Brothers Estranged: Heresy, Christianity, and Jewish Identity in Late Antiquity, 2010
brothers estr anged dramatic shift. "According to conventional wisdom," writes Alan F. Segal at t... more brothers estr anged dramatic shift. "According to conventional wisdom," writes Alan F. Segal at the opening passage of his book Rebecca's Children, "the first century witnessed the beginning of only one religion, Christianity. Judaism is generally thought to have begun in the more distant past, at the time of Abraham, Moses, or even Ezra." 3 In contrast to this traditional view, a whole new outlook has emerged in the writings of various scholars in the last twenty years. As Segal puts it: "The time of Jesus marks the beginning of not one but two great religions of the West, Judaism and Christianity." 4 As a result, instead of looking at Judaism and Christianity as "mother" and "daughter," as the relations between the two great religions are traditionally looked at, scholars have come more and more to agree that, in fact, "Judaism and Christianity can essentially claim a twin birth." 5 The abandonment of the "older" view has resulted in greater willingness, on the part of these scholars, to discuss the relationships between rabbinic Judaism and early Christianity, that is, between the classical rabbinic literature and early Christian literature, in a more open manner than previous generations of scholars would allow themselves. Possible similarities and mutual connections between these two late ancient religions are now more willingly acknowledged. Furthermore, the apologetic tendency shared by both Jewish and Christian scholars to presuppose the priority-both chronologically and (at least for Jews) theologically-of Jewish sources over similar Christian materials, which rests on, and is justified by, an unconscious (but at times even conscious) employment of the "mother-daughter" model, is now giving way to other explanations for the similarities and connections existing between rabbinic and early Christian texts. Some scholars argue for the opposite altogether, that is, for the chronological priority, in some cases, of the Christian materials, which were then borrowed and internalized by rabbinic sources mostly for the sake of rejection and polemic. The works of the Israeli historian Israel J. Yuval are perhaps the most representative of this approach. In several provocative papers published in the last two decades, Yuval argued that not only was Christianity influenced by Judaism but also Judaism was influenced by Christianity. Indeed, according to Yuval, the entire rabbinic project should be seen as a response to Christianity. The rabbis, according to this view, were responding to Christian ideas and shaped Judaism in such a manner as to reject them. 6 For this reason, Yuval argues, one can detect in rabbinic literature numerous themes that parallel early Christian sources. Other scholars attempted to explain this state of affairs by suggesting a model that sees early Christianity and rabbinic Judaism as two parallel transmission lines of one and the same reservoir of Jewish tradition that goes back
The thirteenth-century Spanish Talmud commentator Rabbi Shlomo ben Abraham ben Aderet, known to s... more The thirteenth-century Spanish Talmud commentator Rabbi Shlomo ben Abraham ben Aderet, known to students of the Talmud as "Rashba," in his commentary on the legends of the Babylonian Talmud, articulates what we may call "a theory of heresy": "When the community of God's worshippers [i.e., Israel] is downtrodden," Rashba writes, "belief decreases and the denial of truth spreads. As it is said: 'When he sees that their power is gone and there is none remaining bond or free, he will say: Where is their God, the rock in whom they took refuge' (Deut. 32:39)." 1 In Rashba's view, heresy is an outcome of the political status of the Jewish people. When the Jews are oppressed by their enemies, a doubt concerning the competence of their God is raised, and this is the cause of heresy. "Heresy," according to this "theory," is not merely an intellectual holding of a false opinion concerning God. It is a false opinion of a very particular nature: it is the questioning of God's providence and efficacy, which might lead even to a denial of His very existence. Such qualms, moreover, are not a product of intellectual speculation, or of one's reading of Scripture. Rather, they are the "conclusion" one is drawn to by the difficult social-political reality. We may say, then, that "heresy," according to this "theory," is much more than a "false view"; it is a mood. In order to distinguish this meaning of "heresy" from the intellectual one, I shall refer to it as "emotional heresy." To be sure, "emotional heresy" has an "intellectual" aspect: after all, it too leads to a certain "thought" about God. However,
In chapter 1, I attempted to uncover in early rabbinic sources echoes of an existential crisis ex... more In chapter 1, I attempted to uncover in early rabbinic sources echoes of an existential crisis experienced by Palestinian Jews following the destruction of the Second Temple and the failure of the Bar Kokhba revolt. The core of that crisis was doubt concerning God's power and providence-indeed, doubt concerning His very divinity. That doubt was not understood by Palestinian rabbis as a mere "intellectual view" but, rather, as reflecting an emotional state of despair, which could have led one to desert God and leave the Jewish community to join the Roman side. For this reason, early rabbinic literature ascribes similar stances to the Nations of the world, and it views the Roman Empire as their emblem. This chapter suggests that early rabbinic literature constructs doubts concerning God's power and providence, and separation from the community, as two sides of the same coin, which is the heart of minut. For second-century Palestinian rabbis, faithfulness to God was inseparable from social-national loyalty, and separatism was therefore treated by rabbinic discourse as heresy. It is frequently assumed that, just like early Christian discourse of heresy, the early rabbinic discourse of minut is motivated by a concern for doctrinal truth. 1 Indeed, minut is very often understood by modern scholars as the rabbinic equivalent of the Christian term "heresy," and the minim are understood accordingly to be Jews who express false beliefs and doctrines, that is, heretics. 2 According to this widespread view, the problem the rabbis had with minut was 03-Schremer-Chap02.indd 49 03-Schremer-Chap02.
This chapter is devoted to a close reading of t. Hullin 2:20-24, the single Tannaitic text in whi... more This chapter is devoted to a close reading of t. Hullin 2:20-24, the single Tannaitic text in which Jesus is mentioned explicitly, and I consider its possible historical significance.
Adiel Schremer, Brothers Estranged: Heresy, Christianity, and Jewish Identity in Late Antiquity (... more Adiel Schremer, Brothers Estranged: Heresy, Christianity, and Jewish Identity in Late Antiquity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 272 pp., , $74.00.
A Vision of the Days: Studies in Early Jewish History and Historiography In Honor of Daniel R. Schwartz, ed. Robert Brody, Noah Hacham, Jan Willem van Henten, and Meron Piotrkowski (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism, 213), Leiden: Brill,, 2024
The halakhic category of li-fnim mi-shurat ha-din (often rendered as
“beyond the letter of the la... more The halakhic category of li-fnim mi-shurat ha-din (often rendered as “beyond the letter of the law”) is frequently understood as referring to supererogatory behavior, which, of its very nature, is voluntary and not obligatory. Various halakhic authors, however, consider lifnim mi-shurat ha-din as obligatory (at least in some cases), and some even go as far as to maintain that it should be compulsory by court. Such a stance is surprising and paradoxical, for if one is expected, indeed demanded, to retract the law and to adopt a different norm in its stead, does not this imply a negative evaluation of the law? This paper seeks to consider such a possible conclusion. Its point of departure is Rabbi Shlomo ben Aderet’s (known by his acronym Rashba) interpretation of the Talmudic saying, that Jerusalem was destroyed (by the Romans) because rabbinic authorities of Second Temple times followed the laws of the Torah ל) א חרבה יר וש ל ים אל אעל ש ד נו בה ד ין ת ורה [TB Bava Metzia, 30b]), as suggesting that under certain circumstances one should not follow the Torah, and Rabbi Joshua Falk’s (16th century, Poland) similar view, in his Derisha u-Perisha commentary on the halakhic code of Rabbi Yaakov ben Asher, Arb‘a Turim. Following that view it discusses two Talmudic narratives, in which the halakhic norm is criticized by a rabbinic sage, claiming that one should adopt a higher moral standard, thus implying that the moral standard of the Halakha is at times problematic, and hence it is not always the appropriate path to follow.
Within Judaism? Interpretive Trajectories in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam from the First to the Twenty-First Century, 2024
Tannaitic literature uses the word "Israel" in numerous places as the name of a status, indicatin... more Tannaitic literature uses the word "Israel" in numerous places as the name of a status, indicating one's belonging in the Jewish people. In many of these places "Israel" is juxtaposed to "gentile" (nokhri, or goy), or to "Samaritan" (kuti). However, nowhere in the Mishnah are these terms explicitly defined. The same is with respect to the term "Jew" (Yehudi) and "son of the covenant" (ben berith). Whom, then, did Palestinian rabbis of that period have in their mind when they used these terms?
The purification of the Temple by king Hezekiah, and the following celebrations of the Passover, ... more The purification of the Temple by king Hezekiah, and the following celebrations of the Passover, as described in 2Chr. 29-30, have attracted much contemporary scholarly attention. They also attracted the attention of the ancient rabbis. Because Hezekiah is described in the Hebrew bible as a righteous king, who followed God’s law, the way he celebrated the Passover was assumed by the rabbis as legally valid. Yet, the Chronicler refers to Hezekiah’s Passover celebrations and says that they were not done in accordance with the law (2Chr. 30:18). This has troubled the ancient rabbis, and the Tannaitic tradition concerning Hezekiah’s Passover attempts to resolve this problem. That tradition exists in two versions: one in the Tosefta in tractate Pesahim, and the other in the Tosefta in tractate Sanhedrin, and in the parallel baraitot in both the Palestinian and the Babylonian Talmud. The present article suggests that a close reading of the two versions indicates that the text was expanded, and it suggests an identification of the secondary material which was added. This makes possible a re-consideration of the purpose and meaning of the added comments, and a better treatment of the variant readings existing in the major text-witnesses of the Tosefta.
What role can source criticism play in the textual criticism of rabbinic literature? This article... more What role can source criticism play in the textual criticism of rabbinic literature? This article analyzes the Baraita in Tosefta Sanhedrin 4:7 regarding Ezra’s role in giving the Torah and the Torah’s original script, an issue which can serve as a case study for consideration of this question and its potential implications for critically editing the Tosefta. The article discusses the variant readings found in MS Vienna (כתב העתידה לישתנות) and MS Erfurt (תורה שעתידה להשתנות), and attempts to demonstrate that determination of the correct reading requires not only consideration of internal factors – linguistic, hermeneutic, contextual, etc. – but also a proper understanding of the relationship between the Tosefta and the parallel sugya in the Palestinian Talmud. The authors show that the Baraita in the Tosefta is in fact based on the Talmudic sugya, whose Tannaitic and Amoraic content it reworked and transformed into a single pseudo-Tannaitic text. Since the Palestinian Talmud’s reading is כתב שעשוי להשתנות, a reading necessitated by the context, and since the Palestinian sugya is the source of the Baraita in the Tosefta, we conclude that the reading of MS Vienna is in all likelihood the original reading here.
Brothers Estranged: Heresy, Christianity, and Jewish Identity in Late Antiquity, 2010
brothers estr anged dramatic shift. "According to conventional wisdom," writes Alan F. Segal at t... more brothers estr anged dramatic shift. "According to conventional wisdom," writes Alan F. Segal at the opening passage of his book Rebecca's Children, "the first century witnessed the beginning of only one religion, Christianity. Judaism is generally thought to have begun in the more distant past, at the time of Abraham, Moses, or even Ezra." 3 In contrast to this traditional view, a whole new outlook has emerged in the writings of various scholars in the last twenty years. As Segal puts it: "The time of Jesus marks the beginning of not one but two great religions of the West, Judaism and Christianity." 4 As a result, instead of looking at Judaism and Christianity as "mother" and "daughter," as the relations between the two great religions are traditionally looked at, scholars have come more and more to agree that, in fact, "Judaism and Christianity can essentially claim a twin birth." 5 The abandonment of the "older" view has resulted in greater willingness, on the part of these scholars, to discuss the relationships between rabbinic Judaism and early Christianity, that is, between the classical rabbinic literature and early Christian literature, in a more open manner than previous generations of scholars would allow themselves. Possible similarities and mutual connections between these two late ancient religions are now more willingly acknowledged. Furthermore, the apologetic tendency shared by both Jewish and Christian scholars to presuppose the priority-both chronologically and (at least for Jews) theologically-of Jewish sources over similar Christian materials, which rests on, and is justified by, an unconscious (but at times even conscious) employment of the "mother-daughter" model, is now giving way to other explanations for the similarities and connections existing between rabbinic and early Christian texts. Some scholars argue for the opposite altogether, that is, for the chronological priority, in some cases, of the Christian materials, which were then borrowed and internalized by rabbinic sources mostly for the sake of rejection and polemic. The works of the Israeli historian Israel J. Yuval are perhaps the most representative of this approach. In several provocative papers published in the last two decades, Yuval argued that not only was Christianity influenced by Judaism but also Judaism was influenced by Christianity. Indeed, according to Yuval, the entire rabbinic project should be seen as a response to Christianity. The rabbis, according to this view, were responding to Christian ideas and shaped Judaism in such a manner as to reject them. 6 For this reason, Yuval argues, one can detect in rabbinic literature numerous themes that parallel early Christian sources. Other scholars attempted to explain this state of affairs by suggesting a model that sees early Christianity and rabbinic Judaism as two parallel transmission lines of one and the same reservoir of Jewish tradition that goes back
The thirteenth-century Spanish Talmud commentator Rabbi Shlomo ben Abraham ben Aderet, known to s... more The thirteenth-century Spanish Talmud commentator Rabbi Shlomo ben Abraham ben Aderet, known to students of the Talmud as "Rashba," in his commentary on the legends of the Babylonian Talmud, articulates what we may call "a theory of heresy": "When the community of God's worshippers [i.e., Israel] is downtrodden," Rashba writes, "belief decreases and the denial of truth spreads. As it is said: 'When he sees that their power is gone and there is none remaining bond or free, he will say: Where is their God, the rock in whom they took refuge' (Deut. 32:39)." 1 In Rashba's view, heresy is an outcome of the political status of the Jewish people. When the Jews are oppressed by their enemies, a doubt concerning the competence of their God is raised, and this is the cause of heresy. "Heresy," according to this "theory," is not merely an intellectual holding of a false opinion concerning God. It is a false opinion of a very particular nature: it is the questioning of God's providence and efficacy, which might lead even to a denial of His very existence. Such qualms, moreover, are not a product of intellectual speculation, or of one's reading of Scripture. Rather, they are the "conclusion" one is drawn to by the difficult social-political reality. We may say, then, that "heresy," according to this "theory," is much more than a "false view"; it is a mood. In order to distinguish this meaning of "heresy" from the intellectual one, I shall refer to it as "emotional heresy." To be sure, "emotional heresy" has an "intellectual" aspect: after all, it too leads to a certain "thought" about God. However,
In chapter 1, I attempted to uncover in early rabbinic sources echoes of an existential crisis ex... more In chapter 1, I attempted to uncover in early rabbinic sources echoes of an existential crisis experienced by Palestinian Jews following the destruction of the Second Temple and the failure of the Bar Kokhba revolt. The core of that crisis was doubt concerning God's power and providence-indeed, doubt concerning His very divinity. That doubt was not understood by Palestinian rabbis as a mere "intellectual view" but, rather, as reflecting an emotional state of despair, which could have led one to desert God and leave the Jewish community to join the Roman side. For this reason, early rabbinic literature ascribes similar stances to the Nations of the world, and it views the Roman Empire as their emblem. This chapter suggests that early rabbinic literature constructs doubts concerning God's power and providence, and separation from the community, as two sides of the same coin, which is the heart of minut. For second-century Palestinian rabbis, faithfulness to God was inseparable from social-national loyalty, and separatism was therefore treated by rabbinic discourse as heresy. It is frequently assumed that, just like early Christian discourse of heresy, the early rabbinic discourse of minut is motivated by a concern for doctrinal truth. 1 Indeed, minut is very often understood by modern scholars as the rabbinic equivalent of the Christian term "heresy," and the minim are understood accordingly to be Jews who express false beliefs and doctrines, that is, heretics. 2 According to this widespread view, the problem the rabbis had with minut was 03-Schremer-Chap02.indd 49 03-Schremer-Chap02.
This chapter is devoted to a close reading of t. Hullin 2:20-24, the single Tannaitic text in whi... more This chapter is devoted to a close reading of t. Hullin 2:20-24, the single Tannaitic text in which Jesus is mentioned explicitly, and I consider its possible historical significance.
Adiel Schremer, Brothers Estranged: Heresy, Christianity, and Jewish Identity in Late Antiquity (... more Adiel Schremer, Brothers Estranged: Heresy, Christianity, and Jewish Identity in Late Antiquity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 272 pp., , $74.00.
A Vision of the Days: Studies in Early Jewish History and Historiography In Honor of Daniel R. Schwartz, ed. Robert Brody, Noah Hacham, Jan Willem van Henten, and Meron Piotrkowski (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism, 213), Leiden: Brill,, 2024
The halakhic category of li-fnim mi-shurat ha-din (often rendered as
“beyond the letter of the la... more The halakhic category of li-fnim mi-shurat ha-din (often rendered as “beyond the letter of the law”) is frequently understood as referring to supererogatory behavior, which, of its very nature, is voluntary and not obligatory. Various halakhic authors, however, consider lifnim mi-shurat ha-din as obligatory (at least in some cases), and some even go as far as to maintain that it should be compulsory by court. Such a stance is surprising and paradoxical, for if one is expected, indeed demanded, to retract the law and to adopt a different norm in its stead, does not this imply a negative evaluation of the law? This paper seeks to consider such a possible conclusion. Its point of departure is Rabbi Shlomo ben Aderet’s (known by his acronym Rashba) interpretation of the Talmudic saying, that Jerusalem was destroyed (by the Romans) because rabbinic authorities of Second Temple times followed the laws of the Torah ל) א חרבה יר וש ל ים אל אעל ש ד נו בה ד ין ת ורה [TB Bava Metzia, 30b]), as suggesting that under certain circumstances one should not follow the Torah, and Rabbi Joshua Falk’s (16th century, Poland) similar view, in his Derisha u-Perisha commentary on the halakhic code of Rabbi Yaakov ben Asher, Arb‘a Turim. Following that view it discusses two Talmudic narratives, in which the halakhic norm is criticized by a rabbinic sage, claiming that one should adopt a higher moral standard, thus implying that the moral standard of the Halakha is at times problematic, and hence it is not always the appropriate path to follow.
Within Judaism? Interpretive Trajectories in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam from the First to the Twenty-First Century, 2024
Tannaitic literature uses the word "Israel" in numerous places as the name of a status, indicatin... more Tannaitic literature uses the word "Israel" in numerous places as the name of a status, indicating one's belonging in the Jewish people. In many of these places "Israel" is juxtaposed to "gentile" (nokhri, or goy), or to "Samaritan" (kuti). However, nowhere in the Mishnah are these terms explicitly defined. The same is with respect to the term "Jew" (Yehudi) and "son of the covenant" (ben berith). Whom, then, did Palestinian rabbis of that period have in their mind when they used these terms?
The purification of the Temple by king Hezekiah, and the following celebrations of the Passover, ... more The purification of the Temple by king Hezekiah, and the following celebrations of the Passover, as described in 2Chr. 29-30, have attracted much contemporary scholarly attention. They also attracted the attention of the ancient rabbis. Because Hezekiah is described in the Hebrew bible as a righteous king, who followed God’s law, the way he celebrated the Passover was assumed by the rabbis as legally valid. Yet, the Chronicler refers to Hezekiah’s Passover celebrations and says that they were not done in accordance with the law (2Chr. 30:18). This has troubled the ancient rabbis, and the Tannaitic tradition concerning Hezekiah’s Passover attempts to resolve this problem. That tradition exists in two versions: one in the Tosefta in tractate Pesahim, and the other in the Tosefta in tractate Sanhedrin, and in the parallel baraitot in both the Palestinian and the Babylonian Talmud. The present article suggests that a close reading of the two versions indicates that the text was expanded, and it suggests an identification of the secondary material which was added. This makes possible a re-consideration of the purpose and meaning of the added comments, and a better treatment of the variant readings existing in the major text-witnesses of the Tosefta.
What role can source criticism play in the textual criticism of rabbinic literature? This article... more What role can source criticism play in the textual criticism of rabbinic literature? This article analyzes the Baraita in Tosefta Sanhedrin 4:7 regarding Ezra’s role in giving the Torah and the Torah’s original script, an issue which can serve as a case study for consideration of this question and its potential implications for critically editing the Tosefta. The article discusses the variant readings found in MS Vienna (כתב העתידה לישתנות) and MS Erfurt (תורה שעתידה להשתנות), and attempts to demonstrate that determination of the correct reading requires not only consideration of internal factors – linguistic, hermeneutic, contextual, etc. – but also a proper understanding of the relationship between the Tosefta and the parallel sugya in the Palestinian Talmud. The authors show that the Baraita in the Tosefta is in fact based on the Talmudic sugya, whose Tannaitic and Amoraic content it reworked and transformed into a single pseudo-Tannaitic text. Since the Palestinian Talmud’s reading is כתב שעשוי להשתנות, a reading necessitated by the context, and since the Palestinian sugya is the source of the Baraita in the Tosefta, we conclude that the reading of MS Vienna is in all likelihood the original reading here.
This paper addresses fundamental questions pertaining to the editing of classical rabbinic texts,... more This paper addresses fundamental questions pertaining to the editing of classical rabbinic texts, particularly: How should the critical editor of a Talmudic text present this text where the textual evidence leads in one direction, while the context leads in another direction? This paper argues that the editor’s preference for a specific reading might be influenced not just by the existence of alternative interpretative possibilities, but by the editor’s views about the text’s development. This claim is illustrated through a careful analysis of one passage in Tosefta Avodah Zarah, in which different aspects of the text, its interpretation, and development, are interwoven and contribute to its final formation.
TO BE OF THE DISCIPLES OF AHARON: Studies in Tannaitic Literature and Its Sources in Memory of Aharon Shemesh (Te'uda 31), 2021
At the end of the portion on the offerings for unintentional transgressions (Num. 15), the Torah ... more At the end of the portion on the offerings for unintentional transgressions (Num. 15), the Torah adds “But whoever acts high-handedly… affronts the Lord” (v. 30). This exceptionally harsh phrasing was interpreted by the Sifre on Numbers, section 112, as referring to one who “homiletically expounds on a matters of blemish (dofi)” in Scripture. The Sifre hints at such a denounced midrashic interpretation, citing Genesis 36:22 (“And the sister of Lotan was Timna”), on the one hand, and Genesis 35:22 (“And Reuben went [and slept with Bilhah, his father’s concubine]”) on the other. Yet, the Sifre does not detail explicitly the midrashic interpretation of these verses, suggested by the denounced “Interpreter of [matters of] blemish”; moreover, the relation between the two cited verses is utterly obscure. Thepresent article attempts to decipher the Sifre’s allusion and to reconstruct the “midrash on matters of blemish,” at which it hints. Utilizing a puzzling segment of the Pesehr on Genesis (4Q252) from Qumran, in which a remarkably similar connection between Genesis 35:22 and Genesis 36:22 is made, the authors suggest that the “Interpreter of [verses of] flaw”, against whom the Sifre waged its war, associated Esau’s sexual transgressions with those of Reuben in order to equate them and thus to blame Reuben of a fault that is not actually stated in Scripture. His midrashic interpretation specifically associated that fault with matters of imperfect pedigree. This reconstruction of the denounced midrashic interpretation, only hinted at by the Sifre, paves the way to a consideration of a possible lost Tannaitic polemic concerning the legitimacy of exposure of genealogical flaws among the people of Israel.
In a unique halakhic responsum, written in the first half of the 12 th
century, six of the greate... more In a unique halakhic responsum, written in the first half of the 12 th century, six of the greatest Narbonnese sages of the time permitted the use of a codex, rather than a scroll, for the public reading of the Torah in the synagogue. This ruling, revolutionary in its content, is also surprising in its reasoning. The Talmud (bGiṭṭin 60a) states: “One may not read the Torah in public from a Ḥumash because of the dignity of the congregation,” and the Narbonnese rabbis candidly acknowledge the halakhic validity of that Talmudic dictum. Yet, they rule in contrast to the Talmudic ruling, claiming that it is better to annul the Talmud’s rule rather than to entirely abstain from the public reading of the Torah. Therefore, a community that is unable to arrange for a Torah scroll should, despite the Talmud’s ruling, perform the public reading of the Torah, using a codex for that purpose. This halakhic ruling engendered a fierce debate among medieval halakhic authorities and the present paper is devoted to an analysis of the different approaches taken in that debate. It shows that a rationale similar to that of the Narbonnese rabbis can be found in other areas of medieval halakhic deliberations. It therefore argues that such a line of reasoning indicates that halakhic decision-making is not guided by a formalistic approach—aiming at implementing the demands of the authoritative texts of the law—but rather the potential consequences of a ruling is allowed to be a motivating factor in halakhic decision-making.
The concept of Qiddush ha-Shem (the Sanctification of the Divine Name) is a fundamental value i... more The concept of Qiddush ha-Shem (the Sanctification of the Divine Name) is a fundamental value in the Jewish tradition. Seldom, however, has it been clearly defined; and only rarely are the special circumstances, in which it is used to designate specific behavior, clarified. It is frequently associated with a willingness to die for the sake of God and hence it is often understood as martyrdom. The present paper seeks to challenge this widespread view. In contrast to conventional wisdom it shows that a call to give one’s life for the sake of God is no-where mentioned in the Hebrew Bible, and only rarely can it be found in the earliest stratum of rabbinic literature. It argues that initially, in biblical times, Qiddush ha-Shem referred to God’s action, in which His power and hence sovereignty is displayed. By the Tannaitic period the concept underwent a dramatic change and it was used to label human behavior. However, it retained its basic meaning as referring to actions that express and publicly announce one’s confidence in God’s power and divinity. This indicates that God’s power and aptitude were the anxiety to which the early rabbinic concept of Qiddush ha-Shem was meant to be a response.
The Talmudic sugya at BT Sanhedrin 38a is devoted to theological claims based on Scripture, which... more The Talmudic sugya at BT Sanhedrin 38a is devoted to theological claims based on Scripture, which are ascribed to heretics, and to their refutation. One of these claims focuses on a syntactical difficulty in Ex. 24:1, purportedly the basic for an heretical argument for the existence of a second god. This argument is answered by an otherwise unknown rabbinic sage, Rav Idit, in a manner that is commonly understood as identifying God, mentioned in that verse, with the arch-angel Metatron. The present study points to various difficulties inherent in this reading of the dispute, and following the interpretation of the 11th century north African Talmud commentator, R. Hannanel, it offers a different reading, according to which the focus of that anti-heretical dispute is rather Ex. 23:20-21. As the dispute is Babylonian in its origin, and the rabbi is using a Persian (or Parthian) loan word – parvanka – it should be read against a specifically Babylonian background. Following the use of the word parvanka in Mandaic texts, this paper suggests that the dispute relates to the exalted, divine, status accorded to angels in Mandaic religion.
The halakhic writings of Medieval Ashkenazi rabbinic sages pertaining to the
production and sale ... more The halakhic writings of Medieval Ashkenazi rabbinic sages pertaining to the production and sale of wine reveal that Franco-German Jews and their non-Jewish neighbors cooperated very closely in virtually all aspects of the wine industry in the Middle Ages. This state of affairs gave rise to many halakhic questions, to which rabbinic authorities needed to respond. This paper is devoted to the religious and ideological anxieties of these authorities when dealing with such issues, as reflected in their practical halakhic discourse. It points to the existence of halakhic disputes throughout halakhic texts of the 11th and 12th centuries regarding the kashrut of wine. The paper seeks to explain these disputes as the result of competing approaches to questions of religious and communal identity vis-à-vis the Christian majority, that existed among Franco-German rabbinic sages of the time. This subject has been dealt with intensively by Haym Soloveitchik in his two Hebrew books: Yeinam (Tel Aviv 2003) and Wine in Ashkenaz in the Middle Ages (Jerusalem 2008). Soloveitchik’s focus is on the ways medieval halakhists conceptualized the problems, that is, their understanding of the halakhic doctrines involved, and their interpretations of the relevant Talmudic texts. This focus reflects his fundamental view that halakhic positions are primarily the product of textual learning and conceptual thinking. This paper follows a different path. Approaching the subject with the jurisprudential assumptions of the legal school known as Legal Realism, it is maintained that the considerations underlying the halakhic disputes among medieval Ashkenazi rabbinic sages pertaining to kashrut of wine relate to the consequences of their rulings and their implications for the religious identity of the Jewish community.
1:12-20 as an ekphrasis, but his discussion is vague (pp. 67-69). He appears to be unaware of the... more 1:12-20 as an ekphrasis, but his discussion is vague (pp. 67-69). He appears to be unaware of the considerable body of work on ancient ekphrasis that would have given this recognition Ekphrasis, Vision, and Persuasion in the Book of Revelation The Book of Revelation and the Visual Culture of Asia Minor [Lanham, MD: Lexington took the stage, as it were, just as ancient rhetorical conventions were shifting, at the beginning of the Second Sophistic. Addressing the complexity of the rhetorical situation in first-/second-century Asia Minor would have made N.'s argument far more compelling. These reservations notwithstanding, N.'s is a useful provocation to a fuller understanding
Uploads
Books by Adiel Schremer
Papers by Adiel Schremer
“beyond the letter of the law”) is frequently understood as referring to
supererogatory behavior, which, of its very nature, is voluntary and not
obligatory. Various halakhic authors, however, consider lifnim mi-shurat
ha-din as obligatory (at least in some cases), and some even go as far as
to maintain that it should be compulsory by court. Such a stance is
surprising and paradoxical, for if one is expected, indeed demanded, to
retract the law and to adopt a different norm in its stead, does not this
imply a negative evaluation of the law? This paper seeks to consider
such a possible conclusion. Its point of departure is Rabbi Shlomo ben
Aderet’s (known by his acronym Rashba) interpretation of the Talmudic
saying, that Jerusalem was destroyed (by the Romans) because rabbinic
authorities of Second Temple times followed the laws of the Torah ל) א
חרבה יר וש ל ים אל אעל ש ד נו בה ד ין ת ורה [TB Bava Metzia, 30b]), as
suggesting that under certain circumstances one should not follow the Torah,
and Rabbi Joshua Falk’s (16th century, Poland) similar view, in his
Derisha u-Perisha commentary on the halakhic code of Rabbi Yaakov ben
Asher, Arb‘a Turim. Following that view it discusses two Talmudic
narratives, in which the halakhic norm is criticized by a rabbinic sage,
claiming that one should adopt a higher moral standard, thus implying
that the moral standard of the Halakha is at times problematic, and
hence it is not always the appropriate path to follow.
“beyond the letter of the law”) is frequently understood as referring to
supererogatory behavior, which, of its very nature, is voluntary and not
obligatory. Various halakhic authors, however, consider lifnim mi-shurat
ha-din as obligatory (at least in some cases), and some even go as far as
to maintain that it should be compulsory by court. Such a stance is
surprising and paradoxical, for if one is expected, indeed demanded, to
retract the law and to adopt a different norm in its stead, does not this
imply a negative evaluation of the law? This paper seeks to consider
such a possible conclusion. Its point of departure is Rabbi Shlomo ben
Aderet’s (known by his acronym Rashba) interpretation of the Talmudic
saying, that Jerusalem was destroyed (by the Romans) because rabbinic
authorities of Second Temple times followed the laws of the Torah ל) א
חרבה יר וש ל ים אל אעל ש ד נו בה ד ין ת ורה [TB Bava Metzia, 30b]), as
suggesting that under certain circumstances one should not follow the Torah,
and Rabbi Joshua Falk’s (16th century, Poland) similar view, in his
Derisha u-Perisha commentary on the halakhic code of Rabbi Yaakov ben
Asher, Arb‘a Turim. Following that view it discusses two Talmudic
narratives, in which the halakhic norm is criticized by a rabbinic sage,
claiming that one should adopt a higher moral standard, thus implying
that the moral standard of the Halakha is at times problematic, and
hence it is not always the appropriate path to follow.
This reconstruction of the denounced midrashic interpretation, only
hinted at by the Sifre, paves the way to a consideration of a possible lost
Tannaitic polemic concerning the legitimacy of exposure of genealogical
flaws among the people of Israel.
century, six of the greatest Narbonnese sages of the time permitted
the use of a codex, rather than a scroll, for the public reading of the
Torah in the synagogue. This ruling, revolutionary in its content, is also
surprising in its reasoning. The Talmud (bGiṭṭin 60a) states: “One may
not read the Torah in public from a Ḥumash because of the dignity of
the congregation,” and the Narbonnese rabbis candidly acknowledge
the halakhic validity of that Talmudic dictum. Yet, they rule in contrast
to the Talmudic ruling, claiming that it is better to annul the Talmud’s
rule rather than to entirely abstain from the public reading of the Torah.
Therefore, a community that is unable to arrange for a Torah scroll
should, despite the Talmud’s ruling, perform the public reading of the
Torah, using a codex for that purpose. This halakhic ruling engendered
a fierce debate among medieval halakhic authorities and the present
paper is devoted to an analysis of the different approaches taken in
that debate. It shows that a rationale similar to that of the Narbonnese
rabbis can be found in other areas of medieval halakhic deliberations.
It therefore argues that such a line of reasoning indicates that halakhic
decision-making is not guided by a formalistic approach—aiming at
implementing the demands of the authoritative texts of the law—but
rather the potential consequences of a ruling is allowed to be a
motivating factor in halakhic decision-making.
production and sale of wine reveal that Franco-German Jews and their non-Jewish
neighbors cooperated very closely in virtually all aspects of the wine industry in
the Middle Ages. This state of affairs gave rise to many halakhic questions, to
which rabbinic authorities needed to respond. This paper is devoted to the religious
and ideological anxieties of these authorities when dealing with such issues, as
reflected in their practical halakhic discourse. It points to the existence of halakhic
disputes throughout halakhic texts of the 11th and 12th centuries regarding the
kashrut of wine. The paper seeks to explain these disputes as the result of
competing approaches to questions of religious and communal identity vis-à-vis
the Christian majority, that existed among Franco-German rabbinic sages of the
time.
This subject has been dealt with intensively by Haym Soloveitchik in his two
Hebrew books: Yeinam (Tel Aviv 2003) and Wine in Ashkenaz in the Middle
Ages (Jerusalem 2008). Soloveitchik’s focus is on the ways medieval halakhists
conceptualized the problems, that is, their understanding of the halakhic doctrines
involved, and their interpretations of the relevant Talmudic texts. This focus
reflects his fundamental view that halakhic positions are primarily the product of
textual learning and conceptual thinking. This paper follows a different path.
Approaching the subject with the jurisprudential assumptions of the legal school
known as Legal Realism, it is maintained that the considerations underlying the
halakhic disputes among medieval Ashkenazi rabbinic sages pertaining to kashrut
of wine relate to the consequences of their rulings and their implications for the
religious identity of the Jewish community.