanctuary and prevented the end of the war from being realized on that day (BJ 2.539). Here Josephus intimates that God had already condemned the temple to destruction and had planned the war to accomplish that end. But why? The reason is neither obvious nor consistent with later representations of the pollution which had to be cleansed. It is true that the rebels had pushed the nation into an impious (in Josephus' later eyes) war and the most militant extremists among them, the Sicarii, had even murdered priests. But the narrative up to this point offers no justification for a decree against the temple — the over-

Josephus' Theological Interpretation of the Jewish War

113

whelmingly compelling logic of that becomes clear only later. If this sentence is to make any sense at all, it must mean that God had already decreed the temple's destruction for what He knew would happen in the future, not what had just been committed. Even after the high priests Ananus son of Ananus and Jesus son of Gamala are murdered, together with their colleagues in Jerusalem's first revolutionary government, in the winter of 66-67, Josephus writes ambiguously about the pollutions which God purged by fire. In his encomium on the murdered leaders, he writes, But in my opinion God, having already condemned the city because of its pollution, and desiring to purify the sanctuary by fire, cut off those who adhered to it and loved it sincerely (4.323). The extremist rebels had not yet taken over Jerusalem or the temple — the murder of Ananus and colleagues began their coup d'itat — and if these murders were the unforgivable pollution for which the temple was going to be destroyed, Josephus would not have said that God cut away the temple's true adherents in order to prepare the building for destruction. Thus not the pollution of the murders, but a different pollution is meant — and for lack of a better candidate, the pollution referred to is one which has not yet happened but will take place now that the extremists were fully in power. Again, the theological speculation seems a projection into the future. The ambiguity is finally dispelled when Josephus, in recounting with disgust and horror the enormities of the extremists in Jerusalem — primarily murders committed by the priestly Zealots — recalls "an ancient saying" (unknown in any earlier source) predicting the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in war "if ever stasis and native hands should defile the holy precinct of God; the Zealots did not disbelieve this but offered themselves as agents of its fulfillment" (4.388). Thus it was in Josephus' view definitively the pollutions and — now — stasis wrought by the Zealots and their revolutionary partners which brought about God's purging of His own sanctuary by fire. And this fits in with the few subsequent statements affirming that God destroyed His own temple. Prime among these statements is the one at BJ 5.19, 12 where Josephus, in writing about the stones and missiles which in the the rebels' civil conflict struck the altar and sanctuary, and even killed sacrificers in the midst of their performing their sacred rite, breaks from his narrative (and role as historian) and apostrophizes the city of Jerusalem:

12

LINDNER, Geschichtsauffassung

(see above n. 5), 132-141.

114

Jonathan J. Price

What misery to equal that, most wretched city, hast thou suffered at the hands of the Romans, who entered to purge with fire thy internal pollutions? For thou wert no longer God's place, nor couldest thou survive, after becoming a sepulchre for the bodies of thine own children and converting the sanctuary into a charnel-house of civil war. 13 The departure from the "law of historical writing" (ό νόμος της γραφής) is so abrupt that Josephus immediately apologizes for the emotional outburst (5.20), but his purpose was important enough to him that he felt it worth risking his own credibility as an historian to drive home his theme in dramatic style: God destroyed the temple because of the atrocities perpetrated there by the extremist rebel factions. Josephus reserved his strongest statement of this for the juncture at which he felt that the bloodshed on the Temple Mount had entered a new stage. In sum, there is a serious difficulty in Josephus' theological interpretation of the temple's destruction: not why God destroyed His temple, but when the decision was made. Although the main reason for the Destruction was the pollution committed there by the extremist rebel factions, God is said to have taken the decision before the rebels even took control of the temple, much less contaminated the sacred ground with blood. The paradox might be easily solved by assuming that God, who knows everything that was and will be, decided before the pollution occurred in the temple to destroy the structure when it in fact happened. But this solution is too easy, for, first, Josephus himself makes no such suggestion, rather he implies (as in 2.539) that God made the decision much closer to the time of the actual offense, in reaction to the atrocities themselves; Josephus himself is interested in the question of when the Jews passed the point of no return (cfr. 2.455). Second, a preordained decree which cannot be overturned by repentance contradicts a major theological concept in Judaism, rooted in the Bible and prevalent in Josephus' day — the power of repentance — in which Josephus himself placed great store.14 The paradox is, moreover, made even more perplexing by Josephus' authorial comments suggesting that God was a master orchestrator and that His ultimate purpose was to ensure Roman victory by favoring the Romans with 13

Quoted in Thackeray's florid rendering (Loeb Classical Library). The statement continues: "Yet might there be hopes for an amelioration of thy lot, if ever thou wouldst propitiate that God who devastated thee" — but this belongs to Josephus' enigmatic apocalyptic beliefs, which cannot be dealt with here.

14

Cfr. 6.310: "God's care for men and by giving various indications of forewarning He signs to His people the way to salvation, but men meet destruction through foolishness and evils of their own devising"; and see discussion of his speech in Book 5, below.

115

Josephus' Theological Interpretation of the Jewish W a r

good decisions and fortunate incident, and Jewish defeat by confusing their judgment and visiting them with grave misfortune. For example, at BJ 3.6 we read that God, "who was already shaping the destinies of empire" (in Thackeray's felicitous phrase), helped Nero in his decision to appoint Vespasian to command the army against the Jews. In a puzzling twist on this same thought, we read in the next book that God confused Titus' judgment in order to bring John of Gischala to Jerusalem to use him as an instrument of the city's destruction.15 This statement accentuates the problem we found in BJ 2.539 above: clearly John will help in the city's destruction not only by physically destroying parts of it, but more importantly by polluting the temple with his outrages, thus providing justification for God's purging the sanctuary by fire. Thus if God decreed the temple's destruction because of its pollution by Jews, why did He deliberately orchestrate the arrival in Jerusalem of the very culprits who would commit the offense? This difficulty is exacerbated in two further passages. First, Josephus states at BJ 4.573 that God twisted the Zealots' judgment in their decision to admit Simon bar Giora to use him against John of Gischala — the Zealots' criminal inclinations seem to be abetted by an act of God. Second, a similar assertion appears at a later stage of the siege, after the Romans' failed attack on the second city wall: the rebel factions giddily assumed that this proved their own invincibility, but Josephus knows better: For God was clouding their judgment because of their offenses, and they saw neither how much stronger was the Roman force which stayed behind than that which had been expelled, nor the famine which was stealthily creeping up on them (BJ 5.343). Was God an accomplice in the rebels' mad crimes? Did He punish the rebels and in fact the entire Jewish population for something which He Himself helped bring about — by orchestrating John's arrival in the city and then perverting the rebels' minds so that they persisted in their sins? There is unfortunately no guidance to be found in Josephus' rendering in AJ of the hardening of Pharaoh's heart by God and the suffering of all Egypt, which element of the biblical story Josephus removes and converts rather into a confrontation between God and the presumptuous, fearful, wicked and unwise Pharaoh. 16 Moreover, just as in AJ Josephus fails to address a major theological difficulty in the biblical story, that of the destruction of the innocent because of the crimes of the guilty, so in BJ, in relating the disembowelment of Jewish refu-

15

BJ 4.104, cfr. 3.404: G o d w a s arousing in Vespasian thoughts of empire.

16

Cfr. AJ 2.299-310, and see L.H. FELDMAN, Josephus' ley/Los Angeles/London 1998, HOff.

Interpretation

of the Bible,

Berke-

Jonathan J. Price

116

gees from Jerusalem b y Arab and Syrian auxiliaries searching for swallowed gold (BJ 5.559), he acknowledges that "It was G o d w h o h a d c o n d e m n e d the entire people and w a s turning every path of salvation to destruction". So far I h a v e dealt primarily with authorial statements. It should b e noted that various historical actors in the narrative also m a k e theological pronouncements, and Josephus can affirm his o w n purpose b y putting the correct theological interpretation of events in the mouth of R o m a n s a n d a delusional interpretation in the m o u t h of Jews. Titus seems to h a v e especially keen theological insight: h e tells his army that all signs reveal that G o d is helping them and hurting the Jews (BJ 6.38-41), he accuses the Jewish rebels of polluting the temple and declares that G o d has abandoned it (6.127), a n d h e declares — correctly in J o s e p h u s ' v i e w — that God alone b r o u g h t the J e w s d o w n f r o m the towers at the e n d of the siege (6.411). 17 Conversely, the J e w s m i s r e a d events and misunderstand G o d ' s purpose, seeing in temporary success, or even in the absence of success, divine providence. This is true, of course, especially for the faction leaders. J o h n attributes his rising position in Jerusalem to G o d ' s providence (4.219), the factions in general b l a m e their stasis on G o d without understanding the deeper significance of it (5.278), for they did not give u p their defiant belief that G o d w o u l d save them in the end (5.459). Yet not just the rebel factions, but the people themselves — for the m o s t part innocent victims, according to J o s e p h u s ' presentation — hopefully misread G o d ' s intentions in events: at Ascalon (3.28), at Gamala (4.26), and particularly in Jerusalem, where false prophets promising salvation b e c a m e m o r e p r o m i n e n t as the situation b e c a m e m o r e desperate, leading the people to misunderstand " t h e proclamations of G o d " (6.285ff., 310ff.). Even Ananus, the t e m p o r a r y hero in Jerusalem, was p r o n e to the misconception that God w a s his ally (4.288). Only after the end of the city and temple, at Masada, do the rebels see the truth of G o d ' s purpose as revealed in historical events, and a c k n o w l e d g e that G o d has abandoned them (7.331, 333, 359, 387), and of course G o d is said to h a v e h e l p e d the Romans at that final siege (7.319). The strongest statement of Josephus' theological interpretation of the war appears in the speech he delivers to the rebels in besieged Jerusalem (BJ 5 . 3 7 6 419). 1 8 The theme is a n n o u n c e d at the outset: Will y o u not turn and look on the place from w h i c h y o u rise u p to give battle, a n d on h o w great an ally you have enraged? Will y o u not recall y o u r forefathers' marvelous accomplishments, a n d the great wars this

17

Vespasian also benefited from prescience, BJ 3.144, 4.370 (cfr. 4.366-7).

18

SPILLSBURY, "Josephus" (see above n. 5) and LINDNER, Geschichtsauffassung n. 5 ) , 2 5 - 3 3 .

(see above

Josephus' Theological Interpretation of the Jewish War

117

holy place won for us long ago?... Know that you are warring not only against the Romans but also against God (5.377-8). This is followed by a survey of all Jewish history, proving that God helped the Jews when their cause was righteous and punished them for their sins, and ends with a peroration hammering home the main point: As for me, I believe that God has fled His sanctuary and stands on the side of those with whom you are now fighting... You parade your crimes and daily contend over who will be worse, and you display your villainy as if it were virtue (5.412, 414). Thus Josephus shows himself trying to persuade the hardened rebel leaders to preserve the city and the temple, along with countless Jewish lives, by giving up the fight. All legible signs on earth make it clear that God has favored the Romans with empire, is appalled by Jewish offenses in the temple and will bring about their utter defeat. Now these statements seem clear enough, and they are often cited out of context as illustrations of Josephus' theological interpretation of the war. But in context they are quite problematic, for while after the Destruction it was possible to see that God had abandoned His temple and to speculate on the reasons, the thought of both the Destruction and God's abandonment of His people were practically unthinkable before that: so long as the temple stood, God's presence was felt to be among them; and surely, even if the Jews were defeated in battle, God would preserve His own temple. Moreover, Josephus' speech contains a crucial element which is absent from all of his other authorial statements: an exhortation to repentance, an expressed belief that repentance may still work to save the temple, that the point of no return had not been crossed, that God would still turn a willing ear to true repentance (5.415). This idea flatly contradicts Josephus' earlier omniscient statements that the temple was already doomed. Thus, although the author himself is speaking, we have to understand the speech as the representation of Josephus' understanding at the time of delivery: on the one hand, he prophetically proclaimed God's mind and intentions, for the shocking assertions in the speech were made before sure proof of his assertions about God's will was at hand; yet on the other, he still placed hope — as any believing Jew would have at the time, even in the depths of despair — in the power of repentance and God's mercy. That his belief in repentance was mistaken the reader knows from Josephus' statements as historian. To sum up: while Josephus clearly believed that God used the Romans as an instrument to destroy the temple to punish Jewish sin, there is some confusion in the BJ as to when the decree was final, in reaction to which offense, and God's own ambiguous role in facilitating the very sins which He was punishing.

118

Jonathan J. Price

Josephus scholars are often satisfied with merely pointing out a conceptual or narrative inconsistency in his writing, and marking it down as yet another example of his carelessness, confusion, stupidity or — worse — duplicity and mendacity. But in this case, at least, Josephus was deeply serious and highly intelligent, and he was not necessarily trying to please more than one audience — in fact, his bold statements would have risked offending his Roman patrons, who certainly liked to think of themselves, in their suppression of the Jewish rebellion, as something more than mere instruments of God used to punish sinning Jews. In the Roman self-presentation, the empire, the Roman achievement — which was based on many instances, over hundreds of years, of tough but sweeping victories like the one in first-century Judaea — was the result of their own virtues and the consequent divine favor. Needless to say this divine favor had no teleological aspect, except perhaps maintenance of the empire itself, but that is not the point here — the empire was supposed to reflect Roman merit, and it was supposed to be good in itself, rather than reflect the wickedness of its inhabitants and its imposition as a necessity, albeit a benevolent one. Even the assertion in Agrippa II's speech (BJ 2.345-401) and Josephus' own, that the Romans held empire through God's favor, carried the implication that God would one day remove power from their hands and restore it to the Jews.19 The statements quoted above, although they do not amount to a systematic, completely consistent theological conception, represent the historian's genuine voice and serious purpose. Josephus did not intend for the reader to pull the various statements out of context and string them together in order to find a coherent, fully worked-out theology. As always, he wrote close to context, even at the risk of ambiguity or contradiction. Each theological speculation, even those which seem premature, has an immediate narrative function. The Jewish leaders' despair at the beginning of the rebellion (2.455), the incomprehensibility of Cestius' retreat (2.539), the horror of Ananus' assassination (4.323) are all reinforced by an authorial assertion about the hand of God — the rebellion, the suffering, the destruction were all part of a grand divine plan, and this basic belief at least is not compromised by the inconsistencies among the different theological asseverations. Similarly, the assertions that God orchestrated rebels' offenses or confused their wits to aid their criminality are meant as nothing more than narrative reinforcements, again, of the idea that God was behind the amazing turns of events, and that underneath the confusion and chaos there was a coherent, if awful, divine plan. The confusion which emerges from close analysis of Josephus' statements is the result of the fact that, first, Josephus was writing history, not theology, 19

M. STERN, "Josephus and the Roman Empire as Reflected in The Jewish War", in Josephus, Judaism and Chrsitanity, ed. by L.H. FELDMAN, G. HATA, Detroit 1987, 71-80.

Josephus' Theological Interpretation of the Jewish War

119

and while his convictions were deeply held he mentioned them not as theological instruction but to help guide and emphasize the important points in his historical narrative. Second, any confusion or unclarity in the interpretation of God's intentions probably reflected a genuine, utterly natural confusion in Josephus himself (despite his confident historian's voice) and his entire generation about the real meaning of the profound trauma which exceeded their imagination and understanding.

Strabone e la cosiddetta riforma ellenistica di

Lucio TROIANI I. La 'riforma' che ha portato alia reazione maccabaica non cessa di sollevare questioni e le interpretazioni piü differenti e variegate, in specie riguardo ai suoi contenuti. E, infatti, difficile fornire una risposta univoca, data la natura delle nostre fonti che provengono dalla tradizione ebraica e cristiana. Senza i primi due libri dei Maccabei e la narrazione parallela, contenuta nelle Antichitä Giudaiche di Flavio Giuseppe, noi non avremmo che cenni sparsi e saltuari sull'evento. D'altra parte, se un'insurrezione contro un impero cosi vasto, alimentata da una guerriglia nell'altipiano di Giuda, poteva avere qualche eco nell'opinione pubblica, e difficile aspettarsi resoconti esaurienti su un episodio di guerra civile con venature religiose, scoppiata in un ethnos della satrapia seleucidica di "Celesiria e Fenicia". Dobbiamo ricorrere all'epitome dell'opera di Pompeo Trogo, eseguita da Giustino, per trovare un cenno alia sedizione che sarebbe avvenuta ai tempi di Demetrio I. L'autore sa che Antioco VII riportö i Giudei sotto la sua dominazione; ma solo momentaneamente, perche "le loro forze erano cosi grandi che, dopo questi avvenimenti, non soppor-tarono piü alcun re dei Macedoni e, sfruttando le forze domestiche, infestarono la Siria con grandi guerre". Visto da questa prospettiva, quello maccabaico e un movimento di libertä ("con le armi rivendicarono la libertä al tempo di Demetrio padre"), senza alcun connotato di natura religiosa e con finalitä eversive e indipendentiste. Di tono analogo appare il cenno tacitiano che conosce un periodo monarchico della storia ebraica, dovuto alia felice coincidenza dell'indebolimento dei Macedoni, della lontananza, in quel momento, dei Romani e della non ancora consolidata egemonia dei Parti in Oriente. La descrizione tacitiana dei sovrani maccabaici lascia intravedere un periodo confuso ed instabile che sembra riferirsi specialmente agli anni di regno di Alessandro Gianneo. Lo storico assegna alia mobilitä del volgo la cacciata dei re nazionali. Egli sottolinea il seguito di guerre e disastri che questi conflitti portarono con se: "fughe di cittadini, distruzioni di cittä, stragi di fratelli, coniugi, genitori. Ε altre cose solite ai re". Egli aggiunge il motivo della superstizione che sarebbe stata favorita da questi re brutali e dispotici. Questo perche l'onore del sacerdozio era stato assunto come strumento per rafforzare il potere. La dinastia maccabaica unisce il

122

Lucio Troiani

trono all'altare e impiega il rituale e la sacralitä del tempio per rafforzare la propria autoritä. Indipendentemente dalle note posizioni di Tacito in materia, filtra qui, nella rievocazione della storia maccabaica, il motivo della superstizione. II regno degli Asmonei e un miscuglio di dispotismo e superstizione, usato per assicurarsi un potere meno precario e corrisponde in genere a quei requisiti con cui era presentato da secoli nella pubblicistica romana l'istituto monarchico (la lotta alle monarchie era stato lo slogan propagandistico che aveva animato le guerre della repubblica d'oltremare contro le grandi dinastie ellenistiche). Nella visuale di Tacito, la dinastia dei Maccabei non ha fatto che continuare quella pratica superstiziosa che re Antioco avrebbe voluto estirpare. Perche, in Tacito, la riforma ellenistica fu avviata da Antioco che non vi sarebbe riuscito a causa del concorso di eventi contingenti sopraggiunti. Si tratta di una riforma che impone i costumi greci (come nella descrizione di II Mac., ma senza la precisazione che a "rimuovere la superstizione" sarebbe stata anzitutto una parte della classe dirigente gerosolimitana). L'allusione tacitiana ad Antioco IV si giustifica con il suo quadro dell'ebraismo che riflette l'attuale momento di isolamento internazionale, seguito alia guerra del 70 d.C. II separatismo giudaico e per lui sostanzialmente irreversibile dai tempi di Antioco. Ε stato questo il motivo che lo ha indotto ad entrare - sia pure concisamente nel merito della cosiddetta riforma. D'altra parte, la letteratura giudaica di lingua greca, se si eccettuano i libri dei Maccabei e Flavio Giuseppe, non contiene cenni espliciti. Filone non conosce alcuna rivolta di Giuda Maccabeo e invano si cerca nella sua vasta opera un'allusione chiara e univoca al movimento riformista, autorizzato da re Antioco Epifane, e alia successiva reazione. Le lettere, allegate in testa a II Mac., illustrano la difficoltä che il movimento dovette incontrare per accreditarsi presso il giudaismo egiziano e inserirsi nel solco della tradizione. Certamente, la 'riforma' e gli avvenimenti immediatamente seguenti dovettero segnare una cesura nella storia dell'ebraismo, se e vero che Giuseppe precisa che i "Greci" hanno interrotto, con re Antioco Epifane, l'attenzione per la storia ebraica (Guerra Giudaica 1,18). In un brano di Diodoro riecheggiano tutte le perplessitä e le riserve che il movimento suscito neH'opinione pubblica internazionale. Anche qui il regime asmonaico e visto come regime dispotico e violento che ha reso schiavi i cittadini. Ε significativo che Diodoro metta in bocca questo giudizio ai notabili giudei, piü di 200, che avrebbero chiesto udienza a Pompeo nel momento in cui la corona era contesa fra Ircano II e Aristobulo. Ε probabile che in particolare gli avvenimenti, segnati dalle turbolenze del regno di Alessandro Gianneo fino al dissidio tra Aristobulo e Ircano II, abbiano influenzato il giudizio sulla dinastia, lacerata da conflitti intestini non meno che dall'affacciarsi di Roma in Oriente. In tutti i casi, cenni espliciti alla riforma, in specie con riferimento ai suoi contenuti religiosi, mancano e prevale l'aspetto politico degli avvenimenti del II secolo a.C. collegati con la Giudea, anche se un cenno di Polibio - contenuto nel libro XVI delle Storie relativo agli eventi in Oriente del 201-200 a.C. - "a

Strabone e la cosiddetta riforma ellenistica

123

un'epifania avvenuta nel tempio", cui 1'autore vorrebbe dedicare apposita trattazione in un momento successivo, suggerisce che gli avvenimenti maccabaici, anche nei loro retroscena religiosi, non devono essere stati del tutto sconosciuti agli storici greci. Al dire di Flavio Giuseppe, Polibio aveva trattato e deplorato il saccheggio del tempio di Gerusalemme da parte di re Antioco IV Epifane. Ε l'ampia digressione, dedicata da Giasone di Cirene all'episodio di Eliodoro nel tempio (II Mac. 3), indica che da cittä della diaspora cominciarono a circolare e filtrare varie dicerie sulle vicende maccabaiche come pure sui prodromi della reazione. Ad eccezione di Tacito, pero, mancano notizie esplicite, nella letteratura storica greco-romana, sul movimento riformista e assimilazionista di cui parlano i due libri dei Maccabei. Esiste pero un'eccezione che e costituita da Strabone.

II. Ritessere la fitta trama di cui e intessuta la ricerca sull'ipotetica fonte di Strabone e compito che qui non si assolve di proposito. Le considerazioni migliori al riguardo sono contenute, a mio giudizio, nel volume di Menahem Stern. In tutti i casi, qualunque sia stata la fonte usata da Strabone, le sue pagine contengono un riferimento non di facciata agli aspetti anche religiosi e culturali che il movimento riformista ha assunto agli occhi della pubblica opinione. Come sembra chiaro, 1'excursus straboniano su Mose e la sua opera di riformatore religioso e sintonizzato con gli avvenimenti che videro la nascita della riforma e le fasi della reazione successiva. In sostanza, l'enfasi straboniana su Mose come riformatore religioso sembra essere subordinata alio spirito con cui sono narrati i fatti maccabaici. L'autore di Amaseia riferisce che la piü accreditata, fra le voci relative al tempio di Gerusalemme, sta ad indicare gli Egiziani come gli antenati di quelli che ora sono chiamati Giudei. La sua prospettiva etnografica verte sul tempio e sulla religione. Quello di nomoteta e un aspetto secondario della figura di Mose, che trapela quando Strabone cerca di rendere comprensibile al lettore di educazione greca l'attivitä e il ruolo di Mose nella fondazione della nazione ebraica. L'origine egiziana dei Giudei e collegata al santuario. Mose e rappresentato come un innovatore in fatto di religione. Egli, che e identificato in un sacerdote egiziano, sarebbe stato insoddisfatto della concezione teriomorfa e antropomorfa della divinitä, diffusa rispettivamente fra gli Egiziani e i Greci. Dio sarebbe la "natura dell'esistente" e come potrebbe essere ridotto a immagini? Dunque, bando alia fabbricazione di statue. Si alia delimitazione di un'area sacra e a un sacello, con cerimonie e riti sacri senza immagini e figure. Perche la divinitä manda comunque un segno a quelli che vivono in maniera savia e con giustizia. II canale privilegiato attraverso cui la divinitä comunica, cioe i sogni, non si sottrae alio spirito razionalistico ed etico

124

Lucio Troiani

del brano. AlYincubatio e sottratto ogni connotato irrazionale e avulso da questa logica. II programma esposto da Mose avrebbe convinto non pochi uomini di nobili sentiment! In questo modo Ii condusse nel luogo in cui fu fondata l'attuale Gerusalemme. La presa di possesso del territorio fu facile. II luogo non era oggetto di invidie e contese. Nessuno avrebbe combattuto con zelo in sua difesa. Volendo cercare la sede, Mose, al posto delle armi, mise avanti i sacra e il divino. II culto e le sacre cerimonie, da lui istituite, non imponevano ai devoti spese eccessive ne Ii affliggevano con pratiche traumatizzanti e sconvolgenti come l'essere posseduti dal dio ed altre assurde operazioni. Approssimativamente in quest'epoca, Varrone annovera i Giudei tra quei popoli che castius osservano gli dei senza immagini, esattamente come avrebbero fatto i Romani antichi per piü di 170 anni. La razionalitä, la sobrietä e la nitidezza del culto avrebbero procurato a Mose "un potere non comune", dal momento che si accostavario con facilitä tutti quelli d'intorno, per avere contatti e per quanto veniva presentato. Questa visione ecumenica di Mose (che, a differenza dei cliche correnti, non e presentato in prima battuta come legislatore), il quale avrebbe creato una religione semplice e lineare, non toccata da elementi irrazionali e fanatici, puo essere considerato un unicum nella letteratura storica antica di provenienza greco-romana. La rappresentazione, per altri versi similare di Ecateo di Abdera, e sotto questo punto, discrepante: il Mose del filosofo ed etnografo greco avrebbe istituito un genere di vita ostile agli stranieri e asociale. Se pensiamo all'esoterismo che di norma circonda i precetti di Mose nella pubblicistica greco-romana, questa singolare rappresentazione non puö che destare sorpresa. II punto sembra che essa sia stata formulata in un'epoca e in un ambiente peculiari. Apriamo il I libro dei Maccabei (1,11-12): In quei giorni uscirono da Israele uomini empi e convinsero molti, dicendo: "Andiamo e stringiamo un patto con le nazioni che sono intorno a noi, in quanto dal giorno in cui ci separammo da esse, ci capitarono molti mali". Ε il discorso piacque ai loro occhi. Questo slogan dei riformatori rivendica l'esistenza e auspica la valorizzazione di un periodo anteriore al presunto isolazionismo attuale. Ε una sorta di manifesto della riforma che rivisita la storia delle origini di Israele. Che autorizza e giustifica la "mescolanza" e i contatti, muovendo dalle origini stesse del popolo e dall'ideologia del suo fondatore. Mose e un sacerdote innovatore; e non un legislatore. II cardine della sua dottrina e etico. Dunque universale. La giustizia e la saggezza devono sempre aspettarsi un dono e un segno da parte della divinitä. Vengono in mente alcune considerazioni che Filone alessandrino attribuisce a quanti vorrebbero sottrarre ai precetti della legge ogni senso letterale (,SulVemigrazione di Abramo §§ 88-93). La dottrina mosaica diventa un codice di comportamenti etici universalmente riconosciuti. Come apprendiamo da un passo di II Mac., in quest'ottica l'esercizio esclusivo e letterale delle tradizioni

Strabone e la cosiddetta riforma ellenistica

125

patrie diviene sirionimo di separazione e opposizione ai nuovi principi etici. Un patriota gerosolimitano, Razis, soprannominato "padre dei Giudei", era stato incriminato di "giudaismo" nei tempi precedenti alia reazione maccabaica (II Mac. 14,38). Anche se da una prospettiva completamente diversa, il sommo sacerdote Eleazar spiega secondo questi parametri il senso delle prescrizioni alimentari contenute nel Pentateuco (Pseudo-Aristea §§ 128-166). Secondo Strabone, Mose avrebbe messo al bando ogni forma di esoterismo e fanatismo religioso e avrebbe introdotto un culto razionale, sobrio e ispirato al buon senso che avrebbe attirato il concorso e l'approvazione dei popoli limitrofi. La sua religione e fondata sui valori universali dell'etica piü che sulle disposizioni della legge.

III. Tale rappresentazione apologetica puö essere forse collocata meglio nel tempo e nello spazio e sembra avere di mira i tempi e le vicissitudini intervenuti prima e dopo la riforma. Ascoltiamo quello che Strabone dice in seguito: I suoi successori, per un certo periodo, rimasero fedeli agli stessi principi, operando secondo giustizia ed essendo per davvero timorati di Dio. In seguito, costituiti al sacerdozio prima personaggi superstiziosi, poi tirannici, dalla superstizione le astensioni dai cibi, dai quali anche ora e loro costume astenersi, e le circoncisioni e le recisioni e certe pratiche della stessa risma; dalle tirannidi i latrocini. Alcuni infatti, ribellatisi, devastavano il territorio; tanto il proprio quanto quello contiguo; altri, collaborando con le autoritä, arraffavano le proprietä altrui e conquistarono molta della Siria e Fenicia. Era presente, pero, intorno alia loro acropoli un certo decoro; non ne avevano repulsione come luogo di tirannide, ma la veneravano e magnificavano come luogo sacro. Queste righe rappresentano probabilmente una lettura rovesciata dello spirito con cui sono narrati gli avvenimenti nei due libri dei Maccabei. L'introduzione di norme giudicate superstiziose, quali la circoncisione e le leggi alimentari, sono collegate con operazioni illegali e con l'instaurazione di un regime tirannico. Dalla superstizione sarebbero nate intolleranza e dispotismo. Sono state tali norme, introdotte dai sacerdoti, a creare le premesse di un regime oppressivo, prima camuffato sotto le insegne dello stato sacerdotale, ma poi "manifestamente" tirannico, quando Alessandro Gianneo designö se stesso re al posto di sacerdote. Osserviamo come proprio l'osservanza di tali norme "superstiziose", precisamente la circoncisione e le prescrizioni alimentari (che sarebbero state introdotte da indegni epigoni di Mose, secondo la versione di Strabone),

126

Lucio Troiani

abbia dato occasione ad episodi di martirio ed eroismo, secondo la versione dei libri dei Maccabei. Strabone ha qui recepito un'eco e un frammento della propaganda riformista? L'accenno al movimento maccabaico come movimento sovversivo e illegale, che si sarebbe appropriato indebi-tamente di territori della corona, trova un'eco specialmente in quei passi di I Mac. in cui si rinnovano da parte della corona accuse di appropriazione illecita a Jonathan e poi a Simone (ad esempio I Mac. 15,28-31). Antioco VII mandö da Simone uno dei suoi "amici" per avere un incontro con lui e presentare le seguenti rimostranze: Voi avete preso possesso di Ioppe, di Gazara e dell'Akra di Gerusalemme, cittä del mio regno. Avete devastato i loro territori e avete inferto un grande colpo alia regione e siete divenuti signori di molte zone del mio regno. Ora dunque, restituite le cittä che avete occupato e i tributi delle localitä di cui siete divenuti padroni, fuori della Giudea. Altrimenti, risarcite 500 talenti d'argento e per le distruzioni che avete provocato e per i tributi delle cittä altri 500 talenti. Se no, verremo e vi faremo guerra. Ancora con il successore di Simone, Giovanni Ircano I, re Antioco VII, dopo un assedio di Gerusalemme, chiede ostaggi, riscuote i tributi dovuti e smantella le mura (Diodoro 34-35,1,5 = Stern, op. cit., n. 63). Ma e in particolare il dettaglio sulla "loro acropoli" a mostrare la possibile provenienza e lo spirito del testo straboniano. Probabilmente, esso preserva ricordo del simbolo materiale della riforma che sopravvisse alia riconsacrazione del tempio ad opera di Giuda Maccabeo, vale a dire quella che il primo libro dei Maccabei chiama "Akra". Qui, per oltre un trentennio, il partito della riforma visse come accerchiato e assediato dal movimento maccabaico. Nel decreto onorifico per Simone e annoverata fra le sue benemerenze quella di avere estirpato quelli nella cittä di David, quelli di Gerusalemme che si erano fatti un'Akra, dalla quale eseguivano sortite e contaminavano i dintorni dei luoghi santi e procuravano un grave colpo alia puritä (I Mac., 14,36). Strabone non puö intendere il santuario con "acropoli" che per di piü - egli dice - veneravano "come un tempio". Noi possiamo ipotizzare inoltre che, dietro l'oscuro cenno del libro di Daniele al "dio delle fortezze" (11,38), si nasconda un riferimento all'Akra che divenne punto di riferimento dei riformisti, anche in materia di culto, e che sopravvisse per oltre 25 anni alia riconsacrazione del tempio ad opera di Giuda Maccabeo. Qui, a differenza che all'esterno, secondo la visuale dei cosiddetti riformatori, i "tiranni" ancora non esercitavano il potere e i sacerdoti "superstiziosi" erano banditi e qui, verosimilmente, la vita civi-

Strabone e la cosiddetta riforma ellenistica

127

le e religiosa fu organizzata secondo i modelli della riforma. L'autore appare consapevole che il decoro che circondava l'Akra appartiene al passato. II decora si contrappone manifestamente alia barbarie e alia superstizione introdotte dalla nuova classe dirigente assurta al sacerdozio. Sotto questa luce il resoconto iniziale su Mose lascerebbe trapelare la nuova ideologia della riforma che voleva bandire con la forza ogni forma di segregazionismo ed isolamento. Le origini del giudaismo sono riformulate e rifondate alia luce dello spirito della riforma. II contatto e l'apertura ai vicini sono le nuove parole d'ordirte. Talora, sotto la spinta di un'interpretazione deterministica e univoca degli avvenimenti storici, pensiamo che la riforma sia scomparsa sotto i colpi di Giuda Maccabeo e dei suoi successori. Nel 139 a.C., secondo una discussa notizia tratta da Valerio Massimo (redazione di Nepoziano), alcuni giudei a Roma avrebbero tentato di innalzare are private su suolo pubblico. Secondo la redazione di Giulio Paride, essi tentarono di contaminare i mores romani con il culto di Giove Sabazio. La stranezza dei dati, che non cessa di sollevare questioni, non puo essere superata immaginando gli antichi piü all'oscuro di noi e correggendo la loro presunta sbadataggine. Nell'etä della redazione dei Vangeli, i "greci" costituiscono ancora un gruppo e una realtä nel panorama culturale del giudaismo contemporaneo. Introdurre i greci nel santuario di Gerusalemme (At 21,28) ο rifugiarsi da loro (Gv 7,35) diventa testimonianza di degradazione e svilimento agli occhi dell'establishment.

IV. Ancora, l'origine egiziana di Mose e la sua funzione sacerdotale risentiranno anche della prospettiva da cui Strabone guarda alle origini della nazione. Egli conosce il tempio di Leontopoli e la katoikia dei Giudei nella regione e narrava da vicino le vicende dinastiche egiziane con un occhio al ruolo svolto da questa colonia militare. Secondo una tradizione che presto si e confusa e aggrovigliata forse in modo inestricabile, ai tempi maccabaici, il legittimo sommo sacerdote di Gerusalemme sarebbe andato a fondare il tempio di Leontopoli. Al di lä delle aporie e delle oscuritä dell'antica tradizione, questo dato, insieme alle due lettere allegate in II Mac., e indizio delle difficoltä e delle lacerazioni che colpirono il giudaismo in questo periodo e del ruolo che l'Egitto ricopri anche nei suoi aspetti culturali nel corso della querelle. Strabone parlava delle vicende dinastiche egiziane anteriori alia morte di Giovanni Ircano, con 1'attenzione rivolta alia colonia di Leontopoli e non e da escludere che il suo excursus su Mose e avvenimenti successivi sia un'eco degli avvenimenti maccabaici filtrata da ambienti dell'ebraismo egiziano. Strabone sa che e in Egitto (visuale analoga e espressa da Filone in un'opera apologetica) che la nazione acquistö forza, "perche i Giudei in origine sono Egiziani". Ne e un caso che nei medesimi anni

128

Lucio Troiani

il filosofo peripatetico Aristobulo, in un'opera esegetica delle sacre scritture dedicata all'attenzione del re, parli dell'esodo degli Ebrei dall'Egitto come della prima fase della storia della nazione cosi come sarebbe stata tradotta, prima deH'iniziativa della pubblicazione in greco del Pentateuco, sotto la supervisione di Demetrio Falereo e il patrocinio di Tolemeo II Filadelfo.

Nota bibliografica Sulla storia maccabaica: E. SCHÜRER, Storia del popolo giudaico

al tempo di Gesu Cristo, vol. I,

edizione italiana a cura di O. SOFFRITTI, Brescia 1 9 8 5 , 1 7 7 - 3 0 9 . Per una ricerca approfondita e non convenzionale sopra il senso e la derivazione della rivolta maccabaica: E.J. BLCKERMAN, The God of the Maccabees,

Leiden 1979; IDEM, Gli Ebrei in etä greca, Bologna 1991. Sulla

testimonianza di P o m p e o Trogo-Giustino, cfr. M. STERN, Greek and Latin Authors and Judaism,

STERN, Greek and Latin Authors Greek and Latin Authors

(supra), vol. II, 1980, n. 281. Sul passo di Diodoro, STERN,

(supra), I, n. 64. Sulla lotta alle monarchie, cfr. E.J. BLCKERMAN, Reli-

gions and Politics in the Hellenistic

and Roman Periods,

140. Su Polibio, STERN, Greek and Latin Authors

C o m o 1985, 3 7 - 6 8 , specialmente 1 0 1 -

(supra), I, nn. 32, 33. Su Eliodoro, cfr. E.J. Bl-

CKERMAN, " H e l i o d o r e au temple de Jerusalem" ( 1 9 3 9 ^ 4 ) ripubblicato in Studies and Christian Latin Authors

History,

in

Jewish

vol. II, Leiden 1980, 159-191. Sul passo di Strabone, STERN, Greek

(supra), I, n. 115. Sul passo di Varrone, STERN, Greek and Latin Authors

pra), n. 72a. Sul M o s e di Ecateo di Abdera, J.G. GAGER, Moses Nashville 1972; STERN, Greek and Latin Authors xandria,

on Jews

vol. I, Jerusalem 1976, n. 137. L'excursus di Tacito e riportato e commentato in

in Greco-Roman

and (su-

Paganism,

(supra), I, n. 11; P.M. FRASER, Ptolemaic

Ale-

Oxford 1972. Sull'Akra, cfr. I Mac. 1 , 3 3 ^ 0 : qui nel giudizio dell'autore fu impian-

tato " u n popolo peccatore" costituito da trasgressori della legge. Qui essi acquistarono forza e potere. II luogo costitui un'insidia costante per Israele. L ' A k r a e qualcosa di piü di u n a cittadella. Dal c o m m e n t o di Porfirio a Daniele 11,38-39 ricaviamo u n indizio che l'acropoli possa essere divenuta sede di culto di un dio straniero (F.M. ABEL, Les Livres des Paris 1949, 179). Sulla notizia di Valerio Massimo, STERN, Greek and Latin Authors nn.

147-147b;

E.S.

GRUEN,

Diaspora.

Jews

amidst

Greeks

and

Romans,

Maccabees, (supra),

Cambridge,

Mass./London 2002, 1 5 - 1 9 . Sull'articolazione del pensiero giudaico, cfr. G. JOSSA, I giudaici

gruppi

ai tempi di Gesu, Brescia 2001. Sulla fedeltä della colonia militare dei Giudei di O-

nia, cfr. STERN, Greek and Latin Authors

(supra), n. 99. Sulla forza dei Giudei in Egitto per-

che " s o n o in origine Egiziani", STERN, Greek and Latin Authors

(supra), n. 105. Sulla fon-

dazione del tempio di Leontopoli, F. PARENTE, "Onias III' death and the founding of the Temple of Leontopolis" in Josephus

& the History of the Greco-Roman

Period:

ory of Morton Smith, ed. by F. PARENTE, J. SLEVERS, Leiden 1994, 6 9 - 9 8 .

Essays in Mem-

Verso un'edizione italiana dell'archivio di Babatha II P a p i r o Y a d i n 1: testo e t r a d u z i o n e di CORRADO Μ ARTONE

L'archivio di Babatha e un importante gruppo di documenti di natura legale rinvenuti nella cosiddetta "Grotta delle Lettere" a Nahal Hever e risalenti, grosso modo, al periodo tra la fine del I e gli inizi del II secolo e.v. (93-132 e.V.). L'archivio e un insieme di atti giudiziari e contratti riguardanti una donna ebrea di nome, appunto, Babatha (ΧΓ03 ,ΠΓΠ2 ,Βαβαθα) figlia di Simeone, proveniente da Mahoza (ΧΠΠΏ ,Μαωζα). 1 1 documenti di questa donna - per la gran parte in greco, ma anche in aramaico e nabateo - sono di grandissimo interesse per ciö che ci mostrano su particolari aspetti della vita di una donna ebrea benestante tra I e II secolo e.v. quali il divorzio, il matrimonio e altre questioni giuridiche ed economiche. L'archivio ha subito la stessa sorte di molti altri documenti provenienti dal Deserto di Giuda in quanto e stato pubblicato in un arco di tempo decisamente esteso se consideriamo che la Grotta delle Lettere fu scavata da Y. Yadin in due spedizioni nel 1960 e nel 1961 2 e che, pur dopo varie pubblicazioni e studi parziali, 3 i testi greci sono stati pubblicati per intero nel 1989 4 e quelli ebraici, aramaici e nabatei solo nel 2002. 5

1

Su questo e altri toponimi nell'archivio di Babatha, cfr. H . M . COTTON, "Babatha's "patria"; M a h o z a , M a h o z Eglatain and Z o a r " , Epigraphik

2

in Zeitschrift

für

Papyrologie

und

107 (1995), 1 2 6 - 1 3 2 .

Y. YADIN, "Expedition D " , in IE] 11 (1961), 3 6 - 5 2 ; Y. YADIN, "Expedition D - The Cave of the Letters," in IEj 12 (1962), 2 2 7 - 2 5 7 .

3

Per un elenco dei lavori piü recenti, si veda la Appendice,

4

N. LEWIS, Y. YADIN, J.C. GREENFIELD, The Documents Cave of Letters:

Greek Papyri;

Aramaic

and Nabatean

nota 15.

from

the Bar Kokhba

Signatures

Period in the

and Subscriptions,

J D S 2,

Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, The Shrine of the Book, 1989. 5

Y. YADIN, J.C. GREENFIELD, A. YARDENI, B.A. LEVINE, The Documents Period

in the Cave of Letters:

Hebrew,

Aramaic

and Nabatean

Papyri,

from the Bar

Kokhba

J D S 3, Jerusalem:

Israel Exploration Society, 2002. Per una lista completa dei testi dell'Archivio di Babatha si v e d a la

Appendice.

130

Corrado Martone

Sembrano dunque maturi i tempi per un'analisi comprensiva di questi testi,6 analisi che, come e ovvio, non puo prescindere da una edizione e traduzione dei testi medesimi nella nostra lingua.7 A mo' di prodromo a questa edizione e dunque un onore per noi offrire a Günter Stemberger il testo e una traduzione preliminare del Papiro Yadin 1 nonche, come appendice, le indicazioni bibliografiche relative aWeditio princeps di ciascun documento dell'Archivio di Babatha, archivio che, come accennato, contiene molte indicazioni di grande interesse anche per quanto concerne il periodo e la letteratura nella quale il professor Stemberger ha esercitato il suo alto magistero. * *

*

II Papiro Yadin 1 (= 5/6Hev l), 8 di cui si da qui il testo e una traduzione preliminare puo essere identificato, nonostante le numerose lacune e difficolta paleografiche e linguistiche, come una promessa di ripagare un debito entro un determinato lasso di tempo 9 da parte di un marito alia propria moglie. Circostanza questa sicuramente degna di approfondimento per quanto riguarda il ruolo della donna nella Giudea del I sec. e.v. Nella seconda parte (11. 46-52) la moglie (quindi, come detto, il creditore) da il suo consenso al prestito. Ε interessante notare, proprio nell'ottica dell'offerta di questo breve studio a Günter Stemberger, che alia 1. 18 del documento il prestito viene inquadrato nell'ambito del Ul!3, istituto ben noto nella letteratura rabbinica, che lo Jastrow10 definisce come "the price paid for the wife", mentre il Sokoloff11 definisce "an 6

N. LEWIS, " T h e complete Babatha; more questions than a n s w e r s " , in Scripta

Classica

Israelica 22 (2003), 1 8 9 - 1 9 2 ; H . M . COTTON, "Diplomatics or external aspects of the legal documents from the Judaean Desert; prolegomena", in Rabbinic Near Eastern Context,

Law in Its Roman

and

ed. by C. HEZSER, Tübingen: M o h r Siebeck, 2003, 4 9 - 6 1 ; Η. LAPIN,

" M a i n t e n a n c e of wives and children in early rabbinic and d o c u m e n t a r y texts from R o m a n Palestine", in ibid., 177-198; E.A. KNAUF, ' " P . Yadin' 1; notes on Moabite toponymy and topography", in Scripta Classica Israelica

22 (2003), 1 8 1 - 1 8 7 ; T.H. LLM,

" T h e legal nature of Papyrus Yadin 19 and Galatians 3:15", in When Judaism Christianity

Began:

Essays

in Memory

of Anthony

J. Saldarini,

and

Vols. I—II, ed. by A J .

AVERY-PECK, D. HARRINGTON, J. NEUSNER, Leiden: Brill, 2 2004, 3 6 1 - 3 7 6 . 7

Si veda L. MIGLLARDI ZLNGALE, "Storie di donne nel II secolo d.C.: il deserto di Giudea restituisce le 'chartae' di famiglia", in Atti dell'Accademia

Ligure

di Scienze

e

Lettere,

from the Bar Kokhba Period

(supra

from

(supra

Serie VI 5 (2002), 4 4 1 - 4 5 5 . 8

YADIN, GREENFIELD, YARDENI, LEVINE, The Documents n. 4), 1 7 0 - 2 0 0 , pis. 1 5 - 2 0 .

9

YADIN, GREENFIELD, YARDEN; LEVINE, The Documents

the Bar Kokhba Period

n. 4), 170. 10

M. IASTROW, A Dictionary Midrashic

11

Literature,

M. SOKOLOFF, A Dictionary Baltimore 2002, s.v.

of the Targumim,

the Talmud

Babli and Yerushalmi,

and

the

L o n d o n / N e w York 1903, s.v. of Jewish

Palestinian

Aramaic.

S e c o n d Edition, Ramat-Gan/

II Papiro Yadin 1: testo e traduzione

131

endowment pledge in the marriage contract collectable upon the dissolution of the marriage". In altre parole, nella giurisprudenza post-biblica, 12 il termine viene a indicare un impegno di pagamento assunto dallo sposo nei confronti della sposa, che pero verrä pagato solo in caso di dissoluzione del matrimonio. Dal nostro documento si evince dunque che il marito, per poter disporre dei beni che aveva impegnato nel nna, doveva dichiararli non gravati da ipoteca e necessitava, come si e visto, del consenso della moglie.13 II documento e datato all'8 di Elul del XXIII anno del re Nabateo Rab'el II, che ha regnato dal 71 al 106 e.V.: siamo quindi nel 94 e.v.14 Testo Parte superiore

artzn "nx π ion: -jVa xaVa VxanV nVm m » ViVxa nnana Recto ι mx 'ay n a v -a] una m a O'xnax ρημχ 'ab 'n'x in xav π 2 [... nas] V a i . . . ] . . . μι ... [ . . . ] 4 [... ]'©am] m n nxa i p s ^ o [ηο3 ...]... 3 [nVva ia'pa ηο3 'an 6... [...]... [...]ann V?ü mn[i] »aun nV mn η x':mn τ»τ 5 ospaa 7 [...] ... ann mn n a bv -[[»aa^n» ... Vn p a » a nVa nxa nVn i'vVo ][a] xna nV[x u a ^ n a n ia'pa mm'n xV» π Viaa mn -uaynas? xnü» jrncn ]'V'»a... x'xa ... nna π ... x'a» m n bv x».a 8... nx Vsx Vxan x^xnaV n n ' a n w a η VaVaa xn O'xnax 'mx 'aV 'na ... [...]... 9 n n lana m n » Va una xVi... ma 10 xaVa Parte inferiore

nai? arun "nx π loa: 12 xaVa VxanV nVm p » s ? m » ViVxa nnana 11 'as n a » na uaa nna O'xnax 'nix ^ b 'n'x 13 in xav aixaa 'n pana/pana 15 [ H ] n n » xj'sa nas? π 'nVxsVn na 'nVxnu? na vacat nVva la'pa 14 ms ρ ΐ'ηηη jpj]» 'naxV π 16 ppi? »xn ons p » a m nnn nxa p^Vo η[03] aixaa xan n n xnü[»] ... [a'na x ] ^ π xjai 17 xoaaV n a ' xV p i mn xnü» ρτ xn O'xnax nna 'nv ρ n n xaoai xn O'xnax xaxn 18 η ρ ι nv np'Vn 'mVs? np'nm... » u x ... [...] 20 ρ n n la'paV 'n'x η Va nn'am n n x>oaj p a » a i 19 nVa p p i pnsnsi 22 [...] pjjn pnm pnai pana jsnxi nVVi?n ηηπτ mam ... 21 p m p s i ma xna 24 'anai nVa ηρηι naoi [...] 23 '3xV:s?... van μι inai Vsx η [...]... [...] 26 anm ηο3 nsnxi pVV»! n a n ... [...] 25 » m 'iai p»aVi... jun^i VVam nanm i d ü i » i ... [...] 28... 'xai... nann nna»i 27 nVVn ηηπι n » a i nnx ^aai... μ?3 ρ nV sinn ain'i 30 ... [... imai] 29 n v i pi?m fVm bbwi [...] VVfü mm] 32 » a u ? nV χ ί π ί mn 'n w m n'i?T D2?n:a Vai... [...] 31 nV[D] 12

Ricordiamo che il termine e anche biblico: Gen 34,12; Es 22,16 e che Rashi, nel suo commento al verso genesiaco, identifica tout court il mohar con la ketubbah.

13

YADIN, GREENFIELD, YARDEN; LEVINE, The Documents from the Bar Kokhba Period (supra n. 4), 172.

14

Sulla cronologia dei re nabatei come anche su ogni altro aspetto riguardante questa popolazione cfr. l'ancora fondamentale J. CANTINEAU, Le nafcßieen, 2 vols., Paris 193032.

132

Corrado Martone

34 ηο3 ... x'au? m n m xvnx ' s j k Vi? nV η i m a i πι?ι 33 i p p m fVm [...] ... ΠΠ lö'pn 3127T ...] 35 ΠΠ Ή3 Vi? ]'30[']Π0 ... xVa ΠΧΏ n[Vn ]'i?]V[D] w p a m m x i 3Ti3 [xV]i? π [Vaaj 36 [Π]Π iMi?nai? ani?i 'nVxmi? [13 p n e i pV'wa... nVx 38 [...]... x ' s a ix [...] 37 ^Vm Vxx ρ xna nVx u [ » j n p y n ή nVapV 40 mivns Vi? n w i m nV[n ...] 39 n p n o np^Vna Dnn'Vi? r m xnou? 'nix o V 42 [...] xV π [...] 41 psim π π η η >n npsn x m Vai niiüVtP nVn v i s ' n n n x i . . . [... ma] 43 [ x p V a Vxan x^xnnVi n n 'anowa >n Va Vaa xn ' c x n a x xnD^a η Va V i ? onV π nnx Va nnxnV n>»V?2 ρ p r r π η 44 [xpotz? η wuxi n]j«> Vp]V[xa] n p i n n a j 46 w n p ] n p n p w Vaa u n a xVi a V p ni?] 45 n n npno in x » v n a » a r u n " π χ η 47 löaa ι 1 ?» xaV?s VxanV nV[ni] ipnuw onV π j>V[m . . . ] . . . 49 π V p . . . [ . . . ]... mnv na] i p a a ] 48 m a O ' x n a x η p w a m η ρ π ] 51 n x a fvVo nn'Vi?... [...]... [...] so ηχη nVn pvVo ηο3 ' a i Vp iö]'pa 53 D[Vi?V ...] ... [...] 52 ή n i a ' n a i χ'π ' n i x na n a p s n s ' xV in 56 nn'ana nnu? innu? na ' T p ] 55 [nana ntPBJ] V p i M i n a » ] 54 n'ana nppDJ] na imn] 59 n r a n a p p u ? '[n]V[xaVn na nn] 58 [...] 57 m ' a n a m n na i m ... [...]... xnso pmi? na m 62 n[ana] n w p p Vi? [ i p a n a s ? 6i na'na [nu?D]3 Vi? w ' p a verso 60 na nn 65 nn'ana ... [ . . . ] . . . 64 nn'ana i p p n na p p ' n 63 nn'ana nnu? i p n p ... xnso i m » na imn 66 m ' a n a nnu? 'nVxsVn Traduzione Parte superiore Recto 1 Nell'ottavo giorno di Elul, nel ventitreesimo anno del re Rab'el, re dei nabatei, che ha dato vita e liberato [il suo popolo...] 2 che si trova in Moab. In quel giorno tu possiedi, t[u] Amat-Isi, figlia di Kamnu [figlio di Amru ti devo, io, Maqimu, marito di lei] 3 ... [argento]: cento[cinquanta] sela ... 4 ... e un giardino ... [... qualunque co]sa 5 piccola e grande che le sia adatta sia dove c'e sole sia dove l'ombra ricopre. ... 6 Prezzo in argento: trecento sela, l'intera garanzia ... su questo sono af[fida]bili ... [...] ... 7 Ε questo Abad-Amnu e il garante di tutto cio che sta scto piü sopra. oi, Maqimu e Abad-Amnu senza radice e ramo ... 8 ... Su anatema celeste ... che e in loro ... e sufficiente ... maturi (?) ... e la preparazione di questo contratto 9 ... [...]...perche a te, Amat-Isi in tutto cio che e in questo tuo contratto e al nostro signore, il re Rab'el 10 anche ... e nessuno puo imporre condizioni su nulla che sia scritto Parte inferiore 11 Nell'ottavo giorno di Elul, nel ventitreesimo anno del re Rab'el, re dei 12 nabatei, che ha dato vita e liberato il suo popolo in rmwn (o: dmwn) che si trova in Moab. Quel giorno 13 tu possiedi, tu, Amat-Isi, figlia di Kamnu, figlio di Amru ti sono debitore io, 14 Maqimu, suo marito, figlio di Awat-Alahi, figlio di Halaf-Alahi, che abita a Inna-Shaharu [che] 15 si trova in Moab. [Argen]to: esattamente centocinquanta sela, principio del nostro contratto 16 in quanto alle

II Papiro Yadin V. testo e traduzione

133

trattenute. Due a[nn]i dal momenta di questo contratto; se non ha pagato alio scadere del 17 tempo che e [scritto] so[pra ...] Questo contratto crescerä a debito della parte per il tempo che 18 questa Amat-Isi vorrä. Questo denaro dall'accordo prematrimoniale della medesima Amat-Isi 19 e l'ipoteca di questa proprietä, nonche il suo interesse, tutto ciö che appartiene a Maqimu da 20 [...] ... [...] uomo ... preparazione 21 e proibizione. Dattero (?) e raccolto e terra e vigne e case e cortili e giardini ... [...] ... 22 pagamenti e acquisti, tutto questo, radice e ramo e giardino e sorgente ... 23 [...] ... [...] e contratto e documento asseverato, tutto ciö, e scritto di 24 annunzio da lui. Depositi, punizioni ... vestiti, monete di rame 25 [...] ... e lana e catenelle e oggetti d'argento e d'oro 26 [...] ... [...] olio, datteri (?), raccolto 27 aumento di valore, gram ... ed e possibile ... 28 [...] ... societä, dono, impegno, raccolto (?), sgombero, perdite, accordo 29 [...] ... 30 e risiede. Tutto ciö che ha da ora in poi ... e in ogni posto, [t]utto 31 [...] ... e qualunque cosa, piccola e grande, gli appartenga ο gli venga ad appartenere, sole 32 [... om]bra [...] ... [...] ... sgombero, per[di]te, 33 accordo, giuramenti che gli appartengano sulla terra e sotto il cielo. Prezzo in argento: 34 [tr]ecento [se]l[a] l'intera [ipote]ca ... In quanta a ciö affidabili. 35 [... Garante e questo Maqimu, figlio di] Awat-Alahi e garante e questo Abad-Amnu 36 [per tutto] ciö che sta scritto [sopra], Ε noi, Maqimu e A[bad-Am]nu, senza radice e ramo 37 [...] ... [...] e sufficiente ... [...] 38 ... maturi. Ε la preparazione di questo contratto e loro responsabilitä secondo il normale modo di preparazione. 39 [...T]re e se ci sarä bisogno del suo pagamento 40 anticipato sarä pagato un terzo della proprietä. Ε ogni entrata e uscita che entri ο che esca 41 [...] ... [...] 42 Proprio a te, Amat-Isi, in tutto, tutto ciö che e in questo contratto, e al nostro Signore Rab'el, r[e] 43 [anche . . . ] . . . e dopo di lei e l'uomo che di questo contratto 44 si e impossessato a buon diritto, puö prendere possesso di tutto ciö che a loro appartiene, secondo quanto e in questo contratto 45 [per sem]pre. Nessuno imponga condizioni su nulla che sia stato sottoscritto dal te[sti]mone. 46 [L'ott]o [di E]l[u]l, anno [ventitreesi]mo del re Rab'el, re dei nabatei, 47 che ha dato vita e liberato il suo popolo, in questo giorno, ha approntato lei, Amat-Isi, figlia di 48 [...] ... [...] 49 [... sgom]bero, perdite che possiedono. Prezzo in argento: trecento sela 50 [...] ... [,..]su di loro. Sela: cento 51 [un]o e cinquanta. Se non pagassero il suo, sei vivo e affidabile, che 52 [ . . . ] . . . [ . . . ] . . . 53 Maqi[mu pe]r se stesso lo ha scritto. 54 [...] ... [...] 55 [Za]idu, figlio di Shaharu, testimone. Di sua mano. 56 Taimu, figlio di Hawaru di sua mano 57 [...] 58 [...] testimo[ne], di sua mano. 59 [...] lo scriba ... [...] Verso 60 Maqimu per s[e stesso] lo ha scritto. 61 Abad-Amnu per se stesso [ha scritjto 62 Zaidu, figlio di Sha[har]u, testimone. Di sua mano. 63 Taim[u], figlio di Hawa[r]u di sua mano 64 . . . [ . . . ] . . . di sua mano 65 Wanah figlio di HalafAlahi, testimone, di sua mano. 66 Hawaru, figlio di Hawatu lo scriba ... [...]

134

Corrado Martone

Appendice L'Archivio di Babatha: editiones principes di tutti i documentz15

15

Per facilitare la consultazione al lettore non di lingua italiana si e preferito, in questa sede, mantenere i titoli inglesi dati dagli editori a ciascun documento. Per quanto concerne i piü recenti studi particolari, cfr.: N. LEWIS, " P a p y r u s Yadin 1 8 " , in IE] 37,4 (1987), 2 2 9 - 2 5 0 ;

A. WASSERSTEIN, " A marriage contract from the province of Arabia

Nova: Notes on Papyrus Yadin 18", in J Q R 8 0 , 1 - 2 (1989), 9 3 - 1 3 0 ; J.C. GREENFIELD, '"Kullu nafsin b i m a kasabat rahina': The use of 'rhn' in A r a m a i c and A r a b i c " , in Arabiens felix, Birthday,

luminosus

Britannicus:

Essays in Honour

ofA.F.L.

Beeston

on His

Eightieth

ed. by A. JONES, Reading: Ithaca Press for the B o a r d of the Faculty of Oriental

Studies, Oxford University, 1991, 2 2 1 - 2 2 7 ; N. LEWIS, " T h e world of Papyrus Y a d i n " , in Bulletin

of the American

Society

of Papyrologists

28,1-2

(1991), 3 5 - 4 1 ; M. BROSHI,

"Agriculture and e c o n o m y in R o m a n Palestine: Seven notes on the Babatha archive", in IEJ 4 2 , 3 - 4 (1992), 2 3 0 - 2 4 0 ; Τ. I LAN, "Julia Crispina, daughter of Berenicianus, a Herodian princess in the Babatha archive: A case study in historical identification", in JQR 8 2 , 3 - 4 (1992), 3 6 1 - 3 8 1 ; Y. MESHORER, " T h e 'black silver' coins of the Babatha papyri: A reevaluation", in Israel Museum

Journal

10 (1992), 6 7 - 7 4 ; B.H. ISAAC, " T h e

Babatha archive: A review article", in IEJ 4 2 , 1 - 2 (1992), 6 2 - 7 5 ; H . M . COTTON, " T h e guardianship of Jesus son of Babatha: Roman and local law in the province of Arabia", in Journal

of Roman

Studies

83 (1993), 9 4 - 1 0 8 ; T. ILAN, " P r e m a r i t a l cohabitation in

ancient Judea: T h e evidence of the Babatha archive and the M i s h n a h (Ketubbot 1.4)", in HTR

86,3 (1993), 2 4 7 - 2 6 4 ; H . M . COTTON, "Babatha's property and the law of

succession in the Babatha archive", in Zeitschrift

für

Papyrologie

und Epigraphik

104

(1994), 2 1 1 - 2 2 4 ; B.H. ISAAC, " T a x collection in R o m a n Arabia: A n e w interpretation of the evidence from the Babatha archive", in Mediterranean

Historical

Review

9,2 (1994),

2 5 6 - 2 6 6 ; Y. YADIN, "Babatha's ketubba", in IEJ 4 4 , 1 - 2 (1994), 7 5 - 1 0 1 ; D. NÖRR, " T h e 'xenokritai' in Babatha's archive (Pap. Yadin 2 8 - 3 0 ) " , in Israel

Law Review

(1995), 8 3 - 9 4 ; R. KATZOFF, " P o l y g a m y in P. Yadin?", in Zeitschrift

ßr

Epigraphik

29,1-2

Papyrologie

und

109 (1995), 1 2 8 - 1 3 2 ; M.A. FRIEDMAN, " B a b a t h a ' s ketubba: S o m e preliminary

observations", in IEJ 4 6 , 1 - 2 (1996), 5 5 - 7 6 ; G.W. NEBE, " D i e beiden griechischen Briefe des Jonatan Archivs in Engedi aus d e m zweiten jüdischen Aufstand 1 3 2 - 1 3 5 nach Chr.", in Revue de Qumran law

of succession

Papyrusforschung:

1 7 , 1 - 4 (1996), 2 7 5 - 2 8 9 ; H . M . COTTON, " D e e d s of gift and the

in the documents

from

the J u d a e a n D e s e r t " ,

in Archiv

für

Beiheft 3,1 (1997), 179-186; H . M . COTTON, " T h e law of succession in

the documents from the Judaean Desert again. Scripta Classica Israelica

17 (1998), 1 1 5 -

123; A.J. SALDARIM, "Babatha's story: Personal archive offers a glimpse of ancient Jewish life", in BAR 24,2 (1998), 2 8 - 3 7 , 7 2 - 7 4 ; N. LEWIS, " I n the w o r l d of 'P. Y a d i n ' " , in Scripta Classica Israelica

18 (1999), 1 2 5 - 1 2 9 ; T. ILAN, " W o m e n ' s archives in the Judaean

Desert", in The Dead Sea Scrolls Fifty Years after Their Discovery: salem Congress,

Proceedings

of the Jeru-

July 1997, ed. by L.H. SCHIFFMAN, Ε. TOV, J.C. VANDERKAM, Jerusalem:

Israel Exploration Society; Israel Museum, 2000, 7 5 5 - 7 6 0 ; T. ILAN, " Y o h a n a bar Makoutha and other pagans bearing Jewish n a m e s " , in These Are the Names: Jewish

Onomastics,

109-119.

Studies

in

ed. by A. DEMSKY, Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 3 (2002),

II P a p i r o Y a d i n V. testo e t r a d u z i o n e

135

P. Yadin 1 (= 5/6Hev 1): A Debenture in Nabatean-Aramaic The Documents from the Bar Kokhba Period in the Cave of Letters: Hebrew, Aramaic and Nabatean Papyri, JDS 3, Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2002,170-200, pis. 15-20. [Data: 8 Elul 94 e.V.] Y . YADIN, J . C . GREENFIELD, A . YARDENI, B . A . LEVINE,

P. Yadin 2 (= 5/6Hev 2): A Sale Contract in Nabatean-Aramaic YADIN, GREENFIELD, YARDENI, LEVINE, The Documents from the Bar Kokhba Period, cit.: 201-231, pi. 22. [Data: 3 Kislev 99 e.V.] P. Yadin 3 (= 5/6Hev 3): A Sale Contract in Nabatean-Aramaic YADIN, GREENFIELD, YARDENI, LEVINE, The Documents from the Bar Kokhba Period, cit.: 233-244, pis. 23-24. [Data: 2 Tebet 99 e.V.] P. Yadin 4 (= 5/6Hev 4): A Possible Guarantor's Agreement in NabateanAramaic YADIN, GREENFIELD, YARDENI, LEVINE, The Documents from the Bar Kokhba Period, cit.: 245-256, pis. 25-26. [Data: ca. 2 Tebet 99 e.V.] 5/6Hev 5 (pYadin 5) papDeposit gr The Documents from the Bar Kokhba Period in the Cave of Letters: Greek Papyri; Aramaic and Nabatean Signatures and Subscriptions, JDS 2, Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, The Shrine of the Book, 1989, 35-40, pis. 1-2. [Data: 2 giugno 110 e.V.] N . LEWIS, Y . Y A D I N , J . C . GREENFIELD,

P. Yadin 6 (= 5/6Hev 6): A Tenency Agreement in Nabatean-Aramaic The Documents from the Bar Kokhba Period, cit.: 257-267, pi. 55. [Data: 119 e.V.]

YADIN, GREENFIELD, YARDENI, LEVINE,

P. Yadin 7 (= 5/6Hev 7): A Deed of Gift The Documents from the Bar Kokhba Period, cit.: 73-108, pis. 29-30. [Data: 24 Tammuz 120 e.V.]

YADIN, GREENFIELD, YARDENI, LEVINE,

P. Yadin 8 (= 5/6Hev 8): A Purchase Contract in Aramaic The Documents from the Bar Kokhba Period, cit.: 109-117, pi. 33. [Data: Tammuz 122 e.V.]

YADIN, GREENFIELD, YARDENI, LEVINE,

136

Corrado M a r t o n e

P. Yadin 9 (= 5/6Hev 9): A Waiver (?) in Nabatean-Aramaic The Documents from the Bar Kokhba Period, cit.: 268-276, pi. 56. [Data: 122 e.V.]

YADIN, GREENFIELD, YARDENI, LEVINE,

P. Yadin 10 (= 5/6Hev 10 ): Babatha's Ketubba YADIN, GREENFIELD, YARDENI, LEVINE,

The Documents from the Bar Kokhba Period,

cit.: 118-141, pis. 31-32. [Data: 122-125 e.V.] 5/6Hev 11 (pYadin 11) papLoan on Hypothec gr LEWIS, YADIN, GREENFIELD, Greek Papyri, cit.: 41-46, pis. 3-4. [Data: 6 maggio 124 e.V.] 5/6Hev 12 (pYadin 12) papExtract from Council Minutes gr LEWIS, YADIN, GREENFIELD, Greek Papyri, cit.: 4 7 - 5 0 , pis. 5-6. [Data: 124 e.V.] 5/6Hev 13 (pYadin 13) papPetition to the Governor gr LEWIS, YADIN, GREENFIELD, Greek Papyri, cit.: 51-53, pi. 7. [Data: 124 e.V.] 5/6Hev 14 (pYadin 14) papSummons gr LEWIS, YADIN, GREENFIELD, Greek Papyri, cit.: 54-58, pis. 8-9. [Data: 11-12 ottobre 125 e.V.] 5/6Hev 15 (pYadin 15) papDeposition gr + Semitic sub. LEWIS, YADIN, GREENFIELD, Greek Papyri, cit.: 58-64, 139-140, pis. 10-12. [Data: 11-12 ottobre 125 e.V.] 5/6Hev 16 (pYadin 16) papRegistration of Land gr LEWIS, YADIN, GREENFIELD, Greek Papyri, cit.: 65-70, pis. 13-14. [Data: 2-4 dicembre 127 e.V.] 5/6Hev 17 (pYadin 17) papDeposit gr + Semitic sub. LEWIS, YADIN, GREENFIELD, Greek Papyri, cit.: 71-75,141, pis. 15-16. [Data: 21 febbraio 128 e.V.] 5/6Hev 18 (pYadin 18) papMarriage Contract gr + Semitic sub. LEWIS, YADIN, GREENFIELD, Greek Papyri, cit.: 7 6 - 8 2 , 1 4 2 - 1 4 3 , pis. [Data: 5 aprile 128 e.V.]

17-19.

5/6Hev 19 (pYadin 19) papDeed of Gift gr + Semitic sub. LEWIS, YADIN, GREENFIELD, Greek Papyri, cit.: 83-87, 144, pis. 20, 21. [Data: 16 aprile 128 e.V.]

137

II P a p i r o Y a d i n 1: testo e t r a d u z i o n e

5/6Hev 20 (pYadin 20) papConcession of Rights gr + Semitic sub. LEWIS, Y A D I N , GREENFIELD, Greek Papyri, cit.: pp. 8 8 - 9 3 , 1 4 5 , pis. 2 2 - 2 4 . [Data: 19 giugno 130 e.V.] 5/6Hev 21 (pYadin 21) papPurchase of a Date Crop gr + Semitic sub. LEWIS, YADIN, GREENFIELD, Greek Papyri, cit.: 94-97,146, pis. 25-26. [Data: 11 settembre 130 e.V.] 5/6Hev 22 (pYadin 22) papSale of a Date Crop gr + Semitic sub. LEWIS, YADIN, GREENFIELD, Greek Papyri, cit.: pp. 9 8 - 1 0 1 , 1 4 7 , pis. [Data: 11 settembre 130 e.v.]

27, 28.

5/6Hev 23 (pYadin 23) papSummons gr LEWIS, YADIN, GREENFIELD, Greek Papyri, cit.: 102-104, pis. 29, 30, 31. [Data: 17 novembre 130 e.v.] 5/6Hev 24 (pYadin 24) papDeposition gr LEWIS, YADIN, GREENFIELD, Greek Papyri, cit.: [Data: 17 novembre 130 e.v.]

105-107;

nessuna foto pubblicata.

5/6Hev 25 (pYadin 25) papSummons and Countersummons gr LEWIS, YADIN, GREENFIELD, Greek Papyri, cit.: 108-112, pis. 32, 33. [Data: 9 luglio 131 e.V.] 5/6Hev 26 (pYadin 26) papSummons and Reply gr LEWIS, Y A D I N , GREENFIELD, Greek Papyri, cit.: 113-115, pis. 34, 35. [Data: 9 luglio 131 e.v.] 5/6Hev 27 (pYadin 27) papReceipt gr + Semitic sub. LEWIS, Y A D I N , GREENFIELD, Greek Papyri, cit.: 116-117,148-149, pi. 36. [Data: 19 agosto 132 e.v.] 5/6Hev 28 (pYadin 28) papjudiciary Rule gr LEWIS, YADIN, GREENFIELD, Greek Papyri, ext.: 1 1 8 - 1 2 0 , pi. [Data: 124-125 e.V.]

37.

5/6Hev 29 (pYadin 29) papjudiciary Rule gr LEWIS, YADIN, GREENFIELD, Greek Papyri, cit.: 1 1 8 - 1 2 0 , pi. [Data: 124-125 e.V.]

38.

5/6Hev 30 (pYadin 30) papjudiciary Rule gr LEWIS, YADIN, GREENFIELD, Greek Papyri, cit.: 1 1 8 - 1 2 0 ; nessuna foto pubblicata. [Data: 1 2 4 - 1 2 5 e.v.]

138

Corrado Martone

5/6Hev 31 (pYadin 31) papContract (?) gr LEWIS, YADIN, GREENFIELD, Greek Papyri, cit.: [Data: 110? e.V.]

121-122;

nessuna foto pubblicata.

5/6Hev 32 (pYadin 32) papContract (?) gr LEWIS, YADIN, GREENFIELD, Greek Papyri, cit.: [Data: —]

123-124;

nessuna foto pubblicata.

5/6Hev 32a (pYadin 32a) papContract (?) gr LEWIS, YADIN, GREENFIELD, Greek Papyri, cit.: 1 2 3 - 1 2 4 ; nessuna foto pubblicata. [Data: —] 5/6Hev 33 (pYadin 33) papPetition gr LEWIS, YADIN, GREENFIELD, Greek Papyri, cit.: [Data: 125 e.V.]

125-126,

5/6Hev 34 (pYadin 34) papPetition gr LEWIS, YADIN, GREENFIELD, Greek Papyri, cit.: [Data: 131 e.V.]

127-128;

5/6Hev 35 (pYadin 35) papSummons (?) gr LEWIS, YADIN, GREENFIELD, Greek Papyri, cit.: [Data: 132? e.V.]

129;

pi.

39.

nessuna foto pubblicata.

nessuna foto pubblicata.

5/6Hev 36 (pYadin 36) Redemption of a Writ of Seizure Nab A. YARDENI, "The Decipherment and Restoration of Legal Texts from Judaean Desert: A Reexamination of Papyrus Starcky (P.Yadin 36)", in Scripta Classica Israelica 20 (2001), 121-137; si veda anche J. STARCKY, "Un contrat nabateen sur Papyrus", in RB 61 (1954), 161-181. [Data 59-65 e.v.] 5/6Hev 37 (pYadin 37) papMarriage Contract gr LEWIS, YADIN, GREENFIELD, Greek Papyri, cit.: 1 3 0 - 1 3 3 , pi. [Data: 7 agosto 131 e.v.]

40.

The Outer and the Inner Devil On Representing the Evil One in Second Temple Judaism1 by PIEROCAPELLI

(...) τοΰ γαρ ένύλου πολέμου ö άϋλος χαλεπώτερος. For harder than the material war is the immaterial. Evagrius of Pontus, Praktikos,

34

It was especially in the non-canonical Jewish literature of the Second Temple period that the character who personifies evil first took on most of the features that made him so familiar in later Jewish, Christian and Muslim representations. i. As a seducer and a tempter, he draws Adam and Eve toward the sinful

1

Hebrew, Latin and Greek sources are translated from the originals according to the following editions: Apophthegmata

Patrum,

Alphabetical Collection: P G

Dead Sea Scrolls: The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition,

TLGCHELAAR, 2 vols., Leiden/Boston/Köln 1998. 1 Enoch (Greek fragments): Henochi

Graece,

ed. by M. BLACK / Fragmenta

65:71-440.

ed. by F. GARCIA MARTINEZ,, E.J.C.

Pseudepigraphorum

A.-M. DENIS, P V T G 3, Leiden 1970. HERMAS, Shepherd:

Apocalypsis

quae supersunt

Die apostolischen

Graeca,

Väter. I. Der

Hirt des Hermas,

ed. by Μ. WHTITAKER, G C S 48, Berlin 2 1967. Life of Adam and Eve: La vie

grecque

et Eve, ed. by D.A. BERTRAND, Recherches Intertestamentaires 1, Paris

dAdam

1987. N e w Testament: The Greek New Testament,

ed. by Κ. ALAND, Μ. BLACK, C.M.

MARTINI, B.M. METZGER, A. WIKGREN, Stuttgart 4 1993. Septuagint: Septuaginta Vetus Testamentum Testaments

graece iuxta LXX interpretes,

of the Twelve Patriarchs·.

tion of the Greek

Text,

id est

ed. by Α. RAHLFS, 2 vols., Stuttgart 1935.

The Testaments

of the Twelve Patriarchs:

A Critical

Edi-

ed. by M. DE JONGE, H.W. HOLLANDER, H.J. DE JONGE, TH.

KORTEWEG, P V T G 1.2, Leiden 1978. M y thanks are due to Corrado Martone, Liliana Rosso Ubigli and Marina Rustow for their invaluable advice and to Leah H o c h m a n for her generous and witty revision of my original draft and its appalling English. Any remaining shortcomings are solely m y responsibility.

140

Piero Capelli

pride of wanting to become like God. An explicit identification of the serpent of Genesis with the Devil is found only in the 1st century B.C.E. or 1st C.E. in the Book of Parables (a part of the Ethiopic Book of Enoch or 1 Enoch, Chaps. 37-71). 2 The text describes a rebel angel named Gadriel who tempted Eve (69,6). In the almost contemporary Greek Life of Adam and Eve (henceforth LAE, also known as Apocalypse of Moses) the character talking to Eve is identified as "the Devil through the serpent's mouth" (17,4). ii. His own pride and haughtiness causes him to refuse to obey God's order to prostrate himself in adoration of Adam, because the latter was created after him. This tradition appears first in the Latin Life of Adam and Eve (14-15; 1st cent. B.C.E. - 1st C.E.) and is frequently referred to both in rabbinic and Muslim literature beginning with the Koran (15,28-35). iii. He has a propensity for falsehood. Already in the canonical book of 1 Kings an unnamed spirit of the heavenly court volunteers to trick the prophets into prophesying falsehoods in order to bring the ruin of the wicked king Ahab (22,19-23). iv. His mischievousness induces God to mistrust humanity's loyalty and faith and to test it cruelly, as in the biblical history of Job and in the Book of Jubilees (17,16, 2nd cent. B.C.E.) where Mastema prompts God to demand Isaac's sacrifice. v. His shapeshifting allows him to take on the most unpredictable appearances and fanciful camouflages, which enables him to tempt humanity and achieve his wicked aims in disguise. Just one example among the many will suffice: according to Paul, "Satan too disguises himself as an angel of light (...), his ministers too disguise themselves as ministers of justice" (2 Cor 11,14-15). Just like Loki, the destructive god of ancient German myth, this feature of the Devil follows the religious typology of the trickster, the ' n a u g h t / god whose demonic nature reveals itself in his ability to change his own appearance continually.3 In Hebrew canonical books such as Job and Zechariah (3,2) the satan (written with a definite article) is the angel who holds the office of prosecutor in the heavenly court. As such he still submits to God's authority and needs God's permission to act against humanity. By the 1st century B.C.E. this character had become for most of the Jews much the same Satan who embodies cosmic evil and whom we see trying deliberately and independently to tempt Jesus in 2

3

For the dating of the Books of Parables see: S. CHIALÄ, Libro delle parabole di Enoc. Testo e commento, StBi 117, Brescia 1997; P. SACCHI, "Qumran e la datazione del Libro delle Parabole di Enoc", in Henoch 25 (2003), 149-166. On representations of the Devil in Second Temple Judaism see e.g.: J.B. RUSSELL, The Devil: Perceptions of Evil from Antiquity to Primitive Christianity, Ithaca/London 1977, 174-260; P. SACCHI, Jewish Apocalyptic and Its History, transl. by W.J. Short, JSPE.S 20, Sheffield 1996, 211-236.

141

T h e Evil One in Second Temple J u d a i s m

Mark 1,3. This Satan is the plenipotentiary of an entire realm that is secondary both in origin and in extension to God's realm, but is nevertheless totally independent from it in its organization as much as in its aims. This distinction comes from the Enochic tradition that, as early as the 4th century B.C.E., included an understanding of the origin of impurity, evil and death not in Adam and Eve's sin but in the act of disobedience against God in the story of the Watcher Angels. These angels descended from heaven and intermingled with the "daughters of men" creating mixed - and therefore impure - children. In doing so they were bound by an oath imposed on them by their leader Semihaza, 4 who is already somewhat more than a simple prototype of Satan. This myth is found for the first time in the earliest chapters of the so-called Book of Watchers (the most ancient part of 1 Enoch, Chaps. 1-36), which most scholars date back to the 4th or even late 5th century B.C.E.5 A short version of this same myth made its way even into canonical Hebrew Scripture (Gen 6,1-4). Another similar representation of Enochic theology about evil is the very developed idea of moral and cosmic dualism that is found in the so-called "Instruction on the Two Spirits" included in the Rule of the Community from Qumran (3,134,26).6 Conceptions of evil as personified in a devilish figure, and generally in Enochic and Qumranic traditions, have the potential to excuse humanity from its role in unleashing good and evil in this world. This release from responsibility can imply an absolute acceptance of any theory of predetermination and the rejection of a way of life in accordance with the Law - or with any moral law. Much the same attitude was made extreme in some antinomian trends of Gnosticism. A very different solution to the problem was proposed by the Jewish sapiential tradition that looked for the roots of evil in the nature of humanity itself, and, in this way, had already 'humanized' the Devil. In this respect, the sapiential tradition represents the reaction of moderate, mainstream Judaism against Enochism. Such reaction is exemplified in statements by Ben Sira (2nd

4

Regarding circumspection towards oaths in Second T e m p l e J u d a i s m see e.g. C D 1 5 , 1 6; Matt 5 , 3 4 - 3 7 .

5

On dating the Book of Watchers

see: SACCHI, Jewish Apocalyptic

(see a b o v e n. 3), 6 1 - 6 2

(early 4th cent. B.C.E., especially Chaps. 6 - 1 1 ) ; J.H. CHARLESWORTH " A Rare Consensus A m o n g Enoch Specialists: The Date of the Earliest Enoch B o o k s " , in Henoch

24

(2002), 2 2 5 - 2 3 4 : 2 3 4 (late 4th cent, a.e.v.). 6

On the relationship b e t w e e n Enochic Judaism and the Q u m r a n c o m m u n i t y see the recent: G. BOCCACCINI, Beyond Qumran

and Enochic

Judaism,

the Essene Hypothesis:

(ed.), The Origins of Enochic Judaism: tine, Italy, June 19-23, pothesis'? (2003),

The Parting

of the Ways

between

Grand Rapids (Mi.)/Cambridge 1998; G. Β OCCACCINI Proceedings

of the First Enoch Seminar,

2001, Henoch 2 4 / 1 - 2 (2002); C. MARTONE, "Beyond

Sesto

Floren-

the Essene

S o m e Observations on the Q u m r a n Zadokite P r i e s t h o o d " , in Henoch 267-276.

Hy25

142

Piero Capelli

cent. B.C.E.), who declared that our first progenitors - and especially Eve were responsible for having yielded to temptation (25,24). Ben Sira claimed also that evil in this world derives from God's will and is intended as a test of humanity (2,4-9). So, "when a wicked man curses the satan (or: Satan, τόν σατανάν), it is himself that he curses" (21,27). Ben Sira means that Satan is, therefore, nothing but an individual's impulse to evil and does not exist as a material being who can act in this world according to his own decision.7 Even within the Enochic tradition itself, the idea of the non-human origin of evil was not always accepted without discussion. For instance, the author of the Epistle of Enoch (the last part of 1 Enoch, chaps. 91-104, dating from the 2nd or 1st cent. B.C.E.) resumes the same archaic conception of divine retributive justice in the earthly world that had already been so sharply criticized in the canonical book of Job: (...) Lawlessness was not sent upon the earth; but men created it by themselves, and those who do it will come to a great curse. Likewise, neither is a woman created barren; but because of the works of her hands she is disgraced with childlessness (98,4-5). 8 One century after Ben Sira, shortly before the Common Era, the Egyptian Jewish author of the pseudo-Solomonic apocryphal book of Wisdom revived the conception of the Devil from the Enochic tradition, thus diverging from the sapiential explanation of evil's origination. Wisdom describes the Devil as existing in reality and as the one and only principle of the presence of evil and death in this world (2,23-24). Nevertheless, rectitude of life retains its meaning and usefulness; we are told that even Adam was freed from his guilt precisely because he kept wisdom as a virtue (10,1). Although the wicked apparently prevail in this world, loyalty and adherence to God's Law will grant salvation and reward in the world to come. In the same vein as the book of Wisdom we find, over the following two centuries, commentaries by Paul, the authors of the Slavonic Book of Enoch (2 Enoch) and the later apocalypses (2 Baruch and 4 Ezra). In these writers the myth of the fallen angels and the personification of the Devil are far less relevant if not absent, whereas stress is put on Adam's sin 7

It is significant that B e n Sira takes a decisive albeit respectful stand against Enochic thought in his declaration that " N o one on earth was created equal to Enoch (...) but superior to any living being in Creation is A d a m " (49,14-16). O n the relationship between sapiential thought and apocalyptic/Enochic thought see L. ROSSO UBIGH "QOhelet di fronte all'apocalittica", in Henoch 5 (1983), 2 0 9 - 2 3 2 ; BOCCACCINI (ed.), The Origins (see above n. 6), 1 0 5 - 2 0 3 .

8

Transl. by G.W.E. NICKELSBURG in G.W.E. NlCKELSBURG, 1 Enoch the Book o f l Enoch Chapters tary on Isaiah 40-55,

1-36; 81-108,

1: A Commentary

ed. by K. BALTZER, Deutero-Isaiah:

transl. by M. KOHL, Minneapolis 2001, 468.

A

on

commen-

The Evil One in Second Temple Judaism

143

or even more on everyone's everyday sin.9 To summarize: i. the general theological structures of the Enochic line of thought prevailed, and the origin of evil was mostly seen outside of humanity's realm (sinners are defined as "sons of the Devil" or "sons of Belial" in the book of Wisdom but also in the Book of Jubilees and in Johannine literature, and they are called "men of Belial" also in the Dead Sea Scrolls);10 ii. nevertheless, the need was gradually perceived for a new human-focused viewpoint about evil, in order to make possible new models of piety according to which human deeds could still have a determined importance (differently from the later developments to be found in certain Gnostic trends). Let us move further. In the very first lines of the book of Wisdom, the most influential work of this cultural lignee, we read a notion rich in implications: "Crooked reasoning pulls one away from God" (σκολιοί γάρ λογισμοί χωρίζουσιν άπό θεοΰ) (1,3). We can compare this statement to another sibylline but possibly revealing one found in LAE, where one of the various forms of evil ensuing from Adam and Eve's sin is "the war that the Enemy posed in you" (τόν πόλεμον öv έθετο ό έχθρός έν σοί), i.e. in Adam (28,3). This deliberately ambiguous expression" likely refers first to the human instinct towards creation and procreation, defined in rabbinical literature as "evil instinct" {yeser ha-ra"). Notwithstanding its evilness, yeser ha-ra constitutes the foundation for the building of human civilization - just like the arts and skills taught to humanity by the Watchers and their intermingled children, the Giants. But I do not think I am too excessively modern in my exegesis when I understand the "war posed by the Enemy" in Adam - and therefore in all humanity - as the emotional and psychological restlessness that was no less characteristic of late antiquity than it is of late modernity. The idea of a relationship between Belial and bad thoughts, and between such thoughts and damnation, is not alien to the Dead Sea Scrolls. For instance, the author of the Hodayot does not yet define the yeser as "bad" but believes that it entertains lustful thoughts (zimmot), and that anyone indulging in them is destined to the "Pit" unless God intervenes (lQH a 13,6). And among the virtues recommended by the author of the Rule of the Community to the members of his group we find "not to keep 9

According to Paul and the author of 4 Ezra only Adam or Eve are to be held responsible for the presence of death in the world (Rom 5,12-19; 1 Cor 15,21-22; 2 Cor 11,3; 1 Tim 2,14; 4 Ezra 3,7; 7,116-118). The author of 2 Enoch stands in the line of the myth of the Watchers, which nevertheless is given only scanty relevance in his work (Chaps. 7 and 18). According to 2 Bar. 54,19 Adam's fault turns out to be the whole mankind's fault (see further).

10

Cp. Wis 2,24b; Jub. 15,33; John 8,44; 1 John 3,8.10.12; l Q H a 13,26.

11

BERTRAND, La vie grecque d'Adam et Eve (see above η. 1), 91 translates: "le combat que l'Ennemi a engage contre toi".

144

Piero Capelli

Belial in one's own heart" (10,21), where the heart, according to the biblical notion, is the seat of both feelings and deliberation.12 Let us return to LAE 28,3 and Wis 1,3. Comparison between these two almost contemporary passages shows that their respective visions of the relationship between the actions of the Evil One and psychological restlessness of humanity contrast sharply. According to LAE, the Devil is the cause of humanity's inner trouble; according to Wisdom, it is rather its effect. The issue of the relationship between the Evil One and psychological restlessness is already given particular relevance and a richly nuanced treatment in an extensive work of Jewish origin, the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (henceforth T12P). The text of the T12P came down to us in a Greek translation and through Christian tradition, whose influence on the text itself is certainly very relevant even when evaluated in different measure by various specialists. The earliest layer of the text (Grundschrift) is commonly acknowledged as Jewish, but opinions differ about its actual extension and dating; all the same, it is generally dated back to the 2nd or 1st century B.C.E. 13 We therefore have to face the question of whether any idea attested in the T12P is part of the Jewish Grundschrift or a Christian interpolation. We have to decipher whether the image of the Devil and its work in the T12P is a chapter in the history of early Christian demonology or in Jewish tradition. T12P's teaching about evil, its origin and its dynamics is intensely marked by a psychologistic attitude deeply influenced by Hellenistic philosophical doctrines. In particular the ideal of wisdom as control over passions was a typical feature of Stoic and Cynic philosophical schools.14 The mythological component is limited to the character of the Devil, who in the T12P is called Beliar. This name can be a merely phonetic variant of the noun and name Belial we know from the Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls,15 or rather a reformulation of it as beli or, "the Lightless One", because of false popular etymology or as an intended allusion to his capacity as Prince of Darkness. 16 Beliar's role in the relations be12

For a less clear connection between Belial and tormented thoughts see l Q H a 1 3 , 2 0 14,4; 1 5 , 3 - 5 .

13

Status quaestionis Critical History

in H. DIXON SLINGERLAND, The Testaments of Research,

HAELEWYCK), Introduction

of the Twelve Patriarchs:

A

S B L . M S 21, Missoula, Mont. 1977; A . - M . DENIS (with J.-C. ä la litterature

2 6 7 - 2 8 5 ; R.A. KUGLER, The Testaments

religieuse

judeo-hellenistique,

of the Twelve Patriarchs,

I, T u r n h o u t 2000,

G u i d e s to Apocrypha

and Pseudepigrapha 9, Sheffield 2001, 3 1 - 3 8 . 14

Cp. H.W. HOLLANDER M. DE JONGE, The Testaments

of the Twelve Patriarchs.

A

Commen-

tary, S V T P 8, Leiden 1985, 4 2 9 - 4 3 0 . 15

See C. MARTONE, "Evil or Devil? Belial between the Bible and Q u m r a n " , in Henoch

26

(2004), 1 1 5 - 1 2 7 . 16

So S.D. SPERLING, Beliar in Dictionary

of Deities and Demons

in the Bible, ed. by K. VAN

DER TOORN, B. BECKING, P. VAN DER HORST, Leiden/Boston/Köln/Grand Mi./Cambridge 2 1 9 9 9 , 1 6 9 - 1 7 1 : 170.

Rapids,

The Evil One in Second Temple Judaism

145

tween human beings, evil and God, according to the thought of the author of the Grundschrift, undergoes some variations that I will henceforth try to follow throughout the text. Chaps. 2 - 3 of the Testament of Reuben state that the actions of human beings are subject to the pernicious influence of particular spirits (πνεύματα). The text divides these spirits into two groups. The first list (2,3-8) includes seven spirits that "were given to him [= man] since Creation, so that by means of them [or: in them] were each deed of man to be". These first spirits correspond to senses and instincts and are therefore of divine origin; their function is analogous to that of the yeser ha-ra as envisaged in rabbinical sources. The second list (2,1-2; 3,2-6) includes another seven spirits "of deceit" or "of mistake" (της πλάνης), corresponding approximately to what later Christian tradition will call the capital sins.17 These second spirits "are the principle of the actions of youth" and are described as especially dangerous for the young who can, however, take shelter from them by clinging to "God's Law" and to the "admonition of the fathers" (3,8). In other words, one can protect oneself by adhering to the cornerstones of pharisaic piety and what would later become rabbinical piety. As for the origin of such spirits, the text in its final wording states that "they were given against man by Belial" (2,2). To the seven plus seven spirits another one is added, the spirit of sleep, which apparently acts as a catalyst for the passions connected to the other spirits (3,1.7). Many analyses have been dedicated to this pericope of the Testament of Reuben and to the history of its redaction and text. Most scholars have come to the conclusion that the second list, the spirits of deceit, is earlier. 18 However, the addition of the first list is not necessarily a Christian interpolation and could likely be an authorial afterthought by the Grundschrift himself or by a later Jewish editor. In any case, the writer who conflated the two lists was careful to connect the dangers of youth with the influence of the spirits from the first, but later list (2,9). On the contrary, the insertion of the eighth spirit must be considered an even later interpolation, as both the first and the second list speak explicitly of "seven" spirits (2,2-3). We must still ascertain whether the mention of Beliar as the instigator of the spirits of the earlier list (the spirits "of deceit" or "of mistake", 2,2) is original or secondary. Paolo Sacchi has argued that it must be isolated as a late interpolation for two reasons: i. the formulation of the verb is in the passive in 2,2 17

J.H. ULRICHSEN, Die Grundschrift der Testamente der Zwölf Patriarchen, AUU.HR 10, Uppsala 1991, 73, rightly defines the usage of the idea of "spirits" in the first and second list respectively as "neutral-anthropologisch" and "psychologisch". See P.A. MUNCH, "The Spirits in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs", in AcOr 13 (1935), 257-263.

18

ibid., 72-74 for discussion and bibliography. Ulrichsen suggests that the second list is also not part of the Grundschrift, but instead is an accretion.

146

Piero Capelli

(lit. "was given", exactly like in 2,3 at the beginning of the second list, where the understood agent is God); this construction is a caique of a Hebrew syntagm with an absolute meaning (the so-called passivum divinum, as if to say: the seven spirits have been given to man since eternity); ii. this syntagm is normally not followed by the agent, whereas here it is. Sacchi concludes that this mention of Beliar is a Jewish - not Christian - interpolation reflecting an evolution in thought (presumably dating from the 1st century B.C.E.) according to which the existence of spirits hostile to humanity could no longer be directly attributed to God's will. 19 It is nevertheless true that in the T12P several passages can be found dwelling upon the idea that the influence of the "spirits of deceit" on humanity does not depend on God but rather directly on Beliar. Simeon, jealous of his brother Joseph, devises a plan to kill him because "the lord of deceit, having sent the spirit of envy, blinded my mind" (T. Sim. 2,7).20 Potiphar's Egyptian wife wants to seduce Joseph because "the spirit of Beliar troubles her" (T. Jos. 7,4). A particularly precise passage with regard to this issue is T. Benj. 7,1-2, in which the author, in discussing the dynamics of sin in general terms, states that "in the first place the mind conceives [sin] on account of Beliar". 21 Then Beliar himself gives a sword "to those who obey to his wickedness"; these, in their turn, fall prey to seven different and duly listed kinds of misfortune. But the patriarch gives advice that can shelter one from such a perverted dynamics: "Be fearful of the Lord and love your neighbour. And if the spirits of Beliar will derange you towards any wickedness of affliction (πονηρία θλίψεως), no wickedness of affliction will be able to dominate on you" (3,3).22 Indeed, the text goes on, "the good man's will is not in the hands of the deceit of Belial's spirit, because the angel of peace leads his [i.e. the man's] soul" (6,1). One should consider that these references to Beliar as the instigator of the 19

P. SACCHI in Apocrifi

dell'Antico

Testamente,

ed. by P. SACCHI, I, Torino 1981, 7 2 5 - 9 4 8 :

see especially § 6 of the Introduction and the notes to 2 , 1 . 3 and 3,2.7. 20

Identical concept and expression also in T. Jud. 19,4 e T. Dan 1,7.

21

R.H. CHARLES' discussion of this difficult passage is still exemplary (R.H. CHARLES, The Testaments

of the Twelve Patriarchs,

London 1908, 206). Charles is inclined to think

of the mention of Beliar as secondary. Also SACCHI in Apocrifi

(see above n. 19), 915 ad

loc. isolates this sentence as interpolated on ground of its being placed between the enunciation of seven disgraces and their more detailed list. Thus, the sentence - just like the mention of Beliar in T. Reu. 2,2 - should attest a " d u a l i s t i c " revision of the Grundschrift, 22

possibly m a d e by the author himself.

I translate according to M S c (έκστήσωσιν). M S S b and k read έξαιτήσονται "[Beliar's spirits] will ask from you / obtain for y o u " . Beneath this variant reading lies the idea that the Devil a n y w a y needs a warrant from God in order to act to m a n ' s detriment, as in T. Job 20,2 and L u k e 22,31. The variant reading of M S S b a n d k is most likely a harmonization to the verse found in Luke [so SACCHI, Apocrifi loc.].

(see above n. 19), 911 ad

147

The Evil One in Second Temple J u d a i s m

spirits of deceit may not go back to the Grundschrift itself or to its afterthought but rather - like the one in T. Reu. 2,2 according to Sacchi - to a later Jewish revision of it. In any case, these passages maintain that the spirits that lead humanity into sin and related psychological restlessness (the "wickedness of affliction" mentioned in T. Ben.) are subordinate to Beliar. It was God who created both Beliar and the seven/fourteen spirits, but it is by Beliar's mandate that the spirits act in each human being and move one to sin and restlessness (θλίψις, λύπη, ταραχή). The "spirits of deceit" are called "spirits of Beliar" or "of Satan" also apart from the discussed reading of T. Reu. 2,2 (cp. T. Levi 3,2-3; T. Dan 6,1); through them Beliar dominates humanity and draws him to "eternal shame" (T. Reu. 6,3). At the end of times, in an eschatological battle corresponding to the one described in the War Scroll from Qumran, a messiah will take revenge on Beliar and his spirits and angels,23 relegating them into fire for all eternity.24 But until then, as in Zoroastrian religion, each person is and will be called to choose precisely between moral sides. According to the author of the Grundschrift of the T12P, such a choice - which in Qumran was not a true choice because it was predetermined by God - clearly depends on the will (διαβούλιον) of the individual. As for the Devil, in the above considered passages the dynamics of his actions are for instance the same underlying 1 En. 99,14 according to the Greek text: "the spirit of deceit (πνεΰμα πλανήσεως) will run after you". The character of Beliar/Satan in the T12P is therefore definitely close to his homonym in Qumran, to the Mastema of Jubilees and to the Satan of the Gospels, as an anti-God whose deeds are explicitly opposed to divine Law. 25 In the T12P the Enochic myth of the sin of the Watcher Angels is accepted but is accorded only marginal relevance;26 Beliar is "the cause of moral disorder in this world", "God's counterpart in past, present and future". 27 This displace-

23 24

T. Ash. 6,4. T. Levi 3 , 2 - 3 ; 18,12; T. Dan 5 , 1 0 - 1 1 ; T. Jud. 25,3. On eschatology in the T12P see the passages listed in HOLLANDER, DEJONGE, The Testaments 7,7), and A. HULTGÄRtys fundamental L'eschatologie

(see a b o v e n. 14), 251 (to T. Iss. des Testaments

des Douze

Patri-

arches, A U U . H R 6 - 7 , 2 vols., Uppsala 1977-1981. 25

T. Levi 19,1; T. Naph. 2,6. T h e Enochic tradition about evil is even explicitly quoted in T. Dan 5,6, criticizing the corrupt Jerusalemite priesthood: " F o r I read in the Book of Enoch the Just that your lord is Satan, and that all the spirits of fornication and haughtiness will obey Levi, so as to be Levi's sons, so as to m a k e them sin in front of the L o r d " . T h e text is corrupt, possibly because of a mistake in translating from a Semitic Vorlage.

See CHARLES' discussion in The Testaments

(see a b o v e n. 21), 129 (his transla-

tion is "will conspire to attend constantly on the sons of L e v i " ) . 26

T. Reu. 5 , 6 - 7 ; Τ. Naph. 3,5.

27

I borrow these two definitions respectively from H . HAAG, Teufelsglaube, 1974, 234, and from L.J. LlETAERT PEERBOLTE, The Antecedents

of Antichrist:

historical

Opponents,

Study of the Earliest

Christian

to JSJ 49, L e i d e n / N e w York 1996, 295.

Views on Eschatological

Tübingen A

Traditio-

Supplements

148

Piero Capelli

merit of an individual's moral free will shares much of the same dualistic line of thought - the Two Spirits or the Two Ways - that can be observed in the Rule of the Community; it declined in different ways in several of the earliest noncanonical Christian texts. 28 When taken into careful consideration, the T12P apparently retains various clues of a more nuanced approach to the question of the relationship between God, the Devil, the spirits of deceit and humanity. Such an approach is significantly different from the traditional one we have discussed until here. Let us examine some examples. According to various passages, the sin of fornication (πορνεία) pulls the individual away from God and draws one closer to Beliar (T. Sim. 5,3); too frequent sexual intercourse "is Beliar's eternal shame to us" (T. Reu. 6,3). Such allusions are probably meant to refer to the eternal punishment of sinners, but they are formulated in such a way as to suggest that Beliar's predominance over humanity is perceived as a consequence of the sin of fornication rather than its cause (as precisely stated on the contrary in T. Jos. 7,4 quoted above). Similarly, in T. Sim. 4,7-9 the action of the spirit of envy on an individual during sleep is described as follows: For also in sleep some evil envy shows itself to him, and devours him, and troubles his soul by means of evil spirits (έν πνεύμασι πονηροΐς), and makes his body wince, and awakens the mind in confusion; and like one who has an evil and poisonous spirit, thus he shows to other men. We are told that the spirit of envy will not be able to prevail on those who cherish love for their neighbour. But in this description of the trouble they cause to man in his sleep, the evil spirits appears to be the instrument of the trouble rather than its cause. A second example expresses the sentiment that by keeping the Law and love for God and for one's neighbour "every spirit of Beliar will flee from you" (T. Iss. 7,7). Here we cannot solve the ambiguity of Beliar's actions as the causes or the consequences of the influence of the spirits of deceit on humanity. 29 But

28

This led s o m e scholars to examine the T12P entirely " i n their present Christian form" (e.g. M. DE JONGE, The Testaments

of the Twelve Patriarchs:

tion and Origin, Assen 1953; IDEM, Pseudepigrapha Literature.

A Study of Their Text,

of the Old Testament

as Part of

ComposiChristian

The Case of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs and the Greek Life of

A d a m and Eve, S V T P 18, Leiden/Boston 2003, 82). For Christian sources see Did. 1 , 1 6,1 (the w a y of life and the w a y of death); Herrn. Mand. 6,2 (the angel of justice and the angel of wickedness); Barn. 1 8 - 2 0 (the w a y of light and the w a y of darkness). 29

In T. Iss. 4,4 the influence of the spirits is apparently not due to Beliar, still, this is but an argumentum

e silentio.

PEERBOLTE, The Antecedents

The passage is drawn near T. Sim. 3,1; 6,6 by LlETAERT (see above n. 27), 292, w h o is to m y knowledge the only

The Evil One in Second Temple Judaism

149

elsewhere we find more precise formulations describing Beliar's work as secondary compared to the spirits'. More specifically, the weakness of humanity's good will regarding the influence of the spirits is understood as the condition by which an individual can fall under Beliar's domination. See e.g. T. Reu. 4,10: For if (έάν) fornication imposes itself not on thought, nor will Beliar impose himself on you. And still more clearly, in the formulation of the doctrine of the "two Ways" according to T. Ash. 1,8, the individual's soul does not choose evil because it is dominated by Beliar; rather, it is on account of its choosing evil a priori deliberately that it falls under Beliar's domination and cannot resist doing further evil:30 If (έάν) the soul makes the will bend towards evil, every action of it [i.e. of the soul] is in wickedness, and inasmuch as he [i.e. man] refuses good, he then takes evil in. Being thus dominated by Beliar, even though he does what is good, he turns it into wickedness. The neuter pronoun (αύτό) which is the object of the last sentence can refer either to an individual's will (διαβούλιον) or to what is good (άγαθόν). How can one escape Beliar therefore? The answer given by the Pharisees was quite clear: one must behave according to Law. Even a Qumranic text such as the Damascus Document seems to cling to such piety, where the individual's choice is crucial: And in the day when man imposes on himself to come back to Moses' Law, the Angel of Hostility (mastemah) 31 ceases to stay behind his back, if (im) he [i.e. man] keeps to his own words. (16,4—5) As stated above, the author of the T12P believed that there were also other good deeds that could lead to salvation: adherence to the teachings of the fathers, love for God and love for one's neighbour. 32 But the already long list of conditionals by which am individual can fall into Beliar's hands or rather escape

30

scholar who has noticed that in the T12P "the 'spirits of deceit' sometimes figure independently of Beliar" (precisely as abstract evil forces in the passages hitherto quoted). This passage is discussed in the same terms by KUGLEK, The Testaments (see above n. 13), 78.

31

Some translators understand this term as the angel's name, as in jubilees MARTINEZ, TIGCHELAAR, The Dead Sea Scrolls (see. above η. 1), I, 565],

32

T. Reu. 3,8; Τ. Iss. 7,7.

[e.g. GARCIA

150

Piero Capelli

him is not yet complete. The conditions for shunning Beliar are formulated in a less ambiguous way (in T. Dan 4,5-5,1) as a refusal of the inextricable entanglement of anger and falsehood: If you incur any damage or loss, my children, do not be troubled: because it is precisely this spirit that makes man long for what he has lost, in order that by desire you fall into anger. If someone, intentionally unintentionally, causes you damage, do not grieve: for it is from grief that anger is born along with falsehood. And anger along with falsehood is a double-faced evil, and they get together in order to trouble the will. And when a soul is continually troubled, the Lord goes off it and Beliar dominates it. Keep then, my children, the Lord's commandments and be respectful of his Law: keep far from anger and hate falsehood, in order that (ίνα) the Lord may reside in you and Beliar flee from you. It can be observed en passant that this passage, describing anger together with falsehood as "a double-faced evil" (4,7), harmonizes with another passage of T. Benj. (6,5-7) where duplicity - especially with regard to the alternative between truthfulness and falsehood - is defined as one of Beliar's peculiar features: the good mind has not two tongues, one to bless and one to curse, one for violence and one for respect, one for sorrow and one for joy, one for tranquillity and one for distress, one for pretence and one for truth, one for poverty and one for wealth, but keeps one single attitude towards everybody, an earnest and pure one (...). Also every work of Belial is twofold and has no straightforwardness. This image of the Devil is very similar to what Jesus invoked when he recommended to his audience: "Let your language be: 'yes, yes; no, no'; everything that exceeds this comes from the Evil One" (Mark 5,37). We can now summarize and conclude. The Jewish Grundschrift of the T12P33 accepts the idea - well rooted in the Enochic tradition - that the Devil acts against an individual on his own initiative. This idea is enriched in the T12P with the other conception that the Devil's actions are performed through the spirits of deceit. But in a series of passages in the same work a different dynamic of evil is envisaged, according to which the psychological restlessness induced in humanity by the spirits (created by God and not moved by Beliar) is the condition, rather than the consequence, of Beliar's predominance on the 33

To my knowledge of the secondary literature on the T12P, none of the passages I discuss in this essay has been specifically suspected to be a Christian interpolation.

The Evil One in Second Temple Judaism

151

troubled human soul. According to T. Dan 4,5-7, even the individual who finds himself experiencing a loss and thus feeling sorrow - a condition one would define as passive and, so to speak, innocent - will fall under Beliar's domination unless he can exert sufficient control over his own human reactions. . Thus the author of the Grundschrift of the T12P mediated in his thought - or more simply wavered - between relieving the individual of almost any responsibility as to the presence of evil in this world (according to the Enochic tradition) and investing each person with responsibility. The latter perspective will occur in later apocalyptic and early Christian thought, and will move the author of 2 Baruch to proclaim that "each of us is Adam to himself" (54,19). The author of the T12P was driven to such a synthesis - or to such a conflict - by the crossed influences of i. the Enochic tradition to which he belonged or with which he was very well acquainted (as demonstrated by the explicit quotation about Satan taken from the "book of Enoch the Just" according to T. Dan 5,6); ii. the theological amendments taken from the sapiential tradition (which disavowed the Devil as a self-standing entity, Sir 21,27); iii. Hellenistic psychology, especially one's control over passions as a typical ideal of the Stoic and Cynic schools.34 In case the passages examined above belong to different layers of the redaction of the work, we shall not discuss a development in the author's psychological and demonological doctrine, but instead a development of demonology tout court. Early Christian demonology identifies the Devil particularly in psychological and emotional evil, "in accidie and melancholy as distress of the Self refusing vitality". 35 In all likelihood, the Christian reception of the T12P had a relevant influence on this evolution. For instance, in Hermas' Shepherd (2nd cent.) we read: "If (έάυ) you are patient, the holy spirit dwelling in you (...) [will] not [be] darkened by another evil spirit (...). But if(ädv) any anger intervenes, the holy spirit (...) is suffocated by the evil spirit (...). For in patience dwells the Lord, whereas in anger dwells the Devil" (Mandata 5,1-4)· Further, some sayings of the Fathers of the Egyptian Desert according to the Alphabetical Collection of the Apophthegmata Patrum (4th - 5th cent.) apparently develop precisely some of the insights I have identified in the T12P. Thus, Abba Matoes stated that "Satan knows not by which passion can the soul be overwhelmed (...). He provides nourishment to the passion towards which he sees the soul sliding" (Matoes, 4). And Abba Poemen, though believing that "evil thoughts 34

We owe to CHARLES (The Testaments, see above n. 21, 4 - 5 ) the observation that the conception of the "spirits" in the T12P is influenced by Stoic psychology, which defined as spirits (πνεύματα) the influences departing from the leading intellect (μέρος ήγεμονικόν) and reaching the terminations that are peculiar to each of the seven parts that constitute the soul (ψυχή), i.e. the five senses, the sperm and the articulation of words (see Pseudo-Plutarch, Plac. philos. 4:2:1).

35

I borrow this sentence from A.M. Dl NOLA, II diavolo, Roma 1994 (= 1987), 12.

152

Piero Capelli

(...) are suggested by the demons" (Poemen, 21), specified that "the demons do not fight against us at all as long as we are doing our own will: for it is our will that becomes the demons, and it is they that assault us in order that we fulfil it" (Poemen, 67). As stated above, most of the Jews during the Second Temple period became convinced of the existence of a Prince of Darkness and Hostility independent from God. Accordingly, they became accustomed to calling sinners or simply Jews whose beliefs were different from their own - the "sons of Beliar" or "sons of the Devil". But the author of the T12P - or their last editor already believed that the individual could become a "son of the Devil" by fault of his own will, either through excess of wickedness or lack of virtue. If my analysis proves correct, and if the Grundschrift or Vorlage of the T12P must be thought of as a Jewish (not Christian) work, then Judaism did not have to wait for Freud to understand that a person's soul, rather than the Devil, could autonomously create occasions by which he could fall prey to the Devil himself. Thus everyone, just like "Adam to himself", could become to himself also a devil, if not the Devil. 36

36

On the Devil as instigator of the spirits of deceit and of the evil instinct in human beings according to the T12P see SACCH], Jewish Apocalyptic

(see above n. 3), 227-228.

Ehret den Kaiser. Bögen und Tore als Ehrenmonumente in der Provinz Iudaea von WERNER ECK

Herodes wußte, was er Augustus, seinem Herrn in Rom, schuldig war. Stratonsturm, das er zu seiner neuen Residenzstadt ausbauen ließ, benannte er nach Caesar Augustus. 1 Er errichtete dort auf hohen Substruktionen über dem inneren Hafen einen großen Tempel, den er der Göttin Roma und Augustus weihte. Einen der beiden großen Leuchttürme am Hafen benannte er, wie wir aus Iosephus wissen, nach Drusus, dem früh verstorbenen Stiefsohn des Augustus, Druseion;2 dem anderen Leuchtturm aber gab wohl schon er, wie aus der berühmten Inschrift des Pontius Pilatus aus Caesarea erschlossen werden darf, den Namen Tiberieum - dies die einsichtige Rekonstruktion durch Geza Alföldy. 3 Auch die Städte Livias und Agrippias benannte Herodes nach Mitgliedern der domus Augusta. Er wußte sehr klar, wer letztlich Herr in seinem Königreich war, und versuchte auch nicht, es in irgendeiner Form zu verbergen.4 Die dafür adäquaten Formen waren diejenigen, die auch in anderen ehemaligen hellenistischen Königreichen zur Repräsentierung der Macht Roms und seines höchsten Vertreters verwendet wurden. Mit der vollen Übernahme des herodianischen Königreichs in die direkte römische Verwaltung seit 6 n. Chr., zuerst unter einem Präfekten, der dem Statthalter Syriens untergeordnet war, dann spätestens im Jahre 66 als selbständige Provinz unter einem senatorischen legatus Augusti pro praetore, veränderten sich die Konstellationen. Nunmehr traten die lokalen Selbstverwaltungseinheiten, im Lauf der Zeit alle als Städte organisiert, an die Stelle des Königs, wenn es galt, den Kaiser zu ehren. Daneben spielten auch die römischen Funktionsträger in der Provinz eine nicht geringe Rolle, wenn der Kaiser

1

IOSEPHUS, Ant. 15,331ff.; B. lud. 1,408ff.

2

IOSEPHUS, Ant. 15, 336; B. lud. 1, 412.

3

G. ALFÖLDY, „Pontius Pilatus und das Tiberieum von Caesarea Maritima", in SCI 18 (1999), 85ff.; DERS., „Nochmals: Pontius Pilatus und das Tiberieum von Caesarea Maritima", in SCI 21 (2002), 133 ff. mit der früheren Literatur.

4

Siehe dazu zuletzt auch M. SPEIDEL, „Early Roman Rule in C o m m a g e n e " , in SC/ 24 (2005), 85ff.

154

Werner Eck

als Symbol für die römische Macht herausgestellt werden mußte. In welchen Formen dies geschah, ist uns nur in Ausschnitten bekannt. Kaiserfeste mit Reden und Opfern sind sicher vorauszusetzen, ebenso die jährliche Erneuerung des Eides auf den Herrscher, die Einlösung der vota, so wie dies etwa Plinius der Jüngere für seine Provinz Pontus et Bithynia schildert.5 Konkret greifbar ist davon in der Provinz Iudaea/Syria Palaestina nichts. Ob es ein concilium provinciae, einen Provinziallandtag gab, der auch Kaiserfeste organisierte, ist bis jetzt keinem Quellenzeugnis zu entnehmen, obwohl man eine solche Einrichtung nach dem Jahre 70, spätestens nach 136 erwarten sollte.6 Klarer aber wird inzwischen das Bild für die Formen, die mit Monumenten und Inschriften verbunden sind. Die Ausgrabungen der letzten Jahrzehnte haben nicht ganz wenige Dokumente ans Licht gebracht, die immer deutlicher erkennen lassen, daß diese Provinz spätestens seit der Zerstörung Jerusalems für Rom zu einem sehr normalen Teil des eigenen Herrschaftsbereichs geworden ist, jedenfalls unter dem Aspekt der Präsenz der kaiserlichen Macht und deren Darstellung. In der Zeit vor der Auslöschung des religiösen Zentrums wurde von den Vertretern Roms zumindest teilweise darauf Rücksicht genommen, daß nach den Vorstellungen der Mehrheit der jüdischen Bevölkerung eine bildliche Darstellung von Menschen und per se noch mehr von Göttern ein Vergehen gegen ihren eigenen Gott darstellte.7 Diese Rücksichtnahme erschien nunmehr offensichtlich nicht mehr nötig. Daß in Caesarea, der ehemaligen Residenz des Herodes und Hauptsitz der römischen Präfekten und Statthalter, Statuen der Herrscher, ebenso ihrer Stellvertreter, der senatorischen Gouverneure und der Finanzprokuratoren, errichtet wurden, braucht nicht weiter zu verwundern. Solche Verbildlichung der Herrschaft kann man wohl schon unter Herodes voraussetzen. Im Tempel für Roma und Augustus müssen die Statuen der verehrten Gottheiten gestanden haben, sonst wäre für jeden Römer der Tempel leer gewesen und hätte seine Funktion nicht erfüllen können. In der durch Vespasian gegründeten römischen Bürgerkolonie wurden diese Formen von zwei Gruppen übernommen und fortgeführt: durch die Bürger der Kolonie und durch die staatlichen römischen Repräsentanten, die in Caesarea ihren Sitz hatten. Ehrenstatuen von Kaisern und auch ihren Frauen standen wohl an vielen Orten der Stadt, nachzuweisen ist dies bisher allerdings fast ausschließlich innerhalb des praetorium des legatus Augusti pro praetore und dem des Finanzprokurators. Gerade auch diese beiden römischen Amtsträger wurden zahlreich bildlich geehrt; die beiden praetoria müssen zeitweise wie Porträtgalerien gewirkt haben. Auch die eigenen Bürger wurden auf diese Weise geehrt, wie ζ. B. eine Sta-

5

PLINIUS, Ep. 10, 36f. 52f. 88f. lOOf.

6

Siehe zuletzt R. HAENSCH, Capita provinciarum. in der römischen Kaiserzeit, Mainz 1997, 237.

7

Am bedeutsamsten ist lOSEPHUS, Β. I. 2,169ff.; Ant. 18, 55ff.

Statthaltersitze

und

Provinzialverwaltung

155

Bögen u n d Tore als E h r e n m o n u m e n t e in der P r o v i n z Iudaea

tuenbasis für M. Flavius Agrippa zeigt, die in Maioumas (heute Shuni), einem Heiligtum und Badeort etwas östlich von Caesarea, gefunden wurde. 8 Ein T. Flavius Maximus wurde in Caesarea selbst als φιλόσοφο? auf einer Säulenbasis dem Publikum präsentiert. Wie lange die Statue zu sehen war, wissen wir nicht; später wurde auf der Basis eine Statue von Kaiser Probus und schließlich bald darauf von Galerius Caesar aufgestellt. 9 Die Dedikanten kamen aus denselben Bevölkerungsgruppen wie die Geehrten. Sogar einer der Kaiser, nämlich Probus, der von 276-282 regierte, hat eine solche bildliche Ehrung für seinen divinisierten Vorgänger Aurelianus veranlaßt. 10 Überraschend ist all dies nicht.11 Das entsprach römisch-hellenistischen Vorstellungen. Und das öffentliche Bild der Stadt war von Anfang an durch seinen Gründer in dieser Weise geprägt worden. Mit Jerusalem verbindet sich anderes. Doch für Rom existierte diese heilige Stadt der Juden nach dem Jahre 70 nicht mehr. Hadrian gründete dort die Colonia Aelia Capitolina als eine römische Stadt, in der das Leben und der öffentliche Raum so gestaltet wurden, wie es seinen Vorstellungen und denen der von ihm dort Angesiedelten entsprach. Somit darf, ja muß man auch dort Formen der Ehrung für Kaiser, römische Amtsträger und Honoratioren der Kolonie erwarten, wie sie eben für Caesarea beschrieben wurden, wie sie aber im jüdischen Jerusalem ausgeschlossen waren. Davon ist freilich kaum etwas bekannt geworden. Nur zwei Inschriften verweisen auf solche Ehrungen. Ein Text für Antoninus Pius lautet folgendermaßen: 12

8

CIL III 12082 = Dessau, ILS 7206 = C.M. LEHMANN, K.G. HOLUM, The Greek and Inscriptions

of Caesarea Maritima,

Latin

Boston 2000, Nr. 3; zum W e r k v o n L e h m a n n - H o l u m

insgesamt, auch zu vielen Details der Statuenbasen, siehe W . ECK, Topoi 10 (2002), 527ff. 9

LEHMANN, HOLUM, Inscriptions

10

Η. COTTON, W . ECK, „Lateinische Inschriften aus der Ustinov Collection in Oslo und

(s.o. A n m . 8), Nr. 12 - 14; ibid., Nr. 15 - 17.

ein Opistograph mit der damnatio Studia in honorem 11

memoriae

des Kaisers P r o b u s " , in Orbis

Antiquus.

Ioannis Pisonis, Cluj/Napoca 2004, 48ff.

A n d e r e Statuenweihungen für Kaiser aus Caesarea sind folgende: LEHMANN, HOLUM, Inscriptions

(s.o. A n m . 8) Nr. 6: Diocletian durch Clemens, procurator;

nus durch A r b a e u s Africanus, praeses;

Nr. 9: Maximia-

Nr. 13: Probus durch Passienianus, praeses,

Nr. 14: Galerius durch den Statthalter Aufidius Priscus, v.p. praeses;

O.e.;

Nr. 16: Probus

durch Statthalter Acilius Cleobulus, v.c.; Nr. 17: Constantius durch Aufidius Priscus. Nr. 19: unsicher welcher Kaiser; Nr. 29: unbekannter Kaiser, wohl durch Statthalter; Nr. 121: wohl Ehrung eines Kaisers. Ferner sind noch einige Texte unpubliziert, so eine weitere Statue für Galerius als Caesar, wiederum durch Aufidius Priscus; für einen unbekannten Kaiser durch einen procurator

provinciae

Syriae Palaestinae;

ein weiterer

Text entweder für einen Kaiser oder für eine Kaiserin, ebenfalls durch einen Prokurator der Provinz. 12

CIL III 116 = 6639 = K. BIEBERSTEIN, H. BLOEDHORN, Jerusalem. schichte

vom Chalkolithikum

den 1 9 9 4 , 1 4 8 f .

bis zur Frühzeit

der osmanischen

Grundzüge

Herrschaft,

der

Bauge-

Bd. III, Wiesba-

Werner Eck

156

[Imp(eratori) Caes(ari)] Tito Ael(io) Hadriano Antonino Aug(usto) Pio p(atri) p(atriae) pontif(ici) augur(i) d(ecreto) d(ecurionum). Der Text hat ohne Zweifel unter einer Statue gestanden. Diese wurde vom Dekurionenrat der römischen Kolonie errichtet, offensichtlich noch im Jahr 138, kurz nach dem Tod Hadrians und nach der Übernahme der Herrschaft durch Pius. Denn er wird im Text noch nicht pontifex maximus genannt, sondern nur pontifex, dazu aber auch augur. Beides verweist auf die kurze Zeit zwischen der Adoption von Pius und dem Tod Hadrians. Der ursprüngliche Aufstellungsort ist nicht bekannt, da der Stein in einem omayyadischen Bau wiederverwendet wurde. Da keine Maße bekannt sind, ist auch die funktionale Bestimmung nicht festzulegen. Daß jedoch eine bildliche Darstellung von Antoninus Pius damit verbunden war, darf als sicher gelten. Die zweite Basis, eine etwa 100 cm hohe Säule, steht heute in einer kleinen Seitenstraße nahe des Jaffatores; nicht weit davon entfernt wurde sie 1885 entdeckt. Sie trug einst das Bildnis eines M. Iunius Maximus, eines Legionslegaten unter Septimius Severus und Caracalla (zwischen 198 und 208), der von seinen beiden str(atores), seinen Stallmeistern, auf diese Weise geehrt wurde. 13 Weitere inschriftliche Zeugnisse für statuarische Ehrungen dieser Art fehlen. Die Ursache dafür ist in der kontinuierlichen Besiedlung der Stadt und der Zerstörung oder Wiederverwendung der meisten Monumente zu sehen. Um so überraschender ist es deshalb, daß die imposanteste Form der Ehrung, die für das Stadtbild in der griechisch-römischen Welt entwickelt worden ist, gleich mehrfach in der Colonia Aelia Capitolina nachgewiesen werden kann: die statuarische Ehrung einer Person auf einem Ehren - oder, wie öfter gesagt wird, auf einem Triumphbogen. Nicht der Bogen selbst ist das Zeichen für die beabsichtigte Ehrung, er dient vielmehr als überdimensionale Basis für die Statue dessen, der geehrt werden soll. Plinius der Altere hat dies in seiner naturalis historia sehr klar ausgedrückt. 14 Mehrere Inschriften aus Jerusalem

13

CIL III 6641 = 12080a = BIEBERSTEIN, BLOEDHORN, Jerusalem M. Iunio / Maximo Honoratus/

14

/ leg. Augg. / leg. X Fr. Antoninianae

str(atores)

(s.o. A n m . 12), Bd. II, 95f.:

/ C. Dom(itius)

Sergianus/

Iul(ius)

eius.

PLIN. n. h. 34, 27: columnarum

ratio erat attoli super ceteros mortales,

quod et arcus

signifi-

cant novicio invento. Vgl. dazu auch W . ECK, „Öffentlichkeit, M o n u m e n t und Inschrift", in Akten

des 11. Intern.

Kongresses

ßr

Griech.

u. hat.

Epigraphik

Rom

1997,

hg. S.

PANCIERA, R o m 1999, 55ff.; DERS., Straßen und ihre Denkmäler, in: Siedlung u n d Verkehr im römischen Reich. Römerstraßen zwischen Herrschaftssicherung u n d Landschaftsprägung, A k t e n des Kolloquiums zu Ehren von Prof. H.E. Herzig v o m 28. u n d 29. Juni 2001 in Bern, hg. R. FREI-STOLBA, Bern 2004, 17ff.

157

Bögen und Tore als Ehrenmonumente in der Provinz Iudaea

bezeugen solche arcusJ5 Seit langem ist aus Jerusalem eine große Tafel aus lokalem Kalkstein bekannt,16 die heute im Vorhof der Kirche der Franziskaner, der Chiesa della flagellazione oder Church of Flagellation, aufgestellt ist; gefunden wurde sie westlich der Ecole biblique. In verschiedenen Publikationen wurde sie mit einer zweiten fast gleich großen Tafel verbunden, die sich ebenfalls dort befindet.17 Doch handelt es sich um zwei nicht zusammengehörige Fragmente. Die hier interessierenden Reste von wahrscheinlich fünf Inschriftenzeilen lassen sich wohl in der folgenden Weise ergänzen: Imp. Caelsari divi Traiani] Parthici [f. divi Nervae n.] Traiano [Hadriano Aug.] pont. ma[x. cos. III p. p.] d. [ d.?] Nicht ganz sicher ist die Lesung eines D in der letzten Zeile, aber doch recht wahrscheinlich. Genannt ist Kaiser Hadrian, und zwar im Dativ, wie das in Zeile 3 erhaltene Traiano zeigt; der theoretisch durchaus mögliche Ablativ scheidet aus, weil der Inschrift sonst jedes Objekt fehlen würde. Der erhaltene Teil hat die Maße: Höhe: 0,98 Meter und Breite: 1,01 Meter. Das führt auf eine Gesamtbreite der Inschrift von mindestens drei bis dreieinhalb Metern. Diese Breite paßt naturgemäß nicht für eine normale Statue, die den Kaiser stehend gezeigt hätte. Denn dann müßte es sich um eine Kolossalstatue von mehreren Metern Höhe gehandelt haben, bei der jedoch die Inschrift niemals in die Breite gezogen wäre; sie hätte dann vielmehr ein Hochformat erhalten. Nach der Breite zu schließen, könnte der Text unter einer Quadriga mit dem Abbild des Kaisers gestan-

15

Nicht zu diesen Inschriften gehört ein Block mit Buchstaben, der in den sogenannten Ecce-Homo-Bogen eingebaut ist. Die Inschrift hat mit der Errichtung des Tores nichts zu tun. Siehe C. ARNOULD, Les arcs romaines

de Jerusalem.

Architecture,

decor et urba-

nisme, Göttingen 1997, 48ff. 16

P. THOMSEN, „Inschr. ... Jerusalem", in Ζ OPV 44 (1921), 2 Nr. 3a; 64 (1941), 208 Nr. 3 = BIEBERSTEIN, BLOEDHORN, Jerusalem

(s.o. Anm. 12), Bd. II, 144ff. Zu archäologischen

Uberresten von Ehrenbögen oder Toren, mit denen verschiedentlich manche der Inschriften, die im Folgenden besprochen werden, verbunden wurden, vgl. allgemein Arnould, Les arcs romaines (s.o. Anm. 15); H.P. KUHNEN, Palästina römischer

Zeit, M ü n c h e n 1990, 218ff.; H. GEVA, Jerusalem:

in

griechisch-

The Roman Period, N E A E H L II

758ff.; Y. ELIAV, „The Urban Layout of Aelia Capitolina: A N e w View from the Perspective of the Temple M o u n t " , in The Bar Kokhba War Reconsidered. the Second Jewish

Revolt against

schiedenen Bögen 243ff. 17

New Perspectives

on

Rome, hg. P. SCHÄFER, Tübingen 2003, 241ff., zu ver-

Siehe Ζ. B. THOMSEN, „Inschr. ... Jerusalem" (s.o. Anm. 16).

158

Werner Eck

den haben; aber dazu paßt dann nicht die Höhe, die in diesem Fall geringer hätte sein müssen. So kommt wohl nur ein Bogen in Frage, an dessen Attika die Inschrift, auf mindestens drei Platten verteilt, eingemeißelt worden war. Wo freilich dieser Bogen stand und wie er im einzelnen gestaltet gewesen ist, läßt sich nicht sagen. Sicher dürfte dagegen sein, daß der Bogen zum städtebaulichen Programm der neuen, eben gegründeten Kolonie gehörte. Dies ist schon deswegen sicher, weil als Urheber für ein solches Monument in Jerusalem in hadrianischer Zeit sonst nur die dort stationierte legio X Fretensis in Frage käme. Doch der Anlaß dazu könnte dann nur der Besuch Hadrians in Jerusalem im Jahr 130 gewesen sein. Nach unseren bisherigen Kenntnissen aber hat eine Militäreinheit nie einen Bogen für einen Kaiser nur aus Anlaß eines Besuches errichtet, so viele Gelegenheiten es dazu auch gegeben hätte, besonders unter Hadrian, der wohl alle Legionsstandorte besucht hat, selbst das weit entlegene Legio = Leon im Norden Spaniens.18 Auch der Bogen bei Tel Shalem ist aus diesem Grund nicht in den Zusammenhang der Reise Hadrians zu setzen, von anderen Gründen, die dagegen sprechen, ganz abgesehen. 19 So verweisen allein auf Grund dieser Überlegungen alle Anzeichen auf die unter Hadrian gegründete Kolonie. Dieser Schluß würde dann zusätzlich durch den Text selbst abgesichert, wenn in der letzten Zeile der Buchstabe D gelesen werden könnte. Der Rest, der darauf hindeutet, ist weit vom linken Rand her eingerückt, was auf eine zentrierte Stellung der Aussage verweist, die in dieser Zeile stand. All das spricht für die Ergänzung: d(ecurionum) [d(ecreto)] = „auf Beschluß des Dekurionenrats der Kolonie". Damit darf man schließen, daß das Monument nach dem Jahr 130 errichtet wurde und die Kolonie den Gründer der Stadt auf einem Bogen allen Bewohnern und Besuchern präsentierte. Vermutlich überspannte der Bogen eine der Hauptachsen der neuen Siedlung. 20 Der locus celeberrimus sollte die Wirkung des Monuments erhöhen. Ein weiteres Inschriftenfragment könnte ein ähnliches Monument bezeugen. Auf einem Kalksteinfragment mit den Maßen: Höhe 41 cm, Breite 50 cm, steht folgender Text:21

18

A.R. B i r l e y , Hadrian.

19

Diese von G. BOWERSOCK, „The Tel Shalem Arch and P. Nahal Hever/Seiyal 8", in The

The restless emperor, London 1997, 149.

Bar Kokhba War Reconsidered

(s.o. A n m . 16), 171ff. favorisierte Lösung, scheitert an die-

sem u n d an anderen Gründen; siehe W . ECK, „Hadrian, the B a r K o k h b a Revolt, and the Epigraphic Transmission", in ibid., 153ff. Auf die im eben angeführten Aufsatz genannten G r ü n d e geht Bowersock nicht ein. Sein B e z u g s p u n k t ist die Erstpublikation der Inschrift: W . ECK, G. FOERSTER, „Ein Triumphbogen für H a d r i a n im Tal von Beth Shean bei Tel S h a l e m " , in JRA 12 (1999), 294ff. 20

Zu Versuchen der Lokalisierung des Bogens siehe die in A n m . 16 genannten Übersichten von Geva, K u h n e n u n d Eliav.

21

CIL III 6640 = 12080 = BIEBERSTEIN, BLOEDHORN, Jerusalem

(s.o. A n m . 13), Bd. II, 208.

Bögen und Tore als Ehrenmonumente in der Provinz Iudaea

IMP [ PART[

159

] ]·

Vervollständigt man das Fragment nach dem, was mit größter Wahrscheinlichkeit erwartet werden kann, dann ergeben sich folgende zwei Möglichkeiten: IMP [CAESARIDIVITRAIANI] oder IMP [CAES DIVITRAIANI] PART[HICI F DIVI NERVAE N] PART[H F DIVI NERVAE N] [TRAIANO HADRIANO AVG] [TRAIANO HADRIANO AVG] [PONT MAX COS III Ρ Ρ?] [PONT MAX COS III Ρ Ρ?] [ ] [ ] Da in Zeile 1 und 2 die ersten vier Buchstaben eine Breite von rund 0,50 m ergeben, braucht man für die folgenden 14 bis 18 Buchstaben noch einen Platz von mindestens 1,75 oder sogar 2,25 Metern. Das ergibt eine Gesamtbreite der Inschrift von mindestens 2,25 bis 2,75 Metern. Da bisher noch keine Photographie des Fragments zugänglich ist, kann man noch nicht allzu viel aus der Rekonstruktion erschließen. Doch ist es naheliegend, daß der Text eine ähnliche Funktion hatte wie der zuerst behandelte. Das würde heißen, daß zwei Ehrenbögen für Hadrian in Jerusalem standen. Überraschend wäre auch dies nicht. Traian, der die Kolonie Thamugadi in Nordafrika gegründet hat, wurde dort faktisch mit zwei Ehrenbögen, die als Stadttore dienten, geehrt, obwohl dort der Name des Herrschers im Nominativ, als Gründer, erscheint.22 Doch nicht nur der Gründer der Kolonie wurde in Jerusalem auf diese Weise über die Menschen herausgehoben. Gleiches läßt sich nunmehr auch für Septimius Severus und seine Familie nachweisen. Eine Platte mit den Maßen: 1, 10 Meter hoch und 0, 93-0, 97 Meter breit wurde vor dem Jahr 1969 bei den Ausgrabungen auf dem Tempelberg gefunden. Eine Rekonstruktion der fragmentarischen Inschrift ergibt folgenden Text:23 [Imp. Caes. L. Septimio Severn Pio Pertinaci Aug. Arab.] Adiab. Parth. [max., pont. max., trib. pot...., imp. XI (?), cos. III, p.p. et Imp.] Caes. M. Aur. [Antonino Aug. et L. Septimio Getae nobilissimo Caes.] et Iuliae Aug. [matri castrorum et IFulviae Plautillae Aug. col. Ael]ia Kap. Commo-

22

23

CIL VIII 2355 = 17842 = Dessau 6841; VIII17843. Vgl. M. HORSTER, Bauinschriften römischer Kaiser. Untersuchungen zur Inschriftenpraxis und Bautätigkeit in Städten des westlichen Imperium Romanum in der Zeit des Prinzipats, Stuttgart 2001, 429f. H.M. COTTON, W. ECK, „Ein Ehrenbogen für Septimius Severus und seine Familie in Jerusalem", in Donum Amicitiae, Studies in Ancient History publ. on occasion of the 75"· Anniversary of Foundation of the Department of Ancient History of the Jagiellonian University, hg. E. DABROWA, Krakau 1997, l l f f .

Werner Eck

160 [diana Pia Felix [fecit, dedicante?

[ — }•

?prop]rio sumptu leg. Augg. pro] pr., curante

Setzt man diesen Text analog zur Breite des erhaltenen Fragments entsprechend um, dann ergibt sich eine Gesamtbreite der Inschrift von mindestens sechs Metern. Kein uns bekannter Monumenttyp der römischen Zeit, der mit Statuen verbunden war, läßt sich mit diesem Text verbinden, außer einem Bogen. Er muß, allein wegen der Breite der Gesamtinschrift, die wie etwa beim Titusbogen in Rom auf mehrere Platten geschrieben wurde, monumental gewesen sein. Welches der Anlaß für die Errichtung des arcus war, läßt sich nicht sagen; der Bau wurde, wenn tatsächlich der Name von Fulvia Plautilla, der jungen Frau Caracallas, im Text zu ergänzen ist, zwischen 202 und 205 errichtet. In diesen Jahren hielt sich Septimius Severus auf jeden Fall nicht mehr im Osten auf. Vermutlich aber stand der Bogen nicht allzu weit von der Fundstelle an der südlichen Tempelmauer entfernt. Denn ursprünglich soll die Platte ein Teil des Pflasters gebildet haben, das Herodes dort hatte legen lassen. Nach der Zerstörung des Bogens, die zeitlich nicht fixiert werden kann, diente die Platte erneut bei der Pflasterung der Omayyadenanlage auf dem Tempelberg, vermutlich als eine Treppenstufe. Da man den Zufall nicht überstrapazieren sollte, dürfte die Wahrscheinlichkeit groß sein, daß auch der Bogen, zu dem die Platte bei der Zweitverwendung gehörte, sich auf dem Tempelberg erhob. 24 Möglicherweise trifft das auch auf das letzte Monument zu, auf das hier eingegangen werden soll. Im Museum des Felsendoms in Jerusalem wird eine große fragmentarische Inschriftenplatte aufbewahrt, über deren Herkunft nichts weiter zu erfahren war. Doch bei realistischer Überlegung spricht vieles dafür, daß sie im Bereich des unter der Verwaltung des Wafq stehenden Tempelplateaus gefunden wurde. Angesichts der Größe und Schwere der Platte könnte dies weiterhin darauf hinweisen, daß die Platte nach der Zerstörung des Bogens, zu dem sie ursprünglich gehörte, nicht allzu weit verschleppt wurde. Freilich ist dies kein allzu sehr belastbares Argument, so daß ein Schluß aus diesen Überlegungen nur eine relative Wahrscheinlichkeit beanspruchen darf. Die Platte ist auf allen Seiten abgebrochen, nur unten ist an einer kleinen Stelle der Rand erhalten. Die maximalen Maße, die auch die partiell abgesplitterten Teile der Platte einschließen, auf denen keine Buchstabenreste mehr zu

24

N. Eliav, „The Urban Layout of Aelia Capitolina" (s.o. Anm. 16), 248 könnte das Fragment zu einem Bogen oder Tor gehört haben, wovon noch Antoninus von Piacenza, ein Pilger des 6. Jahrhunderts, spricht; das Monument soll nicht weit vom Gebiet des Tempels gestanden haben.

Bögen und Tore als Ehrenmonumente in der Provinz Iudaea

161

sehen sind, betragen ca. 97 cm in der Höhe und etwa das Gleiche in der Breite.25 Die Dicke der Platte beträgt 27 cm. Die Buchstaben haben in allen Zeilen dieselbe Höhe: 11,5 cm, sind also relativ groß, was mit dem Bauwerk, einem Bogen, wie sich aus dem Text ergibt, bestens zusammen stimmt. Auffällig und wichtig für die Interpretation ist die Rasur, die in Zeile 2 zu erkennen ist. Folgendes ist auf dem Stein zu lesen: [ [[ [ [ [

]OS D[ ] ]V-L-FLAVI[ ]] ]M-ARCVM-DEP[ ]IOATHENAG[ ]MAXIMO-[ ]

] ]

Der fragmentarische Zustand der Inschrift läßt kein unmittelbares und umfassendes Verständnis zu. So sind die einzelnen Elemente zu analysieren. Man kann wohl ausschließen, daß der Bogen für eine andere Person als für einen der Kaiser errichtet worden sein kann, zumal in einer Stadt wie Jerusalem/Aelia Capitolina, in der es nach der Zerstörung keine gewachsene, auf Grund seiner Traditionen selbstbewußte Bürgerschaft gegeben haben kann. Damit müßte wie in zahlreichen anderen Beispielen am Anfang der Name eines Kaisers gestanden haben, einschließlich seiner Titulatur, zu der auch die einzelnen Ämter gehören, also auch der Konsulat, den jeder Herrscher bekleidet hat. Deshalb ist man versucht, in Zeile 1 [c]os. zu ergänzen. Allerdings hat fast jeder Kaiser dieses republikanische Amt öfter als einmal bekleidet, so daß danach üblicherweise eine Zahl folgen sollte, oder manchmal auch die Designation zu einer erneuten Übernahme des Amtes, was durch das Wort designat - erfolgen müßte. Der auf [c]os. folgende Buchstabe aber entzieht sich einer klaren Bestimmung. Man könnte den Buchstabenrest als ein S interpretieren, was im Kontext allerdings keinen Sinn ergäbe, ebenso jedoch auch als ein D, das zu designat - passen würde. In Zeile 2 steht eine Rasur, die sich deutlich bemüht, jeden einzelnen Buchstaben zu tilgen, ohne jedoch diesen Teil der Zeile insgesamt zu eradieren. Rasuren kommen in Inschriften in der Uberzahl nur bei Namen von Kaisern oder bei Angehörigen der Reichseliten vor. Da die Rasur auf einem öffentlichen Monument durchgeführt wurde, kann es sich kaum um eine private oder 25

Es war mir im April 2000 möglich, die Inschrift zu untersuchen, ohne jedoch die Maße nehmen zu können. Diese wurden mir von Prof. Tibor Grüll freundlicherweise zur Verfügung gestellt. Nach seiner Messung lauten die Maße: Höhe 97 cm, Breite 75 cm, Dicke 27 cm. Das Maß für die Breite kann jedoch nicht zutreffen, wie eine Kontrolle mit Hilfe eines Photos, auf dem auch ein Maßstab abgebildet ist, zeigt. Die erhaltene Breite dürfte in etwa der erhaltenen Höhe entsprechen. Lediglich ein Photo der Inschrift wurde publiziert in dem Band: K. SALAMEH (hg.), The Qur'an Manuscripts in the al-Haram al-Sharif Islamic Museum, Paris 2001,17*.

162

Werner Eck

spontane Aktion gehandelt haben; vielmehr ist davon auszugehen, daß die Tilgung auf einen offiziellen Beschluß zurückgeht. Jedenfalls kann man davon ausgehen, daß hier ein Name stand, und zwar nicht der eines Kaisers, da dieser an den Anfang des Textes gehört und damit, wenn [c]os. richtig ergänzt wurde, in eine Zeile, die vor dem erhaltenen Text gestanden hat. Man ist versucht, dort L-FLAVI zu lesen, wovon das Α ganz sicher ist, wohl auch FL. Dagegen ist das auf Α folgende V keineswegs ganz sicher, während das I nach dem V wieder klar zu sein scheint. Nach I ist die untere Hälfte einer senkrechten Haste zu sehen; doch welcher Buchstabe dadurch repräsentiert wird, bleibt offen. Möglich sind alle Lettern, die links eine senkrechte Haste aufweisen. In Zeile 3 ist arcum ganz eindeutig; davor ist noch der Rest eines Α oder Μ zu lesen. Nach arcum steht DE · und wohl ein P, kaum ein F. Die Zeilen 4 und 5 sind unproblematisch in der Lesung. In Zeile 4 steht ein römisch gebildeter Name; vom Gentile ist nur [—]io erhalten, worauf das griechische Cognomen Athenaglora] folgt, der Form nach entweder im Dativ oder im Ablativ. Zeile 5 enthält allein noch das Cognomen Maximo, also erneut entweder im Dativ oder Ablativ. Doch da bei der Inschrift auf einem Bogen nur diejenige Person im Dativ stehen kann, für die der Bogen errichtet wurde und da der Name dieser Person am Anfang des Textes gestanden haben muß, können die nachfolgenden Namen nur im Ablativ stehen. Sie bezeichnen Personen, die an der Errichtung des Bogens beteiligt waren. Zu fragen ist vor allem nach datierenden Kriterien. Unmittelbare Hinweise gibt es nicht, auch die Paläographie läßt nur erkennen, daß der Text kaum erst ins 3. Jahrhundert gehört. Ferner könnte die Rasur in Zeile 2, wo sicher ein Name stand, vielleicht eine Richtung weisen. Dabei ist von Bedeutung, daß aus Jerusalem bereits zwei Inschriften bekannt sind, in denen der Name eines Statthalters eradiert ist. Es handelt sich um zwei Meilensteine, von denen der schon 1974 publizierte folgenden Text bringt: 26 Imp(erator) Caesar Vespasian[us] Aug(ustus), Imp(erator) T(itus) [Cae] sar Vesp(asiani) Aug(usti) [f(ilius)] L[[- leg(ato)]] Aug(usti) pr(o) pr(aetore) legio X Fr(etensis) [m(ilia) p(assuum) I],

26

B. ISAAC, Μ. GICHON, „A Flavian Inscription from Jerusalem", IE] 24 (1974), 117f. = R. SYME, „Antonius Saturninus", in /RS 68 (1978), 12ff. = AE 1978, 825 = W. ECK, „Sextus Lucilius Bassus, der Eroberer von Herodium, in einer Bauinschrift aus Abu Gosh", in SCI 18 (1999), 109ff.: Appendix: Lucilius Bassus oder L. Antonius Saturninus auf einem Meilenstein aus Jerusalem, 119f.

Bögen u n d Tore als E h r e n m o n u m e n t e in der Provinz Iudaea

163

Der Stein gehört in die Zeit zwischen 71 und 79; denn Titus ist bereits als Mitherrscher Vespasians genannt. Vom eradierten Namen des Statthalters ist nur der erste Buchstabe erhalten, ein L. Dabei kann es sich um das Praenomen cider den ersten Buchstaben des Gentiles handeln. Für die Identifizierung wurden verschiedene Vorschläge gemacht: Sex. Lucilius Bassus, Legat in den Jahren 71/72 (vielleicht bis 73), L. Flavius Silva, Statthalter um 73/74, und L. Antonius Saturninus, der gegen Ende der 70er Jahre amtiert haben dürfte, da er im Jahr 82 zum Suffektkonsulat kam. 27 Flavius Silva wurde gleich bei der Publikation der Inschrift als der wahrscheinliche Kandidat angesehen, dessen Name eradiert worden sei. Der Gedanke war dabei, daß er die letzten Reste der großen Revolte niedergekämpft hatte und damit jedenfalls für die jüdische Bevölkerung ein entsprechendes Objekt der Rache sein konnte. Doch die sehr systematische Rasur, die auf beiden Meilensteinen erfolgte, spricht eher für eine Person, deren memoria offiziell auf Reichsebene getilgt worden war. Deshalb hat Ronald Syme L(ucius) Antonius Saturninus vorgeschlagen, der seinerseits 88/89 gegen Domitian revoltierte und dessen Name auch anderswo eradiert wurde. Dieser Beschluß zur Eradierung des Namens wurde sicher reichsweit verbreitet. Schließlich wurde auch an Lucilius Bassus gedacht, dessen Name sich exakt in dem zur Verfügung stehenden eradierten Platz unterbringen ließe und dessen Gentilnomen mit L beginnt. Denn bei Antonius Saturninus ergibt sich das Problem, daß sein voller Name einschließlich des Praenomens dort keinen Platz findet; vielmehr müßte man Gentilnomen und Cognomen jeweils abgekürzt haben: L. Ant. Satur.2!i - eine nicht sehr wahrscheinliche Lösung, da schließlich der Text auf den Meilensteinen vom Statthalter selbst approbiert werden mußte. Daß Antonius Saturninus seinen Namen in solcher Weise abkürzen und damit unspezifisch machen ließ, sollte man nicht voraussetzen. Aber auch gegen den Namen des Lucilius Bassus an der eradierten Stelle spricht ein Grund: Sein Name ist sonst in Inschriften nicht getilgt, ebensowenig wie der Name des Flavius Silva, der vielmehr mit seiner Nomenklatur in seiner Heimatstadt Urbs Salvia auf vier monumentalen Inschriften erhalten geblieben war, ebenso wie in Konsulatsdatierungen. Dies ist dann auch ein sehr gewichtiges und entscheidendes Argument, in Zeile 2 nicht den Namen des Flavius Silva zu erkennen, obwohl dort L. Flavi - als Lesung möglich, vielleicht wahrscheinlich ist. Denn daß die dortige Rasur nicht einfach beliebig erfolgt sein kann, ist evident. Bei Flavius Silva wie bei Lucilius Bassus aber kennen wir keinen Beschluß, der auf eine offizielle Tilgung des Namens weisen könnte; dieses Argument trifft nur bei Antonius Saturninus zu. Gegen die Identifizierung des eradierten Namens L. Flavi[—] mit L. Flavius 27

Siehe die Literatur in der vorausgehenden A n m e r k u n g u n d R. SYME, „Antonius Saturninus", Roman Papers III, hg. A.R. BffiLEY, Oxford 1984, 1070ff.

28

Oder auch anderen Varianten wie L. Ant. Saturnin.,

L. Antonio

oder L. Ant.

164

Werner Eck

Silva sprechen aber auch andere Überlegungen, die sich aus chronologischen Gründen ergeben. In Zeile 4 und 5 werden zwei Personen genannt, die bei der Errichtung des Bogens eine Rolle gespielt haben. Welche Personengruppen können dabei involviert gewesen sein? Der oben schon angeführte Bogen für Septimius Severus und seine Familie gibt einen klaren Hinweis. Zum einen erscheint die Kolonie als Auftraggeber, dann aber wird der Statthalter wohl als Dedikant angegeben, worauf am Ende noch eine weitere Person genannt wird, die die Bauausführung übernommen hatte; diese Person steht nachgewiesenermaßen im Ablativ. Dies ist auch hier der Fall. [—] Maximus, offensichtlich eine Person mit römischem Bürgerrecht, könnte als der zuletzt Genannte wohl für die Bauausführung zuständig gewesen sein. Doch ist nicht ausgeschlossen, daß er die Dedikation durchführte; in diesem Fall müßte er wohl der Statthalter gewesen sein. Mindestens ein kaiserlicher Legat, der dieses Cognomen trägt ist bekannt: Maximus Luciiianus, der im Jahr 160 in Syria Palaestina amtierte.29 Vor Maximus erscheint ein [—]ius Athenagforas], ebenfalls im Ablativ. Auch er muß an der Erbauung des Bogens beteiligt gewesen sein, aber notwendigerweise in einer anderen Funktion als Maximus. Der griechische Name Athenagoras ist innerhalb der Reichsaristokratie nur wenig bezeugt, und nicht vor dem späteren 2. Jahrhundert. 30 Wenn also diese Person eine staatliche Funktion eingenommen haben sollte, würde dies mit einer Datierung des Textes in die flavische Zeit kaum vereinbar sein. Athenagoras wäre als Name weit eher mit einem Bewohner von Jerusalem zu verbinden, was allerdings nicht vor der Gründung der Colonia Aelia Capitolina möglich erscheint. Denn wenn Athenagoras nicht eine staatliche Funktion ausübte, muß es eine munizipale gewesen sein, was wiederum auf die Zeit der Kolonie verweist. Vorher existierte Jerusalem, soweit uns bekannt, nicht mehr als Selbstverwaltungseinheit. Aus der Analyse der einzelnen Elemente läßt sich somit keine Sicherheit über den Zeitpunkt der Errichtung des Bogens gewinnen, ebenso wenig über die Funktion, die die verschiedenen, hier genannten Personen in diesem Zusammenhang hatten. Wahrscheinlich ist nur, daß wegen der Zahl der angeführten Namen und deren Art auch ein munizipaler Funktionsträger genannt ist, was nach den uns heute zur Verfügung stehenden Einsichten auf die Zeit nach der Koloniegründung verweist. Fast sicher aber stand in Zeile 2 der Name einer Person, die in den staatlichen Bereich gehört, weil der Name eradiert wurde. Doch der Bogen ist nicht für ihn errichtet worden, sondern für einen Kaiser, dessen Name verloren ist.

29

W. ECK, „Ein Militärdiplom für die Auxiliareinheiten von Syria Palaestina aus dem Jahr 160 n. C h r . " , Kölner Jahrbuch

26 (1993), 451ff.; W . ECK, A. PANGERL, „ N e u e Mili-

tärdiplome für die Provinzen Syria u n d Iudaea/Syria Palaestina", in SCI 24 (2005), lOlff. 30

PIR 2 Bd. I p. 261; C 429. 430; A E 1 9 9 9 , 1 6 0 2 - 1607.

165

Bögen u n d Tore als E h r e n m o n u m e n t e in der Provinz Iudaea

Auch wenn man hier also zu keiner klaren Aussage über Zeit und geehrte Person kommen kann, ist das Dokument für unseren Zusammenhang von höchster Bedeutung, da durch die Inschrift ein weiterer Bogen für einen Kaiser in Jerusalem identifiziert wird. Es sind so mindestens drei, eher vier Ehrenbögen: zwei für Hadrian, einer für Septimius Severus und einer für einen unbekannten Kaiser nachzuweisen. Die Masse aller epigraphischen Zeugnisse in Jerusalem ist verloren gegangen, was sich allein schon an der mehr als geringen Zahl der einfachen Statuenbasen ablesen läßt, ebenso jedoch auch an der nur kleinen Zahl von Grabinschriften für Soldaten und Veteranen.31 Wenn aber bei dieser Sachlage vier Ehrenbögen für verschiedene Kaiser durch die Inschriften nachzuweisen sind, ist der Schluß fast zwingend, daß in der Realität des 2. und 3. Jahrhunderts weit mehr solche Monumente existiert haben müssen. Das aber heißt dann auch, daß diese mächtigen Monumente, von denen die Statuen der Kaiser herabblickten, den öffentlichen Raum der Stadt dominierten. Das heißt auch, daß dieser öffentliche Raum weit stärker gestaltet war, als sich dies aus den bisherigen archäologischen Befunden ergibt.32 Jerusalem als heilige Stadt der Juden existierte nicht mehr. Die Stadt war in vollem Umfang römisch geworden. Ihren Kaiser bildlich zu ehren, gehörte zu ihrem Selbstverständnis. Die neuen römischen Bürger und die sich neu herausbildenden führenden Familien der Colonia Aelia Capitolina haben dies, wie die Zeugnisse erkennen lassen, mit Nachdruck und in besonders monumentalen Formen getan.

31

Siehe immer noch die S a m m l u n g von THOMSEN, „Inschr. ... J e r u s a l e m " (s.o. A n m . 16),

32

Vgl. nur beispielsweise die Zusammenfassung von KUHNEN, Palästina

Iff.; 6 4 , 1 9 4 1 , 206ff. römischer

in

griechisch-

Zeit (s.o. A n m . 16), 218ff. und von ELIAV, „The U r b a n Layout of Aelia Capi-

tolina" (s.o. A n m . 16) 243ff.; bei Kuhnen und Eliav, ebenso bei Arnould (Anm. 15) w e r d e n einige B e f u n d e erwähnt, die Stadttore oder E h r e n b ö g e n w a r e n oder als solche gedeutet werden. Eine zwingende

Verbindung zu einer der hier behandelten Inschrif-

ten ergibt sich in keinem einzigen Fall (vgl. A n m . 24). D a z u w ä r e erst zu prüfen, ob sich die rekonstruierbaren M a ß e der Inschriften mit den baulichen B e f u n d e n vereinbaren lassen. Dies ist bisher nach m. W. nicht geschehen. - Für Hinweise danke ich H a n n a h Cotton u n d H e n n e r von Hesberg.

Were the Jews Accused of Roasting their Enemies? by MIRIAM PUCCI BEN ZEEV

In the archives of Apollonios, the strategos of the district of ApollinopolisHeptakomia 1 who lived in Egypt at the beginning of the second century C.E. at the time of the Jewish uprisings, a short but meaningful letter was found, written to him by his mother Eudaimonis. In Roman Egypt, as far as we know, the strategi usually had only civil responsibilities, 2 but from the extant papyri it appears that the Jewish uprising was an exceptional event, which necessitated their military involvement. 3 Consequently Apollonios, too, as other strategi, seems to have had a role in the fight against the Jews. 4 No wonder that his mother, Eudaimonis, was worried and prayed to gods and goddesses for his safety, 5 going as far as to state that she is not going to pay any attention to the gods until she receives her son back safe. 6 It is precisely in one of these letters written by Eudaimonis to Apollonios, preserved in P. Giss. 24 = CP] II, 437, that we find a peculiar expression, a prayer to the gods, and in particular to Hermes "the invincible". According to the reading suggested by Wilcken to Kornemann, and later endorsed by the editors of the CP], Eudaimonis wrote, or rather dictated to a scriba, the following words, σ[. . . .τ]ών θεών [ου]ν θελόντων καί μάλιστα του άνικήτου Έ ρ μ ο υ οϋ μή σε όπτήσωσι(σι), "with the good will of the gods, above all Hermes the invincible, may they not roast you". Most probably "they" refers here to the Jews, as Wilcken was the first to see, relying on other letters written to Apollonios both by Eudaimonis and by his wife Aline. Eudaimonis' prayer that the Jews may not roast her son echoes the account found in Dio Cassius, as preserved in the summary of Xiphilinus, which points

1

Apollonios w a s in office f r o m probably earlier than June 114 at least until after A u g u s t 119. See J. WHTTEHORNE, "Recent research on the strategi of R o m a n Egypt (to 1985)", in ANRWII,

1 0 , 1 (1988), 607 and J. ROWLANDSON, Women & Society in Greek and

Egypt: A Sourcebook, 2

Roman

Cambridge 1998,118-120.

See CP] II, 227 and G. BASTIANINI, "Lista degli strateghi dell'Hermopolites in epoca r o m a n a " , in Ζ Ρ Ε 47 (1982), 213.

II, 436 and 439. II, 439.

3

See CP]

4

See CP]

5

P. Giss. Inv. 245 = P. Alex. Giss. 58 = SB 1 0 , 1 0 6 5 2 B.

6

CPJII 442,11. 2 5 - 2 8 .

Miriam Ben Zeev

168

to the fierceness of the fight: "Meanwhile the Jews in the region of Cyrene had put a certain Andreas at their head, and were destroying both the Romans and the Greeks. They would eat the flesh of their victims, make belts for themselves of their entrails, anoint themselves with their blood and wear their skins for clothing; many they sawed in two, from the head downwards; others they gave to wild beasts, and still others they forced to fight as gladiators. In all two hundred and twenty thousand persons perished. In Egypt, too, they perpetrated many similar outrages and in Cyprus under the leadership of a certain Artemion". 7 Along with Eudaimonis' letter, this passage of Dio has been regarded either as attesting factual reality or, in any case, as a sign of the anti-Jewish propaganda that flourished in Alexandria at the time.8 This interpretation, however, is highly doubtful. As for Dio, a survey of the accounts of revolts against the Roman government found in ancient sources shows that this passage, which most probably already appeared in Dio's work and is not to be regarded as a late addition by Xiphilinus, 9 constitutes not an exception but rather a locus communis, a well-established tradition while describing revolts by "barbarians" against the Roman establishment. It is surely not a chance that similar details are attributed to the Egyptians also by Polybius and by Juvenal. 10 In this case, this account is to be linked to the literary fashion of the time more than to cultural and political propaganda. As for the passage of Eudaimonis' letter to Apollonios in which she prays "the invincible Hermes" that "they may not roast" her son, the problem is not so much that pertaining to the historical value to give to these words 11 as

7

D i o CASSIUS, Historia Romana,

8

See D. FRANKFURTER, "Lest Egypt's City be Deserted: Religion and Ideology in the

LXVIII, 3 2 , 1 - 2 .

E g y p t i a n R e s p o n s e t o t h e J e w i s h R e v o l t ( 1 1 6 - 1 1 7 C . E . ) " , i n JJS 4 3 ( 1 9 9 2 ) , 2 0 3 - 2 2 0 .

9

Some scholars (see for example K. FRIEDMANN, " L e fonti per la storia degli ebrei di Cirenaica nell'antichitä", in Miscellanea E.S. ARTOM et al,

di studi ebraici in memoria

di H.P. Chajes, ed. by

Firenze 1930, 53) suggest that the account concerning the cruel

behavior of the J e w s w a s added by Xiphilinus, the m o n k w h o s u m m a r i z e d Dio's work in the eleventh century, and w h o m a y well have h a d anti-Jewish feelings. However, the atrocities ascribed here to the Jews are extremely similar to those which Dio attributes to the Britons w h e n revolting against the R o m a n s in 61 C.E. ( D i o CASSIUS, Historia Romana

(see above n. 7) LXII, 7 , 1 - 3 ) and to the Bucoli w h o rebelled in Egypt in

171 C.E. [DIO CASSIUS, Historia

Romana

(see above n. 7), LXXI, 4, 1], It is probable,

therefore, that the account already appeared in the original text of Dio. 10

See FRANKFURTER, " L e s t Egypt's City Be Deserted" (see a b o v e n. 8), 203, n. 3.

11

Fuks and M o d r z e j e w s k i doubt that the expressions used by Eudaimonis should be taken at face value. Fuks points out that " t h e irascible old lady, w h o sometimes 'revolts' against the gods and apostrophizes her fellow m e n , used rather extravagant expressions" (CP/ II, 236), and Modrzejewski calls her a "self-centered person" (J.M. MODRZEIEWSKI, The Jews of Egypt: From Rameses Cornman, Princeton 1997, 2 0 2 - 2 0 4 ) .

II to Emperor

Hadrian,

transl. Robert

Where the Jews Accused of Roasting their Enemies?

169

rather that pertaining to the question whether Eudaimonis ever wrote (or dictated) these very words. It was in the late eighties that Clarysse cast the first doubts upon the reading of the text όπτήσωσι{σι} proposed by Wilcken. Clarysse points out that the first two letters of the verb are absolutely unclear in the text, and h should be η and t should be τ. In this case, we would read not όπτήσωσι{σι( but rather ήττήσωσι{σι}, and the meaning would be not "may they not roast you" but rather "may they not defeat you". A confirmation that we should prefer this reading would be the fact that the verb όπτάω "to roast" is apparently unique in the papyri, while ήττάω is much more common and appears more than once in the letters preserved by the papyri which concern the Jewish revolt.12 The reading proposed by Clarysse has been endorsed by Whitehorne and by Rowlandson, ignored by Alston, and rejected by Kortus. 13 Kortus suggests returning to the reading of Wilcken and Kornemann, arguing that the first letter of this word, or rather verb, cannot be η since we cannot see its vertical stroke, while the second may be a π even if we cannot see its left vertical stroke because the text has a hole here. In both cases, Kortus is correct. The vertical stroke of η is not visible, and the papyrus does have a hole where the second letter is written. If we look at the photo of this text,14 however, we realize that the reading ο for the first letter is impossible, since the right part of the circle is completely missing. As for the second, no definite conclusion seemed possible. That is why in a work currently in press I concluded that in any case "the reading suggested by Clarysse cannot be easily dismissed". 15 But the new reading suggested by Clarysse and the reasons adduced by Kortus for rejecting it gave me no rest. I enlarged the photo of this fragment and kept looking at it. Concerning the second letter, Kortus is certainly correct, there is no doubt that the text has a hole. But is this really the reason why the vertical left stroke of π is missing? If we look at the text attentively, we see that the form of the

12

W. CLARYSSE, "Apollonios: ambtenaar en familievader", in Pamiliearchieven van Pharao, ed. by P.W. PESTMAN, Zutphen 1989, 169, n. 18.

13

J. WHITEHORNE, "Religious Expression in the Correspondence of the Strategus Apollonius", in APapyrol 6 (1994), 34; ROWLANDSON, Women & Society (see above n. 1), 121; R. ALSTON, Soldier and Society in Roman Egypt: A Social History, London/New York 1995, 76; M. KORTUS, Briefe des Apollonios-Archives aus der Sammlung Papyri Gissenses: Edition, Übersetzung und Kommentar, Berichte und Arbeiten aus der Universitätsbibliothek und dem Universitätsarchiv Gießen 49, Gießen 1999, 106.

14

See CP] III, Plate IV and the on-line image at http://bibd.uni-giessen.de/papyri/images/ pgiss-inv098recto.jpg.

15

Μ. PUCCI BEN ZEEV, Diaspora Judaism Modern Insights, Leuven 2005,173.

in Turmoil,

116/117

CE: Ancient

uit het land

Sources

and

170

Miriam Ben Zeev

hole is not straight but rather oblique. If there had been a vertical left stroke, we would probably be able to see its bottom part. And since this is not the case, it is much more probable that the letter in question is not π but rather x, as Clarysse suggested. As for the first letter, it is clear that it cannot be 0, since, as pointed out above, the right part of the circle is completely missing. The reading suggested by Clarysse, however, is also problematic. From the logical point of view, Clarysse is correct: if the second letter is τ, then η before it is the only possibility that makes sense, but on the other hand, the sign appearing in the text cannot be identified with η. In fact, a third possibility may be suggested: the letter most similar to the sign which shows up at the beginning of this word may well be ε, possibly a mistake of the scriba: ε instead of η.16 A mistake of this kind need not surprise us in view of the fact that two additional misspellings are found in this same word: one at the end, where the letters σι are written twice, and the other in the middle, where under the ω we can clearly see traces of an o. This means that the scriba originally wrote ο and afterwards he, or somebody else, corrected it to ω without erasing the o, which may well explain the reason why the ω is particularly stressed in thick writing, presumably in order to cover the traces of the ο which were (and remain) still visible. If the scriba was more familiar with spoken Greek than with its written form, he may not have been aware of the differences between long and short vowels, exchanging η for ε in the same way in which he took ω for o. Similar cases of words written erroneously probably relying on their pronunciation can often be found in contemporaneous papyri: just to make an example from the same years, we may look at the list of legionaries appearing in P. Vindob . L, 2 = Ch. La . XLIII, 1242, where we find Clemes instead of Clemens three times (11. 5, 18, 21) and Cladius instead of Claudius four times (11.11,12, 21, 22). In conclusion: Eudaimonis did not accuse the Jews of roasting her son Apollonios, more simply she feared that the Jews "should not defeat" him, a more than understandable fear at the time. One supposed instance of anti-Jewish propaganda collapses upon scrutiny.

16

See also my note "P. Giss. 24: A New Reading", forthcoming in Ζ ΡΕ. I wish to thank Prof. Roger Bagnall for his kindness in checking the photo of this papyrus again and for supporting my reading.

The Severan Emperors, Rabbi Judah ha-Nasi and the Cities of Palestine by AHARON OPPENHEIMER Septimius Severus and Caracalla passed laws that allowed Jews to hold office in the administration of the towns and cities. 1 This was a change from Hadrian's policy, which had encouraged the hellenisation of cities, including Tiberias and Sepphoris, and the transfer of the city administration to the pagan elements of the population. 2 Similarly, the same Severan emperors ruled that Jews who were appointed to these offices were to undertake to pay for those official outlays which were not in conflict with their religious observances. 3 In accordance with this, the institutions of the city councils were responsible to the authorities for the levying of ordinary and extraordinary taxes. Against this background, there is special interest in the application of Jews from the town and city leadership institutions to Rabbi Judah ha-Nasi with questions about the division of the tax burden: When Rav Yitzhaq bar Yoseph came, he said: "There was an incident over the crown tax which the house of the emperor levied on the boule [city council] and the strategoi [magistrates]'. Rabbi said: 'Let the boule [give half] and the strategoi give half'. 4 The background to this incident is to be found in a parallel source in the Jerusalem Talmud, which describes an argument between the members of the boule and the strategoi on this subject, which was brought before Rabbi Judah

1

ULPIAN, Digest L 2, 3, 3. Ulpian notes here the legislation of Septimius Severus and Caracalla dealing with the rights and obligations of Jews in city offices. Since this legislation rules that Jews are allowed to hold offices in the city administrations, it is clear that up to this point Jews were barred from holding these offices. See A. LLNDER, The Jews in Roman Imperial Legislation, Detroit/Jerusalem 1 9 8 7 , 1 0 3 - 1 1 0 .

2

See A.H.M. JONES, The Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces, Oxford 1971, 278; B. ISAAC, I. ROLL, "ludaea in the Early Years of Hadrian's Reign", in Latomus 38 (1979), 63-64 (= B. ISAAC, The Near East under Roman Rule, Leiden/New York/Köln 1998,182-197).

3

ULPIAN, Digest L (see above η. 1) and also Digest X X V I I 1 , 15, 6. See on this LlNDER, The Jews (see above η. 1), 110-113.

4

bBB 143a, according to the Munich ms. The additions in brackets follow the standard version.

172

Aharon Oppenheimer

ha-Nasi for his decision: It was like this: The members of the boule and the strategoi had a payment levied on them to the authorities. The case was brought before Rabbi and he said: 'Are not the members of the boule included in the strategoi? And for what reason did he say the members of the boule and the strategoi, except to say: these shall give half and these shall give half'. 5 In both these parallel sources Rabbi divides the burden of the crown tax (aurum coronarium)6 equally between the two institutions - the boule and the strategoi - without relating to the number of members in each institution. There is another case where the Babylonian Talmud mentions the imposition of the crown tax, and this too was followed by an application to Rabbi Judah haNasi: "This is like the incident over crown tax which was levied on Tiberias. They came before Rabbi and said to him: The sages should give with us". 7 There is reason to suppose that this is the same case as before, related to Tiberias, as seen in the sources above. Various theories have been proposed about the identity of the institution of the strategoi.8 In fact, there can be little doubt that this is a Greek translation of the Latin term duoviri, which describes the two holders of the highest office in the city.9 The office is known from different cities in the eastern provinces. 10 Two strategoi are mentioned in several places in the Talmudic literature. 11 From

5

y Y o m I, 39a, col. 564, ed. by The A c a d e m y of the H e b r e w Language, Jerusalem 2005. The translation of the w o r d Ό Ή ? - payment to the authorities - is according to M. SOKOLOFF, A Dictionary

of Jewish Palestinian

Aramaic

of the Byzantine

Period,

Ramat-Gan

1990, 505. 6

On the crown tax, see F. MILLAR, The Emperor

in the Roman

World, L o n d o n 1977, 1 3 9 -

144. 7

bBB 8a. For various opinions on this source, see L.I. LEVINE, The Rabbinic man Palestine

in Late Antiquity,

Class of Ro-

Jerusalem/New York 1989, 9 8 - 1 0 0 and bibliography ad

loc. (Hebr.). 8

See e.g. A. BÜCHLER, The Social and Administrative Sepphoris

in the Second and Third Century,

Leaders

of the Jewish

Community

London 1909, 4 6 - ^ 7 ; A. GULAK, "Boule

of and

strategoi·. O n the R o m a n Tax System in the Land of Israel", in Tarbiz 11 (1940), 1 1 9 - 1 2 2 (Hebr.); G. ALON, " T h e strategoi Jews and Judaism

and the Classical

in the Palestinian Cities during the R o m a n E p o c h " , in World, ed. by G. ALON, Jerusalem 1977, 4 5 8 - 4 7 5 ; A.

OPPENHEIMER, Galilee in the time of the Mishnah,

Jerusalem 1991, 7 2 - 7 8 (Hebr.).

9

For this office, see W . WALDSTEIN, " D u o v i r i " , Der Kleine Pauly II, cols. 1 7 6 - 1 7 8 .

10

See F. MILLAR, " T h e R o m a n Coloniae of the Near East: A Study of Cultural Relations", in Roman

Eastern

Policy and Other Studies

in Roman

History,

ed. by H . SOLIN, Μ. ΚΑ-

JAVA, Helsinki 1990, 4 6 - 4 8 ; OPPENHEIMER, Galilee (see a b o v e n. 8), 74. 11

E.g. Devarim Rabbah, ed. by S. LLEBERMANN, 84 (according to the Oxford ms.); Devarim

Rab-

bah III, 3; yBer VIII, 12c, col. 63; Be-resit Rabbah ΠΙ, 4, ed. by J. THEODOR, CH. ALBECK, 22.

The Severan Emperors, Rabbi Judah ha-Nasi and the Cities of Palestine

173

this it is clear that the version of the question in the Jerusalem Talmud should be inverted to read 'Are not the strategoi included in the boule?'. It is important to note that the institution of the duovirate only existed in cities which had the status of a Roman colonia, as it is parallel to the two consuls in the city of Rome. Thus there is some backing for the supposition that all the sources mentioning crown tax relate to Tiberias, and that the promotion of Tiberias to a colonia mentioned in relation to Rabbi Judah ha-Nasi is also authentic (see below). In the province of Syria-Palaestina, Septimius Severus granted city status in 199/200 CE to Lod[Lydda]/Diospolis and to Bet Guvrin/Eleutheropolis. Sebaste was promoted by him to the status of a colonia, while the status of polis was temporarily removed from Neapolis, which had supported Niger in the year 194.12 Elagabalus gave city status in Syria-Palestina to Emmaus/Nicopolis and to Antipatris. 13 If we accept the Talmudic evidence that Tiberias became a colonia, and the usual identification of 'Antoninus' in this source as Caracalla, 14 it would be reasonable to suppose that it was Elagabalus who gave this status to Tiberias (see below). 15 Rabbi Judah ha-Nasi exempted Jews living in cities where most of the inhabitants were non-Jews from observing the mrswof/commandments related

12

For Lod see: G.M. HILL, BMC: Palestine

(Galilee,

Samaria and Julaea),

nos. 1 - 2 ; M. ROSENBERGER, City Coins of Palestine,

L o n d o n 1914, 141,

II, Jerusalem 1975, 2 8 - 3 1 ; ibid., III,

Jerusalem 1977, 80; A. KLNDLER, A. STEIN, A Bibliography

of the City Coinage of

Palestine,

B A R 374, Oxford 1987, 9 6 - 9 9 . For Bet G u v r i n see: A. SPIJKERMAN, " T h e coins of Eleutheropolis Iudaeae", in

Liber

Annuus 22 (1972), 3 6 9 - 3 7 4 , pis. 1 - 4 ; KlNDLER, STEIN, ibid., 1 1 2 - 1 1 6 . For Sebaste, see Digest, L 15, 1, 7. (From the numismatic evidence it would seem that the change took place b e t w e e n the years 2 0 1 - 2 1 1 , probably in 201/202. See HILL, ibid., XXXIX, 80 and nos. 1 2 - 1 3 ; KlNDLER, STEIN, ibid., 222-229). For Neapolis, see S H A Severus IX, 5. 13

For E m m a u s see: JONES, The Cities (see above n. 2), 279 and n. 72; E. SCHÜRER, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, rev. and ed. b y G. VERMES, F. MILLAR, I, Edinburgh 1973, 5 1 2 - 5 1 3 , n. 142; KlNDLER, STEIN, A Bibliography

(see above n. 12),

177-179; For Elagabalus' grant of city status to Emmaus, see: A. STEIN, Studies in Greek and Latin Coin Inscriptions

on the Palestinian

Coinage,

(Ph.D. thesis), Tel A v i v 1990, 1 5 3 -

165. For Antipatris there are seven k n o w n coin-types, all from the time of Elagabalus. See HILL, BMC (above n. 12), X V - X V I , 11; N. VAN DER VLIET, " M o n n a i e s inedites ou tres rares du medaillier de Sainte A n n e de Jerusalem", in RB 57 (1950), 1 1 6 - 1 1 7 , nos. 1 1 - 1 2 ; Y. MESHORER, The City Coins of Eretz-Israel

and the Decapolis

Jerusalem 1984, 54, nos. 149-152; KlNDLER, STEIN, A Bibliography 42; SCHÜRER, ibid., II, 1979, 1 6 7 - 1 6 8 . See also: IGR, ROBERT, Les gladiateurs

in the Roman

Period,

(see a b o v e n. 12), 4 1 -

I, no. 631, republished by L.

dans I'Orient grec, Limoges 1940, repr. A m s t e r d a m 1971, 1 0 3 -

104, no. 43 w h e r e a m e m b e r of the boule appears for Antipatris as for Neapolis (cfr. 101-103, nos. 4 1 - 4 2 ) . 14

b A Z 10a (see below). S e e on this S. KRAUSS, Antoninus

und Rabbi,

W i e n 1910, 5 2 - 5 5 ;

S.S. MILLER, "Intercity relations in R o m a n Palestine: The case of Sepphoris and Tiberias", in AJS Review 12 (1987), 7. 15

On R o m a n rule in Tiberias, see OPPENHEIMER, Galilee (see above n. 8), 7 1 - 7 8 (Hebr.).

Aharon Oppenheimer

174

to the produce of the Land of Israel. This included Jews in Ascalon, Caesarea, Bet Guvrin/Eleutheropolis, and Bet She'an/Scythopolis. 16 He rules explicitly that it is not his intention to exclude these towns from the territory of the Land of Israel, and the impurity of the eres ha-'amim/gentile territory does not apply to them.17 Some kind of session of the Bet ha-Vaad held by Rabbi at Lod ruled on the purification of Ascalon from its previous status as belonging to the impure eres ha-'amim, but absolved the city's Jewish inhabitants from observing the miswot relating to the produce of the Land of Israel.18 In order to proclaim the inclusion of Ascalon within the borders of the Land of Israel, Rabbi Judah ha-Nasi and his colleagues relied on the evidence of Rabbi Pinhas b. Yair, who was from the Darom [South].19 It would seem, therefore, that Rabbi's intention was to join in the Severan urbanisation initiative, and his intention in these taqqanot, as has been suggested by several scholars, was to encourage Jews to settle in those cities and help them in their economic competition with their non-Jewish neighbours. 20 Rabbi's tacjcjanot, which absolve the inhabitants of mixed cities from observing the miswot related to the produce of the Land of Israel, are not mentioned in connection with Tiberias and Sepphoris, the central cities of Galilee. It can be assumed that the absolutions did not apply to them because of their large number of Jewish inhabitants, which meant that there was no 16

yDemai II, 22c, col. 121; Shevi'it vi, 36c, cols. 197-198; b H u l 6b; cfr. the episode of the purification of Ascalon by Rabbi and his colleagues, and the exemption from the obligation of tithes which w a s recorded in detail: Yerushalmi

loc. cit; Y e v VII, 8a, col. 862;

tOhal XVIII, 18, ed. by M.S. ZUCKERMANDEL, 617. See E. FRADKIN, "Ascalon and the 'Boundaries of the Land of Israel' in the Mishnaic P e r i o d " , Cathedra

19 (1981), 3 - 1 0

(Hebr.). For Rabbi's exemptions in general, see: A. BÜCHLER, " D e r Patriarch R. l e h u d a I. u n d die griechisch-römischen Städte Palästinas", in JQR 13 (1901), 6 8 3 - 7 0 0 (= IDEM, Studies

in Jewish

History,

L o n d o n 1956, 179-198). For a different approach to these

sources: M. GOODMAN, State and Society in Roman

Galilee, AD 132-212,

Totowa, Ν J.,

1983,178-180. 17

tOhal, XVIII, 4 ed. b y ZUCKERMANDEL, 616.

18

See above n. 16.

19

R. Pinhas b. Yair lived in either Lod or Ascalon, or m a y b e both at different times. On this question see: Y. AGUR, Rabbi Pinhas b. Yair, (MA thesis), Tel Aviv University 1988, 2 9 - 3 3 (Hebr.).

20

This says something about the status of R. Pinhas b. Yair and the centre at Lod, for in spite of the tensions between Rabbi, w h o was the patriarch, a n d R. Pinhas b. Yair the Pietist, and in spite of the threat posed by the centre at L o d to the h e g e m o n y of Galilee, their opinion was accepted, even if this w a s because it w e n t along with Rabbi Judah ha-Nasi's general attitudes and aims, as noted above. S e e y D e m a i I, 22a, col. 118; b H u l 7b. O n the figure of R. Pinhas b. Yair the Pietist, and the relations between him and Rabbi J u d a h ha-Nasi, see S. SAFRAI, " T h e Teaching of the Pietists in Mishnaic Literature", ]]S 16 (1965), 1 5 - 3 3 ; M. BEN-SHALOM, " O n the figure of R. Pinhas b. Yair and A n o n y m o u s Pietists", in The Path of Peace: Studies in Honor of Israel Friedman Shalom, Beer Sheva 2005, 4 4 1 - 4 7 2 .

Ben-

The Severan Emperors, Rabbi Judah ha-Nasi and the Cities of Palestine

175

need to encourage further Jewish settlement in them. It is important to note that Rabbi Judah ha-Nasi did not exempt Lod itself from the miswot relating to the produce of the Land of Israel, although he did exempt Bet Guvrin, which received city status at the same time as Lod. Thus Lod seems to have been like Tiberias and Sepphoris, cities with wellestablished Jewish communities which did not receive these concessions either. We can be certain that, in view of the rise in power of the centre at Lod, Rabbi had no interest in further strengthening Jewish Lod. In contrast, Bet Guvrin received the afore-mentioned concessions, for its inhabitants appear to have been mainly non-Jewish, and Rabbi Judah ha-Nasi wished to strengthen the base of Jewish settlement there. In parallel to the comparison between the attitude of R. Judah ha-Nasi to Lod as opposed to Bet Guvrin, on the one hand, and Tiberias and Sepphoris on the other, it is interesting to compare his attitude to Akko with his attitude to Ascalon. The cities of Akko and Ascalon marked the northern and southern boundary points of the Land of Israel on the coast. Their status as border points of the halakhic boundaries of the Land of Israel is clear from the baraita di-tehumin which deals with the halakhic boundaries of the Land, as well as from other sources.21 Akko and Ascalon had much in common. In both cities Jews were a minority compared to the non-Jewish inhabitants, and both of them were particularly condemned for their pagan nature. 22 It is remarkable that Rabbi did not include Akko within the boundaries of the Land of Israel, in contrast to Ascalon, nor did he lay down its status as pure, as part of the process needed to exempt the city from the miswot relating to the produce of the Land of Israel. As a result of this, Akko was not included in the list of cities whose Jewish characteristics Rabbi Judah ha-Nasi attempted to strengthen through his taqqanot. Moreover, when he visited Akko he stressed its impurity: Rabbi was in Akko. He saw one man going up from the cupola northwards. He said to him: Are you not the son of So-and-so the priest? Wasn't your father a priest? He replied: My father was tempted by what he saw and married a wife who was not suitable for him [as a priest presumably a divorced woman] and lost his priestly status.23

21

Dtn LI, ed. by FlNKELSTEIN, 117 and parallels, including the mosaic inscription from Rehov, see Y. SUSSMANN, "The baraita of the Boundaries of the Land of Israel", in Tarbiz 45 (1976), 213-257 (Hebr.). An example of further sources: mGit I, 1 - 2 , which relates to a husband who sent his wife a bill of divorce from abroad.

22

In bAZ l i b Akko and Ascalon are noted as places where there are pagan rites carried out, and people are warned to keep away from them.

23

yShevi'it VI, 36, col. 197; Git I, 43c, col. 1056.

176

Aharon Oppenheimer

It is possible that Rabbi did not lay down the same taqqanot for Akko as he had laid down for other towns because Akko was a Roman colonia (although he did lay them down for Caesarea). Being a colonia may have influenced the cultural atmosphere of the city, going back to the days when it had been settled by Roman army veterans. Ascalon and Bet She'an were cities of an eastern Hellenistic nature; Akko, in contrast, as a colonia, would have had a Roman presence and been influenced to some extent by Roman and Latin tradition. 24 The evidence for the pagan nature of Ascalon has already been mentioned, while the finds from the archaeological excavations in Bet She an demonstrate quite how pagan this city was during the Roman period. 25 In spite of this, Ascalon and Bet She'an were included among the cities which Rabbi exempted. The non-inclusion of Akko within the concessions of Rabbi is likely to stem from the fact that the pagan nature of the city was more firmly rooted, and its Roman culture more marked than in other cities, including Ascalon and Bet She'an. Ulpian, who came from Tyre, was one of the outstanding Roman jurists in the first quarter of the third century CE, i.e. at the same time as Rabbi Judah ha-Nasi. He notes that Akko was a colonia sited between Phoenice and Palaestina, which did not receive privileges such as ius italicum [status equivalent to Italian cities] or freedom from taxes like other colonies in Palestine such as Caesarea and Aelia Capitolina.26 It is also possible that the non-purification of Akko and her non-inclusion within the boundaries of the Land of Israel stem from the fact that the city lay outside the territory of the province of Syria-Palaestina and was in fact a border point between this province and the province of Phoenice. Thus the boundaries of the province and the halakhic boundaries of the Land of Israel were very similar.27

24

See A. OPPENHEIMER, " D a s Verhältnis der Stadt A k k o z u m L a n d Israel u n d zu Galiläa", in Between

Rome and Babylon:

Studies in Jewish Leadership

and Society, ed. by A.

OPPENHEIMER, Tübingen 2 0 0 5 , 8 3 - 9 2 . 25

See e.g. G. FOERSTER, Y. TSAFRIR, " T h e Bet Shean Excavation Project", in EST 11 ( 1 9 8 9 -

26

ULPIAN: Digest

1991), 1 - 6 0 , and bibliography ad loc. on earlier seasons of excavation. L 15, 1, 3. Schürer and Avi-Yonah did not explain this accurately; in

their opinion, this lack of such privileges meant that A k k o w a s not a colonia at all. See E. SCHÜRER, Geschichte

des jüdischen

Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi, II, Leipzig 4 1 9 0 7 , 1 4 8 ,

and similarly in the revised English version (see above n. 13), II, (1979), 125; M. AviYONAH, Gazetteer

of Roman

Palestine,

Q e d e m 5, Jerusalem 1976, 89. See also B. ISAAC,

" R o m a n Colonies in Judaea: The Foundation of Aelia Capitolina", Talanta

12-13

(1980-81), 3 1 - 5 4 [= IDEM, The Near East (see above, n. 2), 8 7 - 1 1 1 ] ; IDEM, The Limits

of

Empire, Oxford 1990, 3 2 2 - 3 2 3 . 27

A similar p h e n o m e n o n is the fixing of the boundaries of Jewish Babylonia according to the criterion of preservation of the purity of familial descent. In Babylonia too it is possible to identify in the fixing of the boundaries a link b e t w e e n the density of Jewish settlement a n d the internal relations between the Jewish settlements, as well as the degree of subordination to Parthian-Sasanian rule. T h e result is a certain amount of overlap b e t w e e n the genealogical boundaries of Jewish Babylonia and the regional

The Severan Emperors, Rabbi Judah ha-Nasi and the Cities of Palestine

177

In the Babylonian Talmud there is a collection of aggadot about the relationship of Rabbi and Antoninus. In this collection we find an aggadah relating to Tiberias becoming a colonia: Antoninus said to Rabbi: I want my son Severus to reign after me and Tiberias to become a colony, and if I tell them [the Romans] one of these, they will do it, but if I tell them both, they will not. He [R Judah ha-Nasi] brought a man and put him on the shoulders of another man, and put a dove in the hand of the man on top, and said to the man below: Tell the man on top of you to release the dove from his hand. He [Antoninus] deduced from this: thus he [Rabbi] says to me: You ask them for Severus my son to rule after me, and I will tell him, Severus, to make Tiberias a colony.28 The source is wrapped in an aggadic atmosphere. It is reasonable to suppose that it was Rabbi Judah ha-Nasi who asked the emperor to raise Tiberias to the status of a colony, and not Severus who put this proposition to Rabbi. There is no basis for the supposition presented here as a statement of Antoninus that two requests by him would not be allowed by the notables of Rome. The story with the dove is reminiscent of various animal fables and is rather oddly related to its moral. However, in spite of all these, this piece of evidence fits in very well with what is known about various cities in the east to which the Severan emperors gave colonial status. Moreover, in inscriptions on the coins of Tiberias from the time of Elagabalus the letters COL are found in addition to the name of Tiberias. 29 Furthermore, a marriage contract from 1035 CE found in the Cairo Genizah specifies: bi-medinata Tiberiya Qolon[iya]: in the city of Tiberias Colon[ia]. 30 According to Talmudic tradition, it was the son of Antoninus who gave Tiberias this status of a colonia. If we accept the identification of Antoninus as Caracalla, this will fit what is known about Elagabalus, who did indeed act as if he was the son of Caracalla. According to the Iggeret of Rav Sherira Ga'on, Rabbi was still Nasi in 219 CE,31 in other words, it is indeed possible that he saw Tiberias made a colonia by Elagabalus. If Tiberias did in fact become a colony in the time of Elagabalus, this would help explain why the leadership institutions moved there from Sepphoris. The

28

boundaries of the Sasanian empire. See on this: A. OPPENHEIMER, M. LECKER, "The Genealogical Boundaries of Jewish Babylonia", in Between Rome and Babylon, (see above n. 24), 339-355. bAZ 10a.

29 30

MESHORER, The City Coins of Eretz-Israel (see above, n. 13), 35, no. 86. This is the only other source where Tiberias is mentioned as a colony. See on this M.A. FRIEDMAN, Jewish Marriage in Palestine, II, Tel Aviv/New York 1981, 207-212.

31

B.M. LEWIN (ed.), Iggeret Rav Sherira Gaon, Haifa 1921, 78.

Aharon Oppenheimer

178

route of the moves of the leadership institutions in Galilee - Ushah, (Shefaram), Bet She'arim, Sepphoris, Tiberias32 - reflects the inclusion of these towns in the Severan urbanisation initiative and the administrative reorganisation of the province (see below). At first the leadership institutions functioned in villages like Ushah, (Shefaram) and Bet She'arim. At the peak of his years as patriarch, Rabbi Judah ha-Nasi moved the leadership institutions to the polis of Sepphoris/Diocaesarea. It was not until the time of Rabbi Judah Nesiah, Rabbi Judah ha-Nasi's grandson, that the leadership institutions, first the Bet ha-Va'ad, then the patriarchate itself, moved to the colonia Tiberias. 33 Here and there in the Talmudic literature we can find echoes which support our assumptions about the relationship between Roman administrative methods and the organisation of the Jewish self-leadership in Palestine. The centrality of the city is expressed in various different kinds of sources: thus, about the place where the Sanhedrin was located: 'The Sanhedrin: ... In the Land of Israel, they make it in each city, abroad they make it in each pe/efc/district'.34 A similar picture is seen in the record of the relationship between small settlements and the city in whose territory they are sited: 'What does it mean, on rivulets of water? It is like Tiberias and her companions, Sepphoris and her companions, Yavneh and her companions, Lod and her companions'. 35 Another source describes the custom of the local villagers to go to Yavneh for Rosh ha-Shanah/New Year, which in this case was to fall on the Sabbath: 'All the settlements assembled'. 36 The fixed custom of the inhabitants of the villages to go to the city on market days had halakhic implications, for example the halakot connected with the 'day of assembly' related to the reading of the book of Esther.37 There can be little doubt that there were developments in the administrative division of Palestine during the Roman period during Second Temple times, as well as the period of the Mishnah and the Talmud. In Temple times 32

bRosh 31 a - b ; cfr. Be-re'sit Rabbah XCVII, Sitah Hadasah,

ed. b y THEODOR, ÄLBECK 1 2 2 0 -

1221; Yalqut Simoni Be-re'sit § 161, ed. by HYMAN, SHILONI, 844^845. 33

The talmudic traditions explain the m o v e from Bet S h e ' a r i m to Sepphoris by Rabbi's illness (bKet 1 0 3 b - 1 0 4 a ) , but it is clear that the m o v e mostly reflects the self-assertion of the leadership institutions through their m o v e to one of the central cities of Galilee. It is difficult to k n o w whether the n u m b e r of 17 years m e n t i o n e d in the Jerusalem T a l m u d in connection with the years of leadership of Rabbi at Sepphoris is historically authentic, for it is clearly the intention of the exegete to d r a w a parallel here with the years Jacob spent in Egypt (yKil IX, 32b, col. 174). In respect of the m o v e from Sepphoris to Tiberias, see also Y. COHEN, " D i d the Patriarchate m o v e to Tiberias, and if so, w h e n ? " , in Ζ ion 39 (1974), 1 1 4 - 1 2 2 (Hebr.).

34

tSan III, 10, ed. b y ZUCKERMANDEL, 420.

35

Midras Tehilim I, 19, ed. by BUBER, 19 and see p. 254.

36

bRosh 29b, although the Munich ms. does not h a v e the w o r d D ' l S 'villages' and in the Munich Β and Oxford mss. the whole sentence is missing. S e e Diqduqei

37

mMeg 1,1-2.

Soferim ad loc.

The Severan Emperors, Rabbi Judah ha-Nasi and the Cities of Palestine

179

there was only one city in Judaea proper, Jerusalem, and even on the subject of the status of Jerusalem there is no consensus; 38 in Galilee, too, there were very few cities. On the other hand, during the period of the Mishnah and the Talmud there were a number of cities with the status of a polis in Judaea and Galilee. Josephus relates that Judaea was divided into toparchiai.39 His description of Judaea appears in the context of his general description of Palestine, in connection with Vespasian's arrival in the country via Akko/Ptolemais. Josephus begins with a geographical description of Galilee, without relating to administrative matters. Peraea (across the Jordan), and Samaria are similarly described. After this Josephus describes Judaea, noting its borders, and stating that it is divided into eleven districts, klerouchiai, with Jerusalem at their head. The rest are smaller divisions which in fact coincide with the toparchies and he lists them as follows: Gophna, Acrabeta, Thamna, Lydda, Emmaus, Pella, Idumaea, Engaddi, Herodion and Jericho. All these names, apart from Jerusalem, are names of villages, other than Idumaea, which is an ethnic description. Josephus also mentions the cities of Jamnia (=Yavneh) and Joppa which had jurisdiction over the surrounding localities. This is in fact the definition of a toparchy, which is an administrative and legal term defining a certain territory. Afterwards he mentions the regions of Gamala, Gaulanitis, Batanea and Trachonitis, without giving any details. There may be some sort of connection between the division of Judaea into toparchies mentioned by Josephus, and the territorial divisions called pelakim in the Talmudic literature. This is the inference which may be drawn from the description in tractate Bikkurim in both Misnah and Tosefta, which is about bringing the first fruits to Jerusalem: "[The men of] all the towns of the ma'amad gathered together in the town of the ma'amad ... and early in the morning the officer [of the ma'amad] said: Arise ye and let us go up to Zion unto the house of the Lord our God (Jer 31,6)". In the Tosefta we find: "They did not go up [sc. to Jerusalem] singly, but according to their pelakim".'10

38

39 40

See, for example, V. TCHERDCOVER, "Was Jerusalem a Greek polis at the time of the Procurators?", in The jews in the Greek and Roman World, ed. by V. TCHERIKOVER, Tel Aviv /Jerusalem 1961,199-216 (Hebr.). BJ III, 54-55. mBik III, 2, trans, by Danby with footnote ad loc.. It should be noted that in the Talmudic sources the term ir, which has been translated as 'town' here, can also refer to any sort of settlement, even a single farm. tBik II, 8, ed. by LLEBERMAN, 292. Klein, and even more Schalit, went even further in wanting to identify the pelakim and the 24 priestly courses with the toparchies. This opinion can be abandoned for the simple reason that there is no numerical correspondence between them. See on this: S. KLEIN, Eretz Yehudah, Tel Aviv 1939, 212-219 (Hebr.); A. SCHALIT, König Herodes: Der Mann und sein Werk, Berlin 1969, 183-223.

180

Aharon Oppenheimer

A further important source for the administrative division of Judaea is Pliny the Elder. Pliny begins his description with the heading: "Then begin Idumaea and Palestine". These two names are geographical terms. Following this, he lists the coastal cities, and afterwards three cities in the area of Samaria: Neapolis [Shechem], Sebaste and Gamala.41 The inclusion of the last, however, is a mistake, for Gamala is in Gaulanitis and never received the status of a city. Pliny speaks in terms of regions, mentioning Galilee, Peraea, and then Judaea, recording that the latter was divided into ten toparchies: his list is almost identical to that of Josephus. He too lists lope/Jaffa among the toparchies, but this is not significant, as noted above, for Josephus also relates to regions as toparchies even though they were not. 42 Both these authors seem to have been somewhat inconsistent in their terminology. Pliny leaves out Idumaea and En Gedi, and says that Orine (the hill country) is "where Jerusalem was formerly situated". Idumaea itself is mentioned by him, but not listed among the toparchies. This is not surprising, because, as already noted, in Josephus this is the only toparchy which is an ethnic entity and not a village. The two further differences in the lists of toparchies, i.e. Pliny's omission of Ein Gedi and Jerusalem, reflect specific changes in the division of the province after the year 70, as a consequence of the results of the Jewish War. From the documents in the archive of Babatha it is clear that Ein Gedi (which was destroyed during the Jewish War) was added to the territory of Jericho; as for Jerusalem, this speaks for itself.43 In document no. 12 from the Babatha archive, we find Babatha's census declaration to the provincial authorities concerning her property in Mahoza in the district of Zoar in the territory of Petra.44 The document mentions three kinds of settlements: the city of Petra, the village of Zoar, and the small village of Mahoza. Later the document mentions Judanes son of Elazar from the village of Ein Gedi in the district of Jericho in Judaea. Thus these documents still mention villages sited in the territories of other settlements which also do not have city status. From this it is clear that the administrative division of Judaea from the time of the Second Temple was still extant many years after the destruction. Jericho is not the only territory mentioned in these documents. Both Gophna and Acrabeta are mentioned as

41

PLINY: N H v, 6 8 - 7 0 , ed. by L. IAN, C. MAYHOFF, Leipzig 1 8 9 2 - 1 9 0 9 ; M. STERN, Greek

42

See for example AJ XIII, 50; BJ II, 98.

and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism, 43

I, Jerusalem 1974, 468^478.

Contra Stern, (see a b o v e n. 41), w h o thought that Pliny's list reflects the situation at the time of Augustus and Herod.

44

See N. LEWIS, Y. YADIN, J.C. GREENFIELD, The Documents the Cave of Letters: Greek Papyri; Aramaic rusalem 1989, no. 12.

and Nabatean

from

Signatures

the Bar-Kokhba Subscriptions,

Period

in

J D S 2, Je-

The Severan Emperors, Rabbi Judah ha-Nasi and the Cities of Palestine

181

the centres of territories.45 Jerusalem and Orine are also mentioned in the documents. Further evidence that this territorial division was still extant after the year 70 is the description of Herodion as a toparchy in the Aramaic documents from Murabba'at. 46 From these documents it is clear that Herodion was one of Bar Kokhba's regional command centres, and even served as his treasury.47 Herodion is also mentioned as such by both Josephus and Pliny, even though it did not have city status. A different situation from that recorded by Josephus, Pliny and the Judaean Desert documents is to be found in Eusebius' Onomasticon.m The main difference here is in the division of the country into city territories, and the disappearance of descriptions of villages which belong to other villages. In my opinion, this change is due to the development of urbanisation under the Severans in the East, and their legislation about the status of Jews in the city administrations. This is clear from both Greek and Roman sources as well as the Talmudic literature. The institutions of self-government headed by Rabbi Judah ha-Nasi also supported urbanisation and settlement in cities, which together with the imperial encouragement resulted in this new situation.

45

P. ΒΕΝΟΓΓ et al, Les grottes de Murabba'at, DJD, II, Oxford 1961, no. 115. This document is dated to the year 124.

46

Above. The term toparchy mentioned here in connection with Herodium does not appear again in the Judaean Desert Documents. However, not too much importance should be placed on the absence of a wider use of this term, for in these documents it is common to find villages described as belonging to other places. From this we can conclude that in the second century CE the earlier division into toparchies continued to exist.

47

See BENOIT, Les grottes (see above n. 45), the documents and discussion on pp. 122-134. See too A. OPPENHEIMER, "Bar Kokhba and the Observance of the Mitzvot", in Between Rome and Babylon (see above n. 24), 83-92, 283-291.

48

E. KLOSTERMANN (ed.), Eusebius: Das Onomastikon der biblischen Ortsnamen, Leipzig 1904, repr. Hildesheim 1966. About the lists of Eusebius and the Division of Palestine see OPPENHEIMER, Between Rome and Babylon (above n. 24), pp. 41-45.

Sobre las funciones de la particula seen Hebreo Misnaico por MIGUEL PEREZ FERNANDEZ*

Comenzare por una breve nota de gramatica historica. En el cuerpo del trabajo ensayare una clasificacion de los diversos usos y funciones que tal particula tiene en la Lengua de la Misnah. 1

1. Gramatica historica La particula aser de Hebreo Biblico (HB en adelante) ha sido reemplazada en Hebreo Misnaico (HM en adelante) por la particula se-. Esta particula no es ni evolucion ni abreviatura de aser,1 pues la encontramos ya en el estrato semxtico mäs antiguo: en acadio, sa; en fenicio, 's (con alef prostetico); en piinico norteafricano, S-. En la Biblia estä atestiguada, con diversa vocalizacion, en textos tan antiguos 3 como Jue 5,7 y 6,17; 7,12 y 8,26; 2 Re 6,11 y Job 19,29. En textos

*

Con m u c h o gusto y agradecimiento m e sumo a este h o m e n a j e tan merecido al Prof. Günter Stemberger, a quien tanto debemos los estudiosos del m u n d o rabinico y singularmente los profesores y alumnos de la Universidad de Granada: siempre en el hemos encontrado la precisa orientacion cientifica y la cordialisima acogida.

1

M e refiero al hebreo del periodo tannaita, d o c u m e n t a d o en la Misnah, Tosefta y midrasim

haUkicos,

escritos entre el 70 y el 250 d.C. Por otra parte, en estas colecciones

existen claros indicios de conservar piezas de la epoca del Templo; textos qumränicos c o m o 3 Q 1 5 y 4 Q M M T han mostrado la presencia de esta lengua ya antes del 70 (cfr. infra). 2

Aser

es un acusativo en estado constructo, utilizado adverbialmente tambien en

moabitico (cfr. R. MEYER, Gramatica

de la lengua hebrea,

Barcelona 1989, § 31, 3 a - b ) .

Muraoka escribe: " T h e following two words [aser y se-] which do not s e e m to have had anything in common... " (P. JOÜON, Τ. MURAOKA, A Grammar

of Biblical

Hebrew,

Roma 2000, § 38, 118). Etimologicamente aser debio significar " l u g a r " , c o m o el acadio asru, el ärabe 'itr, el siriaco '«far y el etiopico' 'asar (idem, p. 119). Pero aser no pertenecia solo a la lengua literaria, pues su uso esta d o c u m e n t a d o en los documentos de Lakis y las cartas de Arad. 3

Säenz-Badillos identifica este uso como una de las caracteristicas de la poesia biblica arcaica: A. SÄENZ-BADILLOS, Historia de la Lengua Hebrea, Sabadell 1988, 66.

184

Miguel Perez Fernandez

biblicos tardios se usa siempre se (vocalizado con segol, 2 χ con sewa en Qoh 2,22 y 3,18)/ alternado con user, no solo como conjuncion, sino con el valor del pronombre relativo. 5 Vista, por tanto, la antigüedad de la particula se- y sus paralelos en las lenguas semiticas debe asumirse su origen en una lengua dialectal antigua6, quizas del Norte, 7 cuya resurreccion y pervivencia en la lengua biblica mäs tardia y su exclusividad en el HM muestra la naturaleza de este como una forma popular, siempre viva, que fue acompanando a la lengua biblica literaria.8 En la literatura qumranica, sin embargo, se ha evitado cuidadosamente tal particula para, en una especie de religioso y culto anacronismo, mantener aser, pues se llega a usar aser I- incluso cuando claramente es un reflejo del sei del HM.® Pero es obvio que en la epoca qumranica se usaba ya popularmente se-, como es patente en 3Q15 (Rollo de Cobre): 32 χ se-10, nunca aser; tambien en 4

En los textos mäs arcaicos encontramos las vocalizaciones /se/ y sa/; sh es Variante que se encuentra en L a m 5,18; Qoh 6,10 y 10,14.

5

Cfr. Concordanias de EBEN-SHOSHAN.

6

E.Y. KUTSCHER, "Mishnaic H e b r e w " , en Encyclopaedia

7

E.Y. KUTSCHER, A History

of the Hebrew Language,

Judaica,

XVI, col. 1597.

Jerusalem 1984, § 45, 32: " T h e form

se- (...) occurs in the Song of Deborah, three times in the story of Gideon, and once in Israelite (northern) section of the Book of Kings. Therefore there is reason to believe that it w a s c o m m o n in the vernacular of Northern Palestine". Tales observaciones ya las habia h e c h o M . H . SEGAL, A Grammar 8

of Mishnaic

Hebrew,

Oxford 1927, § 77.

" N o u s s o m m e s obliges de reconnaitre qu'il n'y a pas seulement deux etats successifs de la langue, m a i s deux synchronies differents, qui refletent deux dialectes differents. En d'autres termes, 1 Ή Μ n'est pas l'aboutissement direct de ΓΗΒ, mais d ' u n dialecte qui lui est apparente" (M. BAR-ASHER, " L ' H e b r e u Mishnique: Esquisse d ' u n e description", en Academie

des Inscriptions

& Belles Lettres.

Comptes

rendus,

Paris, 1990, 204).

Posteriormente el m i s m o Bar-Asher describio este itinerario c o m o un proceso gradual que durö cientos de anos, desde el final del periodo del primer templo hasta el periodo

tannaitico,

es

decir

desde

el

tiempo

de

la

destruction

del

templo

a p r o x i m a d a m e n t e hasta el final del periodo en que el hebreo fue u n a lengua viva hablada (M. BAR-ASHER, " T h e Study of Mishnaic H e b r e w G r a m m a r Based on Written Sources; Achievements, Problems, and Tasks", en Scripta Hierosolymitana, Studies in Mishnaic

Hebrew,

vol. XXXVII:

ed. by M. BAR-ASHER, Jerusalem 1 9 9 8 , 1 2 ) .

9

Cfr. E. QIMRON, The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Atlanta Georgia 1986, 82s.

10

Teniendo en cuenta el uso profuso de se- en estos dos documentos qumränicos, F. Jimenez B e d m a n matiza las conclusiones de Qimron: " C o n f o r m e m ä s documentos, sobre todo pertenecientes a la cueva 4, van apareciendo m ä s constatamos la profusa incorporation del uso de se- c o m o pronombre relativo. Q u m r ä n debio encontrarse en pleno tränsito, no tanto en el uso de se- y sei- en la lengua hablada, ya que eran elementos lingüisticos plenamente en uso, sino en la incorporation de estos elementos populäres a la categoria literaria. Nos encontrariamos ante los primeros estadios del ascenso de u n a particular Variante dialectal del hebreo a la categoria de lengua literaria" (F. JIMENEZ BEDMAN, El misterio lingüistico,

Estella 2 0 0 2 , 1 7 4 ) .

del Rollo

de Cobre

de Qumrän.

Anälisis

185

Funciones de la particula se- en Hebreo Misnaico

4QMMT (Carta Haläkica) se usa repetidamente se- (a veces s ) y solo en dos ocasiones aser en citas biblicas.11 En la literatura tannaitica encontramos habitualmente se-, quedando aser solo para citas biblicas ο en textos litürgicos ο de imitation biblica. En inscripciones de la epoca se encuentran tambien sh y s.12 La vocalization masoretica ha advertido el constante influjo de se- en la reduplication de la consonante siguiente, fenomeno atestiguado en fenicio y en las transcripciones latinas; tal fenomeno se extiende incluso a la consonante res: Cant 5,2, se-r-ro 'si (cfr. Joüon, Muraoka, vease n. 2, §§ 20 y 23). En la escritura de HM el fenomeno de dagesar la consonante res (mRH 1,7.9: se-r-ra 'ah, se-r-ra 'u) es caracteritico de la tradition oriental y solo raras veces aparece en el manuscrito Kaufmann de la Misnah. 13

2. Funciones de seEn la lectura de los textos misnaicos se aprecia claramente una doble funcion de esta particula: como pronombre y como conjuncion. En algun caso se puede dudar si funciona realmente como pronombre ο como conjuncion, ο si realiza las dos funciones simultäneamente. En otros casos, parece un mero recurso enfatico ο estilistico para marcar una palabra ο expresion ο para senalar un contraste. Posiblemente debamos suponer que tuvo en origen la funcion deictica, de donde arranca su especializacion posterior para introducir oraciones adjetivales (de relativo: se- como pronombre), oraciones subordinadas (se- conjuncion) y adverbiales (se- + lo' determinando al verbo). En todos los casos se trata de una funcion de enlace. Presentaremos, pues, su funcion adjetival, conjuntiva y adverbial.

2.1. Se- introduciendo una oracion adjetival El valor adjetival se aprecia espontäneamente en las construcciones nominales del tipo se + preposition + nombre:"... al final de la fiesta anual -hag se-be-kol sanah we-sanah-" (mAvot 5,9); "... la voluntad de tu padre que estä en los cielos -avika se-ba-samayim-" (mAvot 5,22); "... las correas de entre sus cuernos -se-

11

Cfr. M. PEREZ FERNANDEZ, " 4 Q M M T : Redactional S t u d y " , en Revue

de Qumran

18

(1997), 195. 12

Cfr. B. RlDZEWSKY, Neuhebräische Inschriften,

13

Grammatik

auf Grund

der ältesten

Handschriften

Cfr. M. BAR-ASHER, " T h e Different Traditions of Mishnaic H e b r e w " , en Working No Data.

und

Frankfurt a m M a i n 1992. Semitic

and Eggyptian

Studies

Presented

GOLOMB, W i n o n a Lake, Indiana, 1 9 8 7 , 1 3 .

to Thomas

O. Lambdin,

with

ed. by D.M.

186

Miguel Perez Fernandez

ben-qarneha-" (mShab 5,4); "El mäs pobre de Israel -'ani se-be-yisrael-·, "Las transgresiones del hombre contra Dios -'averot se-ben adam la-Maqom-... del hombre contra su projimo -se-beyn adam le-habero- " (mYom 8,9). 14 En realidad la particula se- podria suprimirse, como de hecho ocurre, 15 pues su funcion es meramente la de relacionar un sustantivo con una determinacion. Una Variante singular de esta construction es cuando la preposicion es l(,lamed): user I- en HB y se-l en HM introducen tambien una determinacion adjetival de pertenencia, 16 pero el conjunto misnaico se-l se llega a convertir en preposicion autonoma en HM y de hecho terminarä escribiendose separadamente 17 y no solo para expresar pertenencia sino cualquier estrecha relation entre dos nombres: la nueva preposicion se-l viene asi a emplearse abusivamente (bajo influencia tambien de la particula aramea di) y a desplazar en gran medida la sintaxis constructa (semikut). Cuando la determinacion adjetival es mäs compleja, desde la mentalidad de nuestras lenguas empezamos a ver en la particula invariable una particula de relation cuya especificacion sintäctica, cuando sea necesario, habrä de ser determinada por un pronombre. Este supuesto permite a los gramäticos hablar de un pronombre relativo hebreo (aser y se-) y de determinacion pronominal retrospectiva, que resuelve en la practica la mayoria de los casos del anälisis oracional. 18 14

El mismo valor para las oraciones nominales introducidas por se-lo': "Quien ensena interpretaciones de la Torah no conformes a la halakah -se-lo' ka-kalakah-" (mAvot 3,11); " . . . por aquellos que ensenan la Torah no segiin la halakah -se-lo' ka-kalakah-" (mAvot 5,8): " N o se pueden imponer obligaciones a un hombre ausente -se-lo' bepanayw-" (Eruv 7,11). En este grupo podemos catalogar algunos de los ejemplos que M. Azar [M. AZAR, The Syntax of Mishnaic Hebrew (h), Jerusalem 1995, 182-83] aduce como "negacion de lo opuesto": "El cordero pascual que inmolo no a titulo propio -selo' li-semo-" (mPes 5,2). No obstante, el conjunto se-lo' tiene un valor adverbial y determinadas particularidades que consideraremos mäs adelante en § 2.3.

15

Cfr. mMak 1,10 final: " . . . derramadores de sangre en Israel (be-yisra'el)", y no se-beyisra'el. Compärese 1 S m 21,8, "los pastores de Saul -aser le-Sa'ul-", con mAvot 1,12, "los discipulos de Aaron -se-le-Aharon". En las ediciones impresas de los textos rabinicos sei se escribe como palabra separada, pero buenos manuscritos demuestran que se prefijaba al nombre que regia (vease ya en Cant 3,7: mittato se-li-Selomo). Se ha considerado que la separacion procedia de epoca medieval, pero en las cartas de Bar Kokba ya se escribe sei separadamente (KUTSCHER, EJ: XVI, col. 1602, quien piensa que acaso la lengua de Bar Kokba es un dialecto diferente del rabinico).

16 17

18

He aqui unos ejemplos: "Cualquier Torah que no hay con ella - se-eyn 'immah - trabajo" (mAvot 2,2); "Salid y ved cuäl es el Camino recto al cual debe adherirse -derek yesarah se-yidbaq bah- el hombre ..., el camino malo del que debe alejarse -derek ra ah se-yitraheq mimmennah- el hombre" (mAvot 2,9); "Todo aquel cuya sabiduria -se-hokmato- supera a sus obras ... se parece a un ärbol cuyas hojas -se-'anafayw- ..." (mAbot 3,17); "el campo que lo recolectaron -se-qesaruha goyyim- los gentiles" (mPeah 2,7). Como en HB, cuando

Funciones de la particula se- en Hebreo Misnaico

187

En general la determination retrospectiva se omite cuando no hay lugar a ambigüedad. Pero en oraciones relativas nominales el pronombre retrospectivo sujeto puede expresarse aunque sea evidente: " . . . cisterna encalada que ella no -se-eyno me abed- pierde gota" (mAvot 2,8); " . . . toda asamblea que ella es en Nombre de los Cielos -se-hi le-sem samayim" (mAvot 4,11; cfr. 5,17); " . . . todo amor que es dependiente -se-hi teluyah- de una cosa" (mAvot 5,16). 19 Si comparamos estas oraciones con las que abrian este pärrafo, apreciamos que "una asamblea para el Nombre de los Cielos" (mAvot 4,11) tambien pudo decirse se-le-sem samayim·, pero se-hi no solo ha dado entasis al sujeto, sino que de hecho se ha comportado como un conjunto pronominal que los gramäticos no dudamos en llamar pronombre relativo.

2.1.2 Algunas formulas con se- relativo 2.1.2.1 Kol se-hu, kol se-hi, kol se-hen (literalmente, "todo lo que es", "quienquiera que es") pueden funcionar como expresiones adverbiales en el sentido de "en cualquier cantidad", "cualquiera que sea", "como sea". Asi, en mShab 1,11: "... con carbon en cualquier cantidad -kol se-hu-"; "Estas cosas, cualquiera que sea su cantidad -be-kol se-hen-, estän prohibidas y causan prohibition" (mAZ 5,9); "Cualquiera que sea el holocausto -kol se-hi 'olah-, requiere degiiello" (Sifra Nedaba, pereq 5,4; ed. Weiss, 7d). 2.1.2.2 Igualmente, las expresiones, ma-se-hu, ma-se-hi, ma-se-hen, con el valor indefinido de "algo" ο "cualquier cosa", pueden tener el matiz de "cualquier cantidad" ο "la minima parte". Asi, en Sifre Nm 160 (Ed. Horovitz 217) leemos: ha-barzel memit be-ma-se-hu, "El hierro mata cualquiera que sea su tamano"; en mAZ 5,8 encontramos ma-se-hu y kol se-hu con el mismo valor de "en cualquier cantidad". 2.1.2.3 Cuando una oration adjetival comienza abruptamente por se- (cosa que no es normal en HM), el contexto hace sobrentender la referencia: "[referente a las representaciones de idolos sobre objetos] Rabban Simon ben Gamaliel dice: el antecedente es maqom ο tiene una referencia espacial, se- puede ser determinado retrospectivamente por el adverbios de lugar sam: " . . . el lugar a donde fue -se-halak lesam-" (mPeah 4,1); aunque tambien se puede prescindir del adverbio, como en mAvot 2,5: "donde no hay hombres -bi-mqom se-eyn anasim-". Cuando el antecedente tiene la referencia temporal, generalmente no se usa el pronombre retrospectivo: la tan frecuente expresion kol zeman se- nunca en la Misnah viene determinada por un pronombre retrospectivo.

19

Tal construccion es un calco del HB: cfr. Gn 7,2, ha-behemah aser lo' tehorah hi (vease JOÜON, MURAOKA, §§ 145 a; 158 g). Si la oracion es verbal, el pronombre retrospectivo sujeto se omite: "una calavera que flotaba -se-safah- sobre el agua" (mAbot 2,6).

188

Miguel Perez Fernandez

las que estän -se al- sobre objetos valiosos estän prohibidas, las que estän -se' al- sobre objetos despreciables, estän permitidas" (mAZ 4,4); pero lo normal es la senalacion del antecedente de alguna manera, como en mAZ 5,5: "Lo que estä sobre la mesa [el vino] -mah se-' al ha-sulhan- estä prohibido". En las usuales formulaciones haläkicas de contenido condicional y bimembre, la protasis se puede introducir por una oration de relativo, pero siempre con senalacion del antecedente: mi se-amar, issah se-halekah, is se-amar, etc.: "Si uno dice -mi se-amar- 'soy nazir', puede cortarse el pelo ..." (mNaz 3,1). 2.1.2.4 La formula et se- es frecuente en HM y podemos entenderla como un calco de HB, donde et aser expresa el complemento de un verbo: compärese, por ejemplo, Ex 4,15: "Os ensenare lo que habeis de hacer -et aser ta asun-", con Ter 1,1: "El que ofrenda lo que no es suyo -et se eyno se-lo-". En algun caso se trata de una determination antecedente del relativo (en lugar de la determination retrospectiva). Asi podemos entender Nm 22,6, et aser tebarek meborak, "Al que tü bendigas, bendito queda" (en lugar de aser tebarek oto);20 y asi puede entenderse la muy frecuente formula haläkica et se darko: "lo que es costumbre quemar, se quema" (mTem 7,5; cfr. m Demai 2,5; mShevi'it 8,4; m'Orlah 3,7 etc.), que podria haberse expresado se-darko li-saref oto, literalmente, "cuyo Camino es quemarZo", aunque tendriamos un inusual comienzo de la proposition por el relativo. Normalmente et se- puede entenderse en muchos casos (tambien en el ejemplo inmediatamente anterior) como particula deictica: "Aquello en lo que se comportan -et se-noheg bo- como si fuera dios, estä prohibido" (mAZ 3,4); "la que tiene testigos -et se-yes Iah 'edim-, no puede casarse de nuevo" (mYev 16,2); "... los que transportan el feretro y los sustitutos, los que estän delante y los que estän detras -et se-li-pne ... we-et se-le-ahar-" (mBer 3,1); "... los que hacen et se-'asu- un foso y los que no hacen un foso, los que hacen -et se-'asu- un foso, estän autorizados [para verter agua], los que no hacen un foso no estän autorizados" (mEruv 8,11); "[el documento de divorcio] en que se pueden leer los testigos -et se-ha-'edim-, es välido" (mGit 9,5). En todos estos ejemplos et estä senalando a un nominativo. Estas formulaciones son similares a las que se usan para introducir el casus pendens: "En cuanto al que necesita -et se-sarik- expiation, se excluye al difunto, ya que su alma expia por el" (Sifre Nm 4; ed. Horovitz, 7).

2.1.3 Relativo utpote qui Es muy frecuente que la particula se-, ademäs de su funcion relativa, incluya simultäneamente el matiz explicativo: "pues", "como", "en calidad de" (latin: 20

Cfr. JOÜON, MURAOKA, A Grammar

(vease η. 2), § 158 m.

Funciones de la particula se- en H e b r e o Misnaico

189

utopte qui. Ciceron, Att. II 24,4,3: Nos, utpote qui nihil contemnere solemus). Seleccionamos solo unos ejemplos de mAvot:21 "Tened cuidado con los poderosos, pues no se acercan -se-eyn meqarebin- al hombre sino para su propio provecho" (mAvot 2,3); "Disponte tii mismo a estudiar la Torah, pues no es se-eynah- herencia que se te da" (mAvot 2,12); "Bendito sea El, porque no hay delante de El -se-eyn le-panayw- injusticia, ni olvido..." (mAvot 4,22). En mAvot 2,16, la estructura de la sentencia: "Fiel es tu patron, que/porque te pagarä -seyesallem- el premio de tu obra", permite entender la particula como consecutiva tras una expresion enfatizada: "Tan fiel es tu patron, que te pagarä..." (cfr. infra, § 2.2.6).22

2.2 Se- introduciendo una oracion subordinada Es la funcion conjuntiva (conjuncion)23 que en HB desempenan principalmente aser y ki: su funcion primaria es introducir una oracion subordinada. 24

2.2.1 Signo englobante Podemos entender la particula como el signo que engloba al conjunto que gramaticalmente llamamos oracion-sujeto y oracion-objeto. Vease, por ejemplo, Qoh 5,4: "Mejor es el que no hagas votos -tob aser lo'tiddor- que el que los hagas -mi-se-tiddor- y no los cumplas", donde aser y se- tienen el mismo valor englobante: "el hecho de que", "el dato de que". El mismo valor deictico englobante se aprecia en la formula minnayn se- (13 χ en Misnah y frecuentisima en los midrasim haläkicos tannaiticos), a la que sigue una cita biblica introducida por se-ne 'emar ο talmud lomar. "^De donde que -minnayn se- el que ha perdonar no ha de ser cruel?" (mBK 8,7).

21

El m i s m o valor encontramos con aser y se- en textos biblicos: " S o m o s culpables... porque h e m o s visto -aser ra 'inu- la a n g u s t i a . . . " (Gn 42,21); "Bendito sea Y h w h , porque n o -se-lo'- nos entrego c o m o presa de sus dientes" (Sal 124,6). Estos ejemplos muestran el caräcter polivalente de la particula c o m o p r o n o m b r e y conjuncion.

22

Debe notarse que el Manuscrito Kaufmann sustituye la oracion relativa-consecutiva se-yesallem por el infinitivo le-sallem.

23

Se- entra a formar p a r t e de n u m e r o s a s conjunciones c o m p u e s t a s : preposition + se- [cfr. SEGAL, A Grammar (vease n. 7), 1 4 7 - 4 8 ] . Consideradas atentamente, estas conjunciones n o son m ä s que preposiciones (antiguos nombres) en estado constructo determinadas por se-: el determinante del nombre/preposicion no es otro n o m b r e sino una oracion. En nuestro estudio consideraremos solo los compuestos d e se- que matizan su valor causal.

24

Ibid., 148.

190

Miguel Perez Fernandez

2.2.2 Se- para la propuesta alternativa Hay casos en que mäs que la subordination predomina la funcion de marcar una propuesta alternativa. Ello es frecuente con o-se-: "Si comio la comida ο se estropeo -o-se-abad-" (mBets 2,1); "Si no se sabe cuäl de los dos ha sido inmolado primero, ο si fueron inmolados -o-se-sahatu- al mismo tiempo" (mPes 9,9); "Si se corta el pelo ο se lo cortan -o-se-gillehuhu - los bandidos - " (Naz 6,3); "Comeräs el pescado ο recibiräs den azotes -o-se-tilqeh-" (Mekilta a Ex 14,5); "Si lo devora una fiera ο la lluvia cae - o-se-yaredu- sobre el" (Sifre Nm 112, ed. Horovitz, 122). Similar valor tiene la construction repetidisima en mShev 8, we+ pronombre personal + se- + verbo, con la que se enfatiza una formulation antitetica: "Se ha perdido [el buey], pero se habia muerto -we-hu se-met-" (8,2).

2.2.3 Se- completivo (quod, δτι) Ya en Qoh 5,4 (supra, § 2.2.1) hemos observado el uso simultäneo de user y seintroduciendo oraciones predicativas: Se- introduce generalmente la oration complemento de los verba dicendi: "... para conocer, dar a conocer y ser conocido que el es Dios -se-hu el-" (mAvot 4,22), y es por tanto la particula apropiada para el estilo indirecto: 25 "No digas que ella vendra -se-hi tabo- deträs de ti" (mAvot 4,14). En algunos casos introduce el estilo directo: "Le ordeno severamente: 'comete el pescado' -amar lo ba-gezerah se-to 'kal et ha-dag-"26 (Mek a Ex 14,5; ed. Lauterbach I, 195); "Es digno de credito el hombre que dice: 'mi padre me ha dicho' -se-amar li abba-" (tKet 3,3). Se- es igualmente usual para introducir el complemento de los verbos de voluntad (deseo, mandato) y expresiones optativas, imperativas ο yusivas: 27 "Ten cuidado de no quemarte -se-lo' tikkawed- con sus brasas" (mAvot 2,10); "Reza que bajen 28 -hitpallel se-yeredu- las lluvias" (mTa'an 3,8); "El que quiere dar -ha-roseh se-yitten- y que los otros no den" (mAvot 5,13); "Sea su voluntad

25

Propiamente el estilo directo ο indirecto se aprecia cuando el sujeto es el mismo en la oracion principal y la subordinada: "Yo digo que ire" (indirecto) ο "Yo digo: ire" (directo). De modo mäs general se dice tambien aunque los sujetos sean distintos.

26

Entendemos ba-gezerah como expresion adverbial, de modo que la oracion introducida por se- expresa el complemento de amar; pero tambien es posible que se- complemente a gezerah, "la ley de 'no comeräs'". En todo caso, siempre se trata de introducir el estilo directo.

27

En las cartas de Murabbaat se encuentra dos veces la formula introductoria Salom se-: "Paz. Que sepas . . . " (42,2s), "Paz. Que mandes traer . . . " (44,2), donde evidentemente se trata de un genero epistolar donde se sobreentiende un verbo volitivo. Cfr. B. RlDZEWSKY, Neuhebräische Grammatik, 154.

28

El sentido es tambien final: "para que bajen las lluvias".

191

Funciones de la particula se- en Hebreo Misnaico

que sea reconstruido -yehi rason se-yibbaneh- räpidamente en nuestros dias" (mTam 7,3 final; cfr. mAvot 5,20). 29 Probablemente hay que entender como introduction del estilo directo en sentido estricto el se- que encontramos en este masal (por definition, un genero popular): "Se parece a un hombre que hubiera dicho: yo quiero comer -roseh ani se-okal- uvas, yo quiero comer -roseh ani se-okal- higos" (Sifre Nm 89, ed. Horovitz 89). 30 Por lo mismo se usarä con el verbo jurar: "Juro por tu gran Nombre que no -nisba' ani se-eyni- me movere de aqui" (mTa'an 3,8), 31 y en formulas de juramento como amen se-, seb u ah se-, q orban se-, qonam se-,32 incluso introduciendo tambien el estilo directo: "Amen que no me descarrie -se-lo setzt/- ... amen que no me contamine - se-lo nitme Ή" (mSot 2,5); "Juro que comere -sebu ah se-okal- ο que no comere, que comi ο que no comi" (mShev 3,1); "Qorban que comere -qorban se-okal- de lo tuyo" (mNed 3.2); "Qonan que no saco beneficio -qonan se-eyni nehenet- ni de tu padre ni tu padre" (mNed 11,12).

2.2.4 Se- exegetico Es muy frecuente en los midrasim haläkicos que, tras la cita del texto biblico, se inicie la explication directamente con la particula se-: " Ύ tendrä descendencia' (Nm 5,28): que si -se-im- antes no tenia hijos, ahora es visitada" (Sifre Nm 19, ed. Horovitz, 23). Se trata de la exegesis declarativa, no dialectica. La formula completa que aparece repetidamente es melammed se- ο maggid se-, por tanto sintäcticamente debemos considerar la particula como conjuncion completiva dependiendo de un verbo sobreentendido. En muchos casos este se- exegetico parece tener un valor final: "'Seis dias trabajaras y terminaräs toda tu faena' (Ex 20,9), para que toda tu faena este 29

Se trata de u n a formula m u y habitual: " S e a tu voluntad que descienda el m a n ä " (Sifre N m 89, ed. by HOROVITZ, 90); " S e a su voluntad que la Sekinah habite en las obras de vuestras

manos"

(Sifre

encontramos resonenu

Nm

143;

ed.

+ infinitivo li-smoa

HOROVUZ,

191).

Con

valor

cohortativo

, " q u e oigamos de la m i s m a boca de nuestro

R e y " (Mekilta a Ex 19.9; ed. by LAUTERBACH II, 209); tambien encontramos

resoneka

con el infinitivo lomar: "^Quieres decir una palabra para vivir?" (Sifra a L v 26,25; ed. WEISS 112a) 30

Pero el manuscrito Vat 32 lee el infinitivo le-ekol c o m o c o m p l e m e n t o de roseh

(vease

nota anterior), construccion tambien habitual. 31

Por el valor deictico englobante del que hemos hablado p o d e m o s traducir a nuestras lenguas se- c o m o mera particula de relacion, "juro que no m e m o v e r e de aqui" (estilo indirecto) ο c o m o el equivalente a nuestros dos puntos (:), "juro: no m e m o v e r e de aqui" (estilo directo).

32

Qonan se- es formula exclusive del tratado Nedarim de la M i s n a h (19 x). Cfr. m N e d 1,2: "qonan

...

es palabra sustitutiva de qorban".

diccionario de JASTROW.

Sobre el sentido de qonan,

cfr.

192

Miguel Perez Fernandez

terminada -se-tehe kol mela 'kteka gemurah- la vispera del säbado" (tShab 1,21). Singularmente se aprecia este valor final en la tan repetida formula de los midrasim haläkicos tannaiticos, que tras el texto biblico anaden: se-lo yo'mar, "para que no se diga", es decir, el texto biblico dice lo que dice para que nadie pueda interpretar otra cosa aunque sea desde otro texto biblico. 33 "'Quedara limpio de pecado' (Nm 5,31), para que nadie diga -se-lo yo'mar-: ]Ay de mi que mate a una hija de Israel!" (Sifre Nm 21, ed. Horovitz 24).

2.2.5 Se- causal ο explicativo34 Los ejemplos son muy numerosos: "El proselito puede hacer la ofrenda, pero no la recitation, porque no puede -se-eyno yakol- recitar [Dt 26,3]" (mBik 1,4); "Tienes que prestar atenrion tanto al precepto leve como al precepto grave, puesto que no conoces -se-eyn attah yodea- la recompensa" (mAvot 2,1); "Tienes que ser muy humilde, pues la esperanza del hombre - se-tiqwat enos - es el gusano" (mAvot 4,4). Detectamos tambien un se- causal equivalente a una condition: "Sere nazireo porque/si este no es fulano -se-zeh feloni-" (mNaz 5,5); "jPierda yo a mis hijos si esta halakah -se-zo halakahk- no estä corrompida!" (mOhal 16,1). En los dos ejemplos se aprecia que se- senala un hecho (funcion deictica: la identification de un hombre ο la corruption de una norma) como prueba de una decision; de ahi que la negation del hecho equivalga a la anulation de la decision (como expresamente formulamos en espanol). Se trata del mismo esquema mental de la formulation de los juramentos.35 Se-im, "por si", introduce una condition como causa: "Por si -se-im- el tribunal aprobara la opinion individual" (m'Ed 5,1); "De todos los objetos que habia en el templo tenian dos ο tres ejemplares, por si -se-im- los primeros contraian impureza..." (mHag3,8). Se- entra a formar parte de numerosas conjunciones compuestas causales. La composition aumenta la expresividad y es un rasgo tipico de la evolution de la lengua. En muchos casos se usan indistintamente, pero en algunas composiciones se aprecia un matiz especial: Mi-pene se- es la mäs usada (367 χ en la Misnah): "No ha de dejarse ganado en las posadas de los gentiles, porque -mi-pene se- son sospechosos de 33 34

35

Sobre las formulas exegeticas de los maestros tannaitas, cfr. M. PEREZ FERNANDEZ, Midräs Sifre Numeros, Valencia 1989, 27-34; IDEM, Midräs Sifra I, Estella 1997, 275-314. Suele distinguirse entre causalidad ordinaria ("porque"), explicativa ("pues") y supuestamente conocida ("puesto que"). Cfr. JOÜON, MURAOKA, A Grammar (vease n. 2 ) , § 1 7 0 a. Vease M. PEREZ FERNANDEZ, La lengua de los Sabios, 319-20 (English Edition, 216). Adviertase que la formulation de los juramentos en Misnah Nedarim se hace tanto con qonam se- (19 x) que con qonam im (mNed 3,2; 4,7).

Funciones de la particula Se- en Hebreo Misnaico

193

bestialidad" (mAZ 2,1). Mi-sum36 se- se usa las mäs de las veces para fundamentar una afirmacion con un texto biblico. La formula mi-sum se-neemar se usa cuatro veces en la Misnah (mBik 1,3: 2 x; mPes 8,3; mParah 3,7), con lo que el valor causal de se-ne 'emar queda resaltado sin ambigüedad: "

f ' B ' J a , Benjamin son of Isaac Rabban Torah.

See MAZAR, Beth She'arim, I (see above η. 1), 26. 94

Theodosian C o d e 16.8.13, ed. by A. LINDER, The Jews in Roman Imperial troit 1987, 202.

Legislation,

De-

Bet S e ' a r i m in Its Patriarchal Context

217

time of Constantine. When added to Epiphanius's testimony regarding the degree of patriarchal control over Diaspora synagogues, patriarchal correspondence with Libanius, Julian's letter to Hillel II, and the Hammat Tiberias synagogue erected by circles close to the patriarch,95 we become fully aware of the scope and extent of this office's influence and control over many aspects of Jewish life throughout the empire. It is thus not surprising that some archsynagogoi associated with the patriarch, owing to his control of synagogue functions and functionaries, might have wished to be buried not only in the Holy Land but in proximity to the patriarchs themselves.

5. Hellenization and the Patriarchs On the assumption that the Bet Se'arim necropolis was first and foremost a patriarchal enterprise, many of the striking aspects noted above can be readily understood. For one, the predominance of Greek fits well with what we know about the office, from Rabban Gamaliel II at the turn of the second century to Rabban Gamaliel VI in the early fifth. According to rabbinic sources, Gamaliel II was specifically exempt from the ban on the study of Greek owing to his contacts with the Roman government. 96 The Bavli notes that Gamaliel's school was equally divided between the study of Torah and Greek, with 500 students studying each.97 This information is purportedly conveyed by Gamaliel's son and successor to the office of patriarch, Simeon, who notes that he himself was one of those students. Lieberman is undoubtedly correct regarding the general verisimilitude of this statement; it is difficult to imagine that a Babylonian source would wholly invent such a tradition.98 Later on, R. Simeon also favored the use of Greek, ruling that, other than Hebrew, biblical books could be written only in that language, 99 and in the following generation R. Judah I followed suit, offering his children (perhaps his students as well?) a knowledge

95

On these instances, see L.I. LEVINE, " T h e Status of the Patriarchate in the Third and Fourth Centuries: Sources and M e t h o d o l o g y " , in Journal of Jewish Studies 47 (1996), 1 9 20. O n the H a m m a t Tiberias synagogue, see IDEM, Visual Judaism: Identity in Late Antiquity,

96

History,

Art,

and

N e w Haven forthcoming.

tSot 15.8: S. LIEBERMAN (ed.), Tosefta. Order Nashim,

N e w York 1967, 2 4 1 - 2 4 2 , and par-

allels. T h e ban, cited on a n u m b e r of occasions in rabbinic sources, is first noted in mSot 9.14. For reservations regarding this prohibition, see LIEBERMAN, Hellenism Jewish Palestine 97 98

in

(see a b o v e n. 35), 100-114.

bSot 49b; b B K 83a. LIEBERMAN, Hellenism

in Jewish

Palestine

(see above n. 35), 1 0 0 - 1 1 4 . The numbers of

students, however, are no doubt highly exaggerated, as perhaps is the implicit equal division of time accorded the study of Torah and Greek. 99

m M e g 1.8.

218

Lee I. Levine

of Greek; moreover, several other Greek mannerisms, such as the use of mirrors and Roman coiffures, were also adopted in R. Judah's house, 100 and it was he who advocated the use of either Hebrew or Greek, but not Syriac (i.e., Aramaic).101 Our information from the fourth century is more extensive. The one synagogue clearly associated with patriarchal circles is that of Hammat Tiberias (Fig. 9).102 The epigraphic evidence there is overwhelmingly Greek; of the eleven dedicatory inscriptions, ten are in Greek. The eleventh is an Aramaic inscription directed at the congregation as a whole, while Hebrew inscriptions appear as identification markers for the zodiac signs. At least one patriarch communicated in Greek with the pagan rhetor Libanius; nine of the latter's epistles have been preserved, although no responses from the patriarch have survived.103 There is little question that all such correspondence, i.e., that written by the patriarch as well, was in Greek; since this was the language of Libanius's epistles, the patriarch in all probability responded in kind. The very fact that such correspondence took place between the patriarch and one of the leading intellectuals of the age is in itself significant. Of no less interest to our discussion is Libanius's reference in one of his letters to the patriarch's son, who had been sent to him for the purpose of receiving an advanced Greek education after having first studied with one Argeius. While the patriarch in this instance was Gamaliel V, it is very likely that other patriarchs, too, considered Greek education to be of importance and may have also sent their sons abroad for training. Such behavior tells us much about the cultural and intellectual priorities and expectations of these office-holders and of those in their circle.104 Finally, we have one brief, enigmatic, but thoroughly intriguing piece of

100 yShab 6.1.7d; y A Z 2.2.41a. 101 b B K 8 2 b - 8 3 a . 102 See the discussion of this building in LEV1NE, Visual Judaism 103 M. STERN, Greek and Latin Authors

on Jews and Judaism,

(see above n. 95).

3 vols., Jerusalem 1974-84, II,

582-583. 104 Ibid., 5 8 0 - 5 9 9 : 596. See also STEMBERGER, Jews and Christians

(see a b o v e n. 12), 2 5 9 - 2 6 1 ,

and particularly his concluding paragraph: " T h e letters of Libanius to the patriarch Gamaliel, mentioned above, complete the picture of the Hellenistic culture pursued at the court of the patriarchs. In itself the fact that the rhetorician repeatedly addresses the patriarch in the course of his extensive correspondence shows clearly that he presupposes a shared degree of education, and that the patriarch is k n o w n and recognized outside the Jewish world. The letters often refer to Greek mythology, presupposing a corresponding education on the part of the patriarch. H e is expected to understand passing allusions to Homer, and it is taken for granted that the mention of Greek gods does not upset him. The patriarchal house, and surely also wider circles a m o n g the Jewish communities of the east, must have felt quite at h o m e in the society and culture of the R o m a n empire".

219

Bet S e ' a r i m in Its Patriarchal Context

information regarding the acumen of at least one patriarch in a more general area of knowledge. As reported by the Christian medical writer, Marcellus Empiricus, the last patriarch, Gamaliel VI, is credited with finding a cure for the treatment of spleen diseases.105 Not only does this source reflect the patriarch's knowledge of this aspect of Greek medicine but quite possibly of other medical matters as well. 106 Turning now to the second surprising aspect of the Bet Se'arim finds mentioned above, i.e., the rather liberal use of figural art in its many forms, there, too, positing a patriarchal context goes a long way in explaining such material remains. As with the use of Greek, we also find an openness to the utilization of figural art from the very inception of this office. Rabban Gamaliel II had no compunctions about bathing in a bathhouse in Acre that was adorned with a statue of Aphrodite, although his pagan interlocutor was taken aback and befuddled.107 Gamaliel's son Hananiah attests to the fact that signet rings adorned with images were used in his father's house, 108 and Gamaliel regularly used images of the sun and moon when interrogating witnesses regarding the New Moon. This practice was troublesome to later Babylonian sages, who struggled to offer all sorts of explanations.109 From the era of R. Judah I, we have, of course, the early finds from the Bet Se'arim necropolis itself, although the precise date of the artwork - as the inscriptions - is difficult to determine. Most intriguing is a magnificent mosaic floor from the early third century found on the acropolis of Sepphoris. 110 The mosaic that once graced the triclinium of a villa there features 15 fully preserved panels relating to the life and cult of the god Dionysios. Around these panels is a frame of acanthus scrolls displaying hunting scenes and several female busts. The southern end of this mosaic has a U-shaped band depicting processions honoring the god; a Nilotic scene was introduced at a later time. On the basis of the mosaic's location, date, and the fact that the patriarchal house in general was not adverse to using visual images, it has been suggested that this villa may have belonged to R. Judah himself. 111 While solid evidence for this hypothesis is lacking, such a suggestion reflects our awareness today of

105 De medicamentis

23.77: " F o r the spell there is a special r e m e d y which w a s recently

demonstrated by the Patriarch Gamaliel on the basis of approved experiments". 106 See VAN DER HORST, Jepheth 107 m A Z 3.4. See LEVINE, Ancient

(see above n. 17), 2 7 - 3 6 . Synagogue

(see above n. 26), 2 4 9 - 2 5 0 , 510.

108 y A Z 3.1.42c. 109 b R H 2 4 a - b ; b A Z 4 3 a - b . 110 See R. TALGAM, Z. WEISS, The Mosaics

of the House of Dionysios

at Sepphoris,

Q e d e m 44,

Jerusalem 2004. 111 Ibid., 1 2 7 - 1 3 1 ; and more fully in Z. WEISS, " B e t w e e n Paganism and Judaism: Toward Identification of the 'Dionysiac Building' Residents at R o m a n S e p p h o r i s " , in 99 (2001), 7 - 2 6 (Hebrew).

Cathedra

220

Lee I. Levine

the possible extent of Hellenization among the patriarchs and their circles. The use of images by those associated in some way with the patriarch continues into the fourth century in the above-mentioned Hammat Tiberias synagogue. For the first time in Jewish art, at least on the basis of what we know to date, a blatant pagan symbol appears on a synagogue floor. The zodiac signs, female representations of the four seasons, and the sun god Helios are prominently displayed in the central and largest panel of this floor, which lies adjacent to one displaying the full repertoire of Jewish symbols - Torah shrine, menorot, sofarot, lulavim and ethrogim. This cluster of symbols also appears for the first time in this Tiberias synagogue. Thus, as was the case with the Greek language, the use of figural representations, even motifs drawn from the surrounding pagan world, does not seem to have constituted a problem for the various patriarchs throughout the course of this office's history. To sum up, Bet Se'arim has always been rightfully considered the single most important Jewish archaeological site in Late Antique Palestine. The extent and variety of the finds there and their connection with contemporary literary sources bestow on Bet Se'arim a status surpassed only by Second Temple Jerusalem. However, the site's main contribution is somewhat different from that which had heretofore held sway. It was not a rabbinic (in the sense of the talmudic rabbis) site and therefore does not attest to rabbinic Hellenization; nor is the Patriarchate of the third and fourth centuries to be considered a "rabbinic dynasty". 112 Rather, the necropolis is to be identified with the patriarchal dynasty, which at this point in time was not a "rabbinic" one, in the usual sense of the word. The Patriarchate and its associated circles constituted another focus of social and religious influence in the Jewish community that enjoyed the full backing of the Roman government and the power and communal authority that resulted from this kind of support. The talmudic rabbis did not compete with the patriarch politically; they showed no such desire nor the ability to control existing communal institutions or to create alternative ones. Whatever institutionalized positions of influence and authority they gained were usually due to the goodwill and support of the patriarch. If there had been any focus of power in the Jewish community beyond the local level, it was to be found in this office. Of all the extant sources relating to the Patriarchate and its realm, Bet Se'arim indeed figures prominently.

112 F. MILLAR, The Roman Near East, 31 B.C.-A.D. 337, Cambridge, Mass. 1993, 383.

Bet Se'arim in Its Patriarchal Context

221

Figures

Fig. 1 - View of catacomb 14 with its courtyard and fagade, as well as benches, wall, and niche above.

Lee I. Levine

222

pJAPjy Antioch

t

Palmyra

Nahardea

,Εζίοη-Geber

Fig. 2 - Places of Origin of the Diaspora Jews buried in Bet Se'arim.

Fig. 3 - Epitaph of Justus from the mausoleum adjacent to catacomb 11.

Bet Se'arim in Its Patriarchal Context

Fig. 5 - Large menorah carved on the wall of catacomb 3.

223

224

Lee I. Levine

Fig. 6 - Sarcophagus depicting Leda and the swan, from the mausoleum of catacomb 11.

' i n b e ' urn I>CJX m m o jrt ( j s o - ) ρ π π π «7 m a m ρ S k ' S q j •>nt?i f'Ttyy m nSina »•nSc 1ΓΙ3 P>BS1 7W SN'SQJ »aiSc? u a min» ypri πα n n a p ,,,[[]m 5 p p i ]'mo' ]tVs x n n » W i m n"3pV ]'0'i?3» τ η » x"n 6 , ui Vxn»'3 ηχτ nmn Vioi^ 'nVx "·> naV inaixi n"3pn ^sV D»3i ]'Vn 'avsV |'Vii? vn xV» Vxia»Vu> m n m Vax' i » i n a v a ' Va dj I ' m a τ η » ηχρι |mo' in'Vs x'an» vVm n"apV po'vaa τ η » 'ax 8 ί π mar nann xV 'a 7 'in ητη " ' usm naV p a i x i n"apn '3sV ma '»a n"apn» 'aa xVx nnx '^aa misa nxtn nman ]'x onrs π

ι 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

314

Luis F. Girön-Blanc

V x i a ^ V w r m η n n m m xV Ό ΧΉ : "mV n n a w a n w a D ' n V x n '3 15 x i n m p V x πτ iaV n n a w a nas?a D ' n V x n >3 f ^ r i ' a ^ D a ^Vu? v n xVw 16 η π η ' η ' Χ Ί n n w 1 0 " m n a ' a ' n v r a Ί Τ Ϊ m χίπη w x n nVvi x ' n 17 " ü ' o a n x i p a πτ I2iuns? D T i V x n i n ' -mm w x " m x n bv κ'π n a m w a w n 18 15 m x r p -m>x Vsa upbjV non l i r x i m a o i n n it " S i a a i r m V n n i V ' x 19 w x '3 m a n V M ΠΤ 1 6 , uaa Vax1? t r n V x n w V w x V i n a ^ a n V m πτ 20 N"pa 'an xa>x rrV 'ÖS n a V n n Vi?a πτ laVax 1 luVa* ''•uxVax'' naa 21 v w a x n x πτ 1 9 " m n x a w>x T V T tax ^ a r r a a r r a n a m Γ Τ Ό Γ Π 22 iV ν π ρ p a w a τ v r w DUO t r p ' a x m w i n η ta>aa n x a 23 n a n 'au> 2 0 iV ΠΓΡΠ xV nmap A N Π Ή ' m a n D'atzn V x i n r a '2? 2 4 : m a i πτ 22 Vsan iaaa a i ü ' m a x 2 1 " m T5?a a x n x V 25

1) Qoh 5,14; 2) Qoh 5,16; 3) ibid.; 4) ibid.; 5) ibid.; 6) Jue 21,3; 7) 1 Sm 4,3; 8) Qoh 5,19; 9) ibid.; 10) 1 Sm 1,3; 11) Qoh 6,1; 12) Qoh 6,2; 13) ibid.; 14) ibid.; 15) ibid.; 16) ibid.; 17) ibid.; 18) yHor 19b (III.48.c); 19) Qoh 6,3; 20) ibid.; 21) 1 Re 21,24; 22) Qoh 6,3.

3. Comentario La comparacion de este texto con Qohelet Rabbah ο con Qoheiet Zuta muestra que tenemos en cualquier caso una version resumida de la que, a pesar de la semejanza inicial con Qohelet Zuta, podemos afirmar que estä mäs cerca de Qohelet Rabbah, ο que incluso se podria caracterizar como un texto de Qohelet Rabbah que prescinde de los paralelos iniciales con Sir ha-Sirim Rabbah, que incluyen la discusion sobre la autoria del libro biblico, los diversos nombres de Salomon que son parte de la misma discusion, la genealogia de Salomon y la conocida anecdota de rabbi Hanina ben Dosa, todos ellos ausentes en nuestro fragmento. Como ya hemos comentado, en las lineas 2,21-22 aparece una expresion - '73X a r r a » n ' r n a m Π " 3 Τ ' Π D"pa 'an Xa'X Π' 1 ? - que pone a nuestro fragmento en contacto directo con un pasaje del Talmud de Jerusalen: Veamos ambos textos en paralelo: Yerusalmi Horayot III.48.C i n x nnV VTX xan3 i a xax η w x U M a ' N ' ' I V Η nawx -naai DO331"luna? D'nVxn iV mxn> 1U7X Vsa iwaa'? non laa'xi laaa ViaxV D'nVxn l a ' t ^ w xVi •TOX

TS C2.161 (col. 2, linea 18-22)

nwx w x •'nVxn

|n'

Midras Qohelet: Un fragmento de la Genizah de El Cairo

m nzm i3"73X' Ί 3 3 » ' x ' 3 Π 3 3 ΐ msVn iV'x n't>33 x i p a n "73a UPD31? 10Π 133'XT ΠδΟΙΠΠ ΠΤ m V n j m ' 3 » a iV'x m x n ' iu?x W3»»1 Π31Π '1 bw W3tt>» 13 i r w a i n ' w i n ' 3 i V» VdxV D'nVxn 13'ü'Vü' xVi x i s p XV 13'Xtt> ΓΠΛΧ "7V3 Πΐ 13ΏΏ xVi x a a a xV " n a xVi ιοτχ Ί 3 3 » ' X ' 3 -|Πϋ» π j? n a V n n Vs?3 m i3"73X' Π'»Χ13 Π'ρ»31 Χ3Π3 X3X ' 3 1 '3τη D'p' m n a ' a πη'3τ i a x .3'n'a n3'ia'a

315

πτ Π33Τ rmVnn iV'X do331 x i p a Vsa i©S3l7 i o n 133'xi m s o r n n it m » a n Vs?3 πτ mxrv i w x

•73XV D'nVxn w V w xVi m a n Vi73 πτ

uaa

133^3'13X"73X"133 » ' X ' 3 n a V n n b v i πτ π"3Τ'η o " p a '3n x a ' x rrV ' a x 3n'aa π'3'iam

Se trata en Yerusalmi de una derasah de comentario a Qo 6,2 que se encuentra tambien y con un texto muy similar tanto en Qohelet Rabbah como en Qohelet Zuta. Qohelet Rabbah X2W33V VX27 Χ3Π3 13 X3X Ί

Qohelet Zuta ΧΓΙ»'33 '3V bv Χ3Π3 13 X3X Ί

a*n> '1*7 " π n'Vp saun iV ]Π' 1WX XpiDD p H x i p a Vs?a πτ iuris? D'nVxn ΠΤ 11331 Π3»?3 Vj?3 ΠΤ D'0331 I t t ^ -10Π 133'X1 ΧΠΒΟΙΠ "7273 n v 3 » a iVx rnxn' i » x "73a

i s m i n'xp 'iV m rrVp s?au> iV p ' 1WX » ' S xipa πτ iuns? D'nVxn IT TI33 Π3»Ώ IT D'D33 W S l b 10Π 133'X1 ΧΠΒΟΙΠ naVn m

' 3 1 bW 1Π3»ö ]Ί30 ΠΙ^ΠΛ Χ"Π ' 3 1 blff 1Π3»01 X3'py XIDp 13 VttH Π ' ^ Ι Π ' 3 1 VttM VnxV D'nVXH 13D'V»' xVi Ί 3 3 » ' x '3 nna nmnV η ο χ » x a o a n a V n bvn πτ u V s x ' ί lav i'nanmxunnaai HPX1 by lj?»3 Χ3Π3 13 X3X xVx 'n'Vi? xV iV'x l a x ί m n DJ?Dn 1'Da yia» 1 ?

"7273 ΠΤ D'nVxn UD'VlZ" XVi Ί 3 3 w x '3 mux ρ ο ι χ » n a V n 'Vs?a πτ u b o x ' ί lay i'xaoai p ' n a i 1»X1 by ip»31 Χ3Π3 13 X3X xVx ' n x 3 xV xVaVx lax " i πτ i 3 i yiai^V

Nuestro fragmento ha prescindido del contexto anecdotico, presente en Yerusalmi y en los dos midras de Qohelet, pero ha mantenido la intervention laudatoria del maestro posiblemente en sus terminos mäs originales, en arameo, apartändose tanto de Qohelet Rabbah como de Qohelet Zuta, que optaron por reproducir la alabanza con palabras en hebreo que solo hablan del gozo y la compensation

316

Luis F. Girön-Blanc

espiritual del maestro, pero que omiten totalmente el aspecto premonitorio del texto arameo. iQue quiere decir el maestro con el juego 'de pie'/'sentado' (arraa/D'pn)?

M. Sokoloff9 hace referenda al pasaje de Yerusalmi proponiendo una correction del texto y, en parte, acercändolo textualmente al de nuestro fragmento, cuando sugiere la lectura: 3 ' n ' » ΠΓΗΏ'Ώ '3ΤΠ

Π Π » ' » ΠΠΌΤ, y lo

traduce al ingles de forma literal: "you were worthy to say it standing up. May you be worthy to say it sitting down". La benemerita traduction francesa de Schwab dice: "Comme tu as eu le bonheur d'exposer la loi etant debout (jeune), de meme tu auras le bonheur de l'expliquer etant assis (dans la vieillesse)".10 Y J. Neusner traduce "You have had the merit of saying [a teaching] while standing up [as a disciple]. May you have the merit of saying something while sitting down [as a master]". 11 Pero es evidente que 3JV se refiere precisamente a la actividad del maestro rabinico que, por una parte, podia ensefiar 'sentado' mientras que los dicipulos cuando intervenian ο hacian sus 'präcticas de interpretation' lo harian de pie, y por otra, cuando los maestros ensenaban se constituian en 'sesion' (yesivah), de forma que la afirmacion de R. Aba bar Kahana es un anuntio de que R. Levi habia de llegar a ser un maestro reconotido. A corroborar esta interpretation viene otro texto que aparece en Beresit Rabbah y en otros midrasim de Genesis, en el que con diversas variantes tras una frase similar se anade: ΠΗΡ D'-IWI QTUP W i n WöttM, y que en la edition de Soncino Press (päg. 959) se traduce: "You have taught this standing; may you be privileged to teach it sitting; and he functioned as a preacher for twenty-two years".12 Todavia un breve comentario al que no me resisto ante el hecho de que frente al tt>0)"n aTP que traen Yerusalmi y QoR, encontramos que QoZ modifica el comienzo de la anecdota y nos trae un W i n D'Xp que sin duda aporta claridad a la frase final de R. Aba bar Kahana en Yerusalmi en el sentido que mäs arriba comentäbamos ('de pie/sentado'), aunque QoZ no la cite literalmente.13 9

A Dictionary

of Jewish Palestinian

Aramaic of the Byzantine Period, Ramat-Gan 2 2002, 177, S.O.

ΌΪ. Agradezco a mi colega Dr. Carlos Alonso Fontela esta referenda y la ayuda que me ha prestado en la clarification gramatical de la frase en arameo. 10

M. SCHWAB, Le Talmud de Jerusalem,

11

J. NEUSNER, The Talmud of the Land of Israel, Chicago Studies in the History of Judaism,

vol. 6, Paris 1871-1890, 281.

12

Ver J. THEODOR, Η. ALBECK, (ed. Jerusalem 1965), 1262 linea 5. El texto del Ms. Vaticano

Chicago 1982, vol. 3 4 , 1 2 6 . Ebr. 30 dice 3'ΓΡ ρ

Π Ρ Ι ϋ ' η ΐ '3ΤΠ D'Np j a ΠΓΠ0Ν n'V l a x . En el comentario vemos que

las ediciones traen un texto algo diferente: a T P JB i C n a ' a V ' i m D " p j a m D I S S se propone corregirlo por ΠΤΡ j a

y

ΌΤΓ) D " p j a ΠΙΠΊΒΝ. A u n q u e no sea

estrictamente necesaria, algo semejante podria aplicarse al texto de nuestro fragmento leyendo D " p a '3Π X a ' K como D^p j a ΠΐηΐΒΚ. 13

Α modo de aproximacion he buscado paralelos a este W I T ) D'Xp en el C D de Davka Corporation's

Judaic Classics Library γ solo he encontrado un caso, tambien en Qohelet Ζuta

(7,7), y observo que en ambos casos se trata de la relacion entre un discipulo y su

Midras Qohelet: Un fragmento de la Genizah de EI Cairo

317

4. Breve estudio formal E n t r e los f e n o m e n o s d e ketiv q u e s o n h a b i t u a l e s e n estos t e x t o s c a b e s e n a l a r : A l t e r n a n c i a Χ/Π final: Χ3Ϊ3ΓΠ (1,1); W W ( 1 , 6 / 1 4 ) ; Χ0Π ( 1 , 1 4 ) ; ΚΠΧ (1,15); Χ32ΓΡ (1,17); ΧΏΊ3 (2,4 x 3 ) ; Ν1Π ( 2 , 6 / 1 6 ) ; p e r o ΓΠ1Χ (1,1); Π Π ί ρ ( 1 , 2 2 ) . D i p t o n g o final ai ' Π Τ (1,13) P l e n a waw -pVüV (1,13), P l e n a yod - S o n i d o e e n s i l a b a c e r r a d a t o n i c a : iV'X (1,2; 2 , 1 9 ) ; ΓΡ1? ( 2 , 4 / 2 1 ) p e r o nV ( 1 , 2 2 / 2 4 , y nVi? 1,6); Π ' 3 ( 2 , 1 4 ) p e r o Π3 (1,9). - S o n i d o e e n s i l a b a a b i e r t a a t o n a : n t T H p (1,23). - S o n i d o i e n s i l a b a c e r r a d a ä t o n a : p ' » (1,8); m V r v n 1 ? (1,9); n ' T Q ' ? T? V (1,19); 1 4 O W n V (2,1); r V ^ ' p V (2,4); H P S ' X (2,7); 1 5 W p ' 3 (2,1); Π » 3 Γ Π (2,22). - S o n i d o i e n s i l a b a a b i e r t a : X n ' V X (1,17); XD'X (2,21); r m o m - R e p r e s e n t a n d o sewa: ^ m a

(2,22).

(2,9/12).

Defectiva alef: p ' a (1,8) nun final - S u f i j o s : ] n (1,2); p X S > 3 1ΠΧ133 (1,3); ]Π3 (1,21); p ' V l ? ( 2 , 9 / 1 2 ) . - Participios: ^ m W »

(2,5); \ > m (2,5); p 3 1 S

(2,9/12); p m X l (2,10/13);

(2,8); ] ' D ' » 3 Ö ( 2 , 9 / 1 2 ) ;

ΤΓΠ»

(2,11/16).

- S u s t a n t i v o s : p W J j ? (1,3); p l D * (2,9/12); J ' V j n ( 2 , 1 1 / 1 6 ) . men final: -

Sustantivos:

D ' K ' 3 3 (1,2); Ü>V3n [ l , l l / 1 4 ( b i b l i c o ) / 2 2 ( b i b l i c o ) / 2 2 / 2 5 ] ;

(D>310) (2,7); D'DDWVü

(2,8); D T l V x n

(2,15/16/18/20);

D'ttWa

D'0331 (2,18);

D'ö'

(2,2/3). - A d j e t i v o s : 0 ' 3 1 ϋ ( D ' U W a ) (2,7). C o n t a m i n a t i o n I T ' V / X " 1 ? : S S V (1,7). b ü u n i d o a la p a l a b r a s i g u i e n t e : n ü V ^ V t » (1,7); V m 3 b w (1,7) ( c o n a l g u n a d u d a ) ; V p i V w ( 1 , 1 8 ) ; ηΐΐ? 1 ?^ (1,19); r V T n m ? bw (1,19); i w b v

14 15

( 1 , 2 0 ) ; HTDVU;

maestro. En el otro caso es Elisa ben Abuya que corrige a R. Meir. Tambien Yalqut trae D'Xp. Ver Jastrow's Dictionary, 390. Por el contexto hay que entenderlo como un caso de aplografia por Ί1273Ν 'K.

318

Luis F. Giron-Blanc

(1,21); "mnVw (1,21); ^ M 1 ? ! » (1,21);

(1,24); D'ÜSW'W (2,8).

A b r e v i a t u r a s : inb-ISI (1,8); " W ( 1 , 1 4 / 1 6 / 2 2 ; 2 , 6 / 1 0 / 1 3 / 1 5 / 1 7 / 2 , 2 2 / 2 5 ) .

Rasgo palestinense: Κ1Π® (1,23). Entre las curiosidades que pueden comentarse hay algunas de tipo menor: "p'Ö (2,5) sin yod de constructo plural, que puede ser un simple error de copista; la falta de concordancia del sufijo anticipado en D'DDU'Vtt? 11Π (2,8); ο la alternancia de genero en el pronombre Π Π ΠΤ (2,8) y 111117(2,15), siendo asi que en ambos casos se refiere a versos biblicos. Mayor entidad tiene en linea 2,21 la repetition I ^ S V U x V d x 1 que reproduce un masoretico lüVsX'' y que posiblemente represente solo una cuestion fonetica; en el primer caso con alef anadido para senalar la lectura pausal motivada por el atnah y en el segundo insistiendo en la reduplication denun,16

16

Este trabajo forma parte de los proyectos de investigation BFF02-797 (Analisis unificado de textos hebreos por ordenador) y PB 96-1422 (Lengua y Literatura del Judaismo antiguo) financiados por el Ministerio de Educaciön y Ciencia espanol.

Die Ursache für die Bindung Isaaks: Wie lasen die Rabbinen die Bibel? von GOTTFRIED REEG

Die Geschichte in Genesis 22 hat über Jahrhunderte hin Bibelleser, Exegeten und Theologen - sowohl von jüdischer wie auch von christlicher Seite - beschäftigt. Schon die unterschiedlichen Titel, die sie erhält - „Die Versuchung Abrahams", „Die 'Aqedat Yishacj" oder „Die Bindung Isaaks", „Die Opferung Isaaks" sowie auch „Das Opfer Isaaks" - zeigen die Vielfalt der Auslegungstraditionen und sind aufschlußreich für das Verständnis der Geschichte. Nachdem längere Zeit relativ wenig zu diesem Thema veröffentlicht wurde, 1 ist die Bindung Isaaks seit einiger Zeit wieder stärker in den Blickpunkt der Forschung geraten 2 Die biblische Erzählung beginnt mit der lapidaren Einleitung: „Es geschah nach diesen Ereignissen, daß Gott Abraham versuchte ...."? Sie läßt viele Fra-

1

Unter den älteren Arbeiten sind besonders hervozuheben: SH. SPIEGEL, The Last On the Legends and Lore of the Command

to Abraham

to offer Isaac as a Sacrifice: The

New York 1967, Nachdruck 2003; G. VERMES, Scripture and Tradition

in Judaism:

Trial: Akedah, Hagga-

dic Studies, Leiden 1961; G. STEMBERGER, „Die Patriarchenbilder der Katakombe in der Via Latina im Lichte der jüdischen Tradition", in Kairos 16 (1974), 1 9 - 7 8 . 2

Unter der zahlreichen Literatur ist u.a. auf folgende Veröffentlichungen hinzuweisen: M. KRUPP, „Die Bindung Isaaks nach dem Midrasch Bereschit R a b b a " , in Texte & Kontexte 65 (1995), 3 - 5 9 ; L.A. BERMAN, The Akedah: L. KUNDERT, Die Opferung/Bindung Frühjudentum

The Binding of Isaac, Livingstone 1997;

Isaaks, Bd. 1, Gen 22,1-10

und im Neuen Testament,

Bd. 2, Gen 22,1-10

im Alten

in frühen

Testament,

rabbinischen

Neukirchen 1998; E. NOORT, E. TLGCHELAAR (eds.), The Sacrifice of Isaac: The Aqeda nesis 22) and its Interpretations,

rou>n

3

Vn .n'Vxiitf'

im

Texten, (Ge-

Leiden/Boston/Köln 2002 (mit Literaturliste); .3,|103ΠΊ.''

una m s r t p n r mpi?

Z u m Verständnis dieser W e n d u n g siehe B. JACOB, Das Buch Genesis,

Stuttgart, 2000,

491: „... bezeichnet innerhalb einer größeren Komposition einen überraschenden Umschwung"; C. WESTERMANN, Genesis,

2 Teilband, Genesis

22-36, Β Κ Α Τ 1/2, Neukir-

chen/Vluyn 1981, 257: Die Überleitungsformel „hat immer die Funktion, ein Einzelereignis einem größeren Geschehenszusammmenhang einzufügen"; E. NOORT, „Genesis 22: H u m a n Sacrifice and Theology in the Hebrew Bible", in The Sacrifice of Isaac, ed. by E. NOORT, E. TlGCHELAAR. Leiden 2002, 1 - 2 0 : 4: „... has a double function: it refers to what happened before, while simultaneously signalling a new beginning".

Gottfried Reeg

320

gen offen: Was ist der Grund für diese Versuchung? Liegt der Anlaß in den vorausgehenden Ereignissen: dem Bund mit Abimelech, der Vertreibung Hagars und Ismaels, der Entwöhnung Isaaks? In welchem Zusammenhang ist sie zu sehen? Die theologische Frage im Hintergrund lautet: Warum versucht Gott Abraham? Versucht Gott Abraham grundlos? Welche Vorstellung von Gott liegt der Geschichte zugrunde, wenn Gott willkürlich Abraham versuchen würde? Was bedeutet dies für den Zuhörer und Leser? In der Überlieferung und der Interpretation von Genesis 22 wird versucht, auf diese bedrängenden Fragen eine Antwort zu geben. Im folgenden soll gezeigt werden, daß in der rabbinischen Literatur die Frage nach der Ursache für die Bindung Isaaks sehr unterschiedlich beantwortet wird, das heißt, daß sich die Antworten auf diese Fragen von Werk zu Werk unterscheiden können, auch wenn in den meisten wissenschaftlichen Arbeiten das Gemeinsame der unterschiedlichen Traditionen hervorgehoben wird. Ferner ist zu fragen, ob alle gegebenen Antworten auf eine Reflexion des biblischen Wortes D'TSl, das sowohl „Ereignisse" wie auch „Worte" bedeutet, zurückgehen, wie in der Regel angenommen wird,4 oder ob ein anderes Lemma interpretiert wird. Anders formuliert: Welche Fragen stellten sich den Rabbinen, wenn sie den biblischen Text lasen? Zu Beginn soll ein Text zur Sprache kommen, der nicht der rabbinischen Literatur, sondern den Kreisen um Qumran zuzuordnen ist und der für die Diversität der Interpretationen sehr aufschlußreich ist, nämlich Jub 17,15-18: Und es war in der siebenten Jahrwoche, in ihrem ersten Jahr, im ersten Monat in diesem Jubiläum, am 12. dieses Monats, da war eine Stimme im Himmel wegen Abrahams, daß er glaubend sei in allem, was er zu ihm geredet habe, und daß er Gott liebe. In aller Trübsal sei er glaubend. Und es kam [heraus] der Fürst Mastema und sagte vor Gott: ,Siehe, Abraham liebt den Isaak, seinen Sohn, und er freut sich über ihn vor allen. Sage ihm, er solle ihn hinaufbringen als Brandopfer auf dem Altar! Und du wirst sehen, ob er dieses Wort tut. Und du wirst wissen, ob er glaubend ist in allem, womit du ihn versuchst'. Und der Herr wußte, daß Abraham gläubig war in aller seiner Trübsal, die er ihm genannt hatte. ... Und in allem, wodurch er ihn versuchte, wurde er als glaubend erfunden. Und seine Seele war nicht ungeduldig, und er hat nicht gezögert, es zu tun, denn glaubend war er und liebend den Herrn. 5

4

Vgl. z.B. STEMBERGER, „Patriarchenbilder" (s.o. Anm. 1), 53; besonders betont bei KUNDERT, Opferung

(s.o. Anm. 2), Bd. 1, 49, 165; differenzierter Y. ELBAUH „From

Sermon to Story: The Transformation of the Akedah", in Prooftexts

6 (1986), 97-116:

100-101, der die Auslegung von Q n a i n 1ΠΝ als Q'13T •ΠΊΠΤη hervorhebt. 5

Übersetzung nach K. BERGER, Das Buch der Jubiläen, JSHRZ 11,3, Gütersloh 1981.

Die Ursache für die Bindung Isaaks in der rabbinischen A u s l e g u n g

321

Die Versuchung geht in diesem Text auf die Initiative des Fürsten Mastema 6 zurück. Gott zweifelt nicht an Abraham, vielmehr ist er schon zu Beginn von der Treue und dem Glauben Abrahams überzeugt und weiß, daß er die Prüfung bestehen wird. Die Versuchung entspringt somit keineswegs einer Willkür Gottes. Nicht bei ihm, Gott, sondern beim Fürsten Mastema ist die Ursache für die Bindung Isaaks zu sehen, auch wenn Gott selbst im weiteren Verlauf wie in der biblischen Erzählung Abraham versucht. Fürst Mastema reagiert auf eine Stimme im Himmel, die Abraham lobt, und bezweifelt ähnlich wie Satan im Hiobbuch die Treue und den Glauben Abrahams, der sich über die Geburt seines Sohnes freut - ein Anspielung auf die Entwöhnung Isaaks, die in der Bibel vorausgeht - und fordert somit die Prüfung Abrahams heraus. Fürst Mastema ist im Jubiläenbuch ein Feind des Menschen, jedoch ist seine Gestalt auf dem dualistischen Hintergrund und der kosmischen Auseinandersetzung zu sehen, das heißt, daß auch die Versuchungsgeschichte vor diesem Hintergrund zu betrachten ist. Die Erzählung erhält ihren Sinn aus dieser Auseinandersetzung und verliert gegenüber der Bibel den von ihr ausgehenden bedrohenden Charakter. In dem Fragment 4Q225, einem Text, der in Nähe zum Jubiläenbuch steht, sich aber in einigen Einzelheiten unterscheidet, handelt es sich nach Garcia gar nicht mehr um eine Versuchung im eigentlichen Sinne, sondern das Anliegen des Fürsten Mastema ist es, die Pläne Gottes, daß nämlich Abraham zahlreiche Nachkommen haben wird, zuvereiteln. 7 Der Anknüpfungspunkt im biblischen Text für die Erzählung im Jubiläenbuch wird meist bei dem Wort D ' i m gesehen. Bedeutet es „Worte" oder „Ereignisse"? Demnach sind es „Worte" und keine „Ereignisse", die die Versuchung Abrahams verursachen, nämlich die Worte des Fürsten Mastema. 8 Die Frage, die der Erzähler an den biblischen Text stellte, könnte aber auch anders lauten: Was ging der Versuchung voraus: der Bund mit Abimelech, die Vertreibung Hagars und Ismaels oder die Entwöhnung Isaaks? Auf welche Ereignisse oder Worte deutet das deiktische nVx - „diese" - hin? Die Antwort lautet: Weder auf den Bund mit Abimelech noch auf die Vertreibung von Hagar und Ismael, sondern auf die verleumderische Anklage des Fürsten Mastema, der Abrahams Treue und Glauben bezweifelt und den die große Freude Abrahams über seinen Sohn stört, die im Zusammenhang mit der Entwöhnung erwähnt wird. In 4Q225 wird nach Garcia das Wort D'-Dl nicht ausgelegt, und es wird

6 7

Zu Gemeinsamkeiten von Fürst Mastema und Satan s.u. F. GARCFA MARTINEZ, „ T h e Sacrifice of Isaac in 4 Q 2 2 5 " , in The Sacrifice

of Isaac, ed. by

Ε. NOORT, Ε. TlGCHELAAR, Leiden 2002, 4 4 - 5 7 : 51. 8

Nach J. VAN RUITEN, „ A b r a h a m , Job and the Book of Jubilees: ship of Genesis 2 2 : 1 - 1 9 , Job 1:1-2:13 and Jubilees

T h e Intertextual Relation-

1 7 : 1 5 - 1 8 : 1 9 " , in The Sacrifice

of Isaac,

ed. by E. NOORT, E. TlGCHELAAR, Leiden 2002, 5 8 - 8 5 : 7 2 - 7 3 ist D'-QT auf die Stimme in Himmel zu beziehen.

322

Gottfried Reeg

darauf kein Bezug genommen; 9 der Text gibt jedoch eine Antwort auf die Frage: Auf welche Ereignisse deutet das Wort „diese" hin? Es verweist auf die Anklage des Fürsten Mastema, die dazu führt, daß Abraham versucht wird. Der Beginn der Geschichte von Isaaks Bindung in bSan 89b hat mit dem Jubiläenbuch zwei Motive gemeinsam, und zwar die verleumderische Anklage im Himmel und die Freude Abrahams, die sich hier eindeutig auf die Feier zur Entwöhnung Isaaks bezieht. ,Und es geschah nach diesen Ereignissen/Worten, daß Gott Abraham versuchte' (Gen 22,1). Wonach? R. Yohanan im Namen von R. Yosi b. Zimra sagte: Nach den Worten des Satan, wie es heißt: ,Und das Kind wuchs heran und wurde entwöhnt usw' (Gen 21,8). Satan sagte vor dem Heiligen-Gepriesen-Sei-Er: Herr der Welt, dieser Alte - ihn hast Du im (Alter) von 100 Jahren mit einer Leibesfrucht begnadet, (aber) von dem ganzen Festmahl, das er veranstaltete, hatte er keine Turteltaube oder Jungtaube (übrig, um sie) vor dir zu opfern. Er sagte zu ihm: Er tat alles nur um seines Sohnes willen. Wenn ich ihm sage: Schlachte deinen Sohn vor mir, wird er ihn sofort schlachten. Sofort (heißt es): ,Und Gott versuchte Abraham' (Gen 22,1). ,Und er sagte zu ihm: Nimm doch deinen Sohn' (Gen 22,2). ,Doch' ist nichts anderes als der Ausdruck für eine Bitte. Ein Gleichnis: Ein König aus Fleisch und Blut mußte viele Kriege bestehen, und er hatte einen Helden, der sie alle gewann. Als er nach Tagen einen (weiteren) Krieg bestehen mußte, sagte er ihm: Ich bitte dich, stehe mir in diesem Krieg bei, damit sie nicht sagen, die ersten waren bedeutungslos. So sagte auch der Heilige-Gepriesen-Sei-Er zu Abraham: Ich habe dich mit einigen Versuchungen geprüft, und du hast sie alle bestanden. Bestehe mir auch bei dieser Prüfung, damit sie nicht sagen, die ersten waren bedeutungslos. ... R. Lewi sagte: Nach den Worten des Ismael an Isaak. Ismael sagte zu Isaak: Ich bin größer als du, was die Gebote betrifft. Du bist mit acht Tagen beschnitten worden, ich aber war dreizehn Jahre alt. Wegen eines Gliedes reizt du mich? Wenn der Heiligen-Gepriesen-Sei-Er zu mir sagte: Opfere dich selbst vor mir, ich opferte mich. Und sofort (heißt es): 'Und Gott versuchte Abraham' (Gen 22,1). Die hier gestellte Frage „Wonach?" CXO IHN) scheint auf das biblische Wort "1ΠΧ als Lemma zu deuten, das interpretiert werden soll. Dies setzt jedoch eine Lesart voraus, wie sie im traditionellen Druck am Rand des Textes 10 vermerkt 9

GARCIA, "Sacrifice" (s.o. Anm. 7), 50-51.

10

Diqduqe Sofrim erwähnt diese Umstellung als Lesart eines späteren Druckes von 'F.n Ya'aqov; vgl. RAPHAELO RABBINIVOCZ, Variae

lectiones

in Mischnam

et in

Talmud

Die Ursache für die Bindung Isaaks in der rabbinischen A u s l e g u n g

323

ist und die beide Wörter vertauscht: „Nach - was ist damit gemeint?" Entgegen der allgemeinen Annahme setzt die Frage „Wonach?" auch nicht ein zu deutendes Wort D'131 voraus, sondern kann sich nur auf nVx beziehen: Auf welches Ereignisse weist es hin? Die Antwort lautet: Es ist nicht der Bund mit Abimelech, der in der Bibel der Geschichte vorausgeht, sondern es sind die Worte des Satans im Anschluß an das Fest zur Entwöhnung Isaaks, das in der Bibel noch vor der Vertreibung von Hagar und Ismael erwähnt wird. Die Gestalt des Satans entspricht der des Fürsten Mastema in den Qumrantexten und des Jubiläenbuches. Neben dem Gemeinsamen - Satan und Mastema gehen auf die Wurzel ΠϋΟ/]ϋΟ beziehungsweise zurück, beide treten als Verführer, Ankläger oder Verleumder auf - dürfen die Unterschiede nicht übersehen werden. Satan wird als Eigenname verwendet, während Mastema im Jubiläenbuch in Verbindung mit „Fürst" vorkommt und auch ohne weiteres als „Fürst der Feindschaft" verstanden werden könnte. Fürst Mastema, der aus dem Umkreis der Qumrantexte bekannt ist, hat seine Rolle im Dualismus der kosmischen-eschatologischen Auseinandersetzung mit Gott, während dieser Hintergrund und Bezug im babylonischen Talmud fehlt. Nach bBB 16a/b werden drei Funktionen Satan zugeschrieben: Er verführt den Menschen, wenn er Erfolg hat, klagt er ihn an und nimmt ihm sein Leben. Nach dieser Vorstellung ist es Satan, nicht Gott, der die Menschen verführt. Dem entspricht, daß in bSan 89b die Versuchung Abrahams - auch in Parallele zum Hiobbuch - auf die Worte des Satans zurückgeführt wird. Eine zweite indirekte Antwort, auf die Frage „Wonach?" wird in der Auslegung zu iO gegeben: Mit „doch" ist eine Bitte an Abraham gemeint. Noch ein letztes Mal soll er - im Gleichnis gesprochen - für den König eine Schlacht schlagen. Dieser letzten Versuchung gehen andere voraus, die Abraham alle bestanden hat. Das Wort „diese" ist hier so zu verstehen, daß dieser Versuchung andere vorausgingen, als letztes die Vertreibung Hagars und Ismaels in Gen 21.11 Mit dem Hinweis auf den Charakter der Bitte wird der problematischen Aussage der Bibel, daß nämlich Gott Abraham versuchte, die Schärfe genommen; es ist „nur noch" ein weitere Prüfung, eine weitere „Schlacht". Eine dritte Antwort gibt R. Lewi, der im Gegensatz zu den beiden ersten kein Ereignis anführt, das in irgendeinem Zusammenhang mit Abraham steht, vielmehr sind es die Worte Ismaels, der Streit zwischen Ismael und Isaak, der die Bindung Isaaks verursacht. Diese Antwort setzt die Uminterpretation der Geschichte von der Versuchung Abrahams in die Geschichte vom Opfer des

nicum, Pars IX, M a i n z 1878, z.St. 11

Zu den zehn Versuchungen Abrahams vgl. m A v 5,3; Avot de-Rabbi

Natan 33, Pirqe de-

Rabbi Eli'ezer 26; Midras Tehillim 95,3 sowie L.M. BARTH, „Lection for the Second D a y of Rosh Hashanah: A Homily Containing the Legend of the T e n Trials of A b r a h a m " , in HUCA

58 (1987), 1 - 4 8 (Hebrew Section). Die Zahl „ Z e h n " selbst wird in bSan 89b

nicht erwähnt.

324

Gottfried Reeg

Isaak voraus, den Wechsel von einer passiven Rolle Isaaks, bei der er als Objekt von Abrahams Handeln fungiert, hin zu einer aktiven, bei der Isaak selbst der Bindung freiwillig zustimmt. 12 Hier werden die ursächlichen Worte jedoch nicht - wie in Tanhuma Buber - Isaak, sondern Ismael zugeschrieben. Der Text in Be-resit Rabbah 55,4 scheint auf den ersten Blick dem des babylonischen Talmud zu entsprechen: Zwei Gründe werden genannt: Abraham hat kein Opfer bei der Feier der Entwöhnung dargebracht beziehungsweise Ismael und Isaak streiten sich: ,Nach diesen Begebenheiten' (Gen 22,1). - Kritische Worte fielen dort.13 Wer kritisierte? Abraham. Er sagte: Ich freute mich und erfreute alle, aber dem Heiligen-Gepriesen-Sei-Er sonderte ich weder einen Stier noch einen Widder ab. Der Heilige-Gepriesen-Sei-Er sagte zu ihm: Weil zu dir gesagt wird: Opfere mir deinen Sohn, und du nicht zögern wirst. Nach der Meinung R. Le'azars, der sagte: Gott - ,und der Gott' - er und sein Gerichtshof. Die Dienstengel sagten: Dieser Abraham freute sich und erfreute alle, aber er sonderte dem Heiligen-Gepriesen-Sei-Er weder einen Stier noch einen Widder ab. Der Heilige-Gepriesen-Sei-Er sagte zu ihnen: Weil zu ihm gesagt wird: Opfere Deinen Sohn, und er nicht zögern wird. [Die Völker der Welt sagten: Dieser Abraham freute sich und erfreute alle, aber er sonderte dem Heiligen-Gepriesen-Sei-Er weder einen Stier noch einen Widder ab. Der Heilige-Gepriesen-Sei-Er sagte zu ihnen: Weil zu ihm gesagt wird: Opfere Deinen Sohn, und er nicht zögern wird.]. 14 12

Auf diesen Paradigmenwechsel wurde schon vielfach hingewiesen: VERMES, Scripture (s.o. Anm. 1), 197-204; E.E. URBACH, The Sages - Their Concepts and Beliefs, Jerusalem 1975, 502-505.

13

Die Ubersetzung von

ηίΠΙ'Π bereitet einige Schwierigkeiten, vor allem dann,

wenn die Wendung an allen Stellen gleich übersetzt werden soll. Nach Levy hat "ΙΓΠΠ folgende Bedeutungen: „über etwas nachsinnen, nachdenken, sich in Gedanken etwas vorführen" bzw. „Hintergedanken haben, schlechte Phantasien pflegen" (J. LEVY, Neuhebräisches und Chaldäisches lin/Wien

2

Wörterbuch über die Talmudim und Midraschim,

Bd. I-IV, Ber-

1924, sub voce). Jastrow führt folgende Bedeutungen an: „to conceive in

mind, to think, meditate, plan" bzw. „to be heated, entertain impure thoughts" oder „to disparage, criticise, detract from" (M. JASTROW, A Dictionary Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi,

and the Midrashic

Literature,

of the Targumim,

the

Bd. I—II, London/New York

1903, Nachdruck 1972 sub voce). Es hat einerseits eine positive (vgl. mBer 3,4), andererseits eine negative Konnotation (vgl. Sifre Devarim 307: ΤΊΤΠΏ "ΙΠΧ "imnV ]'N). Im Kontext hier muß eine negative Bedeutung vorliegen, siehe hierzu weiter unten. Y. ELBAUM, „From Sermon to Story: The Transformation of the Akedah", in Prooftexts

6

(1986), 97-116: 100 übersetzt mit „there were certain thoughts of misgiving"; G. STEMBERGER, „Patriarchenbilder" (s.o. Anm. 1), 53 gibt das Wort neutral mit „überlegen" wieder. 14

Zusatz in den Handschriften Oxford 147, Stuttgart, München, Paris sowie in Yalqut;

Die Ursache für die Bindung Isaaks in der rabbinischen Auslegung

325

Isaak und Ismael stritten miteinander. Der eine sagte: Ich bin beliebter als du, denn ich wurde mit dreizehn Jahren beschnitten, und der andere sagte: Ich bin beliebter als du, denn ich wurde mit acht Tagen beschnitten. Ismael sagte zu ihm: Ich bin beliebter, denn ich hätte Einspruch erheben können, aber ich erhob keinen Einspruch. Im selben Augenblick sagte Isaak: Wenn der Heilige-Gepriesen-Sei-Er sich mir offenbaren und mir sagen würde, daß ich eines meiner Glieder abschneiden sollte, würde ich nicht zögern. Der Heilige-Gepriesen-Sei-Er sagte zu ihm: Weil zu dir gesagt wird: Opfere Dich selbst, und du nicht zögern wirst. Ein wichtiger, entscheidender Unterschied zu bSan 89b besteht in der Einleitung: „Kritische Worte fielen dort. Wer kritisierte? Abraham". Abraham sagte zwar sinngemäß das Gleiche wie Satan in bSan 89b, jedoch weist die Formulierung a n m 'ΤΙΠΤΠ daraufhin, daß hier D'13in "ΙΠΧ wortspielerisch als ηίΠΤΠ ausgelegt wird, 15 das heißt, hier wird eine andere Frage als in bSan 89b an den biblischen Text gestellt, nämlich: Was besagt die Verbindung dieser beiden Wörter? Weshalb heißt es nicht p ΉΠΧ oder Β121Π n n X , sondern "ΙΠΧ D'-Qin? Auch hier ist die an die Bibel gestellte Frage nicht: Welche Bedeutung hat das Wort ΠΉΠΙ, nämlich „Worte" oder „Ereignisse"? Die Auslegung von ΠΉ3"ΤΠ "ΙΠΧ als 0Ή3Π 'ΤΙΓΠ'Π findet sich in Be-re'sit Rabbah noch an weiteren Stellen: Be-re'sit Rabbah 44,5; 16 57,3-4 17 und Be-re'sit Rabbah 87,5.18 Be-re'sit Rabbah 87,5 (zu Gen 39,7) hat mit Be-re'sit Rabbah 55,4 gemeinsam, daß die kritischen Worte, die Joseph äußert, eine Versuchung einleiten. Be-re'sit Rabbah 44,5 (zu Gen 15,1) endet mit: „Und darüber hinaus: Für die Stunde, da deine Kinder durch Übertretungen und schlechte Werke (in Not) kommen, sehe ich einen Gerechten unter ihnen, der zur Weise des Rechts sagen kann: Genug, ich nehme sie und leiste Sühne für sie an ihrer Stelle". Hiermit wird eine Verbindung zur Bindung Isaaks hergestellt. Be-re'sit Rabbah 57,3-4

vgl. Be-re'sit Rabbah 55,4: ed. J. THEODOR, CH. ALBECK, Bereshit Rabba mit kritischem parat und Kommentar, 15

Ap-

Jerusalem, Nachdruck 1965, 587.

Vgl. hierzu den Kommentar von THEODOR-ALBECK z.St. Die Bedeutung dieses Wortspiels hebt ELBAUM, „Sermon" (s.o. Anm. 4), 100-101 hervor; KUNDERT, Bindung (s.o. Anm. 2), Bd. II, 98 erwähnt es in einer Fußnote, geht aber nicht weiter darauf ein.

16

Hier geht ihr folgende Auslegung voraus: „R. Yudan und R. Huna, beide im Namen von R. Yose, R. Yudan sagte: An jeder Stelle, wo es heißt '1ΠΝ, hängt es zusammen ("pttO), (und dort, wo es heißt) "1Π8, hängt es nicht zusammen (iVDIO). R. Huna sagte: An jeder Stelle, wo es heißt 'ΊΠΚ, hängt es nicht zusammen, (und dort, wo es heißt) "ΙΠΝ, hängt es zusammen". Die Frage, die hier an den Text gestellt wird, heißt: Weshalb heißt es manchmal "ΙΠΝ und manchmal '1ΠΝ?

17

Hier als Auslegung zu 0 , - m n ΊΠΧ.

18

Außer den hier angegebenen Stellen findet sich diese Wendung noch in Gen 40,1 (Bere'sit Rabbah 88,1) und 48,1 (Be-re'sit Rabbah 97,1). An beiden Stellen wird anders ausgelegt.

326

Gottfried Reeg

(zu Gen 22,20) ist die Bindung Isaaks und die Versuchung Hiobs ein Bestandteil der Auslegung. Alle vier Stellen in Be-re'sit Rabbah verbinden somit die Auslegung von D ' " m ΉΙΠΤΠ mit einer Versuchung; zweimal beschwören sie eine Versuchung herauf, und zwar die von Abraham und die von Joseph. Der Text in Gen 22,1 „Und der Gott" läßt in Be-re'sit Rabbah 55,4 noch einen anderen Sprecher der kritischen Worte zu, nämlich den himmlischen Gerichtshof beziehungsweise die Dienstengel,19 denn so ist nach R. Le'azar das Präfix „und" auszulegen: „und sein Gerichtshof". Als dritte Möglichkeit kommen in einigen Textzeugen noch die Völker der Welt in Betracht; der Anhaltspunkt hierfür im biblischen Text bleibt im Dunkeln, und es ist zu fragen, ob es sich hier um einen nachträglichen Zusatz handelt. Es fällt auf, daß der Vorwurf jedes Mal gleich formuliert ist. Es ist unwichtig, wer ihn erhebt, entscheidend ist die Tatsache, daß er geäußert wird. In einem Fall ist es eine Selbstkritik, ein Zweifel am eigenen Tun, im anderen Fall ist es eine verleumderische Anklage, ein Zweifel an der Integrität Abrahams. Diese geäußerten Zweifel müssen widerlegt werden. Diese Auslegung in Be-re'sit Rabbah macht die Gestalt des Satans, der in bSan auftritt, zur Erklärung der Ursache für die Versuchung Abrahams überflüssig, sie ist nicht notwendig. Vergleicht man die Fortsetzung in bSan und in Be-re'sit Rabbah, dann fällt weiter auf, daß der Satan in Be-re'sit Rabbah innerhalb der Bindung Isaaks überhaupt nicht erwähnt wird. Im weiteren Verlauf tritt zum einen Samael auf, zum andern gibt es eine Gestalt, die mit 13 ΊΪΛ'Ή Χ1ΠΠ umschrieben wird. Vom Kontext her müßte dies auf Samael zu beziehen sein. Wenn man ferner in Betracht zieht, daß beide Bezeichnungen sonst in Be-re'sit Rabbah nicht vorkommen, kann daraus nur geschlossen werden, daß die Gestalt des Satans in Be-re'sit Rabbah in der Geschichte von der Bindung Isaaks wohl bewußt nicht erwähnt und unterdrückt wird. Die Ursache für die Versuchung Abrahams ist nicht beim Satan oder bei Gott zu suchen, sondern sie liegt in den „kritischen Worten". Noch eine zweite Antwort auf die Ursache für die Bindung Isaaks wird in Be-re'sit Rabbah 55,4 gegeben, die weitgehend mit bSan 89b übereinstimmt, und zwar der Streit zwischen Ismael und Isaak. Der Anschluß deutet zunächst nicht darauf hin, daß es eine Antwort auf die Frage ist: „Wer kritisierte?" Die analoge Formulierung „weil zu dir gesagt wird" stellt jedoch eine Verbindung zur ersten Antwort her. Diesen Streit als •''"IDT ΉΙΓΠ'Π zu verstehen bereitet einige Schwierigkeiten. Das könnte erklären, weshalb die Antwort auf die anfangs gestellte Frage „Wer kritisierte?" - fehlt. Es bietet sich jedoch an, den Streit als Auslegung von nVx anzusehen: Was geschah im Vorfeld der Bindung Isaaks? Zum Schluß soll noch kurz auf die Versionen von Tanhuma eingegangen werden. In Tanhuma Buber XT1 42 lautet der Text: 19

Vgl. Uber Antiquitatum

Biblicarum (Ps.-Philo) 3 2 , 2 ^ .

Die Ursache für die Bindung Isaaks in der rabbinischen Auslegung

327

Eine andere Auslegung: ,Und es geschah nach diesen Begebenheiten'. Welche Kritik 20 gab es da? Isaak äußerte sich kritisch, denn er stritt mit Ismael, denn Ismael [hatte sich gerühmt]: Ich bin größer als du. Ich werde die Welt erben, denn ich bin der Erstgeborene für meinen Vater, und immer erbt der Erstgeborene doppelt. Isaak sagte zu ihm: Sage mir, was hat der Heilige-Gepriesen-Sei-Er von dir? Ismael sagte zu ihm: Ich werde dir sagen, was ich tat. Auch wenn ich nichts getan hätte, so war ich doch dreizehn Jahre alt, als Vater mich beschnitt. Ich hätte ihm sagen können, mich nicht zu beschneiden. Aber ich habe mich hingqgeben und es auf mich genommen. Isaak sagte zu ihm: Alles, was du dem HeiligenGepriesen-Sei-Er geliehen hast, sind drei Tropfen Blut. Ich aber weiß, wenn der Heilige-Gepriesen-Sei-Er bitten wird, mich jetzt zu schlachten, und ich bin 37 Jahre alt, und der Heilige-Gepriesen-Sei-Er meinem Vater sagen wird, mich zu opfern - und ich werde es nicht hindern. Der Heilige-Gepriesen-Sei-Er sagte zu den Engeln: Dies ist die Stunde. Sogleich erschien er Abraham, wie es heißt: ,Und es geschah nach diesen Worten'. Hieraus lernst du, daß es dort kritische Worte gab. Der Text beginnt mit der Auslegung von "1ΠΝ als ΠΓΠΠ in Anlehnung an Bere'sit Rabbah 55,4. Es folgen jedoch keine „kritischen Worte" Abrahams, vielmehr werden sie mit Isaak, der mit Ismael stritt, in Verbindung gebracht. Dieser Anschluß erscheint etwas gewaltsam21 und läßt sich nur so erklären, daß der Text aus Be-re'sit Rabbah 55,4 verkürzt wird. Die „kritischen Worte" im Zusammenhang mit Abraham fallen weg, und als einzige Ursache für die Bindung wird nur noch Isaaks Streit mit Ismael angeführt, so daß nicht mehr Abraham, der versucht wird, im Mittelpunkt der Geschichte steht, sondern Isaak, der sich selbst opfert. Der Anlaß ist in Isaak selbst zu sehen; seine Worte sind Ursache für die Bindung. Dies wird hier gegenüber bSan 89b, wo es die „Worte Ismaels" sind, noch mehr dadurch hervorgehoben, daß Isaak selbst die „kritischen Worte" äußert. Die Parallelversion in Tanhuma ΝΉ 18 bietet einen stark abweichenden Text, auch wenn es ebenso um den Streit zwischen Isaak und Ismael geht: ,Und es geschah nach diesen Begebenheiten, daß Gott Abraham versuchte'. - Welche Worte gab es dort? Denn Ismael sagte zu Isaak: Ich bin größer als du, denn ich wurde mit dreizehn Jahren beschnitten, und ich ertrug den Schmerz, du aber wurdest mit acht Tagen beschnitten, und hast den Schmerz nicht gekannt. Selbst wenn dein Vater dich geschlachtet hätte, hättest du es nicht bemerkt. Wenn du dreizehn Jahre alt gewe20

"ΠΓΠΠ wird in Anlehnung an Be-re'sit

Rabbah

55,4 mit „Kritik"

ELBAUM, „ S e r m o n " (s.o. Anm. 4), 100: „thought of misgiving". 21

Vgl. hierzu und zu der gesamten Passage ELBAUM, a . a . O , 1 0 0 - 1 0 3 .

wiedergegeben.

328

Gottfried Reeg

sen wärest, hättest du nicht den Schmerz auf dich genommen. Isaak sagte zu ihm: Das ist nichts. Wenn der Heilige-Gepriesen-Sei-Er zu meinem Vater sagen würde: Schlachte Isaak, deinen Sohn, würde ich es nicht hindern. Sogleich ereignete sich das Wort über ihn, wie es heißt: ,Und es geschah nach diesen Begebenheiten, daß Gott Abraham versuchte'. Die Auslegung von Π'Ί3"7Π 1ΠΝ als D'-Ql ΉΙΠΤΠ ist zwar völlig verschwunden, die Formulierung der Frage gleicht aber der aus Tanhuma Buber, nicht der Frage in bSan, der sie sachlich entspricht: „Welche Worte gab es dort?" Wie in bSan ist auch hier die Frage: Auf welche Worte weist „diese" hin? Es sind die Worte zwischen Ismael und Isaak, der Streit zwischen ihnen, letztlich jedoch die herausfordernde Antwort Isaaks. Zusammenfassend läßt sich sagen, daß das theologische Anliegen allen Texten gemeinsam ist; sie wollen zeigen, daß die Ursache für die Versuchung nicht in einer Willkür Gottes liegt. Der Gedanke, daß Gott die Menschen grundlos versucht, ist unerträglich, daher muß eine andere Ursache für die Ver-suchung Abrahams gefunden werden. 22 Im Text bietet sich hierfür der Beginn der Erzählung an: „Und es geschah nach diesen Ereignissen ..." Was ging der Bindung Isaaks voraus? Auf welches Geschehen oder Ereignis verweist das Wort „diese"? Ist es die Geschichte, die der biblischen Erzählung vorausgeht oder ist es ein anderer Vorfall? Die Texte unterscheiden sich in ihrer Antwort: die Anklage des Fürsten Mastema (Jub 17) oder Satans (bSan 89b), die Zweifel an der Integrität Abrahams (Be-re'sit Rabbah 55,4), andere Prüfungen (bSan 89b) oder der Streit zwischen Isaak und Ismael (Be-re'sit Rabbah 55,4; bSan 89b; Tanhuma Buber NT! 42). Es fällt auf, daß fast ausschließlich gesprochene Worte als Ursache angeführt werden. Besonders stark wird dies in der Be-re'sit Rabbah eigenen Auslegung von D'-Din "ΙΠΧ als D'ITI 'ΊΙΠΤΠ betont, nicht der Sprecher ist entscheidend, sondern die „kritischen Worte" als solche; ein geäußerter Zweifel kann nicht stehen bleiben, er muß widerlegt werden. Die Macht des gesprochenen Wortes zeigt sich ebenfalls im Streit zwischen Isaak und Ismael. Satan beziehungsweise der Fürst Mastema tritt nur im Jubiläenbuch und in bSan auf. Trotz dieser Gemeinsamkeit darf nicht übersehen werden, daß beide Gestalten nicht deckungsgleich sind, die eine ist in ein dualistisches System eingebunden, die andere nicht. In Be-re'sit Rabbah wie auch in den beiden Tanhuma-Texten hingegen wird in keiner Weise auf den Satan rekurriert, das heißt, er wird nicht benötigt, um eine Ursache für die Versuchung Abrahams zu finden. 22

Diese Tendenz zeigt sich schon in der Bearbeitung des Samuelbuches durch den Chronisten. II Sam 24,1 verführt Gott David zur Volkszählung, I Chr 21,1 ist es der Satan.

Die Ursache für die Bindung Isaaks in der rabbinischen Auslegung

329

Neben dem Lemma nVx wird die Verbindung Ο'ΙΤΤΠ "ΙΠΧ ausgelegt. Zur These, daß die meisten Auslegungen auf das Wort •'"im zurückgehen, ist folgendes zu bemerken: die Alternative „Wort" oder „Ereignis" stellt sich dem Übersetzer des hebräischen Textes. LXX und Josephus müssen sich entscheiden, wie sie das Wort übersetzen wollen.23 Die Rabbinen stehen nicht vor dieser Alternative, da das hebräische "IDT beides einschließt. Ihnen stellen sich vielmehr als aufmerksame hebräische Leser die Fragen: Weshalb heißt es 1ΠΚ D'-mn, wenn es auch ΠΉΙΠΠ ΉΠΝ oder p ΉΠΧ heißen könnte? Auf welches Geschehen verweist n"7X?

23

Siehe hierzu KUNDERT, Bindung (s.o. Anm. 2), 49,165.

Berechtigung und Grenzen der Notwehr und Selbstverteidigung im jüdischen Recht von JOHANN MAIER

1. Zur Einführung ins Thema und in die Problematik a) Ein Blick auf antike Rechtstraditionen Die Bedrohung von Leib und Leben gehört von uran zu den Grunderfahrungen menschlicher Existenz, daher ergab sich auch früh das Bedürfnis, eine angemessene Reaktion der bedrohten bzw. angegriffenen Person von willkürlichen und strafbaren Handlungen abzugrenzen und eine versehentliche Tötung nicht als Mord zu werten. Die Fälle, die dabei genannt werden, und die Begründungen, die jeweils angeführt werden, sind in gewissen Fällen ziemlich gleichartig, variieren ansonsten je nach kulturellem und gesellschaftlichen Hintergrund, v.a. fällt die Differenzierung zwischen Ober- und Unterschicht, Freien und Sklaven, eigenen Gruppenangehörigen und Fremden ins Auge. So an folgenden Beispielen altorientalischer Gesetze, 1 in denen der Mord von anderen Tötungsdelikten schon abgesetzt wird. 2 Die aus der Zeit um 1760/80 v. Chr. stammende Gesetzessammlung von Eshnunna (C-9-11), bestimmt, daß derjenige, der einen awilu (einen Angehörigen der Oberschicht) im Lauf eines Streites tötet, eine Ersatzleistung von 40 Schekel Silber zu erbringen hat. Im Codex Hammurabi von Babylon (um 1750) 3 XLI,14-19 hingegen muß der Totschläger schwören, nicht absichtlich getötet zu haben und 30 Schekel Silber zahlen. XLI,23-30 betrifft die Körperverletzung an einer Schwangeren (der Oberschicht) mit der Folge einer Totgeburt, wofür 10 Schekel Silber vorgeschrieben sind; XLI,35-40 sind es im 1

Übersicht bei: M.T. ROTH, Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor, Atlanta/Georgia 1995; TU AT. Texte aus der Umwelt des Alten Testaments. In Gemeinschaft mit R. Borger u.a. hg. von O. KAISER, Bd. I, Rechts- und Wirtschaftsurkunden. Historischchronologische Texte, Lieferung 1-6, Gütersloh 1982-1985.

2

U. SICK, Die Tötung eines Menschen und ihre Ahndung in den keilschriftlichen Rechtssammlungen unter Berücksichtigung rechtsvergleichender Aspekte, Bd. I—II, Tübingen

3

D.P. WRIGHT, „The Laws of Hammurabi as a Source for the Covenant Collection (Exo-

1984.

d u s 2 0 : 2 3 - 2 3 : 1 9 ) " , i n Maarav

10 (2003),

11-87.

332

Johann Maier

Fall einer Frau aus der Unterschicht nur 5 Schekel, XLI,45-50 im Fall einer Sklavin 2 Schekel. Falls aber infolge der Verletzung auch die Frau stirbt, wird für eine Frau aus der Oberschicht laut XLI, 31-34 die Tochter des Totschlägers getötet. Entstammt die Frau der Unterschicht, zahlt er 30 Schekel, für eine Sklavin (XLI,61-54) 20 Schekel Silber. Nach dem mittelassyrischen Gesetz 11,98-104 zahlt derjenige, der eine Totgeburt verursacht, 9000 Schekel Blei, erhält 50 Stockhiebe und leistet 1 Monat königlichen Frondienst. VII,63-81 verlangt Vergeltung im gleichen Maß und (vgl. VIII,82-85) Ersatzzahlung, nach VII, 87-91 auch im Fall einer Prostituierten. Stirbt einem Arzt nach einem chirurgischen Eingriff sein Patient, soll ihm nach XLI,70-73 die rechte Hand abgeschlagen werden. 4 Auch in der griechisch-römischen Antike zeichnen sich gewisse Grundlinien einer strafrechtlichen Verantwortlichkeit für gewaltsames Handeln bzw. für Töten ab.5 Für den griechischen Bereich hat Demosthenes (geb. 384 v.Chr.) in seiner Oratio 23 contra Aristocrates6 auf sehr kennzeichnende Weise Fälle aufgeführt, in denen ein Totschlag vom Gesetzgeber als nicht schuldhaft definiert worden ist. Oder „falls ein Mann einen anderen in einem athletischen Wettkampf tötet", weil dabei keine Tötungsabsicht vorliegt, vielmehr nur die Absicht, ihn zu besiegen, und weil der Schwächere das Risiko freiwillig auf sich genommen hat.7 Oder einen Räuber. Schuldlos ist auch ein Krieger, und dazu formuliert er noch: „Wohlan, falls ich einen Mann vernichtet habe, den ich für einen Feind hielt, verdiene ich es nicht, vor ein Gericht gestellt zu werden, sondern, daß mir vergeben wird. Oder im Zusammenhang mit dem Geschlechtsverkehr mit seiner Ehefrau, Mutter, Schwester oder Tochter, oder einer Konkubine, die zur Zeugung legitimer Nachkommenschaft gehalten wird. Er (der Gesetzgeber) läßt den Mann, der jemanden, der eine

4

Z u m hethitischen Bereich siehe: R. HAASE, „Überlegungen zur erlaubten Tötung eines Menschen in der hethitischen Rechtssammlung", in Die Welt des Orients 27 (1996), 3 6 44.

5

A.P. DORJAHN, „Extenuating Circumstances in Athenian C o u r t s " , in Classical

philology

25 (1930), 1 6 2 - 1 7 2 ; J. GAUDEMET, „Le probleme de la responsabilite penale dans l'Antiquite", in La responsabilite janvier

penale, Travaux du Colloque

de philosophie

penal, 12 au 21

1959 (Annales de la Faculte de droit et des sciences politiques et economiques

de Strasbourg, vol. VIII), eds par J. LEAUTE, Paris 1961, 5 1 - 8 0 ; A.D. MANFREDINI, „Voleurs, brigands et legitime defense en droit r o m a i n " , in Revue historique frangais

et

Vergeltung

etranger und

74 das

(1996),

505-523;

Gewaltverbot

im

klassischem römischen Recht", in Zeitschrift Germanistische 6

BEHRENDS,

geordneten

de

„Selbstbehauptung

bürgerlichen

der Savigny-Stiftung

Zustand

für

droit und nach

Rechtsgeschichte.

119 (2002), 44ff.

J.H. VlNCE (transl.), Demosthenes Aristogeiton,

7

Abteilung

O.

III: Against Meidias,

C a m b r i d g e 5 1998, §§ 50.54-55.

Oratio 23 contra Aristocrates

54.

Androtion,

Aristocrates,

Timocrates,

Notwehr u n d Selbstverteidigung im jüdischen Recht

333

dieser genannten Frauenspersonen so behandelt hat, straffrei ausgehen ...". 8

b) Ein Blick auf eine moderne Rechtsordnung In modernen Rechtssystemen wird in Bezug auf Tötungsdelikte und Körperverletzungen auf eine Weise differenziert, die in alter Zeit nur ansatzweise zu beobachten ist. Daß dies dennoch grundsätzlich und insbesondere ethisches Unbehagen auslösen kann, ist offenbar ebenso wie die detaillierte Regelung unvermeidlich. 9 Das gilt auch für biblisches Recht, wo im hebräischen Sprachgebrauch zwischen „morden" (rsh) und „töten" (hrg/umbringen bzw. hmyt/zu Tode bringen, sterben lassen) nicht strikt unterschieden wird, obschon rsh immer nur für Morden verwendet wird. Beim Wort „Notwehr" denkt man in erster Linie an die Situation eines Individuums und demgemäß ist man auch in der Gesetzgebung zunächst immer davon ausgegangen. In vielen Fällen erscheint der Sachverhalt der gebotenen Selbstverteidigung klar und nachvollziehbar, aber manchmal ist es nicht leicht, das Ausmaß der tatsächlichen oder der vermeintlichen Gefährdung des Betroffenen festzustellen und die Grenzen zum Totschlag, einer fahrlässigen oder versehentlichen Tötung eindeutig zu ziehen, und eine vorangegangene Provokation kann sogar als Vorwand für einen sorgfältig geplanten Mord dienen. Zur Illustration der Problematik vorweg ein Blick auf ein modernes Gesetzbuch, und zwar dem Strafgesetzbuch der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, dessen diesbezügliche Formulierungen als weithin repräsentativ gelten können. Die moderne Differenzierung zwischen den verschiedenen Tötungsdelikten ist ziemlich aufgefächert: STGB der Bundesrepublik Deutschland § 212 (1) lautet: „Wer einen Menschen tötet, ohne Mörder zu sein, wird als Totschläger mit Freiheitsstrafe nicht unter fünf Jahren bestraft. (2) In besonders schweren Fällen ist auf lebenslange Freiheitsstrafe zu erkennen". STGB § 211 behandelt Mord, § 213 den minder schweren Fall des Totschlags. § 222 betrifft die fahrlässige Tötung: „Wer durch Fahrlässigkeit den Tod eines

8

Vgl. auch: M. GAGARIN, „The Problem of Just and Unjust H o m i c i d e in Antiphon's Tetralogies", in Greek, Roman and Byzantine

9

Studies 19 (1978), 2 9 1 - 3 0 6 .

S. LEVINE, „The Moral Permissibility of Killing a 'Material Aggressor' in Self-Defense", in Philosophical

Studies

45 (1984), 6 6 - 7 8 ; Tz. KASACHKOFF, „Killing in Self-Defense an

Unquestionable or Problematic Defense?", in Law and Philosophy

17 (1998), 5 0 9 - 5 3 1 ; D.

MCCORD, S.K. LYONS, „Moral Reasoning and the Criminal L a w : The E x a m p l e of SelfDefense", in American

Criminal

Law Revieiv

30 (1992/93), 9 7 - 1 6 0 ; CHR. KUTZ, „Self-

Defense and Political Justification", in California

Law Review

OTSUKA, „Killing the Innocent in Self-Defence", in Journal quality homicide,

1/9 (2003), 6 6 - 8 7 ; S. UNIACKE, Permissible

Killing:

88 (2000), 7 5 1 - 7 7 8 ; M.

of Libertarianism The self-defence

without justification

C a m b r i d g e / N e w York 1994; paperback edition: C a m b r i d g e 1996.

Ineof

Johann Maier

334

Menschen verursacht, wird mit Freiheitsstrafe bis zu fünf Jahren oder mit Geldstrafe bestraft". § 227 gilt der Körperverletzung mit Todesfolge: „(1) Verursacht der Täter durch die Körperverletzung den Tod der verletzten Person, so ist die Strafe Freiheitsstrafe nicht unter drei Jahren. (2) In minder schweren Fällen ist auf Freiheitsstrafe von einem Jahr bis zu zehn Jahren zu erkennen". Mit § 220a wurde im Blick auf Ereignisse im 20. Jh. der Tatbestand des Völkermordes ungewöhnlich detailliert definiert: „(1) Wer in der Absicht, eine nationale, rassische, religiöse oder durch ihr Volkstum bestimmte Gruppe als solche ganz oder teilweise zu zerstören, 1. Mitglieder der Gruppe tötet, 2. Mitgliedern der Gruppe schwere körperliche oder seelische Schäden, insbesondere der in § STGB § 226 bezeichneten Art, zufügt, 3. die Gruppe unter Lebensbedingungen stellt, die geeignet sind, deren körperliche Zerstörung ganz oder teilweise herbeizuführen, 4. Maßregeln verhängt, die Geburten innerhalb der Gruppe verhindern sollen, 5. Kinder der Gruppe in eine andere Gruppe gewaltsam überführt, wird mit lebenslanger Freiheitsstrafe bestraft". (2) In minder schweren Fällen des Absatzes 1 Nr. 2 bis 5 ist die Strafe Freiheitsstrafe nicht unter fünf Jahren. Die Notwehr 10 wird im STGB der Bundesrepublik Deutschland unter „Vierter Titel: Notwehr und Notstand" in den §§ 32-35 behandelt: § 32 Wer eine Tat begeht, die durch Notwehr geboten ist, handelt nicht rechtswidrig. (2) Notwehr ist die Verteidigung, die erforderlich ist, um einen gegenwärtigen rechtswidrigen Angriff von sich oder einem anderen abzuwenden. § 33 Überschreitung der Notwehr. Überschreitet der Täter die Grenzen der Notwehr aus Verwirrung, Furcht oder Schrecken, so wird er nicht bestraft. § 34 Rechtfertigender Notstand. Wer in einer gegenwärtigen, nicht anders abwendbaren Gefahr für Leben, Leib, Freiheit, Ehre, Eigentum oder ein anderes Rechtsgut eine Tat begeht, um die Gefahr von sich oder einem anderen abzuwenden, handelt nicht rechtswidrig, wenn bei Abwägung der widerstreitenden Interessen, namentlich der betroffenen Rechtsgüter und des Grades der ihnen drohenden Gefahren, das geschützte Interesse das beeinträchtigte wesentlich überwiegt. Dies gilt jedoch nur, soweit die Tat ein angemessenes Mittel ist, die Gefahr abzuwenden. § 35 Entschuldigender Notstand. (1) Wer in einer gegenwärtigen, nicht anders abwendbaren Gefahr für Leben, Leib oder Freiheit eine rechtswidrige Tat begeht, um die Gefahr von sich, einem Angehörigen

10

H . JESCHEK, T H . WEIGAND, Lehrbuch

des

Strafrechts,

Berlin N996, 334-351. Vgl. A.D.

RENTELEN, The Cultural Defense, New York 2004 [23-47, 221-222: Tötungsdelikte; 3640: Selbstverteidigung]; J.M. CARBASSE, Introduction historique au droit penal, Paris 1990, 38-39, 151,191-193.

N o t w e h r und Selbstverteidigung im jüdischen Recht

335

oder einer anderen ihm nahestehenden Person abzuwenden, handelt ohne Schuld. Dies gilt nicht, soweit dem Täter nach den Umständen, namentlich weil er die Gefahr selbst verursacht hat oder weil er in einem besonderen Rechtsverhältnis stand, zugemutet werden konnte, die Gefahr hinzunehmen; jedoch kann die Strafe nach § 49 Abs. 1 gemildert werden, wenn der Täter nicht mit Rücksicht auf ein besonderes Rechtsverhältnis die Gefahr hinzunehmen hatte. (2) Nimmt der Täter bei Begehung der Tat irrig Umstände an, welche ihn nach Absatz 1 entschuldigen würden, so wird er nur dann bestraft, wenn er den Irrtum vermeiden konnte. Die Strafe ist nach §49 Abs. 1 zu mildern. Zur Notwehr im Sinne eines individuellen Selbstverteidungsrechtes tritt hier also noch das Recht bzw. die Pflicht zur Abwehr entsprechender Gefahren für ein anderes Individuum. 11 Die Notwehrsituation des Individuums ist in der Regel einfacher zu beurteilen als der Fall einer Person, die zugleich für eine Gruppe (Familie, Nachbarschaft, Sippe, Volksstamm) handelt bzw. zu handeln vorgibt. Bei der Beurteilung des Handelns einer Gruppe sind noch weit kompliziertere Voraussetzungen und Motivationen im Spiel, und im Extremfall ist die Unterscheidung zwischen Angreifer und Verteidiger gar nicht mehr möglich. Die normativen Kriterien der Individualethik sind auch nicht ohne Weiteres in den Rahmen einer Gruppenethik übertragbar, weil das persönliche Interesse dem Gruppeninteresse untergeordnet wird, womit ein Faktor ins Spiel kommt, der letztlich mit Moral nichts mehr zu tun hat, sondern als Zwangsloyalität wirksam wird. Die Berechtigung von Gruppeninteressen ist auch deshalb schwieriger festzustellen, weil u.a. mehr oder minder vordergründig ökonomische und machtpolitische Faktoren eine entscheidende Rolle spielen können und manchmal unklar bleibt, ob die Gefährdungssituation, auf die man sich für die Rechtfertigung Abwehrmaßnahmen bzw. Angriffshandlungen beruft, tatsächlich von außen geschaffen und nicht etwa durch Geheimdienstaktionen oder durch gezielte wirtschaftliche Repressalien provoziert worden ist.

c) Zur Themenstellung Im Folgenden soll skizziert werden, wie im biblisch-jüdischen Recht diese Sachverhalte und Probleme behandelt worden sind.12 Vorweg ist zu beachten,

11

F.M. BENDINELLI, T.J. EDSALL, „Defense of Others: Origins, Requirements, Limitations

12

I. HERZOG, The Main Institutions

and Ramifications", in Regent University

Law Review 5 (1994), 1 5 3 - 2 1 4 .

of Jewish Law, Bd. I, L o n d o n 1936 ( 2 1965/67), 2 2 5 - 2 2 8 ,

264f. 272f.; A. GULAK, Toledot ha-mispat

be-Yisra'el

bi-tqufat

ha-Talmud,

Bd. I, Jerusalem

336

Johann Maier

daß im biblisch-jüdischen Recht die Pflicht zur Lebensbewahrung (jedenfalls innerhalb der eigenen Gruppe) - einen hohen Stellenwert einnimmt und bei allen Überlegungen zur Notwehr mit eine Rolle spielt.13 Es geht also um die Notwehr bzw. um das Selbstverteidigungsrecht, 14 aber auch um die gebotene Beistandleistung im Fall der Gefährdung Dritter,15 und dabei auch um die Verhinderung schwerer Vergehen durch Individuen wie durch öffentliche

1939, 112-116; S. ALBECK, Peser dine ha-neziqin

13

Bd. I—III, Jerusalem

ha-'ivri,

Principles,

Bd. I - I V , Jerusalem 3 1997 (sieh Register).

Tel Aviv 1964/5; M. ELON, Law - History,

Sources,

EJ 13,1971,509-510. CH. Z. ABRAMOWITZ, We-hay bahem. Piqquah

nefes ba-halakah,

Jerusa-

lem 1957/8; D. HALBERTAL, 'Erek ha-hayyim

nefes, Jerusalem 2003/4;

DERS., 'Erek ha-hayyim piqquah

ba-halakah.

Mesirah

2

1987/88; DERS., Jewish

ba-halakah

- dehiyyat

la-oyev, Jerusalem 2005; J.A. LORINTS, Misnat

nefes, Bne Barak 2003; N. RAKOVER, Mesirut

ha-rabbim, 14

ba-Talmud,

Ha-mispat

nefes. Haqrabat

ha-yahid

le-hassalat

Jerusalem 2000.

S. ASSAF, Ha-'onasim

ahare hatimat

ha-Talmud,

Jewish and R o m a n L a w " , in Revue

Jerusalem 1922; B. COHEN, „Seif Help in

internationale

des droits

de l'antiquite

(1955), 1 0 7 - 1 3 3 ; = in: DERS., Jewish and Roman Law: A Comparative

(3e serie) II

Study, Bd. II, N e w

York 1966, 6 2 4 - 6 5 0 , 7 9 3 - 7 9 6 . Daraus 637-650: „Self-Help in Jewish and R o m a n L a w " in Self-Help

in Jewish Law, ed. by S. ELTINGER, Ramat-Aviv/Boston, (Mass.) 1993, 6 3 - 7 6 ;

Y. AHARONI, S.W. BARON, L.E. GOODMAN, G.S. WISE (eds.), Violence Jewish Experience: contemporary

life, Tel Aviv University,

WAHRHAFTIG, „ H a g a n a h rodef)", in Sinai American

and Defence

in the

Papers prepared for a seminar on violence and defence in Jewish history August

18-September

'asmit ba-'averot resah we-habbalah

81 (1977/8), 7 8 - 8 8 ; M. PLAVES, Attitudes

and Israeli

Jews,

and

4, 1974, Philadelphia 1977; I. toward

(li-mhuto sei Self-defense

din

among

Diss. phil. California School of Professional Psychology,

Berkeley/Alameda 1983; H. IRWIN, „Self-Help in Jewish Law: Literary and Legal Analysis", in Dine Israel 17 (1983/4), 5 5 - 1 0 2 ; J. ZOLDAN, „Hitgonenut isit we-sibburit rodef, ba ba-mahteret u - m i l h a m a h " , in Malkut

Yehudah

we-Yisra'el,

1991/2, 2 8 4 - 3 0 4 ; M. BROYDE, The Pursuit of Justice: A Jewish Perspective

M e r k a z Shapira on Practicing

Law,

N e w York 1996, 8 3 - 8 9 ; A. ENKER, „Salos sittot le-hasbarat ha-rasiyonal sei ha-haganah ha-'asmit ba-mispat ha-'ivri", in Pelilim 2 (1990/1), 5 5 - 9 1 ; DERS., „ H a g a n a h 'asmit wesorek la-ahar tiqqun mispar 37 le-hoq ha-'onasin", in Pelilim TINGER, Self-Help

in Jewish

3 (1992/3), 5 ^ 5 ; SH. ET-

Law, Selected Topics in Jewish L a w 6, Ramat-Aviv/Boston

(Mass.) 1993; G.P. FLETCHER, „Talmudic Reflections on Self-Defense", in Rules, and Responsibility:

Essays Dedicated

to Herbert Fingarette,

(Illinois) 1991, 5 5 - 6 9 ; = in Crime, Punishment, ration - Proceedings

of a Conference

and Deterrence:

at the Wilstein

Rituals,

ed. b y M.I. BOCHOVER, La Salle

Institute,

CORDIS, Los Angeles 1991, 6 1 - 7 2 ; N. RAKOVER, Self Defense:

An American-Jewish March

Explo-

1990, ed. by D.M.

How far can 1 go, Jerusalem

1996. 15

Für allgemeine Ü b e r l e g u n g e n siehe: M.F. BENDINELLI, T.J. EDSALL, „Defense of Others" (s.o. A n m . 11), 1 5 3 - 2 1 4 . Für jüdisches Recht speziell siehe: M. FLNKELMAN, „Selfdefence and D e f e n c e of Others in Jewish Law. The rodef defence", in Wayne Law Review 33 (1987), 1257-1287; Β.F. HERRING, Jewish Sources and Commentary, Others"].

Ethics

and Halacha

for

Our Times

-

Bd. II, N e w York 1989, 1 2 9 - 1 7 5 [„Violence in Self-Defense of

337

Notwehr und Selbstverteidigung im jüdischen Recht

Organe. 16 Im weitesten Sinn ist jede Tötung, die aus Notwendigkeit erfolgt, eingeschlossen. 17 Ausgeklammert bleiben die Sachverhalte der vorsätzlichen Tötung bzw. des Mordes (Lev 24,17; Num 35,16-19), der versehentlichen Tötung (bi-sgagah) mit den damit verbundenen Asylbestimmungen 18 , sowie die gebotene Tötung eines Mörders durch den nächsten Erbberechtigen als Bluträcher (Num 35,19 etc.) anstelle der gerichtlich angeordneten Exekution durch das Schwert. Für den Kriegszustand gelten sowieso besondere Bedingungen. 19 Dabei differenziert das biblisch-jüdische Kriegsrecht in Bezug auf die Feinde Israels auf eine spezifische Weise. Im Unterschied zu den „sieben Völkern" des Landes Kanaan, die in der Bibel erwähnt werden und einst entweder vertrieben werden oder dem „Bann" verfallen sollten, gilt der Krieg gegen „Amalek" als Daueraufgabe jeder Generation, wobei unter Amalek der jeweils aktuelle Todfeind Israels verstanden wird. 20 Auch Sonderfälle der Gefährdung durch andere, etwa im Fall einer Schwangeren durch ihr Ungeborenes bei einer Komplikation, wobei der Fötus als rodefeingestuft werden kann, sollen hier nicht näher beleuchtet werden. 21 Ein anderer Gesichtspunkt tritt hingegen in den Vordergrund, sobald über die Notwehr des Einzelnen hinaus ein fundamentales Interesse der Allgemeinheit ins Spiel kommt. Es geht um eine Art Notstandsrecht. 2 2 Das 16

E.C. BEN-ZIMRA, „Use of Force for the Prevention of Crime", in Dine Israel 9 (1981), 8 5 -

17

E.C. BEN-ZIMRA, „Sefikat damim mi-tok sorek ba-mispat ha-'ivri u-ba-mispat hayisre'eli", in Senaton ha-mispat ha-'ibri 3 - 4 (1976/7), 117-152; A. ENKER, „Resah mi-tok hekreh we-sorek ba-mispat ha-'ivri", in Senaton ha-mispat ha-'ivri 2 (1974/5), 154-174; DERS., „Duress, Self-Defence and Necessity in Israeli Law", in Israel Law Review 30 (1996), 188-206; M.Z. SOKOL, „Some Tensions in the Jewish Attitude toward the Taking of Human Life: A philosophical analysis of justified homicide in Jewish legal and aggaddic literature", in Jewish Law Annual 7 (1988), 97-113.

18

IKon 1,50-53; 2,28-34 (Altarasyl); Dtn 19,1-13; Num 35; Jos 20 (Freistädte/Levitenstädte). Vgl. Neh 6,10-12; PHILO, De confusione linguarum §§ 160f.; PHILO, De fuga §§ 5 3 - 1 1 8 (65-85. 86); JOSEPHUS, Antiquitates Judaicae V, § 172; mMak IV,1-5 etc.

19 20

J. MAIER, Kriegsrecht und Friedensordnung in jüdischer Tradition, Stuttgart 2000. Ibid., 3 8 ^ 0 , 146-147. Für aktuelle Interpretation s. ST. BOYLAN, „A Halakhic Perspective on the Holocaust", in Theological and Halakhic Reflections on the Holocaust, ed. by Β.Η. ROSENBERG, New York 1992, 195-214. Eine sehr militante Aktualisierung: Α. BENHAYYIM, Sefer resit goyyim, Jerusalem 1993.

21

J.B. STERN (ed.), The Right of Self-defense and Abortion in Jewish Law, Contemporary legal issues - Jewish law and American law; source book n. 6, Brookline/Mass. 1983; D.I. FRIMER, "The Right of Self-Defense and Abortion", in Maimonides as Codifyer of Jewish

113.

Law,

e d . b y N . RAKOVER, l e r u s a l e m 1 9 8 7 , 1 9 5 - 2 1 6 . V g l . a l l g e m e i n : J. M C M A H A N ,

The

Ethics of Killing: Problems at the margins of life, New York 2002, 398-421, 515-516. 22

D. BÖRNER-KLEIN, „Killing in Self-Defence in Rabbinical Law", in Jewish Quarterly 4 (1997), 169-182 [Behandelt aber v.a. Notstandsmaßnahmen.]

Studies

338

Johann Maier

jüdische Recht sieht vor, daß in solchen Fällen vorübergehend außergewöhnliche Maßnahmen (horaat sa'ah) getroffen werden dürfen, auch wenn sie der Torah bzw. Halakah widersprechen, weil es gilt, gerade deren Geltung und Respektierung durchzusetzen. 23 Allerdings ist nicht jedermann zu solchen Maßnahmen berechtigt, solch befristete Notmaßnahmen darf nur ein Prophet verordnen oder ein Gerichtshof.24 Ein fundamentales Interesse besteht auch in der Einhaltung der Torah und in der Wahrung der Möglichkeit, Torah zu lernen. Die Erfüllung von Gebotspflichten und die Beachtung von Geboten hat Vorrang vor normalen Gesichtspunkten, daher werden Tötungsfälle, die im Zusammenhang mit der Erfüllung derartiger Pflichten eintreten, etwa als Folge einer Prügelstrafe während des Unterrichts durch einen Lehrer oder Vater, nicht als strafrechtlich relevant gewertet. 25 In einer akuten Notstandssituation, in der die normalen Rechtsinstitutionen versagen, kann aber auch unmittelbares Eingreifen aus „Eifer für den HERRN" erforderlich sein. Das klassische Exempel solchen Handelns ist die in Num 25 beschriebene Tat des Priesters Pinchas, eine Art Lynchjustiz zur Ahndung im Augenblick der Tat oder zur Verhinderung einer Tat. Man nennt diese Haltung Zelotismus (griechisch, zelos, Eifer), und sie wird nicht nur rechtlich als Notmaßnahme gerechtfertigt, sondern auch religiös als vorbildhaft gewertet. 26 Das Grundproblem im Zusammenhang mit dem Zelotismus ist freilich die Entscheidung eines fanatischen Einzelnen, ohne Anklage und Gerichtsverfahren zu handeln, also Selbstjustiz zu üben. 27 Oder

23

Vgl. b Y o m 69a, w o Ps 119,126 zur Rechtfertigung von Gewalttaten gegen Samaritaner zur Zeit Alexanders d. Gr. bemüht wird. In der späteren halakischen Entwicklung taucht diese V e r w e n d u n g von Ps 119,126 immer wieder auf, w o b e i allerdings die Versteile umgestellt ins Feld geführt werden: weil die Torah gebrochen w o r d e n ist, ist es Zeit, für den H E R R N zu handeln. In y H a g 11,2 78a w i r d z.B. als horaat

sa'ah

gerechtfertigt, daß S i m o n b Schetach in Aschkalon Frauen aufgehängt hat: „ M a n hat gesagt, er h a b e 80 Frauen aufgehängt, u n d (es heißt doch): m a n richtet nicht zwei (Personen) an einem Tag. - Die Stunde (Situation) erforderte es aber s o " . 24

E T VIII,1957, 5 1 2 - 5 2 7 ( H o r a a t sa'ah); EJ 6,1971, 1 0 7 1 - 1 0 7 4 (Extraordinary measures); Ζ. SAMIR, Haganah

'asmit eqstrah-mispatit

ba-mispat

ha-beyn-

le'ummi, Bd. I—II, Jerusalem

1970. 25 26

Siehe unten K a p . 7 e. m S a n IX,6: „Der die Schale (ein Kultgerät) stiehlt, beim Q o s e m verflucht, u n d der eine Aramäerin begattet - über solche fallen Eiferer (qanna'im) her. Ein Priester, der in Unreinheit gedient hat, den bringen seine Brüder, die Priester, nicht vor einen Gerichtshof, sondern die jungen Priester führen ihn nach außerhalb des Innenhofes und fördern mit Ä x t e n sein Gehirn heraus. Ein Unbefugter, der im Heiligtum Dienst versah: R. A q i b a h sagt, (Tod) durch Erdrosselung, doch die Weisen sagen, (Tod) durch den H i m m e l (d.h. Gott)".

27

Zur G r u n d h a l t u n g siehe: M. ZEMER, „Confrontation of H a l a k h a h and Religious Violence", in Crime

and Punishment

in Jewish

Law, ed. by W . JACOB, M . ZEMER, OX-

339

Notwehr und Selbstverteidigung im jüdischen Recht

ein Fanatiker fühlt sich auf Grund vorangehender Vorgänge dazu berechtigt, ein Urteil zu vollstrecken, das von irgendeinem Gremium gefällt wurde, das aus der Überzeugung heraus tätig geworden ist, die ordentliche Gerichtsbarkeit habe versagt oder sei handlungsunfähig. In einigen dieser Fälle ist die Grenze zwischen rechtlich gerechtfertigtem und willkürlichem Ermessen fließend28 und daher kommt es mitunter zu Kollisionen, vor allem mit dem Gebot der Lebensbewahrung.

2. Die Grundlagen der Notwehr-Regelungen in der Schriftlichen Torah (im Pentateuch), ihre Exegese und ihre juridische Anwendung in der Halakah a) Ex 22,1-3: Das Recht zur Bewahrung des eigenen Lebens Das Verhalten im Fall ernsthafter Gefährdung durch einen Mitmenschen ist im biblischen Recht nicht direkt, sondern nur beiläufig geregelt, und zwar in der Passage Ex 22,1-3, in der es um Einbruchsdiebstahl und die daraus folgende bzw. nicht erfolgende Pflicht zur Schadenersatzleistung geht.29 Nebenbei kommt der Fall zur Sprache, daß ein nächtlicher Einbrecher ertappt und dabei getötet wird, was insofern auch für die Ersatzleistung von Bedeutung ist, als der Erschlagene ja bereits die Todesstrafe erlitten hat. Da es im biblischen Recht keine eigene, strafrechtliche Regelung für Notwehr gibt,30 hat man sich später dafür auf diese Passage berufen. 31 Die Anwendbarkeit der dabei getroffenen, an sich recht begrenzten Regelung wurde im Lauf der Zeit erheblich erweitert. Als Ergebnis begegnet schon in der rabbinischen Literatur ein scheinbares Torah-Zitat, das in dieser Form im Pentateuch nicht zu finden ist, aber der Torah mit der Phrase „die Torah sagt" (im Sinne von: die Torah besagt) als Aussage unterstellt wird. Dieses Scheinzitat, das wie eine sprichwörtliche Redensart in verschiedene Kontexte geraten ist, lautet: „Den, der kommt, um dich zu töten, den töte zuvor (bzw: früher)". Ex 22,l-2a lautet im MT wie folgt: ford/New York 1999, 74-87. Z u m vorliegenden Kontext s. BÖRNER-KLEIN, „Killing in Self-Deience" (s.o. Anm. 22), 172f. 28

L. SHELEF, „Beyn harigah pelilit le-beyn haganah mispatit", in Pelilim

8 (1997/8), 8 9 -

113. 29

CH. TCHERNOWITZ, „Der Einbruch nach biblischem und talmudischem Recht", in Zeitschrift für vergleichende

Rechtswissenschaft

25 (1913), 4 4 3 ^ 5 8 ; B.S. JACKSON, Theft in

Early Jewish Law, Oxford 1972, 2 0 3 - 2 2 3 ["Measures of Self-Help"]. 30 31

A. PHILLIPS, Ancient Israel's Criminal Law, New York 1970, 8 3 - 1 0 9 : 9 2 - 9 3 . H. VOGELSTEIN, „Notwehr nach mosaisch-talmudischer Lehre", in MGWJ 513-533.

48 (1904),

Johann Maier

340 V? D ' a n vVi?

n r r n a x ( 2 a ) D ' m iV p x n a i n a m a » n x x ö ' m n n a a d x

(1) „Wenn der Dieb beim Einbruch ertappt und geschlagen wird, so daß er stirbt, liegt für ihn (d.h.: dem Totschläger) keine Blutschuld 32 vor; (2a) ist aber über ihm die Sonne (schon) aufgestrahlt, liegt für ihn eine Blutschuld vor". Die LXX präzisiert etwas: „(1) Wenn der Dieb aber beim Einbruch ertappt wurde und geschlagen stirbt, liegt bei ihm kein Mord vor; (2) wenn aber die Sonne über ihn aufgegangen war, ist einer schuldig". Dem ersten Teil von Ex 22,1 entspricht die Formulierung eines Vorwurfes in Jer 2,34:33 n V x Va b v ' a D ' r w x ö m n n a a xV a»j?:i o ^ v a x n w s i a n i x s n o - p i a a b ä

„Auch an deinen Gewandzipfeln (LXX: Händen) fand sich Blut unschuldiger Armer; nicht im Zusammenhang mit dem/einen Einbruch (LXX ganz konkret: Durchbruch) habe ich es vorgefunden, sondern an allen diesen (LXX: an jeder Eiche 34 )". 35 Das Targum teilt die Auffassung, daß hier eine Bezugnahme auf den Fall des Einbruchs vorliegt (2,34b: „... nicht wie solche, die beim Einbruch ertappt werden"), und in diesem Sinne formulierte auch RS"J zu Jer 2,34: „Du hast sie nicht beim Einbruch ertappt, als du sie getötet hast". Es bietet sich also für den Ausdruck „beim Einbruch" eine engere und eine weitere Bedeutung an: die engere ist örtlich und zeitlich auf die Einbruchstelle und den Einbruchvorgang begrenzt, was den Freiraum für die vorsorgliche Tötung erheblich einschränkt. Zu vergleichen ist in den Gesetzen von Eshnunna A i,41-42 und Β i, 47: „Ein Mann, der im Haus eines gemeinen Mannes ergriffen wurde: (falls) zu Mittag, wiegt er ab und entrichtet 10 Schekel Silber. Derjenige aber, der nachts ergriffen wurde, soll sterben, er soll nicht weiter leben". Im Codex Hammurabi IX,14-21: „Bricht ein Mann in ein Haus ein, soll man ihn töten und ihn an der Einbruchstelle aufhängen"; und ibid. 22-27: „Wenn ein Mann einen Raub ausführt und wird dann gefaßt, dieser Mann soll getötet werden". Ein mittelassyrisches Gesetz (1,97-11,6) sieht vor, daß jemand, der in ein Haus eindringt und dort jemanden tötet, dem Hausherrn auszuliefern ist, der wahlweise ihn töten oder dessen Besitz übernehmen darf.

32

damim (Abstraktpural), im samaritanischen Pentateuch (und Targum) Singular (dam).

33

Diese Stelle wäre in G. LASSERRE, Synapse des lois du Pentateuque, Parallele nachzutragen.

34

Hebräisch 'lh wurde im MT als elleh (diese) vokalisiert, Ubersetzung mit δρυι von elah (großer Baum) ausging.

35

Zur Textdiskussion s. J.A. SOGGIN, „Einige Bemerkungen über Jer 11,34", in VT 8 (1958), 4 3 2 ^ 3 6 : „Gar fand man an deinen Säumen (Händen?) das Blut der Leben (armer) Unschuldiger; nicht fand ich (Jhwh) es (das Blut) beim Einbruch, sondern auf jeder Terebinthe". Ferner siehe W.L. HOLLADAY, „Jer 2:34b: A fresh approach", in VT 25 (1975), 221-225; G. BARBIERO, "Ki al kol elleh (Ger 2,34b)"; una lettura contestuale, in Rivista Biblica 40 (1992), 183-191.

Leiden 1994, 26, als während

die

LXX-

Notwehr und Selbstverteidigung im jüdischen Recht

341

Obschon der Kontext in Ex 22,1-3 nicht von Tötungsdelikten handelt, bot sich für andere Notwehrfälle der Analogieschluß von selbst an. Darüber hinaus handelt es sich aber in Ex 22,1 nicht nur um Notwehr im Fall eines tatsächlichen Angriffs, bei dem ein Angreifer ums Leben kommt, sondern um eine vorsorgliche Tötung auf Grund der Befürchtung eines Angriffs auf Leib und Leben. Letztere wird aber nur unter der Voraussetzung entsprechend ungünstiger Sichtverhältnisse als gerechtfertigt angesehen, wie v. 2 einschränkend deutlich macht: mit Sonnenaufgang ist diese Ausnahmesituation nicht mehr gegeben, denn der Hausbesitzer ist bei Tageslicht in der Lage, den Grad seiner Gefährdung, also die Absicht des Einbrechers, richtig einzuschätzen. Diese Einschränkung wurde aber von Späteren unterschiedlich oder überhaupt nicht wahrgenommen, und der Ausdruck „(2a) ist aber über ihm die Sonne (schon) aufgestrahlt" wurde teils wörtlich, teils figürlich aufgefaßt, was alles weitreichende Folgen haben konnte. Es blieb ein umstrittener Spielraum bestehen, ob in einer konkreten Situation die vermutete oder unterstellte böse Absicht ausreicht, um einen derartigen Handlungsbedarf zu postulieren, ob nicht andere Maßnahmen, etwa eine entsprechend wirksame Körperverletzung ausreichen kann, um den befürchteten Angriff abzuwehren.

b) Lev 19,16: Verbot unterlassener Hilfeleistung bzw. Beistandspflicht zur Bewahrung eines Lebens aus Israel Die Beistandspflicht fußt auf Lev 19,16: „Du sollst nicht auftreten gegen das Leben deines Nächsten", was als Verbot unterlassener Hilfeleistung verstanden wurde. 36 Nach der Interpretation dieser Stelle in Sifra cjodasim 11,5.4 gilt es, jemanden zu retten, der von einer Bestie oder von einem Menschen verfolgt und ernsthaft bedroht ist, und zwar in Analogie zum verlobten Mädchen (Vgl. Midras Tannaim zu Dtn 22,26), und zwar auch um den Preis des Lebens des Angreifers. So auch ausführlich bSan 73a-b und in bSan 74b heißt es: „Es wurde überliefert. Rabbi hat gesagt: Wenn einer gegen seinen Nächsten aufsteht und ihn ermordet, so verhält es sich dementsprechend", nämlich analog zu Dtn 22,25f. Vgl. auch Sifre Dtn § 243 z. St. In der mittelalterlichen und späteren Halakah im Anschluß an Ex 22,1-2 (s. unten) kommt diesem Aspekt eine zentrale Bedeutung zu.

36

MOSE BEN MAIMON, Sefer

ha-Miswot,

miswot gadol, Verbot Nr. 164 u.ö.

V e r b o t N r . 2 9 7 ; M O S E B. JAKOB VON COUCY,

Sefer

342

Johann Maier

3. Frühjüdische Positionen Nach Philo in De specialibus legibus IV,Iff. darf der Einbrecher nur vor Sonnenaufgang straflos an Ort und Stelle getötet werden. Dies entspricht berechtigter Selbstverteidigung, denn man kann voraussetzen, daß der Einbrecher sein Einbruchswerkzeug zum Angriff benützt. Bei Tageslicht handle es sich aber um Mord (IV,7-8). Den Tatbestand der versehentlichen Tötung behandelte Philo in De specialibus legibus 111,120-136. Anders bei Josephus, der in Anticjuitates ludaicae IV,271 37 zuerst (ohne Spezifizierung) die Todesstrafe für Kidnapping und die doppelte Vergütung für Diebesgut (Ex 22,3) erwähnt, und danach Ex 22,1 wie folgt wiedergibt: „Du sollst einen, der jemanden während eines Diebeseinbruchs IV,7-8 in ein Haus getötet hat, frei ausgehen lassen, auch wenn der Dieb erst dabei war, eine Mauer durchzubrechen". 3 8 Hier wird also die Einschränkung auf die Lichtverhältnisse (Ex 22,2) ausgelassen und nicht einmal das vollendete Eindringen ins Haus vorausgesetzt, was insofern bemerkenswert ist, als der gerade durch den Wanddurchbruch Einsteigende ja als vergleichsweise handlungsbeschränkt gelten kann und eine Erkennbarkeit seiner eventuellen Tötungsabsicht schwerlich gegeben ist. 39 Spätere haben diesen Gesichtspunkt sehr wohl zur Diskussion gestellt.

4. Rabbinische Belege a) Der rodef (Verfolger) Auch in rabbinischen Quellen werden die Bedingungen, die in einem solchen Fall ein Tötungsdelikt ausschließen, unterschiedlich aufgefaßt. Im wesentlichen ist man sich einig: im Fall der akuten Gefahr für die eigene Person oder für dritte ist die Tötung des Angreifers geboten, sogar in Fällen, in denen nur eine - allerdings schwere - Gebotsverletzung zu befürchten ist 37

Z u m V e r h ä l t n i s v o n Ex 2 2 , 1 - 2 u n d der Josephusstelle siehe: K. MÜLLER, „Beobachtungen z u m Verhältnis v o n T o r a u n d H a l a c h a " , in Jesus

und das jüdische

Gesetz,

hg.

v. I. BROER, F r e i b u r g i. Br. 1992, 1 0 5 - 1 3 4 : 1 1 7 - 1 2 2 . Er u n t e r l e g t a l l e r d i n g s d e m Jos e p h u s t e x t , d a ß n u r der H a u s b e s i t z e r allein zu dieser N o t w e h r h a n d l u n g b e r e c h tigt sei, ein G e s i c h t s p u n k t , der in s p ä t e r e n D i s k u s s i o n e n tatsächlich eine Rolle spielt. 38

Dazu siehe L.H. FELDMAN, Flavius

Josephus.

Judean

Antiquities

Books

1-4 (Flavius Jo-

sephus. Translation and C o m m e n t a r y , ed. St. Mason) Leiden 2000, 4 3 9 - 4 4 0 . 39

A.a.O. (s. vorige A n m . ) wird auf die Philo-Ausgabe von F.R. COLSON, G.H. WHITAKER, Philo, I-X L o n d o n 1 9 2 9 - 1 9 6 2 und dort auf Bd. VI, 1939, 426 verwiesen, w o Entsprechungen im attischen u n d römischen Recht erwähnt werden, die eine solche Einschränkung ebenfalls nicht kennen.

Notwehr und Selbstverteidigung im jüdischen Recht

343

(Sifre Dtn § 243). Das heißt aber, daß der Sachverhalt doppelt erweitert wird: (1) zum einbrechenden Dieb kommt der rodef (Verfolger), einer, der einem anderen nach dem Leben trachtet, und (2) der rodef, der auf den Vollzug einer streng verbotenen Handlung aus ist. Als Beispiel für einen rodef in der Bibel wird oft König Saul angeführt, der David töten wollte, in Davids Hände fiel und von Rechtswegen durch diesen hätte getötet werden dürfen.40 Im Midras Tehillim 56,1 zu Ps 56,lwird das Prinzip der berechtigten vorsorglichen Tötung zur Bewahrung des eigenen Lebens auf David angewendet, den König Saul zu töten trachtete. David wäre auf Grund der Torah berechtigt gewesen, Saul zu töten, denn: „Wenn ein Mensch gegen dich einherkommt, um dich zu töten, und du bist stärker als er, dann halte nicht ein und sage nicht: ich werde mich an seinem Blut schuldig machen, und stelle in deinem Herzen keine Überlegungen an, sondern töte ihn sofort. Und so lautet auch das Sprichwort (sie!): Töte ihn vorher, bevor er dich tötet. Darum heißt es (I Sam 24,11): und hat angesagt, dich zu töten, (d.h.:) von der Torah her wäre es erlaubt, dich zu töten". Hier handelt es sich um den Sachverhalt eines rodef, eines Menschen, der jemanden mit der erkennbaren Absicht angreift und verfolgt, ihm ernsthaften Schaden zuzufügen, und dessen Tötung daher ebenfalls unter die Kategorie der Notwehr fällt, so wie ein lebensgefährdendes Tier auch (mBK 1,4). David verzichtete allerdings darauf, den König Saul zu töten. In der Mekilta de R. Yisma'el ksp' iii wird zu Ex 23,7 klargestellt, daß ein rodef zwar vorsorglich an Ort und Stelle zur Rettung des Verfolgten getötet werden kann, nicht aber nach vollbrachter Tat, denn in dem Fall ist bereits das Gericht zuständig, das jedoch doch ohne Zeugen kein Urteil fällen kann, doch verläßt man sich in einem solchen Fall auf göttliches Eingreifen: Man sah einen, der seinen Gefährten verfolgte, um ihn zu töten, und das Schwert war in seiner Hand. Man verwarnte ihn und sagte zu ihm: Wisse, daß dieser ein Bundesmitglied ist, und die Torah hat gesagt (Gen 9,6): Wer das Blut eines Menschen vergießt, dessen Blut soll vergossen werden, und er sagte: Ich weiß darüber Bescheid! Darauf schauten die Zeugen weg und nach einiger Zeit fanden sie jenen noch zuckend getötet und das Schwert von der Hand des Tötenden bluttriefend vor (vgl. Sifre zuta xxxv,12). Ich möchte meinen, daß er schuldig zu sprechen ist, aber die Lehre sagt (Ex 23,7): und einen Unschuldigen und Gerechten darfst du nicht töten. Jehuda ben Tabbaj ist einstens in eine Ruine eingetreten und fand dort einen noch zuckenden Getöteten und das Schwert von der Hand des Tötenden bluttriefend vor. Da sagte zu 40

Vgl. Tanhuma Buber bh'lwtk xix zu Num 10,2; Devarim Kabbah ed. Liebermann swptym χ (S. 99f.). In Be-midbar Rabbah XV, 16 zu 10,2 begegnet in dem Zusammenhang ebenfalls das oft zitierte Wort: „Den, der kommt, um dich zu töten, den töte zuvor".

344

Johann Maier

ihm Jehuda ben Tabbaj: Es komme über mich: es ist wahr daß wir entweder ich oder du - ihn getötet haben. Aber was kann ich tun, die Torah hat ja gesagt (Dtn 19,15): auf Grund zweier Zeugen soll eine Sache Bestand haben. Aber Er, der Bescheid weiß und Herr der Gedanken ist, er wird es von jenem Mann einfordern. Kaum war jener von dort hinausgegangen, biß ihn eine Schlange und er starb. Im Zusammenhang mit Individuen wird der rodef, sofern er nicht (wie der Einbrecher von Ex 22,l-2a) in flagranti ertappt 41 und auf Grund der Beistandspflicht getötet wird, vor Strafverfolgung durch die Vorschrift geschützt, daß ohne Beweisführung auf Grund von mindestens zwei unabhängigen Zeugen keine Verurteilung statthaft ist. Einfacher ist der Sachverhalt, wenn es um Nichtjuden geht, die ja keine Bundesmitglieder sind und daher von den Torahgesetzen normalerweise nicht betroffen sind, und weil bei ihnen fast immer eine böse Absicht zu befürchten ist.

b) Zu Ex 22,1-3 Im Targum Onkelos heißt es: „Wird der Dieb beim Einbruch ertappt und geschlagen, so daß er stirbt, besteht in bezug auf ihn keine Blutschuld. (2) Wenn des Auge von Zeugen auf ihn gefallen ist, besteht in bezug auf ihn Blutschuld". Damit kommt ein rabbinisch-strafrechtlicher Gesichtspunkt ins Spiel, nämlich die Notwendigkeit der Aussage von 2-3 unabhängigen Zeugen zur Beweisführung. Das samaritanische Targum gibt präzis den hebräischen Text wieder. 42 Die palästinische Targumtradition ist vielfältiger. Targum Jonatan bleibt in v. 2 aber dem biblischen nahe: „(1) Wenn der Dieb in der Maueröffnung 43 ertappt und geschlagen wird, so daß er stirbt, liegt auf einem keine Verschuldung hinsichtlich Vergießens unschuldigen Menschenbluts. (2a) Wenn der Sachverhalt so klar wie die Sonne ist, daß jener nicht jemanden zu töten gekommen war, und er hat ihn getötet, liegt auf ihm eine Verschuldung hinsichtlich Vergießens unschuldigen Menschenbluts". 44 Hier wird der Sonnenaufgang also bildlich verstanden.

41

Das gilt auch für zelotische Aktionen, vgl. bSan 82a zu N u m 25: wäre Zimri bereits weggegangen und hätte Pinchas ihn dann erst getötet, wäre Pinchas dafür getötet worden.

42 43

A. TAL, Ha-targum ha-somroni la-Torah, I. Beresit, Semot, Tel Aviv 1999/2000, 313. Vgl. die Präzisierung in der LXX!

44

D. RIEDER, Targum Jonathan ben Uzziel on the Pentateuch, Jerusalem 1974,115.

Notwehr und Selbstverteidigung im jüdischen Recht

345

In der Mekilta de R. Yisma'el, Nezikin xiii z. St. bleibt die Einschränkung auf die Nachtzeit ebenfalls unerwähnt. 45 Die Diskussion konzentriert sich vielmehr auf die erkennbare oder nicht erkennbare Absicht des Einbrechers. Im Fall einer bloßen Diebstahlsabsicht würde ein Mord vorliegen, der Zweifelsfall wird aber der Pflicht zur (eigenen) Lebensbewahrung nachgeordnet. Zu 22,2 wird die immer wiederkehrende Frage aufgeworfen, was die Formulierung „über ihn aufgestrahlt" bedeuten soll, da die Sonne doch über allen aufgeht. Die nichtwörtliche Deutung entspricht der vorher festgestellten Entscheidung: die aufgehende Sonne signalisiert der Welt Frieden, im konkreten Fall ist die Erkennbarkeit der nicht mörderischen Absicht des Eindringlings gemeint,46 nicht etwa nur die zeitliche Abfolge Nacht/Tag.

c) Mischna, Tosefta und Talmud In der Mischna wird - anders als in der Tosefta - der Hinweis auf den Sonnenaufgang ausgelassen, das Interesse konzentriert sich auf die Ersatzleistungsfrage. mSan VIII,6-7 formuliert im Blick auf Ex 22,1 (Der durch einen Einbruch eindringt) sehr knapp. Der Einbrecher beschwört durch seine Tat sein Schicksal selber herauf, wird er aber von jemanden zu Unrecht erschlagen, dann ist er auch ersatzpflichtig. VIII,7 Und dies sind die Fälle, da man um den Preis des Lebens rettet: den, der seinen Gefährten verfolgt, um ihn zu töten. Gleich ob männlich oder ein verlobtes Mädchen, aber wenn einer ein Stück Vieh verfolgt, den Sabbat entweiht oder Götzendienst treibt, rettet man nicht um den Preis des Lebens. In der Tosefta findet sich schon eine etwas ausgeprägtere Argumentation und sie enthält wie die Mekilta die bildliche Deutung der aufstrahlenden Sonne als Zeichen der Gewaltlosigkeit.

45

Dazu und zum Verhältnis zu Josephus siehe: D.M. GOLDENBERG, The Halakhah in Josephus and in Tannaitic Literature: A comparative study, Philadelphia (Diss. Dropsie University) 1978, 93-94; DERS, „The Halakha in Josephus and in Tannaitic Literature", in JQR 67 (1976/7), 30-43.

46

So auch in: Misnat R. Eliezer ha-niqra Midras selosim u-stayim middot, Jerusalem 1969/70, 6a (Nr. 26) wo Ex 22,2a angeführt wird: „wenn die Sonne über ihn aufgestrahlt ist strahlt sie denn nur über ihn allein auf? Sie strahlt doch über alle Welt auf! Vielmehr: Wie die Sonne Frieden für die Welt bedeutet, so auch der Totschläger (Lesart: Dieb): wenn man erkennt, daß er nicht zu mörderischen Zwecken gekommen ist, sondern gegenüber dem Hausbesitzer Frieden im Sinn hat, würde der Hausbesitzer sich an seinem Blut schuldig machen".

346

Johann Maier

tSan XI,9 lautet: „Der durch einen Einbruch eindringt: Kam dieser, um zu töten, dann rettet man sein (eigenes) Leben. Kam er, um Geld zu nehmen, rettet man sich nicht; besteht ein Zweifel, ob er zu töten gekommen war oder um Geld zu nehmen, rettet man sich nicht. Denn es heißt (Ex 22,1): wenn die Sonne aufgestrahlt ist über ihm, liegt für ihn eine Blutschuld vor. Die Sonne strahlt doch nicht über ihm allein auf, sondern sie strahlt über der ganzen Welt auf? Vielmehr gilt: Wie das Aufstrahlen der Sonne für die Welt Frieden bringt, so hier: immer, wenn du weißt, daß von ihm Frieden ausgeht, ob am Tage oder bei Nacht, rettet man einen nicht....". tBK IX,16: „Der seinen Gefährten verfolgt, um ihn zu töten, und der Verfolgte wird (umgekehrt) zum Verfolger und schädigt ihn, oder wenn andere ihn schädigen: sie gehen frei, denn es heißt (Num 35,31-32): und ihr dürft kein Lösegeld annehmen für das Leben eines Mörders".

d) Palästinischer Talmud In ySan VIII,8 26c werden kontroverse Positionen präsentiert. Zunächst wird auch hier der Sonnenaufgang von Ex 22,2 wie in der Tosefta als Friedenszeichen verstanden. Unabhängig von der Tageszeit gilt, daß ein Einbrecher nicht straflos getötet werden darf, falls erkennbar ist, daß er keine mörderische Absicht verfolgt. R. Chijjah vertritt den Standpunkt: „wenn der Dieb beim Einbruch ertappt (und getötet) wird, liegt auf einem keine Blutschuld, außerhalb des Einbruchs liegt auf einem Blutschuld. Demgegenüber vertritt R. Schim'on b. Jochaj die Ansicht, daß der Eindringling auch außerhalb der Einbruchsteile getötet werden darf, weil es sich um berechtigte Selbstverteidigung handelt, zwar nicht um einen Schutz des eigenen Lebens, wohl aber des eigenen Besitzes, ,da des Menschen Geld ihm so teuer ist wie sein Leben'. Rab Huna gestattet sogar noch mehr: ,Wenn er den Geldbeutel genommen und sich umgewendet hat und beim Hinausgehen ist, und einer stellt sich ihm entgegen und tötet ihn, wird derjenige, der ihn getötet hat, nicht getötet'". ySan VIII,9 26c listet Fälle auf, in denen man um den Preis eines Lebens rettend eingreift. Einerlei, der seinen Gefährten verfolgt, um ihn zu töten, und der, welcher irgend eine andere Torah-Übertretung zu begehen verfolgt: man rettet um den Preis seines Lebens. ... Ist die Tat vollbracht, rettet man nicht um den Preis des Lebens. Selbst wenn dort Helfer vorhanden sind, rettet man nicht um den Preis seines Lebens. ... Ein rodef, der selber zum Verfolgten wird: darf man seinen Verfolger um den Preis des Lebens des (ursprünglich) Verfolgten retten? Ein Großer, der (so) zum Kleinen wird: darf man den Großen um den Preis des Lebens des

Notwehr u n d Selbstverteidigung im jüdischen Recht

347

Kleinen retten? R. Jirmejah antwortete: Es ist überliefert: ist sein Kopf und der Großteil von ihm herausgekommen, schlägt man ihn nicht, denn man stellt kein Leben einem (anderen) Leben hintan. R. Jose b. R. Bun im Namen des R. Chisda: Das ist ein anderer Fall, da man nicht weiß, wer wen getötet hat. Es wird überliefert: R. La'zer b. R. Schim'on sagt: Wer hingeht, um Fremdkult zu treiben, den rettet man um den Preis seines Lebens, falls es um die Ehre des NAMENS geht. Im Fall einer Bluttat rettet man um den Preis seines Lebens, umso mehr wegen des Ewiglebendigen.

e) Talmud babli Die Frage, wie es sich im Zweifelsfall verhält und welchen Stellenwert in einem solchen Sachzusammenhang die Pflicht zur Lebensbewahrung hat, die bekanntlich die gebotene Sabbatruhe verdrängt, wird bYom 85a-b unter Bezugnahme auf Ex 22,1-2 erörtert. Dabei begegnet als Aussage der Torah („und die Torah hat gesagt") auch: „Kommt einer, um dich zu töten, töte ihn zuvor/früher", wie auch bBer 58a und bYom 62a, ferner in Be-midbar Rabbah XV und XXI (hier aber als Aussage der Weisen!), im Midras Tanhuma Pinhas iii, im Yalqut Sim'oni I, § 321.342.773 und II § 133, ferner im Midras Aggadah (ed. S. Buber, Wien 1894,157) zu Ex 22,1-2. Die Verwendung erfolgt also bereits recht stereotyp, wie dann auch in mittelalterlichen und neuzeitlichen Texten. Die Diskussion über Ex 22,1-3 nimmt vor allem in bSan 72a-74a breiten Raum ein. Eingangs wird zum Mischnasatz auch hier verneint, daß jemand für seinen Besitz das Leben einsetzt, und es wird zitiert: „Kommt einer, um dich zu töten, töte ihn zuvor". Das Aufstrahlen der Sonne Ex 22,2 wird wie folgt gedeutet: „Wenn dir klar ist, wie die Sonne, daß er mit dir keine friedliche Absicht hat, so töte ihn, wenn nicht, töte ihn nicht". Abgesehen von Fragen der Ersatzleistung werden in bSan 72a-c verschiedene Umstände erörtert die Ortlichkeit und damit der Freiraum des Handelns erweitert: a) auch schon in einem angrenzenden eingefriedeten Areal oder auf dem Dach kann ein gestellter Dieb straflos getötet werden; b) jedermann, also nicht nur der Hausbesitzer, ist zu dieser Maßnahme berechtigt. Und auch kommt die Pflicht zur Bewahrung des Lebens des Nächsten mit ins Spiel.47 Entscheidend ist die hier eingeflochtene Gleichsetzung des Einbrechers mit einem rodef, den zu töten in jedem Fall erlaubt oder, im Fall gebotener Hilfeleistung (wie gemäß Dtn 22,25f. der bedrängten Verlobten), 48 sogar geboten ist. Und bSan 73b-74a wird (vgl. auch bSan 49a und 57a/b) diskutiert, ob die Tötung nicht vermieden

47

Beistandspflicht nach Lev 19,16; Dtn 25,12; siehe unten MOSE B. MAIMON, Torah, Hilkot Roseah

48

1,10.13.15-16.

Siehe M. ELON, Ha mispat (s.o. A n m . 12), Bd. II, 290f.

Misneh

348

Johann Maier

werden kann, indem man den Angreifer an einem seiner Gliedmaßen entsprechend verletzt. Und schließlich kommt noch einmal der Gesichtspunkt der Lebensbewahrungspflicht und der gebotenen Hilfeleistung zur Sprache. Eine folgenreiche Ausweitung der Voraussetzungen erfolgt in einer Erzählung in bBer 58a,49 denn hier handelt es sich um die Bestrafung bzw. Tötung eines Israeliten, der mit einer Ägypterin verkehrt hatte und dafür von einem rabbinischen Richter zu einer Geißelstrafe verurteilt worden war, wogegen er bei einer nichtjüdischen (persischen) Instanz Beschwerde einlegte. Der zur Rechenschaft gezogene Richter unterstellte dem Übeltäter nun aber Verkehr mit einer Eselin, und der Prophet Elia erschien als Zeuge dafür. Der Statthalter wurde dadurch überzeugt und anerkannte für dieses Vergehen der Sodomie die Verhängung der Todesstrafe. Der Richter lobte die gottgefällige Obrigkeit und der Statthalter verlieh ihm dafür einen Stab als Zeichen obrigkeitlicher Vollmacht. Der betrogene Delinquent fragte: Vollbringt der Barmherzige Wunder für Lügner? Der Richter antwortete: Frevler! Werden sie nicht allesamt Esel geschimpft? Steht doch geschrieben (Ez 23,20): deren Fleisch Eselfleisch ist! Er bemerkte jedoch, daß der Mann sich mit der Absicht trug, sie (die Perser) zu informieren, daß er sie Esel genannt hatte, sagte daher: dieser Mann ist ein rodef, und die Torah (sie!) sagt: wenn ein Mann kommt, um dich zu töten, töte ihn zuvor. So nahm er den Stock und tötete ihn. In bBer 62b folgt eine diesbezügliche Diskussion auf eine Kurzerzählung. R. Eleazar betrat einmal einen Abort ,und da kam ein Perser (ursprünglich wohl: Römer) und stieß ihn weg. Da kam eine Schlange und biß dessen Hoden ab. R. Eleazar wendete auf ihn den Vers (Jes 43,4) an: Darum werde ich einen Menschen für dich hingeben; lies nicht adam (einen Menschen), sondern adom (einen Edomiter = Römer). - Er hat angesagt, dich zu töten, aber er schonte dich (I Sam 24,11). Er hat angesagt! Es müßte doch heißen Ich habe angesagt, und (statt) und er schonte müßte es heißen und ich schontel R. Eleazar sagte: David hat zu Saul gesagt: Gemäß der Torah müßtest du erschlagen werden, weil du ein rodef bist, und die Torah sagt: Wenn einer kommt, um dich zu töten, töte ihn zuvor.... In der weiteren rechtsgeschichtlichen Entwicklung wurde der Anwendungsbereich des Prinzips der berechtigten vorbeugenden Tötung in Ex 22,l-2a von der Situation des Einbruchsdiebstahls noch weiter gelöst und erweitert.

49

L . L A N D M A N , R. Shila

and

the Informer,

i n JQR

63 (1972), 1 3 6 - 1 4 4 .

Notwehr u n d Selbstverteidigung im jüdischen Recht

349

5. Der Denunziant (moser, maisin) und die „Feinde Gottes" Eines der heikelsten Phänomene im Leben der jüdischen Gemeinschaften, die in der Regel unter fremder Herrschaft leben mußten, waren Verräter aus den eigenen Reihen. 50 Sie verrieten Personen und lieferten sie dadurch der fremden Macht aus und gefährdeten deren Leben, oder sie verrieten Besitztümer und gefährdeten damit die Existenz der Eigentümer, sachlich kommt diesem Verhalten teilweise auch das in Lev 19,16b genannte Vergehen nahe.51 In der XII. Benediktion des (mindestens) dreimal täglich zu betenden Achtzehngebets, die ursprünglich eine Verwünschung der „Frevelherrschaft" und der minim (der antirabbinischen Juden) darstellte,52 hat man nach und nach und regional variierend noch andere, aktuelle Feinde eingefügt, eben auch die moserim bzw. malsinimP In bBK 116b-117b kommt das Thema Beraubung, Bedrückung bzw. Nötigung und auch der Denunzianten zur Sprache. Ein Denunziant handelt allerdings nicht immer aus eigenem Antrieb, oft unterliegt er Zwängen. Die Abwägung, wie in solchen und in zweifelhaften Fällen zu verfahren sei, wird bis heute diskutiert. Dabei spielt eine entscheidende Rolle, ob man als Jude in einem Rechtsstaat lebt. Wenn ja, entfällt das Delikt der mesirah bzw. malsinut insofern, als einem Rechtsstaat in der Regel keine derartigen Willkürmaßnahmen unterstellt werden können, und das Problem reduziert sich auf den kontrovers abgegrenzten Spielraum zwischen Anzeigepflicht und jüdischer Gruppenloyalität. Die rabbinische Tradition spiegelt hingegen die Konfrontation mit der parthischen Herrschaft im Osten und der römischen Weltmacht im Westen, und daher findet sich z.B. in bBK 117a eine Episode, wonach einer der Rabbinen einen moser getötet habe, weil dieser die Absicht hatte, einen anderen Israeliten zu denunzieren. Mit dem moser darf analog zum rodef verfahren werden, und daher endet der Diskurs auch mit Erörterungen zum rodef. Die Einbeziehung des moser in die Konstellation, die durch die Kombination der Notwehr nach Ex 22,1-2, der Beistandspflicht nach Lev 19,16, und des rodef-Begriffes zustande gekommen war, führte zu einer folgenreichen Erweiterung über den individuellen Bereich hinaus in den Bereich des Gemeinschaftsinteresses. Die Denunziation betraf nicht bloß Individuen, 50

EJ 8 , 1 9 7 1 , 1 3 6 4 - 1 3 7 3 .

51

J. MAIER, „Verleumder und/oder Verräter: Zur jüdischen Auslegungsgeschichte von Lev 19,16", in Altes

Testament.

Forschung

und Wirkung.

Festschrift

für

Graf

Reventlow,

Hrsg. P. MOMMER, W. THIEL, Frankfurt/M. 1994, 3 0 7 - 3 1 1 ; rev. Fassung in: J. MAIER, Studien zur jüdischen 52

Federbusch, 53

Bibel und ihrer Geschichte,

STJ 28, Berlin 2004, 2 7 7 - 2 8 4 .

J. SHEZIPANSKI, „ H a - m i n i m we-ha-malsinim", in Sefer yobel likbod ha-Rab

Dr.

Jerusalem 1960/1, 3 4 3 - 3 5 1 .

Vgl. auch Derek eres XI, wo ein Denunziant einem M ö r d e r gleichgestellt wird.

Shimon

350

Johann Maier

sondern auch die jeweilige Gemeinde oder gar die Gemeinden einer ganzen politischen Region. Das Problem war zudem eng mit dem jeweiligen Status der Juden verbunden. Im römischen Reich boten die den Juden zugestandenen Privilegien einen weitreichenden Schutz selbst gegenüber behördlicher Willkür. Im Mittelalter entfiel mit dem römischen Recht auch dieser Schutz. Im islamischen Bereich bot der sogenannte Omar-Vertrag zwar eine allgemein geltende Grundlage für jüdische Autonomie, aber der Herrscherwillkür waren kaum Grenzen gesetzt. In den christlichen Staaten kam es zu unterschiedlichen Privilegierungen örtlicher Gemeinden bzw. Familien, prinzipiell setzte sich aber die Ansicht durch, daß die Juden Sklaven des christlichen Herrschers seien und seiner alleinigen Verfügung unterstehen, was in erster Linie eine ökonomisch-fiskalische Zweckbestimmung bedeutete. Damit erschienen sie den feudal und ständisch gegliederten Untertanen als Repräsentanten der Zentralgewalt. Als solche gerieten sie auch in die jeweiligen Interessenkonflikte, und in diesem Rahmen erhielt das Problem des moser und maisin eine bislang nicht bekannte Zuspitzung und Verschärfung. 54 Die Entwicklung ging gelegentlich noch einen Schritt weiter. In der jüdischen Tradition haben dogmatische Festlegungen und Abweichungen (Häresie) im Vergleich zum Christentum nur eine geringe Rolle gespielt, doch gibt es von der rabbinischen Literatur her Listen von Personen, die ausgegrenzt und als innere Feinde z.T. so schroff beurteilt werden, daß sie z.T. schlechter abschneiden als nichtjüdische Götzendiener. Auf sie wurde daher auch Ps 139,21f. angewendet: als Feinde Gottes sind sie auch Feinde Israels und jedes israelitischen Frommen und darum ist ihnen gegenüber in Analogie zu Gottes Haß ebenfalls Haß geboten.55 In seinem Mischna-Kommentar hat Mose b. Majmon in der Einleitung zum Traktat Sanhedrin X seine 13 Glaubensgrundlehren ('iqqarim) niedergeschrieben, also im Zusammenhang mit den Traditionen über Dissidenten, die keinen Anteil am endgültigen Heil haben. Am Ende formulierte er so:

54

D.M. SHOHET, The Jewish Court in the Middle Ages, N e w York 1931 (reprint 1974), 1 5 1 161 [Legal status of the informer]; SH. D. SPERLING, „The Informer and the Conniver", in JANES 2 (1970), 101-104; M. WOLF, „Yahas halakti beyn din moser le-din rodef", in 'abaryanut u-setiyyah

hevratit,

te'oriyah we-yissum,

ed. by M . ARAD, J. WOLF, Ramat Gan

2 0 0 1 / 2 , 2 1 5 - 2 4 9 ; I . M . T A - S H E M A , „ T e s u v a t R . " J h a - z a q e n b e - d i n m o s e r " , i n Ζ ion

68

(2002/3), 167-174; P.H. VLSHNY, „The Informer as a Defendant in Jewish Criminal Procedure",

in Meyer

cago/Jerusalem

55

J. MAIER, „Die

Waxman

Jubilee

Volume,

ed. by

J.

ROSENTHAL et

al,

Chi-

1966,122-136.

Feinde

139,21f.", in Hairesis.

Gottes.

Auslegungsgeschichtliche

Festschrift fir Karl Hoheisel

Beobachtungen

zu

KLEIN, U . VOLLMER, M ü n s t e r 2 0 0 2 , 3 3 ^ 7 ; r e v i d i e r t e F a s s u n g i n : M A I E R , Studien

jüdischen

Bibel (s.o. Anm. 51), 405-424.

Ps

(JAC.Erg.-Bd. 34), Hg. M. HUTTER, W. zur

Notwehr und Selbstverteidigung im jüdischen Recht

351

Wenn bei einem Menschen eine von diesen Grundlehren erschüttert worden ist, dann ist er aus der Gesamtheit Israels ausgeschieden, hat die Grundlehre schlechthin geleugnet und wird Häretiker, Epikureer, und einer, der Pflanzungen abschlägt, genannt. 56 Es ist Pflicht, ihn zu hassen und ihn zugrunde zu richten, und über ihn heißt es (Ps 139,21): Sollte ich die nicht hassen, Herr, die dich hassen? Und in Misneh Torah, Hilkot Avodah Zarah X,1 (vgl. Sefer ha-Miswot, Verbote 48 und 50) heißt es: Man schließt mit Fremdkult-Praktizierenden keinen Bund, der darauf hinausläuft, daß wir mit ihnen Frieden halten und ihnen die Fremdkultpraxis erlauben, denn es heißt (Dtn 7,2): Du sollst mit ihnen keinen Bund schließen. Entweder lassen sie ab von ihrem Kult oder sie werden getötet. Und es ist verboten, sich ihrer zu erbarmen, denn es heißt (ebd.): Du sollst sie nicht begnadigen. Daher gilt: Wenn du einen nichtjüdischen Fremdkulttreibenden siehst, der zugrundegeht oder (im Wasser) untergeht, soll man ihm nicht helfen; sieht man ihn dem Tod geweiht, soll man ihn nicht retten. Jedoch ihn eigenhändig verderben oder in eine Grube stoßen und dergleichen, ist verboten, sofern er mit uns nicht Krieg führt. Worauf beziehen sich diese Worte? - Auf einen Nichtjuden. Aber in Bezug auf israelitische Denunzianten und die Minim (Ketzer) und die Appiqorosim (Häretiker) ist es ein Gebot, einen solchen eigenhändig zu verderben und in die Grube des Verderbens hinabzubringen, weil sie Israel in Bedrängnis bringen und das Volk abspenstig machen vom H(ERRN), wie Jesua han-Nosri und seine Jünger und wie Zadok und Beithos und ihre Jünger - der Name von Frevlern verwese! Mit der Einbeziehung solch innerreligiöser Gegner als hassenswerte „Feinde Gottes" in den Kreis derer, die getötet werden dürfen, wird die Notwehr im Dienst der Gemeinschaft um eine spezifisch religiöse Komponente erweitert. Nicht nur die konkrete Bedrohung von Personen oder einer Gemeinde berechtigt zu derartig drastischem Vorgehen, sondern auch die Infragestellung durch Dissidenten.

56

„Pflanzungen abschlagen" war schon in der rabbinischen Literatur Umschreibung für das Vertreten häretischer Meinungen und Praktiken.

352

Johann Maier

6. Mittelalterliche Exegeten zu Ex 22,1-2 Der Teil der Halakah, der auf der Schriftlichen Torah fußt, wurde nicht durch Bibelkommentare bestimmt, deren Zielsetzung eine andere ist; sie spiegeln aber halakische Positionen der Kommentatoren. Der einflußreiche nordfranzösische Kommentator Salomo b. Isaak (RS"J, gest. 1105) behandelte Ex 22,1-2 nur knapp und formulierte den letzten Passus auf eindeutigere Weise: „Wenn beim Einbruch: während er ins Haus einbricht. Liegt für ihn keine Blutschuld vor: das ist kein Mord, denn er ist eigentlich schon tot.57 Hier lehrt dich die Torah: ,Wenn einer kommt, um dich zu töten, töte ihn zuvor'. ... etc". 58 Auch im Talmudkommentar verwendete er dieses Scheinzitat (zu bBK 117b; bSan 72a). Der aus der rabbinischen Tradition stammende Schlußsatz spiegelt eine rigorose Rechtsauffassung, aber sie wird durch die Interpretation des v. 2 mittels der schon in rabbinischen Quellen vertretenen bildlichen Deutung des Sonnenaufgangs eingeschränkt: ...wenn dir als Sachverhalt klar ist, daß er dir friedlich gesinnt ist, es wie diese Sonne, die für die Welt Frieden bedeutet, für dich eindeutig feststeht, daß er nicht gekommen ist, um zu töten, gilt, wenn der Besitzer der Wertsache sich ihm entgegenstellt, (oder) wenn ein Vater einbricht, um Geld des Sohnes zu stehlen, da bekanntlich das Erbarmen des Vaters über den Sohn waltet und er nicht zum Zweck eines Tötungsdelikts gekommen ist: es liegt fiir ihn eine Blutschuld vor. Jener wird als ein Lebendiger gewertet und so handelt es sich um eine Ermordung, wenn der Hausbesitzer ihn tötet. In seinem Kommentar zu bSan 72a schrieb er: Wann ist es erlaubt, ihn zu töten? - Zur Zeit, da die Sonne über ihm aufgegangen ist, das heißt: wenn dir klar ist, daß er gekommen ist, um dich zu töten, wenn du dich ihm gegenüberstellst. Aber im Zweifelsfall töte ihn nicht. Dieselbe Auffassung von der Phrase mit dem Sonnenaufgang wird in den Tosafot zu bPes 2b vertreten: wenn die Sonne über ihm aufgegangen ist: Darum ist es nicht gestattet, ihn um sein Leben zu retten, es sei denn: wenn er klar erkennt, daß er gekommen ist, ihn zu töten - wie es bewiesen ist im Abschnitt Ben sorer (bSan 72a etc.). ... Aber wenn es dir deutlich ist, daß er mit dir keinen Frieden im Sinne hat, dann töte ihn, und wenn nicht, töte ihn wegen des Vaters um des Sohnes willen nicht. 57

Der Einbruch schließt das Risiko, getötet zu werden, ein.

58

CH. D. CHAVEL, Peruse RS"Y 'al ha-Torah,

Jerusalem o.J., 256.

Notwehr und Selbstverteidigung im jüdischen Recht

353

Der im 12. Jh. ebenfalls in Nordfrankreich wirkende Exeget Josef Bekor Schor59 schrieb zu Ex 22,1: „das heißt, wer ihn erschlägt, wird nicht als einer gewertet, der Blut vergießt". Und den Sonnenaufgang in 22,2 deutet er mit Früheren wörtlich und ausdrücklich nicht bildlich im Sinne von „bei Tageslicht" (vgl. bSan 72a). Der R S " J - Enkel Samuel b. Meir (gest. 1174; RSB"M) kommentiert Ex 22,1 sehr kurz: „Wenn beim Einbruch - und zwar in der Nacht: um zu töten oder um getötet zu werden ist er gekommen; es liegt keine Blutschuld auf ihm, sondern der ihn tötet, geht frei aus". Den Sonnenaufgang in v. 2 verstand er wörtlich als Tagesanbruch: „so daß er bei Tag stehlen würde". 60 Ebenfalls in den aschkenasischen Raum und in diese Zeit gehört der Kommentar Hizzequni.61 Er stützt sich für Ex 22,1-2 auf RS"J und deutet beim Einbruch örtlich als „an der Einbruchsteile". Das Risiko, sein Leben zu verlieren, nimmt der Einbrecher bewußt auf sich, „denn er weiß, wenn ihn der Besitzer des Geldes vorfindet, dieser sein Leben einsetzen würde, um seine Habe im Augenblick der akuten Phase zu retten". Zu v. 2a: „Wenn er aus dem Einbruchsloch in die freie Luft herausgekommen ist, an den Ort der Sonnenbestrahlung, besteht in Bezug auf ihn eine Blutschuld. Wird der Dieb also nicht im Durchbruch selbst ertappt, hat er dem gegenüber, der ihn tötet, einen Anspruch wegen Blutvergießens, denn es ist ja nicht erlaubt, ihn zu töten, außer während der akuten Phase, wie im Durchbruch". Aus Spanien stammte Abraham b. Meir ibn Ezra (R'B"'; gest. 1164), und er verstand Ex 22,1-2 so:62 „Wenn der Dieb beim Einbruch ertappt wird: In der Nacht, denn bei Tage würde er nicht einbrechen. Der folgende Schriftvers ist dafür Zeuge: wenn die Sonne aufgestrahlt ist. Und die Erklärung von liegt für ihn keine Blutschuld vor: auf dem, der ihn tötet, lastet kein Blutvergießen. Man muß sich wundern über Ausleger, die dmym (Blutschuld) als ,Leben' erklären.63 Wenn so, was heißt dann 'ys dmym (II Sam 16,8), und dmyw bw (Lev 20,9)?". Mose b. Nachman (RMB"N, gest. 1270) wirkte bis 1267 in Gerona. In seinem Pentateuchkommentar 64 deutet er den Sonnenaufgang in v. 2a anfangs bildlich, zieht zuletzt aber die wörtliche Bedeutung in Betracht: noch bei Nachtzeit, denn tagsüber pflegt ein Dieb nicht einzubrechen. Im Übrigen problematisierte er die Übersetzung des Targum Onkelos, wo die Anwesenheit von Zeugen vorausgesetzt wird, die den Hausbesitzer

59 60 61 62 63 64

Peruse Rabbi Yosef Bekor Sor 'al ha-Torah, Jerusalem 1994,143f. D. RAISIN (ed.), Perus ha-Torah ha-salem aser katav RSB"M, Rabbenu Semu'el ben Meir, Breslau 1881/2,116. H.D. CHAVEL (ed.), Hizzequni. Peruse ha-Torah le-Rabbenu Hizqiyah b"R Manoah, Jerusalem 1981, 274. A. WEISER (ed.), Ibn 'Ezra. Peruse ha-Torah, Bd. II, Jerusalem 1976, 154. Lasen diese etwa hyym ? H.D. CHAVEL (ed.), Peruse ha-torah le-Rabbenu Moseh ben Nahman (RMB"N), Bd. I, Jerusalem 1958/9, 427f.

354

Johann Maier

verwarnen und somit von einer Tötung abhalten müßten, da angesichts der Augenzeugen eine Tötungsabsicht des Diebes auszuschließen sei. Der im 13. Jh. wirkende kabbalistische Pentateuchkommentator Bachja b. Ascher (Spanien) formulierte wie folgt:65 Der Ausdruck beim Einbruch bedeutet, daß er in der Finsternis in Häuser durchbricht. Liegt keine Blutschuld für ihn vor: es gibt für den, der ihn tötet, keine Tötungsverschuldung, denn jener ist ja gewiß in der Nacht eingetreten, um (auch) eine Tötung zu begehen, falls der Hausbesitzer sich ihm entgegentritt, um sein Geld zu retten, würde er den Hausbesitzer töten. (22,2) wenn die Sonne über ihm aufgestrahlt ist: das will sagen, daß er dort bei Tag eingedrungen ist oder daß er dort bis zum Morgen aufgehalten wurde, so daß während dessen sich die Sonne in der Welt ausbreitete, liegt für ihn eine Blutschuld vor: die Schuld eines Tötungsdelikts liegt auf jeden, der ihn tötet, da es sich nicht so verhält, daß er zu mörderischen Zwecken gekommen war, und weil er gewiß nicht getötet hätte, da er bereits wußte, daß in Bezug auf ihn alle Bescheid wissen und ihn für eine Tötung festnehmen würden. Und er erwähnt in der (grammatikalisch) weiblichen Form: wenn die Sonne aufgestrahlt (zrhh) ist, und sagte nicht: wenn er66 aufgestrahlt ist (zrti), denn es ist die Art der Schrift, in der femininen Form zu formulieren, wenn sie zum Ausdruck bringen will, daß es zu der Zeit ist, da die Sonne sich in der Welt ausbreitet und sich in der Weite ihres Raumes ausweitet; desgleichen (II Sam 12,11): vor den Augen dieser Sonne. Und wenn sie aufzustrahlen beginnt und ausziehen und mit ihrem Glanz strahlen will, wird sie in maskuliner Form gebraucht, wie der Ausdruck (Gen 32,32): und die Sonne strahlte ihm auf, und es steht geschrieben (Gen 19,23): die Sonne war ausgezogen über die Erde, und es steht geschrieben (Ps 19,6): freut sich wie ein Held, seinen Weg zu laufen. Daher hat er auch hier die feminine Form verwendet, und das will sagen: wenn die Sonne sich in der Welt ausgebreitet hat, weiß (d)er (Dieb), daß er gefaßt wird und ihnen nicht entrinnen kann. Liegt für ihn eine Blutschuld vor: für den, der ihn tötet. Und er (der Dieb) hat zu erstatten, was er gestohlen hat. Der prominente Halakist (siehe unten) Jakob b. Ascher (gest. 1340 in Toledo) hat auch einen Pentateuchkommentar verfaßt, in dem er zu Ex 22,l-2a lediglich knapp bemerkt, daß der nächtliche Einbrecher zu einem Mord bereit ist und daher straffrei getötet werden kann.67

65 66 67

H.D. CHAVEL (ed.), Rabbenu Bachya, Be'ur 'al ha-Torah, Bd. II, Jerusalem 31974, 228. sms /Sonne ist in der Regel maskulin. Perus Baal ha-Turim 'al ha-Torah, Bd. I, Jerusalem 1992/3, 215. Er verweist zudem auf Jer 2,34.

Notwehr und Selbstverteidigung im jüdischen Recht

Vergleichsweise ausführlich kommentierte die beiden Verse Südfrankreich wirkende Levi b. Gerschom (RLB"G, gest. 1344): 68

355 der

in

Wenn der Dieb beim Einbruch ertappt wird, der darauf aus war, zu stehlen, und der Hausbesitzer oder irgendein Anwesender hat ihn geschlagen, so daß er starb, so ist der, der ihn getötet hat, nicht des Todes schuldig. (2a) ist aber über ihm die Sonne (schon) aufgegangen, liegt fiir ihn eine Blutschuld vor. Du sollst wissen, daß der Diebstahl in der Regel in der Nacht erfolgt, weil da der Dieb sicher ist, daß ihn die Leute nicht sehen. In Bezug darauf hat Hiob gesagt (Hi 24,14): (Beim Morgenlicht erhebt ein Mörder sich, tötet einen Elenden und Armen,) und in der Nach wird er wie ein Dieb. Und er sagte weiter (Hi 24,17): denn fiir sie ist Morgenl(icht) gleich Todesfinsternis. Das will besagen, daß die Mörder und die Diebe so sehr besorgt sind über den Morgenanbruch, daß er ihnen wie Todesfinsternis erscheint. Und dazu hat die Torah gesagt: ist aber über ihm die Sonne (schon) aufgegangen, liegt fiir ihn eine Blutschuld vor. Da die Torah nicht gesagt hat: ist aber die Sonne (schon) aufgegangen, (liegt fiir ihn eine Blutschuld vor), gibt das kund, daß der Sonnenaufgang über ihn erfolgt, sozusagen: daß dort etwas geschieht, was offenkundig ist, daß er seine Tat dort vollbracht hat, als wolltest du sagen, daß man ihn dort eindringen gesehen hat. Denn in dem Fall würde er sich davor fürchten, dort etwas zu tun, denn er bedenkt, daß bereits bekannt ist, was er dort getan hat. So wie der Dieb sich davor fürchtet, zu stehlen, wenn die Sonne (bereits) aufgegangen ist, da er bedenkt, daß ihn die Leute bereits gesehen haben. Und du sollst wissen, daß die Torah nicht gesagt hat, daß in Bezug auf den Dieb keine Blutschuld vorliegt, weil er Geld stehlen wollte; denn es wäre ungeziemend, daß er für Geld ein Leben erstattet. Vielmehr zielt die Torah auf seine eigentliche Absicht ab: denn er ist dort eingedrungen, um zu stehlen, und der Hausbesitzer oder einer von seinen Hausleuten könnte sich ihm entgegenstellen und sie (!) töten, damit er ihm das Diebesgut wieder erstattet. Daher hat die Torah jedem, der ihn antrifft, erlaubt, ihn zu töten. Wenn jedoch die Sonne über ihm aufgegangen ist, d.h.: wenn man ihn dort sieht, dann hüte einer sich, ihn zu töten, indem er bedenkt, daß man bereits weiß, wer die Tat vollbracht hat; in dem Fall ist es nicht erlaubt, ihn zu töten. Von dieser Stelle aus wird klar, daß es im Fall des rodef, der seinen Gefährten verfolgt, um ihn zu töten, erlaubt ist, diesen um den Preis des Lebens des Verfolgers zu retten.

68

J.L. LEVI (ed.), Peruse ha-torah le-Rabbenu Lewi ben Gersom (RLB"G), II. Semot, Jerusalem,

20 00/01, 248-249.

2

356

Johann Maier

7. Mittelalterliche Halakah a) Die rechtsgeschichtliche Situation Das islamische Strafrecht war hinsichtlich der Notwehr vergleichsweise restriktiv,69 doch das fiel praktisch kaum ins Gewicht, denn die Sari'a ist im Strafrecht ja ohnehin nur begrenzt zum Zug gekommen, weil in der Regel nicht Richter, sondern Inhaber der Macht entschieden, wie in Strafsachen zu verfahren sei; Herrscherwille und Polizeigewalt dominierten. Die Rechtssysteme moderner islamischer Staaten weisen daher mit zahlreichen Varianten des Verhältnisses von traditionellem religiösen und modernem säkularen Recht ein recht buntes Bild auf.70 Dieser Umstand, also eine Rechtspraxis der Obrigkeit ohne angemessene Verankerung im eigentlich geltenden Recht, scheint auch bei jüdischen Rechtsgelehrten im islamischen Herrschaftsbereich Folgen gezeitigt zu haben, nämlich eine größere Bereitschaft, für bestimmte Fälle Maßnahmen gutzuheißen und durchzuführen, die durch die Torah bzw. Halakah an sich nicht voll gedeckt sind. Man muß allerdings bedenken, daß in Mesopotamien die jüdischen Exilarchen von der Partherzeit her über weitreichende herrscherliche Kompetenzen verfügten und auch von daher eine entsprechendes Verfahren erklärt werden kann. Aber auch in den christlichen Königreichen Kastilien und Aragon wurde den jüdischen Gemeinden von manchen Königen eine weitreichende Rechtsautonomie mit der Möglichkeit zur Verhängung von Todesstrafen zugestanden.71 Dies wurde allerdings im Namen des Königs praktiziert und 69

V.CH. BERTOLINI, La legitime defense dans la doctrine du droit musulman en Egypte ä l'epoque des Mamelouks sous la domination ottomane. Etude comparie de droit penal, Paris 1931; A.F. BAHNASSI, „Criminal Responsibility in Islamic Law", in The Islamic Criminal justice,

70

71

ed. b y Μ . CHERIF BASSIOUNI, L o n d o n 1 9 8 2 , 1 7 1 - 1 9 3 [ „ S e l f - D e f e n s e " , 1 8 4 - 1 8 5 ] ,

M.M. MOSTAFA, Principes de droit penal des pays arabes, Les grands systemes de droit penal contemporains, Vol. 5, Paris 1972, 51-58; E. GHODSI, „Legitimate Defence in the Criminal Law of Iran and Islam", in The Journal of Criminal Law 67 (2003), 349-357. D. DE SOLA POOL, „Capital Punishment among the Jews", New York 1916 [48-51 betr. Spanien.]; A.A. NEUMAN, The Jews in Spain, Philadelphia 1942, Bd. I, 112-146, 147-160; D.M. SHOHET, The Jewish Court in the Middle Ages, New York 1931 (reprint 1974), 21f. 112-125.126-158; Y. BAER, A History of the Jews in Christian Spain, Bd. I—II, Philadelphia 1971 [siehe Register s.v.: Capital punishment, Court officials, Criminal jurisdiction, Juridical relations]; A. BLASCO MARTINEZ, „La autonomia judicial de los judios de Zaragoza, la normativa de 1376", in Sefarad 52 (1992), 323-326; E. SHOCHETMAN, „Jewish Law in Spain and the Halakhic Activity of its Scholars before 1300", in An Introduction to the History and Sources of Jewish Law, ed. by N.S. HECHT U. a., Oxford 1996, 271-298; H. BEINART, „Kitve ha-zekuyot sei ha-sibbur ha-yehudi be-Qastilyah we-histaqqefutam be-hayye yom-yom", in Qehal Yisra'el, Bd. II: Yeme ha-benayim we-ha'et ha-hadasah, ed. by A. GROSSMAN, J. KAPLAN, Jerusalem 2004, 115-134; Y.T. ASSIS,

Notwehr und Selbstverteidigung im jüdischen Recht

357

setzte darum nicht zwingend Verfahren nach jüdischem Recht voraus, was speziell für die vom König eingesetzten obersten jüdischen Richter galt.72 Solche Konzessionen der Herrscher waren durchaus nicht selbstlos. So auch nicht im Zusammenhang mit dem Problem des moser bzw. maisin, des Denunzianten, der irgendwelchen Nichtjuden jüdische Personen oder deren Eigentum auf irgendeine Weise ausliefert, d.h., an mächtige Personen oder an Institutionen, die damit dem königlichen Monopolanspruch auf die Nutzung der Juden in die Quere kamen. 73 Es handelt sich also um eine Nebenerscheinung des Machtkampfes zwischen König, Adel und Ständen bzw. Städten. Für die jüdische Seite war die Gefahr, durch einen moser um Hab und Gut oder gar ums Leben zu kommen, bedrohlich, und daher wurde der moser ebenso streng beurteilt wie ein rodef, wobei - speziell in der Spätzeit unter der Inquisition - Denunziation und Verrat eine besondere Rolle spielten.74 Und das sowohl aus der Sicht des betroffenen Individuums als auch aus dem Blickwinkel der Gemeinde bzw. einer regionalen Judenheit überhaupt. 75 Darum betreffen die meisten Belege für die Verhängung von Todesurteilen durch jüdische Richter bzw. Gerichtshöfe Fälle von (rückfällig gewordenen) Denunzianten. 76 Die Exekution solcher Urteile erfolgte demgemäß meist durch königliches Personal, doch waren in manchen Gebieten - auch außerhalb der iberischen Halbinsel - die jüdischen

„Ha-qehillah ha-yehudit be-Aragonah", in: a.a.O., 135-153; I.M. TA-SHMA, „Sipput 'ivri u-mispat 'ivri b i m e ' o t ha-XI-ha-XII bi-Sefarad", in Keneset mehqarim. sifrut ha-rabbanit

bi-yme ha-benayim.

Studies in Medieval

Rabbinic

'iyyunim

Literature,

ba-

Bd. II, ed. by

I . M . TA-SHMA, S p a i n / I e r u s a l e m 2 0 0 4 , 2 3 9 - 2 6 0 .

72

S t . M . PASSAMANECK, „Rabbi luda b. Asher on capital penalties", in Jewish Association

73

Law

Studies 7 (1994), 153-172.

I. LURIA, „Malsinim u-ma'fionerim, alimut we-emah ba-qehillot Valencia b a - m e ' a h haX I V " , i n Zemanim

29

( 1 9 8 7 / 8 ) , 4 8 - 5 6 ; DIES. ( E . LOURIE), „ C o m p l i c i d a d

aspecto insolito de convivencia judeo-cristiana", in Congreso

internacional:

criminal;

un

Encuentro

de

las Tres Culturas, Bd. III, por C. CARRETE PARRONDO, Toledo 1988, 9 3 - 1 0 8 . 74

D. KAUFMANN, , J e w i s h Informers in the Middle A g e s " , in JQR 8 (1896), 217-238. Zahlreiche Hinweise und Beispiele findet man in: Y. BAER, A History Christian

of the Jews in

Spain, Bd. I, Philadelphia 1971, 161f.168-170.221,225f. 231-234.252f. 284-286.

324f., und in Bd. II, 2f.27f.67-69.81-85.263-266. 269f. 3 7 5 - 3 7 6 . 4 4 9 ^ 5 3 . 4 5 6 . 75

E.C. ΒΕΝ-ZIMRA, „ ' A l ha-malsinut we-ha-mesirah be-misnatam sei h a k m e Askenaz, Sarfat we-Italiyah bi-tqufat ha-ri'sonim", in Sefer ha-yovel le-J.D. Soloveitchik,

N e w York

1983/4, 732-785; DERS., ,,'Al malsinut u-mesirah be-hayye ha-qehillah

ha-yehudit

bitqufat ha-aharonim", in Sefer Avi'ad. Qobes ma'amarim Wolfsberg-Avi'ad,

u-mehqarim

le-zeker

ha-mesirah be-misnatam sei hakme Sefarad", in Sefer zikkaron

le-Rab

Nissim,

Jerusalem 1987/8, 297-321; DERS., „Realtä e halakhä nelle decisioni dei m e d i e v a l i " , i n Torath

76

Yesa'jahu

e d . b y J . RAFAEL, J e r u s a l e m 1 9 8 5 / 6 , 1 1 2 - 1 4 2 ; DERS., , , H a - m a l s i n u t w e -

Chayim

1 3 1 - 1 3 2 (1990), 3 - 2 0 .

Zahlreiche Belege bei Μ. ELON, Ha-mispat

(s.o. Anm. 12), Bd. I, 9 - 1 1 .

Bd. I, Maestri

358

Johann Maier

Gemeinden auch genötigt, eigene Leute mit Hinrichtungen zu beauftragen. 77 Eine ähnliche Situation und Praxis ergab sich erneut in der frühen Neuzeit in Polen. Für den hier zu behandelnden Gegenstand ist nur die Begründung der Verfolgung dieser Vergehen von Interesse: sie werden als gemeinschaftsgefährdend eingeschätzt und geraten damit in die Position von rodefim, deren vorsorgliche Tötung gerechtfertigt ist.78 Bei alledem spielt ein Verb und ein Nomen eine gewichtige Rolle, abgeleitet von der Wurzel ns, „bedrücken", „Druck bzw. Zwang ausüben". 79 Gerade bei der Beurteilung des Vergehens eines moser (Denunzianten) kommt dem Gesichtspunkt der unter Zwang bzw. Druck vollendeten Handlung ein hoher Stellenwert zu, während umgekehrt derjenige, der Druck bzw. Zwang ausübt, um so mehr wie andere gefährdende Gewalttäter als ein rodef ins Visier gerät (vgl. schon yBik 1,2 63d). Im Prinzip war man sich durchwegs einig: einem moser bzw. maisin gebührt die Todesstrafe und die Gemeinden suchten nach Möglichkeit, durch Taqqanot (Verordnungen) dem Übel entsprechend zu steuern.80

b) Zu biblischen Geboten bzw. Verboten Das Verbot des Mordes in Ex 20,13/Dtn 5,17 wird bei Maimonides im Sefer haMiswot als Verbot Nr. 289 behandelt:81 Das Gebot 289 besteht in dem Verbot, durch das wir verwarnt worden sind, einander zu ermorden, 82 da Er - er werde erhoben! - gesagt hat: Du darfst nicht morden. Wer das übertritt, wird durch Schlagen (mit dem Schwert) am Hals (also Köpfen) getötet (arab. qtl·, hebräische Übersetzungen: hrg). Er - er werde erhoben! - hat gesagt (Ex 21,14): ... sollst du ihn wegnehmen von meinem Altar zum Sterben. Die Gesetzesbestimmungen dieses Gebots sind bereits dargelegt im

77

S. ASSAF, „Talyanim yehudiyyim", in Tarbiz 5 (1933/4), 224-236; = in: DERS., Meqorot umehqarim be-toledot Yisra'el, Jerusalem 1945/6, 252ff.

78 79

N.J. ZOHAR, „Killing a rodef", in Sa vara 1/1 (1990), 55-58. Α. ENKER, „Din ha-'ones la'avor 'averah mi-sug yhrg w'l y'bwr bi-fsiqat h a - R M B " M " , in Mehqere mispat 6,1 (1998/9), 197-226. Siehe dazu M. ELON, Ha-mispat (s.o. Anm. 12), Bd. II, 647-649; Y. MORENO KOCH, „The Taqqanot of Valladolid of 1432", in The American Sephardi 9 (1978), 58-145; DERS., De jure hebraico: Las Taqqanot de Valladolid de 2432. Un estatuto comunal renovador, Salamanca 1987. Über Todesurteile in Spanien s. auch: PASSAMANECK, „Rabbi Juda b. Asher" (s.o. Anm. 72), 153-172.

80

81

J. KAFAH, Rabbenu Moseh ben Majmon, Sefer ha-miswot, maqor we-targum, 315f.

82

Arabisch: qtl; im biblischen Text: rsh

Jerusalem 1971,

Notwehr und Selbstverteidigung im jüdischen Recht

359

neunten (Kapitel) des (Traktats) Sanhedrin und im zweiten von Makkot. In der Aufzählung der 613 Gebote und Verbote in der Einleitung zum hebräisch verfaßten Misneh Torah83 heißt es allerdings: „Nicht einen Unschuldigen zu töten/ermorden (rsh), da es heißt: Du darfst nicht morden". Das klingt an eine Formulierung in Ex 23,7 an, was im Verbot Nr. 290 im Blick auf gerichtliches Verfahren behandelt wird. Und in diesem Rahmen taucht der Begriff des rodef auf:84 Das Gebot 290 besteht im Verbot, mit dem wir verwarnt worden sind, die Strafen (allein) nach bestem Ermessen und selbst beinahe vollständiger Gewißheit zu verhängen. Etwa, wenn ein Mensch seinen Feind verfolgt, um ihn zu töten, und der rettet sich zu einem Haus und jener rodef tritt nach ihm ein, und wir sind nach ihnen eingetreten und finden den Verfolgten noch zuckend getötet vor, und sein verfolgender Feind steht mit dem Messer in der Hand bei ihm und beide sind von Blut befleckt (gefärbt): Diesen rodef tötet nicht das Sanhedrin durch Exekution der Strafe, weil dafür keine Aussage von Zeugen vorliegt, die beim Tötungsdelikt zugegen waren. Und es liegt das Verbot in der Torah der Wahrheit vor, einander nicht zu töten (hrg), und zwar, in dem Er - er werde erhoben! - sagt (Ex 23,7): und einen Unschuldigen und Gerechten darfst du nicht töten etc. In der Mekilta hat man gesagt: ,Man sah einen, der seinen Gefährten verfolgte, um ihn zu töten. Und man verwarnte ihn lind sagte zu ihm: Der ist ein Israelit, ein Bundesmitglied ist er, wenn du ihn tötest, wirst du getötet. Man schaute aber weg und fand ihn (dann) noch zuckend getötet vor und das Schwert bluttriefend in der Hand des Tötenden. Ich meine, er soll schuldig gesprochen werden, aber die Lehre sagt (Ex 23,7): und einen Unschuldigen und Gerechten darfst du nicht töten'. Diese Sache soll dir nicht als Problem erscheinen und du sollst nicht denken, diese Gesetzesbestimmung sei Unrecht. 85 Denn unter den wahrscheinlichen Sachverhalten gibt es solche, deren Wahrscheinlichkeit sehr hoch ist, und andere, deren

83

84 85

Die älteren Editionen sind textlich durch Zensur entstellt. Die englische Gesamtübersetzung (The Code of Maimonides, New Haven 1949ff.) beruht auf einer solchen zensierten Textgrundlage. Die im folgenden ins Deutsche übersetzten Partien beruhen auf dem unzensierten Text in der Ausgabe von J. KAFAH, Bd. I-XXIII, Jerusalem 1984-1996. A.a.O. 316f.; siehe Weiteres bei Z. KAPLAN, „Sefinah se-hissevah le-hissaver (le-sittat ha-RMB"M be-din rodef)", in Sinai 67 (1969/70), 38-42. Es besteht Einmütigkeit darüber, daß in einem solchen Fall naqi nicht einen Unschuldigen im eigentlichen Sinn bezeichnet, sondern nur einen, der nicht verurteilt werden kann.

360

Johann Maier

Wahrscheinlichkeit sehr fern liegt, und andere liegen dazwischen. Für das Mögliche gibt es einen sehr weiten Raum, und wenn die Torah erlaubt hätte, die Strafen bei der höchsten Wahrscheinlichkeit zu verhängen, die der Absolutheit beinahe nahe kommt, wie in dem als Beispiel angeführten Fall, dann würde man die Strafen auch bei einem weniger wahrscheinlichen Sachverhalt verhängen, bis schließlich die Strafen derart verhängt werden, daß ständig Menschen auf Grund leichtfertigen Ermessens entsprechend der Phantasie des Richters ausgerottet würden. Darum hat Er - er werde erhoben! - diese Türe verschlossen und befohlen, daß eine Strafe nur verhängt wird, wenn dort Zeugen gegenwärtig waren, die bezeugen, daß ihnen der betreffende Sachverhalt klar ist, und zwar ohne irgend einen Zweifel klar, und nicht das Ergebnis irgendeiner Meinungsbildung darstellt. Wenn wir die Strafen selbst auf Grund besten Ermessens nicht verhängen, so kann im äußersten Fall nur geschehen, daß wir den Missetäter freisprechen. Aber wenn wir die Strafen auf der Basis von Ermessen und erschlossenen Indizien verhängen, so ist es möglich, daß wir irgendeinmal einen Unschuldigen töten. Doch der Freispruch von tausend Missetätern ist vorzuziehen und annehmbarer, als einmal einen einzigen Unschuldigen zu töten ... etc. Das heißt, daß ein solcher rodef nach vollbrachter Tat unter diesen Umständen frei ausgeht, allerdings hätten jene, die den Täter zuvor verwarnt und danach weggeschaut haben, das Gebot der Beistandsleistung verletzt. Unter dem Aspekt des Diebstahldelikts erläutert Maimonides im „Buch der Gebote" (Sefer ha-miswot), Gebot Nr. 239, Ex 21,37 -22,3 folgendermaßen: 86 „Das Gebot 239 ist der Befehl, der uns in der Gesetzesbestimmung betreffend eines Diebes aufgetragen worden ist, daß wir von ihm das Doppelte (des Gestohlenen) als Ersatzleistung einheben, oder das Vier- und Fünffache, oder daß wir ihn töten, wenn er beim Einbruch hereinkommt, oder daß wir ihn (als Sklaven) verkaufen. ...". Maimonides hat das Gesetz Ex 22,1-3 auch im Misneh Torah, Η ilkot Sanhedrin IX,7-13 behandelt und in IX,9 den nächtlichen Einbrecher ebenfalls als möglichen rodef bezeichnet, dessen Tötung nicht eine Blutschuld bedeutet, hat aber ebenso wie in seinem Kommentar zu mSan VIII,6 das Torah-Scheinzitat vermieden. Im Mischnakommentar verweist er auf zwei Gesichtspunkte, einmal auf das Eigenrisiko des Einbrechers, zum andern auf dessen Absicht, und er sieht keinen Unterschied, ob der Dieb durch den Hof eindringt oder über das Dach. Ex 22,1 hat er aber auch in Hilkot Sanhedrin IX,7-13 berücksichtigt und in IX,9 den Einbrecher ebenfalls als möglichen rodef bezeichnet, der ohne Blutschuld getötet werden kann. Auch hier hat er das Torah-Scheinzitat vermieden. 86

A.a.O. (s.o. Anm. 83), 174.

Notwehr und Selbstverteidigung im jüdischen Recht

361

Anders Mose b. Jakob von Coucy (13. Jh.), Sefer miswot gadol, Verbote § 160:87 ,Du darfst nicht morden hat der Heilige, Er ist gepriesen, im ersten (Ex 20,13) und zweiten Dekalog (Dtn 5,17) befohlen, und die Strafe findet sich im Abschnitt Das sind die Lagerstationen, denn es heißt (Num 35,30): Jeder, der eine Person erschlägt: der Mörder soll auf Grund von Zeugen getötet werden. Wenn der Mörder mit Absicht vor Zeugen gemordet hat, erfolgt seine Hinrichtung durch das Schwert, denn es heißt (Ex 21,20) ... etc. Es heißt im Traktat Sanhedrin (bSan 37a): Darum ist der Mensch als Einzelwesen erschaffen worden, daß jeder, der eine Person aus Israel vernichtet, so gewertet wird, als hätte er eine ganze Welt vernichtet, und jeder, der eine Person aus Israel am Leben erhält, wie einer, der eine ganze Welt erhält. Aber wenn einer seinen Gefährten verfolgt (rodef), um ihn zu töten, oder hinkommt, um mittels seiner Waffen dessen Besitz zu rauben, ist der Verfolgte berechtigt, ihn zu töten, da es heißt (Ex 22,1): Wenn der Dieb beim Einbruch ertappt und geschlagen wird, so daß er stirbt, liegt für ihn keine Blutschuld vor. Wir haben im Abschnitt ,Ein widerspenstiger und rebellischer Sohn' gelernt (bSan 72a): Wer beim Einbruch ertappt wird, dessen Urteil ergibt sich aus seinem Ende, und den Grund erläutert Raba in der Gemara: Kein Mensch hält sich wegen seines Besitzes (hinsichtlich seiner Reaktion) zurück. Weiß einer, daß der Besitzer vor ihm steht und er ist in der Absicht hingegangen, diesen zu töten, dann sagt die Torah (sie!): Wenn einer kommt, um dich zu töten, töte ihn zuerst. War aber dem Hausbesitzer klar, daß dieser Dieb, der zu ihm gekommen ist, nicht gekommen ist, um ihn zu töten, sondern nur wegen Besitzangelegenheiten, dann ist es verboten, ihn zu töten, und wenn er ihn tötet, hat er eine Person umgebracht, denn es heißt (Ex 22,2): wenn aber (dabei schon) die Sonne aufgegangen ist, liegt fir ihn keine Blutschuld vor. Wenn dir nämlich klar wie Sonnenlicht ist, daß er dir friedlich gesinnt ist, darfst du ihn nicht umbringen, aber im allgemeinen gilt: töte ihn. So darf ein Vater, der bei seinem Sohn einbricht, nicht getötet werden, denn er hätte ihn sicher nicht töten wollen, aber der Sohn, der bei seinem Vater einbricht, kann getötet werden, und ... etc. R. Eleazar von Metz hat (im Sefer yere'im ,Buch Fürchtiger') den Sachverhalt des Einbrechers mit dem des moser (Denunziant, Auslieferer) gleichgestellt: da kein Mensch sich hinsichtlich seines Besitzes zurückhalten muß, ist es berechtigt, ihn zu töten ...'. § 164 verbietet zudem, in Bezug auf den Verfolger (rodef) Nachsicht zu üben. 87

Sefer miswot gadol: SM"G ha-salem le-Rabbenu Moseh b"R. Ya'aqov mi-Coucy, 1992/3.

Jerusalem

362

Johann Maier

c) Aussagen auf der Basis der mündlichen Torah Mose b. Maimon erklärte in seinem Mischnakommentar 88 zu San VIII,6-7 die Passage folgendermaßen: (VIII,6) Und desgleichen: der durch einen Einbruch eintritt. Es ist bekannt, daß es sein Plan ist, wenn der Hausbesitzer sich ihm gegenüberstellen würde, um seinen Besitz zu verteidigen, diesen zu töten, und daher ist es erlaubt, ihn zu töten. Es besteht kein Unterschied, ob er durch einen Einbruch hineinkommt oder durch einen Hof oder durch das Dach und durch ein Gehege, vielmehr spricht die Schrift eher vom Vorgang. Und es ist bereits in Ketubbot und anderswo ausgeführt worden, daß bei uns grundsätzlich kein Mensch stirbt und bezahlt, darum gilt: der durch einen Einbruch eindringt und hat bei seinem Eindringen ein Faß zerbrochen, dort aber keine Zeugen anwesend waren, dessen Blut ist erlaubt, und das bedeutet es, wenn man gesagt hat (Ex 22,1): liegt keine Blutschuld vor. Ein solcher ist also befreit von Ersatzleistung für das Faß. Und wenn er es bei seinem Verlassen zerbrochen hat, nachdem er sich zur Flucht gewandt hat, um hinauszugelangen, und es verboten ist, ihn zu töten, oder wenn dort eine Zeugenschaft in Bezug auf etwas vorhanden ist, worüber der HERR gesagt hat: es liegt eine Blutschuld auf ihm, dann ist dieser befreit von der Ersatzleistung für das Faß. (VIII,7)... und die Bedeutung dieser Rettung ist, daß uns befohlen ist, den Menschen, der verfolgt wird, aus den Händen des Verfolgers zu retten, der ihn töten oder an ihm irgendeine Übertretung begehen will, und zwar sogar durch die Tötung des Verfolgers, und zwar wenn er die Übertretung noch nicht begangen hat. Und das ist die Bedeutung von ,um den Preis seines Lebens', es bedeutet: um den Preis des Lebens des Verfolgers. Aber in jedem Fall, da er vorsätzlich eine Übertretung (schon) begangen hat, ist es verboten, ihn zu töten, außer durch Gericht und Zeugen und entsprechend den zuvor dargelegten Verfahrensweisen. Und nicht so einen, den wir gesehen haben, daß er ein Vieh verfolgt oder den Sabbat entweihen will und Fremdkult betreiben will, vielmehr sollen wir ihn mit allem Möglichen hindern und behindern, ausgenommen seine Tötung, denn die ist verboten, bevor er nicht vor die Zeugen gebracht worden ist und vor der Zurechtweisung, danach tötet ihn ein Gerichtshof. Desgleichen die übrigen Übertretungen, ausgenommen Inzestvergehen und ein Mörder, wie wir dargelegt haben.

88

D. KAFAH, Misnah 'im perus Rabbenu Moseh ben Maymon. Maqor we-targum, Bd. I—III, Jerusalem 1963/65.

Notwehr und Selbstverteidigung im jüdischen Recht

363

Obadja von Bertinoro zu mSan VIII,6 formulierte: Der durch einen Einbruch eindringt: von dem die Torah sagt, er werde getötet. Er wird verurteilt durch sein Endziel - da sein Endziel darin besteht, den Hausbesitzer zu töten, wenn der ihm gegenübertritt, um das Seine zu retten. Wenn in Bezug auf ihn eine Blutschuld besteht: etwa wenn der Vater durch einen Einbruch zum Sohn eindringt, denn es ist bekannt, daß der Vater sich des Sohnes erbarmt, der Sohn also nicht berechtigt ist, ihn zu töten. Und wenn der Vater das Faß zerbrochen hat, ist er schuldig, es zu ersetzen. Liegt keine Blutschuld in Bezug auf ihn vor, ist er befreit (von Ersatzleistung): Jeder andere Mensch, der durch einen Einbruch eindringt und der Hausbesitzer hat ihn getötet und es liegt keine Blutschuld auf ihm: wenn er das Faß zerbrochen hat, ist jener von Ersatzleistung befreit. Denn da er sich mit seinem Leben verschuldet hat, ist er frei von Ersatzleistungen, weil kein Mensch stirbt und bezahlt. Unter dem Aspekt des Diebstahldelikts behandelte Maimonides das Thema in Misneh Torah, Hilkot genevah IX,7-13: IX,7 Wer einbricht, ob am Tag oder bei Nacht: in bezug auf ihn besteht keine Blutschuld, wenn ihn der Hausbesitzer oder sonst jemand umgebracht hat, sie gehen frei aus. Und zwar hat jedermann das Recht, ihn zu töten, ob an einem Werktag oder am Sabbat, mit jeder Todesart, durch die man ihn zu töten vermag, denn es heißt (Ex 22,1): es liegt für ihn keine Blutschuld vor. IX,8 Einerlei ist der, welcher einbricht, und der Dieb, der auf dem Dach eines Menschen angetroffen wird, oder in seinem Hof, oder in seinem eingefriedeten Außenhof, ob bei Tag oder bei Nacht. Und warum heißt es (Ex 22,1) ,beim Einbruch'? - Weil die meisten Diebe in der Nacht durch einen Einbruch eindringen. 89 IX,9 Und warum hat die Torah das Blut(vergießen) eines Diebes erlaubt, auch wenn der wegen eines Geschäftes gekommen war? Auf Grund der berechtigten Annahme, daß in dem Fall, daß der Hausbesitzer sich ihm entgegenstellt und ihn hindert, jener ihn töten würde. Es stellt sich nämlich einer, der ins Haus seines Gefährten eindringt, um zu stehlen, als einer dar, der seinen Gefährten verfolgt (rodef), um ihn zu töten; daher kann er getötet werden, ob groß oder minderjährig, ob männlich oder weiblich. IX,10 Ist dem Hausbesitzer der Sachverhalt klar geworden, daß der betreffende Dieb nicht

89

ABRAHAM B. DAVID (R'B"D) ZU Hilkot genevah IX,8: „Am Tage ist er nicht berechtigt, ihn zu töten; es liegt Blutschuld auf ihm, und wenn er ihn tötet, wird er wie ein Mörder eingestuft und als einer, der Blut vergießt...".

364

Johann Maier

gekommen war, ihn zu töten, sondern wegen einer Sache, so ist es verboten, ihn zu töten. Und wenn er ihn getötet hat, ist er einer, der eine Person umgebracht hat, denn es heißt (Ex 22,2): wenn die Sonne über ihm aufgegangen ist: wenn dir klar ist wie die Sonne, daß er mit dir friedliche Absichten hat, darfst du ihn nicht töten. So kann ein Vater, der bei seinem Sohn eindringt, nicht getötet werden, da er sicher nicht gekommen ist, um diesen zu töten. Aber der Sohn, der bei seinem Vater eindringt, der kann getötet werden. IX. 11 Desgleichen der Dieb, der gestohlen hat und herauskommt, oder nicht gestohlen hat, den man aber aus dem Durchbruch herauskommend ertappt hat und der sich zur Flucht gewendet hat, aber nicht (als rodef) verfolgt: in bezug auf den besteht eine Blutschuld. Desgleichen, wenn ihn Zeugen oder Leute umringt haben: selbst wenn er sich noch im Eigentumsbereich dessen befindet, der ihn gestellt hat, kann er nicht getötet werden, und es bedarf keiner Erwähnung, daß er nicht getötet werden kann, falls er (ohnehin) vor Gericht kommt. IX,12 Desgleichen besteht in bezug auf einen eine Blutschuld, der in seinen Garten eindringt oder in sein Feld oder in den Unterstand und in den Pferch, denn es gilt die Annahme, daß er nur wegen einer Eigentumssache gekommen ist, weil sich die meisten Eigentümer nicht an diesen Orten aufhalten. IX,13 Den Fall eines jeden Diebes, in bezug auf den eine Blutschuld vorliegt, wenn etwa am Sabbat ein Steinwall auf ihn gefallen ist, den untersucht man genau, und wenn er bei seinem Eindringen Geräte zerbrochen hat, ist er schuldig, Ersatzzahlung zu leisten. Aber wenn einer, in bezug auf den keine Blutschuld vorliegt (und folglich schon mit dem Tode bestraft wurde), bei seinem Eindringen Geräte zerbrochen hat, ist davon frei, wie wir erläutert haben.

d) Beistandspflicht Die Beistandspflicht und die möglichen Grenzen des Eingreifens nehmen in der halakischen Diskussion der Sache weiten Raum ein. Das Verbot Lev 19,16: Du darfst nicht gegen das Leben deines Nächsten aufstehen, wird von Mose b. Maimon in seinem Sefer ha-miswot als Verbot Nr. 297 gezählt und so erläutert:90 Das Verbot 297 besagt, daß wir verwarnt wurden vor der Verweigerung der Rettung eines lebendigen Menschen aus Israel, wenn wir ihn in Gefahr des Todes und Verderbens gesehen haben und wir die Möglichkeit haben, ihn zu retten. Etwa wenn er im Wasser untergeht und wir gut schwimmen können und ihn zu retten 90

A.a.O. (s.o. Anm. 83), 301f.

365

Notwehr und Selbstverteidigung im jüdischen Recht

vermögen; oder wenn ein Nichtjude plant, einen zu töten, und wir können das aus seinem Sinn entfernen. Oder, daß wir seine materielle Schädigung vermeiden (können). Und das Verbot ergeht, nicht zu zögern, ihn zu retten, indem Er - er werde erhoben! - gesagt hat: Du darfst nicht gegen das Leben deines Nächsten aufstehen. Man hat bereits gesagt, daß dieses Verbot, den einschließt, der ein Zeugnis verleugnet, da er sieht, wie der Besitz seines Gefährten verloren geht und er ihm diesen wiedergeben könnte, indem er die Wahrheit sagt. Auch ist in dieser Sache bereits gesagt worden (Lev 5,1), daß er Schuld auf sich lädt, wenn er nicht aussagt.91 Und (der Midrasch) Sifra formuliert: ... . Und wir haben die Gesetzesbestimmungen dieses Gebots bereits im (Kommentar zum) Traktat Sanhedrin (der Mischna) ausgeführt. (Vgl. auch das Verbot Nr. 270 zu Ex 23,5). Auch unter dem Aspekt der Tötungsdelikte führte Mose b. Maimon das Gebot der Beistandsleistung an, und zwar im Misneh Torah, Hilkot roseah 1,14-16 (s.u. Abs. d) Es besteht aber nicht nur eine direkte, sondern auch eine indirekte Beistandspflicht, nämlich die Pflicht, eventuelle Folgen für andere Juden zu bedenken und auf Grund dessen an sich straffreie Handlungen zu unterlassen. Ein Beispiel dafür aus dem Sefer hasidim:92 (§ 156) Ein Mensch, dessen Wegbegleiter ein starker Mann war, ein Jude, der auf seine Kraft vertraute, traf einen Nichtjuden, kämpfte mit ihm und tötete ihn. Als er in der Stadt war, sagte man zu dem (einen) Juden: Zieh aus der Stadt aus, denn ein gewisser Nichtjude will dich töten; dieser Jude aber und jener, der auf seine Kraft vertraute, machten sich keine Sorgen, und er wurde danach getötet. Siehe, alles, was anderen durch einen an Bösem geschehen ist, legt man einem zur Last, als hätte man es eigenhändig getan. Konnte doch David den Saul töten, als der im Lagerrund schlief, aber er sagte: ,auch wenn die Torah sagt: Den, der dich zu töten kommt, töte zuvor: im Fall eines Schaden für andere nicht. Denn wenn ich Saul töte, wäre dies ein Schaden zugunsten aller Hasser Israels, da sich Völker/Nichtjuden gegen sie (die Israeliten) versammeln'. Mordechaj (vgl. Est 3,2) rührte sich nicht und erhob sich nicht, sagte in seinem Herzen: ,wenn ich ihm huldige, werden alle dem Fremdkult huldigen; es ist besser, daß man mich tötet und kein Schaden durch mich eintritt'.

91

Siehe Sefer ha-miswot,

92

J. WLSTINETZKI, A. FREIMANN (ed.), Das

Gebot Nr. 178, a.a.O., 150. Buch

der

Frommen,

(Nachdruck Jerusalem 1969), 66; I.G. MARCUS (ed.), Sefer Hasidim. Jerusalem 1985.

Frankfurt/M.

2

1924

Ms Parma Η 3280,

366

Johann Maier

e) Mord und Totschlag nach Maimonides Mose b. Maimon behandelte die Tötungsdelikte (auch nach allgemein rechtsvergleichenden Maßstäben) sehr ausführlich in Misneh Torah, Hilkot roseah u-semirat nefes, und die für hier illustrativen Passagen lauten wie folgt: 1.1 Jeder, der ein Menschenleben aus Israel tötet, übertritt ein Verbot, denn es heißt (Ex 20,14): Du darfst nicht morden. Und wenn er mit Vorsatz vor Zeugen gemordet hat, erfolgt seine Hinrichtung durch das Schwert, denn es heißt (Ex 21,20): es soll gerächt werden. Man hat aus der mündlichen Überlieferung gelernt, daß die Hinrichtung durch das Schwert erfolgt; gleich ob er seinen Gefährten mit einem Eisen getötet oder ihn im Feuer verbrannt hat, seine Hinrichtung erfolgt durch das Schwert. 1.2 Der Bluträcher verfügt über ein Gebot, denn es heißt (Num 35,19): der Bluträcher soll den Mörder töten. Und jeder, der Erbberechtigt ist, gilt als Bluträcher. Will der Bluträcher nicht handeln oder vermag er ihn nicht zu töten, oder ist kein Bluträcher vorhanden, dann läßt ein Gerichtshof den Mörder durch das Schwert hinrichten. 1.5 Einen Mörder, der mit Vorsatz getötet hat, den töten nicht die Zeugen, und diese dürfen ihn (auch) nicht sehen, bis er vor Gericht kommt und man ihn zum Tode verurteilt, da es heißt (Num 35,12): Und der Mörder soll nicht sterben, bevor er vor der Gemeinde vor Gericht gestellt worden ist. Und das gilt für alle des Todes Schuldigen, die eine Übertretung begangen und vollzogen haben: daß man sie nicht tötet, bevor ihr Urteil am Gericht nicht ergangen ist. 1.6 Worum handelt es sich? Um einen, der eine Übertretung begangen und ein Verbrechen auf sich geladen hat, auf dem die gerichtliche Todesstrafe steht. Aber im Fall, daß einer seinen Gefährten verfolgt (rodef), um ihn zu töten, gilt selbst für den Fall, daß der Verfolger minderjährig ist, daß jedem Israeliten geboten ist, den Verfolgten aus der Hand des Verfolgenden zu retten, und zwar auch um den Preis des Lebens des Verfolgers. 1.7 Auf welche Weise? Falls man ihn vermahnt hat und er jenen verfolgt, weil er die Vermahnung nicht angenommen hat, so wird er, weil er ihn weiter verfolgt, getötet. Und wenn es möglich ist, jenen um den Preis eines der Gliedmaßen des Verfolgers zu retten, etwa, daß man ihn mit einem Pfeil oder einem Stein oder mit dem Schwert trifft und seine Hand abschlägt oder sein Bein bricht oder sein Auge blendet, so tut man es. Und wenn es nicht möglich ist, gezielt zu treffen und jenen nur zu retten, indem man den Verfolger tötet, so tötet man ihn, selbst wenn er selber noch nicht getötet hat, denn es heißt (Dtn 25,12): und hat sie ihre Hand ausgestreckt, soll dein Auge keine Schonung kennen.

Notwehr und Selbstverteidigung im jüdischen Recht

367

1.8 Es ist einerlei, ob es sich (wie Dtn 25,12) um seine Schamteile handelt oder um etwas, das mit Lebensgefahr verbunden ist, und es ist einerlei, ob es sich um den Mann handelt, der eine Frau ergriffen hat, der Sinn des Schriftwortes ist, daß man im Fall eines jeden, der seinen Gefährten mit einem tödlichen Schlag zu schlagen gedenkt, den Verfolgten aus der Hand des Verfolgers rettet, und wenn man nicht anders kann, ihn (auch) um das Leben (des Verfolgers) rettet, denn es heißt (Dtn 25,12): soll dein Auge keine Schonung kennen. 1.9 Es ist also ein (positives) Gebot, das Leben des Verfolgers (rodef) nicht zu schonen. Daher haben die Weisen angewiesen, daß im Fall der Schwangeren, die Schwierigkeiten bei der Geburt hat, der Fötus aus ihrem Leib herausgeschnitten werden soll, weil er für sie wie gleichsam als Verfolger gilt, der sie töten will. Wenn aber sein Kopf bereits herausgekommen ist, tut man ihm nichts an, denn man verdrängt kein Leben um ein Leben willen; es ist eben der Lauf der Welt. 1.10 Einerlei, wer seinen Gefährten verfolgt, um ihn zu töten, und wer ein verlobtes Mädchen verfolgt, denn es heißt (Dtn 22,21ff.): Hat das verlobte Mädchen (um Hilfe) geschrieen, und es kommt ihr keiner zu Hilfe ...; kommt ihr einer zu Hilfe, tut er alles, um ihr zu helfen, selbst durch Tötung des Verfolgers. 1.11 Dasselbe gilt für alle übrigen Sexualdelikte, ausgenommen das Vieh. Aber ein männliches rettet man um den Preis des Lebens des Verfolgers so wie im Fall der anderen Sexualdelikte. Aber wenn einer ein Stück Vieh verfolgt, um es zu begatten, oder es verfolgt, um am Sabbat eine Arbeit zu verrichten, oder um einen Fremdkult zu begehen: obwohl es sich beim Sabbat und Fremdkult um Grundlagen der Religion handelt, tötet man ihn nicht, bevor er die Tat nicht vollbracht hat, und dann bringt man ihn vor Gericht und verurteilt ihn, und dann soll er sterben. 1.12 Verfolgte einer eine (zum Beischlaf) Verbotene und hat er sie gefaßt, sich hingelegt und sie beschlafen, wird er, auch wenn er die Tat noch nicht vollbracht hat, erst getötet, wenn er vor Gericht gestellt worden ist. Hat er eine Verbotene verfolgt und andere verfolgten ihn, um sie zu retten, und sie sagte zu ihnen: laß ihn, damit er mich nicht tötet, so hört man nicht auf sie, sondern man bedroht ihn und hindert ihn daran, den Beischlaf zu vollziehen, (auch) um den Preis seiner Gliedmaßen, und wenn sie ihn um den Preis seiner Gliedmaßen nicht hindern können, dann sogar um den Preis seines Lebens, wie wir dargelegt haben. 1.13 Jeder, der um den Preis eines von den Gliedmaßen desjenigen zu retten vermag, sich aber nicht darum bemüht hat, sondern um den Preis des Lebens des Verfolgers gerettet und ihn getötet hat, der gilt als einer, der Blut vergießt und ist des Todes schuldig, doch läßt ihn das Gericht

368

Johann Maier

nicht hinrichten. 1.14 Jeder, der zu retten vermag, aber nicht gerettet hat, übertritt (Lev 19,16): Du darfst nicht gegen das Leben deines Nächsten aufstehen. Desgleichen einer, der seinen Gefährten im Meer untergehen sieht, oder daß Räuber über ihn kommen oder ein wildes Tier über ihn kommt und er ihn persönlich retten könnte, oder andere anheuern könnte, um ihn zu retten, ihn aber nicht gerettet hat. Oder wenn er gehört hat, daß Nichtjuden (goyyim) oder Verräter (moserim) gegen ihn Böses planen oder ihm eine Falle stellen, und er das Ohr seines Gefährten nicht aufgedeckt und es ihm nicht mitgeteilt hat. Oder daß er in bezug auf einen Nichtjuden oder einen Vergewaltiger Bescheid weiß, daß der über seinen Gefährten Vorwürfe erhebt, und er ihn bezüglich seines Gefährten versöhnen und auf diese Weise entfernen könnte, was in seinem Herzen ist, ihn aber nicht versöhnt hat. Alles dergleichen: wer es tut, begeht eine Übertretung bezüglich (Lev 19,16): Du darfst nicht gegen das Leben deines Nächsten aufstehen. 1.15 Wer sieht, daß einer seinen Gefährten verfolgt, um ihn zu töten, oder eine (zum Beischlaf) Verbotene, um sie zu begatten, und er vermag sie zu retten und hat sie nicht gerettet, der hat ein (positives) Gebot mißachtet, und zwar (Dtn 25,12): und hat sie ihre Hand ausgestreckt ..., und er hat zwei Verbote übertreten: (Dtn 25,12) soll dein Auge keine Schonung kennen, und (Lev 19,16): Du darfst nicht gegen das Leben deines Nächsten aufstehen. 1.16 Auch wenn man wegen dieser Verbote keine (Geißel-)Strafe verhängt, weil es sich nicht um Taten (sondern um Unterlassungen) handelt, gelten sie als schwerwiegend. Denn jeder, der ein Leben aus Israel vernichtet, gilt wie einer, der die ganze Welt vernichtet hat, und jeder, der ein Leben aus Israel erhält, gilt wie einer, der die ganze Welt erhalten hat. 11,1 Jeder, der seinen Gefährten mit eigener Hand tötet, ihn etwa mit einem Schwert oder einem Stein tödlich schlägt, oder ihn würgt, bis er tot ist, oder ihn im Feuer verbrennt: wenn er ihn also jedenfalls selber getötet hat, so wird er durch einen Gerichtshof getötet. 11,1 Wer aber einen Totschläger anheuert, um seinen Gefährten zu töten, oder seine Knechte geschickt hat und diese ihn getötet haben, oder wenn er seinen Gefährten gefesselt und dem Löwen und dergleichen vorgeworfen hat, und die Bestie ihn getötet hat, und desgleichen, wer sich selber getötet hat: jeder einzelne von diesen gilt als einer, der Blut vergießt, und die Schuld eines Tötungsdelikts haftet an ihm und er ist des Todes durch den Himmel schuldig, aber es kommt in bezug auf diese zu keinem Prozeß. 11,4 Und woher, daß dies das Recht sei? Es heißt ja (Gen 9,6): wer das Blut des Menschen vergießt, dessen Blut soll durch Menschen vergossen

Notwehr und Selbstverteidigung im jüdischen Recht

369

werden. Das betrifft den, der selber tötet, nicht aber durch einen Beauftragten; euer Blut fordere ich ein für euer Leben (Gen 9,5a) - das betrifft den, der selber tötet, nicht durch einen Beauftragten; euer Blut fordere ich ein entsprechend eurem Leben - das betrifft den, der sich selber tötet, von jedem wilden Tier fordere ich es ein (Gen 9,5b) - das betrifft den, der seinen Gefährten einem wilden Tier ausliefert, damit dieses ihn reißt; von der Hand des Menschen, von jedermann fordere ich ein das Leben des Menschen - das betrifft den, der andere anheuert, um seinen Gefährten zu töten. Und es wird an den drei Stellen ausdrücklich der Begriff 'einfordern' verwendet, also bleibt ihr Urteil dem Himmel vorbehalten. 11.4 Alle diese Mörder und ihresgleichen, die nicht einem gerichtlichen Todesurteil unterliegen, hat der König Israels, wenn er sie durch königliches Recht töten will, gemäß der Ordnung der Welt dazu Vollmacht. Desgleichen, wenn ein Gerichtshof zum Schluß kommt, sie auf Grund des Erfordernisses der Stunde zu töten; wenn die Stunde es erfordert, hat man Vollmacht, zu handeln, so wie man es für richtig hält. 11.5 Hat der König sie nicht getötet und erforderte die Stunde es nicht, die Sache als dringlich zu behandeln, so muß ein Gerichtshof sie in jedem Fall ganz schwer, bis nahe am den Tod, geißeln lassen und sie in einem Gefängnis und Kerker viele Jahre verwahren und sie mit jeder Art Leid peinigen, um die anderen Verbrecher zu schrecken und zu bedrohen, damit ihnen die Sache nicht zu einem Anlaß und zu einem Herzensanstoß werde, und er sagt: 'Siehe, ich ziehe (auch) herum, um meinen Feind auf dem Wege zu töten, wie es ein Gewisser getan hat, und gehe frei aus'. ... IV,10 Die minim, das sind Fremdkulttreibende aus Israel, oder derjenige, der provokativ Übertretungen begeht - selbst wenn er nur provokativ Aas gegessen und Mischgewebe-Kleidung angezogen hat, ist er ein min - und die apiejorosin, und jene, die die Torah und die Prophetie leugnen aus Israel: es ist ein Gebot, sie zu töten. Wenn man die Möglichkeit hat, sie mit dem Schwert zu töten, soll man sie öffentlich töten, und wenn nicht, soll man gegen sie so planmäßig vorgehen, daß ihre Tötung verursacht wird. Wie? Da ist z.B. einer von ihnen, der, wenn jener in eine Zisterne gefallen ist und die Leiter sich in der Zisterne befindet, herkommt und die Leiter entfernt und zu ihm sagt: ,Ich habe es eilig, meinen Sohn vom Dach herabzuholen, und werde sie dir zurückbringen', und desgleichen. IV,11 Aber die Nichtjuden, mit denen wir keinen Krieg haben, und Kleinviehhirten aus Israel und dergleichen, denen verursacht man keine Tötung, doch es ist verboten, sie zu retten, wenn sie dem Tod nahe sind, etwa wenn man einen von ihnen sieht, der ins Meer gefallen

370

Johann Maier

ist: man holt ihn nicht heraus, denn es heißt (Lev 19,16): Du sollst nicht gegen das Leben deines Nächsten aufstehen, und hier handelt es sich nicht um deinen Nächsten. IV, 12 Worum handelt es sich? Um einen israelitischen Übertreter, der in seinem Verbrechen beharrt und dabei ständig wechselt, wie die Kleinviehhirten, die Diebstahl begehen, und jene, die in ihrer Torheit dahingehen. Aber einen Israeliten, der nicht für ständig in seinem Verbrechen beharrt, sondern Vergehen zu seinem persönlichen Behagen begeht, wie einer, der mit Appetit Aas ißt: es ist ein Gebot, ihn zu retten, und es ist verboten, gegen sein Leben aufzustehen.

f) Der zusätzliche Aspekt des moser Unter dem Aspekt des Schadensrechts kommt auch der moser mit ins Spiel, wie bei Mose b. Maimon, Misneh Torah, Hilkot Hovel u-mazziq VIII,10-14 lautet: VIII,10 Es ist erlaubt, den moser an jedem Ort zu töten, sogar heutzutage, da man keine Todesurteile vollstreckt, und zwar ist es erlaubt, ihn zu töten, bevor er ausliefert. Sagt er: ,Da, ich liefere jemanden als Person aus oder etwas von seinem Besitz', und sei es auch nur ein wenig, so hat er sich selbst für die Tötung freigegeben, doch ermahnt man ihn und sagt zu ihm: ,Liefere nicht aus!', und er sich anmaßt zu sagen: ,Nein, ich werde ihn/es ausliefern', dann ist es ein Gebot, ihn zu töten, und jeder, der ihn vorsorglich tötet, geht frei aus. VIII,11 Hat der moser durchgeführt, was er sich vorgenommen hat, und hat er ausgeliefert, dann scheint es mir verboten, ihn zu töten. Allein wenn er verdächtig erscheint, ausliefern zu wollen, ist er zu töten, damit er nicht andere ausliefert. Und es ist allzeit übliche Praxis in allen Städten des Maghreb, die moserim zu töten, die verdächtigt wurden, Besitz aus Israel auszuliefern, und die (überführten) moserim an Nichtjuden auszuliefern, um sie zu töten, sie zu erschlagen und sie gemäß ihrer Freveltat einzukerkern. Desgleichen gilt für jeden, der die Gemeinschaft bedrängt und sie betrübt: es ist erlaubt, sie in die Hand von Nichtjuden auszuliefern. Es ist aber verboten, den Besitz des Ausgelieferten zu vernichten, denn wenn es auch erlaubt ist, ihn leiblich zugrunde zu richten, sein Besitz gebührt seinen Erben. 111,12 Ein rodef, der seinem Gefährten nachtrachtet, um ihn zu töten oder zum Zweck einer Übertretung, und der dabei Geräte zerbrochen hat, ob des Verfolgten oder irgendeines Menschen, ist frei von Ersatzzahlungsleistungen, weil er ja sein Leben eingebüßt hat, denn indem er verfolgte, hat er sich (selber) der Tötung preisgegeben. VIII,13 Ein Verfolgter, der Geräte des Verfolgers zerbrochen hat, geht

Notwehr und Selbstverteidigung im jüdischen Recht

371

frei aus, denn sein Besitz ist nicht wertvoller als sein Leib; aber wenn er das Gerät anderer zerbrochen hat, ist er ersatzpflichtig, denn wer sich durch Besitz seines Gefährten rettet, ist schuldig. VIII,14 Wer einen Verfolger verfolgt, um den Verfolgten zu retten, und die Gerätschaften zerbrochen hat, ob des Verfolgers oder irgendeines Menschen, geht frei aus. Nicht von Rechts wegen, jedoch auf Grund einer taqqanah (Verordnung), damit man es nicht vermeide, zu retten, oder zögert und zur Zeit, da er verfolgt, Überlegungen anstellt. Ein schwerwiegender Schritt ist die Ausweitung der Tötungserlaubnis auf Personen, die als religiöse und gesellschaftliche Dissidenten ins Visier geraten. So bei Maimonides im Misneh Torah, Hilkot Edut XI,10: Die Denunzianten und die Appiqorsim und die Apostaten brauchten die Weisen nicht unter den unzulässigen Zeugen aufzuführen, denn sie haben nur die Frevler Israels aufgeführt. Aber jene aufrührerischen Leugner sind tiefer anzusetzen als die Nichtjuden, denn die Nichtjuden sind weder positiv noch negativ relevant und ihre Frommen haben sogar Anteil an der Kommenden Welt; jene jedoch sind negativ relevant und nicht positiv und sie haben keinen Anteil an der Kommenden Welt. Hilkot Mamrim 111,1-2: Wer nicht die Mündliche Torah bekennt, der ist kein aufrührerischer Altester, der in der Torah genannt wird, sondern der ist unter die Appiqorosim zu rechnen und seine Tötung kann durch jedermann erfolgen. 111,2 Nachdem bekannt geworden ist, daß er die Mündliche Torah verleugnet, hält man ihn für negativ relevant und nicht mehr für positiv relevant, und er ist wie alle die Appiqorosim und die da sagen, die Torah sei nicht vom Himmel, und die Denunzianten und die Apostaten. Denn alle diese gehören nicht zur Gesamtheit Israels; und es bedarf (in Bezug auf sie) keiner Zeugen und keiner Verwarnung und keiner Richter, sondern jeder, der einen von diesen tötet, erfüllt ein großes Gebot und entfernt das Stolperhindernis.

g) Jakob b. Ascher, Arba'ah Turim Jakob b. Ascher (gest. 1340 in Toledo) hat in seiner großen, vierteiligen Gesetzeskompilation die gängige Rechtsauffassung festgehalten und zugleich für die Zukunft weitgehend festgelegt. Sein Werk diente in seiner Struktur und auch inhaltlich als Vorbild für Josef Karos Sulhan Aruk (siehe folgenden

372

Johann Maier

Abschnitt), auf dem die Halakah der Neuzeit hauptsächlich aufbaut. 93 In den Arba'ah Turim, Hosen mispat, lautet § 425: Es ist ein Gebot, die der gerichtlichen Todesstrafe Schuldigen zu richten, und daß der Totschläger in die Asylstädte verbannt wird. Aber nun verhandeln wir keine Kapitalverbrechen, denn schon zur Zeit des Tempels wurden die Todesstrafen aufgehoben, und umso mehr jetzt, da es für ihre Verhandlung eines Gerichtshofs von 23 Mitgliedern bedarf. Und auch Asylstädte haben wir keine mehr, daß man einen Totschläger dahin verbannen könnte. Und der Rab Natronaj Gaon hat geschrieben, daß es in Bezug auf jeglichen Mörder nicht in unserer Hand liegt, ihn zu geißeln oder ihn (in eine Asylstadt) zu verbannen oder ihn zu töten oder ihn zu schlagen, sondern man vertreibt ihn und schlägt ihn im Sinne einer Disziplinarstrafe und man sondert ihn ab von der Gemeinde. Vielleicht hat er das aber nur im Blick auf die Gesetzesbestimmung geschrieben, denn gewiß haben wir es nicht in der Hand, ihn zu richten, wohl aber, was mit ihm zu tun ist, aber daß er wegen der diesbezüglichen Einschränkung nicht darüber gesprochen hat. ... Aber die nicht durch einen Gerichtshof zum Tode Verurteilten werden auch jetzt gerichtet, und um folgende handelt es sich: Der seinen Gefährten verfolgt (rodef), um ihn zu töten, weil es ein Gebot ist für jeden, der ihn als Verfolger sieht, daß er ihn tötet, um den verfolgten zu retten, selbst wenn es sich um einen Minderjährigen handelt. Wie (verfährt man)? - man vermahnt ihn, daß er, falls er jenen tötet, man ihn töten werde, und wenn er jenen weiter verfolgt, wird er, auch wenn er die Vermahnung nicht erhalten hat und wenn er weiterhin verfolgt, getötet. Doch braucht man ihn wohl nur zu vermahnen, um ihm bekannt zu geben, daß der Verfolgte ein Israelii ist. Und wenn man imstande ist, den Verfolgten um den Preis eines der Gliedmaßen des Verfolgers zu retten, ist es verboten, ihn zu töten. Und der RMB"M hat geschrieben: War er imstande, ihn (den Verfolgten) um den Preis eines seiner (des Angreifers) Gliedmaßen zu retten, und hat es nicht getan, sondern ihn getötet, so ist der einer, der Blut vergießt und des Todes schuldig. Aber man tötet ihn nicht auf Grund eines Gerichtsurteils, und ich weiß nicht, wann einen, der des Todes schuldig ist, nicht ein Gerichtshof zum Tode verurteilt. Desgleichen, wer irgendeiner für den Geschlechtsverkehr Verbotenen nachjagt, um ihr Gewalt anzutun, ob es sich um durch einen Gerichtshof zum Tode zu Verurteilenden handelt oder um einen der Ausrottungsstrafe Schuldigen, oder um den, der dem Männlichen nachjagt - man soll ihn (den Bedrohten) um den Preis des Lebens (des Verfolgers) retten, und es ist ein Gebot, ihn zu töten, 93

Tur 'im kol ha-mefaresim, .., I-XX, Jerusalem 1998.

Notwehr und Selbstverteidigung im jüdischen Recht

373

um jenen zu retten. Aber wenn einer einem Vieh nachjagt, um es zu begatten, oder um eines von all den Geboten zu übertreten, die in der Torah genannt werden, auch wenn es darum geht, den Sabbat zu entweihen oder um Götzendienst zu treiben: er wird nur durch einen Gerichtshof und mit Vermahnung und Zeugen getötet. Und alle diese Getöteten sind nur vor dem Zeitpunkt des vollbrachten Vergehens zu töten, wenn sie dieses bereits begangen haben. Selbst wenn es noch nicht vollendet ist, sondern er es anzugehen im Begriff ist, ist man nicht befugt, ihn zu töten. Und wenn sie (die Bedrohte) sagt: ,laßt ihn gewähren und tötet ihn nicht', hört man nicht auf sie. Wer durch einen Einbruch herein kommt: es ist ebenfalls erlaubt, ihn zu töten, und der Grund ist, daß er als ein rodef eingeschätzt wird, der mit mörderischer Absicht hereinkommt, zwar riskiert kein Mensch sein Leben für sein Gut, aber der Hausbesitzer stellt sich gewiß vor seine Habe, um es zu retten, und jener erhebt sich dann gegen ihn und tötet ihn. Daher sagte die Torah an, ihn zu töten, um den Besitzer der Habe zu retten. Demgemäß wird er nur getötet, wenn man sicher weiß, daß er, falls sich ihm der Besitzer der Habe entgegenstellt, um seine Habe zu retten, dieser sich gegen ihn erheben und ihn töten wird. Um wen handelt es sich? Jedermann unterliegt dieser Annahme, und man kann ihn töten, es sei denn, man weiß, daß der Eindringling ein Freund des Besitzers der Habe ist und diesen nicht töten werde, auch wenn dieser sich ihm entgegenstellt, um seine Habe zu retten, und desgleichen ist, wenn der Vater beim Sohn eindringt, anzunehmen, daß er nicht kommt, um ihn zu töten, denn das Erbarmen eines Vaters waltet über seinen Sohn. Der RMB"M hat geschrieben (Hilkot genevah IX,8): Einerlei ist der, welcher einbricht, und der Dieb, der auf dem Dach eines Menschen angetroffen wird, oder in seinem Hof, oder in seinem eingefriedeten Außenhof, ob bei Tag oder bei Nacht. Und warum heißt es (Ex 22,1) ,beim Einbruch'? - Weil die meisten Diebe in der Nacht durch einen Einbruch eindringen. Aber wer durch einen Einbruch sein Feld betritt oder seine Hütte oder sein Gehege, in bezug auf den besteht eine Blutschuld, denn es ist anzunehmen, daß er nur wegen einer Sache gekommen ist, da die meisten Besitzer sich nicht an diesen Orten aufhalten. Desgleichen beim Dieb, der gestohlen hat und durch den Einbruch hinausgeht, sich also umgewandt hat: in bezug auf ihn besteht eine Blutschuld. Desgleichen, wenn ihn Zeugen umstellt haben oder Leute: obwohl er sich noch im Verfügungsbereich jenes befindet, der ihm entgegengekommen ist, wird er nicht getötet. Und es braucht nicht erwähnt zu werden, daß er, falls man ihn vor Gericht angeklagt hat, nicht getötet wird. Soweit (RMB"M). Und der R'B"D (R. Abraham b. David) hat geschrieben: Obwohl die Weisen wenn über ihn aufgestrahlt ist (Ex 22,2a) bildlich erklärt haben, gilt doch, daß die Schrift ihren Wortsinn nicht verliert, und er also

374

Johann Maier

bei Tage nicht befugt ist, ihn zu töten. Weil ein Dieb am Tage nur heimlich kommt und sofort wieder heimlich flieht und sich nicht aufhält, um viel Hab und Gut zu stehlen, und sich nicht den Besitzern entgegenstellt, um sie zu töten, ausgenommen ein Dieb in der Nacht, denn der weiß, daß der Hausbesitzer zuhause ist, und so kommt er, um ihn zu töten oder um getötet zu werden. Aber bei einem Dieb bei Tage ist der Hausbesitzer nicht zuhause und es handelt sich um eine gewöhnliche Entwendung. Daher und aus diesem Grund gilt auch, daß bei Nacht, indem er durch den Einbruch eindringt, er im Sinn hat, den Besitzer zu töten; aber wenn er durch dessen Dach oder dessen Hof hereinkommt, ist anzunehmen, daß er nicht im Sinn hat, den Besitzer zu töten, sondern daß er flieht, wenn dieser ihm entgegentritt, weil er dessen Haus nur betreten hat, um einen Weg hinein zu finden, wie die Weisen gesagt haben: ,Eine Bresche ruft den Dieb herbei'. Wer zu einer Nichtjüdin kommt: Wer für den NAMEN (Gott) eifert, kann ihn töten, wenn er aber vor einen Gerichtshof gekommen ist, um verhört zu werden, weist man jenen nicht an, ihn zu töten, doch wenn er von sich aus gegen Sünder eifert und ihn töten will, hat er dazu die Vollmacht, und zwar genau zur Zeit der Tat und in Öffentlichkeit, jedoch unauffällig. Wenn aber der Begattende fortgegangen ist, ist der Eiferer (Zelot) nicht befugt, ihn zu töten. Und selbst wenn er noch nicht weggegangen ist und den Eiferer getötet hat, wird er nicht dafür getötet. Hat ein anderer Mensch den Eiferer (in diesem Fall erscheint er ja als rodef) getötet, um den Begattenden zu retten, wird er dafür getötet. Minim Israels, das sind Fremdkulttreibende, und Appiqorosim, das sind diejenigen, die die Prophetie und die Mündliche Torah leugnen, und jene, die eines von all den Geboten übertreten, um Ärgernis zu erregen, die stuft man tiefer ein. Wer einen solchen sieht und er es vermag, ihn öffentlich zu töten, soll es tun, und wenn nicht, komme er durch eine List über ihn. Wie? Ist er in eine Zisterne gefallen und es gibt in der Zisterne eine Leiter, nehme er sie unter einem Vorwand fort, indem er ihm sagt:,Siehe, ich brauche sie, um meinen Sohn vom Dach zu holen', und desgleichen. Aber die Kleinviehhirten und dergleichen, die ständig Übertretungen begehen, bringt man nicht in eine Zisterne, um ihren Tod zu bewirken, doch wenn sie in eine Zisterne hinunter gekommen sind, braucht man sie nicht heraufbringen, denn es heißt (Lev 19,16): du sollst nicht aufstehen gegen das Leben deines Nächsten, und ein solcher ist nicht dein Nächster.

Notwehr und Selbstverteidigung im jüdischen Recht

375

8. Josef Karo, der Sulhan Aruk und die Halakah in seinem Kielwasser Josef Karo (gest. 1575 in Safed, Galiläa) hat die Arba'ah Turim des Jakob b. Ascher zweimal bearbeitet, einmal in einem umfangreichen Kommentar mit dem Titel Bet Josef, zum andern mit dem allgemein maßgeblich gewordenen Kodex Sulhan Aruk. Josef Karo war Sefarde, die Adaptierung an die aschkenasische Tradition erfolgte durch Mose b. Israel Isseries in Krakau, der schon den Bet Josef des Josef Karo kommentiert hatte. Sein Kommentar zum Sulhan Aruk wurde unter dem Titel Mappat ha-Aruk (kurz: Mappah) bekannt und in der Folge mit dem Text fast regelmäßig abgedruckt. 94 Dazu kam eine Serie von weiteren Kommentaren und Superkommentaren und zahllose Dezisionen und Novellen zu einzelnen Teilen. Sulhan Aruk, 'Orah hayyim § 329 behandelt die gebotene Lebensbewahrung. In Absatz 6-7 wird im Fall einer Gefährdung durch Nichtjuden festgelegt, daß eine Sabbatentweihung zur bewaffneten Abwendung der Gefahr erlaubt ist, falls es um Menschenleben oder um das Schicksal einer Nachbargemeinde geht. § 329,8 lautet: „Wer ein Schiff sieht, auf dem es Israeliten gibt und das im Meer schiffbrüchig wird, und desgleichen. Im Fall eines reißenden Flusses und (desgleichen) im Fall eines Individuums, das von einem Gewalthaber verfolgt wird: es ist ein Gebot für jedermann, dafür den Sabbat zu entweihen, um sie zu retten". Sulhan Aruk, Hosen mispat § 388 betrifft Schadensfälle, und in Abs. 2-5 insbesondere Fälle, in denen jemand von sich selbst aus oder unter Druck etwas ausliefert und dafür unter Umständen ersatzpflichtig wird. 388,2 Wer Besitztum an einen Gewalthaber ausliefert, sei es an einen götzendienerischen Gewalthaber oder an einen gewaltausübenden Israeliten, ist schuldig, Ersatz vom Besten seiner Besitztümer zu leisten, für alles, was der Gewalthaber genommen hat, auch wenn es der moser nicht selber genommen und in die Hand jenes ausgeliefert, sondern es nur ausspioniert hat. Und falls er verstorben ist, treibt man es von seinen Erben ein, wie bei allen Schadensverursachern. ... Wenn es der moser von sich aus gezeigt hat. Wenn ihn aber ein Götzendiener oder ein Israelit unter Druck gesetzt hat, es zu zeigen, und er es gezeigt hat, so geht er von Ersatzleistungen frei aus. Wenn er es aber genommen und in dessen Hand übergeben hat, ist er, obschon er unter Druck war, zu Ersatzleistung verpflichtet, denn wer sich mittels des Besitzes seines Gefährten rettet, ist schuldig. Wie? Wenn der König verordnet hat, ihm Wein oder Stroh und dergleichen Dinge zu liefern, und ein moser stellte sich hin und sagte: ,Es gibt jemanden, der hat ein Weinlager oder Stroh

94

Krakau 1569/71, Amsterdam 1711 etc.; Jerusalem 1971.

376

Johann Maier

an einem bestimmten Ort, und sie gehen hin und nehmen es, ist er zu Ersatzleistung verpflichtet'. 388,3 Hat der König diesen moser unter Druck gesetzt, bis er ihm den Besitz seines Gefährten zeigte, der vor ihm geflohen war, und er zeigte es ihm wegen des Druckes, so geht er frei aus; denn zeigt er es ihm (in diesem Fall) nicht, würde ihn der schlagen oder ihn töten. 388,4 Hat er das Besitztum seines Gefährten genommen und es dem Erpresser übergeben, ist er schuldig, Ersatz zu leisten; auch wenn der König ihn gezwungen hat, es herbei zu bringen. § 388,8 bestimmt, daß ein moser nicht vereidigt wird, denn er ist als Zeuge unzulässig, § 388,9 verbietet, irgendetwas oder irgendeinen aus Israel an Götzendiener auszuliefern Viel diskutiert wurde § 388,10ff.: § 388,10 Es ist erlaubt, den moser zu töten, selbst zu dieser Zeit. Und zwar ist es erlaubt, ihn zu töten, bevor er ausliefert. Wenn er sagt: ,Ich liefere einen bestimmten Menschen in seinem Leibe oder in Bezug auf seinen Besitz aus', so hat er, auch wenn es sich nur um wenig Wert handelt, sich selber der Tötung preisgegeben. Und man weist ihn zurecht und sagt zu ihm: ,Liefere nicht aus!', und wenn er sich erdreistet und sagt: ,Nein, ich werde ihn ausliefern!', ist es ein Gebot, ihn zu töten, und jeder, der ihn zuerst tötet, hat verdienstlich gehandelt. [Dies gilt sofern es nicht möglich ist, ihn um den Preis eines seiner Gliedmaßen vom Vorhaben abzubringen.] 388.11 Hat der moser sein Vorhaben ausgeführt, ist es verboten, ihn zu töten; allein solang von ihm angenommen wird, daß er, auszuliefern beabsichtigt; wird er getötet, damit er nicht auch noch andere ausliefern kann. 388.12 Jeder, der die Allgemeinheit ausliefert und sie in Bedrängnis bringt: es ist erlaubt, ihn in die Hand gewalttätiger Götzendiener auszuliefern, um ihn zu schlagen, in Ketten zu legen und ihn zu bestrafen; aber wegen der Bedrängnis eines Einzelnen (allein) ist es verboten, ihn auszuliefern. 388.13 Es ist verboten, den Besitz eines moser zu vernichten, obwohl es erlaubt ist, seinen Leib zu vernichten, denn sein Besitz gebührt seinen Erben. 388.14 Einen moser betreffend nimmt man eine Zeugenaussage an, aber nicht vor ihm selber. 388.15 Wer im Verdacht steht, daß er dreimal Israeliten oder deren Besitz in die Hand von Gewalthabern ausgeliefert hat: man sucht Rat und List, um ihn aus der Welt auszumerzen. [Entgegen bestehender Verbote bestraft man ihn nach Gutdünken der Richter] 388.16 Ausgaben, die man für das Ausmerzen eines moser gemacht hat:

Notwehr und Selbstverteidigung im jüdischen Recht

377

alle, die in der Stadt wohnen, sind verpflichtet, sie zu begleichen, selbst jene, die an einem anderen Ort Steuer eintreiben. In dichtem Anschluß an den entsprechenden Paragraphen in den Arba'ah Turim formuliere Josef Karo im Sulhan Aruk, Hosen mispat § 425: 425, 1 [Siehe, alle durch das Gericht zum Tod Verurteilten: es liegt in dieser Zeit nicht in unserer Macht, sie zu geißeln oder sie zu verbannen oder sie zu töten oder sie zu schlagen. Vielmehr vertreibt man sie und sondert sie ab von der Gemeinde. Und all das von Seiten des Gerichts. Wenn aber der Gerichtshof sieht, daß es sich um ein Erfordernis der Stunde und um die Beschränkung einer Sache handelt, können sie ihn nach Gutdünken bestrafen, wie es oben § 2 ausgeführt worden ist Und das gerade bei Kapitalprozessen, bei denen man eines Gerichtshofs bedarf. Aber die ohne Gerichtshof Getöteten werden auch jetzt verurteilt, wie ausgeführt wird.] Der seinen Gefährten verfolgt, um ihn zu töten, und man hat ihn vermahnt, der gilt als einer, der ihm nachstellt, selbst wenn der Verfolgende minderjährig ist. Denn allen Israeliten ist es befohlen, ihn um ein Glied der Gliedmaßen des Verfolgers wegen zu retten, und wenn sie das nicht bewerkstelligen können und ihn nur retten können, wenn sie den Verfolger töten, dann tötet man ihn, auch wenn der noch nicht getötet hat. [Der durch einen Einbruch kommt, um zu stehlen, der gilt auch als rodef (Verfolger). Wenn aber bekannt ist, daß er nur wegen einer Wertsache gekommen ist, dann darf ihn der Besitzer, auch wenn er ihm gegenübersteht, nicht töten: es ist verboten, ihn zu töten. Betrachte die Worte des Tur in diesem Paragraphen. Wer die Allgemeinheit gefährdet, wie einer, der sich mit Fälschungen befaßt an einem Ort, wo die Königreiche Aufsicht üben, der ist wie ein rodef zu beurteilen, und es ist erlaubt, ihn der Herrschaft auszuliefern, wie es oben § 388,12 ausgeführt worden ist.] 425,2 Demgemäß ist es erlaubt, der Schwangeren, die beim Gebären Schwierigkeiten hat, den Fötus aus ihrem Leib zu schneiden, sei es durch eine Medizin, sei es durch eine Handlung, weil er wie einer gilt, der sie verfolgt, um sie zu töten. Aber wenn sein Kopf herausgekommen ist, tut man ihm nichts an, denn man stellt nicht ein Leben dem anderen hintan; es handelt sich dabei um den Lauf der Welt. § 425,3: Und desgleichen der, welcher hinter einem Mann oder hinter einer von den für Geschlechtsbeziehungen Verbotenen her ist: abgesehen vom Vieh, rettet man den um des Lebens des Verfolgers willen. Und war er hinter einer für Geschlechtsbeziehung Verbotenen her und hat sie gepackt und ist bei ihr gelegen, während sie verboten war, den tötet man nicht, auch wenn er den Geschlechtsverkehr noch nicht vollendet hat, bevor er nicht vor Gericht gestellt worden ist.

378

Johann Maier

§ 425,4 Wer eine zum Geschlechtsverkehr Verbotene verfolgt, und andere verfolgen ihn, um sie zu retten, und sie sagt zu ihnen: ,Laßt ihn, damit er mich nicht tötet', so hört man nicht auf sie, sondern man erschreckt ihn und hindert ihn durch Schlagen seiner Gliedmaßen, und bringen sie es anhand seiner Gliedmaßen nicht zustande, dann eben sogar um den Preis seines Lebens. § 425,5 ,Ein Appiqoros aus Israel, und zwar handelt es sich um Götzendienst oder um einen, der provokativ Übertretungen begeht, selbst wenn er Aas gegessen oder Mischgewebe getragen hat, um zu provozieren: der Appiqoros - also diejenigen aus Israel, die die Torah und die Prophetie verleugnen, es ist ein Gebot, sie zu töten. Wenn man die Macht hat, sie öffentlich zu töten, soll man sie töten, und wenn nicht, soll man ihnen auflauern, bis sich die Gelegenheit zu ihrer Tötung ergibt. Wie? Siehe, einer von ihnen fiel in eine Zisterne und die Leiter steht in der Zisterne. In dem Fall kommt einer zuvor und nimmt sie weg und sagt: ,Siehe, ich habe es eilig, meinen Sohn vom Dach zu holen, danach bringe ich sie dir zurück!', und desgleichen. Aber Götzendiener, zwischen denen und uns kein Kriegszustand herrscht, und einen Kleinviehhirten aus Israel an einem Ort, wo die Felder einem Israeliten gehören, und desgleichen, denen verursacht man keinen Tod; doch es ist verboten, sie zu retten ...'. Die auf dem Sulhan Aruk fußende Halakah der folgenden Jahrhunderte weicht von den skizzierten Grundlinien nur wenig ab, behandelt jedoch sehr ausführlich mögliche Umstände und vor allem Bedingungen, die eine Vermeidung der Tötung durch Beschränkung der Gewaltanwendung auf Körperteile des rodef rechtfertigen. So sehr hier die Sorge um die Lebensbewahrung auch des Delinquenten zum Zuge kommt, so streng bleibt die Haltung gegenüber dem Denunzianten (moser!maisin), insbesondere, wenn sein Treiben mehr als individuelle Belange berührt.95 Demgemäß führt die in bestimmten Fällen naheliegende Kombination der Begriffe rodef und moser auch zu einer Verschärfung der Beurteilung. Prinzipiell blieb die Thematik bis heute auf diesen Linien aktuell.96

95 96

Zahlreiche Belege sind auf der in ausgezeichneter Qualität erstellten CD des Bar Ilan Responsa-Project Version 12, Ramat Gan 2004, zu finden. Tz. MAGENTZA, „Be-din rodef", in Ha-Darom 50 (1979/80), 206-215; I.D. FRIMER, „Hagdarat din rodef", in Or ha-Mizrah 32 (1982/3), 325-337; DERS., „Berur kawwanat rodef", in Or ha-Mizrah 31 (1983/4), 309-327; DERS., „Ha-rodef le-lo asmah", in Or haMizrah 33 (1985/6), 94-112; B.A. BRODY, The Economics of the Laws of 'rodef, in S'vara 1,1 (1990), 67-69; CH. KAHN, „Mesirah la-'KW"M kede le-hassil 'asmo me-ones ο hezzeq mammon", in Am ha-torah 13 ( 3 1995/6), 69-78; B.Z. BENEDICT, „Hitnahagut se-hi' begeder malsinut", in Torah se-be-'al peh 41 (1989/90), 79-83; SH. GOREN, „Maisin u-moser le-'or ha-halakah", in Ha-Tzofeh 19 (1986/7), 5; CH. E. GUTMANN, Dine nirdaf we-rodef umassil me-ha-rodef ba-neziqin u-ba-hiyyub taslumin se-hizziqu u-qesat dine rodef, we-quntres

Notwehr und Selbstverteidigung im jüdischen Recht

379

9. Moderne Problemfelder a) Ex 22,l-2a als Beleg für erlaubte Gewaltanwendung Seit den Anschlägen am 11. Sept. 2001 hat ein enges Zusammenspiel christlichfundamentalistischer und jüdisch-fundamentalistischer Tendenzen in den USA und in Israel in der Konfrontation mit entsprechenden islamischfundamentalistischen Strömungen weltpolitische Bedeutung erlangt.97 Die Gefährlichkeit dieser Tendenzen besteht in der eindeutigen Unterordnung des normalen staatlichen und des internationalen Rechts unter das vermeintliche offenbarte Recht und der Ansprüche anderer unter die eigenen, die als gottgewollt und gottverbrieft verstanden werden. In solchen Kontexten erhält auch das Selbstverteidigungsrecht eine entsprechend einseitige Definition: es steht nur der eigenen Seite zu, aktiver Widerstand dagegen wird als „Terror" qualifiziert und daher haben die Normen der Genfer Konvention, die Charta der Vereinten Nationen und die allgemeinen Menschenrechte dabei auch nur sekundäre Bedeutung oder sie werden gar als Manifestationen einer feindlichen Einstellung gewertet. Auf diesem politisch-religiösen Hintergrund hat auch die rechtsgeschichtliche Entwicklung im traditionellen Judentum eine unvermutet aktuelle und heftig umstrittene Wende erfahren.

b) Jüdische Existenz im modernen Staat Unter fremder Oberherrschaft fiel es oft sehr schwer, dem Prinzip dina demalkuta dina entsprechend das eigene jüdische Recht dem fremden Recht unterzuordnen, und entsprechend gravierend wurde die Tatsache empfunden, daß einzelne Juden der fremden Herrschaft zu Diensten waren und als moserim (Denunzianten) die eigenen Bundesmitglieder schädigten oder gar in ihrer Existenz als Personen bedrohten. Unter einer Gewaltherrschaft mußte dergleichen zu schwierigen Konfliktsituationen führen. Unter den Bedingungen des NS-Terrors bzw. in einem Konzentrationslager noch weit mehr, denn deren Organisation funktionierte weithin auf einer internen „Selbstverwaltung". „Judenräte" und KZ-Kapos und dergleichen haben bei Betroffenen nicht selten den Eindruck erweckt, eher auf der feindlichen Seite zu stehen,98 und darum kam es später auch gelegentlich zu Gewalttaten

97

98

sikkum ha-devarim, u-be-sofo derus ba-sugiya de-rodef, Bne Berak 2000/01; SH. RIVKIN, „Behagdarat dine rodef", in Ha-Darom 55 (1985/6), 101-118. Krasse Beispiele für diesen bedingungslos pro-israelischen und US-egozentrischen „christlichen" Fundamentalismus: M.D. EVANS, Beyond Iraq, New York 2003; M.D. EVANS, M. EVANS, The American Prophecies. Ancient Scriptures Reveal Our Nation's Future, New York 2004. Vgl. dazu ζ. Β. das Material in CHR. R. BROWNINGS, „The Reports of a Jewish

380

Johann Maier

gegenüber Personen, denen man Kollaboration nachsagte." In einem modernen, demokratischen Rechtsstaat kann das fremde Recht kaum mehr als Un-recht gewertet werden. Dabei stellt sich auch die Frage des Selbstverteidigungsrechts bzw. der Notwehr gegen staatliche Gewalt neu. Allerdings stehen in weiten Bereichen jüdisches und fremdes Recht weiterhin in Konkurrenz und so blieb auch umstritten, wie weit die Loyalität zum modernen Staat mit der gebotenen Solidarität mit den Bundesmitgliedern konfliktlos vereint werden kann. Dergleichen wurde insbesondere im Blick auf die Vereinbarkeit von jüdischem und staatlichem Recht in den USA eingehend diskutiert, und zwar auch speziell im Blick auf „informers", also Juden, die sich verpflichtet sehen, als loyale Staatsbürger jüdische Gesetzesübertreter zur Anzeige zu bringen. Die halakischen Autoritäten urteilen in solchen Fragen durchaus nicht einheitlich.100 Für den Kontext hier gipfelt das in der Frage, ob man als Jude gegen einen Mitjuden bei nichtjüdischen staatlichen Behörden eine Strafanzeige erstatten darf, ohne innerhalb der eigenen Gruppe in den Ruch eines malsin/moser und im Extremfall der Existenzgefährdung gar eines rodef zu geraten. Umgekehrt nimmt man das Risiko auf sich, von außen als Person und eventuell gar als Vereinigung angesehen zu werden, die das geltende staatliche Recht zu unterlaufen sucht. Daher wird zur Vermeidung einer „Entweihung des NAMENS (Gottes) in der Öffentlichkeit" von den religiösen und halakischen Autoritäten empfohlen, Rücksicht auf die nichtjüdische öffentliche Meinung zu nehmen und sich in manchen Dingen lieber zu fügen, als die jüdische Gemeinschaft in ein schlechtes Licht zu rücken.

c) Unter jüdischer Regierung Mit der Gründung des Staates Israel als eines „jüdischen Staates" war die alte Dichotomie von jüdischem Recht und staatlichem Recht keineswegs behoben, sondern nur verschoben, 101 daher blieben auch die Vorbehalte bezüglich einer ,informer' in the Warshaw Ghetto. Selected documents", in Yad wa-Shem Studies 17 (1986), 247-294. Umfassender im historischen Kontext: D. RABINOVICI, Instanzen der Ohnmacht, Frankfurt/M. 2000 [Betrifft die Wiener Kultusgemeinde]; D. MLCHMAN, Die Historiographie der Shoah aus jüdischer Sicht, Hamburg 2002. Ferner s. I.J. ROSENBAUM, The Holocaust and Halakhah, New York 1976; H.J. ZLMMELS, The Echo of the Nazi Holocaust in Rabbinic Literature, New York 1977; ROSENBERG (ed.), Theological and Halakhic reflections (s.o. Anm. 20), New York 1992. 99 In Israel ermordeten z.B. am 7. März 1957 drei Rechtsextremisten R. Kasztner wegen seiner Tätigkeit während des 2. Weltkrieges in Ungarn. 100 M.J. BROYDE, „Informing on Others for Violating American Law: A Jewish Law View", in Jewish Law - Commentary Opinion (im Internet), 2004. 101 L. SCHIRER, Israelisches und jüdisches Recht: Die Halakhah als lebendes Recht in Israel. Eine Auseinandersetzung mit der Arbeit von Menachem Elon, EHS 11/2407, Frankfurt/M. 1998.

381

Notwehr u n d Selbstverteidigung im jüdischen Recht

Anzeigepflicht von Vergehen Einzelner gegen staatliches Recht unter orthodoxen Autoritäten umstritten und aktuell. Das hat sich auch nach 1985, als Israel als „der Staat des jüdischen Volkes" neu definiert wurde, nicht verändert, obwohl der Solidarisierungszwang stärker zur Geltung kam. Immerhin ergab sich die Frage, ob ein jüdischer Staat überhaupt unter die Kategorien des rodef und moser fallen kann.102 Die Beantwortung hängt natürlich davon ab, wie man die bestehende Diskrepanz zwischen jüdischem Recht und staatlich-israelischem Recht einschätzt. In der Mehrzahl der diskutierten Fälle reduziert sich die Verwendung des Begriffes auf Alltagssituationen ohne besonders weitreichende Bedeutung, wie etwa auf eine Anzeige wegen eines unbewilligten Baus103 oder wegen hartnäckiger Störung und Behinderung durch Parken auf einem Gehsteig. 104 Gewichtig ist hingegen die Frage, ob der Staat Israel einen Juden an einen anderen Staat ausliefern darf, ohne in die Rolle des moser zu verfallen. Das Recht des Staates Israel hat eine Auslieferung grundsätzlich ausgeschlossen, doch unter gewissen Umständen gestattet, weshalb die Diskussion darüber anhält. Die orthodoxen Autoritäten verfechten dabei natürlich eine sehr restriktive Linie, säkulare Juristen urteilen sachbezogener. 105 Viel bedeutender war und ist das Außenverhältnis, also die Verteidigung eines jüdischen Gemeinwesens - und nun eben eines jüdischen Staates - gegen äußere Feinde. Ein negatives Verhältnis besteht weithin gegenüber internationalem Recht und UN-Beschlüssen bzw. UN-Resolutionen, sie werden in der Regel nicht als vorrangige Rechtsquellen eingestuft. Auf dem Gebiet der Sicherheitspolitik unterliegt das meiste kriegsrechtlichen Kriterien und ist insofern hier nicht zu behandeln, obschon jede Aktion, auch ein Angriff, prinzipiell mit dem Selbstverteidigungsrecht gerechtfertigt wird und trotz enormer Unterschiede in den Kräfteverhältnissen eine ständige Notwehrsituation inszeniert wird. Gleichwohl haben bestimmte Maßnahmen heftige Debatten ausgelöst. So hat der extensive Schuß-waffengebrauch und die vorsorgliche Ermordung mutmaßlicher Terroristen heftige Kontroversen und in der Armee Israels sogar Befehlsverweigerungen nach sich gezogen. 106 Aus

102 E. SHOCHETMAN, „Silton yehudi eno yakol li-hyot , r o d e f " , in Techumim

19 (1998/9),

4CM8. 103 Y. BAUM, „ H a - m o s e r havero la-rasut 'al beniyyah bilti h u q q i t " , in 'Or Yisrael

23

(2000/01), 6 8 - 6 9 . 104 M. HALBERSTAM, „Hetter mesirah

la-siltonot

sei rodef

hahaniyyat mekonito 'al ha-midrakah", in Qol le-Ya'aqov

u-mesa'er

la-rabbim

105 J.D. BLEICH, „Hasgarat posea' yehudi se-barah le-eres Yisra el", Or ha-Mizrach (1987), 2 4 7 - 2 6 9 ; DERS., „Extradition", in Techumin

ba-

1 (1987/8), 2 5 - 2 7 . 35

8 (1988), 2 9 7 - 3 0 3 ; DERS., „Jewish

L a w and the State's Authority to Punish Crime", in Cardozo Law Review 12 (1991), 8 2 9 830; M. ELON, „Extradition in Jewish L a w " , in Techumin YISRAELI, „Extradition", in Techumin

8 (1988), 2 6 3 - 2 8 6 . 3 0 4 - 3 0 9 ; SH.

8 (1988), 2 8 7 - 2 9 6 .

106 ST. R. DAVID, Fatal Choices. Israel's Politics of Targeted Killing, R a m a t G a n 2002.

382

Johann Maier

halachischer und religiös-ethischer Sicht wurden dazu widersprüchliche Beurteilungen laut, von liberaler Seite her wird die Berechtigung solcher Aktionen energisch bestritten, von orthodoxer Seite aus als Kampfhandlung zum Schutz jüdischen Lebens gutgeheißen, aber unter der Voraussetzung, daß die Verantwortlichen so weit als möglich sicherstellen, daß dabei keine Unschuldigen zu Schaden kommen. Gerade hier liegt aber praktisch das entscheidende Problem bei Tötungen auf Verdacht, ganz abgesehen von „Kollateralschäden" militärischer Aktionen, d.h. von zufällig mitgetroffenen unbeteiligten Erwachsenen und einer erschreckend hohen Zahl von erschossenen und schwer verletzten Kindern. Israels Menschenrechtsorganisationen haben dagegen energisch protestiert und auch versucht, gerichtliche Entscheidungen herbeizuführen, doch mit wenig Erfolg.107 Die offiziell als Terroristenbekämpfung begründete vorsorgliche Tötung gerät sehr leicht in den Kontext des Verhaltens gegenüber den „Feinden Gottes". Wer aber bestimmt im konkreten Fall jeweils, wer zu den „Feinden Gottes" zählt bzw. wer als potentieller Terrorist jüdisches Leben gefährdet, und welcher Art sind die Kriterien für solche Entscheidungen? Es sind politische und militärische Instanzen, die dabei die Ziele vorgeben, die Qualifikation als „Gottesfeinde" von religiöser Seite aus erfolgt einmal durch pauschale Vorverurteilungen und gegebenenfalls auch noch im Nachhinein, sie dient als Mittel zum Zweck der Rechtfertigung von Aktionen, die nach geltendem internationalen Recht eigentlich entsprechende Verfahren nach sich ziehen müßten, was jedoch nicht der Fall sein kann, weil Israel so wie die USA die Kompetenz des internationalen Gerichtshofes in Den Haag bestreitet, soweit eigene Aktionen zur Debatte stehen. Es geht aber auch um jüdische Personen, denen eine „Israel" gefährdende Haltung bzw. Handlungsweise unterstellt wird. Ein solcher Fall ist nach Meinung religiöser Eiferer auch dem gebotenen Haß gegen „Feinde Gottes" auszusetzen, berührt Sachverhalte, bei denen nach jüdischem Recht im Fall eines Rechtsnotstandes ebenso wie beim rodef eine außergerichtliche Tötung legitim ist, zumal noch die Aspekte eines maisin bzw. moser, eines Verräters, Denunzianten bzw. „Auslieferers" mit ins Spiel kommen. Konkret wird z.B. die Ansicht vertreten, daß Politiker, die in bezug auf das „Land Israel" (in welcher Definition auch immer) zu einem territorialen Kompromiß bereit sind, einen Teil dieses Landes „ausliefern" wollen und dementsprechend als moserim zu behandeln sind. Eine als derart gefährlich eingestufte Person kann durch zelotische Selbstjustiz getötet werden, wenn die vorhandenen staatlichen Organe dem vermeintlichen Recht nicht Geltung verschaffen können oder wollen. So kam es bekanntermaßen am 4. Nov. 1995 zur 107 Siehe den knappen, aber sehr sachlichen Bericht v o n N. BUBIS, „Dauerkonflikt in Nahost: Israels umstrittene Tötungspolitik", in Neue Zürcher 2003.

Zeitung,

14. September

383

Notwehr und Selbstverteidigung im jüdischen Recht

Ermordung des Ministerpräsidenten I. Rabin, nachdem er nicht bloß von einzelnen religiösen und politischen Extremisten, sondern auch von seinen bei der darauffolgenden Wahl erfolgreichen - rechtszionistischen politischen Gegnern als Verräter gebrandmarkt worden war.108 Die Meinungen darüber, ob ein solcher Mord berechtigt ist, sind auch unter Orthodoxen freilich geteilt.109 Es ist begreiflich, daß jüdische Bürger vom „dem Staat des jüdischen Volkes" einen angemessenen Schutz und eine entsprechende Garantie des Selbstverteidigungsrechts erwarten, doch diese Erwartungen gehen teilweise sehr weit. 110 Im Vordergrund steht die eigene Bedrohung und die Frage einer effektiven Bekämpfung des „Terrors". Im Extremfall führt dies in ein rechtliches wie moralisches Dilemma mit einem auch innerjüdisch und innerisraelisch akuten Konfliktpotential. Etwa in der Einschätzung der Tat des Dr. Baruch Goldstein, der am 25. Feb. 1994 in Hebron mindestens 29 Palästinenser beim Gebet am Patriarchengrab erschoß und dann mit weiteren Palästinensern, die durch israelische Sicherheitskräfte erschossen wurden, dabei selber ums Leben kam. Er wird von militanten Fundamentalisten als legitimer Zelot und „heiliger" Märtyrer verehrt, der Feinde getötet hat, um Schlimmeres zu verhüten. Seit dem Attentaten am 11. Sept. 2001 hat sich international ein Begriff des Terrorismus durchgesetzt, der die Grenzen zwischen Kriegsrecht und Strafrecht verschwimmen läßt; Terrorismusbekämpfung wird als Krieg definiert, was weitreichende Folgen hat. Vor allem wird die staatliche Gewalt und die Einengung der Bürger- und Menschenrechte mit dem nationalen Selbstverteidigungsrecht gerechtfertigt,111 und das bis zu „vorsorglichen" Maßnahmen, die weder mit den normalen Gesetzen noch mit internationalem Recht zu vereinbaren sind.112 Die Regierung Israels hat die vermeintlichen

108 M. KARPIN, I. FRIEDMAN, Der Tod des Jitzhak Hamburg

1998; D. MORRISON, Lies:

Israel's

Jerusalem 2000; Y. PERI (ed.), The Assassination CONFIGO (ed.), Koah ha-millim

we-hulsat

Rabin. Secret

Anatomie Service

einer

and

the

Verschwörung, Rabin

Murder,

of Yitzhak Rabin, Stanford UP 2000; M.

ha-da'at.

Ta'amulah,

hasatah

we-hofes

ha-bütuy,

Tel Aviv 2003. 109 J. ZOLDAN, „Pegi'ah be-manhig sibbur (Rabin)", in Tehumim

19 (1998/9), 2 8 - 3 9 .

110 C.O. FLNKELSTEIN, „On the Obligation of the State to Extend a Right of Self-Defense to Its Citizens", in University

of Pennsylvania

Law Review

147 (1999), 1361-1402; I. (E.).

GROSS, ,,Ha-'im hu mutar pegi'ah be-mivse'ehen ο sikkul pe'ulot be-mefaqqedehen ke-aqt sei haganah

'asmit? Zekuyot adam mul hovat ha-medinah le-hagen

toseveha", in Qirjat ha-mispat

al

2 (2001/2), 189-237.

111 F. DE ROOSE, „Self-defence and National Defence", in Journal

of Applied

Philosophy

7

(1990), 159-168. 112 ST.

ALEXANDROV,

Self-Defense

Against

the

Use

of

Force

in

International

Law

(Developments in International Law 23) The Hague/London/Boston 1996, 299-352; M.E. O'CONNELL, „Lawful Self-Defense to Terrorism", in University

of Pittsburgh

Law

384

Johann Maier

Vorteile dieser Entwicklung rasch wahrgenommen, und in der Halakah wurde damit die skizzierte Tendenz zur erweiterten Anwendung des rodef-Prinzips verstärkt. Ein Terrorist ist natürlich auch ein rodef, aber zu seiner „Liquidierung" 113 braucht man angesichts des seit dem 11. Sept. 2001 deklarierten „Krieges" gegen den Terror eine Begründung aus dem jüdischen Recht nur mehr zur Bemäntelung oder Bekräftigung. Auch modern-orthodoxe Rechtsgelehrte befürchten, daß diese Entwicklung in eine weder vom Staat noch von den maßgeblichen rabbinischen Instanzen kontrollierbare Art von Selbstjustiz abgleitet. Halakisch ist freilich vieles prinzipiell durch das Gebot der Lebensbewahrung gedeckt, aber wo ist die Grenze und wer setzt die Grenzmarken? Die Torah-Autoritäten stehen im Kriegsfall und in der Frage der Verfügung über das „Land Israel" immer vor der Notwendigkeit dieser Güterabwägung und müssen sich daher auch jetzt fragen, was im konkreten Fall auf längere Sicht eher zur Bewahrung jüdischen Lebens beiträgt Die Kriterien, nach denen dabei ein liberaler Rabbiner urteilt, und jene, die ein orthodoxer Rabbiner voraussetzt, sind jedoch weithin grundverschieden. Ein beredtes Beispiel dafür wurde in der Wochenzeitung „Jüdische Allgemeine" publiziert und kritisch kommentiert. Der Reformrabbiner M. Lerner argumentierte ganz von den allgemeinen Menschrechten und von den ethischen Normen der reformjüdischen Sicht aus. Der orthodoxe Rabbiner J. Cherlow hielt das Gebot der Lebensbewahrung dagegen, argumentierte aber noch im Rahmen einer gemäßigt-orthodoxen Sicht und nicht aus einer nationalistisch oder fundamentalistisch extremen, die zu weit schrofferen Aussagen geführt hätte. Doch das Problem ist eben nicht nur ein juristisches, sondern vor allem ein aktuell politisches. Daher wäre die Lösung auch nur durch eine Politik möglich, die den Rechtsansprüchen beider Seiten gerecht wird, denn die Frage, wer bei wem eindringt oder wer wen verfolgt, wird selbstverständlich konträr beantwortet, zumal der Verfolger fast immer gleich zum Verfolgten wird und umgekehrt. Darum konnte aus rechtsgeschichtlicher Sicht auch keiner der beiden Kontrahenten recht überzeugen, denn die Aktualität der Problematik überlagert den Diskurs mit emotionalen Begleiterscheinungen und letztlich redeten bzw. schrieben die beiden aneinander vorbei.114

Review 63,4 (2002), 8 8 9 - 9 0 8 ; CHR. DOWNES, „Targeted Killings in an A g e of Terror: The Legality of the Y e m e n Strike", in Conflict and Security Law 9 (2004), 2 7 7 - 2 9 4 . 113 M a n verwendet dafür im Hebräischen auch nicht die üblichen Bezeichnungen für „töten", sondern das einschlägige Verb

le-hassel.

114 „ M o r d oder M i z w a : Darf Israel potentielle Attentäter liquidieren?", Allgemeine

in

Jüdische

5. Nov. 2003. Forum. Pro: Y. CHERLOW, „Töten u m des Lebens willen";

Contra: M. LERNER, „Akt der Barbarei".

Hoffnung für die Zukunft: Feststellungen und Spekulationen zum jüdischen Verständnis von Dtn 30,3 von URSULA RAGACS

Der vorliegende Beitrag ist dem Vers Dtn 30,3 und seiner Auslegung in der jüdischen Traditionsliteratur gewidmet. Dabei liegt das Hauptaugenmerk auf einigen wenigen Handschriftenvarianten eines Talmudtextes. Um deutlich zu machen, worum es geht, ist zunächst der Bibelvers selbst zu zitieren. Im hebräischen Original lautet er:

mrr -js'sn -wx π'ώϊπ "7dd

aun -pim imnio1 nx i'nVx mrr> nun i'nVx

Als weit verbreitete, möglichst wortgetreue deutsche Übersetzung, sei die von Zunz zitiert: ...So wird der Ewige dein Gott zurückführen deine Gefangenen und sich dein erbarmen, und dich wieder sammeln aus all den Völkern, dahin der Ewige dein Gott dich zerstreut hat. 2 Gegenüber dem hebräischen Text fällt in der deutschen Übersetzung des Verses folgendes auf: Erstens gibt Zunz das erste mit „zurückführen" wieder, wogegen eingewendet werden könnte, daß das eher einer Hif'ilform des Verbums, als einem Qal entspräche. Zweitens gibt er die Verba, bis auf das letzte, alle in der Zukunft wieder. Mit beidem entspricht Zunz einer der frühesten jüdischen Übersetzungen des Textes in eine andere als die hebräische Sprache. 3

1

Zitiert nach Biblia hebraica stuttgartensia, Verkleinerte Ausgabe 1984.

2

L. ZUNZ, Die vierundzwanzig Tel Aviv 1997.

3

Vgl. dazu auch die Übersetzung der Septuaginta, bzw. für eine nicht-jüdische Übersetzung, die der Vulgata.

Bücher der Heiligen Schrift nach dem masoretischen Text übersetzt,

386

Ursula Ragacs

Die Übersetzung des Targum Onqelos Der Targum Onqelos ist der älteste uns zur Verfügung stehende Targum. Nach Grossfeld 4 dürfte er ursprünglich im Palästina des 2. nachchristlichen Jahrhunderts entstanden, nach Babylonien transferiert und dort im 3. Jahrhundert redaktionell bearbeitet und verschriftlicht worden sein. Nach der Ausgabe von Sperber lautet die aramäische Ubersetzung des Verses Dtn 30,3 im Targum folgendermaßen: ' v - p i a n x'üöi? Van

a i m ι 1 ?» η ' π τ ι ιπι^λ η ' -jnVx ' ν a > m . . . 5 .pnV "inVx

Die englische Übersetzung von Grossfeld lautet: ..., then the Lord your God in His compassion on you will reverse your exile, and reassemble you from all the nations where the Lord your God scattered you. 6 Im Hinblick auf die wörtliche Ubereinstimmung von Bibeltext und Targum Onqelos hält Grossfeld fest: This Targum is the most literal translation of the Pentateuch. The text from which it was prepared was in all essentials the masoretic one. The principal objective was to conform the Targum as closely as possible to the original text, and the grammatical structure of the Hebrew was thus followed closely.7 Vergleicht man Bibeltext und targumische Übersetzung Wort für Wort so fällt auf, daß erstens laut Targum der Qal Perfekt des ersten aw des Bibelverses ein Hif'il Futur sein müßte, und zweitens, daß auch alle anderen Verba im Futur wiedergegeben sind. Bedenkt man jüdisch-exegetische Usancen und die Worte von Grossfeld, so muß angenommen werden, daß die Abweichungen des aramäischen Textes vom hebräischen Vorbild von seinen Erzeugern nicht als solche verstanden worden sind. Das bedingte jedoch offensichtlich nicht, daß 4

B. GROSSFELD, „Bible, Translations", in Ε] 4 (1971), 843-844.

5

Nach Α. SPERBER (ed.), The Bible in Aramaic based on old manuscripts and printed texts, Vol. 1, The Pentateuch according to Targum Onkelos, Leiden 1959, 342-343. Sperber verweist auf einige Varianten des Textes, die alle für das hier behandelte Thema unerheblich sind. Es sei aber angemerkt, daß durch sie festgehalten ist, daß in diversen Drucken und Handschriften das Wort i m V l durch bzw. matt? ersetzt ist.

6

B. GROSSFELD, The Aramaic Bible, Vol. 9, The Targum Onqelos to Deuteronomy, translated with Apparatus, and Notes, Edinburgh/Wilmington 1988, 84. GROSSFELD, „Bible" (s.o. ANM. 4), 844.

7

Z u m jüdischen Verständnis von Dtn 30,3

387

andere Interpreten die Auffassung des Targum unwidersprochen übernahmen.

Drei rabbinische Auslegungen: Erstens: Die Mekilta de Rabbi

Yismael

Die Redaktion der Mekilta de Rabbi Yismael könnte zeitgleich mit der von Targum Onqelos, nämlich in der 2. Hälfte des 3. Jahrhunderts nach Christus, erfolgt sein.8 In diesem Text ist festgehalten, daß, wann immer Israel im Exil war, Gott mit ihm ins Exil gegangen ist; und daß, wann immer Israel aus dem Exil zurückkehrt, das auch Gott mit ihm gemeinsam tun wird. Um zu diesem Textverständnis zu kommen, setzen die Autoren des Textes nicht nur das Verbum 3U? dem Verbum "ITΠ gleich, sondern weisen auch ausdrücklich darauf hin, daß dieses dafür in eben dem Binyan zu verstehen ist, in dem es im biblischen Text geschrieben steht. Nach Lauterbach 9 lautet der Text folgendermaßen: nx

" aun n a x ^ ππώϊ 10 ητηπ n r s w VID'^D ιιιπί» ·ρτη2?^:η "...nun xVx ρ m i x i r x i r m u ; nx i'nVx » a'wm "in -|rmw

Lauterbachs Übersetzung lautet: And when they return in the future, the Shekinah, as it were, will return with them, as it is said: 'That then the Lord thy God will return with thy captivity' (Dtn 30.3) Note that it does not say: 'The Lord will bring back (veheshib) etc. but it says: 'He will return (ve-shab)'.

Zweitens: Der Midras, Sifre Be-midbar Ungefähr dieselbe Entstehungszeit wie für Mekilta - nämlich die Zeit ab der 2. Hälfte des 3. Jahrhunderts nach Christus12 - kann auch für den Midras, Sifre Bemidbar angenommen werden. Für Börner-Klein ist der Text aus Mekilta allem 8

So G. STEMBERGER, Einleitung 8

9

in Talmud und Midrasch,

München, neubearbeitete Auflage

1992,253.

J.Z. LAUTERBACH, Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael: A critical edition on the basis of the manuscripts

and

early editions with an English translation, introduction and notes, Vol. 1, Philadelphia 2 1949. 10

Nach Lauterbach fehlt dieses Wort in den von ihm in seiner Einleitung erwähnten frühen

11

Mekilta Pisha 14 (L. 115).

12

So STEMBERGER, Einleitung

Drucken. (s.o. Anm. 8), 264. Dieser Datierung schließt sich D. BÖRNER-

KLEIN, Der Midrasch Sifre zu Numeri, übersetzt und erklärt, Stuttgart u.a. 1997, 389 an.

388

Ursula Ragacs

Anschein nach in diesen halakhischen Midrasch übernommen worden. 13 Nach Horovitz14 lautet der Text hier folgendermaßen: (j

V

nx -pnVx

a n m ) -jmsw

ή

nun -ιώχιιρ n n n i ? n r s u ? n n n n 15

Dnu>Di...

../n 3tin xVx ΊΏΧ3 xV a'u;m

Börner-Klein übersetzt: Und wenn sie zurückkehren, kehrt die Schekhina mit ihnen zurück, denn es heißt: und der HErr, dein Gott, wird zurückkehren mit deinen Gefangenen. (Dtn 30,3) Es heißt nicht ,er läßt zurückkehren', sondern ,der HErr wird zurückkehren'. 16

Drittens: Der babylonische Talmud Im babylonischen Talmud begegnet uns das Zitat in Megillah 29a wieder. Der Text, wie er in heutigen Drucken und auch im Druck Pesaro 1515 vorliegt, lautet nach letzterem:

3'tpm -jm3tt> nx -pVx » '»xjw nrsw VxrV ·ρτηι? ηχι ".nvVan |'3ö jnas 3U> χιπ γτα umpnw laVa 3un xVx 'öxj xV Bei Börner-Klein folgendermaßen:

und

Elisabeth

Hollender

lautet

der

deutsche

Text

Und auch wenn sie künftig ausgelöst werden, ist die Schekhina mit ihnen, denn es ist gesagt: Der HERR, dein Gott, mit deinen Gefangenen kehrt er zurück (Dtn 30,3). Es ist nicht gesagt S'lSHl, er lässt zurückkehren, sondern 31P1 er kehrt zurück. Das lehrt, dass der Heilige,

13

So BÖRNER-KLEIN, Midrasch Sifre Numeri, a.a.O., 523-524.

14

Im folgenden zitiert nach der Ausgabe H.S. HOROVITZ, Siphre d'be Rab. Fasciculus Siphre ad Numeros adjecto Siphre zutta cum variis lectionibus et adnotationibus,

primus,

Jerusalem 2 1966

(=Leipzig 1917). 15

Sifre Be-midbar, Be-ha'aloteka § 84 (H. 83). Wörtlich derselbe Text findet sich auch in Sifre Be-

16

BÖRNER-KLEIN, Midrasch

midbar, Mas'e § 161 (H. 223). Sifre Numeri (a.a.O.), 142. In der früher üblicherweise zitierten

deutschen Übersetzung von K.G. KUHN, Der tannaitische Midrasch Sifre zu Numeri,

übersetzt

und erklärt, Stuttgart 1959, 227 findet sich der Text in etwas anderen Worten. 17

Der Text nach Druck Pesaro, sowie alle im weiteren wiedergegebenen Handschriftentexte, sind nach der Sol and Evelyn Henkind Talmud Text Databank, herausgegeben durch das Saul Lieberman Institute und das Jewish Theological Seminary of America, zitiert.

Zum jüdischen Verständnis von Dtn 30,3

389

gepriesen sei er, mit ihnen aus den Exilen zurückkehren wird. 18 Nach der Betrachtung der drei Texte aus unterschiedlichen rabbinischen Schriften kann folgendes festgestellt werden: Die rabbinischen Texte referieren ein anderes Verständnis des biblischen Textes als der Targum, wonach das in der Bibel erstgenannte im Qal und nicht im Hif'il aufgefaßt werden muß. Während jedoch zu Mekilta und Sifre Be-midbar keine Varianten vorliegen, die noch andere Kritikpunkte der Rabbinen vermuten lassen, finden sich zum Megillahtext mehrere Handschriften, die auf den ersten Blick auf solche hinweisen könnten.

Handschriftenvarianten In der Handschrift Vatikan 134 lautet die Textstelle: •prni imau; nx f p V x " 19

nun ' j w

... ."pVin i ' n a ' n m ? η ®

VxrnV p i n s

ηχ...

'pnu? m b n a u n x V x i ö x i xV a ' u n

Derselbe Text liegt in MS London (400) Harl. 5508 vor 20 . In der Handschrift Oxford (366)21 lautet die kritische Textstelle: ...3101 xVx '»XJ XV aiP'l... Die Handschrift Göttingen 3 22 bietet die Variante: ...attn xVx ΌΧ3 xV 2 F 1 . . . Nach den beiden ersten Textvarianten scheint sich die rabbinische Kritik, wie in den schon besprochenen Texten, auf die Veränderung des Binyan des Wortes zu beziehen. Die dritte Variante läßt offen, ob der Schreiber das 23 Verbum atP' oder aber den Qal, beziehungsweise Hif'il, des Verbums 311? zu 18

D. BÖRNER-KLEIN, E. HÜLLENDER, Rabbinische Kommentare zum Buch Ester: Der Traktat Megilla, Bd. 1, Leiden ua. 2000, 301. Laut der üblicherweise zitierten deutschen Übersetzung von L. GOLDSCHMIDT, Der babylonische Talmud, nach der ersten zensurfreien Ausgabe unter Berücksichtigung der neueren Ausgaben und handschriftlichen Materials neu übertragen, Bd. 4, Berlin 1931, 119 lautet der Text: „Und auch wenn sie dereinst erlöst werden, wird die Göttlichkeit bei ihnen sein, denn es heißt: der Herr, dein Gott wird deine Gefangenschaft zurückkehren; es heißt nicht zurückbringen, sondern zurückkehren, und dies lehrt, daß der Heilige, gepriesen sei er, mit ihnen aus dem Exil zurückkehren wird".

19

Die im folgenden geografischen und chronologischen Einordnungen der Handschriften sind M. KRUPP, „Manuscripts of the Babylonian Talmud", in The Literature of the Sages, Part 1, hg. v. S. SAFRAI, Maastricht/Philadelphia 1987, 346-366, 363 entnommen. Bei Vatikan 134 handelt es sich demnach um eine italienisch-ashkenasische Handschrift aus dem 13. Jahrhundert.

20

London (400) Harl. 5508 ist eine spanische Handschrift aus dem 13. Jahrhundert. Die Worte l'Tini? und j'pVx liegen hier in den Formen ] Τ Π Γ und "pnVx vor.

21

Oxford (366) Opp. add. fol. 23, ein spanisches Manuskript aus dem 13. Jahrhundert.

22 23

Göttingen 3 ist ein spanisches Manuskript aus dem 13. Jahrhundert. Darauf, daß diese Lesevariante diskutiert worden ist, verweist H.J. FABRY, „DIU'", in

390

Ursula Ragacs

schreiben beabsichtigte. Die vierte Variante macht allerdings stutzig: Folgt man ihr, so könnte man annehmen, daß sich die Kritik der Rabbinen gar nicht auf eine Veränderung des Binyans, sondern auf die Zeitstufe bezieht, in der der biblische Text von seinen Interpreten aufgefaßt wird. Wenn das aber im Fall dieser Handschrift so ist, dann wären vielleicht auch die zwei, beziehungsweise drei, anderen Handschriften so zu verstehen, daß sie einerseits Kritik am verwendeten Binyan, aber andererseits auch an der verwendeten Zeitstufe üben. Würde man die Varianten des babylonischen Talmud im genannten Sinn als rabbinisches Textverständnis von Dtn 30,3 akzeptieren, so müßte man diesen Text anders als bisher ins Deutsche übertragen: Und auch wenn sie in Zukunft erlöst werden, ist die Schekhina mit ihnen, wie es heißt: ,Und der Herr, dein Gott, kehrte mit deinen Gefangenen zurück und erbarmte sich deiner' (Dtn 30,3). Und er wird zurückführen/wird zurückkehren ist nicht gesagt, sondern er kehrte zurück; das lehrt, daß der Heilige, gepriesen sei er, mit ihnen mitten unter den Exilierten zurückkehrte. Diesem Textverständnis nach würde in Dtn 30,3 nicht eine Prophezeiung für die Zukunft Israels vorliegen, sondern die Beschreibung eines bereits eingetretenen Ereignisses, die für Israel auch in Zukunft Hoffnung schöpfen läßt. Gegen die Argumentation mit den Handschriftenvarianten läßt sich einwenden, daß, wie zuvor dargestellt, Juden wie Nichtjuden bereits in der Antike den Deuteronomiumvers in seinem Kontext als Prophezeiung im Hinblick auf zukünftige Ereignisse gesehen haben. Auf Grund dessen lassen alle Varianten, außer der der Handschrift Vatikan 134, sich in diesem Aspekt als solche verstehen, die dem üblichen Textverständnis entsprechen. Demnach ist es wahrscheinlich, daß in MS Vatikan lediglich ein Schreibfehler vorliegt.24 Um aber sicherzugehen, daß dem so ist, ist es notwendig festzustellen, ob nicht vielleicht doch spätere Bibelkommentatoren, die oben vermutete Ansicht vertreten haben.

ThWAT 7 (1993), 1118-1176,1132. Eine einschlägige Untersuchung bietet A. AHUVYA, meaning sometimes 3tt>' sat, rested, was tranquil" [Hebr.], in Leshonenu 39 (1974/75), 2 1 36. 24

Dafür spricht einerseits der Text von MS Vatikan selbst, mit weiteren, vermutlichen Schreibfehlern, andererseits die Tatsache, daß eine jemenitische Handschrift aus 1540 Columbia X893-T141 als einzige die Form a'UMffl aufweist.

391

Z u m jüdischen Verständnis von Dtn 30,3

Drei jüdische Exegeten des Mittelalters: Erstens: Raschi Der bedeutendste jüdische Exeget des Mittelalters, R. Salomo ben Isaak (10401105), kurz Raschi genannt, kommentiert Dtn 30,3 folgendermaßen:

irman /'-μτη^ nx a'wm" airoV iV n>n .^maw nx -pnVx mn* aun • P V X M O I .ONV?* m x a VX-IUR» DV M I T » VID'aa N R A W W ]XAZA 25

.ηπ»ϊ 31»' xwtp ^ v b nVix^ a'nan

Dem Text ist zu entnehmen, daß Raschi lediglich die rabbinische Kritik an der Hif'ilform aufnimmt, jedoch keinen Zweifel im Hinblick auf den Zukunftsaspekt der biblischen Aussage hat. Dementsprechend lautet die üblicherweise zitierte deutsche Übersetzung Bambergers: ,Und der Ewige, dein Gott, wird deine Verbannten zurückführen', er hätte 3'ΒΠΙ (Hif'il) schreiben müssen; unsere Lehrer entnehmen daraus, dass, wenn man so sagen könnte, die Schechina auf Jisrael auch in der Not seiner Verbannung ruht; und wenn Jisrael erlöst wird, schreibt der Ewige die Erlösung von Sich selbst, dass Er mit Jisrael zurückkehren werde... 26

Zweitens: Abraham Ibn Ezra Nach der Ausgabe Weiser 27 kommentiert Raschis jüngerer Zeitgenosse Abraham Ibn Ezra (1089-1164) Dtn 30,3 nicht direkt. In seinem Kommentar zu Dtn 29,28 nimmt er jedoch Dtn 30,3 zu Hilfe, um Dtn 29,27 zu erklären: nnxw ' " 3 Ϊ Χ / π Vx a w n nx Ό ,ηηχ ,ΓΠΠΧ n x Vx aa'Vtzn 2

nasai

."|maw a'ur> own pxV nsin

In meiner Ubersetzung lautet der Text in Deutsch: Und weil er sagte ,und er warf sie in ein anderes Land' sagte er, daß, wenn du zum Herrn zurückkehren wirst, obwohl du außerhalb des Landes bist, der Herr deine Gefangenen zurückführen wird.

25 26

Zitiert nach Torat Hayyim, Hamisah humse torah, Devarim, Jerusalem 1993. S. BAMBERGER, Raschis Pentateuchkommentar:

Vollständig ins Deutsche übertragen und mit einer

Einleitung versehen, Basel 4 1994, 583. 27

A. WEISER (ed.), Peruse ha-Torah le rabbenu Avraham Ibn Ezra, Wa-yiqra, Be-midbar, Jerusalem 2 1977.

28

Ibid., 300.

Devarim,

392

Ursula Ragacs

Wie der Text zeigt, ist für Ibn Ezra die futurische Auffassung des Deuteronomiumverses selbstverständlich, aber auch der Binyan, in dem das Verbum 3H2> dort steht, kein Problem. Wieso letzteres so ist, erklärt Ibn Ezra unter anderem in seinem Kommentar zu Ex 1,7:29 ,XXV DJ7S

,b D'131)

3U71

."WU? DVD ΓΠΪΛ3 ΠΙΠΠ IT Π3ΓΠ °.(DW DB?) ^maw nx -ρπ^χ π nun IDD

3

Meine deutsche Ubersetzung des Textes lautet: Siehe diese Form entspricht der Form 3U7, einmal ist sie transitiv (aufzufassen), wie ,und er wird zurückkehren und dich sammeln' (Dtn 30,3) und einmal intransitiv, wie ,und der Herr dein Gott wird deine Gefangenen zurückführen' (ebenda).31

Drittens: Josef Bekhor Shor Der letzte hier zitierte Text stammt von Josef Bekhor Shor, einem berühmten Schüler von Raschis Enkel Rabbenu Tarn. Er lebte im Frankreich des 12. Jahrhunderts. Der Text bestätigt, wenn auch nur implizit, ebenfalls, daß mittelalterliche Exegeten keinen Zweifel an der Aussage von Dtn 30,3 im Hinblick auf Israels Zukunft hatten; aber vielleicht bringt er auch einen Hinweis darauf, was zusätzlich zu diesem allgemein anerkannten Textverständnis noch hinter den Varianten von zumindestens zwei, beziehungsweise drei, der vier Talmudhandschriften stecken könnte: Josef Bekhor Shor folgt mit seiner Auslegung den Rabbinen, beziehungsweise Raschi. Um ihre Ansicht noch deutlicher zu machen, stellt er Dtn 30,3 einem anderen Bibelvers gegenüber, in dem das Verbum 3 W eben im Hif'il Futur gebraucht ist. Wenn die Schreiber der Talmudhandschriften bei der Bearbeitung des Textes ebenfalls diesen Vers vor ihrem inneren Auge hatten, dann hat ihnen vielleicht auch das ihre spezielle Textvariante nahegelegt. Die Auslegung des Josef Bekhor Shor lautet folgendermaßen:

29

Für den Hinweis auf diese Textstelle danke ich Hrn. Prof. Dr. Günter Stemberger sehr

30

Zitiert nach WEISER, Abraham ibn Esra (s.o. Anm. 27), 7-8.

herzlich. 31

Siehe dazu auch D.U. ROTTZOLL, Abraham Ibn Ezras langer Kommentar Paraschot Schemot bis Beschalach

zum Buch

(Ex 1-17) eingeleitet, übersetzt und kommentiert,

Exodus:

Bd. 1, New

York/Berlin 2000, 12. In Fußnote 76 verweist Rottzoll auf weitere Texte, die sich mit dem transitiven und intransitiven Gebrauch des Verbums im Qal beschäftigen.

Zum jüdischen Verständnis von Dtn 30,3

393

f n x m V r u n - m V i a : ηχηρη 3un ^ a a - r n 1 ? } » :-|maw nx i'nVx ή 3un a m s n ns n"3p>nu> u m i r m a m .nVisn Vm 12 D ' m s a lixu? πτπ 3tdt xin iV'xa ,a'3w anuoi iV a r m Vaa" a T c n a V x - w bw n n x v oVwn - m m x >aj a ' n a i r s x i . 3 3 , "π a ' u ^ v : a ' n a xVi / " n a w r 3 S .xan 'a "Ή au>v : 3 t d xV aiptt-Vaa , 34 "pa»—'an m s w nx 3'wx |3 Meine deutsche Übersetzung dieses Textes lautet: ,Der Herr, dein Gott, wird mit deinen Gefangenen zurückkehren' aus dem babylonischen Exil. ,Und er wird zurückkehren und dich sammeln' aus diesem großen und langen Exil, in das wir in der ganzen Welt verstreut sind. Und unsere Lehrer legten von dort her aus, daß der Heilige, gepriesen sei er, mit Israels Bedrängnis litt, wie geschrieben steht ,mit jeder ihrer Bedrängnisse litt er'. Und wenn sie zurückkehren, ist es, als ob [auch] er zurückkehrt, wie geschrieben steht ,und der Herr wird zurückkehren'. Und es steht nicht geschrieben ,und der Herr wird zurückführen'. Und obwohl geschrieben steht in Bezug auf die Weltvölker ,und danach werde ich die Gefangenen der Söhne Amons zurückführen' steht nirgendwo geschrieben ,und der Herr wird zurückkehren' wie hier.

Conclusio Der Vers Deuteronomium 30,3 stellt, auf Grund seines offenbar mehrdeutigen Gebrauchs des Wortes 3ΊΙΡ, für jüdische Bibelübersetzer und -kommentatoren schon früh eine Herausforderung dar. Die Redaktoren des Targum Qnqelos entscheiden sich dafür, in ihrer aramäischen Übersetzung der hebräischen Bibel die Mehrdeutigkeit des genannten Verbums durch die Anwendung eines zum Bibeltext unterschiedlichen Binyan wiederzugeben, die Rabbinen kritisieren ein solches Vorgehen. Diese Kritik spiegelt sich sowohl in der Mekilta de Rabbi Yisma'el, als auch im Midras, Sifre Bemidbar und in einem Text in Megjllah 29a wieder. Handschriftenvarianten des letztgenannten Textes machen jedoch stutzig: Sie scheinen nicht nur die Verwendung des Binyan in Frage zu stellen, sondern auch einen zeitlichen Aspekt des Textes anzusprechen. Die Texte mittelalterlicher Bibelkommentatoren zeigen jedoch, daß die Varianten, soweit es sich bei ihnen nicht nur um Schreibfehler handelt, wohl nicht nur keine derartige Kritik aufgenommen haben, sondern vielmehr gerade vor dem traditionellen Textverständnis als Hintergrund, unter eventueller Berücksichtigung eines speziellen Bibelverses, entstanden sind. 32

Jes 63,9.

33

Meg 29a.

34 35

Jer 49,6. Der Text ist nach Y. NEVO, Peruse R. YosefBekor Sor 'al ha-Torah, Jerusalem 1994 zitiert.

Yosef Ben Sim'on Kara's Lost Commentary on the Psalms The Imola Fragment from the "Italian Genizah" by

MAURO PERANI

Introduction* Yosef ben Sim'on Kara (ca. 1066-1135) lived and worked in northern France, between the second half of the 11th and the first third of the 12 th centuries. He was among the founders of the so-called "School of Pesat", which developed the study of biblical exegesis in the north of France at that time. He was a contemporary of Rashi (Selomoh Ben Yishaq 1040-1105) and, like Rashi, spent most of his life in Troyes, where he was on good terms with Rashi's grandson, Rasbam (Semu el ben Meir 1080/85-c. 1174). These three authors in different ways strove to grasp the basic literal meaning of the Scriptures (or pesat), abandoning progressively in different ways the redundant and almost exclusive importance attributed to midrashic interpretations, which characterised rabbinic exegesis from its beginning until the times of the Gaonate. It was Sa'adiah Ga'on (882-942) who first adopted a more rational approach toward the analysis of the Biblical text, and who is considered as the forerunner of the interpretative tendency according to the method of the pesat.1 Despite the important role played by Yosef Kara as one of the founders of the northern French exegetical school, his works were almost totally ne*

I'm indebted to Moshe Ahrend who revised my edition of the Imola fragment and gave me precious suggestions; to Benjamin Richler who resolved some complicated problems; to Avraham Grossman who encouraged this work and was to me of great help; particular thanks to Kirsten Fudeman, Assistant Professor of French and Linguistics at Ithaca College, Ithaca, N.Y., for her interpretation of the glosses in Old French included in this commentary to the Psalms by Yosef Kara (see Appendix).

1

For a general overview on the history of Hebrew exegesis of the Bible, see W. BACHER, s.v. 'Biblical Exegesis' in The Jewish Encyclopedia, III, New York 1901, 162-174; S. JAPHET (ed.), The Bible in the Light of its Interpreters, Jerusalem 1994 (Hebr.). A study of Sa'adiah's exegesis on Gen 1 - 3 in Β. CHIESA, Creazione e caduta dell'uomo nell'esegesi giudeo-araba medievale, Studi Biblici 85, Brescia 1989, especially 188-198 about the foundations of the Sa'adianic exegesis.

396

Mauro Perani

glected for more than five centuries, so that only traces of his work remained. This situation owes much to the predominant position held by the great commentators, especially Rashi, whose commentary established itself as the preeminent one.

The Re-discovery of Yosef Kara as Exegete Hayyim Yosef David Azulay was the first to mention Yosef Kara in his biobibliographical work titled Sem ha-Gedolim (I, fol. 76v), published in Livorno in 1774. Azulay relied on a single sentence from Semu'el ben Me'ir's commentary on Gen 37,13, where he said that he had learnt from Yosef Kara a favoured interpretation. According to the information given by Azulay, our exegete was also known to Giovanni Bernardo de Rossi, who observed that the 17th century German bibliographer Johan Christoph Wolf had mistaken him for the Spanish writer of the Sulhan 'Aruk2 Yosef Karo (Toledo 1488 - Safed 1575), who lived four centuries later. In the catalogue of Hebrew manuscripts in his library, De Rossi describes a commentary on the Early and Latter Prophets attributed to our exegete (Parma, Biblioteca Palatina ms. ebr. 2994 = De Rossi 255, new Catalogue by Benjamin Richler n. 5273) and points out the rarity of references to this author, saying: Porro Karae codices, non modo noster hie sed et alii omnes, rarissimi sunt, atque hinc esumendum silentium quod de auctore hoc ejusque operibus servant doctiores ipsi judaeorum ac christianorum bibliographi.i Moreover, within the same catalogue, he also describes a codex (the ms. Parmense 2203 = De Rossi 456 = Richler 684) containing an incomplete version of a Commentary on Qohelet and one on Lamentations, both of them attributed to Yosef Kara. The second commentary was printed in an annotated edition of the Writings published in Naples in 1487.5 It was only thanks to the 1822 study of Leopold Zunz (1794-1886), devoted to Rashi, that Yosef Kara came to the public's notice. 6 Rashi actually mentions Yosef Kara in his commentary on the Proverbs 6,23; 18,22 and elsewhere. Henceforth, the members of the Wissenschaft des Judentums movement began to gather materials concerning this author, as well as collecting interpretations which other exegetes had attributed to him. Abraham Geiger (1810-1874) de2 3 4 5 6

J.CH. WOLF, Bibliotheca Hebraea, I, Hamburgi et Lipsiae 1715, 181. B. RICHLER, Hebrew Manuscripts in the Biblioteca Palatina in Parma, Jerusalem 2001. I.B. DE ROSSI, MSS. Codices Hebraici Biblioth. I. B. De-Rossi, I, Parmae 1803,150. Ibid. II, 43. See also by the same author, Dizionario storico degli autori ebrei e delle loro opere, Parma (anastatic reprint Sala Bolognese 1978), 181. J.L. ZUNZ, "Salomon ben Isaac genannt Raschi", in Zeitschrift für die Wissenschaft des Judenthums 1 (1822), 277-384: 318.

Yosef Ben Sim'on Kara's Lost Commentary on the Psalms

397

voted to Kara several pages of one of his studies on the northern French exegetical school published in 1885, where he had collated various interpretations attributed to him. 7 A. Wolf 8 collated in one of his articles published in 1871 some of the interpretations of the early exponent of the French school and uncle of Kara, Menahem ben Helbo and of Yosef Kara himself, found in the ms. Kirchheim. 9 In an article published in 1872, Abraham Berliner (1833-1915) collected 87 glosses on Rashi's Torah commentary which he attributed to Kara, 10 to whom Martin Littmartn (1864-1925) devoted the first monograph a few years later." Standing out amongst the many studies concerning the different aspects of Kara's work is the monograph of Simon Eppenstein (1864-1920) published in 1906, 12 while Samuel Poznanski (1864-1921) also devoted to Yosef Kara some important pages of his introduction of an edition of Eliezer of Beaugency's Commentary on Ezekiel and on the Twelve Prophets. 13 A detailed study of the philological and exegetical methods of our author was written by M. Moshe Ahrend, which can be considered an introductory study of the critical edition of the commentary of Yosef Kara on Job, edited by the same author. 14 7

A. GEIGER, Parschandatha. Die nordfranzösische Exegetenschule, section 2 1 - 3 5 ; German section 18-20 and 33-34.

8

Almost certainly, Aharon Wolff (19 th century), who was a rabbi in Vienna and wrote another article on Biblical exegesis around the same time in another journal.

9

Leipzig 1855; Hebrew

η«π3τρ T - a r o a VTaVm χηρ ηον 'η ums "pm Ο'χ^ΒΪΠ oraa η 'ums» trüipV

[Excerpts of the commentaries of R. Menahem (ben Helbo) found within the commentaries of R. Yosef Kara and his pupils in the ms. Kirchheim], Ha-Sahar 2 (1871), 2 8 9 299; IDEM, 0 " Π 3 Ί ' ρ V-nro» χηρ ηον Η 'umsa D'OlpV [Excerpts of the commentaries of Rabbi Yosef Kara from the ms. Kirchheim], ibid., 3 (1871), 668-690; 4 (1871), 55-63,

115-121, 224-246, 354-358.

10

Α. BERLINER, Pletath Soferim. Beiträge zur jüdischen Schriftauslegung im Mittelalter, Breslau/Mayence 1872, Hebrew section 12-25, 49. On pages 6 - 1 1 the author quotes an anonymous commentary on chapters 1 - 4 of the Deuteronomy which was attributed to Kara, though later authors have different opinions.

11

M. LLTTMANN, Joseph ben Simeon Kara als Schrifterklärer 1886), Breslau 1887.

12

S. EPPENSTEIN, "Studien über Joseph ben Simon Kara als Exeget", in Jahrbuch der Jüdisch-Literarischen Gesellschaft 4 (1906), 238-268. S. POZNANSKI, Kommentar zu Ezechiel und den XII Kleinen Propheten von Eliezer aus Beaugency in the introduction titled X l p a n 'UHBÖ n S I S 'Ώ3ΓΙ Vs X13» [Introduction to the French Sages Interpreters of the Bible], XXII-XXXIX. M.M. AHREND, he Commentaire sur Job de Rabbi Yoseph Qara, Hildesheim 1978 and IDEM, 31'N IDoV Nip η ο ' Η u m s [Yoseph K a r a ' s C o m m e n t a r y to Job], J e r u s a l e m 1988. See also the entry written by A. GROSSMAN in the Encyclopaedia Judaica, Jerusalem 1971, 10, col. 759-760. E. Touitou in his review of the first work of Ahrend does not agree with his hypothesis according to which Yosef Kara and Semu'el ben Me'ir belonged to different exegetical schools. About Kara's exegesis, see also the study of G. BRIN, χηρ ηο 1 Ί W I T D 3 D n p n a [Studies o n the E x e g e s i s of Y o s e p h Kara], Tel Aviv 1990.

13

14

(Inaugural-Dissertation, Leipzig

398

M a u r o Perani

A trend shared by recent studies of Eleazar Touitou 15 and Sarah Japhet 16 is the renewed investigation of the northern French school's exegesis, going beyond the view of this as a more or less isolated and spontaneous process, and rather outlining its development within the framework of the "small Renaissance" that characterised 12th century Europe. Touitou stresses the relationship between deras and pesat, as well as the renewed interest in the definition of literal meaning which became a common ground for Jewish and Christian exegetes. He also underscores the influences exerted by Christian and Jewish exegetes on each other. This new approach sets the work of Yosef Kara within a context, giving it a place between Rashi's and Semu'el ben Me'ir's works. Moreover, according to Touitou the appellative noun "Kara" refers to one who reads and discusses the Bible in front of his disciples, and is thus an equivalent for the Latin Christian word "lector".

The Fragments Found in the "Italian Genizah" The fragment containing Kara's Commentary on the Psalms 1-17 was found by the writer in the Section of State Archive in Imola, 30 km from Bologna. For a stroke of luck it was the central bifolio of its original quire, preserving four consecutive pages from the beginning of Psalm 1 to 17. Together with some other fragments listed below, it belonged to the same membranaceous manuscript whose call number in my catalogue of the Bologna State Archive collection is C. I (= Biblical Commentaries, first Ms.).17

15

Besides the review mentioned above in the previous note, see Vl£> η'3ΒΠΒΠ ΊΠϋΙΖ? •nttl bw ηηίΠΟ'ΠΠ m x ' s a n 1?ρτ bv D"3tiH [The Exegetical m e t h o d of Rabbi S e m u ' e l ben M e ' i r in the historical background of his time], in x n p n n V ' t n n n s o a

mrs?

Vxill' m i V i r O I [Studies on the Literature of the Sages on the Bible and on the History of Israel], ed. by Y.D. GLLAT, H.Y. LEVIN, S.M. RABINOWITZ, dedicated to E.S. Melammed, R a m a t - G a n 1982, 4 8 - 7 4 . 16

s . JAPHET, r u m - j i B x a D " r n n ' » ' m : u n s i p m m i ' s V m i p n a ' h i d [Directions of the research and trends of the study of Medieval exegesis in northern France], in /7J"7> n n n ' n y>7ab ' O ^ w n n v s n [Bulletin of the World Association for the Sciences of Judaism] 25 (1985), 3 - 1 8 .

17

For the catalogues w h e r e the fragments are described see: M . PERANI, " F r a m m e n t i di manoscritti ebraici medievali negli Archivi di Stato di Imola e R a v e n n a " , in La

Bibliofi-

lia 93 (1991), 1 - 2 0 ; IDEM, " F r a m m e n t i del c o m m e n t o originale di Yosef ben S i m ' o n Qara a Osea e Michea, in Annali

di Storia dell'esegesi

10/2 (1993), 6 1 5 - 6 2 5 ; IDEM, " M a n o -

scritti ebraici medievali riutilizzati come copertine nell'Archivio Storico C o m u n a l e di Pieve di C e n t o " , in Gli ebrei a Pieve di Cento. Testimonianze

storiche,

Quaderni

pievesi 7, Pieve di Cento 1993, 65-102; M. PERANI, S. CAMPANINI, I frammenti

ebraici di

Bologna.

Archivio

di Stato e collezioni

e memorie

minori, Inventari dei Manoscritti delle Biblioteche

d'ltalia, Vol. CVIII, Firenze 1997, 7 1 - 7 2 .

Yosef Ben Sim'on Kara's Lost Commentary on the Psalms

399

Manuscript description: Membr., 325 χ 230 mm, Ashkenazic semi-cursive script; beginning of 13th century. Blank, smooth and thin parchment, brown ink, text in full page of 41-45 lines; written area 235-240 χ 160-170 mm, pricking by two pricks in each corner of page, in order to mark only the boundaries of the written area; these boundaries are ruled with four lines by a hard point on the flesh side. As a result of this technique, the scribe did his best to write in a regular way all the lines, but without the guide of ruling all the horizontal lines, the result is not perfect, and we can sometimes see a group of inclined lines, or a different spacing and lead. Actually, holding the folios of this manuscript up to the light, the lines of recto and verso sides do not coincide. In fact, the space between the lines is not regular, nor is the size of the Hebrew letters, lacking the guide of the ruled horizontal lines. This accounts for the difference of the written lines per page, swaying between 41 and 45. The written lines, moreover, are not perfectly horizontal, but slightly curved. On some pages the letter size is bigger than in others, with the result that the number of written lines is of 3 or 4 less than in other pages written with smaller sized letters. A supplementary witness of the antiquity of our manuscript is that the grains of the hair-side are preserved. Actually this technique is characteristic of the Ashkenazic manuscripts until the end of the 12lh century, as Malachi BeitArie writes: "Therefore, it seems that in old Ashkenaz, both in France and in Germany, parchment was made by a technique which preserved the grains of the hair-side. At the end of the twelfth century a new technique minimizing the difference between the two sides was introduced, both in France and Germany. In Germany this new technique was adopted gradually and evolved finally into a complete equalization of both sides in the middle of the thirteenth century, while in France, although the minimizing technique was partly adopted, the old technique of distinctive sides persisted and was retained until the expulsion of the Jews [in 1306]". 18 Let us now consider another codicological characteristic of the Imola fragments. They present the same technique of ruling as codex Cambridge, St John's College, Ms. A3, copied in 1239 in an Ashkenazic semicursive type of script, influenced by the Gothic. In this manuscript, only the boundary area of the two columns is ruled by a hard point. This is its codicological description which Colette Sirat, of the Comite de paleographie hebraique in Paris, kindly communicated to me: "Traces de piqüres dans les trois marges exterieures, faites semble-t-il sur tout le cahier plie. (...) Pour les deux scribes, seul le cadre des colonnes est trace, a la pointe seche, bifeuillet par bifeuillet, deploye, et les lignes s'inscrivent ä l'interieur du cadre. (...) 41 ä 43 lignes ecrites incluses dans le cadre regie. Chez les deux scribes, ni le nombre des lignes, ni leur trace ne correspond des deux cotes d'un meme folio".

18

Μ. ΒΕΓΓ-ARIE, Hebrew Codicology, Jerusalem 1981, 24-25.

400

Mauro Perani

If we combine these two codicological characteristics, we can assume that our manuscript was probably copied in France during the first half of the 13th century. We have another French coeval manuscript that presents palaeographical similarities with our fragments. I'm speaking of Ms. L778 of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, whose script is very close to that of the Imola, Bologna and Pieve di Cento manuscript. 19 All this gives evidence that this manuscript is a copy, probably preserving an earlier version of Kara's Biblical Commentaries. The manuscript probably contained all of Kara's commentaries to the Bible, since the extant fragments contain parts of his comments to the whole Tanak: Torah, Nevi'im and Ketuvim. Let us now list all the fragments containing Kara's various biblical comments found in the three archives where they were re-used as wrappers of archival volumes. The fragments are ordered according to the Biblical books. The Archives' abbreviations are as follows: ASBO ASCPC SASI

= = =

Archivio di Stato di Bologna Archivio Storico Comunale di Pieve di Cento Sezione di Archivio di Stato di Imola

I. Fragments from Yosef Kara's Commentary to the Torah A. Exodus. 1. ASCPC, Hebr. fragm. n. 1.2 - Fragmentary folio, 325 χ 115 mm, a half of a folio vertically cut, text legible on both recto and verso sides. Content: recto: Comment to Exodus 7,28-8,5; verso: 8,6-10,15 (text cut). The fragment has been detached and restored; it was re-used to bind the following register: Archivio dell'Ospedale 4-17, Santa Maria 1621-1622, Libro di Conti della Compagnia del S. Rosario 1621-1662; on the first page of the register originally bound with this fragment we read: "Questo sia un libro di C(arte) n. 150 coperto di carta pecudina" [This is a register of 150 folios bound with parchment]. 2. ASBO, Hebr. fragm. n. 509.2 - Fragmentary folio, 325 χ 115 mm, a half of a folio vertically cut, text legible on both recto and verso sides. Content: Comment to Exodus 19,4-20,11 (text cut). The fragment has been detached and restored; it was re-used to bind the following register: Atti dei Notai, Giovanni Battista Senesi 1621-1628. Current call number: 19

Secundum

Salomonem.

A Thirteenth

Century

Latin Commentary

on the Song of

edited with an Introduction by S. KAMIN and A. SALTMAN, Ramat Gan 1989.

Solomon,

Yosef Ben Sim'on Kara's Lost Commentary on the Psalms

401

Raccolta di manoscritti, b. 5, Frammenti di codici ebraici, fragm. n. 509.2. 3. ASBO, Hebr. fragm. n. 302.2 - Fragmentary folio, 325 χ 60 mm, a quarter of a folio vertically cut, with the text legible on both recto and verso sides. Content: Comment to Exodus 21,21-22,9 (text cut). The fragment has been detached and restored; it was re-used to bind the following register: Tribunale di Rota, Domenico Gessi, Minimarum 1621. Current call number: Raccolta di manoscritti, b. 5, Frammenti di codici ebraici, fragm. n. 302.2. 4. ASBO, Hebr. fragm. n. 469.2 - Fragmentary folio, 325 χ 67 mm, a quarter of a folio vertically cut, with the text legible on both recto and verso sides. Content: Comment to Exodus 23,13-25,29. The fragment has been detached and restored; it was re-used to bind the following register: Atti dei Notai, Orazio Fabbri 1609-1622. Current call number: Raccolta di manoscritti, b. 5, Frammenti di codici ebraici, fragm. n. 469.2. B. Deuteronomy. 5. SASI, Hebr. frag. 17.2 - Fragmentary folio, 370 χ 70 mm, slightly less than a third of a folio vertically cut, with the text legible on both recto and verso sides. Content: Comment to Deuteronomy 12,10-14,23. The fragment was detached and restored in 1990; it was re-used to bind the following register: Atti civili di Castelguelfo 1624-1625, Liber Actor. Ciuilium Anni 1624 et 1625. This fragment was pasted to SASI 17.1 in order to obtain the appropriate cover size of the register (see Fig. 5). 6. ASBO, Hebr. fragm. n. 469.1 - Almost a whole bifolio, 325 χ 230 (170) mm, one folio is lacking about a quarter of its external part, vertically cut, with the text legible on both recto and verso sides. Content: Comment to Deuteronomy 24,13-29,28. The fragment has been detached and restored; it was re-used to bind the following register: Atti dei Notai, Orazio Fabbri 1609-1622. Present call number: Raccolta di manoscritti, b. 5, Frammenti di codici ebraici, fragm. n. 469.2.

II. Fragments from Yosef Kara's Commentary to Nevi'im A. Isaiah. 7. ASBO, Hebr. fragm. n. 302.1 - Fragmentary folio, 325 χ 190 mm, lacking a part in the bottom external corner, with the text legible on both recto and verso sides. Content: Comment to Isaiah 18,3-20,1. The fragment has been detached and restored; it was re-used to bind the following register: Tribunale di Rota, Domenico Gessi, Minimarum 1621. Present call

402

Mauro Perani

number: Raccolta di manoscritti, b. 5, Frammenti di codici ebraici, fragm. n. 302.1. B. Hosea, Micah, Amos. 8. ASCPC, Hebr. fragm. n. 1.1 - Almost a whole bifolio, 330 χ 250 (170) mm, with the well preserved text legible on both recto and verso sides. Content: Comment to Hosea 10,14-12,5 and Comment to Micah 5,3-7,20 (end of the book), followed by some compilatory comments to a few verses from Amos. The fragment was detached and restored; it was reused to bind the following register: Archivio dell'Ospedale 4-17, Santa Maria 1621-1622, Libro di Conti della Compagnia del S. Rosario 1621-1662; on the first page of the register originally bound with this fragment we read: "Questo sia un libro di C(arte) n. 150 coperto di carta pecudina" [This is a register of 150 folios bound with parchment].

III. Fragments from Yosef Kara's Commentary to Ketuvim A. Psalms. 9. SAS1, Hebr. frag. 17.1 - Whole bifolio, 320 χ 240 (240) mm, the central one of a quire, with the consecutive text of four pages legible on both recto and verso sides. Content: Comment to Psalms 1,1-17,3. The fragment has been detached and restored in 1990; it was re-used to bind the following register: Atti civili di Castelguelfo 1624-1625, Liber Actor. Ciuilium Anni 1624 et 1625. Β. Proverbs, ]ob. 10. ASBO, Hebr. fragm. n. 509.1 - Bifolio partially vertically cut in the external margin of a folio, 275-320 χ 220-245 mm; it is the central one of a quire, with four pages of consecutive text, with the text legible on both recto and verso sides. Content: folio 1: Comment to Proverbs 30,24—32, followed by some non systematic comments to Numbers 2,2-5,9, to Exodus 19,9-33,14, to Leviticus 10,2-25,43, Numbers 12,8-21,17; folio 2: Comment to Job 5,1-6,11. The fragment has been detached and restored; it was re-used to bind the following register: Atti dei Notai, Giovanni Battista Senesi 1621-1628. Present call number: Raccolta di manoscritti, b. 5, Frammenti di codici ebraici, fragm. n. 509.1. This fragment presents a particular problem, since according to the order of Biblical books it should contain the comments to the last chapters of Proverbs, in particular to chapters 30-31 in the first folio, and the commentary to Job 5 in the second one, the other inner bifolios of this quire containing the section from Proverbs 32 until Job 4. But in the folio with the comment to Proverbs 30, a compilation of commentaries to Numbers, Exodus and Leviticus is included.

Yosef Ben Sim'on Kara's Lost Commentary on the Psalms

403

As we can see, all the 10 fragments were two by two reused to bind 5 registers. Since the date of the first deed written by the notary coincides with the year in which this manuscript was dismembered and reused, we see that among the 5 registers the first deed dates to the year 1621 in 3 cases (2 ASBO and 1 ASCPC), to the year 1624 in 1 case (SASI). The last register from ASBO contains deeds written by the notary Orazio Fabbri between the years 1609-1622. Since generally all the folios of a manuscript were dismembered and reused in the same year or within two or three year periods, I think that in this case the register of Orazio Fabbri has been bound after its compilation, whereas normally the notary wrote their deeds in a new register already bound with recycled Hebrew handwritten parchment.

The Study of the Fragments and Their Attribution to Yosef Kara The first scholar to study these fragments and to attribute them to Yosef Kara, after a careful examination of their exegetical methodology and formulas, the style, the use of lexicographical and linguistic analysis, was Avraham Grossman, now Emeritus Professor of Medieval Jewish History at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. He carefully examined Kara's interpretation according to the method of the pes at and the influxes of the Spanish school as well, especially of Menahem ben Saruq, from which our author took the systematically used term "ΠΠΓΒ. Grossman's studies on these fragments, published between 1992 and 1996,20 remain a pillar for attributing them to an early copy of a manuscript containing the original commentaries of Yosef Kara to the Bible. I refer to them for any deeper examination and evaluation of the fragments. Before entering into a detailed analysis of Kara's Commentary to the Psalms fragments, found by the writer in Imola (Bologna Province), it is advisable to define briefly the status cjuaestionis concerning the works of Yosef Kara and their authenticity. The consensus of scholars is to consider as genuine the following commentaries on the Biblical books, which have been transmitted in 20

rmnV χηρ ΗΟΝ η W I T D » D > T H P Τ Ρ 1 ? ^ « n r n ' A [Remnants of Yoseph Kara's Commentary to the Torah from the "Italian Genizah"], Pe'amim 52 (1992), 1 6 3 6 . IDEM, XlpaV Kip ηοτ 'Ι bw VIPITDl n'Vü'K '111! [The fragments found in Italy and Yoseph Kara's Biblical Commentaries], in JAPHET (ed.), The Bible (see above η. 1), A . GROSSMAN,

3 3 5 - 3 4 8 ; I D E M , O'TFLPNIN NSNS ' 0 3 Π [ T h e E a r l y S a g e s o f F r a n c e ] , J e r u s a l e m 1 9 9 5 , 2 9 0 -

305; IDEM, xipaV κηρ ηον π Vu> TWITS npnV n'Vo'x ' n r n ' rrn'um [The importance of the 'Italian Genizah' for research on Yoseph Kara's Biblical Commentaries], in The Italian Genizah. Proceedings of the Conference held under the auspices of The Israel Academy of Science and Humanities and The Jewish National and University Library, Jerusalem, J a n u a r y 9, 1 9 9 6 ( 1 7 T e v e t h 5 7 5 6 ) , e d . b y A . DAVID, J . TABORY, J e r u s a l e m 1 9 9 8 ,

39-51

(an Italian version is available in the Italian enlarged and updated edition: M. PERANI (ed.), La "Genizah italiana", Bologna 1999,123-147).

404

M a u r o Perani

full text: Early Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Job, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes and Esther. On the other hand, the extant commentaries on Ezekiel and the Twelve Prophets are regarded as written or completed either by Kara or his disciples.21 An interesting problem stems from the surviving Commentary on the Torah, which represents, scholars generally hypothesise, not a commentary by Kara per se, but simply glosses on the one composed by Rashi. This hypothesis was shared by all the prominent scholars, except for Efraim Urbach. 22 In support of Urbach's isolated assertions are some fragments of the original commentary of Yosef Kara on the Torah which I found in the State Archives of Bologna and Imola. These three fragments belong to the same manuscript, written in semicursive Ashkenazi script, which can be dated by palaeographic examination to the 13lh century. The first fragment (ASBO 509.2) consists of only half a page and contains a commentary, clearly incomplete, on Exodus 19-20; the second fragment (ASBO 469.1) is a bifolio, the central one of a quire, containing a commentary on Deuteronomy 24-29, while the third fragment (SASI 17.2) consists of half a page horizontally cut containing the incomplete comment on Deuteronomy 12-14. The fragments have been studied by A. Grossman who, 23 according to an accurate analysis of the style and contents, has demonstrated that they include the original commentary of Kara on the Torah. Grossman has also shown that the fragments appear in some explanations which other authors, such as Yosef Bekor Sor, attributed to Kara. He also found an exact correspondence between the commentary discovered in Bologna and Imola and that of Kara on some passages of Samuel. The commentary, attested to by the three fragments, shows no direct relation with the commentary of Rashi, and therefore cannot be considered as additions or glosses to it. Furthermore, the exegetical method, which is based on research of the pesat and the dismissal of the midrash, and the specialised terminology employed, show beyond doubt that it is the original commentary by Kara on the Torah. From all of this we may conclude that even if Kara had composed glosses and additions to Rashi's commentary, later he wrote a proper commentary on the whole text of the Pentateuch.

21

See AHREND, Le Commentaire

sur Job de Rabbi Yoseph Qara,

a n d IDEM, Nip 1 0 ' Η ΒΠΤ3

m ' X ISOV, b o t h cited i n n o t e 14. 22

In his 'Arugat ha-bosem

[The Garden B e d of the Aromatic Plants], I, lerusalem 1939,

221, note 19, Efraim Urbach says: "According to the opinion of Poznansky R. Yosef Kara did not comment on the Torah but added some glosses to the c o m m e n t a r y of Rashi. B y the quotations contained in later literature, however, it seems that the glosses were so m a n y so that is possible to affirm that he had actually c o m m e n t e d and explained the T o r a h " , quoted by A. GROSSMAN, η ο ν '1 tPTVB» Ο Π Ή » TPVD'X Π-nnV xnp (see a b o v e n. 21), 20. 23

Ibid.

n

m

Yosef Ben S i m ' o n Kara's Lost Commentary on the Psalms

405

The Commentary on the Psalms 24 Before the discovery of our bifolio, in the past we had no attestations to Kara's commentary on the Psalms, as Poznanski pointed out: "As far as the Psalms and Daniel are concerned, there are no references to any commentary of Kara". 25 A bifolio, making up four pages of consecutive text, was found by the writer in the Sezione di Archivio di Stato di Imola, containing a commentary on Psalms 1-17.26 We know for certain that this commentator of the Psalms flourished in France, between the 11th and 12th centuries. This is demonstrated by the way he commented on the Writings, by his style and by the use of glosses in Old French. In the Commentary to Ps 5,10 the author quotes the interpretations he already explained in his commentaries on Jeremiah and Proverbs: in V'DHV (PS 5 , 1 0 ) . m v n m n s ηηρ ηηπ omj? n n m m ' s a ]'x ό m n s "npV o m s n a n o m u p n s i Vj? DTiüpau? narrow p>axi -iD02 ΙΌ χ-ipaV n a n nt xnpa (ibid.) [flip'Vrr on» 1 ? . m x i n p V s w Xipai (23,12) ,13 fiSJl 7/77' n^>DK3 Πψ^Π3 Ω3Ί1 /7V7» J3*P : Π'»Τ TINT'S "Ü31 ,(Prov 26,28) ΤΊΠΙΟ ,ltPW p'pn (MT: ΠΒ1) 31? TDW .laipan w x r x Ί»

For there is no sincerity on their lips ... (Ps 5,10). This verse resembles another on the book of Jeremiah, which says: Assuredly, their path shall become like slippery ground; they shall be thrust into darkness and there they shall fall (Jer 23,12), and is also like the verse written in the Proverbs: ... that I have already explained, everyone in his place. The expression everyone in his place clearly indicates a systematic and complete commentary, so that we have absolutely no reason to think that he had commented on only two books of the Writings, as the discovery of the first part of his Perus la-Tehillim demonstrates. The reference to these two books suggests that Kara himself wrote them. This hypothesis is corroborated by the fact that the explanation mentioned in reference to like slippery ground is found identically in Kara's commentary on the book of Jeremiah. Moreover, the method and the style of these commentaries are Kara's. Finally, one of the passages found in the fragments of this commentary on the Psalms has a parallel in his commentary on Job.

24

For this introduction I'm referring to the cited studies of A v r a h a m Grossman, which

25

POZNANSKI, x n p a n ' u n o n nDIX 'Ώ3Π VL? Nina (see above n. 13), X X I I I - X X X I X .

I'm summarizing, choosing the most important arguments. 26

Imola, SASI, Hebr. frag. 17.1. In this bifolio there are no interpretations on Psalms and 15: probably they have been omitted by the scribe w h o copied the manuscript.

13

406

Mauro Perani

The entire commentary is based on the method of pes at, researching the literal meaning which is identified with the meaning which comes out of the historical context given to each Psalm by the Books of Kings and of the Chronicles. Kara's search for the literal meaning reflects the influence of the "School of pesat", which flourished in France between the end of the 11th and the beginning of the 12lh centuries. Yosef Kara deals specially with linguistic issues, and tries to set all the Psalms in their historical context, in accordance with his idea of the historical background of every single Psalm. This is his particular understanding of the concept of pesat. Our commentator very rarely uses midrashic explanations. In this comment to the Psalms we find only two references to the midrashim: one from Be-resit Rabbah, of which he states that "this essentially is its literal meaning" (5,5) and the second in his comment to Psalm 10,4 in which Kara quotes Beresit Rabbah 26,6 (parallel to Pesiqta de Rav Kahana 8,1). According to Kara's exegetical view, there is a close relation between the verses of a single Psalm, as well as between one Psalm and another.27 The commentator includes general rules for the comprehension of Scripture and the explanation of its words, and also treats linguistic issues exhaustively.28 Another peculiarity of Kara's exegesis is the frequent reference to the authors of liturgical poems (piyyutim). Kara uses in this commentary profane expressions to describe the Nations as the enemy of the people of Israel.29 In this commentary on the Psalms typical formulas of his language appear, such as pitrono (its explanation is...), which he uses to introduce his explanation of almost every verse. Yosef Kara employed this word coherently as a technical expression. With respect to that, he was preceded by Dünas ben Labrat and Menahem ben Saruq. This can be seen from an analysis of their works, and there is a strong possibility that he was influenced by the Spanish linguistic and lexicographical School, in particular by them. Other recurring formulas are as follows: "|1ÜD3 tIHDDtP 1Q3 ("as it is explained hereunder"; Ps 7,3; 16,3; 17,3), ΠΌΙΰ p i ("it is demonstrated hereunder"; Ps 6,7), ΠΌΙΒ Π»Τ»Π p i ("and then the Psalm shows that"; Ps

27

For example in the commentary on Psalm 8 he says: "It is David's habit, for whom just as the beginning, so is the end. In the beginning the Psalm says: How majestic (mah addir), so it is also its end". In other words this Psalm begins and ends with the same verse: p X f r V a a ΎΗΪΓΠ0 ΙΪΊΠΧ ΓΠΠ'.

28

An example is the comment to Ps 2,7: "You are my son. Everything a man does to another man is expressed by [the causative form hifil which has a] yod, like in the root of yarash, according to which when somebody makes somebody else inherit his properties, it is said yorish, while when a person gives birth the root yalad is used under the form of yelidtika".

29

"The Lord said to Me: 'You are my son' (Ps 2,7). This is an answer to the nations of the world, since this is the way the Scriptures speak, like in the verse which says: Israel is My first-born son (Exod 4,22). Similarly, You are children of the Lord your God (Deut 14,1)".

Yosef Ben Sim'on Kara's Lost Commentary on the Psalms

407

6,1), 1Ö1X Kin }X3 ηχ ("also here he says"; Ps 4,6), 1ΠΧ 1311113 iVVn ΠΙΧίρ» 'HP DnV ("these two verses have the same explanation"; Ps 8,3), 1?23 IT Π3ΤΠ ("this expression is similar to..."; Ps 7,12; 10,3), I M ... pU?V Π ΓΠ'Π XXÖW m p » ^D ("wherever you find this expression.. .here also"; Ps 2,1), ...tt>3 XX1?2 ΠΠΧ ("you find that when..."; Ps 2,3), 13 13lV Χΐρ?3Π " p i ptt? ("because this is the way the Scripture speaks about it"; Ps 2,7), ΠΌ172 ρ ί Π Χ Ι Xlpftl ... p m s IP' ("there are some who explain...and the last verse proves it"; Ps 14,7), 301D ΠΤ Xlpü nVi??3 Vtt? p ' ^ V ("this passage refers to the previous argument"; Ps 11,5), Xlp?2 ptPXl p'Üi? Vi? 3D!» ΠΤ ("this passage refers to the first argument"; Ps 12,9), 1»3 "[Vim UHDa» ("as interprets and follows"; Ps 11,5), IT HtPlS "|1D'V ' i n ("here is this section taught to you"; Ps 11,5), Vx tP'X 1 S T HPX3 ΠΤΠ Xlpnn 111 131 UTins 131 i n n ("David pronounced this passage like a man who speaks to his neighbour and this is the explanation"; Ps 14,7); "p inVnnn3 ΤΠ Vtt? 11Π3Ώ p i lsio p i T l x nn ηιοτοη nVnn : i s i o (PS 8,2). A peculiar interpretation is that found in Ps 7,5: DX1 TID . n p ' l 'ΎΪΙΧ nxVnXl Π3Π 'JS11 m i s VtP IDX'Vn TiVdJ where nsVnX is explained as inS'Vn 'nVtJl A passage of the commentary on the Psalms, as shown by Avraham Grossman, has a parallel in Yosef Kara's commentary to the book of Job: Commentary on Psalm 4,5 Imola, Hebr. fragm. 17.1

Commentary of Yosef Kara on Job 3,26 Ed. Ahrend, p. 11

.(Ps 4,5) τχοπη Vxi TUT i n s pwVi naxi pipy m i Vj ' n m xVi 'nüpw xV 'rnVtp xV iqd Π» Χ3Ί 'HD ,(Job 3,26) ΠΠ Χ3Ί .'mXllP (Exod 15,14) j m v D>ay 'ElV3 ,UXT1 D'D27 li7EE> 'SIP 'na i m 1X3 ψ .μιτηχ n m ΙΧϋΠΠ Vxi Π"3ρΠ ρ D33V j x t .'Vi? i n ' D3ionn3

(Job 3,26) ΤΛΠ Χ 3 Ί 'ΠϋρΐΡ XVl 'HlVtP XV i3'x n i l . ' m n s i p m s n X3'i xVx m x n Vi? ΠΧ3Π m w n s n dip nxm i n s a dix® naxn i n s ' Φ ,(Ps 4,5) 1ΧΒΠΠ Vxi 1ΠΊ...103 ,X13' xVtP 13i?U?V p'Xl X3nV DVlDtP .nvnV τ η ν η Vi? xVx

Tremble and sin no more. The term rogez always means "worry" (de 'agah) and "terror" (pahad), like in the verse: I had no repose, no quiet, no rest, and a tremor came (Job 3,26), whose explanation is: What was scaring me is coming, like in the verse: The peoples hear, they

I had no repose, no quiet, no rest, and a tremor (rogez) came. Then comes the terror (ha-pahad) which appalled me. The term rogez (tremor) does not refer to the trials of man's life, but to the idea of "terror" (pahad) and "anxiety" (de'agah), by which man is appalled and scared, since

408

Mauro Perani

tremble (yirgazun) (Exod 15,14), of which the explanation is: The peoples heard it and now are terrified (yid'agu), that is to say, that the anxiety caught them (ragzah). So, rigzu (tremble) here means: your heart is appalled (yid'ag) by the Holy - may He be blessed but sin no more, since you together are based on Him.

God does not arrive, like...Tremble (rigzu) and sin no more, because all of them should come, looking not back to the past but to what is to come.

I would like to conclude with these word from Grossman: "Though this does not give incontrovertible evidence in support of the hypothesis of Kara's authorship, there seems to be a strong probability that he was the author. We must therefore include the book of Psalms in any discussion of the works upon which Kara commented. We cannot know for certain, however, if this is a complete commentary. The copyist probably omitted some passages and summed up others here and there, as it was customary for many other commentaries of Yosef Kara". 30

30

GROSSMAN, xipnV ΧΙΡ ΗΟΝ Π Vu? W I T S ipnV rpVü'N 'NRUR MA'^N (see above n. 18), 43.

409

Yosef Ben Sim'on Kara's Lost Commentary on the Psalms

Edition of Yosef Kara's Commentary on the Psalms 1-17

I m o l a , S A S I , Fr. 1 7 . 1

fol. l r p w Vai D w i nxva ^Vn xV i w x w x n n w x [Ps ι ] a r p w a a i m onxya i n v xV nwx w x n n w x i n n r m ixsn n n n a o x ' 3 (ι, i) a r r r a a w xVw w x r r m . 3 1 7 ό * ? p n n i p i . a w n ' inmnai tid ( i , 2 ) nan'

ι 2 3 4

d ' ö ^ V s Vi? Vinw p a π ' η ι t d . ( i , 3 ) a>a n V s bv Viru» p a

fi? ia w w ρ xVx τ π ' w x |xa n a x n γνν ud-hp* xVu> n s n nx noan n V s w psn mV» rpm nann n m D rwu? i r m a n maxt» χιπ a v a n a n n Β ' Ϊ Ε Π Π 'OD ( 1 , 4 ) Ο'ΪΚΓΙΠ p XV

Vian/V

5

β 7

fWpnO sbJ>Κ17ΰ!?·>Κ

8

xV iwx wxn nwx nVvaV anann a'XDnnw ρ xV 3 4

n p w a D'jssnV f o n p ' x ρ xV , ( i , i ) n'vun n s v a η^π T a n a v u n u w iV'xV p a n " n m n a

9

ΐϋψοο imsmrw ps -amnwmmxn D^V3u?mnm*?d"dsi ίο

iV'dxw ( i , 4 ) f i a a dx ' a rrsronn , f i a . ( i , 4 ) m i "usnnw p w Va miVp n s » ητι χιπ nawaa n n n f x ^ a δ.ΧΎΐτιρρχ ?5nnnp /^vma

11

xVi j n n dvV naipn an"? ·ρχ 'ns p n avV (1,5) o s w a a 3 7 i a i p ' xV ρ Vs 12 s i v ' 3 ( 1 , 5 ) D'pnx n u n l a y a'vun ba DDnxρτχηϊ a ' p n x i m a m x 'a t i d .(1,6) Q'pnx γ π " " 13 nanx pn tidw .38 nmsn mnsum naV [Ps 2] . p i T i xVi ] " n xV p>xu? .(1,6) i a x n D'ytn γ π ι .'nanx 14 na'n x x a n w aipa Va π χ ϊ pwV (2, i) D'w w i n p^V ]xa ηχ "Μ 39 pvizj 7»7/7»[7|£5wia3 x m n s a pwVi ΎΙ0 Ή 15 Τ Μ Τ Γ Λ Ό ΠΧ17Π X T ! ΠΰΤ χ ι π

πηχ .irVvD " w 'aVa n n o i a nx npnn 'ns .(2,3) l a v m o i a n x npnaa 16 iVaV i n nx inwawa x x i d

31 32

Ps 19,15. bHul 92a.

33

In the ms. erroneously written ΠΊ1Π3.

34

See mAvot 3,17 (written ]T1Ö), bYom 21a, bTa'an 20a and in many other places.

35 36

Jdg 6,38: " . . . a n d wrung the dew out of the fleece". Eschardure translates the Hebrew term f i n "chaff". It may be a newly attested form related to Old French "escharder", which can mean 'open [a shell]' and 'card [wool]'.

37 38

Kara's quotation lacks D W l . Am 3,2.

39

Ps 55,15. MT: without yod ΗΠ\

Mauro Perani

410 40

777 ΛΑ WpD*? DTIV^S

1 Π ΠΚ ' η ® ' W W » ' 3 D ' n ® V s

17

D'aixVi t n i i®n naV m 'ök Dn>Vi?i η® Vi? D'sVa pa} D'sVa ηχ (2,2) p x nVa iarn» (2,i) pn im» is naVi η α® Vi? ουτη ixnpj a'jm pn nxi? onaixai (2,3) la'nnoia nx npnjj 'aix® (2,2) w'®a V»i41"'> V» π ο υ 19 n a r τχ (2,4) laV i»V' 4 2 , n pn®' n>a®a a®ν ρ '3X1 >ητη VoaV D'xyna onx na (2,5) laVna' unnai isxa ia'Vx 20 77^7 iaa 'aVa wn®a υχι 'ns . ( 2 , 6 ) 'aVa 'naoa 'V inj® naiVan t:s®a msox 'aix iVxa ( 2 , 7 ) pin Vx msox "mott'p 21 (2,7) nnx »ja »Vx i a x .'j3'Van®3 n"apn nax ρ iaa j/ti> ii> nms mi p > »> mm [A] in naV® 'jaa 'ax® d ® 3 22 aVii?n niaixV π xw nai®m (2,7) nnx »ja »Vx orn 'JX 4 6 a m ü'jaiasi nm yaiaa nanV xipan -pi p® 23 mxV n®ii? mx® nan Va ( 2 , 7 ) t d t V ' pi , 4 V»77nax' nnnxV v o s j unia xin®3 ®n ia3 r ' v p®Va ®»®a 24 Trn'V' nax' tV' ρ YVia mxa 48 nnnx iV ιηυ ?pV n®ii? axn na ."|V n®i;x pV n®ii? axn® na 'aiVa 25 m m iV p i n nVmV ona» iV pm 'osx "]mwxi inVm π'υ mnxi 'jaa Vx® 'jx m imia» na»Vi pimV 26 'ns . ( 2 , 9 ) Vna tsa®a n»nn . ( 2 , 8 ) p x amx n ^ v n n a m a p i * p x n mrimnn i m a i Vna Da® a ana®n 27 u ' T x n ( 2 , 1 0 ) Q'aVa nn»i .51 mman nx n a » . ( 2 , 1 0 ) 't>si® ηονη irnrt rrapn η τ η -isnV in' που® 28 nsi? px® oansi? w'jn 'aiVa .(2,11) nxi'a ip®j nnx 'ja nVvaV naxn pn 'ns . ( 2 , 1 2 ) ia ip®j , 5 2 "' inbminn ρκι 29 Vw ρ 'ns . ( 2 , 1 2 ) p i naxni «μχ» ρ mix isx t3»aa n»a' '3 . ( 1 , 6 ) laxn d'»®i p n nVi?aV nnaxn nn'ain na'Vi? 30 na [ P s 3 ] .oVisn ρ D'Vs nnx nV{p} ni?®Vi 'ns ( 2 , 1 2 ) p® Va ( 3 , 2 ) n s iai na pi?ix w n 'Vi? lap nnnx iV'x , ( 3 , 2 ) n s lan 31 u

9

40

2 Sam 5,17. MT: 0>nu?Vs Vs lVji'l.

41 42

MT: Π1Π' bv τ η ' n o u MT: m n ' instead of 'ΠΚ.

43 44

Dan 10,3. 2 Sam 7,14 and 1 Chr 17,13, but in reverse order with respect to MT: p V 'V Π'Π' x i m .

45 46 47

Exod 4,22. Deut 14,1. Jos 3,10.

48

In the ms. Π1ΠΝ, with omission of zayin.

49 50

Isa 24,19. In the ms. the copyist erroneously wrote n n U Ü 3 .

51 52

2 Sam 12,31. MT: m i B 3 1 . Prov 21,30. MT: ΓΠΓΡ ΠΧΪ J'NI Π313Π ]'X1.

iV Π'ΠΝ Ί Χ

Yosef Ben Sim'on Kara's Lost Commentary on the Psalms

411

o n a i x D ' m . ( 3 , 2 ) ' i x l a n n a 'Vi? o p '3au?a n n i? n ' a V u ? m p n lV w n i n r n n x n m n w a a n n x nnwu? αηχ ( 3 , 3 ) ' » s i 1 ? ηηχαπ 55

vnvn

oj m a x u ? ( 3 , 4 )

53

'isn p a

32

nnxi

'333? x i m -pVx m x n p u ? ni? Van ' n s . ( 3 , 5 ) κ ι ρ χ " ' Vx ' V i p ™mnn

χ in

33

χ τ χ xV m'tt? ni?u?a " s x ' m w a p p a '3xu> ni?u> i i ? n a ' a u ? ni?u?n

34

'ElVa ( 3 , 6 ) Π3Ρ'Χ1

'3X . ( 3 , 5 ) nVo UZHj? Ί Π »

m x n p a i ,(3,6) » » a o » " " '3 (3,7) m a a n a ['ns]

.(3,9)

n V o - j n a n a " j a y Vsn n w n

" ' V , 5 6 7>>j>

722^2103

( 3 , 3 ) n V o o m V x a lV n n s w p x ' a i x

35

"is

n n x u ? D O ' j n Vi?i ' a i V a . ( 3 , 9 ) nVo " i n a n a p s ; Vsn

rawn

"'Vi

36

n x a [ P s 4] .12V nwii? nnxu? n i x V a i n Vsn n ' O ' i n Vi? , 5 8 n V o - p i x " p a V

37

DmVi? V ü i a i nn'Vi? n a m h u p - p i ? V nwii? ] w V x V x nai?u> pu>V m p x . ( 4 , 2 ) 'V n a n m l ' x m ] a l a a nai?tt?V x V x x a n V w a w a l r x

59

n t P o v t t » τ χ ν nwau? m m

38

xVx naiwV n a is? ν τ κ ' 3 a .'V a m n n x a m V x " ' ( 4 , 2 ) '3337 ' x i p a ' n s n a i . w y w V . ' s w n x i a x n a n a i a .(4,3) na'VaV ' a i x i3'x . i a u n i v a m x V

6 0

XJUXJ W 'u>' ρ

. ( 4 , 4 ) lV τ ο π " '

62

ρηχ

>η>χτηix

xVx m

nVsn 'a ' a i x i 6 1 j o x ^ m ^ s

nmu? i x n a

40

nx 'n'xn

b x x z ' n t o ü Vsinrnxa

p n " ' / 7 > 5 / 7 7 i a a n V s n pu?V η 65

39

maa

63

41

nVsn

x > t e > >2'-inu? n V x n ]iu?V x i n u ? ρ Vi? s n n " a n s a η ψ ο p m η ν η ψ α

42

p i n " a ' n a ητι f y ' V x a ' n a n m •pu? n i ? i V naV x V m ' n a n a i n V x n ]iu?V [X]inu> - p a V V 53 54 55 56 57 58

59 60 61 62

63 64 65 66

pantem

43

MT: Η5Ώ μ » n w ΠΠΧ1. 2 Sam 12,13. MT: m a n Ν1? -|Γ1ΧϋΠ Τ 3 Ϊ Π Π1Π' OS. MT: 'JJ5H. Prov 6,22. MT: In the ms. the copyist erroneously wrote ΓΟΌ. The last part of Kara's comment to this verse is partially inspired by Rashi's comment on the same verse, where we read: ΠΧ1 VDJ? ΠΧ S'ttnnV l'Vl? .'111 p i ? Vyi ΠΪΙΒ'Π '"V nVo lV n n i n V l -paV Völö l a v 1 0 Ϊ . Their common source is the piyyut 'Π 7VK SlpXof Gersom ben Yehudah called Me'or ha-Golah. Exod 15,1. 1 Sam 22,9. 2 Sam 16,21. In the MT nVDH but in our ms. as in many Biblical mss. xVdH; nevertheless Kara's exegesis is based on the verbal root nVD which means "to distinguish, to make a distinction", since the exegete interprets this "distinction" between Israel and the nations as salvation. Such an interpretation could not be supported by the root kVs whose meaning is "to work wonders". Also here in the ms. KVsn. Exod 9,4. Num 6,2. Exod 9,4. MT: m p n J'3 ΠΊΠ' Π^ΠΙ.

Mauro Perani

412

V ^ a xinu> n " 3 p n bu> v n n a o ' x s m anxu> d s V V ' i n a π α τ 6 1 ρ κ ^ s i s n m i m α ν ί ώ 7 7 d o ν τ ο π n x >χιρ3 v i m * " ί

44

nun (4,4) l ' V x

45

fol. 1 ν ins

68pwVi

ruxi

n n Vd . ( 4 , 5 ) i x o n n V x i τ τ η j f j ' i virun*?)

ι

TiüpwH1?

a ' » » i v a w 'du? ™ j m v D w w o t P ] ^ . ' m x i u ? n a x a ' i t i b . 6 9 r m

2

ΐ η τ π χ n m ' a i V s ,ΙΛΧΎΠ V x i 'Vi? n n 1 o s i o n n a ι χ υ π η V x i r r o p n ρ

nanV λ χ τ ' n o . π η ]X3 ηχ

n'rw j s n V s m ' n x iaDi . ' i n

12jnDn 73

pomx

by a a a a V a n a x . 7 4 vox

innoo

V7'x7'aix

4

'axw n'snn ia3i

5

w p n x

"JON wri'B

3

'Vv i x o n n

>iV K3 D i V u n x V ' a x w 777 nbn

b^mh

. Ί 3 ' Π pu?1? . ( 4 , 5 ) nVo i s m D ' n o p a n n x w ην ]X3 ηχ . 7 6 / " > ü ? 7 i a 3 i

D333tt>a w i n

7J? ionia3i

6

V i x w > r » a ] n x i s a V 'Vi? p i s [ Ή 3 Τ ] 1Π3Τ sbv

n o p V a db"? i b n m Vx Vx n p i ι β π m a n » u n a VapVi

ι

IÄ33 13V n x naiu? DIXWB . ( 4 , 6 ) 77

[/77J7£fj] mi

D'n'px

>π3τίό

]"32?3 p i s V i ? Π3Τ i m w u n a aizn n x i p ]

8

.(4,6) p i s Ή 3 Τ 1 Π 3 Τ ' a i x χ ι π ] X 3 η χ *]'3D n x 13'Vv n o i . ( 4 , 6 ) V x i n t i s i ^ B i n V a D 3 3 3 V n a w T I D

9

m b w a . ' " 1 ' i s n x irVi? n x n t i s .(4,7)"> r u n x n n a x [ P s 5] . ( 4 , 9 ) 7 8 > 3 3 ' κ η η n o 3 " ? t d 1 ? n n x ' 3 n s s w x i n n ' .(5,2)

79'Λ'ΛΠ

' 3 V a ' » U P Vlp 1 ? Π3'Β>ρη . 8 0 J V S l · Ώ Ϊ / 7 * Λ 7 7 Ί Ώ 3 '3*7 67 68 69 70 71 72

73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80

10

Π3'3 D i l . Π Β 3 X ' - S i a 'JXtt? ]3Π D20 'DD

11

Ps 64,3. In the ms. ΠϊίΠ written erroneously a second time, but expunged by the copyist. Job 3,26. MT: in reverse order 'ntipu> xVl TnVlP xV. Exod 15,14. 1 Sam 22,9. 1 Sam 21,2. In the ms. the copyist wrote Π'ΠΝ instead of iVöTIX. It seems to be a mistake of the scribe, confusing ΓΡΠΧ, kohen in Silo, son of DIDHX (see 1 Sam 14,3), with "]VöTIX kohen in Nob, to which the quotation is referring. 2 Sam 16,21. 1 Sam 23,19 (Ps 54,2). 1 Sam 14,9. Ps 37,7. Ps 51,19. MT: 'U'iznn noaV τ η 1 ? m r r nnx ό nn'. MT: '3'3Π Π2'3 Π1Π' ΠΜΧΠ '"ΙΏΝ. Ps 19,15.

Yosef Ben Sim'on Kara's Lost Commentary on the Psalms

413

.(5,3) V ? a n x i ' V k ' 3 ' n b s i y n w { n } npa

- p s 1 ? VVsnxw n w Vrn ' m V a . ^ s V W a n x n w x s ' n s

12

-ipn Van . ( 5 , 4 ) ' V i p .571

81

7>/7iVJ7 7 7 J ' X V l ( 5 , 5 ) ΠΓΙΧ TO1 p n ^ X

' 3 .HSXXI " p a V TlV'SD

13

( 5 , 6 ) T r y IM1? n ^ V i f n i p x v v x V ΛΚΠΏ Ί2ΊΏ . ( 5 , 7 ) 3 T 3 >7317 73ΧΓ)

.m>fJDß

m»7,7\Wb

.D'VVin ."131

nvu? ί"7ί ι τ [ η π ] ^ 8 1 7 0 Π 3 1 7 3 '3X1

DVHDZ MÜ'l

14

tewnm

>£77/V,7JX77 37DV

J'JX

Wrf'S

ΛΥ Λ3'Π5 . ( 5 , 8 ) X 3 X Nh

γηχνπ

ox mom^y

ηϊαιν

νϊν

αΐΌϊ

1ΠΤ1 . ' 3 7 ' 7 3 3 ΕΠ73 "|D

no

w m

Q7X ' 3 3 l ^ ö 1 ? 'I7Q ( 5 , 9 ) ' 7 7 W ^ D 1 ? i n p 7 X 3 >3>Π3 " > . 1 Ü W Ö i p ' 2 ? .S13J7p

16

^ m m 17

7J77BW1Ö3 ,'ΓΙΙΧ D'371XH

P ' 3 X 1 '32713 V'SH 1 ? ( 5 , 1 0 ) Β31ΊΛ ΠΙΠΒ 7 3 j ? ΠΠΠ D 3 i p Π 3 1 3 3 1 Π ' 3 3 |'X ' 3

18

P ' 3 X 1 '327 "727 D'37Üp72tt7 n73l7DU7 .(5,10)

Ο31®17 - Ε ™

, ; n

1 2

Γ1781®

m n s

"^P*7

Πΰ1

' τ ^"1*133

19

7 3 0 3 '3tZ> XIpD 1 ? Π7317 ΠΤ X i p a T13U7 x n p ö l

88

, 7 J : 7>Ä77 7/77' n'PDKD Λ7/?>/?>/75 & 7 > DDT! /7V7> ρ ϊ Π ' ΰ Τ 89

, 7 / 7 7 £ nwypbrr^

Ίοηι 133Τ aViv1? ρ >οιπ V3 i n w i .imj?7i3 tcx

20

'"7^723

'nun's 7331 21

81

Ps 15,1· As confirms Psalm 15, to the question "who shall sojourn in thy tabernacle?" ClVnxa TO' 'Ö ΠΊΠ'), the answer is: " H e that walked rightly, and worked righteousness, and spoke truth in his heart" (Ps 15,2).

82 83

Qoh 2,12; cfr. also Qoh 7,25: mVVin mVaom. Be-re'sit Rabbah 32,1 and 38,1 on which Kara's explanation is based. We read in this midrash 32,1: "And the Lord said to Noah: Come thou and all thy house into the Ark, etc. (Gen 7,1). It is written: You destroy them that speak falsehood, etc. (Ps 5,7): this refers to Doeg and Ahitophel (Vsm'nNl 3K172 "OIH); Them that speak falsehood: them and their speech. R. Pinehas said: 'Them and their company'. The man of blood and deceit (ibid.): the one permitted incest and bloodshed, and the other permitted incest and bloodshed ( τ η π πτ Q'»7 ma'Bun mns? ' l V ' j τ η π ππ o ' » 7 r o ' s u n n v i i ? nVn). The one [Ahitophel] permitted incest and bloodshed, [when he counselled Absalom], Go in unto thy father's concubines (2 Sam 16,21). The other [Doeg] permitted incest: [Where do we find this]? Said R. Nahman b. Samuel b. Nahman: 'He annulled his [David's] citizen rights and declared him an outlaw and as one dead, so that his blood was permitted and his wife was permitted'". The same interpretation in Be-re'sit Rabbah 38,1: "The Rabbis relate the verse to Doeg and Ahitophel: (...) this one permitted incest and bloodshed, and that one permitted incest and bloodshed".

84 85 86

2 Sam 16,21. 1 Sam 22,18. MT: Λ'Π and + Ν1Π-371ΒΊ. Be-re'sit Rabbah 32,1 quoting 2 Sam 12,13 which in M T is:

man.

87

Num 24,17.

88

Jer 23,12.

89

Prov 26,28. MT: Π31 instead of

xV ηηΚΒΠ Τ357Π ΠΊΠ' DJ

414

Mauro Perani n V ^ a V a vVs? n s p a n it m a s s ( 5 , 1 3 ) ι η ο ν η p n

90nrrDO

n n (5,12) la'bs?

r m s 'jw ?vn>ao Vsa n s ' p r w p'aai

22

o a ' w x n .u>xin n x / i n 9 1 inn do

d'S't p r o (5,11) o r r m x y i a a i V s ' D'nVx

ιπκ'ρη'Μΰ

( 6 , l ) r v r a w n bv n u ' U D n x a a 1 ?

23

[ P s 6]

i s x a bx .m n a i a 'ax vVina x s m w a i .pa1! n n a w

n r s by

24

/ i n ( 6 , 3 ) ' a x s n > j x V ? a i x ' 3 " » ' m i π ' a x w n ' a i a m a i a n p i . ' V i n bv

25

p U D " .(6,2)

92,3ΊΟ'Π

^ a n a V x i '3Π'31Π

' n v r . " V i n a (6,5) ' w s i ηχ . ' n o '

f n r vvidi

" n W

ιηιρτ^,ΐ)

n x V n n a w ·?33 ' n o ' a π π ο χ > n m x 3

pi firn 'noa Twain w a i a

'nsw .(6,7) n o a x

95'tnj7

w a i a

26

}X3

, ' n o a ' a i x xintz> - p a o n r r a i a

27

o m o i v w n a s iVdVx o i s ? nsum ' n s .(6,8) τ ν

o s o a n u i r s . o i x ' a p w V i V x u a p w V .9βνο'Ε>η

28

m o ' n s .npm? . 9 7 T i ? oj?3a i s a r c u n . ( 6 , 9 ) p x ' ^ y i s "73 ' j a a m o . 98 ,77/7/7 ownpnvnas

>rj? m x a

29

' 3 p x ' V v i s Va n a a m o o n V ' a x v V i n a V p n a i m a n ? p n a o a m x i V

30

1X31 m a w n V n w i n

>a>ix

( 6 , 1 1 ) i V n a ' l 1 ^ 1 3 ' ( 6 , 9 ) " 3 3 Vlj? HlV P ' W

[ P s 7 ] . D ' J D Π Ϊ 7 1 3 3 ΟΠ1? ΠΤΠ X S i n J t P 1 1 1 ' 3 Ί Χ 1 X 1 W 3 . ' i n /7>>a/7ia3 m V

bv . ( 7 , i ) t » i 3 n a i bx

to'mν

wp

( 7 , 2 ) ' j ^ ' s m « s i n "73a n r u n n w e n

ρ

ρ

31

.(7,i)

' V s a i n x x i m ."nvwtp 100

ρ

m't» 'ns

χ·>η:η pipnnb Vixw

32

n a i

'nbx 'ax idiii rrnws

33

p n i s i f p i w ( 7 , 3 ) " " m x a »^Da η ι ο > •paon u n s a w i a s τ ι χ ϋ π x V m

x V a ' j d h i c n n V^i ( 7 , 3 ) V ' s a p x i nx ηχτ

102»n»®y

nx ή ^ χ

y ' r x i a w i s o a u n s a w i a 3 ( 7 , 5 ) s n ' a V i w ' n V a j d x ( 7 , 4 ) ' s a a Viv ν

90

34

"> 35

This verb occurs also in Ps 140,8 and Lam 3,14.

91

1 Sam 23,19 or 26,1.

92

The copyist erroneously wrote ΰΤΙΏΓΠ and forgot the following w o r d ΤΙΟ'Γ), but he signed the mistake by a stroke of the pen one on top of mem sofit in D T l ö r n since actually his explanation requires the term ' D D T .

93

MT: ' n a n nV'V-Vs^ nna>N in reverse order.

94

Lev 1,9.

95

MT: ' t i n y .

96

Lam 3,45. M T : Uö'tt>n.

97

In the ms. ' J S .

98

Gen 12,8.

99

Hab 3,1.

100 Est 2,5. 101 MT:

n n « 3 in reverse order.

102 In the ms. rrttW.

Yosef Ben Sim'on Kara's Lost Commentary on the Psalms ™nnwn

v/ites

nmi\_nvin\

γη'ροΛ

415

va*

Din ' 3 3 m m i s but i n s ' V n t i V ü ] a x i ' n s . ( 7 , 5 ) a p n m i s n s V n x i

36

xVi V i x w m a V s j D ' n ^ s n a n n w (7,6) i w

a ' i x η τ ρ (7,4) ηχτ w w

a x ia m

mVwV w a x

37

a ' ^ p a a a m . ( 7 , 6 ) nVo p ® » n s v V m a a i i V r a m m n .(7,7) m i s n n a y a xwan l a x a

naip na^aV m a s

B S HP n " a p n u > 3 .i04px,7

38

vow

n w j x ' » / 7 a m a a nVivV a a n n a l a w a>3?una b d w a n i y i v p x n

39

'7·ΡΙ TPNPN tern DB&ZD xVw nni? - w

r r n o B s w a (7,7)

106n'is

B s w a 'Vx m i v i

ιπτϊπ a'suna B'BixV m » i .'V'awa m i x π τ » π .(7,7)

107n'is

™ηρ~ιχη

40

ρ

ö s w a >Vx m i y ] d i

4i

m a i x n m s n tid .(7,8) * p a o n x ^ 3 n { n } n ' V v a n ' n s ( 7 , 8 ) n a i w a n a 1 ? n ^ s i n n s a "it»* n x p ' p a n πτ x n p a i a n a n w n w D'nbx

I08'j'ja

42

Bawaa

( 7 , 7 ) n n a s n x r c i n nVya 1 ? n a x n x n p a V n a n n

( 7 , 1 2 ) j ? n s b b h p D'n^x ( 7 , 1 1 ) >aV n r

43

run»

p i a x n D'vunn nVxi t i d .(7,12) a v boa a s m Vxi v a ' i x a m a i n

44

na'VaV m a a aiwV i ^ p a a n nVvaV . a r Vaa an'Vv a i m n " a p n

45

Fol. 2 r ifiöV' l a i n a w

xV a x

109

ten mxixn

b

m

7 > i a a it n a ' m

j m ηνιήι

1

a i x ^ a w f i a a πτ x n } p a . ( 7 , 1 3 ) •px a x j x a η χ " W a i b U H i n ? x ? i i x V a t h j i ' b x w h j i B ' w . n a i V p i r n w n a nattn

l a a ρ η π ]iu>V ( 7 , 1 5 ) p x V a n ' n i n ,vbv nV'i Vaν

112mn

a[

i a m r r a p n u^ibV'

[un]saw iaa .1U 7 m

i n x x n p a uhdV ' m a u πτ x i p a

mV

Cfr. 1 Sam 24,18. MT: Π1ΠΠ y n 1 ? » ! ΊΝ1 Π31ϋΠ ' i n 1 ™ ΠΠΚ '3 in reverse order. Ps 94,2. Isa 5,16. HpJ abbreviation of UHp:. In the ms.: ΠΓΠΧ. In the ms.: ΠΓΠΪ. 'J'SÖ abbreviation of Ί Ι » . Gen 26,3. Old French gloss: Si tu ne deis e(s)monder, male veie prends tu 'If you will not cleanse yourself (of sin), you are taking a bad path'.

111 Cant 8,5. 112 MT: m m .

3

ηηϊηπ

ϊ ' λ π ι ρ a j x i . m a x a w t w V d . ( 8 , i ) n ' m n Vv n s a a b [ P s 8] . ( 7 , 1 5 ) n p w

103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110

2

]io

4

416

M a u r o Perani i m J K ' A 'HU? ] " 2 i ? a D'pJJ?

" 3 Η Μ Ρ Λ ' ί ο η β ί ρ Β ]>ΧΙΡ 3 " i 7 X 1 Π 0 Λ Π

nan ircx p x n Vaa

τ η χ na

p X V a n tf'/V-P i r a n x " " . 1 1 4 nttm mwxm

5

QX ' 3 " W

' s a .(8,2) D'nwn by

mn

6

γηπ

'ns η π on1? ιπχ Tis iVVn m x i p a ^ .(8,3) nv mo> D ' p m n^VViv ι n"apna i r x a π τ η ' miü naa •'Wis? ' s a nV'nn nn^ax n^awn Vi? "pim p x n Vaa -pu? THXU? 3"i?x 8 nn'ax 'ns .D'pm opanai a»ix 115nnau>nu?a γ ν π ϊ α o n x a a irmaxV DO'3 n w u ? nau? 9 nnsn'üw D'n[sa] απ (8,3) 116 nw»a -pa» nxix »a .D'pm a'VVw " s x D'n Vi? i n w paV ηιο era 10 naix nx (8,4) Tn[V3]xx 117 ύ m&m mm obh mj /TU Dm η b xVm .(8,5) i n a m '3 emx na 11 ? m a i»ö®3 n{w»V} •'Via1' nn DiVa DiVa pxu? ]mx n x n >axu>a (8,4) "'nana η » « D'33i3i π τ ' s I'manxx 12 p x a i D'awa [ ]ax -pna onx ρ ι ιπ3τη '3 unax na 'aixi n'an 'ax Tnmanai Tuwaa n w nwx 13 lmonm .(8,5) inpsn pa] T3T trnVx lxipau? mwn 'axVaa o s a a imonm 'ns .(8,6) D'nVxa twa 14 n m nx arn'pxn >jo ihvi na 1 2 0 Ι Μ Π Χ ."u (8,9) n s x ."η (8,8) naxx ."in (8,7) wV , wan. 119 ü7A , /7 15 m x n nx nxia xV 'ns .(8,10) p x n Vaa τηχ p x n Vaa -pu? τ ι κ xn'u? n a xVx τ>τ nu?i?aa inVwan xVi mV™ xVi 16 .(8,2) 121">awn Vs? ητιη p'Vi oVxa xnaau? Vi? nmVx ia pxw anx nai naim Vp nnan n m a n naxnz? 17 n"apn Vaa Vuna manai na - i i a T a n nVnn ISID ρ mVnnna τ π Vu> u n a a p i . n a a i n a a nnx Vi? 18 .isla pn (8,2) τ η χ 122ω^ιν nti» b i n x 777 >/7/?>7nunsa .(9,1) pV maVy nxaaV [Ps 9] 19 Vi? ™ v n w n b n w m

awteaD

113 1 S a m 17,4. 114 Jos 11,22. MT: V1XB>J

DJ3 ΠΤΪ3 p i V x ! ^ ' Ή

Q'p:» ΊΠΙ]"« 1 ?.

115 In the ms. erroneously written: πη'2Ιί>Π1Ρ3 but the copyist e x p u n g e d the yod pointing it out b y a stroke. 116 MT: according the ms. Saint Petersburg Β 19a: 'OTÜ but in most mss. ni^VH. 117 Isa 40,17; in M T 0DNÜ with a mem prefixed; in the ms. DDK is pointed out with a point, either b y the copyist, or b y a owner. The B H S suggests as the correct reading DDXD documented in s o m e mss. 118 MT: 'BW»; ΠΠΗΌ. 119 Gen 6,2. 120 MT: i m « . 121

abbreviation of Ο'ΒΙΡΠ.

122 1 Chr 15,3. MT: Τ Π . 123 1 Chr 15,19.

Yosef Ben Sim'on Kara's Lost Commentary on the Psalms . 1 2 7 /77£>j>

a^nn

1 2 6

i x v m w

n

125

.'Va w a r s

417 nw

20

777/7 DU? Vi? D ' b o n '"ΓΠ'ΤΙΠ Vi? ' " / V a T Ö j p Q'Vaiia f ^ a t t ?

21

] i n n x i n m a V s i n a t n 'Va du; Vaa 130

3W Ό

. i n > ™ ' n o η ο χ 3 .D'iVn p a i x u ? Q'Vnon ^ d . p r o Vu? v V p " ' o w a V i τ η π 1 ? ! p V V . ( 9 , 1 ) p V rnabs? 132

22

.'Va T j m x m a ^ i ? ] m s V v p w i a p w j a w

3 " 3 r w b w n x " 3 p w x n n x i p a π τ π n a i a n · ρ π . ( 9 , 2 ) 'η 1 ? V 3 3 " > m i x

23

p i . ' " τ ο rrrawn [j"a] n'uwm •[Vinn Va Λ Γ φ Ρ ρ ( 9 , 4 ) - p a n Π 3 Χ Ί l ^ M » Π Π Χ V s i n V u m u ? i v 57"!{ή napiu? (9,5)

13S

p i x o b u p a s w a n xddV

D'Vtsin

raw

'3»ΊΧ a i t t D . i V l S

' a m 'tsswa n'uw Ό

['3'ix a j o r o 'ns . a n a nVw1?

ximc aVisn ρ

134

24

T i n x i r x u ? 'sV m n x 25

'napi

(9,6) s u n m a x m i r v m 1 3 6

26

o n a x a i a n u r i a u r n rrapnu? (9,8) 1x03 o s w a V p i a

η

{ a V i s n n x } Π]3ΐ3'τ m a ' , n " a p n b w x o a D ' s u n n n a x . n a u ? n V n ? m n V i v n n x p i a x a n n a V i s a D>3?tt?-inu?

28

, [ Π " 3 ρ Π Vtt? X]D3 Χ1[Π]ίΖ? D V w n . o V W H x i m . p a i i r n V x Vu? x o a n » t o s w a m a i n u m " Vx m i m a w n a

29

124 Ps 150,5. 125 Old French gloss: 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133

134

135 136

cinbes: 'cymbals'.

1 Chr 15,20. Ibid. Old French gloss: TU3p, chanter: 'play (of a musical instrument)' or 'sing'. In the ms. erroneously written ΠΊΤΊΠ with an exchange between yod and dalet. 1 Chr 16,34 and Ps 136,1. The copyist wrote IHlPaVl cancelling the waw and pointing out by two strokes the normal mem instead of the required mem sofit. Old French gloss: "Ρ31ΠΝ, orgener. 'sing, sing with musical accompaniment (organ); play the organ; to sound (of a musical instrument)'. This Psalm is alphabetic but not completely and regularly, as we can see in the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, Stuttgart 1967/77, where the alphabetical order is as follows: v. 1 is the title; v. 2 X, v. 4 3, v. 6 1, (T lacks), v. 8 Π (actually the last word of v. 7 written at the beginning of v. 8), v. 10 1, v. 12 T, v. 14 Π, v. 16 13, v. 18 v. 19 3. Going on with Psalm 10, its verses 12, 14, 15 and 17 respectively begin with p "I iff Π. If our commentator indicates as verse 1 the second one, not considering the title, his observation on the alphabetical order of the verses 1 X, 3 3 is correct, but his v. 6 should be v. 5, and his v. 8 should have Π not Τ as written in the ms. Moreover the first verse is }1ΙΙ>ΧΊ in agreement with Nlpö which is masculine, while the following verses have the ordinal numbers with feminine agreement: r v u " ^ n ' w r r r a u * . In the ms. instead of ΌΉΝ which is an involuntary mistake of the scribe, perhaps due to the assonance between Adonay and Oyevay, or to the fact that, exactly in the line above and in the same position where he had to write 'D'lX, there is another Tetragrammaton expressed b y ' " . MT:-D3ti>an. At the beginning of line 26 the copyist erroneously wrote a second time the previous verse: DHQ ' n a p j Tlßpüü (9,5) pIX USW XD31? Γ13ΕΤ> ' Π Ι 'BDB?Ö D'BW.

Mauro Perani

418

(9,9) D ' * i [ w a a η'0]χ"7 ρ ' p n x a Van ü i s w o n w a a D ' a i x V i p n x a n V i v n üisur» r r a p n ο"?ΐ2?π ρ

o'run naxw p a

30

D ' s u n [xnaw] nViim τ π π η ^ 'aiVa o m x Q ' m w i n '3 .D'sun n a x w .(9,io)

137

γ τ ν a w n ' π ί . l a w 'V

r n x w ( 9 , 1 3 ) " V i i s n j ? » x n a w xV .naT ΠΙΡ127 Π"3ρΠΙΖ> p T "73 . ( 9 , 1 7 ) ΠΙΡΪ Ö S W a [ ( 9 , 1 7 ) ΪΝΪΠ

[tppj\nτ{a}d

141

140

D'suna

.onnnK

34

s m a i i w b j m x n Vv v o n

35

[ P s 1 0 ] . π χ τ ] p w V . ( 9 , 2 1 ) on 1 ? n n a D'sunm ' n s . ( 1 0 , 3 ) γ η [

U2

nrvw .ία

] p a V a - p a n a D"]j?n n x D'Vran

. ( i o , 4 ) w t i t Va l a x i s x n a u a y e n , 1 4 3 m n b n y u n m i a a π n a ' n i [iV>n'

145

r n j a - p i a w a α π » . η » Vaa v a n

[7ot (io,5) [ [naVnV v r y

]V m i

. D ' x a V n v a i s s a Vom n n n a x n m i t V j ? n B i m n

41 42

]

Va l a V a ' a i x w D>nVx γ x j i p s u n V d u ' a ' a i V a . m i s [oyai Vav

40

] i a it n a ' n

n a r ® n n x n Jima ( ΐ ο , ι ο ) D'xaVn v a i s v a " 7 3 3 1 1 4 7 n w n a r . p a r i a a [

[

39

nnV 'ns

ηιοπ1? a n x ' . i n n V u s x ' p a x i 'j»V v r s ? ' n s . ( 1 0 , 8 ) u i s s ' [

137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148

38

Dnan's'i'jmis

. ( i o , 6 ) s n a x 1 ? h p x . m a x Va i a a V a ' a i x o o m a πτ n a n o n n ' V x a

p"ix

37

] p i .rnVxV n n a

Va . i n n w v b a n a x V a m x ' j a aV ρ Vs? 1 4 6 7> j n t i a i η κ ΰ j>7 n w w x m n

1 4 8

36

inpi.'^p-in'VTpn'V'nD

s h b j πηχ i ' x w 'sV ' n s .(10,5)

(io,9)

33

n"apn

( 9 , 1 9 ) p a x n a w n s a V xV ' a .nVo n a w . ( 9 , 1 7 ) nVo p i n [VVn ' a

32

ρ

77^7/7/7/77 Ϋ7>7Λ7/77ΓΠ n V s a a 'JW

'Va 'iV x s ' ^ x ι ^ ρ υ

3i

D'an

V113 Ο'ΐηΖΓΙΠ ' i D a DVlVn

] { DDJidhq

V B 3 b v i s a .ΊΛ1

138

xV i a V a

43

... w r n ] x

MT: "pV ΠΙΓΡ 'ΓΡΙ. MT: lacks D ' m . MT: D"J». Ezek 38,23. Old French gloss: 'iV NS'^K, enchape luv. 'captures him'. Deut 12,30. Deut 29,18. Be-resit Rabbah 26,6; Pesiqta de Rav Kahana 8,1. MT: 13m. Qoh 8,12. MT: Π311. Old French gloss: the first word is ensis, which means 'thus', but it is difficult to read the second word without more context.

Yosef Ben Sim'on Kara's Lost Commentary on the Psalms

419 Fol. 2 ν

p a x a D w p i r o a n a m p p i i n ' a x ( i o , i 4 ) [ i ^ y η τ η ] nn 1 ? c a n winn

ι

D'pnsn nx

a n m υΌηπηχν

p i 3 n n x w i t Vv t i q ( i o , i 4 ) - p ' a n n 1 ? 1 4 9 va[op>\

7X m i v'pnn

2

V3X D ' T a X Ο'ρΉΧΠ D ' i W l 1 ? Π31 , Π ^ Ώ Ώ d w c n s w 1 ? . ( 1 0 , 1 7 ) ·μτχ a » w p m naV p m ( ί ο , 18) ρ χ π p πτ n a i a . ( ΐ ι , ΐ ) ύ ι β χ n a m

150,

, n

nyaw D'uy r m n w ρ τ

p u s ριν ? τι» η'ον

3

γη

1

T 3 'tt'siV n a x n γ χ w o n " ' a [Ps i i ]

4

w w p a > xVw n ' i w V s p x Vx τ π ü V a i w a i a x 3 naiV iVain (11, i ) ' i r o n " ' a ' a x p i i T a ü V a ' i n u r ' Via* Vaa Vixw naVw m a n i w

o n n i x o n x w ( i 1, i )

p i . 1 5 2 7 ^ 7 / 7 i n ΪΧΟΝΌΊΊΌ

151

]"32?3 " l t t " p X ΠΙ D 3 i n .H3pa Π 1 3 H B ' X S y j dm

a w i n r u n ' a . 1 5 5 '»nbmn

nanon

5

>ύι3 ' w s j 1 ? 6

Vxiaw naoa i r s a

[a\154

ό153an

amix

οιχη

ι

iV i ' x n a v t o D ' S ' t n l V ' x . ( i 1 , 2 ) n w p p a i r mnoa

m,viwVixwV

iV ' a i x v i s a xVw m o a i n a n x p 3 » 3 nwpV V w a s s?in p ^ V i

. ( i i , 3 ) V s b n a p n s p o m * n w w n ' a .^ipwan&p w w a

156

d'jb v i s a

8

v i v v w

9

v w

aiwbnx

m x ' j a ' a i x w a x w Vwa

D i n o x ] x a ηχ n a y " ? Via 1 n V v a V a ' n a n p 3 a p x n ^ a V p o m 3 n a i n n

10

'nV)s?D ρ n x u c n n n xV d x w n ' n s r p n V i n ' n V s s χικΛ> ' n a i s t » ' η ρ ρ χ ρ ' n V x o v ' n V v a w

11

p'-ix p n s n n p i x V ' s v ixoaD'aipa'»ninpVa'na">?inpT2

{ n i 3 } a x 3 n n a ( i 1,3) Vvs n a

a o i a m x i p a ( i 1,4) u n a > v s v s »

12

ι τ π ' m

Vv n s n i33ia n w p p a n ' D ' s u n n n s n ' 3 ' a i x [ u > ] n"73?a Vu? ] » 3 » ν

13

'3sa u m v D ' T n o a nxi .(1,2) i n ' pns

i V i m u n s a w i a a i n o V phna' ρ^κ n " a p n ' 3 s a (11,2) ' " a 1 ? n w

14

V r x a i n m o n v u w a p i a . ( i 1,5) p a ' .(ΐι,ΐ)

IS9,

t i 3 'übs1? naiV lVain ^ x n V ^ n V ' a x xiniy n m x a i D ' s i a ^ a a n"apnu> η n ^ i s i n a ' V n n

149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159

Hab 1,13. MT: 1113. MT: Π11 Ps 78,54. MT: l r a 1 ΠΓΙ3ρ ΠΠΠ W l p 'jiaj-'jK DXO'l. MT: + mil' 'ID1?. MT: + ΟΙ'Π. 1 Sam 26,19. 1 Sam 23,19. Jer 9,2. MT: nV 'TO'V. MT: Π13.

15

Mauro Perani

420

a n ' T n u w a a nnV a V w a i a > » u n n p i a D ' p n s n n x i D'2?unn n x ] m a

16

una' v s s s » Ή3Ί D'snn nsaaV [Ps 12] .a'aien nn'ttwaa an"? aVoai 'pnsn ]mai (i 1,4) B7X na 17 m i ' D by ' n s ( 1 2 , i ) n » r a w n

by

D ' s n n by πτ n a i a d j . ( 1 2 , 3 ) r a - p a V i a b a m p b n n s w nix

Μnnsfi160uw

Ίηηοϋ

n n a w Viz*

morhs

nnVi 7 ^ , 7

ηνΰΐ

by a o i a πτ x i p a . ( 1 2 , 9 ) B 7 X ' j a b n i V n a n a . 1 6 1 7 ^ , 7 rn τ π w p a i 1 6 1 tmv

bn

arrVv n ^ n n n a i

1 6 3

21

vwpn

' n a i n ^ a b a v n i n n Vaa D ' p ' i s n n x p s > p a D'yunn ixsa:i

nV^aVai .(12,9) paVnn' ixipity B'yunn l a i n ΐ Β ψ 1 i ^ x a τ η 'as arrVin . ( 1 2 , 9 ) a n a t o t a-isim Diatpn a ' p n s n by d'VVit I64 by p a a n n a a^unnw τ π nxn nx-roa . ( 1 2 , 8 ) DViyb i t ύ π π ρ • w maiaa pvisi m i s a ' p n s n 165 maiai .(14,3) no Van [Ps 14] .(13,3) a'ix d i t n[ix 7]» [Ps 13] 1 l67 nVw paTsa m n i a auna u a i new xin jobon 'aix i n x 'baix px "?a w t xVn . u m a xV m n y a i '^nnVfxn iud] i n o 160 161 162 163 164 165 166

20

wxxjiD'mw

D w o r r w ' w p j j ? a (12,9) p a V n n ' a>yun a ' a o ' n s nai aV'D^nV a n ^ i ?

a'sran a'ao

is

nanx nnb pxna vnw nax:i τη xbnb'mjb p a i x i f x a nnoai vasa 19

22

23

24 25 26

1 Sam 23,19. 1 Sam 23,20. MT: .. .ΠηΟΠ liVl "Π r m V ... Ps 10,4. Ps 22,17. For this emphatic form see Exod 3,7: 'Π'ίΟ ΠΝΊ. MT: '3'Χ. The copyist wrote erroneously xVi? or aVv and pointed out the mistake with a short line on the word. 167 Ps 53,4:1ΠΝ DJ j'X 31Β_Π1»» ΊΠ"?Ν3 ΠΓΡ ID iVd. 168 This liturgical poem does not appear in the piyyutim composed by Gersom ben Yehudah. Maybe it was lost or was attributed to another author. I thank Nahum Weissenstern, an expert in the piyyut literature of the Institute of Microfilmed Hebrew Manuscripts in Jerusalem, JNUL, for the integration of the lacuna in the ms. As Israel TaShema pointed out in his study Π'^ΠΠ ISoV ( Τ " 3 Γ 0 3 ) 'ΓΠ1|?'3 'Ö'JUN UMTS (Open Bible criticism in an anonymous commentary on the Book of Psalms) published in Tarbiz 66 (1997), 417-423, the liturgical poem cited by Kara is a piyyut by Selomoh ha-Bavli, a leading paytan who worked in Rome during the 10th century. Ta-Shema is convinced as well that the commentary to the Psalms in the Imola fragments is by Kara, adding that he could erroneously believe that the author of the poem he quotes is Gersom ben Yehudah. For this piyyut see Fleisher's edition of Selomoh ha-Bavli's piyyutim (Jerusalem 1973) where our quotation appears on p. 315, line 29. The words cited in our comment: •nnVxn 13J0 1310 are also quoted by an anonymous author of another commentary on the Psalms, mentioned by Ta-Shema who also showed that it was not the same commentary as Kara's. Nahum Weissenstern showed me that in Fleisher's edition of ha-Bavli's piyyutim, on page 313 he writes that in late Ashkenazi mahazorim

Yosef Ben Sim'on Kara's Lost Commentary on the Psalms 'ns

.(14,4)

421

i m p x " 7 " ' on1? i V s x ' a v

α ' π η τ π j m x r n D ' a w a ^ V xV . m i v o n m x V n " 3 p n { V τπη}τ Hb tewnx

169

π

DI^DK

. τ π n ' 2 m s V a n t n a V x V x 0 ' π 3 τ π n x m a n . 1 7 ° i^jio

[ ιννη

77η f v v

28

DV1

29

'3U> ] " 3 J ? 3 . ( 1 4 , 5 ) i n s Π Π Β DW 1 1 1 2 D T l V x ' 3 . 1 7 1 iV7/7/7 DVD J7 7/7/7 H^DK IWXti DVD D1X ' 3 2 ( 1 4 , 5 ) i n s Π Π 3 DW X " 1 . ( 1 4 , 5 ) p ' l X i n vVs? 2 ' w x V w

172

7 / 7 0 7 / w a ' x v b y Vs3 χ - u ρ X2i i n V a j

' 3 W 2 n '327 n s » . 1 ? 4 / 7 7 ' J 7 77J77JO 7 > Λ 7

' y a w χιπ τ π 3 m a u

hpx π ϊ ί π

>£J1

173

30

nx

ηΟΤΠΌ

1\ 31

VDin'nX2 Ί31Ώ .(14,6) 1Π0Π0 ' a x vbv

, i m x ™ wmX15D'vnsnvrxmmm

r i ^ m

"73? [ p ' W ]

32

onx ηχ'π (14,6) luron '3V nxs? : t n n w p ' x a in' ' a .(14,6) 1 7 7 i n o n a " ' w i n x a '3» nsv w n n V {d'Vd'} 33 l ' i m s W' .'131 ( 1 4 , 7 )

31W2

' W

χ ι π ο μ ι 6 , ι ) ansa [Psi6].n'3iapnnxnxnpainVu'Vis?

]

34

V2 '11210 n n x ]

35

' 3 i x " ' V m a x . t w ' V a a 'Vd w x i 2 T 1U7X2 m n x i p a n i n 1 2 1 w s 3 V . ( i 6 , 2 )

Γ13"Π 'WD3 ΠΧ ' 3 Π31 .1Π3Π Vx 3'DannXtZ7n21D173'nD.(16,2)T,7V,73'n31D.nn[

]

36

]

37

xV ' 3 ' s V a u V -['Vv V t n a 1 3 ' x 'V a'tprw'? i i a o 2 u n a a u n a s ' τ τ ο χ n i s n d x ' 3 [ » 179 178 73 V i x pX2HPX

•7»(16,4)Βηΐ23ί»13Τ.ηηΐ3Τ3'837Πΰ7137ΠηΧΰ7[ (16,3) D3'Χ3Π] 38 (16,4) nna ίπχ Vx i n x maix 'pVnn3a"'.(i6,4)'nstz;'?3?DmawnxKtt>x,?2i[ D'nVx x V l

] 39

(16,5) nnx Ό131

x s ' ' o s w a T 3 s V a [ P s 1 7 ] 1 8 0 . o n n n r n n z i '3X[ '3U7 ] " 3 V 3 , - n x V ( 1 7 , 2 )

]

40

tion of ha-Bavli's piyyutim, on page 313 he writes that in late Ashkenazi mahazorim this piyyut by Shelomoh ha-Bavli was joined or interwoven with Gershom's piyyut 1Π3Κ rOID pINÜ and parts of both piyyutim were put together to form a separate seliha. 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180

MT: V s i n ' n x - n x . 2 Sam 15,12. 2 Sam 18,8. Exod 15,16. 2 Sam 19,21. 2 Sam 19,19. 2 Sam 17,2; MT: Q ' T HDH Stt' Ν1ΓΠ; the copyist erroneously wrote D T . Ibid. MT: i n o n a ΓΠΓΡ ' 3 w a n n^y. MT: + n a n . MT: ' T I K I . Deut 30,19.

422

Mauro Perani 181 -jnoprnK m p s 'a 1 ? [ r u m ] { >napji η^τηκητ 2 * m p B n n m n r m fwVi ]vo'i π π τ ρ η . ( i 7 , 3 ) nV'V TO3 dVw xVl ΓΟ TOSD Π"3ρ>Π |Π[

yj/n}

41

l

.nan n a x ' s i s xV

183

y j / w i a V ? TaumDrj nVv [ (17,4) a n s nVwsV

] 42 ] 43

Appendix on the French Glosses by Kirsten Fudeman 1.

Fol. lr, line 11 - XTmpWX, eschardure: translation of flft "chaff" (Ps 1,4). A newly attested noun derived from Old French "escharder" 'break up; open (a shell)'.

2.

Fol. 2r, line 2 - ID tt^rn? X^T xVn "nil'ÖX Ι Ρ ' Ί ϊ S z tu ne deis amonder, male veie prends tu 'If you do not cleanse yourself of sin, you take a bad path', for I F xV'DK (Ps 7,13). The verb amonder, newly attested in this gloss, is from Latin emundare 'free from dirt or impurities; cleanse thoroughly', with the same change of prefix that we see in amender (< L. emendare) 'improve, make better'. Attested in other Old French texts is the related verb es monder 'clear, cleanse, purify', from *exmundere. Deis (2sg. pres. indie, devoir) is used here as a future auxiliary. Note that the spellings deis for dois and veie for voie are typical of Kara's glosses. The diphthong ei passed to oi towards the end of the twelfth century.

3.

Fol. 2r, line 20 - ΚΠΓΧ, cinbes (for the more common cimbes, variant of Old French cimbles), given as synonym of D'VsVx in Kara's discussion of Psalm 9,1. Translation: 'cymbals'. The spelling for what is more commonly written is typical of Kara's glosses.

4.

Fol. 2r, line 21 - TÜJp, chanter. The Hebrew letter qof is used here to represent the affricate [c]. Translation: 'sing; play (of a musical instrument)'. Used by Kara in discussion of HTOVJ? (PS 9,1).

5.

Fol. 2r, line 22 - Τ3ΓΠΧ, orgener. Translation: 'sing, sing with musical accompani-

181 Jer 51,36; conjectural reconstruction of the quotation on the basis of the first two letters used as graphic fillers at the end of the previous verse.

182 Job 7,18; and Ps 8,5: without prefixed warn: mpsn. 183 Ps 26,2.

423

Yosef B e n S i m ' o n Kara's Lost C o m m e n t a r y on the Psalms

ment (organ); play the organ; to sound (of a musical instrument)'. Used by Kara in discussion of maVv (Ps 9,1). 6.

Fol. 2r, line 33 - 'iV XD^X, enchaipe lui. Translation: 'captures (3sg.) him'. Used by Kara to translate 'strikes him', which he seems to have understood as 'snares, ensnares, captures him'. (Cfr. the translations of both Ps 9,17 and Deut 12,30 in several modern English editions of the Bible, including the NRSV).

7.

Fol. 2r, line 42 - . . . f r ' J X UPW3X, perhaps Ensis ... 'thus ...'. This gloss, used by Kara in his commentary on Ps 10,10, is cut off, and thus it is not possible to decipher it fully.

Bibliography Principal reference works consulted: A. HlNDLEY, F.W. LANGLEY, B.J. LEVY, Old Dictonary,

C a m b r i d g e 2000; W . MEYER-LÜBKE, Romanisches

delberg 1911; A. TOBLER, Κ. LOMMATZSCH, Altfranzösisches

Etymologisches Wörterbuch,

French-English

Wörterbuch,

Hei-

Berlin 1925-2002.

On the phonological and morphological characteristics of Kara's glosses, see C. ASLANOV, " L e f r a ^ a i s de Rabbi Joseph Kara et de Rabbi Eliezer de B e a u g e n c y d'apres leurs commentaires sur Ezechiel", in Revue des etudes juives

159 (2000), 425-46; K. FUDEMAN, "The

linguistic significance of the le'azim in Joseph Kara's Job c o m m e n t a r y " , in Jewish Review

Quarterly

93, 3 - 4 (2003), 3 9 7 - 4 1 4 ; EADEM, " T h e Old French glosses in Joseph Kara's Isaiah

c o m m e n t a r y (MS Lutzki 7 7 8 ) " , in Revue des etudes juives,

forthcoming.

For editions of Kara's glosses, see ASLANOV (2000) and FUDEMAN (forthcoming), above, as well as M.M. AHREND, Le Commentaire philologiques 120-159.

et exegetiques

sur Job de Rabbi

Yoseph

Qara': Etudes

des

methodes

avec une etude des le'azim par Moche [sic] Catane, Hildesheim 1978,

M a u r o Perani

wen» PSP

»·' ft? L . . y f f D - j r u a ριψ· «vu»i*>i Γ" 1 or» s r a y v p * »

^

-^Λ

rar·

{fu

p v

^

t>v»>r>-z>>>cp>n-ijov>"

rj"y

«y»*

pjim -ft»· w w e i n H V r a i A

f f ^ i m i f f · rrrV>

'

t*~or«v>

ΓΤ"

ι ν # > νφ>

ccnoa

B i ' i o n W ^ * · ή ν

«wa> we)»

-scCTub

—rvh ι ··•>"· η τ » oat" ptijtyot»»!/ oV» ^ A s ^ f l y f ^ ap»· p i ip· -orti» tAjsiV ft^we*MW3Jtfper)W(ret »tn>i»*l;> ffU •voi «e.-sw» « χ γ » Λ ρ -ο™ - j o b ν » * m tftfStfrb « · v « » uffnwV ayiwtc räjw·>ipiW vVnυηγΜrrjc*> i m i a ^ foVrmjo«'·9»Υ» i w i w ' » » t ^ w w t vrvD**"»*· pmsai« Λ fr«» ^ w p * -Vnrr S » JWWi a » ^ w o e s - f n b - p v e V o w w o w a M »Ol >|«.·ν v n p p T5T)·»· γ iVw-rV» pi w*"*n*onnr>t vajj 'φίΜΥψίφit-mnjTi· poh f w * jVpvicraviVpu*rtvVJ»»pfri*2Mt*-.w» \j·3WJ*rnk Λ® W t . «> W> Ύ^-tfflr· -pTWitM -jmi ^ςο^·. μ f r ® "taiA pim' V»WC9>« na» 'ronj^-njwjarrl^otn-wTju.j,,, pi •y^^j^v^j^jMjVriotOO'PW' - Τ ^ p w w u w i l i ' w r n p n i j ^ t r t t ) • A D J 1 nfW1 η Ϊ® ^ ιτψλμι τ ί ο ^ φ ^

" Τ

1

A

tvrr

S«»Z2SV yvi H> n r o f j j w ^

« r - - W - 9 J ,· μν K ^ ^

^

i1""" w

m

>

W

A p ^ TOV

« W · » ^ Ajjiif . r ^ w i ü ^ · ^

J

, TO! r f o t W h E f i -

Fig. 1 - Imola, SASI, H e b r . f r a g . 17.1, f. l r .

Yosef Ben Sim'on Kara's Lost Commentary on the Psalms

r*r>wwn\i>4v.ftwstuήτν>^yltwntjfiAvr>b rnw^ru·, ψ-ητνη)-»*) w+iv-rvHt>J>v wr>wjm>V> r m f j w i m-V· TsntuhoVi *· «wer« »(wvAptn-nn mm· μι TTOnrrmV mu w • v p f l t s - ^ f f , ^ , ι ν ?it/> • j » \v ηχοο rw^yiy -sprm m m>vrfnvo»vnxo} - w v< 'ff Knut» aw-to τ» Ο)er, mpt aAf tu>a*u/ im t>»> -voa^vmcr+y^ yy * W -W^H»f.i(Jo:a)i: VTT'fiwiMjjfliWitinvi· =i>w3 · Λ T>Svn^iv -rt -rts ·>»* μ·ϋ I*D ifiLoi arnrfa αχό»

»f"

- ' ι · ''ί' V -!1 -f" >i: m w ufi'vju) IL'uy IWIffJJy'W'M "r" A y m ^ t . i ^ j M j W jm« t ^ j j s r ^ f P o f i a p r i r r w p J f r w v

cn-vr-n • Vf'^yrf'ji.yn η muio p-W» W> ΡΛ»>HPTJje r3>f> ««»> . - m ^ w e y t iiporaaiiWM ®r ο-ξ>» pio · j j y w n j f c M γ χ η τ ο ν ο ν τ » ? »·»>»»> aw na> wWi λ «awjj) ar», ^ > W r > λ aw^nw «bw -»»wjipt· -W»k> p n w1 y u » •wvro inxy» ι « · oynr tnw t>v> rWfeit w t » w m r y W ^ p * " "»»ws-ir^ tr&TxraJiK) ·ρσ>ι*·ν>ι> w o » » -wmmni -rvrtaäp-ney· :.»Λο*jj»ηp_v, 33/qio«r. ^ji^iiiwt) rtnv mTrnjvr :·ψ «n 3W n>o'; imoxw J»»™ IMS SS* "«"»J p 1 r » V i v w y r ^ s ü s e s w wo tri ^ r - t W ^ w j w - o r B e ^ '"•»"«if ; « k v m b onV ητη ι * ® » -in w n mt!J' Η» A - ^ ' ü ^ t r r p V v - c n L · ' ttB.-rnb/ Tt/ 15« -1ΠΓ tMfll if r~or> p^pn» VVv!» ifu-tB^yw y t w rron -p-t^· «von·*4· Wr*"'. ! -O H) -3··· r> >nwt» VXD vr*>>fu )«3in-»W rwi) on »CD ψ r/' >01 -TT 5a> ο, na k w b »· j j n i» h ^ An ySlu oWJffl· bp^'T»»' ' e r s y r r w ^ >*e p t · "Bou-j·) ^aJa^ncfrvjjfr arwyon P * * " ^ . •ngpnpn η;

Αroj-i»o«KW»βρ»«VW

-Vjttj ρ if rrg/π ^ P' β«) 1mwjjjy r-vonr/n-V 0XJv τΰνρ o^ T ^ Jiwo-n ·Si•yvtm r ^ r o l o n t ö f ^ » ' -t-xt^v^vl^ar· ' -ρ» osv\r~JT-· ·< • ^ (tProW»· W «"•ΰχκτίοονητϋφη

Fig. 2 - Imola, SASI, Hebr. frag. 17.1, f. lv.

Mauro Perani

426

S » orm»«'»**' ^-px vwVpir. wji S O T « - j e ^ o f jtftjw un) tiyror»;>jr*»i-j)^trv 4-tVi-rm· »,.tV po

>un/ p*» tm!7T 7 , 0 , u

y-xriia-wr-frwwan)» A m r w t w w . j P föpo ρν»,ηη· ηψ ,T»i»nnw' att WJTtraW cr$]ν "TvrsevtoSrjgw :?>» ?v 'Uli « j a n y >iumh> -pi;* y ^ u i y / u nee*"» cnv • ν jfteiKW) stwsjttonfco 7 v e x y w o rt>w "0>5itt «rrrty» jy>ff y^wio^n»-*>ta*np fb tr-mi pt" rrwa^uo.TiJtJ -ttmoOTJi rrr •5TjijV35r'

r

jiHW^cKWtDMvi'ijir»^ srbyf laww »Ajjß'vwbj rn ττι> m s u w μ μ W JJ1 j r A j W WTWyffywbwrrrwTji^^iijjjiB)^)^ #ftbnyw*nsf ^ t v r u w h w ^ P r ^ o v TVMVxnTWW^'3 ' Wtn*Nt ·*·*ΤΜ -»Μ «MMMAMMW.^ ·- j - «.·>»•*»»· ^twnnwwwiiwi-bot/'hj m W , ^p«·feia).j'jww -bbunt» I p J ^ W l ' W l e r t t l t i y M ) · ) S > ' \ > v w rrS» « Μ * •Vwt» e-ia^is « f j W V pVQW^ ; "W ΛΜ

W «·>* -ρηχί^ηρ ν n>' Iff*/ Lpuwnr^,*>v f w f c V i T O » ^ » ^ ^ ^ « ^ « !

, ° *>ö www·)>.vtWtijiöTo^.» «i* »vr^Ä pV)

Fig. 3 - Imola, SASI, Hebr. frag. 17.1, f. 2r.

Yosef Ben Sim'on Kara's Lost Commentary on the Psalms

β - *τ"Ai·^ VvwVvp,* »Ol· J^Dl'a-^B'ncpyv-i» n»> mj κ ~v\i*t) 1-rv TW* y j I T Arm« T*Ww^-«© fie --«•«»ennewwierijiVtfw ' -J-Avr, pc^qrrrwio,· JM*^ -potyN V n - ^ j f j ^ j j j ^ j J ' -»mg „^ηή vwV w i r « / Ι Ί ^ ^ Κ » « ' SP* Wi"»!*'V>T3· ^.jjsjy «»tWCOWfSS ·'· Ifipb-ri " rytiyAltStM 'a»onycm»e»eii< -rjr^ayujD.-ifrtc^T oyrcnpiip'srtv r i / ^ y ^ «nun ι-iiVM mo ft»· tr-tf & -λΜ t;2>>-'f t>p -nc' aaji-W ,Ρ-Ώ-'-JJi»1, '•ww„ W w t W W W S O ' M ) ! ) ,., — - τ Γ—ψ . -IT 1~ΐ)οη>» ri'i -fx* jpjj« wew —m UT5» tmrte aar·) wiwp^ e v a A ^ H i ^ o «^W1*·» •sittfe^wywi yjp-jw eyvurpja y^p n^oyv'TJütäteto'iywnSetA)' -rifyy/lvi 'P>jrr t!U>Ä« Λ* T W * OjrcnfsWlJ jjTi· ^ϊί-ιΙΜ^-ζνο') fill}' ί η ^ ' η & ρ ί τ Ι Ι ^ Ο ^ ν ΐ η ϋ ^ Λ Ι « « · * ; ' . i M t f · ^ ' " ! )ki p^xffs w υ ο ι ή ϊ ι ip'ti t*tii j p w m i . i w i low ι ί Λ ^ ο ϊ ' •J'VjnVyirrn« « m w 'Jf • iry^nr, ciii

own

(»w> ^ mjya TO^ f$tlpiv·* (IJJtJ '

Hsf» ftw

' »" ·'

ti^^Biyvrpt'-n-.vVj'ü'Äj-nj»)!»«·* i-W/V^) tvJt»2}»W ^.toiiijpWIi' ijm-wj-o-i·) ίΐο»ι .'·5 φ λ ϊ Ι * : rgiti ψι»» 1 /!})^)·' ί λοβ'Ι"" a,1< y lüaT • • f · ^ l*m remgriy mtrytanffli )%> 5 "wJKr r - r f f l ö - i » Astta t t f Ä W t i y « P-W'IW) Λ» 1 »w* y » · «VrW'-vu nw-iHMnoj aTOV nrsiwfwivt«!»« » i wjyVi. JtT'p ψr njjnH» ^n«»,·,. ^^ τη·^, ·-' Γ y »"WWB»Vuwν"! λ-m>v W iml ι ϊ · « Ι w T9ÄX . o-fo nift» -jj. K^ts»" 1«5 ητ·ϊ) r>*o-j m·»· J'' vnwt« ivj5flVoWH) nVijovyo ruj* τ, e=riiVinju»^ WIJ r»ii-j'n> OT-WIVrrufrr^ Γ>>.

Fig. 4 - Imola, SASI, Hebr. frag. 17.1, f. 2v.

428

M a u r o Perani

ig®« ?

:

I

(fttW Ι ϊ Α Π1 ' t W V W ^ ο-ζνϊΛιρ-ίηΐΜο^Μ γνοτταιγ, •ιφ T 5 * "Try "a: w a y " a r w t t n V r o - a y ^VjvivniiV'nr)»»^»' ^ τ * » Λ *v » 1 1 5 » p w V a V nfcifan>iy\V i r y r - e M m b * e w w t foa»* c P^'VW'ba

orwrJiujitit,

Τ · * Φ w * «οβιρΛΓ - QT^wt i w s i w i w r j r . j j i y

miW'vjtmmmpv »Inf

m -v J.V«

w

«t^-i'vyt'cwwirrw.pvi^. ^ j w n v tiwm ' t w ·a* ati

wM r.i"ζ Μ te-bmtvjS npb"*>r f ΜΛΜΤΤΙ* W

»w> r * » p w waV r«i v i * - " f 0 " " ' ! ? m> w wasr/M

»W^ W» TOTfiJ VP •r^pvfiyriv'vTy· ι ρ ! ·*®) «" 111b stD'V -«ja v t n y v » umu· -rüm - t o v r w wr· jiKvAr ntl ό π Λ ywW mpV w )Vw ^ m · > ifatofist** » w V VW-uwk' rrt« 30 CD« W W 5 -w w » TW»'·13W»f T S m - V tmsi · ρ ο β ΐ » ι η « τ » «

m^wywtfüet • w - w o βΛ -yim o" iyrt» -SV >«er v^f -ΪΤΜ3 p-ytVy p k i ι -N^n -VjwuN ο ^ Λ - ο i W O T ^ l W ^ M O T O i r ^ ' B · i w r ^ w i r a ' V w j j » ubv ( ««a»)

ι»μ»»ρι e w m nwum^ • Λ r i « r r * «V am •a7.tvop.7wt1i»ripomrgi ^ >Λ O-wüoiu a » w a ^ r

w ismjtrap^-^p

Μ irs*

**Ά» W

fapfttt

npw,

•w M . ^

uira m i p

rl·

^ / l y

vtvz>* yiVbxr· M i rt» w p t

T3»t!S)iW^ β ι » Λ

"ττ^·

θ"

si^^Twiy) "ins ' " p * Γ^Ϊ-'

!β»ν ρ ο m r ^ · » ? · Η [ τ ο · -Sur· - v i » γττ^ - w 4 " P ^ t w » ! » " ο·» v*^ p j m y

f

w a w ->tu p W j i Λ ·β»β νέον5D-iio^n wüwji ·» "paV-j» j u " ρ »

V

-v-yrc i

- w

w u i v-^Htu sc»;

o i t J ' V E W P l w u -"»JB» y t ö ® ι ,,··

y ^ H r '

Frag. 17.2 verso

1

Frag. 17.2 recto

Fig. 5 - Imola, SASI, Hebr. frag. 17.2, r a n d v; Yosef Kara's Commentary on Deuteronomy

12,10-14,23.

Talmud, Philosophy, and Kabbalah A Passage from Pico della Mirandola's Apologia and its Source by SA VERIO CAMPANINI

... the oral Law, which Jews call Talmud or

the

Cabala.

Antonius de Avila

After the condemnation of some of his Conclusiones in 1487 Pico della Mirandola set out to write an Apologia, dedicated to his patron Lorenzo il Magnifico, using some materials originally prepared for the opening Oratio de hominis dignitate. The latter was meant, in his intentions, to inaugurate the discussion on his far-reaching yet sometimes very sibylline theses. If the publication of the Conclusiones can be considered the beginning of Christian Kabbalah, the composition of the Apologia, following the first moment of enthusiastic accumulation, marks the dialectics of the development of this movement in its second, deeply influential phase: the apologetic moment, the stage of self-defence. This feature of Christian Kabbalah will characterize its history from then on: suffice it to recall the long process and the condemnation of Johannes Reuchlin on the one hand, and the rhetorical structure of Petrus Galatinus' De arcanis catholicae veritatis, which is a dialogue involving Reuchlin and the inquisitor of Cologne Jakob Hoogstraten, on the other. Not differently Francesco Giorgio was victim, especially for his In Scripturam sacram Problemata (1538), after an early excommunication, of censorship and suspicions? The discovery of Jewish Mysticism in Christian circles was accompanied from its very beginnings, not surprisingly, by an atmosphere of suspicion and its protagonists reacted by adjusting their strategy to the difficulties their discovery aroused. It is our intention here to study briefly the defence Pico devised in his Questio cjuinta de magia naturali et cabala Hebreorum, especially in its

1

See C. VASOLI, " N u o v i document! sulla condanna all'indice e la censura delle opere di Francesco Giorgio V e n e t o " , in Censura ecclesiastica cento e Seicento.

Sesta Giornata

STANGO, Firenze, 5 5 - 7 8 .

e cultura politica

Luigi Firpo: atti del Convegno,

in Italia tra

5 marzo

Cinque-

1999, ed. by C.

430

Saverio Campanini

second part, specifically concerned with Kabbalah, in response to the condemnation of his audacious thesis: Nulla est scientia quae nos magis certificet de divinitate Christi, quam magia et cabala. The approach Pico decided to adopt was completely different from the direct usage of kabbalistic language and methods he showed in the Conclusiones. The legitimacy of his alleged discovery had been radically questioned and he had to discuss in some detail the nature and the significance of Kabbalah, what he planned at least partially in his Oratio, which he had no chance to hold, because of the suppression of the public discussion of the theses. I would like to analyze in some detail the structure of Pico's line of defence, as far as Kabbalah is concerned.2 After having discussed magic and having stated that the term is equivocal, namely that there is a good magic and a bad one, he dedicates the second part of the fifth questio to the discussion of Kabbalah.3 He starts this section of the argument with words of contempt aimed at depicting, in the eyes of the benevolent reader, the ludicrous ignorance of his censors: to them the bare name of the unheard "Cabala" was a 'nomen horrendum et ex ipso pene sono timendum'. They gave the impression to be among the ones who suspected that the Kabbalists were not human beings, but rather 'hircocervi vel centaurum, vel omnino montruosum aliquid'. Pico recurred even to curial gossip in order to attack his opponents: one of them, once asked what Kabbalah was, should have answered that it was a 'perfidum et diabolicum hominem', named Cabala, who wrote much against Christ, and whose followers were called 'cabalistae'. Now, he writes, who could refrain from laughing?4 In his attempt to ridicule his adversaries Pico is also revealing two sources of concern of his defensive strategy. The reference to the monstra of ancient mythology can be read as an implicit acknowledgment of the inherent ambiguity of the new discipline the Conclusiones had inaugurated, the Christian Kabbalah, which I called elsewhere an oxymoron or, with German expression, 'ein Ding

2

The main arguments of Pico's line of defence have been analyzed, with different emphasis, also b y F. SECRET, Les kabbalistes

3

Chretiens de la Renaissance,

Milano 2 1985, 2 - 5 .

I quote from the Basel edition of the Opera omnia (1557), 175: Volo autem et aliquid dicere latius de ista Cabala, quamquam et supra, in prima parte Apologiae nostrae multa dixerimus. Sed ilia forte non magis ab istis magistris intelligentur, q u a m intelligantur barbara ab eruditis. Quare et hie aliquid secum hoc, Parisiensi stylo, dicemus de ista Cabala: horrendum enim istis patribus videtur hoc nomen, et ex ipso pene sono timendum, ita ut forte sint ex ipsis, cui cabalistas non homines, sed hircocervos potius vel centaurum, vel omnino monstruosum aliquid esse suspicentur. Quinimmo audi rem ridiculam, cum semel quidam ex eis interrogaretur, quid esset ista Cabala? Respondit ille, fuisse perfidum quendam hominem et diabolicum, qui dictus est Cabala, et hunc multa contra Christum scripsisse, inde sequaces eius dictos Cabalistas. Quis quaeso hie risum teneat?

4

Cfr. HORACE, Ars poetica 5.

Talmud, Philosophy, and Kabbalah

431

der Unmöglichkeit'. 5 The second concern, masked as a confidential joke, is connected to the first but much more serious. The adjectives 'perfidus' and 'diabolicus' are standard epitheta recurring constantly in Christian anti-Jewish polemics. Here hides the major kernel of any attitude of suspect toward the entire Christian Kabbalah, appearing time and again in Martin Luther, in Jacob Hoogstraten, in Sixtus of Siena or in Marin Mersenne. As Kabbalah was transmitted by Jews, how were good Christians supposed to make any reasonable usage of it without being accused of accepting that the despised Jews, in their guilty blindness, could teach anything sensible to anybody? Pico's response could not possibly be that of dissociating Kabbalah from the Jews, therefore he tried to show that the Kabbalistic books had been committed to writing before Christ, attaining thus a double goal: firstly to separate, according to an eternal habit in Christianity, the post-Christian, rightly condemned and sterile Jews from the pre-Christian, venerable and in-possession-of-the-truth Hebrews, who, secondly, could not attack Christianity but rather foreshadowed Christ, in Pico's opinion, even more clearly and indisputably than the prophets of the Old Testament. Paradoxically enough Pico, in order to demonstrate the existence of a parallel oral tradition spiritualizing the letter of the Revelation, uses the traditional Jewish narrative usually sustaining the legitimacy of Oral Law, that is to say precisely the Talmudic tradition which, as we will see, is the price Pico is ready to pay to his adversaries in exchange of the rescuing of the Kabbalistic tradition. To attain this goal Pico adapts skillfully the traditional account of a double revelation handed down at the Sinai, identifying the oral, "authentic interpretation of the Law" (veram legis expositionem) with the seventy books first committed to writing as reported in the not yet apocryphal fourth book of Esdras.6 In his next step he had to prove that these books coincided with the Kabbalistic tradition. In order to do so he quoted Origen and Hilarius, connecting in his narrative the members of the Sanhedrin with the first kabbalists, daring even a comparison between the members of the Sanhedrin and the Cardinals of the Roman Church.7 As a confirmation of his narrative he refers to the Hebrew book called Seder 'Olam, rendered by Pico as Liber Saeculorum, which should lend substance to his claim. It might be of interest to notice that, according to Konrad Summenhart, precisely this work belonged to 5

S. CAMPANINI, " D i e Geburt der Judaistik aus dem Geist der christlichen Kabbala", in Gottes Sprache

in der philologischen

Werkstatt.

Hebraistik

vom 15. bis zum 19.

Jahrhundert,

ed. by G. VELTRI and G. NECKER, Leiden/Boston 2004, 1 3 5 - 1 4 5 : 1 4 5 . 6

4 Esdras 1 4 , 4 5 ^ 6 : " E t factum est cum completi essent quadraginta dies, et locutus est Altissimus dicens: Priora quae scripsisti in palam pone, et legant digni et indigni. Novissimos autem septuaginta conservabis, ut tradas eos sapientibus de populo tuo". The fourth Book of Esdras w a s officially eliminated from the Scriptural canon of the Catholic Church only during the Council of Trento.

7

PICO, Opera omnia (see above n. 3), 1 7 5 - 1 7 6 .

432

Saverio Campanini

the three first "Kabbalistic" books which were translated by the converted Jew Flavius Mithridates 8 for the pope Sixtus IV.9 Pico was very proud to be part of this historical sequence, because who would have dared to accuse the previous pope of having been victim of a fraud? With a calculated theatrical effect he boasts he was able to buy those books at an enormous price. This is a topos recurring in other Christian Kabbalists (for example Johannes Reuchlin10), enhancing here the fact that the Jews had no interest in showing, and far less so in selling those books to the Christians. The Jews sensed, one could assume, that these materials could be dangerous in the hands of Christian readers. Furthermore, and right to his point, it emerged clearly that Pico could not have been a victim of Jewish propaganda. Precisely the authority of the Kabbalistic texts among the Jews bestowed upon them the highest apologetic value because, as Pico suggests, the Jews could not dismiss demonstrations derived from their own revered texts. One could ask: why not, if they could very well dismiss the old Christian arguments based on the Hebrew Bible itself? The answer to this implicit question offers the key disclosing the entire strategy behind Pico's rhetoric: the Jews, he explains, know a fourfold interpretation of the Scripture being parallel to the one also known to the Christians (therefore appeasing any concerns about the exotic nature of Jewish exegesis...). The Christian levels of interpretation, according to Pico's peculiar system, are the following: literal, mystical also called allegorical, tropological and anagogical. The first is called among the Jews 'Pesat' (pesat), attributed mainly to 'Rabi Salamon' (Rasi) and 'Chemoy' (Qimhi); the allegorical corresponds to the 'Midras' (midrash), especially followed by the 'doctores Talmutici'; the tropological sense is called 'Sechel' (sekel), followed by 'Abnazara' (Abraham Ibn Ezra), Levi Ben Gerson and, most prominently, 'Rabi Moyses Aegyptius' (Maimonides); the anagogical sense is called 'Cabala'. The various levels are not equal, the last one is higher and most divine (sublimior et divinior) and, in Pico's words, it coincides with the Kabbalah. Only this last hermeneutical mode can be instrumental in "forcing the Jews to convene with us" (nobiscum sentire cogantur). The other three methods are obviously not sufficient to con-

8

S. CAMPANINI, "Pici Mirandulensis Bibliotheca cabbalistica latina. Sulle traduzioni latine di opere cabbalistiche eseguite da Flavio Mitridate per Pico della Mirandola", in Materia giudaica 7/1 (2002), 90-95.

9

F. SECRET, "Pico della Mirandola e gli inizi della cabala cristiana", in Convivium 25 (1957), 31-47; see also F. MITHRIDATES, Sermo de Passione Domini, ed. by CH. WIRSZUBSKI, Jerusalem 1963, 66-69. Wirszubski did not notice that the same passage from the Tractatus bipartitus by K. SUMMENHARDT had been quoted by B. WALDE, Christliche Hebraisten Deutschlands am Ausgang des Mittelalters, Münster 1916, 152-153.

10

Reuchlin's emphasis on the costs of his Hebrew training has been studied in S. CAMPANINI, "Reuchlins jüdische Lehrer aus Italien", in Reuchlin und Italien, ed. by G. DÖRNER, Stuttgart 1999, 69-85.

Talmud, Philosophy, and Kabbalah

433

quer the deeply rooted Jewish mistrust, especially the first, the literal, which is precisely what, according to the firmly established equivalence found in Paul's Second Epistle to the Corinthians (3,6), separates Jews and Christians: the letter, as opposed to the spirit. The other two levels of interpretation, most interestingly identified with the Talmud and with Philosophy, occupy an intermediate position, but only the anagogical sense can spiritualize matter, that is to say, in an apologetic context, can convert the Jews. It is particularly interesting to note that, according to Pico's subdivision, the anagogical sense does not coincide with the mystical one, which is identified with the allegorical sense (modus exponendi mysticus sive allegoricus). This is helpful to state that the "mystical" key utilized to read Kabbalistic texts in the 20th century (Die jüdische Mystik) was not favoured by Pico in the very beginning of the interest for the Kabbalah in a non-Jewish environment. The anagogical sense leads the reader of the Holy Page "upwards" (sursum) allowing to abandon the material world: a terrenis ad coelestia, a sensibilibus ad intelligibilia, a temporalibus ad aeterna, ab infimis ad suprema, ab humanis ad divina, a corporalibus ad spiritualia. The Kabbalah, therefore, identified almost completely with the anagogical interpretation of Scripture, offers the best antidote to the Jewish malaise, the inordinate attachment to the matter, the stubbornness, the blindness of the Jews. Quite paradoxically indeed, being a Jewish discipline! Pico offers one example of Jewish attachment to material things and to the letter, describing why the Jews cannot accept that the Messiah already came, considering that the wordly promises of political and social regeneration connected to the coming of the Messiah are not yet fulfilled. The Kabbalah shows, if the Jews would be ready to listen, that the messianic promises refer to the spiritual reality and to the liberation of the pagans from their idolatrous captivity. Then he anticipates two major objections from the members of the papal commission which are on two completely different levels: first, following the apologetic scheme construed by Pico himself, and showing that he was well aware of its fictional character, but anticipating that his opponents would take it seriously, he foresees the question: why then the Jews, having in their own literature this powerful pre-Christian and pro-Christian hermeneutics, did not accept the message of Jesus and convert? Secondly, and this objection is a more powerful one, because it questions the claim of the Kabbalists themselves about the antiquity of their revelations, involving by necessity also any Christian enthusiast for the Kabbalah, why is there no explicit mention of the Kabbalah in ancient patristic literature? One should not forget that the most effective attack against the Christian Kabbalah was not represented by the repression, which united the Catholics and the Protestants against any sympathy for Jewish occult traditions, but rather the development of historical criticism and of a revised chronology, sweeping away, together with the claims of the Christian

434

Saverio Campanini

Kabbalists, also any trace of Hermeticism from scholarly discussion. If the Kabbalah is as ancient as the Kabbalists claim, why was it never mentioned by the Fathers of the Church and by the most ancient Ecclesiastical writers? To the first objection Pico retorts, touching upon a very difficult and painful topic, that not even the miracles of Christ could convince the Jews: why should the authority of a text, albeit sacred to the Jews themselves, be more convincing? Now Pico has to admit that the missionary tool of the Kabbalah promises quite modest results, but who could boast better success rates? The answer Pico found seems, so to speak, too effective. The entire argument according to which the Kabbalah should be studied as a powerful tool to convert the Jews has already fallen. This shows, in my opinion, that it was from the very beginning rather an argumentum fictum, but in the end Pico manages to strengthen his persuasion that the Kabbalah, precisely because it does not convince all the Jews, is far more suited for the Christians, the only ones who can understand it completely in the light of their belief in the divinity of Christ, that is to say, in the radical spiritualization of the prophecies of the Hebrew Bible. One could resume this paradoxical result with a formula, to be taken only half seriously: Nothing can make us more certain of the truth of the Kabbalah than the belief in the divinity of Christ, or, as it were, Nihil est quod nos magis certificet de veritate Cabalae, quam fides in dwinitate Christi. As far as the second objection is concerned, Pico argues that the silence of the Fathers about Kabbalistic wisdom does not mean that they did not know it. He observes that the Jews are mostly mentioned as a collective entity and very rarely as individuals. Already Hieronymus had noticed, as Pico recalls, that the Greek Fathers, particularly Eusebius, Origen and Clement, used to refer to the opinions of the Jews with impersonal formulations and Hieronymus himself, Pico adds, quotes often the authoritative, although anonymous, opinion of the masters (sententia magistrorum). Pico claims to be able to demonstrate rationally that all of them referred always to the Kabbalists (doctores Cabalae). His argument deserves to be quoted in full: Est enim omnis schola Hebraeorum in tres sectas divisa: in philosophos, in Cabalistas et in Talmuticos. Talmuticos allegari ab antiquis doctoribus nostris, non est credendum, tum quia Clemens et multi alii, qui Hebraeos allegant, fuerint ante compositionem ipsius Talmut, quae fuit post Christi mortem, plus quam per 150 annos, tum quia doctrina Talmutica est totaliter contra nos, conficta ab ipsis Hebraeis iam contra Christianos pugnantibus, quare illi doctrinae talem honorem non detulissent nostri, ut tunc maxime aliquid dictum ab eis firmum putarent, cum Iudaeorum testimonio corroboratur. Philosophos pariter certum est eos non allegare, quia et isti qui, scilicet secundum philosophiam exponere Bibliam ceperunt, a modico tempore. Primus enim fuit Rabi Moyses de Aegypto, quo adhuc vivente floruit Averrois Cordubensis.

Talmud, Philosophy, and Kabbalah

435

Nondum autem fluxerunt trecenti anni a morte Averrois. Relinquitur ergo, ut haec Hebraeorum doctrina, cui doctores catholici ex Hieronymi testimonio tantum deferunt, et quam adeo approbant, sit ilia, quam ipsimet nostri doctores fatentur, et credunt a Deo Moysi, et a Moyse per successionem aliis sapientibus fuisse revelatum, et est ilia quae ex hoc modo tradendi, dicitur Cabala, quam saepe etiam video a nostris authoribus hoc modo designari, dicendo: Ut dicitantiqua traditio." With an obvious reminiscence from the illustrious incipit of the Commentarii de bello Gallico, Pico plays his most powerful card in the end. The surprising conclusion is that, in an implicit parallelism with the partition of the Biblical senses other than the literal, an analogous distinction can be drawn about the history of Jewish literature. And, by way of exclusion on chronological grounds, the anonymous traditional sources quoted by the most ancient Church Fathers can only be the Kabbalists themselves. Here, before the famous Gutachten über das jüdische Schrifttum by Johannes Reuchlin, written in 1510 against a libel accusing the Jewish literature as a unity to be anti-Christian, where Reuchlin tries to analyze it by indicating seven genres,12 Pico, also in an apologetic attitude and for polemical reasons, sees in Jewish literature three genres only: the Talmudic literature, the philosophical exegesis and the Kabbalah. Pico has little difficulties to show that the first two genres are much later than the first Fathers and, therefore, Kabbalah is the only candidate left. Before we examine in greater detail the source Pico most probably used for his unexpected partition of Jewish literature, let us follow Pico's line of argument to the end. He enhances that his usage of the term Kabbalah refers only to this original and authentic tradition (prima et vera Cabala). There is, exactly as for the contested Magia, also a derivative and unauthentic Kabbalah, sharing its name because of the modes of transmission (per viam occultam), this pseudoKabbalah comprises any secret and mysticism, but this is an illegitimate amplification of the original meaning of the word. The ghost of the hircocervi is still haunting Pico's construction: exactly as magic, also Kabbalah is a terminus ecjuivocus. In order to sharpen his distinction, Pico introduces here, as he already did in the Conclusiones, an internal articulation between two sorts of Kabbalah. It is the celebrated distinction between the ars combinandi, compared, but not equalled with the ars Raymundi, that is with the method of Lull, and the "knowledge of the powers of the supernal things" (scientia de virtutibus rerum

11

Pico, Opera omnia (see above n. 3), 180.

12

J. REUCHLIN, Gutachten über das jüdische Schrifttum, ed. by Α. LEINZ VON DESSAUER, Stuttgart 1965, 30-31. Reuchlin writes: "... ist not zu bedenken, was zizania und unkraut und was triticum oder waissen ist, damit ains nit mit dem andern ußgerauft werd".

436

Saverio Campanini

superiorum), the culmination of natural magic, connected with what is above the Moon. This is the discipline to which he referred in his condemned thesis and about this he wants to be judged. He refuses to be held responsible for the fact that the term magician, originally designating a wise man, was usurped by vulgar necromancers or that the sacred word Kabbalah was similarly usurped by dishonest Jews polluting the sacred things with false and void superstitions. They promised to be able to perform miracles and claimed blasphemously that the miracles of Christ were due to his "Kabbalistic" practices. This is the pseudo-Kabbalah he was referring to, parallel to necromancy, whose adepts claim that their knowledge comes from Solomon, Adam and Enoch, such as the Clavicula Salomonis and similar magic tracts, but this illegitimate esoterical doctrine is only incidentally connected with the true Kabbalah. Pico never defended this pseudo-Kabbalah and, quite on the contrary, he attacked it in a thesis stating that the miracles of Christ were not performed with the help of Kabbalah. 13 Pico concludes his argument by stating that his explanations should suffice to settle the question (we know that it did not, at least as long as the Pope Innocent VIII lived), but an entire book would be needed (specialem librum exigeret), if he should explain with precision what natural magic and Kabbalah are. We know that Pico did not write this book. In a certain sense and under completely different circumstances one could argue that this book was written thirty years later by Johannes Reuchlin with his De arte cabalistica (1517). In a wider sense one could also contend that the entire enterprise of the Christian Kabbalists of the Renaissance was trying to fulfil posthumously and vicariously this promise. As we already noticed, at least three characteristics which are already present in Pico's Apologia can be easily traced in all subsequent authors who contributed to this vast movement of thought. This holds true, besides the already mentioned Reuchlin, among the ones who published their works (which excludes Egidio da Viterbo) certainly for the Franciscans Petrus Galatinus and Francesco Giorgio. The three features are: a decided apologetic mode, the repeated effort towards a systematic description of the whole of Jewish literature (leading in turn to the establishment of Jewish studies in the Christian world 14 ) intended at separating the carnal from the spiritual, and, as a consequence of this second point, the untiring effort to project the secular negative image of the Jews on the Talmudic literature in order to preserve from condemnation the beloved Kabbalistic wisdom. 15 13

This is the seventh of the Magical Conclusions according to his o w n opinion; see S.A. FARMER, Syncretism gious and Philosophical

14

in the West: Pico's 900 Theses (1486). The Evolution

Reli-

S. CAMPANINI, "Annotazioni sulla qabbalah e la nascita della giudaistica m o d e r n a " , in F.E. MANUEL(ED.), Chiesa e sinagoga.

15

of Traditional

Systems, T e m p e 1998, 496. II giudaismo

visto dai cristiani,

Genova 1998, 11-31.

I analzyed the categories of Talmud (= carnality) as opposed to Kabbalah (= spirituality) in early Christian Kabbalists, especially Johannes Reuchlin a n d Francesco Gior-

Talmud, Philosophy, and Kabbalah

437

This last point brings us back to the unusual analysis of Jewish literature offered by Pico in his Apologia. This partition in three sectae, somehow reminiscent of the sects described by Josephus (Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes) for his times, applies, if at all, to the most vital profile of Judaism in some strata of Medieval Jewish Spain, but the distinction is artificial, since we know that many philosophers and a great number of the most prominent Kabbalists were also prestigious Talmudists. Pico himself had already shown in his Conclusiones to be persuaded that Maimonides, here quoted as the first Jewish philosopher, was in fact a Kabbalist. 16 In many influential texts, moreover, he did not refrain from quoting the Talmud as an authoritative source in matters of prophecy, in particular the famous prophecy of Elijah, which influenced deeply Francesco Giorgio, who quoted it, in a transcription from the Aramaic, in many of his works. The polemical value of this tripartition, as well as its limited validity, is quite evident and I am convinced that Pico used it only to give more power to his "historical" narrative about the venerable antiquity of the Kabbalah in an environment which held antiquity in the highest esteem. But, was this partition a fruit of his readings, a suggestion of his counsellor in cabalisticis Flavius Mithridates17 or did he have a solid foundation for his claim? The entire construction of Pico's argumentative structure derives, in my opinion, from the grafting of authentic Kabbalistic material on the Pauline dichotomy littera/spiritus, producing a blend destined to a long and surprising vitality in the historical development of Christian Kabbalah and even outside its boundaries. The main bulk of his "Kabbalistic" inspiration is to be found in some works of Abraham Abulafia which he demonstrably read in Flavius Mithridates' translation. Among the Latin translations of Kabbalistic works prepared by Flavius Mithridates for Pico della Mirandola which are still preserved in four manuscripts of the Vatican Library, one can find three books by Abulafia18 and at least another three treatises that have been attributed to him gio, in S. CAMPANINI "Talmudisti e cabbalisti. Un'immagine dell'ebraismo alle origini della qabbalah cristiana", in Civiltä e popoli del Mediterraneo: immagini e pregiudizi, ed. b y D . FELICE a n d A . CASSANI, B o l o g n a 1 9 9 9 , 1 1 9 - 1 3 5 .

16 17

18

The claim is found in the 63RD Kabbalistic thesis according to his own opinion; see FARMER, Syncretism in the West (see above n. 13), 546. On Mithridates' influence on Pico see, now, the first sample of a series in which the edition of the entire Kabbalistic library translated by the converted Jew for his patron is planned: G. Busi, S.M. BONDONI, S. CAMPANINI (eds.), The Great Parchment. Flavius Mithridates' Latin Translation, the Hebrew Text and an English Version, The Kabbalistic Library of Giovanni Pico della Mirandola 1, Torino 2004. Those are the Summa brevis cabale, translation of the programmatic epistle We-zot liYehudah (Vat. Ebr. 190, ff. 120v-132v), and two mystical commentaries on the Guide of the Perplexed·. De secretis legis, in the Hebrew original Sitre Torah (Vat. Ebr. 190, ff. 336v469v and Chig. A.VI.190, ff. 231r-260v) and the Liber Redemptionis translation of an original Sefer Ge'ullah preserved only in fragments (Chig. 261r-322v). Of the three, on-

438

Saverio Campanini

or to his school and were at least influenced by his thought. 19 The overrepresentation of Abulafia among the Kabbalistic library in Latin translation at the disposal of Pico is particularly striking because the majority of the Christian Kabbalists of the Renaissance, with the conspicuous exception of Egidio da Viterbo, knew little of him, in the best cases either his name, in an almost unrecognisable form (Alaphia20), or his works, but they were not able to trace them back to him. 21 It has been already pointed out, by Gershom Scholem 22 first, and then, in greater detail, by Chaim Wirszubski, 23 that Pico's distinction between two sorts of Kabbalah parallels the one suggested by Abulafia in his We-zot li-Yehudah, translated as Summa brevis cabalae by Flavius Mithridates (Vat. Ebr. 190, ff. 120v-132v). The complexity of Pico's distinctions, the apparent differences between his partition of Kabbalah in the Conclusiones and in the Apologia were at the origin of a discussion which has not yet been settled. What is particularly surprising for the reader is that, according to the plain syntax in the formulation of the first Kabbalistic thesis according to his own opinion,24 Pico seems to identify the "scientia sephirot" with practical Kabbalah and, consequently, the "scientia semot" with speculative Kabbalah. According to Stephen Alan

ly the De secretis

legis is attributed explicitly to the real author by Flavius Mithridates,

w h o in his marginal notes shows some knowledge of Abulafia's Sicilian period around 1280. As far as the presence of works by A b r a h a m Abulafia in Pico's library is concerned, see also G. TAMANI, "I libri ebraici di Pico della M i r a n d o l a " , in Giovanni co della Mirandola, morte

(1494-1994),

in Convegno Mirandola,

internazionale 4-8

ottobre

di studi nel cinquecentesimo

anniversario

Pidella

1994, II, ed. by G.C. GARFAGNINI, Firenze

1997, 4 9 1 - 5 3 0 . 19

I am referring to an anonymous commentary on the Sefer Yesirah, editor I. Weinstock (Perus Sefer Yesirah 'almoni' mi-yesodo

attributed by its

sei Rabi Avraham

rusalem 1984) to the Abulafian school, whereas M. Idel (Kitve R. Abraham misnato,

Je-

Abulafia

u-

PhD Thesis, Jerusalem 1976, 56, n. 170) is convinced of Abulafia's authorship

(Vat. Ebr. 191, ff. 12r-29r); the Liber combinationum, Sefer ha-Seruf

corresponding to the anonymous

hypothetically attributed to Abulafia's pupil Josef Gikatilla (Vat. Ebr.

190, ff. l r - 9 0 r ) and the also anonymous Sefer ha-niqqud 20

Abul'afya,

(Vat. Ebr. 190, ff. 90v-120r).

This form is found in Johannes Reuchlin's De verbo mirifico arte cabalistica

(1494) and in his later De

(1517) and from these sources it appears also, unaltered, in Francesco

Giorgio's Kabbalistic bibliography in his De harmonia " L e fonti ebraiche del De Harmonia

mundi (1525). S e e S. CAMPANINI,

mundi di Francesco Z o r z i " , in Annali

di Ca'

Foscari

38,3 (1999), 2 9 - 7 4 . 21

Ibid., 64 and 70.

22

G. SCHOLEM, " Z u r Geschichte der Anfänge der christlichen K a b b a l a " , in Essays

Pre-

sented to Leo Baeck on the Occasion of his Eightieth Birthday, London 1 9 5 4 , 1 5 8 - 1 9 3 : 1 6 4 , η. 1. 23

See WIRSZUBSKI, Pico della Mirandola's

Encounter

with Jewish Mysticism,

Jerusalem 1989,

133-152. 24

See FARMER, Syncretism

in the West (see above n. 13), 518: Quicquid dicant caeteri Ca-

balistae, ego prima divisione scientiam Cabalae in scientiam sephiroth et semot, tanq u a m in practicam et speculativam distinguerem.

Talmud, Philosophy, and Kabbalah

439

Farmer,25 all previous scholars examining the passage (such as Scholem, Wirszubski and Copenhaver 26 ) reversed the natural order of Pico's thesis, whereas he favours the apparent order supposedly intended by Pico. It is indeed a quite complicated matter, since both claims can be defended. I would not dare to suggest a definitive answer but I would like to contribute to a possibile solution to this exegetical riddle by referring to a piece of evidence which was overseen, if I am not mistaken, by all the scholars involved in the discussion so far. In the very same manuscript already quoted, Abulafia discusses his, not always limpid, view of the mutual relationship between the Kabbalah of the sefirot and that of the names. Here follows the transcription of a relevant passage which, as we will see, has been certainly read and annotated by Pico: Itaque receptio sive Cabala decern numerationum et misterium earum precedit ad receptionem seiende nominum, nec convertitur hoc nisi diceret aliquis quod numerationes habentes nomina que in eis sunt differentes sunt una ab alia, quia hec non est intentio sciendum nomina et dominoram sapienciarum. Et hoc quidem quia dominus numerationum vocavit eas nominibus certis ad libitum suum et dicet quod numeratio prima vocatur cogitatio, et addet ei aliud nomen ad declarandum misterium eius et vocabit earn coronam superiorem ex quo corona ponitur in capite regum, quia caput simile est in continentia corporis ad turrim excelsam excelsiorem inquam que sit in tota urbe, in cuius medio est edes regia et ibi est locus habitationis eius. Corona autem non est de specie capitis sed bene girat totum superius et substancia capitis latet in medio eius. Sic cogitatio indicat excellenciam essencie divine et intelligenciam eius et essencia ocultatur in medio eius gracia exempli quia ibi non est intus nec foris neque facies. Et augebit adhuc inponere ei aliud nomen et vocabit earn aerem antiquum et misterium eius magis darum est quam misterium corone et sic facies in quacumque numeratione singulariter ex decern numerationibus sine quiditate. Dominus autem ille qui novit nomina intendit ad aliam intentionem sublimiorem valde ab hac priore nimis nimis, nec est eadem. Et profunditas vie huius scilicet nominum sanctorum est talis profunditas qualis in omnibus profunditatibus cogitationum hominum profundior et sublimior nulla est. Et hec quidem sola coniunget et comunicat seu associat cogitationem humanam cum co25

Ibid.

26

B. COPENHAVER, " L ' o c c u l t o in Pico. II m e m chiuso e le fauci spalancate di Azazel: la magia cabalistica di Giovanni Pico", in Giovanni zionale di studi nel cinquecentesimo

anniversario

Pico della Mirandola.

della morte (1494-1994),

Convegno

interna-

vol. I, ed. by G.C.

GARFAGNINI, Firenze 1997, 2 1 3 - 2 3 6 ; see, now, B. COPENHAVER, " N u m b e r , Shape and Meaning in Pico's Christian Cabala: the Upright Tsade, the Closed Mem and the Gaping l a w s of A z a z e l " , in Natural

Particulars:

Nature

and the Disciplines

in

Europe, ed. by A. GRAFTON and N. SLRAISI, Cambridge (Mass.) 1999, 2 5 - 7 6 .

Renaissance

440

Saverio Campanini

gitatione divina secundum possibilitatem humanam, et secundum quod homo naturatus et fixus est in ea. Et notum est quod cogitatio hominis est causa sapientie eius. Sapientia autem eius est causa intelligencie eius. Et intelligencia eius causa est pietatis eius et pietas eius est causa timoris creatoris sui et venerationis eius. Et timor talis est causa glorie sue. Gloria vero eius est causa eternitatis eius, et eternitas eius est causa decoris sui. Et decor eius est causa sui ipsius qui vocetur sponsa. Et ipse idem est causa regni sui quod vocatur sponsa sua benedictum est nomen regni sui in holam vahed. Et multum quidem profunde sunt cogitationes dei qui formavit hominem ad imaginem suam ad imaginem inquam similitudinis eius.27 The underlined words are marked on the left margin in the manuscript by Mithridates' hand, with the special sign always used by him in order to emphasize a particular issue (a vertical line interrupted by two horizontal dots). Precisely in correspondence with Mithridates' sign a note in Pico's handwriting is partly readable. If I decipher correctly Pico's notoriously difficult handwriting, the words: "Pars practica est nobilior" are hastily written on the same margin. This means only, in my opinion, that Pico, trying to understand Abulafia's propedeutic towards prophecy, in which the sefirot are just the first step and the semot are the second, adopted the categories of theory and practice, seeing very well that, in applying this equivalence to Abulafia's speculations, the traditional hierarchic opposition between the speculative and the practical where the first always had to be preferred, did not correspond to Abulafia's vision of the mutual relationship of sefirotic and onomastic Kabbalah. Of course this further evidence that Pico perused this Latin translation does not solve the problem of how to interpret the fact that the thesis mentioned above opens with the formula: "Whatever other Kabbalists say". Is he alluding to Abulafia or is he taking sides with Abulafia against other Kabbalists? I will leave a definitive answer, if possible at all, for another occasion and limit myself to appreciate that, in any event, a further confirmation of Scholem's intuition and Wirszubski's research has been found: Pico's meta-Kabbalistic speculation is greatly indebted to Abraham Abulafia and in constant dialogue with him. 28 The already mentioned idea according to which Maimonides was a Kabbalist is found, with a note on the margin by Mithridates in order to attract Pico's 27 28

Vat. Ebr. 190, ff. 123r-v. For the Hebrew text translated here by Flavius Mithridates see A. JELLINEK, Auswahl kabbalistischer Mystik, Leipzig 1 8 5 3 , 1 6 - 1 7 . As far as the revolutio alphabetaria is concerned, I have suggested that a further possibile source for Pico could have been the partial translation of the Commentary on the Tefillot, which I attributed to Yehudah Ibn Malka, see S. CAMPANINI, "The «anonymous» Commentary to the Prayers", in Catalogue of the Kabbalistic Manuscripts in the Library of the Jewish Community of Mantua, ed. by G. Busi, Fiesole 2001, 219-241: 233-238.

Talmud, Philosophy, and Kabbalah

441

attention, in the ms. Vat. Ebr. 190, f 461v, commenting on Abulafia's De secretis legis.29 Also the partition in three schools and the superiority of the Kabbalah, precisely over the other two, Talmud and philosophy, occurs in Abulafia. This appears all but casual, given the centrality of Abulafia's works among the Kabbalistic texts translated into Latin for Pico. His works aroused the admiration of Flavius Mithridates and, most important of all, Abulafia was a relatively marginal figure of Kabbalah, an "excentric and somewhat isolated personality" 30 or, in other words, a very original thinker who, almost unique in his time, precisely because of his position of outsider, was inclined to speculate about the Kabbalah and its meaning in comparison to other trends and genres of Jewish literature. Moreover, his initial philosophical training and his dramatic "conversion" to a Kabbalistic reading of the philosophical tradition represented in particular by Maimonides, made his works especially suited for a Humanist in search, because he was forced to defend himself, of a reflection about the Kabbalah and its positioning inside Jewish culture. Paradoxically enough Abulafia was far from tender towards Christianity and the arrows against the claims of the Christians concerning Jesus and his messianism are all but rare in his works. 31 As far as the partition between Talmud, philosophy and Kabbalah is concerned, a passage from his We-zot li-Yehudah seems to me particularly relevant. It is found in the ms. Vat. Ebr. 190, ff. 121v-122v: Quam ob rem nolo esse longus in his tribus viis praedictis que sunt sensatum intellectum et per se notum. Sed loquar tantum de eo quod recipitur unde dicitur hec sapiencia apud nos cabala idest receptio. Et hoc quidem quia quod recipitur dividitur in partes plurimas. Et quia articulus fidei nostre et fundamentum radicatur in cabala que revelatur et traditur ab ore unius in os alterius per ius iurandum de non revelanda nisi dignis et honestis et merentibus de quibus loquar postquam locutus fuero de quiditate totius cabale in universali. Dico autem quod hoc vocabulum sive nomen cabale in universali assimilatur dici illi nomini quod dicitur semuha idest fama, et illi nomini quod dicitur Abana id est intellectio. Hoc est quia sicut fama et intellectio indigentis subiectis multis sic cabala indiget uno subiecto vel multis. Et quemadmodum subiecta fame et intellectionis sunt corporea, sic subiecta cabale sunt corporea. Et quemadmodum corpora variantur in 29

F. BACCHELU Pico e Pier Leone da Spoleto. Trafilosofia dell'amore e tradizione cabbalistica, Firenze 2001, 29 states, with some mitigation ("mi pare"), that he was the first to notice this gloss. The contention does not hold true: see WlRSZUBSKl, Pico della Mirandola's Encounter (see above n. 23), 97.

30 31

According to the definition by G. BUSI, La Qabbalah, Roma/Bari 1998, 67. On Abulafia's attitude towards Christianity see M. IDEL, Studies in Ecstatic New York 1988, 45-61.

Kabbalah,

442

Saverio Campanini

misteriis suis et rebus ex parte quiditatis sue et ex parte accidencium suorum, sic qui reeipiunt cabalam variantur in sua quiditate et accidentibus suis. Nunc autem non est mihi sermo habendus longus circa res que reeipiunt omnem reeeptionem nisi tantum de ilia cabala per quam reeipiuntur secreta legis ab ore unius in os alterius que reeipiunt cabalisti de populo et gente nostram tantum. Nam propter hanc reeeptionem et modum reeipiendi vocamur domini Cabale, quod non est in aliis gentibus. Dico igitur nunc quod hec sapiencia cabale oculta quidem est a multitudine doctorum nostrorum qui exercentur in sapiencia alia nostra que dicitur Talmud. Et dividitur quidem in duas partes in universali que sunt sciencia nominis dei Tetragramaton per modum decern numerationum que vocantur plante inter quas qui separat dicitur truncare plantas. Et hi sunt qui revelant secretum unitatis. Secunda pars est sciencia magni nominis per viam viginti duarum licterarum a quibus et ab earum punetis et ab earum accentibus composita sunt nomina et caracteres seu sigilla que nomina invocata sunt que locuntur cum prophetis in somniis et per hurim et tummim, et per spiritum sanctum et per prophetias. Ambe autem he partes neque sensibiles sunt neque intelligibiles idest prima prineipia per se nota neque manifesta et propter hoc occultantur a multitudine sapientum. At tarnen cognoscere deum ab effectu non est de mysteriis cabale sed potius requirit sapienciam inquirendi de qua loqui non intendo hie quia vie et modi illi per quos procedunt dicti sapientes sunt qui vocantur philosophi et sapientes inquisitionis in quibus multum valuerunt Greci. Tota autem hec cabala continetur in libro sepher iesire cuis expositiones ego recepi a duodeeim comentatoribus quorum libri extant penes me, quamvis tarnen quidam eorum videntur contradicere quibusdam, et quidam conantur ilium exponere secundum mentem philosophorum et sapientium inquisitionis. Quidam autem concedunt Cabalam non in totum sed in partem, quidam vero concedunt eam in totum. Et perfectior inter omnes comentatores hos qui recte docet est qui totum et secundum totum exponunt secundum Cabalam. Propinquior autem huic est qui exponit et docet secundum aliquam partem Cabale. Inperfectus autem et deficiens et omnino remotus est qui exponit illum secundum mentem philosophorum et sapientum inquisitionis et manifestum est quod omnis qui sequitur scienciam philosophorum et similium sapientum inquisitionis volet convertere mentem meam hanc et vocare perfectiorem apud me inperfectiorem omnibus. Et imperfectum apud me perfectiorem omnibus (magister Elias). Qui autem medius est et mediocris mediocriter habetur inter utrasque opiniones. Qui vero cabalista est volet confirmare et verificare mentem meam, ut memoravi. Nec est dubium quod prima pars prior est in esse temporis discendi in cabala, quam secunda pars. Et secunda prior est gradu et nobilitate

Talmud, Philosophy, and Kabbalah

443

quam prima, quia est finis in creandis individuis humane speciei et fieri similis heloim, et qui pervenit ad hunc gradum est cuius intellectus exit in actum solus. Et hie est super quem revelatur dominus omnium et cui revelat secretum suum. Quod si hec maiora fecerit et minora facilius eo volente faciet. Verum priores omnes Cabaliste praedicti ex numero verorum cabalistarum dicti sunt nebihim id est prophete per se.32 As one can very well see, not only the definition of Kabbalah as receptio and the peculiar partition between ars combinandi and scientia de virtutibus rerum superiorum can be traced back to this seminal text, but also the distinction between Talmud, completely excluded from the type of knowledge Abulafia is describing here, and philosophy, endowed with a certain degree of penetration, for example in the understanding of the Sefer Yesirah, but inferior to authentic Kabbalistic knowledge. It is noteworthy that the passage we have quoted here is entirely marked by the already mentioned characteristic sign used by Mithridates to enhance a text that he considered particularly interesting for his patron. Another element which is worth of being pointed out here is the reference to Magister Elias, a wink to Eliyahu del Medigo, philosophical preceptor of Pico: Mithridates, identifying with Abulafia, seizes the opportunity to stress the superiority of Kabbalah over philosophy, that is to say, his own contribution over Pico's loyalty to the philosophical teaching of Del Medigo.33 Particularly striking is that Abulafia, in his original context, had insisted on the peculiar nature of Kabbalah as a distinctly Jewish form of knowledge. It seems to me highly paradoxical that precisely these pages lent involuntarily the foundation stone for Pico's argumentative strategy in his confrontation with his censors, who, had they known Abulafia's text directly, would have found there, most likely, a splendid confirmation of their persuasion that an intrinsically Jewish discipline could not be of any import for Christian theology. This very dangerous, although surely exciting, form of reticence is thoroughly characteristic of Pico's art of writing. Abulafia's attitude towards Christianity emerges also quite clearly, beside the conclusion of the same epistle, where some sort of Kabbalah is attributed to the other nations, only to wish that the Lord may set us free from their wisdom, in the last "secret" of the first part of the Sitre Torah, one of his mystical commentaries to the Moreh Nevukim of Maimonides, translated for Pico by Mithridates.34 With the help of the latter, however, even the most offending

32

For the Hebrew original, see JELLINEK, Auswahl (see above n. 27), 15.

33

I have expanded about this topic in the forthcoming article, "Guglielmo Raimondo Moncada (alias Flavio Mitridate) traduttore di testi cabbalistici", in Guglielmo Raimondo Moncada nel contesto dell'ebraismo di Sicilia, ed. by M. PERANI, Palermo 2005 (in print). See, especially, Vat. Ebr. 190, f. 415v. See also MITHRIDATES Sermo de Passione Domini

34

444

Saverio Campanini

gematria used by Abulafia to demonstrate kabbalistically the falsity of Christianity, could be used to reverse the conclusions of the author and, by using the very same method on exactly the same Biblical passage, one could construe a prophecy for the truth of Christianity. The ambiguity of some rather mechanical methods of Kabbalistic exegese could not be demonstrated with greater evidence: Abulafia argued against the messianic claims of Jesus by saying that the Torah alluded to him in the verse (Dtn 31,16): And this people will rise up, and go a whoring after the gods of the strangers (133 TiVx) of the land. The numerical value of the Hebrew letters forming the words "the gods of the strangers" are perfectly equivalent to the Hebrew TO1, adding both to 316. Flavius Mithridates remarks that a greater mystery is hidden in the Biblical passage: if one also adds the next word in the Hebrew of the Bible (flXH), summing up to 612, a numerical equivalence can be obtained with the phrase D'löl TO1, "Jesus and Mary". Wirszubski argued that Mithridates, "almost twenty years after his conversion", was thus repeating an anti-Christiari interpretation by parodying Abulafia's style. The fact that the Epistula de secretis by Paulus de Heredia, later quoted also by Petrus Galatinus, could use the very same gematria as a Kabbalistic confirmation of Christianity shows that it is far from sure that Mithridates did not think of reversing Abulafia's anti-Christian pointe in order to please his patron. This is not the appropriate place to try to disentangle the problem of who influenced whom, but one should keep in mind that Sicily was the common ground for Abulafia's writing and for the conversion of the Spaniard Paulus de Heredia and of Mithridates. Interestingly enough, Mithridates offers the solution to his enigmatic gematria by saying that the addition of the third word will allow to find the "bitterness of the sea", a very easy word-play on Mary's Hebrew name, analyzed as if it were D1 "IÖ, only to add afterwards that this sea 'generated Aeneas with its foam on the mount of Eryx' (sua spuma genuit eneam in monte ericino). One might ask: given the acceptability of the esoteric identification of Jesus with Aeneas and the subsequent superposition of the Virgin with Venus, why should Mithridates say that Aeneas-Jesus was born in Eryx, near Trapani? As far as I can judge, it seems to me that the cryptic allusion must have something to do with Mithridates' own conversion. Be it as it may, in the same manuscript, one finds a further passage where, especially with the help of Mithridates, Pico could find a confirmation of his (see above n. 9), 39-41; WLRSZUBSK], Pico delta Mirandola's Encounter (see above n. 23), 115-118; CH. WLRSZUBSK; "The Hebrew Name of Flavius Mithridates" [hebr.], in Isac Leo Seeligmann Volume. Essays on the Bible and the Ancient World, vol. II, ed. by A. R o f e and Y. ZAKOVTTCH, Jerusalem 1983, 569-572; see also F. SECRET, "L'Ensis Pauli de Paulus de Heredia", in Sefarad 26 (1966), 79-102, 253-271: 100-101. Given the particular complexity of this passage, where Mithridates added many glosses and notes, using even the Arabic alphabet in order to hide his own "dangerous" additions and commentaries on Jesus and Mary, I plan to deal with the topic elsewhere.

Talmud, Philosophy, and Kabbalah

445

(apologetical) understanding of Kabbalah and its hierarchy of thedisciplines: Iterum dixit mirabilia in capitulo 29 partis secunde in prima et secunda premissa. Et prima quidem est quia venit ad notificandum nobis per earn quod totum illud quod meminit in opere geneseos in lege non est totum secundum simplicem sensum eius secundum quod imaginantur de eo vulgares. Et dixit quod si res ita se habuisset quod sapientes viri sapientie cabale non abscondissent nec etiam ipsi sapientes invenissent parabola enigmata et interpretationes ad ocultandum illud. Et sequitur totam hanc rem usque in finem et narravit in ea mirabilia et manifestavit in ea secreta valde admiranda, et velut non venit ad ea revelanda sed ad ea ocultanda et quis revelabit res quas operuit antiquus dierum et quis teget res quas manifestavit antiquus dierum et si leo rugiit quis non timebit35 et si dominus deorum locutus est quis non prophetabit et fecit puncta super leonem qui dicitur arie ΠΉΧ cuius numeri sunt 216 ad indicandum nomen domini xemamphoras de quo supra dictum est et tarnen honor domini est abscondere verbum et gloria regum est inquirere verbum. Secunda est quia venit ad notificandum nobis per earn quod prophete prophetantur et locuntur per nomina comunia et equivoca et per nomina derivata ab illo quod indicant intenciones prime et veniunt ad indicandum per ea intenciones alias ut ocultent ilia a multitudine vulgari et etiam ab illis doctis viris qui vocantur rabanim, qui non sunt cabaliste et non traduntur eis secreta legis (cuiusmodi suntlegiste). 36 The last words in brackets are added by Mithridates and serve the purpose of clarifying Abulafia's intention, which was already quite obvious, at least from our perspective. The Talmudical masters are excluded from the higher degrees of knowledge and so are the philosophers, with the exception of Maimonides, who, this is Abulafia's main thesis as interpreted by Pico, was actually a Kabbalist. Another passage, this time from the Liber combinationum, confirms beyond any doubt that Pico could find, in Abulafia's works as well as in the books inspired by him, a very convenient counterposition or, better, a hierarchical partition in which Kabbalistic knowledge was superior to theTalmudic one: Ex omnibus quidem his rebus quas tibi indicavimus debes intelligere et ponere coram oculis tuis semper et quando audis a me verbum scias versus quod latus declinant illud, et que est vena eius. Et cum perveneris ad hanc scienciam tu videbis oculis tuis plusquam potuissem tibi di-

35 36

Mithridates wrote first "prophetabit" and then corrected himself. Vat. Ebr. 190, f. 461v. The H e b r e w text can be read in A. Abulafia, Sitre Torah, ed. b y A. GROS, Jerusalem 1 9 9 9 , 1 2 2 - 1 2 3 .

446

Saverio Campanini

cere ore ita esse quod omnes hec vie sunt vie cabale et modi procedendi in ea, non quod omnes sint ipsa cabala, nisi quod omnes claves earum sunt necessarie in cabala, et post tradictionem clavuum ipsius cabale, intellectus dominantis ascendit sursum et comprehendit quantitatem tantam quam nullus quidem cabalista posset ei declarare, etiam si totus mundus esset plenus cabalistis, quia sapiencia hec quamvis vocetur cabala idest tradicio in corde, ut diximus, in veritate ipsa est vera cabala et est substantia et essencia ipsius cabale et essencia intellectus. Et scias quod hec sapiencia non est intelligibilis per tradictionem quam tradimus quemadmodum est sapiencia talmud. Si enim exerces te et occupes in talmud revelabuntur tibi secreta rerum eius omnia et mysteriorum per disputationem quam habebis cum eo qui te docet illud. Sapiencia autem hec non consistit nisi quod tradantur tibi principia amphorismorum que continent finem ipsius disceptationum. Sunt enim hie principia conclusiones seu principia per se nota. Inde et ultra debes componere ex sciencia tua.37 It is particularly interesting that this texts ends with an exhortation to the reader to experiment with the principles (principia amphorismorum corresponding to the Hebrew D'plD 'UWl) received kabbalistically. Pico could say that his unheard of Kabbalistic interpretation of Christian dogma was strictly following this direction. Abraham Abulafia inspired, far beyond or even against his intentions, the hierarchy which we find in Pico's Apologia, but it does not seem that he was also responsible for Pico's tactical opposition of Kabbalah on one side and Talmud/philosophy on the other, as he insists that Talmud and philosophy come first in the study programme of the would-be Kabbalist who, only after having completed his curriculum, can aspire to reach, or better, receive, the innermost secrets of the Kabbalah of the sefirot and, even deeper, the most profound secrets of the letters. Some polemical overtones about the Talmudists can be explained with Abulafia's condemnation by the famous rabbinical authority Salomon Ibn Adret (who, ironically, was himself a Kabbalist). What we for sure cannot find in him is the idea that the first Christian authors were acquainted with the Kabbalah. Quite on the contrary the Epistle We-zot li-Yehudah states that the Kabbalists of the sefirot, aware of the possibile analogies with the intricacies of plurality and unity in Trinitarian theology, avoided carefully any confusion with the Christian doctrine. As Chaim Wirszubski already noticed, 38 this unprecedented idea stems from an interpolation (printed here in italics) added by Mithridates at a very important junction. It is worth quoting the text:

37 38

Vat. Ebr. 190, f. 26v. WIRSZUBSKI, Pico della Mirandola's Encounter (see above n. 23), 109.

Talmud, Philosophy, and Kabbalah

447

Propter hoc amice notifico tibi quod domirti Cabale numerationalis tenent unitatem dei sub denario numero, non sub ternario, qui numerus fugitur ab omnibus scientibus Cabale. Est bene verum quod sunt christiani qui sunt fundati super hac sciencia inperfecte quamvis auctores eorum perfecte earn noverant dicunt deum esse trinum et unum, et trinitatem esse unam sic quidam domini Cabale credunt et dicunt quod divinitas est denarius seu decern numerationes et denarius estunus. 39 A peculiar blend, neither identical with Abulafia's thought nor with Mithridates', but a mixture of genuine, and very specific, Abulafian speculations combined with Mithridates' skillful presentation of what he wanted Pico to believe, was the input for Pico's original "experiment with the principles" and stands at the origin of Christian Kabbalah. This unique constellation was going to have far-reaching consequences, not only, as we already mentioned, for the standard argument used by later Christian Kabbalists in order to defend the legitimacy and the usefulness of their "discovery" for a Christian readership, the somewhat artificial separation between Talmudists and Kabbalists. This stratagem was to surface again at a decisive point for the further developement of Kabbalah in the Jewish word itself. I am referring to the double printing of the cornerstone of medieval Kabbalah, that is the Zohar (Mantua and Cremona 1558-1560), being almost synchronous, and not without a significant Christian participation, with the burning of the Talmud (1553) ordered by the Pope Julius III, so that it could seem that the printing of the Zohar responded somehow to this painful cultural and religious loss.40 One would say that this temporal contiguity and this succession were suggesting, with the odious prepotence of facts, a definite programme of substitution.

39 40

Vat. Ebr. 190, f. 125v. For the Hebrew text, see JELLINEK, Auswahl (see above n. 27), 19. S. CAMPANIN], "Anima in itinere. Un'orazione funebre di Abraham da Sant'Angelo", in La cultura ebraica a Bologna tra medioevo e rinascimento. Atti del convegno internazionale, Bologna, 9 aprile 2000, ed. by M. PERANI, Firenze 2002, 129-168: 135-137. See especially G. BUSI, "Material! per una storia della qabbalah a Mantova", in Materia Giudaica 2 (1996), 50-56: 53 and G. BUSI, Mantua and the Kabbalah, Milano/Geneve 2001.

Der Anfang der Hisronot /ta-Sc/zass1-Literatur Christliche Talmudzensur und ihre jüdische Überwindung von MICHAEL KRUPP

Talmudzensur und Bücherverbrennungen Die Feindschaft gegen den Talmud ist so alt wie der Talmud selbst. Schon die heidnischen Römer verboten im Bar-Kochba-Krieg das Studium der Tora. Die christliche Welt verschärfte ihre Feindschaft gegen das jüdische Lernen. Der Talmud war noch nicht endredigiert, als die byzantinische Herrschaft die Beschäftigung damit verbot. 2 Einen ersten Höhepunkt erreichte die Talmudfeindschaft im mittelalterlichen Frankreich mit der ersten Massenverbrennung von Talmudausgaben 1242 in Paris, der angeblich 24 Wagenladungen zum Opfer fielen.3 Verfolgungen und Verbrennungen in anderen Ländern schlossen sich an und erreichten ihren Höhepunkt im 16. Jahrhundert in Italien, wo inzwischen die meisten der Druckausgaben des Talmud erschienen waren. 1

0"U>n r m n o n , wörtlich „Fehlstellen im Talmud", Sammlung von Stellen, die durch die christliche Zensur im (babylonischen) Talmud weggefallen sind.

2

Justinians Novelle 146 aus dem Jahr 553 lautet: „Aber die Mischna, oder wie sie sie nennen, die δεντέρωσις, verbieten wir vollkommen. Denn sie ist nicht ein Teil der Heiligen Bücher, noch ist sie dank göttlicher Inspiration durch die Propheten vermittelt worden, sondern ist Machwerk von Menschen, das nur von irdischen Dingen handelt und nichts Göttliches in sich hat". Zitiert nach M. J. HELLER, Printing the Talmud, Brooklyn, New York 1992, S. 201.

3

Vgl. zu den näheren Umständen G. STEMBERGER, Der Talmud, München 1982, S. 298ff. Wie selten Talmudhandschriften Anfang des 16. Jahrhunderts waren, davon geben die Anstrengungen eines der humanistischen Verteidigers des Talmud, Johannes Reuchlin, Zeugnis, dem es nach jahrelangen Bemühungen endlich gelang, eine Talmudhandschrift, die des Traktates Sanhedrin, zu erwerben, die heute in Karlsruhe aufbewahrt wird. Der gesamte Bestand von Talmudhandschriften in den Bibliotheken der Welt besteht aus einer vollständigen Talmudhandschrift, die heute in München aufbewahrt wird, und Handschriften zu Einzeltraktaten oder Ordnungen, die für keinen Traktat die Zahl zehn erreicht, für einige Traktate aber nur zwei oder drei Exemplare aufweist. Es ist fast ein Wunder, dass sich der Talmud in seiner Vollständigkeit erhalten hat. Erst mit der Drucklegung war die Existenz des Talmud für alle kommenden Geschlechter gerettet, aber auch das nur nach einer bestimmten Zeit.

450

Michael Krupp

Die ersten Druckausgaben einzelner Traktate kamen bereits Ende des 15. Jahrhunderts kurz nach Erfindung des Buchdrucks, in Spanien, Marokko und Italien heraus. Alle diese Ausgaben erschienen ohne erteilte Genehmigung durch die Behörden und wurden von jüdischen Druckern vorgenommen. Von diesen Frühdrucken haben sich, wenn überhaupt, nur wenige Exemplare einer jeden Ausgabe erhalten. Der erste Drucker, der eine offizielle Erlaubnis erhielt, den gesamten Talmud zu drucken, war der christliche Verleger Daniel Bomberg in Venedig, der bis zum Ende seiner Druckertätigkeit in der Mitte des 16. Jahrhunderts den Talmud vollständig zweimal herausgab, 1520-1523 und 1528-1531. Ein drittes Mal erschien eine vollständige Talmudausgabe, ebenfalls in Venedig, verlegt von dem gleichfalls christlichen Verleger und Konkurrenten Bombergis, Giustiniani, gedruckt von 1546-1551. Da 1553 auf dem Campo de Fiori in Rom und ebenso in Cremona, Ferrara, Venedig, Bologna und Ravenna alle Talmudexemplare konfisziert und öffentlich verbrannt wurden, ist von dieser Ausgabe und den bombergischen Vorläufern leider nur wenig erhalten geblieben. Dies ist besonders schade, da alle diese Drucke frei von christlicher Zensur waren. Zwar hatte Papst Leo X 1515, also rechtzeitig vor der Erstausgabe des Talmud, eine Zensur auch für den Talmud eingeführt, da es aber an des Hebräischen kundigen Christen mangelte und die Geschäfte der Republik Venedig durch die Lizenzvergaben florierten, kümmerte sich niemand um die Durchführung und Einhaltung des Gesetzes. Dies sollte sich im Zuge der Gegenreformation bald ändern, deren härtere Praxis auch die jüdischen Bücher, den Talmud eingeschlossen, erreichte. Die Zensur war gegenüber den Verbrennungen vom jüdischen Standpunkt aus sogar ein Vorteil. Um den Talmud zu retten, hatte sich 1554 in Ferrara eine Rabbinerkonferenz für eine jüdische Vorzensur ausgesprochen und verfügt, dass kein jüdisches Buch gedruckt werden dürfte, wenn es nicht zuvor von einem Gremium von drei Rabbinern und einem Gemeindevorsteher approbiert worden ist. Diese christlich-jüdische Zusammenarbeit auf dem Gebiet der Zensur brachte dann als erstes Ergebnis einen neuen Talmuddruck heraus, in Basel, bei dem christlichen Verleger Froben gedruckt, von 1578-1580. Hier sind nicht nur alle Stellen des Talmud eliminiert, die Jesus, seine Jünger oder das frühe Christentum erwähnen, sondern alles, was nur in den Verdacht kam, etwas gegen den christlichen Glauben zu enthalten, wurde erbarmungslos gestrichen. So fiel der gesamte Traktat Avoda Zara, „Vom Götzendienst", dem Zensurmesser anheim, obwohl der Traktat wirklich nur vom Götzendienst handelt und nicht vom Christentum. Hinzu strich man alles, was den christlichen Zensoren moralisch anstößig erschien. Die Ausgabe erfreute sich so keiner großen Beliebtheit bei den jüdischen Kunden, und der Druck von Talmudausgaben verlagerte sich nach Osten, nach Polen, wo in Krakau und Lublin Ausgaben in den nächsten Jahrzehnten erschienen, die teilweise die Zensurlücken der Baseler Ausgabe wieder rückgängig machten. Auch hier herrschten die katholische Kirche und die In-

Christliche Talmudzensur und ihre jüdische Überwindung

451

quisition, und auch die Drucker in Krakau und Lublin versicherten, sich an die Zensurbestimmungen zu halten, aber weder sie noch ihre Kritiker nahmen es so ernst damit. Ein von der Zensur völlig freies Talmudexemplar wurde in den Jahren 1644 bis 1648 bei Emmanuel Benbenisti in Amsterdam gedruckt. In dieser Zeit rühmte sich Amsterdam, vollkommene Religionsfreiheit zu gewähren. Allerdings war es den Amsterdamer Druckern nicht immer möglich, zensurfreie Vorlagen zu finden, so dass unbewusst vieles von der christlichen Zensur auch in die Amsterdamer Ausgabe Benbenistis eingeflossen ist. Immerhin gelang es dem Verleger, die meisten leeren Stellen zu füllen.

Der Talmuddruck in Deutschland und die Zensur Nach dem Erscheinen des ersten Talmuddrucks in Amsterdam setzte eine Pause von fast fünfzig Jahren im Druck des Talmud ein. Vielleicht reichten die im 16. und Anfang des 17. Jahrhundert gedruckten Ausgaben in Krakau und Lublin aus. Vielleicht war auch das Geschäft, ein Buch von diesem Umfang wie den Talmud zu drucken, ein allzu großes Risiko. Jedenfalls wurde Deutschland zur neuen Wirkungsstätte der Talmuddrucker, zuerst im bayrischen Sulzbach, wo der Talmud im ausgehenden 17. und im 18. Jahrhundert dreimal gedruckt wurde. Die erste Sulzbacher Ausgabe umfasste allerdings nur einige Traktate. Der erste vollständige Talmuddruck erschien von 1697 bis 1699 ausgerechnet in Frankfurt an der Oder durch den christlichen Drucker Michael Gottschalk. Da diese Talmudausgabe aber zahlreiche Fehler aufwies, hielten sich die Rabbinen, die ein zwanzigjähriges Verbot für jeden weiteren Talmudneudruck ausgesprochen hatten, nicht an ihre Zusicherung und erlaubten bald einen weiteren Druck, in Amsterdam, von dem noch die Rede sein wird. Alle diese Ausgaben enthalten die christliche Zensur. In der Ausgabe Frankfurt an der Oder heißt es auf dem zweiten4 Titelblatt: Recognitum ä MARCO MARINO Brix. Can. Regul. D. Servatoris Et ab omnibus iis, quae contra Religionem Christianam sunt, Juxta mentem Concilii Tridentini Expurgatum, Adeö ut non modo citra Impietatem, verum etiam cumfructu legi posit: Ante hac BASILIAE editum, Nunc secundum Editionem Basileensem denuö emissum Cum privilegio SACR. CAESAR. MAJ.& Serenissimi ELECTORIS BRANDENBURGICI

4

Das erste Titelblatt ist ein schöner Stich mit Moses und Aharon, Salomo und David.

452

Michael Krupp

Dass man sich im protestantischen Frankfurt an der Oder an die Bestimmungen des Tridentiner Konzils der Gegenreformation hielt, zeigt, dass in dieser Angelegenheit kein großer Unterschied zwischen Protestanten und Katholiken zu verzeichnen war. Der wahre Grund aber wird gewesen sein, dass der Talmud auch in katholischen Ländern, besonders in Polen verkauft werden sollte, wo die Masse der jüdischen Abnehmer saß. Allerdings sind die Zensurstellen nicht so zahlreich wie in der Baseler Ausgabe. Die Ausgabe Frankfurt an der Oder aber hat alle Stellen getilgt, in denen Jesus, seine Schüler, das Christentum oder was dafür gehalten wurde, vorkommen. Sie hält sich damit an die Empfehlungen der Rabbinerversammlung in Lublin, wo 1621 Folgendes beschlossen wurde: Gruß an unsere Geliebten, unsere Brüder, das ganze Haus Israel. Nachdem wir erfahren haben, dass viele Christen große Anstrengungen unternehmen, die Sprache zu lernen, in welcher unsere Bücher geschrieben sind, erklären wir, dass wir einen großen Bann gegen den verhängen, der uns nicht gehorsam ist, indem er in neuen Ausgaben der Mischna5 oder der Gemara irgendeine Passage über Jesus von Nazareth druckt. Deshalb nimm die Sache sehr ernst, dass du absolut nichts, sei es gut oder schlecht, schreibst oder veröffentlichst über diese Angelegenheiten, damit kein Unglück über uns und unseren Glauben komme. Denn wir wissen sehr wohl, was uns in der Vergangenheit durch wertlose Apostaten angetan wurde, die die christliche Religion angenommen haben [...]. So seid verwarnt. [...] Deshalb und aus diesen Gründen ist das unsere Bestimmung zu dieser Stunde und dieser Zeit für dich: Wenn immer du ein solches Buch von Neuem herausgibst, sollst du anstelle jeder Passage, in welcher irgendwelche Taten des Jesus von Nazareth beschrieben werden, einen leeren Platz lassen [...]. Unsere Rabbiner und diejenigen, die diese Stellen gelernt haben, werden wissen, wie die Jugend in jedem der Fälle zu unterrichten ist, während gleichzeitig christliche Gelehrte keine Anklage aufgrund dessen gegen uns erheben können. So werden wir gerettet sein, und es wird ferner kein Unbill wie in früheren Zeiten über uns kommen, so werden wir in Frieden leben.6 Tatsächlich sind in der Ausgabe Frankfurt an der Oder alle Stellen, in denen dieser Art Inhalt erscheint, freigelassen worden. Dies ist die Praxis in den meisten Talmudausgaben, bis zur klassischen Wilna-Ausgabe der Witwe Romm und ihrer Söhne 1883, wo es keine freien Stellen gibt und die Zensurlücken zwar vor-

5

Es wäre interessant zu erfahren, welche Stellen die Rabbinen in der Mischna gemeint haben.

6

W. POPPER, The Censorship of Hebrew Books, New York 1969, S. 105f.

Christliche Talmudzensur und ihre jüdische Überwindung

453

handen, aber nicht mehr erkennbar sind - dies auf Anordnung der russischen Zensurbehörden. Für diese Praxis gibt es aber schon frühere Belege, so zum Beispiel in der Ausgabe Berlin/Frankfurt an der Oder von 1715-1722, wiederum im Haus des christlichen Druckers Michael Gottschalk. Es ist schwer zu sagen, ob auch dies auf Anordnung der Behörden geschehen ist, damit niemand in die Zensurlücken den Text schreiben kann oder aus einem einseitig gedruckten Blatt mit den fehlenden Stellen die betreffende Stelle ausschneiden und einkleben kann. Solches war in den von der Zensur heimgesuchten Ländern selbstverständlich verboten und wurde schwer bestraft, wenn Exemplare solcher Art gefunden wurden. Und es wurden Hausuntersuchungen in jüdischen Häusern und Synagogen vorgenommen.

Die erste Sammlung zensierter Stellen Tatsächlich gab es solche einseitig bedruckten Blätter mit allen zensierten Stellen, wenn sich davon auch kaum etwas erhalten hat. Jedenfalls findet sich im Verzeichnis hebräischer Bücher Bet Eked Sepharim7 unter der Nummer der Vermerk Π 1083:

(K'hds nxünn) o"wa unpn 'ana npana ιρπα^ onaxa .o"wn mrnon .[ü"on Y'»K]i : f " a pmr -rm psaw ν π α'πκπ '"ν n'opiVo .vuns»i Danach folgen weitere Drucke der Hisronot ha-Schass und darunter die Bemerkung in Klammern:

,ιπχ ns Vi? n'vna d'BT raaix bv ODU, »"xasai Y'ÖX oisnn niüawnn o'pVnn mmpa nx nna xVaVi -naVnn OsiDa npann d^V Auch das Verzeichnis hebräischer Bücher von Y. Vinograd8 führt unter den Drucken Amsterdam Nr. 884 und 885 ein ϋ'ΌΠ million an, wobei Titel, Druckort und Jahr einmal in Klammern gesetzt sind und einmal nicht. Es fehlen nähere Angaben, und beide Male bezieht sich Vinograd auf Friedmann. Ein solches Viererblatt ist in den letzten Jahren auf dem Jerusalemer Buchmarkt erschienen, so dass nähere Angaben möglich sind. Tatsächlich handelt es sich um vier einseitig bedruckte Blätter, dazu angetan, die einzelnen Stellen auszuschneiden und in die Lücken des betreffenden Talmudexemplars einzukleben. Mir sind zwar keine Exemplare bekannt, wo dies geschehen ist, und vermutlich

7

CH.B. FRIEDBERG, Bet Eked

8

Thesaurus of the Hebrew Book, Jerusalem 1993.

Sepharim.

454

Michael Krupp

dürfte das auch außerhalb der engen Grenzen Hollands, w o diese Blätter gedruckt wurden, streng verboten u n d gefährlich gewesen sein. Die vier Seiten sind fast ohne Textverlust erhalten u n d weisen auch eine Einleitung auf, überschrieben mit v x » a n a w a x ρ " ρ τ β ί τ ι π a ^ r a n n m x n n m a a o n . Die Einleitung nennt als Druckort Amsterdam u n d das Jahr p "B1? ϋ'ΌΠ, was das Jahr 1708 ergibt, da am 12. Cheswan datiert. Unterschrieben ist es von zwei hervorragenden Rabbinern der beiden jüdischen Gemeinden in Amsterdam, der aschkenasischen u n d der sefardischen, von Rav Jehuda Arie Leib u n d von Solomon ben Jacob Ayllon. Die Haskamot beginnen folgendermaßen: Angesichts der Tatsache, dass der Druck des babylonischen Talmud in Frankfurt an der Oder auf einigen Seiten voller Lücken hergestellt wurde, in der Gemara, Raschi u n d den Tosfot, u n d jeder, der darauf stößt, sich wundert - u n d das ist aus einem bekannten Grund so gemacht - , so haben sich jetzt z u m Nutzen der Gemeinschaft die Brüder, die Rabbiner Schimon, Schamasch unserer Gemeinde, u n d sein Bruder Rabbi Jitzhak Kohen erboten u n d haben unter den Büchern gesucht eins u m das andere, u m alle die Stellen zu drucken, die fehlen. Im Weiteren wird erklärt, dass so verfahren wurde, dass die Stellen genau in der entsprechenden Größe der fehlenden Partien gedruckt w u r d e n z u m erleichterten Einkleben der Partien. Außerdem verfügen die Rabbiner einen Bann von zehn Jahren für den, der ohne Erlaubnis die Seiten nachdruckt. Rabbi Solomon ben Jacob Ayllon (ca. 1655-1728) war ein bekannter Gelehrter und Kabbaiist seiner Zeit, aber auch ein sehr umstrittener Mann. In Saloniki, nach anderen in Safed geboren u n d in Saloniki ausgebildet, war er in seiner Jugend ein Anhänger des Pseudomessias Schabbtai Zvi u n d mit dessen Prophet, Nathan von Gaza, persönlich gut bekannt. Im Jahr 1700 w u r d e er z u m Rabbiner der sefardischen Gemeinde von Amsterdam gewählt. Als Vorsteher der sefardischen Gemeinde befand er sich mit dem Vorsteher der aschkenasischen Gemeinde von Amsterdam, Zvi Aschkenasi, den er schließlich im Streit u m die Approbation einiger des Sabtaismus verdächtigter Bücher aus der Stadt verjagen konnte. Im Jahr 1708 war Zvi Aschkenasi aber noch in Hamburg. Zu dieser Zeit war, wie aus dieser Einleitung hervorgeht, Jehuda Arie Low Rabbiner der aschkenasischen Gemeinde. Low ist später als Talmudgelehrter berühmt geworden u n d gab selbst ab 1714 einen Talmud in Amsterdam heraus, der aber n u r bis z u m Traktat Ketuvot gedieh, weil inzwischen der Drucker Gottschalk in Frankfurt an der Oder u n d Berlin eine Erlaubnis, den gesamten Talmud zu drucken, diesmal zum zweiten Mal, erhalten hatte. Erst später gelang es Low, einen vollständigen Talmud in Frankfurt am Main ab 1720 zu drucken, ein Talmudexemplar, das als mustergültig angesehen wurde. Aber nicht im zensurfreien Amsterdam konnte Low drucken, sondern im der Zensur unterworfenen Frankfurt am Main, weil nur noch zensurierte Ausgaben in ganz Eu-

Christliche Talmudzensur und ihre jüdische Überwindung

455

ropa außer Holland verkauft werden konnten und der Markt in Holland zu klein war, dass man davon hätte leben können. Ayllon gehört zu den Rabbinern, die die Amsterdamer Ausgabe von Low approbierten. Die vier Seiten Zensurlücken, die die beiden Brüder Katz, über die sonst nichts bekannt ist, zusammengestellt haben, waren der Anfang einer meist anonym erschienenen Hisronot ha-Schass-Literatur. Das verbreitetste war ein angeblich in Königsberg (Wien?) 1860 erschienenes Büchlein, das recht umfangreich ist und die Zensurlücken aller zum Talmud erschienenen Kommentare enthält.

Epilog: Zensur heute Von dem Erstdruck des Talmud bis zur klassischen Ausgabe von Wilna ist der Talmud an die 50-mal gedruckt worden. Seitdem ist immer wieder die WilnaAusgabe nachgedruckt worden, wahrscheinlich auch an die 50-mal. Auch in Israel wurde die Wilnaer Ausgabe viele Male nachgedruckt, mit allen Zensurveränderungen und -lücken wie in Wilna. Die neue Talmudbearbeitung von Adin Steinsalz, die noch nicht beendet wurde, hat zwar versucht, die Zensurlücken zu füllen und die Zensurstellen wiederherzustellen, was ihr aber auch nicht immer gelungen ist. Auch die in Amerika erschienene Ausgabe der Traditional Press New York (ohne Jahr) mit englischer Übersetzung in der Übernahme der Soncino-Ausgabe hat im hebräisch-aramäischen Text nur den Wilnatext nachgedruckt mit allen Zensurlücken. Lediglich in den Anmerkungen zu der englischen Übersetzung kann man den Hinweis auf die Zensurlücken finden, aber auch nur in englischer Übersetzung. Ist denn die Zensur auch in Israel, in Europa und in Amerika noch heute gültig? In diesem Zusammenhang ist ein Briefwechsel sehr aufschlussreich, den Yaakov Shmuel Spiegel in seinem Buch Chapters in the History of the Jewish Book (hebräisch)9 abdruckt. Es handelt sich um einen Briefwechsel zwischen zwei führenden Vertretern der Orthodoxie des 20. Jahrhunderts in Amerika, Rabbi Jekutiel Jehuda Grünwald und Rabbi Haim Bloch, über die Frage, wieweit es erlaubt sein könnte, heute eine zensurfreie Ausgabe zu drucken. Anlass war der Versuch eines solchen Unternehmens in Jerusalem in den vierziger Jahren. Beide Rabbiner lehnen solche Versuche entschieden ab. Grünwald schreibt: Ich glaube, wir schulden den Zensoren Dank, dass sie ihre Feder über solche Stellen gezogen haben, die unsere Gelehrten gegen einen anderen Glauben geschrieben haben [...]. In unseren Augen ist es erstaunlich, dass die Großen Israels in allen Zeiten nicht selbst diese Arbeit vollbracht haben, die die Zensoren durchgeführt haben. Warum haben sie nicht die9

Y.SH. SPIEGEL, Chapters in the History of the Jeivish Book: Scholars and their annotations, Ramat Can 1996.

Michael Krupp

456

se Stellen gestrichen, die nur Hass und Zorn über das Volk Israel grundlos gebracht haben [...]. Man könnte glauben, dass die Drucker daran schuld sind. Sie glaubten, dass das, was sie in unserer Sprache druckten oder in Aramäisch, wie ein verschlossenes Buch für die Außenwelt sei. Und sie verdeckten ihre Augen davor, dass es Übertreter gibt und Juden, die auf den schlechten Weg gekommen sind (IXX'tP Β'ΠΓΜ ΟΉ7210 nsn mmnV) [...]. Söhne Israels, ihr werdet kein Vergnügen an diesem Vorhaben [einen Talmud ohne Zensurlücken zu drucken] haben, unsere Literatur und unsere Weisheit sind durch diese Auslassungen nicht bereichert worden, nicht in unserer Zeit und werden es nicht in den kommenden Geschlechtern.10 Und Rabbi Haim Bloch pflichtete seinem Briefpartner bei und führte für die Richtigkeit dieser Haltung die große Autorität der Orthodoxie, Hatam Sofer (Moses Sofer), an, der jemandem, der ihn um Erlaubnis bat, einen zensurfreien Talmud zu drucken, gesagt haben soll, die Zensur sei unter göttlicher Einwirkung geschehen. So treffen hier zwei gegensätzliche Standpunkte im Judentum aufeinander: die Standpunkte derjenigen, die alles durch die christliche Zensur Zerstörte und Verbotene peinlich genau sammeln, für die Leserschaft und künftige Generationen aufbewahren und den alten Zustand möglichst wiederherstellen wollen, und derjenigen, die die christliche Zensur als Arm der göttlichen Fügung betrachten und alles beim Alten belassen wollen.

10

A.a.O., 528.

Christliche Talmudzensur und ihre jüdische Überwindung

457

Abbildungen11

) Wplä irnamiynpiVt ipsa 65ι P S W IftiPηρ'ρϊ tpfapsropem f>P3 iftftrarfiftp'fti opi i|03P ff») Dipp3 3·®»ρ3Τί pntppijp p-np Ί:ι • . lijjl >pjp»p[p3ftil"ppiftj'PlP'3>PIPD!IP31PB ρ rf&Sit ftp ΓΒΤ3Ρ Ρ3ΈΡ υφί KS Ipftp Eft) Βτρρρ E1HP irji ll SIJBP WJ iwworti:pp >p; P31BPI. B1pP3 >P3 BF1P3 f|P3 PJp'D wS TIPP fP : -aViPSP®TOOT'TOTO! >P3pP qBSjf^SfiSl P3>BP3 IPTS OT B1pP3ft3'BÖp3'BP3 fPJ« PTP'OIDP p'P) Ρ1ΠΙΟΙΡ3 '3P$i πτ·1^fi;ppnπ'α οψύή ton jii'iw tfiTPJpMfoipfmp'nft^, IBSfiT BP1P3B | ' HP3P pp ' Sft3'Siprbnr •ppSTp'TPPfrPBUDP' P3>BP3 naiaaa ί Λ ijoaa i^ay1? w sb nywo [3ofn hD'(3iftn3jftftpfSiftift BSinnTProS'Wft 'TStpSBB» 1 )« r a w α τ μ π acpbffinan'nao'üN Μ Tins imi if? i'sfti f f f l if fipfr)»Sfflixo'jxn pfiaft ppief naTOnirray1? m i m j o n t t m a o ρή B'fi iJy 5fir> pftoiA ipiiicspp '3PftS'1e3ftilJftlD'3 [·3'!Ρ DpB ' [i'31p['3p3ftlfnp'IPBpftil'p'pS TP ieftSlipftspBp-lftrJMl'Pft / nntnn'ojAnoN h n o b ^ o y b n y w s i'lni -]=Ρ3) P3'BP) luipfn jsbs 'ip:ppi]B?p 1*7 !£)' «ΠρΠ ΠΝαΐΝ^Ι'ΚΤ ΝΙΓΤβ1? ftT3P [3P1> '313 "(TO ι® 3'BP3 P3p ftpJl^B'Bilpi BTD 1PIP WP pifrcourj :p'luippfipipppip>s ihn l a t a [«ob βιγ:π ]h yava κρ reuisc 5rlJP3 Tpft1? P31P PPT ftPIP" > Pilp p:'li PS'Pn TfPV t|D3 ]3>pP Κ^Κ ΠίΟΙΚ HTOS STp 'ηΟΪ'ίΠ 13"Π HON »ift'-issSaft 'j'5sipfii!-prap=™i pa'ftSftiD'TOPirpiDnpipno'i , γκοίκ mio lVu insa [«oa rfi nao * hB' iftlΡΓ3' f3l 3S» Hlfnjp npjp ppp ί."JPPJPP'BP ύ 4 !P'P!»SP5B3 n •, •άΐίΐ M B mwi gfa n n w VfflK >W3'D ipjiipfi'pabfp.-'pTOi yip'»» Abb. 1 - Massechet Bikkurim, Venedig 1528, S. 3a, Ausschnitt. Jeweils ist 'U durchgstrichen und 'DID übergeschrieben.

11

Alle Texte aus der Bibliothek des Verfassers.

Michael Krupp

458

oy r i m a i

ρτΰο

ni£Din S t »pnsi c a c H n m s οιηι » i m u>n»s dj?

w dv ioifn ««nn 01*1:1 A»» «iron ipn1? pi «pmrft κ1-' «V «rttaa omj ick >03; igiajö «VranoaByiwoffiV 'irnwwijmmisjm aohaa-an'ranib -warn jnni ηνηικ «ÄiMI 4'D V33 Vptf?l pVtJ1? HD DISTl >jaiX 1>7Ν3·Β· DU? «p»«p^ ίΡ1^ "Ι"1 "TO'1? O'v'JN fynWWK1 · nij rnii'ji s'Vm n"p: nVcj nauai ηρυα π'πί tlM 7EDrC»EJI ΙΐΐΠΡ J")? k .""JP piOT CJ? l.-JOEnrfo Π /VDH 1 PJDBI^JCrb JDPlJßS?·?) ή'ηρηΛΐΐΓ'Ρ icflfD-iJ rjirj-r'ijjipoj PirD^JJPvTJlriTOHfp^i pjcrp ninaoa nm » onw vaim j od) w o cm D'pniiü -raVnn 'no oipa nma nj >pm>3rntnrbV ΟΠ ji i Wnttrp η)ΊΌ3ηΊ)Ίν]η2ΌθηΊ]ΙΊΌ~\3οη)α'ΐΐΐ>κΊπο'ε>ν>ύΊ3·ιοηΐ!ΐ ι ιοιρο V;' c'n ι1?« nirDDpa Dmae-a craipjn D'rpjan >τ iO'^TUSIpjlD.jiyjilSD^mcijr^OarO'EVp I T O b i O ^ Ö P O ' p b l S S j i ' c S c p n^VQnll : Owl·??'DW7J TDDC>J>)7PD 7701 P7:i jpmt? PJDMwdpv rr>n>UBrljjr>ij7i3>jJic>j7'ii7inoi-)'L-CI-ΕΤρ'cJc TIT-IS I ?77fi7 öilcpjiM -»WSPPJ 7li]ifi7 n j pw ^UD^ 'p firr |nfo jiihprpi p^DU> fJ iyv J37 pf)7 UpP7J

f>»-

ijVnii -|ou B»r* L& j®J> .

— r r ssty vCp·

,

M A 8 S E C H E T

S A N H E D R I N

Opusm qvo agitur de 1VDICIRVS Recogmtum ä MARCO MARINO Brix. Can. Regul. D. Servatois, iit ab Omnibus iis,qvfficontra Religionen·! Chriilianam funtj M b h . l u x c a mentem Concilii Tridciuini Expurgatuni,

Ade6\itjjonmod0citralmpietatem, verumetiamciimfruilulegiposfit: - 10.ftp«.p •.JTM,3,n, W i ;„,Si| J , . | m ^.„,,,ι"v i 'Ρf " »Ρ™ 13 ι du«1» IllosondM^.ochvip 0'lffn:« ma Π) DnjW tpaT C'S'lp.l 1 TOft 7 C J . / . ; } .73Jtiin .IM»mlai Ii>Si '^"D »? 'ntlSiSffCTDawwipeWtXKUl'SK'n isJCi.lnci^Of.o.oii.bi'iDiA-i.mpiio ^TWlWOTOW^rilWesnlto,«*) 'i»-«jli»7Mioos

Ρ™"

ni

w το-panmcn 1 ?rrann'ra

•«•«"»nfcfewnmi is 'as navi-nnw?? n'jnp'aoa ptc s o t n s s w a κοιππ -|oo 'Aaipa-p Vj iax p-mmViati-nn „„.ν, nia,sinn33nn'rnn,S3ppnDwn3RiM>aipN^o'bS'|'ariTajniWTi'ni!t»i'jnSri fURifps'iaso .

Vi'Vss N71 naipa pa'i nnn 'wDiif srw t>:V> |i3Tun '»"3 tin sSk n»n i n Vraa liaa is ob cram DTwa'tnAiMvw nRp^ nyn'inenp'j vuaia Vs>a »'x-|3n -»na "|Sn >aV iam njsn rux -pa? -fm RS-iaimrij pxa nax Spen «in οπμι 'xn 'S13 bpv >oi πιηκη a n a p ipai ;ssi nm>i α·η>ι a n ja nnpbi ipan n s N'nn n'^ mos jiivo rm ms "fatal Ί» |aMD'n»™araisinia^'ri">x;mnj»nn'N3pny''a"i fima mm njnsS yj'Sss n"in sns '3 "vpssn Vpin 'so Vpe-Sis j-j'is rrapa lBi'N'tnj too 'Snap1?rass1! raia ν ϊ ί o':>ij> if >mai -ppainjorιninsia're n;as-ia»Via· 1 ?njr»w>-.ax n m .tiVk vjawVBi'inifinii'ai'iasVi'nriniB'iwai'nD'WNnraTsi ijVrayuva

iip^ppva'i'a-iiDSS'JB , . twi nowna c a n nvjinwjwrta nVno'^n w^pa-mn nanpajw mnSsBff sswrowp»nu< m «Λιη nn ^A^-JL™!™,«, •r

'.JCID

t β i B s w n j n ' M

en,™mxmtimm*»r>"οϊ'δη*?*»*>^2

a'ysn

13

aip' nV p V la»»« i' pav

Abb. 3 - Sanhedrin 107b dieser Ausgabe.

!

"

'

Michael Krupp

460 Ä: W nisj W nvwh ismcrrm&p-y «^i

r>mf>

mm ip tjT |»nr«D W bnTnßpyitfirv'rn if;, *wti» O'ö r\vs& ρ pyöv r\h rhv kö'w mn ο o>iüb W '«ruea1?«1? wn γμτ© ρ ymi» oi W pi'1? jobö »ω» w*?öp"D Ή» höK'ara κιρ» ri'1? nay'rtwi« N'inn n,L? «om« xn« Dp nööw'aiyv ojni "piroTO»bpwwi οηχο bw 'nuoa1»« vh «πιρπ #"' pp*7 ia« joor n»3 '?opV «n« nvon nisny niNö yai« p«« ροφ nnx -pa yen Ϊ1? x s rvmsrwy rv1? ic« μ «ooa« r»» «mo1? tjpi Vt« rr·? nrt sn?öhao«innnoinb»m«rrVirrpViaorwopS«n«yoe? nsnpnp«pruning nonMDNp'in«'1·? ι*" na -löxi naie>n riwy1? no pp'BDo ΓΝ ° , : η π rw ϊμμϊλνβιππ Vu -po ο*?3ΐρο -ρ v? i.b« *ρ τιπ r\h is« rb minne-p· •»TW» n« ΠΗΓΗ ΠΌΓΠ ο Abb. 4 - Einzuklebende Partien aus dem Druck Amsterdam 1708.

i^ü'nBtMM* pp-r a o n i n n ^ r u n n m o n m c o o n OP ' -p MC 5i otw i> ' 33 7ipjpnc fly«!} o»sp icp ni · 7PIP vks i:?ki m»W »'"e*'»» w» ·:-- pwii'P mpwpjvtspi PIT? ΓΡή P1V33 C IED 'na -jiuwjMJii: i v , , ο·κ -»p «P&J oni» D-E·, Mc : pi>i od ' p• pO erM -W :, P 7!f»j5r i »"l!TWW»W0s4B|icrrri-: 11B»f ιn D33 . WDw:tffJ?p miBWρ j·»»» 3"? iixwrtM·,,,:, 07-nsrrac 1 J31PP pij SD 'l ί Γ71ΠΡΡΪ h5P3p ' in rffip bei ojipp τρπ iDi? : 1-.-3 «-1DJ τ-:' rat· "•N't" W w ^ »1'pil wlc -ID uiü TC PJ3t Π Wi ο 1'D3T χην,η ιπρ 'S DP ' il-P D-7IPE3 U j 31 0PIP?iW : : rcp-PlPl'l'M'^ iWJK*.uSufcW iVcs ,χριπ ^n? inyn -xi tos? «Λ^ι-η .ipwifipi 1' :1n ' ipp i3D>7t'c3i 33S'C Ρ Ε ifi-'C'S pWP »5' IP T:NTOS οι Τ:ν3"Π3 r.;j ο ' 7' P5 1' 3 oplfi ]P ' "pP 7Γύ . lip'ilPWliptepWPTirW : 03ιΓ>J37ΙP Ρ 3 7 p i p : ri |C3S )P i:p w n w j ' i n s T D ' U -, π ' ΐ πχη p N ιτ·' ; ·ι i-V SPCP p> 'iPrfiS'i» »WB • ? ic »>1: DpiUli'E3ft DP1P1737PPP )D n: orv^y i^apf737> >»i iapft rS3« iw 0J-S7P7 'ricn' i-nni TJJJ wpNV V · 7 p p p P p l P j 1 3 i E 0 3 P ' P •jjpj 3T373 f"? itoPC' pi pfoliPPWTO jrDn son-j "VJK prrr- oi Vs^ :pi»P Έ1.3 PIP 2'17*37 :.P»0? ίΡΐ D ' W Ρί'> r'9 P3, CPP1Jipfe"!"P3 3CP1οπ ΝΟΠ W'S pxs? P^ D3-MP pTEP3D7P ' lpfS ' 3PlΛ ' ΡΠΒ 'Η ",'3 Ψπ 1VJD >133 IW nXIC b.W 1 V-' Τ,ϊ/ . pB iD Ρ ' 3C ' Pp7 OD ' ftlPρΠΕ" »WP ö'l ·r.·a> D nnn i'"3 W ^IiTO .\ . ' 3W -n» na» 13J τί® mp pfo ")3~p C7p mn i'S in: -J37P oD ' ivtntfwwp frWJ-WP «PI ·>Ό fripswft'iiwto ix 13 l'P o-pi? '9 P3C3 TCPp7 PTC '9 S3) pfPK·DPPCn7p7D >fil pT ' pJ rij> pft) 1PCC Ii IPliJ' PI 3» 7B ' p»n'Xtoni»»«. ΙΡ ' «™ w « · « f 1 ' ™ ν : SfoSPP '33i 07» D-πρ DU - P j-ήfiPiP-P oif'P ί^Κ PI»· »3 B-rtSp ' f 3C k-^3 1f'TLT OU ' 'W pP D>mp ΟΊ3Ρ i'ii ort i'n? D3ü)ip3 zvo PIP-P pi53 D7.' n, -m. 1-n w m» ™ W ·>» ' P3p7too"pip ppi "-31C»! 'f 11 ' p " cW W ™ m»n» w, um ' p U-loitPI) DPP i» i'PicP DP »M :'7333'PO ^eixt«' r. · « wh--p" ™ : ii7P pfi POBB TO

f

bv -m

IÄ ip irtfcBi rcoijicnliPii'ü'toofJoin'K: P

1

i ™ ffl» «»» w y ™ ^ P> w ^ » #

. •ttto "τά-w ruJv» w pT ' P7tc

r;^07iPPCPC7^:3Dffi-:3ilP37A-')3-P37PPt7i-pi!'P>CPr'-

Abb. 5 - Erste Seite mit den Haskamot der Amsterdamer Hisronot ha-Schass.

'·

Christliche Talmudzensur und ihre jüdische Überwindung ;—τ-·——

461

— ι*" •••-u 7RTw^7yi37TTTmprw3 π ι rm csnrnrw m c ren tc *3 'pnm.Plotti'imiAi naiwna MraiYinrAfrw'pmWx* SrtutaK K ' D Γοιίίπ mrjA to VP'»»» ί·3·πηκκ-ϊηηίΐετ,π' -Lcteifa 13 DQjg > M - , > K 1 Ψ # · « n b e B nnan ruvm n-Ea ppn aarnc«ks-w irwjm wsirnenV ιοεεηϊdwa':tbi>unDnii·«aiptsi njn jjr^K^ttowr.n'nncM'^iBHjisnitfLTimiji-ii-tiii , »'s evis «bo 'injVamif yitfAxa sAi na-ije pa>i nm-i V«^ KiwdViA •i>i>W"SWB>Kf U'mjnW;a,!>.W' ί TiayTW*Snatiror*otvh* th*-imci"wηο3wwonanwiO'-ojnpipnyopft-m^··..»ι»/-», D'n'i on» rm> j V» (pan ns m/h nyn -|nxipi> vom 'now* v n ψη >Λ ihn *κ*ιremn» " > ,. j au^iNDAii imi^kr .iuim» jjn», Vh^timviβπβί «ps nn i^w«iwiraeno^sinfeii^on "?m -χ Ss-®> «y-ma >κϊηϊί-!η κη'η «>nn rvi> mat jm*B n>n trm-fx nan iu> ρ « mr» niirica ss-tm W f » xpc) >üo'>to um Iren nA nt's >ara»not»p lan« V's p-ra ^ae VnV» κγ,κ >a -|> i >do j iirtm ώΑ i>ptp S» yif'W .n>cpc -ibb'S >iru n>w> 'Vop1? Λ e>pn ·»teίΛ i w ww wm 'JTOtenVis isrti '•XWIUBV-DPSW!) wrmswiyn'inri iwVwiwneiwn wmA w^n rwn ww'STfiK'ifwr»® 'τιεχΛ^ΒππηεβϊΊΊΧο en d>»»nyaiiii; Aw 1 psi ™ -nnpa r«·» nnhSt£*iiiwrBwn 1

ϊκι ώ B.TO« υ» la ngv imn dt >ma )Μ Ηΐί,τ >!3WN1 0? »·««', ' Kt 11» Aya «junn nis» ivfcft yiW ys« ?wy jr*»« 1 « W »V W ^ " W·10^ ^J53 ^ 1 vsv w l « » η in W ^vnw» H? W» ^ V « ' ' ^ » ',1'»^ i, ^ j i ^,πΛν.ιι NJ1VJ.V »svVw iW Λ ' -Τ HO Hin fl'11 Ith >m AiafS nt> WW 'ι»»» w » ΐ ά ϋ ν ffsW» P> "'a"1" >r*W» Quirin Ί>1>1» »Aasj»» p fA ΐ)>|ί i» ITrr W Λ'Μ1 W I* 1Mb Ä f e ^ "" ibM fit»' ji VW S ι

Abb. 6 - Sanhedrin 107b der Ausgabe Frankfurt an der Oder/Berlin 1721 mit handschriftlich nachgetragenem Text der Zensurlücke, Ausschnitt.

o- · i » , , „.*

TO^fnswnmnon ^ΠΏ ψ ^ ^ ^ ** '•»O0Q · » « 3?'Ma»yynns ?m«n χ1?! y ' n n c y o n T O κ ν nz'h's nru'n a i : n uph nnsi-i'es aph m s f \ w p yapb iron vy I n a na« i r m « - ώ κ ' D J : n t » Q'J'yn n s tmsn 2"n .

- — --

—-L....-

—^

^

L p -

^

£

Abb. 7 - Sanhedrin 67a, Druck Dyhernfurth (bei Breslau) 1818, mit handschriftlich nachgetragenem Text der Zensurlücke, Ausschnitt.

462

Michael Krupp

D*S?n nWlDÖ 0'D7D0 0'plD73 1PD> 7DV tf'tf-ιη 'Din ''pDDi '"η 'Dim "ι*ί>"ΐ ' e j n ,D*30in i ? Π3ΒΌΠ "CT 1Ρ*ίΟΠ "pDD Ί ί τ ρ ί ,vy

Ooa

mctea

. snb c r r w

'cm-

SDI

rnrunn bs ay

Abb. 8 - Titelseite der Hisronot ha-Schass [Königsberg I860?].

Zionismus und jüdische Identität* von KURT SCHUBERT

Eine mögliche Definition des Zionismus ist, ihn als Messianismus ohne Messias zu verstehen. Früher hieß es am Ende der Sederliturgie: „Das nächste Jahr in Jerusalem", heute in der Realität des Staates Israels: „Das nächste Jahr im wieder aufgebauten Jerusalem". Das heißt und bedeutet den wieder aufgebauten Tempel auf dem Zionsberg in Jerusalem. Da sich aber ebendort die Omarmoschee befindet und Jerusalem als El Quds auch für die Mohammedaner eine heilige Stadt ist, bleibt die Erfüllung dieser Hoffnung der messianischen Zeit vorbehalten und kann daher auch innerweltlich nicht erreicht werden. Andererseits aber ergeben Messianismus und Landverheißung in Folge konsequent den politischen Zionismus. Die biblische Basis dafür ist Dtn 26,5-8: „Ein nomadisierender Aramäer war unser Vater, er stieg hinunter nach Ägypten und wohnte dort mit wenigen Leuten. Dort wurde er zu einem großen und zahlreichen Volk. Die Ägypter verfuhren böse mit uns, unterdrückten uns und behandelten uns wie Zwangsarbeiter. Da schrien wir zum Herrn, dem Gott unserer Väter, und es erhörte der Herr unsere Stimme, sah unsere Unterdrückung, unsere Mühsal und unsere Bedrängnis. Da führte uns der Herr hinaus aus Ägypten mit starker Hand und erhobenem Arm unter großer Furcht und mit Zeichen und Wunden. Er führte uns an diesen Ort und gab uns dieses Land, ein Land fließend von Milch und Honig". Der bedeutende Bibel und Talmudkommentator des 11. Jahrhunderts Raschi begann, einem alten Midrasch folgend, mit den Worten: „Warum beginnt die Bibel mit dem Wort ,Am Anfang'? Aus der Fülle der Kraft seiner Werke teilte Gott seinem Volk mit, dass er ihnen Erbland der Völker geben werde (Ps 111,6). Denn sollten die weltlichen Völker zu Israel sagen: ,Ihr seid Räuber', weil ihr die Länder der sieben [kanaanäischen] Völker unterworfen habt, so antworten sie ihnen: ,Alles Land gehört dem Heiligen, gepriesen sei er, er hat es geschaffen und gab es demjenigen, der in seinen Augen dafür passte'. Willentlich hat er es ihnen gegeben und willentlich nahm er es ihnen und gab es uns". Etwa ein Jahrhundert später emigrierte Jehuda Halevi aus Spanien in das Land Israel, weil es Gebote gibt, die nur dort befolgt werden können.

Jubiläumsvorlesung an der Universität Wien vom 2. Mai 2005.

464

Kurt Schubert

Eine wichtige Voraussetzung für Entstehung und Entwicklung der Zionsidee war die Tatsache, dass David die Bundeslade nach Jerusalem bringen ließ, in die altheilige Stadt der kanaanäischen Jebusiter (II Sam 6,1-23). Dadurch gelang ihm die Verschmelzung des kanaanäischen El-Kultes (Gen 14) mit der Verehrung des Gottes Israels und damit auch die Begründung der Zionsideologie. Der Zion, der Gottesberg, wurde als der irdische Wohnort der Schekhina, der Wesensgegenwart Gottes verstanden. Nach der späteren rabbinischen Tradition haben dort schon Adam, Noah und Sem geopfert, und auch die,Bindung Isaaks' (Abrahamsopfer) fand dort statt. Wichtig für die Entstehung des politischen Messianismus war auch die Tatsache, dass die davidische Dynastie kultisch legitimiert war. Jeder gekrönte Davidide galt als Adoptivsohn des Gottes Israels (Ps 2,7; 110,1; II Sam 7,11-16 - » I Chr 17,11 4Q Florilegium). Diese kultische Absicherung war auch dafür verantwortlich, dass in der Person eines messianischen ,Sohnes Davids' die davidische Dynastie im Rahmen der Zukunftserwartung ihr eigenes Ende überdauerte. So erhielt auch Jesus eine davidische Genealogie ebenso wie der jüdische Patriach im Westen und der Exilarch im Osten. Der Zionismus ist eine national-politische Ideologie, doch daneben erhebt sich die Frage, wieweit national-politische Freiheit als Garant für jüdische Identität verstanden wurde. Ein wesentlicher Prüfstein war der jüdisch-römische Krieg 66-70/73. Nach Jochanan ben Zakkai, einem Zeitgenossen, wurde die Identität mehr gewahrt von den rabbinischen Emigranten, die sich in Jabne unter römischen Schutz gestellt hatten, als von den Verteidigern, die mit dem schändlichen Namen Barjewanim bezeichnet wurden und unter dem Kommando des Abba Sikara, „Vater Messerstecher", standen (Gittin 56ab). Ebenso soll ebenderselbe Jochanan ben Zakkai seinem Schüler Jehoschua ben Chananja, der die Zerstörung Jerusalems betrauerte, gesagt haben: „Wir haben eine Entsühnung, die derjenigen im Tempel gleichkommt: das Tun guter Werke" (ARN 4). Ein weiteres Element der Überwindung der Tempelzerstörung war die Tatsache, dass man (spätestens ab dem 3. bis 6. Jahrhundert) die Synagogen als ,Heilige Plätze' verstand, wo auch Gottes Wesensgegenwart, die Schekhina, anwesend ist, wenn zehn Männer dort ihr Gebet verrichten. Ein weiteres jüdisches Traditionselement, das zum Thema der Bewahrung der jüdischen Identität in talmudischer Zeit gehört, sind die Erzählungen über Antoninus und Rabbi. Selbst der römische Kaiser musste die Überlegenheit des jüdischen Geistes und der jüdischen Religion anerkennen. Auch Bar Kokhba ,der ,Fürst' im zweiten jüdischen Aufstand (132-135), hat in der rabbinischen Literatur kein zustimmendes Echo gefunden. Obwohl ein Gelehrter wie Rabbi Akiba sein Parteigänger war und ihn auch offenbar messianisch verstand, soll sein Zeitgenosse Jochanan ben Torta gesagt haben: „Akiba, Gras wird aus deinen Backenknochen wachsen, und der Sohn Davids wird noch immer nicht kommen" (yTa'an IV,68b). Nur die ,Haruge malkuf, die Märtyrer, zu denen auch Rabbi Akiba selbst gehörte, werden in der rabbinischen Tradition positiv beurteilt.

Zionismus und jüdische Identität

465

Mit Beginn der Neuzeit, also seit dem 16. Jahrhundert, begann die Zeit einer Erscheinung, die ich Protozionismus nennen möchte. Jetzt wird die Weltpolitik ganz allgemein in das messianische Konzept mit integriert. Als erstes Beispiel muss hier David Re'ubheni, eine extrem schillernde Gestalt, genannt werden. Plötzlich tauchte er Nil abwärts kommend 1523 in Kairo auf und wandte sich dort an den Vorsteher der jüdischen Gemeinde Abraham de Castro. Er gab sich aus als General und Bruder des Königs Joseph, der hinter der Wüste Chaibar (niemand wusste, wo diese Wüste ist, aber es gab noch große weiße Flecken auf der Landkarte) über die 722 v. Chr. von den Assyrern exilierten Nordstämme Ruben, Gad und Manasse herrscht. Er befinde sich in diplomatischer Mission auf dem Weg zum Papst. Wenn wir den Quellen auch nur halbwegs trauen dürfen, hatte er das Konzept eines gemeinsamen jüdisch-christlichen Feldzugs zur Befreiving des heiligen Landes von der mohammedanisch-osmanischen Vorherrschaft. Es war also politischer Zionismus im strengen Sinn des Wortes. Uber Venedig, wo er die Unterstützung des Malers Moses dal Castellazzo fand, der in Oberitalien (Venedig und Mantua) über beste politische Beziehungen verfügte, kam er 1524 nach Rom, wo er von Clemens VII. in der Engelsburg mit diplomatischen Ehren empfangen wurde. Von ihm erhielt er auch Empfehlungsbriefe an den König von Portugal und den Kaiser von Äthiopien. Offenbar gehörte auch das christliche Äthiopien zu seinem strategischen Plan der Befreiung des heiligen Landes, gegen welches dann aus dem Osten die Nordstämme heranrücken, während die lateinischen Christen vom Westen her sich an dem Unternehmen beteiligen sollten. Ab Herbst 1525 weilte er in Portugal, doch war der portugiesische König skeptischer als der Papst in Rom, aber er ließ ihn - 28 Jahre nach der Vertreibung der Juden aus Portugal - frei gewähren. Allerdings erreichte David Re'ubheni schon 1526 sein Schicksal. Ein junger, christlich erzogener Marane, der Beamter am Hofe des Königs war, Diego Pines, beschnitt sich unter dem Eindruck David Re'ubhenis selbst und nannte sich Schlomo Molkho. Beide mussten Portugal verlassen. 1532 wollten sie dann mitsammen noch den Reichstag von Regensburg für ihre Sache gewinnen, was aber auch ihr Ende bedeutete. Schlomo Molkho wurde noch im selben Jahr als Judaisierender in Mantua verbrannt, und David Re'ubheni starb in einem spanischen Gefängnis 1538. Etwa ein Jahrhundert später war es ebenfalls ein Kind aus einer portugiesischen Maranenfamilie, Manasse ben Israel (1604-1657), der eine allerdings etwas weniger kriegerische messianische Konzeption hatte. Nach seiner Meinung kann der Messias erst dann kommen, wenn die Juden tatsächlich in alle vier Windrichtungen zerstreut sind. Dies erschloss er aus Jes 43,5f.: „Fürchte dich nicht, denn ich bin mit dir. Vom Osten her werde ich deinen Samen bringen, und vom Westen her werde ich dich sammeln. Ich werde zum Norden sagen: Gib her! Und zum Süden: Halt nicht zurück! Bring meine Söhne aus der Ferne und meine Töchter von den Enden der Erde". Von einem Juden namens Montesinus, der von Lateinamerika nach Amsterdam kam, hörte er, dass wohl hinter den Anden im Süden des heutigen Argentinien die verloren geglaubten Nordstämme wohn-

466

Kurt Schubert

ten. Auch diese werden teilhaben an dem messianischen Qibbutz Galujot. Ausführlich schrieb er darüber in Esperanza de Israel (miqweh Yisrael), Amsterdam 1650. Jedoch sah er noch ein ernstes Hindernis auf diesem Weg. In England waren Juden nicht zugelassen, daher versperrt England auch den Weg zur messianischen Erfüllung. So begab er sich 1655 nach England, um von Oliver Cromwell die Wiederzulassung der Juden zu erreichen. 1657 schrieb er in England sein apologetisches Werk Vindiciae Judaeorum, in dem er ausführlich die Juden gegen den Ritualmordvorwurf verteidigte und die Zulassung von Juden nach England mit wirtschaftlichen Vorteilen für das Land begründete. Wenn er auch zunächst noch keinen sichtbaren Erfolg hatte, so wurde doch schon 1698 die jüdische Religion vom englischen Parlament gesetzlich anerkannt. Die messianische Bewegung des Sabbatai Zwi im 17. Jahrhundert und ihre Folgen gehören nicht in diesen Zusammenhang, da sie unabhängig von der zeitgenössischen Weltpolitik aus jüdisch-mystischen Voraussetzungen entstanden. Doch im 19. Jahrhundert gab es wieder jüdische politische Konzepte. Hier ist zunächst Zwi Hirsch Kalischer in Thorn in Ostpreußen zu nennen, der ein Buch schrieb Drischat Zion (Forderung nach Zion), und sein sephardischer Kollege Alkalai, Rabbiner in Semlin. Auch Rom und Jerusalem von Moses Heß gehört hierher. Wie Italien seinen Garibaldi hat, braucht auch das Judentum eine derartige Führerpersönlichkeit. Besonders wichtig war dann Leon Pinskers Autoemanzipation, 1882, das erste wirklich zionistische Werk, in dem für das jüdische Volk eine gesicherte Heimstätte gefordert wird. Zunächst dachte Pinsker aber mehr an das eigene als an das heilige Land, doch ergab sich aus der Zeitgleichheit mit der 'Chibbat Zion' (Liebe zu Zion)-Bewegung, dass Pinsker ihr Vorsitzender wurde. Wie der Kulturzionist Achad HaAm in seinem Artikel „Pinsker und seine Broschüre" schrieb, verdankte er es Pinsker, dass er zum Exponenten der Forderung nach einem jüdischen Staat wurde und nicht nur nach einem Judenstaat wie Theodor Herzl. Eine andere sehr wichtige Voraussetzung für die Entstehung des Zionismus war die Haskala. Eigentlich bedeutete dieses Wort,Aufklärung', aber nicht nur im Sinne Moses Mendelssohns und seiner Zeitgenossen, sondern eher eine nationale Romantik seit Mitte des 19. Jahrhunderts in Osteuropa. Zunächst ging es den hebräisch schreibenden Maskilim um mehr Beachtung der weltlichen Wissenschaften als bisher. Schon 1783 forderte Naphtali Herz Weisel, mit dem bürgerlichen Namen Hartwig Wessely, in seinem Sendschreiben Dibhre Schalom weEmet (Worte des Friedens und der Wahrheit), dass im jüdischen Lehrplan nicht nur Torat Elohim (Religionslehre) sondern auch Torat Adam (weltliche Fächer) berücksichtigt werde. Zahlreiche Religionsbücher, Zeitschriften und Autoren wirkten bis Mitte des 19. Jahrhunderts in derselben Richtung. Doch Haskala in Osteuropa war ein eigenes Phänomen. Sie war,Aufklärung' nur dem konservativen traditionsgebundenen Leben im osteuropäischen Städtl gegenüber, sonst war sie für das Zeitalter typische nationale Romantik, für die religiöse Vorstellungen und Werte in nationale Folklore umgewandelt wurden.

Zionismus und jüdische Identität

467

Einer der wichtigsten Maskilim, der hier als Beispiel erwähnt werden soll, war Jehuda Lebh Gordon (1830-1892). Sein Leitspruch war: „Haus Jakob gehet hin zum Geist der Weisheit und der Aufklärung". So schrieb er in einem Gedicht mit der Überschrift „Wach auf, mein Volk": „Erhebe dein Haupt, mach gerade deinen Rücken. Denk daran mit liebenden Augen. Wende dein Herz zu Weisheit und Wissen, sei ein verständiges Volk und sprich ihre Sprache". Daher ging er hart ins Gericht mit der eigenen Religion und ihrer Tradition. Die gedrückte gesellschaftliche Situation des Judentums verstand er nicht mehr als „Folge unserer zahlreichen Sünden". In seinem Gedicht „Zidqijahu bebhet happequda" (Zidqijahu im Gewahrsam) kritisierte er die nörglerische Haltung des Propheten Jeremias gegenüber der durch Zidqijahu bestimmten antibabylonischen judäischen Nationalbewegung. In seinen Dichtungen „Zwischen den Zähnen des Löwen" und „In den Tiefen des Meeres" gibt er seiner Verzweiflung am Gott Israels Ausdruck, aber auch gleichzeitig seiner Überzeugung von der national kulturellen Sendung des Volkes Israel. „Zwischen den Zähnen des Löwen" schildert das Schicksal des Freiheitskämpfers Schim'on und seiner Braut Marta, die beide bei der Eroberung Jerusalems durch die Römer 70 n. Chr. in römische Gefangenschaft gerieten. Marta wurde Sklavin einer vornehmen Römerin und musste sie zu einem Gladiatorenkampf in ein römisches Theater begleiten. Ohne dass beide es vorher wussten, stand Schim'on bei dieser Veranstaltung als Gladiator einem Löwen gegenüber. Nachdem das Schwert Schim'ons im Leib des Löwen gebrochen war und er seine Braut Marta unter den Zuschauern bemerkt hatte, rief er aus: „Wo bist du, Gott des Simson?!" Weiters Gordon: „Er rief es und wich plötzlich einen Schritt zurück, als ob es frevlerisch wäre, den Löwen am Maul zu fassen und in Stücke zu zerreißen. Der Held geht zugrunde, hast du es noch immer nicht verstanden? Dein Gott, der Gott Simsons, wo ist er?!" Diese Haltung ist typisch für die national kulturelle Haskala in der zweiten Hälfte des 19. Jahrhunderts. In ähnlicher Weise wirkte der aus Osteuropa stammende, aber dann in Wien lebende Perez Smolenskin (1842-1885). Schon mit 13 Jahren begann er mit der Lektüre von Haskala-Literatur. Von seinen Mitschülern in der Talmudschule wurde er als Apiqoros/Epikuräer, das heißt Glaubensloser, bezeichnet. Er verließ die Talmudschule mit 17 Jahren. Über Odessa führte ihn der Weg nach Wien, wo er dann die Zeitschrift Ha-Schachar (Die Morgenröte) herausgab. Außerdem verfasste er eine Art Autobiografie unter dem Titel Der Irrende auf den Wegen des Lebens und Am olam, „Das ewige Volk". In einem Beitrag, den er „Vergeltung" nannte und 1867 in Odessa veröffentlichte, lässt er noch jedes Land als jüdisches Land gelten, das die Juden ohne Antisemitismus aufnimmt. So schrieb er: „Dieses Land wird uns heilig sein wie Jerusalem aufgrund unserer Sendung" (wörtlich mischum tiphartenu). Doch schon zehn Jahre später schrieb er unter dem Titel „Höchste Zeit zum Handeln" (wörtlich et lata'at): „Die Hauptsache ist die Nation, die Religion hat nur die Funktion, dies zu untermauern". Gegen das, was er als chassidischen Aberglauben verstand und daher auch radikal ablehnte,

468

Kurt Schubert

wandte er sich in einer hebräischen Sprache, die sehr stark vom biblischen Hebräisch geprägt war. In Wien gründete Smolenskin gemeinsam mit Nathan Birnbaum 1882 die jüdisch-nationale Studentenverbindung Qadimah, die eigentlich eine Kopie der bestehenden deutschnationalen Studentenverbindung war, die ihre jüdischen Kollegen inzwischen ausgeschlossen hatte. Ihr Motto war: „Mit Wort und Wehr für Judas Ehr". Somit schlossen sich er und Smolenskin dem damals in Wien üblichen Diasporanationalismus an. Dieser wurde auch verkörpert vom damaligen Rabbiner von Floridsdorf bei Wien, dem Reichsratsabgeordneten Josef Samuel Bloch (1850-1923), der 1884 die Österreichische Wochenschrift herausgab und 1886 die österreichische Israelitische Union' gründete. Die Träger dieses Diasporanationalismus stammten weitgehend aus Osteuropa, von denen Theodor Herzl vor der Niederschrift des Judenstaates 1896 nur sehr wenig Ahnung hatte. Ein echter Vorläufer des Zionismus und eine echte Voraussetzung war die 1882 in Osteuropa gegründete ,Chibbat Zion'-Bewegung, eine Reaktion auf die zu dieser Zeit wütenden Pogrome in Russland. Sie gründete Siedlungen in Palästina, die dort die jüdisch nationale Präsenz untermauern sollten. Namen dieser Siedlungen waren richtungsweisend für das zu erreichende Ziel: Petach Tiqwa (Pforte der Hoffnung), Rischon lezion (Anfang für Zion) und Rosch Pinna (Eckstein) u.a. Allerdings stand Achad HaAm diesen Bestrebungen äußerst kritisch gegenüber. 1891 schrieb er im Hammelitz seinen ausführlichen Artikel „Die Wahrheit aus dem Lande Israel" als Folge eines dreimonatigen Aufenthalts im damaligen Palästina. Er kritisierte die mangelnde Vorbereitung und die schlechte Organisation. Geschäftemacher und Immobilienmakler nützten die Situation und ließen die Preise für Grund und Boden in unverantwortlicher Weise steigen. Keine der bis dahin zehn ,Kolonien' kann ohne finanzielle Hilfe existieren. Resignierend beendet er seinen Beitrag mit einem Bericht über seinen Besuch bei der , Westmauer' des Tempels in Jerusalem. Er bezeichnet die Neusiedler als inkompetent und vergleicht die alten Bewohner mit den Steinen, aus denen die Westmauer besteht: „Diese Steine bezeugen den Untergang unseres Landes und diese Menschen den Untergang unseres Volkes". Trotzdem darf aber auch nicht die kulturpolitisch-zionistische Bedeutung der ,Liebe zu Zion'-Bewegung unterschätzt werden. Es gab bereits Schulen, in denen hebräisch die Unterrichtssprache war, was auch Achad HaAm in seinem Artikel „Dr. Pinsker und seine Broschüre" (1892) lobend anerkannte. Auch Achad HaAm, der große Kritiker, musste eingestehen, dass die Idealisierung der Landwirtschaft und die Arbeit aus Juden ein jüdisches Volk machen können. Die konsequente Folge davon war dann die Qibbutz-Bewegung, die mit David Gordon und der Gründung von Deganja Aleph 1911 ihren Anfang nahm. Auch wurde Religion weitgehend zu nationaler Folklore, aber dies war der Anfang eines jüdischen Identitätsverständnis, das für die Folgejahre entscheidend wurde und ohne das auch ein Staat Israel niemals hätte gegründet werden können. Auch der berühmte Dichter Chaim Nacham Bialik (1873-1934) wirkte in dersel-

Zionismus und jüdische Identität

469

ben Richtung. In seinem Haus in Tel Aviv gegenüber vom damaligen Rathaus kam eine intellektuelle Elite jeden Freitagabend zum 'Oneg Sabbat (Sabbatvergnügen) zusammen. Das Thema ihrer Gespräche war sicherlich die Aktualisierung des kulturellen Erbes des Judentums für die konkrete Gegenwart im Lande der Väter. Diesem Zweck diente wohl auch die von Bialik gemeinsam mit Rawnitzky besorgte Auswahl und Herausgabe rabbinischer Erzählungen (Sefer Ha-Aggadot). Der Zionismus wurde auf diese Weise zu einem neuen Träger jüdischer Existenz, da das übrige Judentum in Reformer/Neologen und Traditionalisten/ Orthodoxie gespalten war. Die Assimilation wurde zu einer Krise für die Fortdauer des Judentums. Der Zionismus erhielt in steigendem Ausmaß die Funktion eines Ersatzes für die herkömmliche Jiddischkeit im emanzipatorischen Zeitalter. Theodor Herzl, der Begründer des politischen Zionismus, wurde 1860 in Budapest geboren und verstarb 1904 in Edlach in Niederösterreich. In Wien studierte er Jus ab dem Wintersemester 1878/79 und trat als Student - wie viele andere assimilierte Juden - in eine deutschnationale Studentenverbindung ein. Es war die Albia, die ihn, weil er Jude war, 1880/81 zum Austritt zwang. Ab Oktober 1891 war er Korrespondent der Neuen freien Presse in Paris, von wo er 1894 über den Dreyfus-Prozess berichtete und von den antisemitischen Kundgebungen zutiefst schockiert war. Ab 1895 begann er dann in Paris mit seinen Tagebuchaufzeichnungen. Stark betroffen war er auch von Eugen Dührings antisemitischen Ausfällen (zum Beispiel Der Ersatz der Religion durch Vollkommeneres und die Ausscheidung allen Judentums durch den modernen Völkergeist, Karlsruhe 1883). Bezüglich Dührings Haltung zur Judenfrage meinte er, dass sein diesbezügliches Buch „ebenso voll von Hass wie von Geist" sei. Jedenfalls ließ die Realität des Antisemitismus Herzl merken, dass Judentum so etwas wie ein character indelebilis ist. In Baden wurde ihm, dem bürgerlichen Juristen, das Wort „Saujud" nachgerufen, und als er sich 1895 in Zell am See in einer Badekabine umkleiden wollte, fand er dort eine antisemitische Aufschrift. Alles passte für ihn zu dem historischen Ruf der Franzosen „ä mort les juifs" beim Dreyfus-Prozess 1894. Herzl aber verstand noch nicht so wie sein Kritiker Achad HaAm die kulturgeschichtliche Entwicklung, die das Judentum seit dem Ende des Ghettos und der Emanzipation erlebte. Im Ghetto galt für alle seine Bewohner die eigene jüdische Wertskala, in der Emanzipation aber die Wertskala der anderen. Achad HaAm nannte es 1891 in einem Artikel im Hammelitz "Abhdut betokh cherut" (Knechtschaft in der Freiheit). Damit meinte er den Verlust der national-religiösen Grundlage. Herzl jedoch wusste darum, dass als Folge davon der neue Antisemitismus mit dem althergebrachten religiösen nicht mehr viel gemeinsam hatte. Jetzt hat er wirtschaftliche und soziale Gründe. „Es handelt sich nicht mehr um das Abendmahl, sondern um das Mittagsbrot". Demgemäß waren auch Herzls erste Reaktionen auf den Antisemitismus, der zu seiner Zeit in erster Linie von den Christlichsozialen ä la Lueger geschürt wurde. Er meinte zunächst,

470

Kurt Schubert

dass das Judentum sich selbst auflösen solle, damit die ehemaligen Juden als Menschen würdig existieren könnten. Zu Beginn des Tagebuchs 1895 schrieb er: „Wir bleiben noch beim Glauben unserer Väter. Aber unsere jungen Söhne sollten wir zu Christen machen, bevor sie in's Alter der eigenen Entscheidungen kämen". Herzls Konzept war es also: Der Erwachsene muss sich schämen, wenn er seine Gruppe verlässt, den schon als Kinder getauften Juden aber bleibt eine solche Demütigung erspart. In dieselbe Richtung wies auch noch sein Theaterstück „Das neue Ghetto". Herzl verstand also das Judentum als ein Phänomen, das zwangsweise Antisemitismus erzeugt. Daher war sein Konzept, das er schon 1895 in Paris Baron Hirsch vortrug: Die Judenfrage ist eine politische Frage und muss daher auch politisch gelöst werden. Philanthropie ist keine Lösung, denn sie züchtet Schnorrer. Am 17. Februar 1896 erschien dann in Wien in einer Auflage von 3000 Stück seine Programmschrift Der Judenstaat. Ab 14. Juni 1897 folgte dann auch noch die zionistische Zeitschrift Die Welt. Herzl kam zur Überzeugung, dass das jüdische Volk ein Gegenwartsbewusstsein erhalten müsse, mit anderen Worten: Das Judentum muss ein politisches Volk mit seiner eigenen politischen Gegenwart werden. Für die religiöse jüdische Tradition hatte das Judentum eine politische Vergangenheit, den Auszug aus Ägypten, und wird auch eine politische Zukunft haben, die messianische Zeit. Die Zeit dazwischen bestimmen die weltlichen Völker (ummot ha-'olam). Demgegenüber schuf Herzl schon mit dem ersten Zionistenkongress in Basel vom 2 9 31. August 1897 eine politische Gegenwart. Ziel des Kongresses war es, auf legalem Weg eine international anerkannte politische Heimstätte im Lande der Väter zu erhalten. Als Jurist bestand Herzl auf einem völkerrechtlich anerkannten Charter, jede Illegalität war ihm wesensfremd. Allerdings war sein Impetus der Antisemitismus. Er strebte nach einem Judenstaat und nicht nach einem jüdischen Staat, was ihm sein Kritiker Achad HaAm von allem Anfang an verargte. Unmittelbar nach dem Baseler Kongress schrieb Achad HaAm im HaSchiloach, September 1897: Er bemängelte das Fehlen jüdischen Geistes und jüdischer Identität. Vorläufig hätte ein öffentliches Auftreten wie am ersten Tag des Kongresses genügt. Herzls und anderer westeuropäischer Zionisten Argumente stammen aus einem jüdischen Minderwertigkeitsgefühl ä la „Knechtschaft in Freiheit". Das jüdische Volk kann sich nicht mit einem Kleinstaat begnügen, der politisch Spielball der Mächtigen sein wird. Ein altes Volk wie Israel, das ,Licht für die Völker' sein soll, braucht mehr prophetische Vision vom Ende aller Zeiten, wozu auch umfassender Friede gehört. „Nur dann kann ein Judenstaat gedeihen, wenn allumfassende Gerechtigkeit herrscht im Leben der Völker und Staaten". Daher bitte keine Übereilung. Im zionistischen Programm überwiegen demgegenüber Diplomatie und Parteipolitik. Kommissionen sollen beraten und ein Nationalfond soll gegründet werden. So schloss Achad HaAm auch einen Misserfolg nicht aus. Politik kann weder Messianismus noch Erlösung ersetzen. „Die Erlösung Israels wird durch Propheten kommen, nicht durch Diplomatie". Damit war das Konzept des Kulturzionismus Achad HaAms gegenüber dem

Zionismus und jüdische Identität

471

politischen Zionismus Theodor Herzls deutlich formuliert und der Gegensatz der dann aber zur gegenseitigen Ergänzung wurde - betont. Allerdings darf nicht übersehen werden, dass Achad HaAm selbst nach dem Lande Israel auswanderte, als der Charter, die Balfour-Erklärung von 1917, im Jahre 1922 vom Völkerbund in den Text des Palästina-Mandates mit aufgenommen wurde. Er wurde auch zum ersten Ehrenbürger von Tel Aviv. Wenn Theodor Herzl den Charter auch nicht mehr selbst erlebte, so waren es doch seine unermüdlichen Anstrengungen, die unter den konkreten Bedingungen des Ersten Weltkriegs die Balfour-Erklärung ermöglichten. Theodor Herzls jüdische Identität bestand darin, dass er von der Bedrohung der Juden durch den Antisemitismus zutiefst betroffen war und für alle Juden einen sicheren Platz auf Erden erstrebte, in dem die Juden der bürgerlichen Welt beweisen können, wie human wirklicher Humanismus tatsächlich sein kann. Demgegenüber suchte Achad HaAm nach neuen Formen bewusster und gewollter Identität, in denen die alten Traditionen der rabbinischen Lehrhäuser als nationales Erbe und unter neuen Umständen aktualisiert werden können. In gewisser Hinsicht sah Herzl die Gefahren der Schoa voraus, und Achad HaAm wollte den Uberlebenden einen jüdischen Inhalt geben. Nun zurück zu Theodor Herzls vergeblichen Bemühungen um einen Charter. Vergeblich setzte er alle seine persönlichen Kontakte und Beziehungen ein. 1901 und 1902 hatte er Audienz beim Sultan Abdul Chamid II., doch erreichte er keinen Firman, der den Juden erlauben sollte, sich legal im Lande Israel anzusiedeln. Etwas erfolgreicher war er in England. Als er sich 1902 mit Lord Rothschild traf, ging es um Sinai, El Arisch und Zypern, Regionen, die für eine jüdische Masseneinwanderung alles eher als geeignet waren. Im selben Jahr 1902 verhandelte er auch mit dem Kolonialminister Lord Chamberlain über einen Charter für Uganda. Somit legte Herzl am 6. Zionistenkongress in Basel, 23.-28. August 1903, den Delegierten den Uganda-Plan vor, den Herzls Freund Max Nordau als Zwischenstation und Nachtasyl zur Annahme empfahl. Dies schien sinnvoll anlässlich des fürchterlichen Pogroms, das im selben Jahr in der Stadt Kischinew stattgefunden und dem Chaim Nachman Bialik seine Dichtung „In der Stadt des Mordens" gewidmet hatte. Doch die von der Pogromgefahr Betroffenen wollten nicht nach Uganda. Für sie war eine Verwirklichung ihres Zieles nur im Lande Israel möglich. Sie verließen den Saal und stimmten die Trauerklage wie über die Zerstörung Jerusalems und des Tempels an. Herzl meinte: „Diese Leute haben den Strick um den Hals und weigern sich noch". Sie nannten sich ,Zione Zion'. Doch gelang es Herzl, sie wieder in den Kongresssaal zurückzuholen. Menachem Mendel Ussischkin vom Odessaer Bureau der Chibbat Zion verhandelte 1904 mit dem schon erkrankten Theodor Herzl in Wien und erreichte von ihm auch die Aufgabe des Uganda-Planes. Kurz darauf starb Herzl am 3. Juli 1904 in Edlach an der Rax. Herzls Zielvorstellung widmete er seinen utopischen Roman Altneuland, der am 1. Oktober 1902 in erster Auflage erschien. Dieses Altneuland war zur Gänze

472

Kurt Schubert

bestimmt von der westlichen Zivilisation und von einer politisch liberalen Gesellschaftsordnung. Alles, was Herzl an westlicher Lebensweise schätzte, übertrug er in das Land der Väter. Das kulturelle Erbe des Judentums interessierte ihn überhaupt nicht. So wie schon im Judenstaat konnte er sich auch in Altneuland nicht vorstellen, dass dort einmal hebräisch die Umgangssprache sein könnte. Die Leute sprechen die Sprachen ihrer Herkunftsländer, zu denen auch die jiddische Sprache gehörte. Für ihn gab es auch kein Araberproblem, da zwischen Juden und Arabern, die ebenfalls Gewinner der neuen Ordnung sein sollten, im liberalen Sinn Wonne und Eintracht herrscht. Der jüdische Advokat Dr. Friedrich Löwenberg begleitete einen reichen, aber schrulligen Amerikaner, Mr. Kingscourt, für 20 Jahre auf eine Insel im Stillen Ozean. Dafür erhielt er im Vorhinein einen beachtlichen Geldbetrag von Mr. Kingscourt. Diesen schenkte er einem jüdischen Hausierer, der damit nach Palästina auswanderte. 20 Jahre später trifft Löwenberg in Palästina auf David Litwak, den Sohn des Hausierers, der sich im Land der Väter als liberaler Politiker bis zum Reedereibesitzer emporgearbeitet hatte. Löwenberg heiratet dessen Schwester Miriam, eine westlich gebildete Sprachlehrerin an einem Haifaer Gymnasium. Palästina wurde überhaupt zum Land einer fortschrittlich liberalen Gesellschaft. Herzl störte es auch nicht, dass der wieder aufgebaute Tempel nicht mehr am Tempelberg stand, sondern irgendwo in Jerusalem, da der Tempelberg schon durch die Omar-Moschee besetzt war. In einem liberalen Land mit moderner Technik und Zivilisation dürfen religiös-historische Bedenken keine Rolle mehr spielen, denn in Altneuland gilt der liberale Grundsatz: ohne Unterschied von Glaube und Nation. Dass Achad HaAm für diesen Roman des ,Führers der Zionisten', wie er Herzl nannte, nur beißenden Spott finden konnte, liegt auf der Hand. Einen schärferen Gegensatz für ein jüdisches altneues Heimatland im Sinne des Kulturzionisten Achad HaAm und des liberalen bürgerlichen Juristen und Politikers Theodor Herzl konnte es wohl nicht mehr geben. De facto aber vereinigten sich die beiden Konzepte zu einer Erfolg versprechenden und zukunftsträchtigen Einheit. Ohne Herzls Aktivität für einen Charter hätte Chaim Weizmann 1917 nicht das Angebot der britischen Regierung erhalten, im von der osmanischen Herrschaft befreiten Palästina ein Jewish National Home' zu errichten. Trotz aller dann folgenden restriktiven Maßnahmen der britischen Mandatsmacht war die Balfour-Erklärung doch eine solide Grundlage für die weitere zionistische Entwicklung im Lande Israel. Dazu kam, dass die 3. bis 5. Alija bis 1935 vorwiegend Juden aus Osteuropa nach Palästina brachte, die von den Wertbegriffen und Idealen Achad HaAms zutiefst erfüllt waren. So wurde in der Zeit des britischen Mandats das Land Israel tatsächlich zu einem ,geistigen Zentrum' für das Judentum in aller Welt. Die gerade in dieser Zeit erstarkende Kibbutzbewegung schuf einen neuen jüdischen Typus, der kulturbewusst und nationalbewusst zugleich war. Dazu kamen ab 1933 auch vermehrt Einwanderer aus Deutschland, die sich mit ihren Fähigkeiten gänzlich dem Aufbau des Landes (mehr im Sinne Achad HaAms als im Sinne von Herzls

Zionismus und jüdische Identität

473

Altneuland) zur Verfügung stellten. Damit schufen das ostjüdische Element gemeinsam mit den Jekes, den deutschen Juden, eine zionistische Identität, die das Judentum die Katastrophe der Schoa überleben, einen jüdischen Staat gründen und Israel tatsächlich zu einem ,Merkaz ruchani', einem geistigen Zentrum, für das Judentum in aller Welt werden ließ. Ohne Herzl also kein Raum für die Verwirklichung der Ziele Achad HaAms, und ohne Achad HaAm wäre Herzls Staat inhaltlich leer geblieben.

Judaistik und ihr Ort in der universitas litterarum heute Einige Überlegungen zum Fach Judaistik in Deutschland von PETER SCHÄFER

Günter Stemberger hat sich, im Rahmen seiner langen akademischen Tätigkeit, auch ausführlich Gedanken zur Situation unseres Faches im Lehrbetrieb der Universität gemacht. Sein Buch Einführung in die Judaistik von 2002 legt davon eindrücklich Zeugnis ab. Die deutschsprachige Judaistik als eigene Disziplin außerhalb der Theologie und der Orientalistik hat mit Kurt Schubert, dem Gründungsvater der Judaistik in Österreich und Vorgänger Günter Stembergers auf dem Wiener Lehrstuhl, begonnen. Das Wiener Institut strahlt, nicht zuletzt dank der Forschung und Lehre Günter Stembergers, weit über Wien und Österreich hinaus. Die folgenden Überlegungen sind erstmals anlässlich der Eröffnung des neu eingerichteten Studienganges „Judaistik" an der Universität Tübingen am 27. Juni 2005 vorgetragen worden. Sie beziehen sich primär auf das Fach Judaistik in Deutschland, doch dürfen sie sicher beanspruchen, auch für den Bereich der deutschsprachigen Judaistik im weiteren Sinne zu gelten.1 Ich freue mich, sie in überarbeiteter Form Günter Stemberger zu seinem 65. Geburtstag widmen zu können. Ich beginne mit einer historischen Vorbemerkung. Die „Judaistik" - wie ich alle denkbaren Ausprägungen der Wissenschaft vom Judentum vereinfachend 1

V o n meinen früheren Ä u ß e r u n g e n z u m Thema vgl.: „Jüdische Tradition - wesentliches Element unserer G e g e n w a r t " , in Wie die Zukunft Wurzeln schlug. Aus der in der Bundesrepublik

Deutschland,

Forschung

hg. v. R. GERWIN, Berlin etc. 1989, 9 1 - 9 7 ; „Die Ent-

wicklung der Judaistik in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland seit 1 9 4 5 " , in Die sog. Geisteswissenschaften:

Innenansichten,

hg. v. W. PRINZ, P. WEINGART, Frankfurt a.M. 1990,

3 5 0 - 3 6 5 ; „Judaistik - jüdische Wissenschaft in Deutschland heute. Historische Identität u n d Nationalität", in Saeculum

42 (1991), 1 9 9 - 2 1 6 ; „Jewish Studies at European

Universities: Actual and Potential", in Jewish Studies 32 (1992), 4 4 - 5 3 ; „Jewish Studies in European Universities: Actual and Potential", in Teaching bal Approach

to Higher Education,

Jewish

Civilization:

A Glo-

hg. v. M. DAVIS, N e w Y o r k / L o n d o n 1995, 7 7 - 8 5 ; „Je-

wish Studies in G e r m a n y T o d a y " , in JSQ 3 (1996), 1 4 6 - 1 6 1 (und s. den ganzen Band von JSQ, der der Judaistik in Europa, Israel und den U S A g e w i d m e t ist); z u m T h e m a ferner: Wissenschaft

des Judentums.

Darmstadt 1992; Wissenschaft

Anfänge

der Judaistik

vom Judentum.

M . BRENNER, S . ROHRBACHER, G ö t t i n g e n 2 0 0 0 .

in Europa,

Annäherungen

hg. v. J. CARLEBACH,

nach dem Holocaust,

hg. v.

476

Peter Schäfer

im Folgenden nennen werde - hat es nicht leicht gehabt, sich ihren Weg in die deutsche Universität zu bahnen. Genauer gesagt, es ist ihr dies erst in der Nachkriegszeit gelungen, nach dem Ende des NS-Regimes und der weitgehenden Vernichtung des deutschen und des europäischen Judentums. Die deutsche Judaistik ist somit, in einer schrecklichen Ironie der Geschichte, ein Kind des dunkelsten Kapitels unserer deutschen Geschichte: Nachdem wir unsere jüdischen Mitbürger ermordet haben, erlaubten wir der Wissenschaft vom Judentum den Zutritt in die geheiligten Hallen unserer Universität. Denn genau dies, der Wissenschaft vom Judentum oder auch des Judentums, wie ihre Gründungsväter sie nannten, Eingang in die deutsche Universität zu verschaffen, war der sehnliche Wunsch der Begründer der Wissenschaft des Judentums in der ersten Hälfte des 19. Jahrhunderts - seit der berühmten Schrift des 23jährigen Leopold Zunz „Etwas über die rabbinische Literatur" von 1818,2 seit dem 1819 gegründeten „Culturverein", 3 dem eine Reihe bedeutender, meist jüngerer jüdischer Intellektueller angehörten (neben Zunz vor allem Eduard Gans, Moses Moser und Heinrich Heine), seit Zunzens programmatischer Einleitung in den Band Zur Geschichte und Literatur von 1845.4 Drei Jahre später, am 25. Juli 1848, richtete derselbe Zunz eine Eingabe an den Preußischen Kultusminister, Adalbert von Ladenberg, eine ordentliche Professur für jüdische Geschichte und Literatur an der Berliner Friedrich-WilhelmsUniversität (der heutigen Humboldt-Universität) zu errichten. Wichtig ist zunächst die Definition dieser Professur als Professur für jüdische Geschichte und Literatur: Zunz stand damit ganz in der Tradition der Gründungsväter der Wissenschaft des Judentums, die diese neue Wissenschaft ausdrücklich als eine säkulare Disziplin verstanden und sich ganz dezidiert und teilweise sehr polemisch von jeder Bevormundung durch jede Form der Religion oder gar der Theologie (jüdischer wie christlicher Spielart) absetzten. Der Minister forderte ein Gutachten der Philosophischen Fakultät der Friedrich-WilhelmsUniversität an, das negativ ausfiel, und teilte Zunz am 4. Dezember 1848 die Gründe für seine Ablehnung des Gesuches mit (wobei er sich im wesentlichen der Argumentation der Philosophischen Fakultät anschloss). Ich fasse einige seiner Punkte kurz zusammen, da sie teilweise auch für die heutige Diskussion noch relevant sind:5

2

L. ZUNZ, Etwas über die rabbinische gedrucktes

hebräisches

Literatur.

Nebst Nachrichten

über ein altes bis jetzt

Werk, Berlin 1818; wieder abgedruckt in ders., Gesammelte

un-

Schrif-

ten, Bd. 1, Berlin 1 8 7 5 , 1 - 3 1 . 3

1819 unter d e m N a m e n „Verein zur Verbesserung des Zustandes der J u d e n im deutschen B u n d e s s s t a a t e " gegründet und 1821 in „Verein für Cultur u n d Wissenschaft der J u d e n " umbenannt.

4

Wieder abgedruckt in L. ZUNZ, Gesammelte

5

Der Text des Erlasses ist abgedruckt als A n h a n g zu: S. MAYBAUM, „Die Wissenschaft d e s J u d e n t u m s " , i n MGW]

Schriften,

Bd. 1, Berlin 1875, 4 1 - 5 9 .

51 (1907), 6 4 1 - 6 5 4 , A n h a n g 6 5 4 - 6 5 8 .

Judaistik u n d ihr Ort in der universitas

litterarum

heute

477

Der Minister (und dies bedeutet immer: die Philosophische Fakultät) erkennt zunächst das Anliegen Zunzens an, „auch die Litteratur und Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes in eine heilsame Wechselwirkung mit der allgemeinen Wissenschaft zu setzen und sie daher in den Verband der Universität als ein gleichberechtigtes Glied einzureihen". Allerdings kann er sich nicht mit den von Zunz angeführten Gründen einverstanden erklären. Dies gilt zunächst und vor allem für die Berufung auf die benachteiligte Stellung der Juden in der deutschen Gesellschaft: diese sei durch die vollzogene bürgerliche Gleichstellung erledigt und die Juden wollten nun doch nicht mehr, wie er fast drohend hinzufügt, ein „Staat im Staate" und ein „Volk im Volke" sein: Eine Professur, die mit dem Nebengedanken gestiftet würde, das jüdische Wesen in seiner Besonderheit, in seinen entfremdenden Gesetzen und Gebräuchen geistig zu stützen und zu kräftigen, widerspräche dem Sinn der neuen, die starren Unterschiede ausgleichenden Freiheit; sie wäre eine Bevorrechtung der Juden, ein Mißbrauch der Universität, insbesondere der philosophischen Fakultät, die für ihre Lehrfächer zunächst kein anderes Maß kennt als den inneren Gehalt der Wissenschaft, und in der... keine äußere Zweckmäßigkeit das reine wissenschaftliche Interesse verdrängen soll.6 Aber auch nach den eigenen Maßstäben der Fakultät sei eine solche Professur nicht zu rechtfertigen. So sei für die Geschichte nur eine einzige ordentliche Professur vorgesehen, und es gäbe auch keine Professur für die deutsche oder die preußische Geschichte, wobei vor allem letztere „einer Hochschule im Mittelpunkt des preußischen Staates" sicher näher läge als eine ordentliche Professur für jüdische Geschichte. Die Fakultät habe es immer abgelehnt, Professuren für „spezielle Lehrfächer" einzurichten und den „Neigungen für vereinzelte Lieblingsfächer" nachzugeben: Da es die wissenschaftliche Kraft in den Lernenden nicht fördert, wenn die Professuren sich immer mehr teilen und ihren Gegenstand als besondere Gebiete ausbilden, so erachtet die Fakultät es nicht für zweckmäßig, daß die jüdische Geschichte aus dem wissenschaftlichen Verbände mit der allgemeinen Geschichte herausgerissen werde? Und wenn man schließlich auf die Religion als Schwerpunkt einer solchen Professur abheben wolle, so sei die Ausbildung von Priestern und Rabbinern „die Aufgabe seminarischer Anstalten, aber nicht eigentlich der Universitäten, am wenigsten einer philosophischen Fakultät", die sich dagegen verwahren 6

Ibid., 655.

7

Ibid., 655f.

478

Peter Schäfer

müsse, „daß ihr der Keim zu einer jüdischen theologischen Fakultät eingeimpft werde". Abschließend empfehlen Fakultät und Minister dem Antragsteller, den Weg in die Universität über die Habilitation und die Stellung des Privatdozenten zu suchen: Dann wird die Erfahrung über das Bedürfnis und die Leistung entscheiden. Diesen Weg sind alle Disziplinen gegangen, welche in neuerer Zeit den Kreis der Universitätsstudien erweiterten. ...Will die jüdische Geschichte und Litteratur zu einem eigenen und ansehnlichen Lehrfach der Universität werden, so muß sie stillen und sicheren Schrittes sich auf diesem Weg erproben und bewähren. Die Fakultät glaubt es mit der jüdischen Geschichte und Litteratur nicht anders halten zu können als mit anderen neuen Disziplinen.8 Diese Stellungnahme des preußischen Ministers wird meist unter der Rubrik „Antisemitismus" abgelegt, im Sinne der Verhinderung - aus allzu durchsichtigen antisemitischen Beweggründen - des legitimen Wunsches jüdischer Wissenschaftler nach der Aufnahme der Wissenschaft des Judentums in den Fächerkanon der deutschen Universitäten. So wenig die Berliner Universität ein Hort der aufgeklärten Judenemanzipation war, und so bald die von dem preußischen Minister so selbstgewiss für vollzogen erklärte Emanzipation scheitern sollte - die Kategorie „Antisemitismus" reicht nicht aus, den Erlass zu würdigen und sachgerecht historisch einzuordnen (ich werde darauf zurückkommen). Eines ist jedoch sicher: der Traum von der Aufnahme der jüdischen Wissenschaft nicht nur in die Berliner, sondern in die deutsche Universität überhaupt war für lange Zeit ausgeträumt. Das Judentum zog sich auf eigene, d.h. private Lehranstalten zurück: 1854 wurde das „Jüdisch-Theologische Seminar Fränckelscher Stiftung" in Breslau gegründet, 1872 folgte die „Hochschule für die Wissenschaft des Judentums" in Berlin, letztere keineswegs nur als Rabbinerseminar, sondern als von staatlicher wie auch von religiös-jüdischer Einflussnahme unabhängige Institution. Der Rabbiner und Dozent an der Hochschule, Sigmund Maybaum, machte 1907, bei der Einweihung des eigenen Hauses der Hochschule, aus der Not eine Tugend und erklärte selbstbewusst Zunzens Bestreben nach der Aufnahme der Wissenschaft vom Judentum in die universitas litterarum der an der Universität vertretenen Fächer für obsolet: ein Lehrstuhl an einer Universität sei nicht nur nicht mehr gerechtfertigt, er sei „im Interesse der Freiheit und der Unabhängigkeit der Wissenschaft" auch gar nicht mehr zu wünschen, da der Staat dann nur seinen ungebührlichen Ehfluss geltend machen würde (wie man an der „Beeinflussung der soviel mächtigeren christlichen Theologie" sehen könne).9 8

Ibid., 657.

9

MAYBAUM, a.a.O., 650f.

Judaistik und ihr Ort in der universitas litterarum heute

479

Es sollte bis 1963 dauern, bis der erste Lehrstuhl für Judaistik an einer deutschen Universität eingerichtet wurde, sicher nicht von ungefähr nicht an einer der Traditionsuniversitäten (und schon gar nicht an der HumboldtUniversität, der Nachfolgerin der Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität), sondern an einer Neugründung, nämlich der Freien Universität Berlin. Der Berliner Lehrstuhl war ursprünglich als so genannter „Weltanschauungslehrstuhl" konzipiert, d.h. er sollte das Judentum als eine für die europäische Kultur zentrale „Weltanschauung" neben den beiden maßgebenden christlichen Religionen (Katholizismus und Protestantismus) zur Geltung bringen. Dies entsprach kaum den Intentionen der Gründungsväter der Wissenschaft des Judentums, die das Judentum und die jüdische Wissenschaft gerade von der Bevormundung durch die Religion befreien und die jüdische Literatur in die europäische Literatur (sowie das Judentum in die europäische Völkerfamilie) überführen wollten. Der erste Lehrstuhlinhaber, der in die USA emigrierte und von der Columbia University in New York nach Deutschland zurückgeholte Jacob Taubes, war die ideale Besetzung für einen solchen „Weltanschauungslehrstuhl", verstand er sich doch mehr als Religionswissenschaftler und Philosoph denn als Judaist im engeren Sinne (Taubes verachtete jede Fachwissenschaft als engstirnig und kleinkariert). 1978 zog er sich ganz auf seine Philosophie zurück und ermöglichte die Neubesetzung des judaistischen Lehrstuhls, die freilich erst Ende 1983 realisiert werden konnte. Nach der Freien Universität Berlin folgten 1966 und 1969 die Lehrstühle für Judaistik an den Universitäten Köln (erster Lehrstuhlinhaber Johann Maier) und Frankfurt a.M. (erster Lehrstuhlinhaber Arnold Goldberg). Die HumboldtUniversität in den Zeiten der DDR hatte seit 1969 einen Lehrstuhl für Hebraistik, der später in eine Abteilung für Hebraistik/Israelwissenschaften umgewandelt wurde (nach der „Wende" aufgelöst). In Hamburg besteht seit 1963 ein „Institut für die Geschichte der deutschen Juden", in Duisburg seit 1974 der Forschungsschwerpunkt „Geschichte und Religion des Judentums" mit einer Professur für Judaistik sowie seit 1987 das „Salomon-LudwigSteinheim Institut für deutsch-jüdische Geschichte". Im Sommer 2002 wurde der Duisburger Studiengang in die Universität Düsseldorf überführt und bildet dort, zusammen mit der Jiddistik, das Institut für Jüdische Studien. Das „Zentrum für Antisemitismusforschung" an der Technischen Universität Berlin befasst sich seit 1982 mit jüdischer Geschichte im Rahmen der Vorurteilsforschung. Auf Initiative des Zentralrats der Juden in Deutschland wurde 1978 die „Hochschule für Jüdische Studien" in Heidelberg gegründet, die inzwischen auch das Promotions recht besitzt und jetzt endlich dabei ist, ihre Lehrstühle nicht mit ständig wechselnden Gastprofessoren zu bestücken, sondern auf Dauer zu besetzen. In Freiburg und München sind Professuren für Judaistik mit dem Orientalischen Seminar bzw. dem Seminar für Semitistik verbunden. Und schließlich: im Rahmen theologischer Fakultäten finden sich Instituta Judaica in Tübingen und Münster sowie, ursprünglich an der Kirchlichen

480

Peter Schäfer

Hochschule Berlin und jetzt an der Humboldt-Universität, ein „Institut für Kirche und Judentum". Die Wiedervereinigung hat Bewegung auch in die judaistische Hochschullandschaft gebracht. An der Universität Potsdam wurde, als reines Forschungsinstitut, das „Moses Mendelssohn Zentrum für europäisch-jüdische Studien" gegründet (1992) sowie, eine neue Entwicklung, ein interdisziplinärer Studiengang „Jüdische Studien" (mit einer Professur für Religionswissenschaft und, seit neustem, einer Professur für Talmud). In Halle entstand ein Seminar für Judaistik/Jüdische Studien (mit einer Professur), in Erfurt ein Lehrstuhl für Judaistik im Rahmen eines interdisziplinären Studienganges zur europäischen Religionsgeschichte (1999) und in Leipzig, ebenfalls als reines Forschungsinstitut, das Simon Dubnow-Institut mit dem Schwerpunkt Osteuropäisches Judentum (1995). An der Universität München wurde 1997, ein Novum in der deutschen Universitätsgeschichte, ein Lehrstuhl für jüdische Geschichte und Kultur errichtet, und zwar ausdrücklich nicht als judaistischer Lehrstuhl, sondern als integraler Bestandteil des Historischen Seminars der Universität. Und nun, als bisher letzte Entwicklung, das Seminar für Religionswissenschaften und Judaistik der Universität Tübingen (das verwirrenderweise immer noch als „Institutum Judaicum" firmiert), das jetzt einen B.A./M.A.-Studiengang im Fach Judaistik anbietet, der gemeinsam von der Fakultät für Kulturwissenschaften und der Evangelisch-theologischen Fakultät getragen wird. Dies ist wahrlich ein buntes Bild, und ich will versuchen, die Farben ein wenig zu filtern und, soweit möglich, zu sortieren. Die erste Generation der Fachvertreter in Deutschland (Jacob Taubes in Berlin, Johann Maier in Köln und Arnold Goldberg in Frankfurt), die Gründungsväter, haben sich wenig Gedanken über eine Judaistik in Deutschland gemacht. Sie haben ihre Institute aufgebaut, ihre Bibliotheken zusammengekauft, Studienordnungen entworfen und im übrigen darauf geachtet, das Fach Judaistik als eigenes Fach zu etablieren, unabhängig vor allem von den übermächtigen Mutterdisziplinen der Theologie und der Orientalistik (dies gilt imbedingt für Maier und Goldberg, am wenigsten für Taubes, der, wie gesagt, an „Judaistik" eigentlich nicht interessiert war). Die Judaistik, die in Köln, Frankfurt und, nach dem Rückzug von Taubes, in Berlin entstand, orientierte sich im wesentlichen am Vorbild der Hebräischen Universität in Jerusalem: alle Fachvertreter der ersten und zweiten Generation hatten dort studiert, hatten dort ihre prägende Zeit erlebt (bei den großen Gelehrten verschiedener Gebiete der Judaistik, die oft noch aus Deutschland nach Israel gekommen waren und wesentlichen Anteil am Aufbau und schnell steigenden Renommee der Hebräischen Universität hatten) und waren bestrebt, das was sie in Jerusalem gelernt hatten, wieder nach Deutschland zurückzubringen. Dies hatte eine Reihe von Implikationen: Zunächst galt es als völlig selbstverständlich, dass die grundlegende Voraussetzung für ein Studium der Judaistik die hebräische Sprache sein müsse: die gründliche Kenntnis des Hebräischen in seinen wichtigsten Sprachstufen wur-

Judaistik und ihr Ort in der universitas litterarum heute

481

de, für alle Studierenden der Judaistik verpflichtend, in den entsprechenden Studienordnungen verankert (mit gewissen Unterschieden für Haupt- und Nebenfächler). Diese Forderung erstreckte sich ausdrücklich nicht nur auf das Hebräische als Literatursprache (für die Lektüre der einschlägigen Quellen), sondern auch auf das gesprochene moderne Hebräisch (Ivrith). Von einem Judaisten/einer Judaistin wurde und wird erwartet, dass er/sie möglichst fließend Hebräisch spricht. Eine meiner ersten Amtshandlungen nach der Übernahme des Berliner Lehrstuhls war, dass ich einen Vertrag zwischen der Hebräischen Universität Jerusalem und dem DAAD aushandelte, der es einer zwar kleinen, aber fest garantierten Zahl deutscher Judaistikstudenten bzw. -Studentinnen erlaubte, jeweils einen Ulpan in Jerusalem zu besuchen und anschließend ein Jahr an der Hebräischen Universität zu studieren. Ich bin stolz darauf, dass es dieses Abkommen immer noch gibt und dass es inzwischen vielen Jahrgängen deutscher Studierender von Nutzen war. Dabei ist die erstrebte Beherrschung des modernen und gesprochenen Hebräisch natürlich kein Selbstzweck (und schon gar nicht zur Befriedigung touristischer Interessen gedacht), sondern dient der Lesefähigkeit nicht nur hebräischer Quellen, sondern vor allem auch der immensen Sekundärliteratur in hebräischer Sprache. Wer Hebräisch versteht und spricht, kann auch die Sekundärliteratur des Faches leichter und schneller lesen - dies ist eine Binsenwahrheit, die kaum weiter begründet werden muss (schließlich sprechen und lesen auch Sinologen und Japanologen Chinesisch und Japanisch oder Islamwissenschaftler Arabisch). Ich sehe mit Genugtuung, dass auch in der neuen Tübinger Studienordnung sowohl biblisches als auch modernes Hebräisch zu den selbstverständlichen Pflichtveranstaltungen gehören. Zweitens bedeutete unsere starke Verankerung in der Jerusalemer Judaistik, dass diese uns als zwar unerreichbares, aber doch erstrebenswertes Idealbild immer vor Augen stand. Damit meine ich: Judaistik war für uns eine eigene und selbständige Disziplin im Fächerkanon der Universität, frei von jeder Bevormundung durch eine übergeordnete Disziplin, gleichwohl aber aufgefächert in zahlreiche Unterdisziplinen wie jüdische Geschichte, Literatur, Sprachen, Bibel, Talmud etc., alle durch ausgewiesene Fachleute vertreten, als Teil eines großen Ganzen, das sich nicht von ungefähr makon le-maddae ha-yahadut nannte, Institut für die Wissenschaften vom Judentum (im Plural). Ein großes und vielfältiges Bündel von Wissenschaften, das alleine durch den gemeinsamen Nenner „Judentum" zusammengehalten wurde. Aber eben unabhängig und frei, alle nur denkbaren Ausformungen und Entfaltungen dieses „Judentums" in seiner ganzen Fülle zu erfassen, zu bedenken, zu bestaunen - ein Fach, das als solches multidisziplinär und interdisziplinär angelegt war. Der große Nachteil war nur, dass wir nicht einmal davon träumen konnten, irgendetwas auch nur annähernd Vergleichbares nach Deutschland zu transferieren. Die anregende Vielfalt, der interdisziplinäre Austausch unter dem Überbau maddae ha-yahadut - Wissenschaften vom Judentum - schrumpfte im deutschen

482

Peter Schäfer

Kontext auf die ernüchternde Realität des Ein-Mann-Institutes zusammen (im wörtlichen Sinne: „ein" und „Mann", Frauen gab es damals noch nicht in der Judaistik), in dem der Lehrstuhlinhaber nicht viel mehr tun konnte, als seinen Teilbereich der Judaistik zu vertreten. So sehr ich mir in meiner Berliner Zeit Mühe gegeben habe, wenigstens in der Lehre nicht nur meine Spezialgebiete zu pflegen, sondern breitere Bereiche abzudecken, habe ich mich doch andererseits immer geweigert, die jeweils herrschenden Moden des Faches zu bedienen. Später nahm dieses Ansinnen teilweise absurde Formen an, wenn etwa verlangt wurde, dass wir als deutsche Judaisten doch bitte das einzig Naheliegende tun mögen, nämlich uns auf das deutsche Judentum konzentrieren und möglichst nur noch das Judentum des 19. oder des 20. Jahrhunderts wenn schon nicht erforschen, so doch wenigstens lehren sollten. Mein Hauptarbeitsgebiet ist das antike bzw. genauer spätantike Judentum, und ich habe wahrlich auf manch anderen Gebieten dilettiert (bis in die Wissenschaftsgeschichte des 19. und 20. Jahrhunderts hinein), aber wir können auch in der Lehre unsere Gebiete nicht wie die Hemden wechseln und allen (immer neuen und häufig auch politisch motivierten) Wünschen gerecht werden. Dabei ist das Anliegen, das Fach Judaistik in der Lehre so breit wie eben möglich darzubieten - im Interesse der Studierenden, denen man nicht allen das Spezialgebiet des Lehrstuhlinhabers aufzwingen kann und die auch nicht alle nach Jerusalem gehen können - natürlich berechtigt. Ich habe in Berlin versucht, diesem Anliegen dadurch Rechnung zu tragen, dass ich mich von Anfang an darum bemüht habe, das Lehrangebot durch den gezielten Ausbau des Instituts für Judaistik zu erweitern, also die Lehre auf mehrere Schultern zu verteilen. Ein Institut für Judaistik mit einem auch nur einigermaßen angemessenen Lehrbetrieb ist zum Nulltarif nicht zu haben; die Ein-Mann- oder auch Ein-Frau-Schau kann nicht funktionieren. Dank der sehr viel günstigeren Zeiten als wir sie heute erleben, konnte ich zunächst eine zweite Professur mit dem Schwerpunkt deutsches Judentum in der Neuzeit durchsetzen und schließlich sogar eine dritte Professur als ständige Gastprofessur mit dem Schwerpunkt mittelalterliche Mystik und Ethik. Dies war der Höhepunkt der Berliner Auffächerung des Faches Judaistik, die jetzt leider wieder im Abbau begriffen ist. Das in diesem Sinne bestausgestattete Institut ist heute das Institut für Jüdische Studien der Universität Düsseldorf mit drei Professuren für Judaistik (einer Professur für rabbinisches Judentum, einer für jüdische Geschichte und einer für jüdische Geistesgeschichte der Neuzeit) sowie einer Professur für Jiddisch. Und schließlich (drittens) implizierte das Jerusalemer Modell mit seinem disziplinaren Charakter und der Betonung der Eigenständigkeit des Faches noch ein Weiteres, das zwar nicht für Israel, aber umso mehr für Deutschland relevant war und ist: die Abgrenzung gegenüber der christlichen Theologie (das Verhältnis der israelischen madda'e ha-yahadut zur jüdischen Religion ist ein eigenes, durchaus spannendes Thema, das aber hier nicht zur Diskussion steht).

Judaistik und ihr Ort in der universitas litterarum heute

483

Die christliche Theologie hat selbstverständlich ein legitimes Interesse am Judentum und auch an der Wissenschaft vom Judentum; in mancher Hinsicht ist auch die moderne Judaistik ein Kind der christlichen Hebraistik und sogar der christlichen Kabbala. Kein Geringerer als Gershom Scholem hat dies anerkannt, als er in seiner berühmten Rede anlässlich der Verleihung des ReuchlinPreises der Stadt Pforzheim im Jahre 1969 sagte: Wenn ich an Seelenwanderung glaubte, würde ich wohl manchmal denken können, unter den neuen Bedingungen der Forschung eine Art Reinkarnation Johannes Reuchlins, des ersten Erforschers des Judentums, seiner Sprache und seiner Welt, und speziell der Kabbala, zu sein, des Mannes, der vor fast fünfhundert Jahren die Wissenschaft vom Judentum in Europa ins Leben gerufen hat.10 So nobel diese Verbeugung Scholems vor Reuchlin war: die Scholemsche Reinkarnation Reuchlins war historisch gesehen eher das Ergebnis einer gewaltigen Metamorphose, hat doch gerade Scholem immer wieder seinen unendlichen Abstand nicht nur zur christlichen Kabbala eines Reuchlin, sondern auch zur jüdischen Wissenschaft des Judentums des 19. Jahrhunderts betont - seine Verachtung dieser bürgerlichen Wissenschaft, seine Überzeugung, dass erst der Zionismus die endgültige Befreiung der Wissenschaft des Judentums von den Fesseln der Kleinbürgerlichkeit und der Bigotterie gebracht, dass erst der Zionismus die jüdische Wissenschaft von der Bevormundung und Einengung durch die christliche wie die jüdische Theologie im wahrsten Sinne des Wortes erlöst hat.11 Kein Zweifel, die Judaistik hat auch ihre Wurzeln in der christlichen Hebraistik und Kabbala und muss sich ihnen stellen, gerade in Europa und in Deutschland. Kein Zweifel aber auch, dass eine europäische oder deutsche Judaistik nicht mit Scholem und seinen Jerusalemer Kollegen ausgerechnet im Zionismus die Bedingung der Möglichkeit ihrer Wissenschaft sehen kann (ganz abgesehen davon, dass diese zionistische Selbstgewissheit auch in Jerusalem ihren Charme verloren hat). Aber dies hat nichts damit zu tun, dass die Judaistik ihren gewissermaßen natürlichen Ort in der christlichen Theologie als einer Mutterdisziplin hätte, etwa im Sinne Reuchlins, der in De Verbo Mirifico das durch den Buchstaben „S" ergänzte Tetragramm „IHSUH" als den wahren Gottesnamen „entdeckte": 10

G. SCHOLEM, Judaica 3. Studien zur jüdischen Mystik, Frankfurt a.M. 1970 (1987), 247263: 247.

11

Vgl. seinen programmatischen und einflussreichen Essay „Mitokh Hirhurim 'al Chokhmat Jisra'el" [Überlegungen zur Wissenschaft vom Judentum], in Luach ha'Aretz, Tel Aviv 1944, 94-112; deutsche Übersetzung in G. SCHOLEM, Judaica 6: Die Wissenschaft

vom

Judentum,

h g . v . P . SCHÄFER i n Z u s a m m e n a r b e i t m i t G . N E C K E R u n d U .

HIRSCHFELDER, F r a n k f u r t a . M . 1 9 9 7 , 9 - 5 2 .

484

Peter Schäfer

Wenn der unaussprechliche vierbuchstabige Name aussprechbar werden muss, dann wird er notwendigerweise mit Hilfe des Buchstabens, der Sin heißt, ausgesprochen, so dass IHSUH entsteht, der über dir sein wird, als dein Haupt und dein Herr. Gebenedeit sei Gott, der Vater unseres Herrn IHSUH Christus, der von oben her in uns tropfen lässt die Kenntnis des wahren Namens seines eingeborenen Sohnes, unseres Erretters oder, nach griechischem Sprachgebrauch, unseres Heilers. 12 Judaistik ist nicht Theologie, weder „jüdische Theologie" noch, viel weniger, die ancilla der christlichen Theologie. Dabei ist „jüdische Theologie" selbstverständlich legitim, doch gehörte sie in eine jüdisch-theologische Fakultät (analog zu den christlich-theologischen Fakultäten), ein Modell, das offenbar der Jüdischen Hochschule in Heidelberg vorschwebt (wenngleich es dort alles andere als verwirklicht ist). Judaistik in einer christlich-theologischen Fakultät wäre fatal, nicht zuletzt weil sie jüdische Studenten und Wissenschafter ausschließen würde. So unbestritten es ist, dass Judaistik und christliche Theologie durchaus auch gemeinsame Fragestellungen verfolgen (können), dass judaistische Lehrveranstaltungen Studierenden der Theologie wohl anstehen und dass im Rahmen der christlichen Theologie herausragende judaistische Forschungsleistungen erbracht werden können und erbracht wurden (gerade die Universität Tübingen ist das beste Beispiel dafür) - die Judaistik als Fach ist nicht Teil der christlichen Theologie. Deswegen ist es ein völlig falsches Signal und ein Rückschritt in die christliche Hebraistik, wenn der Fachbereich Evangelische Theologie der Universität Frankfurt es jetzt offenbar durchgesetzt hat, unter seinem Dach nicht nur den Lehrstuhl für Jüdische Religionsphilosophie, sondern auch eine Professur für Islamische Religion und dazu gleich noch die gesamte Religionswissenschaft zu versammeln. Dies mit einer angeblich neuen Offenheit der evangelischen Theologie gegenüber anderen Religionen zu begründen, ist zynisch, weil schlecht verhülltes hochschulpolitisches Eigeninteresse, und verkennt den Charakter sowohl der Theologie als auch der okkupierten Fächer. Die Judaistik kann ihren eigentlichen Ort nicht in der theologischen Fakultät haben; sie gehört, wie Zunz dies mit seinem Lehrstuhl für jüdische Geschichte und Literatur wollte, in die Philosophische oder Kulturwissenschaftliche Fakultät. Die Kollegen in Tübingen haben dies durch die interfakultäre Anbindung der Judaistik an die Evangelisch-theologische und die kulturwissenschaftliche Fakultät verwirklicht und damit aus der besonderen Tübinger Situation eine Tugend gemacht. Sie haben den religionswissenschaftlichen Lehrstuhl der theologischen Fakultät auf seine judaistische Komponente zuge-

12

JOHANNES REUCHLIN, Sämtliche

Werke, hg. v. W.-W. EHLERS, H.-G. ROLOFF, P. SCHÄFER,

Bd. 1,1, De verbo mirifico. Das wundertätige

Wort (1494), hg. v. W . - W . EHLERS, L. MÜNDT,

H.-G. ROLOFF, P. SCHÄFER unter Mitwirkung V. B. SOMMER, Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt 1996, 370f.

Judaistik und ihr Ort in der universitas litterarum heute

485

spitzt und eine Studienordnung für das Fach Judaistik entworfen, die gemeinsam von der theologischen und der kulturwissenschaftlichen Fakultät getragen wird. Auf diese Weise versichern sie sich nicht nur der Kompetenz der in beiden Fakultäten vertretenen Fächer, sie richten sich auch ausdrücklich an Studierende beider Fakultäten, die in jeder der beiden beteiligten Fakultäten eingeschrieben sein können. Ich möchte annehmen, dass mit dieser Konstruktion auch die ausdrückliche Absicht verbunden ist, jüdischen Studierenden den Zugang zum Fach Judaistik zu eröffnen, der ihnen ja bei einer ausschließlichen Anbindung an eine theologische Fakultät verwehrt wäre. Damit ist die Judaistik nun endlich auch in Tübingen heimisch geworden, und dazu noch gleich in zwei Fakultäten. Die kulturwissenschaftliche Fakultät muss diese Lösung im wahrsten Sinne des Wortes als ein Gottesgeschenk betrachten, wird sie doch Vater eines Studienganges Judaistik (wenn wir die theologische Fakultät einmal als die Mutter bezeichnen wollen), ohne selbst viel dazu tun oder geben zu müssen. So positiv diese Entwicklung mit Tübingen als dem bisher letzten Baustein in dem eindrucksvollen Gebäude der deutschen Judaistik zu würdigen ist lassen wir uns von dem Erreichten nicht täuschen. Denn es wäre naiv und blauäugig zu glauben, die Geschichte der Judaistik wäre eine reine Erfolgsgeschichte und die neu erstandene Tübinger Judaistik müsse nur an die Erfolge der anderen Institute anknüpfen, um die deutsche Judaistik zu weiteren und ungeahnten Höhenflügen zu führen. Dies ist gewiss nicht so - im Gegenteil, je mehr Abstand ich von der deutschen Judaistik gewinne, umso mehr scheint mir, dass sie sich in einer Krise befindet, einer Krise, die so gar nicht zu ihrem stürmischen Ausbau seit der Wiedervereinigung passen will. Wenn wir uns die judaistische Landschaft in Deutschland noch einmal ansehen, so finden wir im wesentlichen drei unterschiedliche Modelle vertreten. Das erste und vielleicht bisher erfolgreichste ist das von den älteren „Kerninstituten" wie Köln, Frankfurt, Berlin, jetzt auch Düsseldorf, propagierte Modell der Judaistik als eigenständiger Disziplin mit einem eigenen Institut, das sich so weit wie möglich in verschiedene Sub-Disziplinen auszufächern sucht, häufig chronologisch an Antike, Mittelalter und Neuzeit ausgerichtet. Daneben oder genauer: dagegen trat in den 90er Jahren der Anspruch der sog. Jüdischen Studien (vor allem an der Universität Potsdam), der primär hochschulpolitisch motiviert war und zu einem Generalangriff auf die etablierte Judaistik hochstilisiert wurde. Ich erinnere kurz an die wichtigstenStreitpunkte: 13 (1) Die Jüdischen Studien wollten das amerikanische Modell des „Program in Jewish/Judaic Studies" nach Deutschland übertragen, das inter- und intradisziplinär angelegt ist und, mit keinem oder meist nur einem Lehrstuhl für Judaistik ausgestattet, sein Lehrprogramm aus all den Disziplinen zusammenträgt, die judentumsbezogene Kurse anbieten können. Hier kommt natürlich 13

Ausführlich dazu in meinem Beitrag „Jewish Studies in Germany Today", oben Anm. 1.

486

Peter Schäfer

alles darauf an, dass genug judaistischer Sachverstand in den HauptDisziplinen wie Geschichte, Englisch, Deutsch, Religionswissenschaft etc. vorhanden ist, um ein solides Lehrprogramm anbieten zu können. (2) Die Jüdischen Studien richteten sich polemisch gegen die angeblich zu stark philologische Ausrichtung der etablierten judaistischen Institute, mit deren angeblich übertriebenem Insistieren auf der hebräischen Sprache und dem Studium von Texten. Die kulturelle Fülle dessen, was „Judentum" in all seinen Dimensionen und historischen Ausprägungen bedeute, sei der etablierten Judaistik dabei abhanden gekommen. (3) Nicht zuletzt wollten die Jüdischen Studien mit ihrer programmatischen Namensgebung - „Jüdische Studien" im Unterschied und Gegensatz zur angeblich (pseudo-)akademischen „Judaistik" - zumindest unterschwellig (häufig aber durchaus auch sehr politisch-oberschwellig) den Anspruch geltend machen, dass sie, und nur sie allein, das „Jüdische" in den Jüdischen Studien gepachtet hätten, dass nur sie das „wirkliche" Judentum „von innen heraus" erfassen und präsentieren könnten. Damit wurde insinuiert, dass das „authentische" Judentum eben nur in den Jüdischen Studien vermittelt würde und nicht in der textbesessenen Judaistik - die dazu auch noch nahezu ausschließlich von nicht-jüdischen Hochschullehrern vertreten wurde. Vieles von dieser Kontroverse der 90er Jahre ist Schnee von gestern und lohnt keine weitere Diskussion mehr. Die Jüdischen Studien haben inzwischen eingesehen, dass auch sie um eine solide Hebräischausbildung nicht herumkommen (die Potsdamer Kollegen holten sich ihre Lektoren und Assistenten stillschweigend vom Berliner Institut für Judaistik) - und die Judaistik hat nie bestritten (wenn auch mit unterschiedlichem Erfolg praktiziert), dass eine möglichst breite kulturwissenschaftliche Ausrichtung der Lehre nur von Vorteil sein kann. Der Streit Innenperspektive versus Außenperspektive, jüdisch versus nichtjüdisch, ist als das erkannt und akzeptiert, was er wirklich ist: die in jedem Fach, das sich mit anderen, „fremden" Kulturen beschäftigt, angelegte Spannung zwischen dem eigenen Anspruch einer solchen lebendigen und gelebten Kultur und dem wissenschaftlichen Blick von außen - ob dieser wissenschaftliche Blick nun von einem Vertreter der betreffenden Kultur stammt oder von jemandem, der ihr selbst nicht angehört (im Zweifelsfalle kann letzterer ergiebiger sein). Die Jüdischen Studien haben inzwischen lernen müssen, dass diese sehr elementare Grundtatsache sich nicht dazu eignet, politisch erfolgreich für die Jüdischen Studien instrumentalisiert zu werden. Viel wichtiger - und weiterhin relevant - ist die mit dem Modell der Jüdischen Studien angestoßene Diskussion über das Verhältnis zwischen Zentrum und Peripherie des Faches bzw. noch genauer die Disziplinarität des Faches. Die Judaistik ging und geht, wie gesagt, davon aus, dass sie eine Disziplin ist, ein eigenständiges Fach, das sich in zahlreiche Unterdisziplinen ausdifferenziert und in seiner idealen Zusammensetzung im Makon le-madda'e ha-yahadut der Hebräischen Universität oder auch in den (wenigen) voll entwickelten De-

Judaistik und ihr Ort in der universitas litterarum heute

487

partments of Jewish/Judaic Studies in den USA vertreten ist. Die Jüdischen Studien ziehen aus der Tatsache, dass solche voll oder doch wenigstens annährend breit ausgestattete Institute in Deutschland nie verwirklicht werden können, die radikale Konsequenz, sich nur noch als Dachverband zu verstehen und sich den judaistischen Sachverstand überall da zusammenzusuchen, wo sie ihn finden können. Das Problem in Deutschland ist nur, dass dieser Sachverstand - ganz im Unterschied zu vielen amerikanischen Universitäten - in den jeweiligen Fächern selten zu finden ist: wo sollen bei uns die Hochschullehrer herkommen, die, in ihren Kerndisziplinen arriviert, gleichzeitig auch noch die judaistische Kompetenz mitbringen, die es ihnen ermöglicht, ein entsprechendes Curriculum mit zu gestalten und zu tragen? Die Potsdamer Jüdischen Studien haben jetzt auch dieses Problem erkannt bzw. anerkannt und vor kurzem einen Lehrstuhl für Talmud eingerichtet - also genau die Disziplin in ihren losen Fächerverbund integriert, von der die Judaistik immer behauptet hat, dass sie zum unabdingbaren Zentrum jedes Judaistikstudiums gehören müsse. Schließt sich damit der Kreis und lösen sich alle Probleme in Wohlgefallen auf? Haben sich Judaistik und Jüdische Studien - nach dem polemischen Getöse der 90er Jahre, das ohnehin weitgehend von Futterneid bestimmt war - soweit aneinander angenähert, dass sie kaum noch voneinander zu unterscheiden sind? Nennt sich doch das Hallenser Institut abgeklärt-irenisch „Seminar für Judaistik/Jüdische Studien", und das Frankfurter Judaistische Seminar fügt seinem deutschen Titel „Seminar für Judaistik" gerne die englische Übersetzung „Institute of Jewish Studies" hinzu - völlig zurecht, denn „Jewish Studies" oder auch „Judaic Studies" ist natürlich die korrekte Übersetzung von sowohl „Judaistik" wie auch „Jüdischen Studien" (noch genauer entspricht „Jewish Studies" den „Jüdischen Studien" und „Judaic Studies" der „Judaistik": sieh da, die Amerikaner haben also dasselbe Problem wie wir!). Dies hat aber der Frankfurter Judaistik wenig genützt: hat doch das Wiesbadener Kultusministerium soeben verkündet, selbige als eigenen Studiengang aufzulösen und - mit der Professur und einer halben Assistentenstelle - in ein neu zu gründendes Zentrum für „Orientforschung" nach Marburg zu verlagern! Das Fach gilt offensichtlich als zu klein, mit zu wenigen Studenten, um als überlebensfähig eingestuft zu werden. Aus judaistisch-wissenschaftsgeschichtlicher Sicht ist dabei nicht so sehr zu beanstanden, dass die hessischen Bürokraten die Judaistik in einen größeren Fächerverbund einbinden wollen (dazu gleich mehr); schlimm ist nur, dass ihnen nichts Besseres einfiel, als die Judaistik dem „Orient" zuzuschlagen (was immer das ist) und sie damit ihrer europäischen (und amerikanischen) Dimension zu berauben. Mit der Angleichung von Judaistik und Jüdischen Studien hat sich der Kreis ganz offensichtlich noch nicht geschlossen. Im Gegenteil, die Krise hat sich zugespitzt und bedroht jetzt das Fach als solches, wie immer es sich nennt und definiert. Bevor ich abschließend darauf eingehe, müssen wir, um das Bild

488

Peter Schäfer

abzurunden, noch kurz das dritte Modell genauer betrachten. Ich nenne es, da es in Deutschland bisher nur in München praktiziert wird, das Münchener Modell. Dieses Modell ist am einfachsten und radikalsten: es beansprucht dezidiert, keine Judaistik zu sein und sein zu wollen, sondern einen Teilbereich der Judaistik, die jüdische Geschichte (noch genauer: einen Teilbereich der jüdischen Geschichte, nämlich die jüdische Geschichte der Neuzeit), im Rahmen der Disziplin Geschichte zu betreiben. Dies ist allerdings nicht ganz so bescheiden wie es klingt. Denn letztlich ist mit diesem Konzept die Botschaft verbunden, dass ein eigenständiges Fach Judaistik eine hochproblematische Angelegenheit ist, dass wir uns soliderweise besser auf die Disziplinen beschränken möchten, in denen wir ausgebildet sind und dass wir unsere judaistischen Inhalte in diesen Disziplinen zur Geltung bringen sollten. Natürlich kann dies nicht für alle Disziplinen gelten, doch bietet sich die Geschichtswissenschaft aus der Sicht der Proponenten dieses Modells in besonderer Weise als eine neue (oder eher alte) „Überdisziplin" an. Es wird Ihnen nicht verborgen geblieben sein: dieses Modell ist der späte Triumph des preußischen Ministers Ladenberg (ich zitiere ihn noch einmal: „so erachtet die Fakultät es nicht für zweckmäßig, daß die jüdische Geschichte aus dem wissenschaftlichen Verbände mit der allgemeinen Geschichte herausgerissen werde") - Judaistik ist keine Disziplin, sondern jüdische Geschichte gehört in die allgemeine Geschichte, jüdische Literatur in die Literaturwissenschaft, jüdische Religion in die Religionswissenschaft usw. 14 Nun ist auch dies wieder nicht so einfach, denn zum einen gibt es nicht mehr die Geschichtswissenschaft der Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität des 19. Jahrhunderts mit einem Lehrstuhl für Geschichte und zum anderen nennt sich das Münchener Modell stolz „Abteilung für Jüdische Geschichte und Kultur" im Historischen Seminar der Universität München und beschäftigt eine Lektorin für Hebräisch und für Jiddisch, ist also auf dem besten Wege, sich zu einem Mini-Institut für Judaistik zu entwickeln! 14

Genau dies hat auch Martin Buber 1901, sehr viel eloquenter u n d in der typischen Buberschen Diktion, in seinem Artikel „Jüdische Wissenschaft" geschrieben [M. BUBER, „Jüdische Wissenschaft I", in Die Welt 41 (1901), 2]: „Aber eine Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes wird doch wohl der historischen Wissenschaft zugehören, eine Abhandlung über die Gesetzgebung der Bibel oder des T a l m u d der allgemeinen Rechtsgeschichte, Studien

über jüdische Volkskunde

der Folkloristik,

Forschungen

über

Denkmäler altjüdischer Kunst der Archäologie und der Kunstgeschichte. U n d auch die Arbeiten über jüdische Rassen, über deren Entwicklung, über die psychophysische Eigenart, über das altjüdische Wirtschaftsleben, über die sociale Schichtung unseres Volkes, über die Evolution seiner specifischen Sitten u n d seine specifischen Sittlichkeit, über den W e g des jüdischen Geistes und der jüdischen Cultur, alle diese Arbeiten, die wir erhoffen, w e r d e n nicht jener auf die philologische M e t h o d e angewiesenen Wissenschaft, sondern der Anthropologie, der Ethnologie, der Wirtschafts-, der Social-, der Sitten-, der Culturgeschichte zugehören, Disciplinen, die andere Z w e c k e und so auch andere Mittel h a b e n " .

Judaistik und ihr Ort in der universitas litterarum

heute

489

Verwischen sich also auch hier die Unterschiede zwischen den Modellen und können wir getrost wieder zum ersten Modell, dem Institut für Judaistik zurückkehren? Ich fürchte, damit ist es nicht getan. In Frankfurt hat sich dieses Modell als nicht überlebensfähig erwiesen, weil ihm eine minimale Ausdifferenzierung verweigert wurde und es sich nicht auf wenigstens zwei oder besser noch drei Professuren gründen konnte. Denn das Vorgehen der Kultusbehörde in Wiesbaden ist ja letztlich zynisch: das Ministerium (mit Rückendeckung der Frankfurter Universität) wirft dem Institut vor, nicht genug Studenten anzuziehen, hat ihm aber - natürlich aus nachvollziehbaren finanzpolitischen Gründen - nie die Mittel und Stellen zugestanden, die es für ein einigermaßen sachgerechtes Curriculum und damit zum Überleben benötigt hätte. Und dennoch, es reicht nicht, nun alles auf fehlende Stellen zu schieben und sich die Lösung aller Probleme von einem besseren Ausbau des Faches zu erhoffen. Dieses Wunder wird nicht geschehen, nicht in Hessen und auch nicht anderswo. Das Problem des Faches, seine Krise, liegt tiefer. Sie gründet letztlich darin, dass der Minister Ladenberg recht hatte: Judaistik ist keine Disziplin mit einer eigenen Methode oder eigenen Methoden. Judaistik ist kein selbständiges Fach in demselben Sinne wie Geschichte oder Literatur oder Sprache, sondern ein Konglomerat von Fächern, das nur durch die Fokussierung auf die Juden oder das Judentum als verbindende Klammer zusammengehalten wird. Anders und positiver ausgedrückt kann man auch sagen: Judaistik ist praktizierte Interdisziplinarität, denn um dieses „Fach" sachgerecht zu betreiben, muss man eben in vielen Disziplinen mit den ihnen eigenen Methoden zu Hause sein: Geschichtswissenschaft, Literaturwissenschaft, Religionswissenschaft, Sprachwissenschaft usw. Noch positiver formuliert: Judaistik ist der Stachel im Fleische der etablierten Disziplinen, der diese ständig daran erinnert, dass es mit deren Disziplinarität auch nicht allzu weit her ist - denn was ist denn z.B. die eigenständige Methode der Geschichtswissenschaft oder der Literaturwissenschaft, ganz zu schweigen von der Religionswissenschaft? Kann man heute noch ernsthaft Geschichtswissenschaft betreiben, ohne gleichzeitig auch die Methoden der Literaturwissenschaft zu beherrschen, ohne zu wissen, wie man Texte sachgerecht analysiert, oder auch (in manchen Fällen) ohne Kenntnisse der Archäologie? Und umgekehrt gilt dies natürlich ebenso für die Literaturwissenschaft: kommt die ohne Geschichtswissenschaft aus? Wohl kaum. Judaistik in diesem Sinne verstanden könnte helfen, die Selbstgenügsamkeit und Arroganz der etablierten Disziplinen aufzubrechen, diese zur Interdisziplinarität zu zwingen und damit zu bereichern. Natürlich muss und kann dies keineswegs nur die Judaistik sein - auch andere „Fächer" wären hier denkbar - aber die Judaistik mit ihrem viele zeitliche, geographische und kulturelle Räume übergreifendem „Objekt" ist zweifellos ein ideales Modell für eine solche Disziplinen übergreifende Kooperation. Was bedeutet dies für die organisatorische Konstruktion der Judaistik in

490

Peter Schäfer

der deutschen Universität? Das selbständige judaistische Institut, das anstrebt oder auch vorgibt, eine eigene Disziplin „Judaistik" zu vertreten, war in Deutschland historisch gesehen sicher eine Notwendigkeit: um das Fach überhaupt zu etablieren und aus der Vormundschaft von christlicher Theologie und Orientalistik zu befreien. Aber dieses Konzept ist jetzt eindeutig auch an seine Grenzen gestoßen, vielleicht sogar überholt. Die Jüdischen Studien mit ihrem Versuch, ihr Objekt aus verschiedenen Disziplinen zu konstituieren, haben Richtiges erkannt; sie scheitern aber vielfach an ihrer Beliebigkeit sowie an den mangelnden Ressourcen in Deutschland und sind im übrigen nur da erfolgreich, wo sie ein starkes „judaistisches" Zentrum aufbauen, um das herum sie sich zu entfalten suchen. Der Trend geht vielleicht im Augenblick in Richtung auf das Münchener Modell, die Re-Integration des Faches in die jeweiligen etablierten Disziplinen. In Deutschland gilt dies bisher, wie gesagt, nur für München, aber derselbe Trend, sehr viel stärker noch, lässt sich jetzt für Israel ausmachen: Die Universität Tel Aviv ist dabei, ihre judaistischen Disziplinen aufzulösen und in die allgemeinen Fächer zu überführen (also jüdische Geschichte in die allgemeine Geschichte, jüdische Literatur in die allgemeine Literaturwissenschaft usw., ganz im Sinne des Ministers Ladenberg). Die Hebräische Universität Jerusalem hält noch an ihrem Makon le-Madda'e ha-Yahadut fest, aber viele Jerusalemer Kollegen beklagen schon lange die fatale Isolation der dort vertretenen „jüdischen" Disziplinen von den Mutterdisziplinen, die zu ausufernder Spezialisierung und fruchtloser Selbstbespiegelung geführt hat. Um diesem Dilemma zu entkommen, hat sie vor einigen Jahren ein „Interdisciplinary Research Center in Jewish Studies" mit dem schönen Namen Scholien gegründet, das helfen soll, diese Kluft zu überwinden und die Kollegen durch die Etablierung und großzügige finanzielle Förderung disziplinübergreifender Forschungsprojekte zur Zusammenarbeit anzuregen bzw. genauer: zu zwingen. Ich bin sehr skeptisch, dass die konsequente Rückführung der Judaistik in die Mutterdisziplinen für Deutschland der richtige Weg ist - ganz besonders nicht die Rückführung in die allmächtige Disziplin der Geschichte. Was soll denn der einsame Judaist/die einsame Judaistin dort bewirken, bei der geballten Ubermacht der versammelten und überaus selbstbewussten Fachkompetenz? Er oder sie wird den Historikern kaum die Grenzen dieser ihrer Fachkompetenz bewusst machen und sich nur behaupten können, wenn er/sie sich - wie in München - den Schutzraum der eigenen „Abteilung" mit dem Bollwerk des Hebräischen aufbaut. Ohne einen irgendwie institutionell abgesicherten judaistischen Kern - sei es Institut, sei es Abteilung - geht es nicht. Und dieser Kern sollte auch nicht ein eher zufälliger oder modischer Aspekt des weiten Feldes der Judaistik sein (wie z.B. die moderne jüdische Geschichte), sondern einen möglichst zentralen Bereich des Judentums abdecken. Richtig an all diesen Bestrebungen - sei es der Jüdischen Studien, sei es der Re-Integration in eine Mutterdisziplin - ist die Erkenntnis, dass die Judaistik

Judaistik und ihr Ort in der universitas litterarum heute

491

sich als selbständige Disziplin nicht behaupten kann und vielleicht auch nicht sollte, dass sie möglicherweise nur in einem größeren Verbund überlebensfähig ist. Nur, welcher kann das sein? Wir deutschen Judaisten haben diese Frage lange vor uns hergeschoben, weil es die ideale Uber-Disziplin nicht gibt, die alle Bereiche der Judaistik abdeckt (und wir haben nicht zuletzt auch deswegen immer auf unserer Eigenständigkeit beharrt). Sicher ist, dass es keine Regionalwissenschaft sein kann, denn das Judentum lässt sich am allerwenigsten auf eine Region begrenzen (und deswegen ist auch die Zuordnung zu den Orientwissenschaften ausgeschlossen). Die Reduktion auf Geschichte wäre ebenfalls fatal (dazu habe ich genug gesagt). Das geringste „Übel" ist vielleicht immer noch die Religionswissenschaft, wohlgemerkt eine säkulare Religionswissenschaft, nicht die christliche Theologie. Zwar gilt auch hier, dass das Judentum sich nicht auf die jüdische Religion beschränkt und die Judaistik entsprechend nicht auf die Religionswissenschaft, aber gleichwohl lässt sich nicht leugnen, dass die Religion bis weit in die Neuzeit hinein der Aspekt des Judentums ist, der dieses wesentlich bestimmt, wenn nicht konstituiert. Dies scheint, wenn ich es richtig verstehe, auch der Weg zu sein, der jetzt in Tübingen beschritten werden soll (ob aufgrund umsichtiger hochschulpolitischer Planung oder von lokalen Gegebenheiten, die sich glücklich gefügt haben, weiss ich nicht und ist letztlich auch irrelevant). Jedenfalls könnte dies eine Chance sein, einen zentralen Kern des Faches mit einer möglichst breiten Ausfächerung in die Geschichte, Literatur und Kultur des Judentums zu verbinden. Zum Schluss noch ein (vor allem, aber keineswegs nur auf Tübingen bezogener) kritischer Hinweis oder eine Warnung. Die neuen B.A.-Studiengänge sind ideale Instrumente, die multidisziplinäre Vernetzung von Fächern zu nutzen und in breit gefächerte Lehrveranstaltungen umzusetzen. Auch auf die Gefahr hin, dass ich mich bei manchen meiner Leser unbeliebt mache, die weiterhin am Ideal der deutschen Universität mit ihrem streng fachbezogenen Magisterstudiengang festhalten wollen: ich bin schon lange für die Einführung von B.A.-Studiengängen, gerade für Fächer wie der Judaistik, gewesen - nicht zuletzt weil sie uns davor bewahren, fortlaufend Judaisten und Judaistinren zu produzieren, die wir dann allzu oft in die Arbeitslosigkeit entlassen müssen. Ich verstehe auch, dass ein von der kulturwissenschaftlichen Fakultät (mit)getragener B.A.-Studiengang Judaistik dem Selbstverständnis dieser Fakultät Rechnung tragen will und muss. Aber lassen wir uns nicht täuschen: auch die Kulturwissenschaft mit ihrem eher diffusen Fachverständnis eignet sich nicht zu der neuen Uber-Disziplin, nach der wir Judaisten suchen und in die wir offenbar so gerne aufgehen möchten.

INDEX The orthography of the names comprised in this index has not been unified. The different forms of the same name (as far as they have been recognized as such) have been listed as they appear in the articles with cross references to the English form. Names of divinities, mythological figures, angels and daemons have not been listed. Modern names have been listed only when discussed in the text or in the footnotes, i.e. the names appearing in bibliographical entries have been omitted.

Aba bar Kahana, Rabbi see Kahana, Rabbi Abad-Amnu 132, 133 Abba bar Kahana, Rabbi 316 Abba Matoes 151 Abba Poemen 151 Abbahu, Rabbi 88 Abdul Chamid II, Sultan 471 Abel 271

Abba

bar

Aharon 26, 451 Ahasuerus 50 Aher, see Elishah ben Abuya Ahitophel 413 Ahrend, Moshe Μ. 395, 397 Aidesios 211 Akiva, Rabbi see Aqiba, Rabbi Alessandro Gianneo see Ianneus

Alexander

Abimelech 320, 321, 323 Abraham 22, 23, 26, 76, 270, 271, 272, 319, 320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328

Alexander der Große see Alexander the Great

Abraham ben David, Rabbi 363, 373 Abraham ben Meir ibn Ezra 67, 353, 391,

Alexander, son of Herod 103 Alexandra I I 1 0 3

392, 432 Absalom 413 Abulafia, Abraham 437, 438, 439, 440, 441, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447 Accius 248 Achad Haam 466, 468, 469, 470, 471, 472, 473 Acilius Cleobulus 155 Adam 87, 88, 89, 140, 141, 142, 143, 303, 436, 464 Addan 304 Aelius Aristides 280 Agrippa II103, 118, 197 Agrippas 209 Agustin see Augustine Ahab 140

Alexander the Great 29, 30, 338 Alexander Ianneus 1 2 1 , 1 2 2 , 1 2 5

Alföldy, Geza 153 Algasia 300 Aline 167 Alkalai, Judah 466 Allier, Raoul 258 Alston, Richard 169 Alupis 209 Amat-Isi 132, 133 Amaziah 34, 35, 48 Ambrose 249, 254 Amon 393 Amru 132 Ananus, son of Ananus 113, 116, 118 Andreas 168 Aniana, Rabbi 209, 210 Anina the Little 210

494

Index

Annan 304 Annius Viterbiensis, Johannes 262 Antioco IV see Antiochus IV Antioco VII see Antiochus VII Antiochus IV 1 2 2 , 1 2 3

Azulay, Chaim David Joseph 396 Babatha, daughter of Simeon 129,180 Bacchelli, F. 441

Antiochus V I I 1 2 1 , 1 2 6

Bachja ben Ascher see Bachyah ben Asher Bachyah ben Asher 354

Antipater 103, 111

Bagnall, Roger 170

Antoninus see Caracalla Antoninus Pius 155,156

Balaam 45, 46, 103 Balfour, A.J. 471, 472

Antoninus of Piacenza 160 Antoninus von Piacenza see Antoninus of Piacenza Antonius Saturninus, L. 163 Apollonios 1 6 7 , 1 6 8 , 1 7 0 Aqiba, Rabbi 1, 60, 61, 62, 64, 69, 71, 86, 92,

Bamberger, S. 391 Bar Aquiba 302,

208, 241, 304, 338, 464 Aqibah, Rabbi see Aqiba, Rabbi Aqiva, Rabbi see Aqiba, Rabbi Aquiba, Rabbi see Aqiba, Rabbi Aquila 305

Bar Quraya, Rabbi 213

Arbaeus Africanus 155 Arcadius 216 Archelaus Philopatris 103 Argeius 218

Bede 307

Aristobulo see Aristobulus Aristobulus 122 Aristobulus, philosopher 128 Aristotle 11 Arnobius 280 Arnould, C. 165 Artapanus 21 Artaxerxes 43 Artemion 168 Ashkenazi, Zvi 454 Athaliah 37 Athanasius 30 Athenagoras 164 Atio 210, 224 Ation 210 Aufidius Priscus 155 Augustine 243, 244, 280, 281, 282, 291, 300, 303, Augustus 153, 180, 245 Aurelianus 155 Averroes 434, 435 Avi-Yonah, M. 176, 306 Avigad, N. 197, 209 Awat-Alahi 132, 133 Ayllon, Solomon ben Jacob 454, 455

Bar-Asher, M. 184 Bar Kochba see Bar Kokhba Bar Kokba see Bar Kokhba Bar Kokhba 78, 91, 92 181,186, 449, 464 Bastomsky, S.J. 258 Bauer, Walter 64 Baumgarten, Albert 55 Beda see Bede Beit-Arie, Malachi 399 Beithos see Boethus Bekhor Shor, Josef see Bekor Shor, Joseph Bekor Shor, Joseph 353, 392, 404 Belkin, Samuel 98, 9 9 , 1 0 0 Ben Azzai 64 Ben Sira 141, 142 Ben Zoma 64 Benjamin 2 3 , 1 9 4 Benjamin son of Isaac 216 Benbenisti, Emmanuel 451 Beor 46 Berekhiah, Rabbi 270 Berenice 103,197 Berliner, Abraham 397 Berosus 262 Bigthana 50 Bialik, Chaim Nachman 468, 471 Birnbaum, Nathan 468 Black, M. 64 Blenkinsopp, J. 41 Bloch, Haim 455, 456 Bloch, Josef Samuel 468 Block, Richard A. 272 Boccaccini, Gabriele 53, 54, 56 Boethus 351 Bolingbroke, Henry St. John 258 Bömberg, Daniel 450

495

Index Börner-Klein, Dagmar 387 Boswell, John 263 Bowersock, Glen 158 Boyarin, Daniel 7, 8 Bradley, Keith 262, 263 Bregman, Μ. 264 Brilliant, Richard 285 Buber, Martin 488 Busi, G. 441 Buxtorf, Johannes 304

Dawson, David 7, 8 Deborah, Rebekkah's nurse 15, 16, 28 De Castro, Abraham 465 De Rossi, Giovanni Bernardo 396 Del Medigo, Eliyahu 442, 443 Delilah 103 Demetrio I see Demetrius I Demetrio Falereo see Demetrius Phalereus Demetrius, Jewish-Hellenistic Author 23, 24

Cather, Willa 263

Demetrius 1121 Demetrius Phalereus 128 Demetrius the Cynic 281 Demosthenes 332 Derrida, Jacques 8 Didius Iulianus 253 Dimi, Rabbi 208 Dio Cassius 167,168, 254 Diocletian 155

Catullus 111 Cavignaux, A. 10

Diodoro see Diodorus Siculus Diodorus Siculus 1 2 2 , 1 2 8

Cestius Gallus 112,118 Chamberlain, Lord Joseph 471 Chapman, S.B. 37

Dionysius of Halicarnassus 110 Doeg 413 Domitian 163

Charles 146,151 Chintila 307 Cherlow, Y. 384 Childs, Brevard 39

Domna 210 Domnika 210 Doris 103

Cain 271 Caligula, Gaius 111, 244 Campanini, Saverio XI, 432 Canaan 257, 262, 263, 264, 265 Caracalla 1 5 6 , 1 6 9 , 1 7 1 , 173,177, 214, 464 Caro, Joseph 371, 375, 377, 396 Cassius Dio see Dio Cassius

Chisda, Rabbi see Hisda, Rabbi Chijjah, Rabbi see Hiyya, Rabbi Cicero 189, 248, 280 Ciceron see Cicero Clarysse, Willy 1 6 9 , 1 7 0 Clemens 155, 169 Clement VII, Pope 465 Clement of Alexandria 22, 291, 434 Cohen, Naomi 17 Constantine 216, 217

Dreyfus, Alfred 469 Drower, E.S. 76 Drusilla 103 Drusus153 Duckworth, G.E. 277, 278 Dühring, Eugen 469 Dunash ben Labrat 406 Eber 26 Ecateo di Abdera see Hecateus of Abdera Eco, Umberto 3, 4, 8

Constantius 155, 216 Copenhaver, Brian 439 Cotton, Hannah 165

Edwards, F. 292, 293 Ε fron, Joshua 1 0 1 , 1 0 2

Cromwell, Oliver 466 Dal Castellazzo, Moses 465

Elagabalus 173, 177 Elbaum, Y. 324, 325 Eleazar, High Priest 125

Daniel 57, 58, 59, 284

Eleazar, Rabbi 234, 324, 326, 348

Danby, Herbert 179

Eleazar ben R. Simon, Rabbi 347 Eleazar son of Esther, Rabbi 212

David 32, 35, 37, 38, 47, 51, 60, 61, 65, 284, 343, 348, 365, 406, 413, 451, 464 Davidowicz, Klaus S. XIV

Egidio da Viterbo see Gilles of Viterbo

Eleazar of Metz, Rabbi 361 Eleazar von Metz, Rabbi see Eleazar of

496

Index

Metz, Rabbi Elia see Eliah Eliah 348, 437 Eliav, Y. 165 Eliezer of Beaugency 397 Elijah see Eliah Eliodoro see Heliodorus Elishah ben Abuya 64, 65, 66, 69, 317 Elisa ben Abuya see Elishah ben Abuya Enoch 58, 63, 67, 70,142, 436 Epifanio de Salamina see Epiphanius of Salamis

Galatinus, Petrus 429, 436, 444 Galerius Caesar 155 Galiano, Emilio F. 300 Gallus 198 Gamaliel 210 Gamaliel, Rabban 198, 208, 233, 280 Gamaliel son of R. Eliezer, Rabban 210 Gamaliel son of Nehemiah, Rabbi 209, 224 Gamaliel II, Rabban 215, 217, 219 Gamaliel III, Rabban 225 Gamaliel V, Patriarch 218, 219 Gamaliel IV, Rabban 217

Epiphanius of Salamis 215, 217, 304 Eppenstein, Simon 397 Er 97

Gamaliel VI, Patriarch 219 Gamliel, Rabban see Gamaliel, Rabban

Eudaimonis 1 6 7 , 1 6 8 , 1 6 9 , 1 7 0 Eurobindo 305

Garcia Martinez, F. 321 Garibaldi, Giuseppe 466

Eusebius, head of the synagogue 211 Eusebius of Caesarea 181, 434 Eva see Eve

Geiger, Abraham 396

Eve 8 7 , 1 0 3 , 1 4 0 , 141, 142, 143, 303 Ezekiel 90 Ezekiel, Jewish-Hellenistic Author 21 Ezra 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 47 Fabbri, Orazio 401, 403 Farmer, Stephen Alan 439 Feldman, L.H. 99 Filone see Philo Firth, Raymond 269 Flavio Giuseppe see Josephus Flavius Agrippa, M. 155 Flavius Maximus, T. 155 Flavius Mithridates 432, 437, 438, 440, 441, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447 Flavius Silva, L. 163 Flusser, David 76 Fontela, Carlos Alonso 316 Foucault, Michel 8 Fraenkel, Jonah 8 Frei, Peter 41 Frey, J.-B. 202 Friedman, Sh. 233 Friedmann, A. 453 Froben, Johannes 450 Fudeman, Kirsten 395 Fuks, G. 168 Fulvia Plautilla 160

Gans, Eduard 476

Gero, S. 261 Gersom ben Yehudah see Gershom ben Judah (Me'or ha-golah) Gershom ben Judah (Me or ha-golah) 411, 420, 421 Gessi, Domenico 401 Giasone di Cirene see Jason of Cyrene Gikatilla, Joseph 438 Gilles of Viterbo 436, 438 Giorgio, Francesco 429, 436, 437, 438 Giovanni Ircano I see John Hyrcanus I Giuda Maccabeo see Judah Maccabeus Giulio Paride see Julius Paris Giustiniani, Marco Antonio 450 Giustino see Justin Glaphyra 103 Goldberg, Arnold 2, 479, 480 Goldschmidt, L. 389 Goldstein, Baruch 383 Goldziher, I. 261 Goodman, Martin 105 Goodenough, Erwin R. 205, 206, 282, 283 Gordon, David 468 Gordon, J.L. 467 Gottschalk, Michael 451, 453, 454 Graetz, Heinrich 29, 41 Gregorio IX see Gregorius IX, Pope Gregorius IX, Pope 299 Grossfeld, Β. 3, 386 Grossman, Avraham 395, 403, 404, 405, 407, 408

497

Index Grüll, Tibor 161

Hillel son of R. Levi, Rabbi 210

Gruenwald, Ithamar 292

Hillel 97, 198, 234, 302

Grünwald, J.J. 455

Hillel II 217

Guinan, Ann K. 259, 260

Hiob see Job

Gutman, Joshua 107

Hircanus II 122 Hirsch, Baron Maurice 470

Hachlili, R. 284

Hirschman, H. 3 1 0 , 3 1 1

Hadas-Lebel, Mireille 248 Hadrian 81, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 165,171

Hisda, Rabbi 347 Hiyya, Rabbi 446

Hagar 103, 320, 321, 323 Halaf-Alahi 132,133 Halevi, Elimelech E. 104

Hiyya bar Abba, Rabbi 216 Hochman, Leah 139

Ha-Levi, Judah 463 Hananiah, son of Gamaliel II 219

Hody, H. 300 Hoffman, Lawrence 292 Hollender, Elisabeth 388

Ham 257, 258, 259, 260, 261, 262, 263, 264,

Hölscher, G. 19, 20, 21

265 Hanani 50

Homer 11, 12, 99, 218, 279, 283, 285

Hanfmann, George M.A. 289 Hanina, Rabbi see Aniana, Rabbi Hanina ben Dosa, Rabbi 314 Hanina ben Hama see Aniana Hannah, Darrel D. 61 Hawaru 133

Hoogstraten, Jakob 429, 431 Horace 252 Horovitz, H.S. 388 Horsfall, Nicholas 268 Huna, Rav 213, 214, 325, 346

Hawaru, son of Hawatu 133 Hawatu 133 Haynes, S. 259 Hayward, R. 68

Ibn Adret, Solomon 255, 446

Hecataeus of Abdera 98, 124, 128 Heine, Heinrich 476 Heinemann, Isaac 13, 102 Heliodorus 123 Heredia, Paulus de 444 Hermas 151 Herod 1 0 3 , 1 5 3 , 1 5 4 , 1 6 0 , 1 8 0 , 205, 273 Herod Agrippa 205 Herod Antipas 103 Herodes see Herod Herodias 103 Herr, M.D. 55 Herzl, Theodor 466, 468, 469, 470, 471, 472, 473 Hesberg, Henner von 165 Hesiod 258, 279 Hess, Moses 466 Hezekiah 38 Hieronymus XVI, 33, 249, 300, 301, 302, 303, 434, 435 Hilarius 431 Hilel see Hillel

Honorius 216

Ibn Ezra, Abraham see Abraham ben Me'ir ibn Ezra Ibn Janah, Jonah 260 Ibn Malka, Judah 440 Idel, Moshe 70, 438 Idit, Rav 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 Ilan, Tal 105,106 Innocent VIII, Pope 436 Iosephus see Josephus Ircano II see Hircanus II Isaac 18, 103, 140, 320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325,326,327, 328,464 Isaak see Isaac Isaiah 31, 49 Ishmael 83, 92, 320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328 Ishmael ben Elisha, Rabbi 1, 2, 83, 238, 239, 241 Ismael see Ishmael Isidore 307 Isidoro see Isidore Ismael, Rabbi Rabbi

see

Ishmael

Isseries, Moshe ben Israel 375 Iulia Augusta 159

ben

Elisha,

498

Index

Iunius Maximus, Μ. 156 Jack the Ripper 3 Jacob 2 6 , 1 0 0 , 1 7 8 , 262, Jacob ben Asher 354, 371, 375 Jacob of Caesarea 211 Jacobs, Martin 276 Jacobson, Η. 21 Jakob ben Ascher see Jacob ben Asher Jannai, Rabbi 255 Japhet 18, 257, 258 Japhet, Sarah 398 Jason 31 Jason of Cyrene 123 Jastrow, Marcus 130, 324 Jehoschua ben Chananja see Joshua ben Hananiah Jehoshaphat 50 Jehu 50 Jehudah Arie Leib, Rav see Judah Arie Leib, Rav Jehuda ben Tabbaj, Rabbi see Judah ben Tabbay, Rabbi Jeremiah 39, 49, 467 Jeronimo see Hieronymus Jerome see Hieronymus Jeshua 40, 43, 47 Jesua ha-Nosri see Jesus Jesus 57, 58, 62, 140, 150, 292, 305, 351, 433, 441, 444, 450, 452, 464 Jesus, son of Gamala 113 Jethro 193 Jezebel 50, 103 Jimenez Bedman, F. 184 Jirmejah, Rabbi see Yirmeyah, Rabbi Jischmael, Rabbi see Ishmael, Rabbi Job 140, 326, 355 Jobab 193 Jochanan ben Torta see Yohanan ben Torta Jochanan ben Zakkai see Yohanan ben Zakkai Johanan, Rabbi 97 John Chrysostom 291 John of Gischala 111, 115,116 John Hyrcanus 1 1 0 3 , 1 2 6 , 1 2 7 John Hyrcanus II Jonathan, Rabbi 210 Jonathan Maccabaeus 126 Jose, Rabbi see Yoseh, Rabbi

Jose ben R. Bun, Rabbi see Yoseh ben R. Bun, Rabbi Jose ben Halafta see Yose ben Halafta Josef Bekor Schor see Bekor Shor, Joseph Joseph 21, 23,146, 325, 326 Joseph, councilor of the pariarch 215 Joseph, brother of David Reuveni 465 Josephus 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 121, 122, 123, 153, 179, 180, 181, 263, 273, 329, 342, 345, 437 Joshua ben Hananiah 91, 92, 464 Joshua ben Levi, Rabbi 210, 212 Joshua son of R. Hillel, Rabbi 209 Josiah 34, 35, 36, 38, 39 Judä see Judah Judä ben Barzilay, Rabbi see Judah ben Barzilay, Rabbi Juda el Principe see Judah ha-Nasi, Rabbi Judah 304 Judah Arie Leib (Low), Rav 454, 455 Judah ben Barzilay, Rabbi 307 Judah ben Tabbay, Rabbi 343, 344 Judah ha-Nasi, Rabbi 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 181, 197, 198, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 225, 253, 288, 305, 464 Judah I see Judah ha-Nasi, Rabbi Judah II, Patriarch 215, 216 Judah III, Patriarch 215 Judah, son of R. Gamaliel, Rabbi 210, 224 Judah Loew of Prague 265 Judah Maccabaeus 122, 126, 127 Judah Nesiah see Judah II, Patriarch Judan son of R. Miasha 210 Judanes son of Elazar 180 Julian 217 Julius Paris 127 Julius III, Pope 447 Justin 1 2 1 , 1 2 8 Justin Martyr 67, 70 Justinian 1279, 305, 306, 308, 449 Justiniano I see Justinian Justus 201, 203, 222 Juvenal 168

Index

499

Kahle, Paul E. 306 Kalischer, Zwi Hirsch 466 Kamnu 132

Levi ben Gerschom see Levi ben Gershom Levi ben Gershom 355, 432

Kara, Josef ben Sim'on see Kara, Joseph ben Simon

Levi ben Sisi 216 Levine, L.I. 294 Levy, J. 324

Kara, Joseph ben Simon 395, 396, 397, 398, 400, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409, 411, 413, 420, 422, 423 Karo, Josef see Caro, Joseph Karteria 201 Kasztner, R. 380 Kerenyi, Karl 287, 289, 291 Klein, S. 179 Kohen (Katz), Isaac 454 Kohen (Katz), Simon 454 Koltun-Fromm, N. 261 Kornemann, E. 167 Kortus, Michael 169 Kosmala, Hans 73 Kraft, Robert A. 64 Krauss, Samuel 247, 248 Krodel, Gerhard 64 Kugel, James 25, 270 Kuhn, K.G. 388 Kuhnen, H.P. 165 Kundert, L. 325 Künel, Bianca 284 Kyris Leontis 283, 285 Laban 100 Lactantius 280, 291 Lada Richards, I. 287 Ladenberg, Adalbert von 476, 488, 489, 490 Lauterbach, J.Z. 387 Lazar, Rabbi 213 La'zer b. R. Schim'on, Rabbi see Eleazar ben R. Simon, Rabbi Lea see Leah Leah 100 Leazar, Rabbi see Eleazar, Rabbi Leo X, Pope 450 Leonhardt, C. 270 Leontios 201 Leontis see Kyris Leontis Lerner, M. 384 Lesbonax of Mytilene 279 Lesley, Michael 29 Levi 147 Levi, Rabbi 316, 322, 323

Levi ben Gerson see Levi ben Gershom

Lewi, Rabbi see Levi, Rabbi Libanius 217, 218, 274, 279, 280 Liebes, Yehuda 65 Lieberman, S. 10, 204, 205, 206, 217 Lifshitz, B. 197 Lilit see Lilith Lilith 303 Littmann, Martin 397 Livingstone, Alasdair 10, 13 Lorenzo de Medici (il Magnifico) 429 Low, Jehudah Arie see Judah Arie Leib Lucilius Bassus, Sextus 163 Lucian 274, 278, 279, 281 Lueger, Karl 469 Lull, Raymond 435 Luria, Salomon ben Yehiel 255 Luther, Martin 431 Macuch, R. 76 Maier, Johann 479, 480 Maimonides 350, 358, 360, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 370, 371, 372, 373, 432, 434, 437, 441, 443, 445 Manasse ben Israel 465 Maqimu 1 3 2 , 1 3 3 Marcellus Empiricus 219 Mariamme 103 Marinus, Marcus 451 Martin de Leon, Saint 307 Martone, Corrado 139 Marucchi, Chiara XI Mary 444 Maximianus 155 Maximus Lucilianus 164 Maybaum, Sigmund 478 Mazar, B. 197, 204, 205 M e i r , Rabbi see Meir, Rabbi Meir, Rabbi 232, 246, 251, 253, 275, 317 Menachem ben Chelbo 397 Menachem ben Saruq 403, 406 Mendelssohn, Moses 466 Merrony, M.W. 283, 285 Mersenne, Marin 431

500

Index

Miriam 209 Mithridates, see Flavius Mithridates Modrzejewski, Joseph M. 168 Moises see Moses Molko, Solomon 465 Montesinus 465 Mordechai 50, 365 Mordechaj see Mordechai Morrison, Toni 263 Mose see Moses Mose see Moses Mose ben Israel Isserles see Isseries, Mose ben Israel Mose ben Jakob von Coucy see Moses ben Jacob of Coucy Mose ben Majmon see Maimonides Mose ben Nachman see Moshe ben Nahman Moser, Moses 476

Nerva 157, 159 Neusner, Jacob 237, 316 Niger 173 Nimrod 261 Noah 18, 257, 258, 259, 260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 284, 464 Nöldeke, Theodor 76 Nordau, Max 471 Novatian 280, 291 Novius 276 Obadiah of Bertinoro XI, 363 Obadiah Sforno see Sforno, Obadiah Obadja von Bertinoro see Obadiah

Origen 214, 431, 434 Ovid 244, 248

Moses 5, 21, 26, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 66, 67, 68, 87, 93, 95, 106, 123, 124, 125, 1 2 7 , 1 2 8 , 1 4 9 , 271, 299, 304, 435, 451 Moshe ben Isaac Hillel XI Moshe ben Israel Isserles see Isserles,

Pablo see Paul Paschasius Radbertus 307 Passienianus 155

Moshe ben Israel Moshe ben Jacob of Coucy 361 Moshe ben Nachman 213, 353 Most, Glenn 12

Perez Fernandez, Miguel 309 Pheroras 103, 111

Motos Lopez, Maria del Carmen 309 Moyses see Moses Müller, Johann Georg 99, 102 Muraoka, Τ. 183 Naboth 50 Nachmanides, see Moshe ben Nachman Nahman, Rav 66 Nahman ben Samuel ben Nahman, Rabbi 413 Nahmanides see Moshe ben Nachman Nathan, Rabbi 83, 246, 249 Nathan of Gaza 454 Natronai Gaon 372 Natronaj Gaon see Natronai Gaon Nehemiah 45, 47, 50, 51 Nehemiah, Rabbi 234 Nepotianus 127 Nepoziano see Nepotianus Nero 115, 279, 281

of

Bertinoro Onan 97

Patterson, Orlando 262, 263, 264, 265 Paul 1 4 0 , 1 4 2 , 1 4 3 , 250, 302, 433 Pentekaka 274

Philo 10, 12, 14, 17, 18, 21, 23, 24, 95, 97, 98, 104, 105, 106, 107, 122, 124, 127, 248, 249, 254, 278, 326, 342 Pico della Mirandola, Giovanni 429, 430, 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439, 440, 441, 442, 443, 445, 446, 447 Pilatus, Pontius 153 Pinchas 338, 344 Pinchas ben Yair, Rabbi 174 Pinehas, Rabbi 413 Pines, Diego see Molko, Solomon Pinsker, Leon 466 Piovanelli, Perluigi 53, 54, 56, 70 Plato 11 Plinius der Altere see Pliny the Elder Plinius der Jüngere see Pliny the Younger Pliny the Elder 156,180, 181 Pliny the Younger (Plinius der Jüngere) 154, 274 Plutarch 280 Polibio see Polybius Polybius 122, 123, 128, 168

501

Index Pompeius Trogus 121, 128 Pompeo see Pompey the Great Pompeo Trogo see Pompeius Trogus Pompey the Great 29, 30, 122 Pomponius 276 Porfirio see Porphyrius Porphyrius 128 Potiphar 21, 103, 146 Poznanski, Samuel 397, 404, 405 Pseudo-Cyprianus see Novatian Pseudo-Philo 326 Probus 155 Ptolemaeus II Philadelphus 128 Pylades 278 Pythagoras 106 Qimhi, David 432 Raba see Rava Räbano Mauro see Rabanus Maurus Rabanus Maurus 307 Rabbenu Tarn 392 Rabbi see Judah ha-Nasi, Rabbi Rab'el II 1 3 1 , 1 3 2 , 1 3 3 Rabello, A.M. 306 Rabin, I. 383 Rachel 100 Ragacs, Ursula XIV Rahab 103 Rajak, T. 206, 207, 208 Raschi see Rashi Rashi 131, 340, 352, 353, 391, 392, 395, 396, 397, 398, 404, 411, 432, 463 Rav 258, 260, 262, 264 Rava 213, 361 Rawnitzky, Y.H. 469 Razis 125 Rebekkah 15, 28 Resh Laqish 277 Re'ubheni, David see Reuveni, David Reuchlin, Johannes 429, 432, 435, 436, 437, 438, 449, 483 Reuveni, David 465 Richler, Benjamin 395, 396 Rodriguez Sotomolinos, Juan 299 Romm, Deborah 452 Rorty, Richard 8 Rosenfeld, B.Z. 210 Rosso Ubigli, Liliana 139

Rothschild, Lord Edmond James 471 Rottzoll, D.U. 392 Rowlandson, J. 169 Rudolph, K. 76 Rustow, Marina 139 Saadiah Gaon 260, 395 Sa'adiah Ga'on see Saadiah Gaon Säenz-Badillos, A. 183 Sacchi, Paolo 145, 146, 147 Sagradini, Enrica XI Salamon, Rabi see Rashi Salome, sister of Herod 103 Salome-Alexandra 103, 106 Salomo ben Isaak see Rashi Salomon see Solomon Salvianus 280 Sammai see Shammai Samson 467 Samuel, Rabbi 258, 260, 261 Samuel ben Meir 353, 395, 397, 398 Sanballat 50, 51 Sappho 201 Sarah 103, 248 Saul 343, 348, 365 Schäfer, Peter IX Schallt, A. 179 Schim'on ben Jochaj, Rabbi see Simon ben Yochay, Rabbi Scholem, Gershom 63, 438, 439, 440, 483 Schreckenberg, H. 306 Schubert, Kurt IX, 475 Schubert, Ursula XIII Schürer, E. 176 Schwab, M. 316 Schwabe, M. 197 Schwartz, Seth 282, 284 Segal, Alan 61, 62, 63, 65, 69, 70 Selomoh ha-Bavli see Solomon ha-Bavli Sem see Shem Semu'el ben Me'ir see Samuel ben Meir Senesi, Giovanni Battista 400, 402 Septimius Severus 156, 159, 164, 165, 171, 173 Severus 254 Sforno, Obadiah 262 Shabbetai Zevi 454, 466 Shaharu 133 Shammai 97, 234

502

Index

Sharf, A. 306 Shelomo b. Adret see Ibn Adret, Solomon Shelomo ben Yehiel Luria see Luria, Salomon ben Yehiel Shem 18, 257, 464 Shemesh, Aharon 54, 56 Sherira Ga'on, Rav 177 Shim'on 210 Shimon ben Laqish, Rabbi 274 Sikara, Abba 464 Simeon 146 Simeon 302 Simeon son of Gamaliel see Simon ben Gamaliel, Rabban Simeon, father of Babatha 129, 146 Simeone see Simeon, father of Babatha Simeon ben Shatah, Rabbi 101, 338 Simeon Maccabaeus 126 Simon bar Giora 111, 115 Simon ben Gamaliel, Rabban 187, 217, 234 Simon ben Eleazar, Rabbi 229 Simon ben Schetach, Rabbi see Simeon ben Shatah, Rabbi Simon ben Yochay 346 Simone see Simeon Maccabeus Simson see Samson Sirat, Colette 399 Sixtus IV, Pope 432 Sixtus of Siena 431 Smolenskin, Perez 467, 468 Sofer, Moses (Hatam) 456 Sokoloff, M. 130, 316 Solomon 32, 35, 50, 314, 436, 451 Solomon ben Melek 262 Solomon ha-Bavli 420, 421 Sperber, A. 386 Spiegel, Y.Sh. 455 Steinsalz, Adin 455

Ta-Shema, Israel 420 Tacito see Tacitus Tacitus 122, 123, 128 Taimu 133 Talgam, R. 286, 288 Tarn, see Rabbenu Tam Tarfon, Rabbi 237 Taubes, Jacob 479, 480 Templer, Bill 243 Teresh 50 Tertullian 245, 248, 249, 276, 280 Thackeray, H.St.J. 1 1 4 , 1 1 5 Theodora 279 Theodotion 33 Theophilus of Antioch 262 Thornton, Claus-Jürgen X Thucydides 110 Tiberius 254 Titus 111, 115, 116, 162,163 Tobiah 45 Tolemeo II Filedelfo see Ptolemaeus Philadelphus Touitou, E. 397, 398 Traian 159 Ulrich, Eugene 30 Ulrichsen, J.H. 145 Ulpian 171, 176 Urbach, E.E. 205, 206, 404 Ussishkin, M.M. 471 Valens 216 Valentinian 216 Valerio Massimo see Valerius Maximus Valerius Maximus 127,128 Van der Horst, P.W. 199, 201 Van der Toorn, Κ. 257 Varro 124,128

Stemberger, Günter IX, XIII, XIV, XV, XVI, XVII, 1, 7, 29, 53, 77, 110, 129, 183, 227, 306, 309, 324, 475 Stern, Menahem 123 Strabo 9 8 , 1 2 3 , 1 2 5 , 126, 127, 128 Strabone see Strabo Strack, Hermann L. XV, XVI, 309 Sulla 276

Varrone see Varro

Summenhart, Konrad 431, 432 Suter, David 63 Syme, Ronald 163

Wachten, J. 309, 310 Wanah 133 Weinstock, I. 438

Vashti 103 Veltri, G. 306 Vergil 291 Vespasian 104,115, 116, 154, 162, 163,179 Vinograd, Y. 453 Vogels, W. 262

II

503

Index Weigold, M a t t h i a s 29 Weisel,

Naphtali

Herz

Yismael, see

Wessely,

Hartwig

Rabbi

see

Ishmael

ben

Elisha,

Rabbi Y i t z h a q bar Y o s e p h , R a v 171

Weiser, A. 3 9 1

Yohanan, Rabbi 322

Weismann, Werner 276

Y o h a n a n b. Nuri, R a b b i 197

Weiss, Z e ' e v 284, 2 8 6 , 2 8 8

Yohanan ben Torta 464

Weissenstern, N a h u m 4 2 0

Y o h a n a n b e n Z a k k a i 90, 91, 464

Weizmann, Chaim 472

Yonton 261

W e r n e r , Fritz IX

Yose, R a b b i see Y o s e h Rabbi

Wessely, H a r t w i g 4 6 6

Y o s e the Galilean, Rabbi see Y o s e h

White, H a y d e n 8

ha-

Gelili, R a b b i

W h i t e h o r n e , J o h n 169

Yoseh, Rabbi 234, 325

W i l c k e n , U. 1 6 7 , 1 6 9

Y o s e b e n Halafta, R a b b i 98

W i l k , R o m a n 107

Y o s e h b e n R. B u n , R a b b i 3 4 7

Willi, T h o m a s 39

Y o s e el Galileo, R a b b i see Y o s e h ha-Gelili,

W i r s z u b s k i , C h a i m 432, 438, 439, 440, 444,

Rabbi Y o s e h ha-Gelili, Rabbi 60, 61, 237, 239

446 Wolf, J.Ch. 3 9 6

Y o s e bar H a n i n a h , Rabbi 88

Wolff, Α. 3 9 7

Y o s e h ben R. Y e h u d a h , Rabbi 231 Yosi b e n Z i m r a , R a b b i 3 2 2 Yosi of S i d o n 211

Xiphilinus 167, 1 6 8

Yosi the G a l i l e a n see Y o s e ha-Gelili, Rabbi Yudan, Rabbi 325

Yadin, Y. 129 Y e h u d a h , R a b b i 2 2 9 , 230, 231, 2 4 8 Y e h u d h h a - N a s i , R a b b i see J u d a h h a - N a s i , Rabbi Y e h u d a h h a - N a s s i , R a b b i see

Z a d o k 37, 351 Z a i d u 133

Judah

ha-

Nasi, R a b b i

Zedekiah 467 Z e n o b i a 201

Y e h u d a h b e n Batira, R a b b i 2 5 1

Z e r u b a b e l 40, 43, 4 7

Y e h u d a h b e n Hai, R a b b i 2 9 3

Z e v i S h a b b e t a i see S h a b b e t a i Zevi

Y e h u d a h b e n T a b b a y , R a b b i see J u d a h b e n

Z i d q i j a h u see Z e d e k i a h

Tabbay, Rabbi Yehuday Ga'on, Rabbi 306 Y e s h u a ' h a - N o t z r i see J e s u s Yetro see J e t h r o Yirmeyah, Rabbi 347

Z i m r i 344 Z u n z , L e o p o l d 385, 396, 476, 477, 478, 484