Divrei ben Abuya

Important Notice: This Blog Is Now Closed

2006-09-26T15:41:00.000+10:00

That's right: I shall no longer be posting at this address. My new address is http://deba.wordpress.com. I look forward to seeing all of you there.

El Diablo

2006-09-24T00:52:00.000+10:00

Who Shall Live

2006-09-22T16:54:00.000+10:00

In the spirit of Rosh HaShana and Yom HaKippurim I have decided to post another of my favourite sections of the liturgy. Tradition has it that this was written by Rav Amram, a Rabbi who was believed to have lived in the German town of Mainz about a thousand years ago. Some have argued that the tradition is an adaptation of a similar tradition concerning the Christian St. Emmeram of Regensburg but, in the manner in which it is related in Jewish circles, it involves Amram's refusal to convert to Christianity after having been invited to do so by the local Bishop.

According to the story, Rav Amram suggests that he shall think about it for three days, but immediately repents of having intimated that he would. His allotted time passes and the Bishop has him returned to his presence. Upon returning, Amram suggests that the Bishop should cut out his tongue for ever having used it to imply that he may convert to Christianity. The Bishop refuses, insisting that it is Amram's legs that should be removed for not having hastened back to him in time.

Amram is taken back into town, bleeding profusely (as one can imagine) and is brought into the local synagogue for Rosh HaShana. Upon being carried onto the bimah, Amram sings a song and dies. This song, entitled Let Us Relate the Power (ונתנה תוקף) was supposedly taught to Rabbi Kalonymous by Rav Amram, in a dream, a short while after Amram's death.

It is sung several times on both Rosh HaShana and Yom HaKippurim and, despite its highly dubious and somewhat simplistic origin myth, nonetheless constitutes an exceptionally beautiful poem.

ונתנה תוקף קדשת היום, כי הוא נורא ואיום. ובו תנשא מלכותך, ויכון בחסד כסאך, ותשב עליו באמת. אמת כי אתה הוא דין ומוכיח, ויודע ועד, וכותב וחותם וסופר ומונה, ותזכור כל הנשכחות. ותפתח את ספר הזכרונות, ומאליו יקרא, וחותם יד כל אדם בו. ובשופר גדול יתקע, וקול דממה דקה ישמע. ומלאכים יחפזון, וחיל ורעדה יאחזון, ויאמרו הנה יום הדין, לפקוד על צבא מרום בדין, כי לא יזכו בעיניך בדין. וכל באי עולם יעברון לפניך כבני מרון. כבקרת רועה עדרו, מעביר צאנו תחת שבטו, כן תעביר ותספור ותמנה, ותפקוד נפש כל חי, ותחתוך קצבה לכל בריותיך, ותכתוב את גזר דינם

בראש השנה יכתבון, וביום צום כפור יחתמון, כמה יעברון, וכמה יבראון; מי יחיה ומי ימות, מי בקצו ומי לא בקצו, מי במים, ומי באש, מי בחרב, ומי בחיה, מי ברעב, ומי בצמא, מי ברעש, ומי במגפה, מי בחניקה, ומי בסקילה, מי ינוח ומי ינוע, מי ישקט ומי יטרף, מי ישלו ומי יתיסר, מי יעני ומי יעשר, מי ישפל ומי ירום

ותשובה ותפלה וצדקה
מעבירין את רע הגזרה

כי כשמך כן תהלתך, קשה לכעוס ונוח לרצות; כי לא תחפוץ במות המת, כי אם בשובו מדרכו וחיה. ועד יום מותו תחכה לו, אם ישוב מיד תקבלו. אמת כי אתה הוא יוצרם, ואתה יודע יצרם, כי הם בשר ודם. אדם יסודו מעפר וסופו לעפר; בנפשו יביא לחמו; משול כחרס הנשבר, כחציר יבש, וכציץ נובל, וכצל עובר, וכענן כלה, וכרוח נושבת, וכאבק פורח, וכחלום יעוף

ואתה הוא מלך אל חי וקים

My translation is as follows:

Let us relate the power
Of the sanctity
Of the day
For it is terrible and awesome.

On it is Your kingdom upraised
And Your throne,
Secured with kindness

You sit upon it in truth!
Truth, for You are who judges and proves,
Knows and testifies,
Writes and then signs,
Relates and then numbers,
And remembers all of the forgotten.

You will open the Book of Memories
And from it, it shall be read
With everyone's signature in it.

A great horn shall be sounded
But a thin, small voice shall be heard.

The angels then shall all hasten
Fear and trembling shall seize them
And they shall cry:
"Behold, the Day of the Law!
Commanding the heavenly army by law!
Who can be pure in Your eyes through the law?"

And all the inhabitants of the earth shall pass
Before You, like a flock of sheep
Like a shepherd who pastures his livestock,
Brings his herd underneath his crook,
So too do You bring, do You count, do You number,
Do You analyse the souls of the living
And apportion the needs of each being
And write the decree of their sentence.

On Rosh HaShana they are written
And on Tsom Yom Kippur they are sealed.
How many shall pass, and how many created:
Who shall live and who shall die;
Who in their time and who not in their time;
Who by water
And who by fire;
Who by the sword
And who by a beast;
Who by hunger
And who by thirst;
Who by disaster
And who by sickness;
Who by strangling
And who by stoning;
Who will rest
And who will wander;
Who will be go peacefully
And who will go violently;
Who will be calm
And who will be harried;
Who will be poor
And who will be rich;
Who will be degraded
And who will be exalted.

But repentance, prayer and charity
Remove the evil of the decree!

For Your name signifies Your glory:
Hard to anger and easy to please.
You do not delight in the death of the dying
But in their return from their ways, and their life.
Until the last day of their lives You are waiting
And if they repent You receive them at once.
It is true, for You are their maker
And You know well their inclination,
That they are but flesh and blood.

Man is derived from the dust
And the dust constitutes his conclusion.
In peril he gathers his bread.

Likened to a broken shard,
Dry grass,
A fading flower,
A passing shadow,
A dispersing cloud
A returning wind,
Scattered dust,
A passing dream.

But You are the King!
The Living and Eternal God.

Killing Cats

2006-09-22T16:24:00.000+10:00

There is a particular principle of theoretical physics named (after its author) "Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle". In a nutshell, this principle states that it is impossible (in the case of some minute particles) to guage both their speed and their location. By measuring their location, one alters the speed at which they move; by noting their speed, one moves them. Some have used this principle, and its natural corollary that not everything about our universe can be known, to argue against the fatalist philosophy that suggests that all events are predetermined on the basis of the universe constituting a closed system of information.

In any case, a German physicist by the name of Schroedinger developed a metaphor for the representation of Heisenberg's idea. The metaphor runs as follows:

Suppose I take a cat, and I place it within a "black box" (so named by virtue of the fact that its contents are either invisible or unknown). Alongside the cat, I place a radioactive atomic nucleus and a canister of poison gas. Should the nucleus decay, a particle will be emitted that will trigger a mechanism within the canister and fill the box with gas. Thus dies the cat. Over the course of one hour, there is a 50% chance that the event occurs.

As Heisenberg's uncertainty principle dictates, I cannot know the state of the cat. So long as the cat is within the box, it has no status as either living or dead; indeed, it exists only as a possible either. In reality, of course, the cat is also endowed with consciousness and so does exist in one form or another, but should we rob the cat of its ability to know whether or not it is alive (queror ergo sum...) then the experiment presents a most curious paradox. The only way to know whether or not the cat is alive or dead is to open the box but, until then, the cat must be considered as both.

I only raise this issue to express my opinion that the expression, "Curiousity killed the cat", has more to do with the curiousity of a German scientist than it does with the activities of an inquisitive feline.

Analysing a Childhood Film

2006-09-21T16:45:00.000+10:00

I was struck just yesterday morning with a revelation that seemed to me to be both astonishing and perspicacious. If I don't say so myself. I was thinking about the 1986 Jim Henson film, Labyrinth, and considering what the film was actually about. The simple answer would be that it is about a girl (the young Jennifer Connelly) who must make her way through a treacherous maze in order to rescue her baby brother, held captive by the cruel Goblin King (the masterful David Bowie). This is, of course, a very simplistic overview of the plot, and it occurred to me that a deeper meaning underlay the entire story.

The film is actually about adolescence. It concerns a young girl's journey from childhood to adulthood, and her appreciation of the fact that true adulthood can only come once she learns to also embrace the childhood that she is leaving behind. Viewed in that way, many elements of the story make sense. Her rejection of her brother at the beginning is contrasted with the emotional maturity that she demonstrates in rescuing him at the end. She is often given a way out of the labyrinth (Jareth, the Goblin King, frequently tells her to go back) but nonetheless chooses to face him alone at the film's denouement.

This confrontation is also very telling, for Jareth represents Sarah's burgeoning sexual desire. In a scene that would have made Freud choke on his cigar, Sarah eats of a poisoned fruit and experiences a dream in which she alternates between dancing with Jareth and searching for him desperately. Upon awakening she is offered a room much like her own, stuffed full of all of her childhood toys and comforting in its oblivion. In truth, it is little different to the oubliette in which she found herself in the previous scene, and she makes the decision to leave it behind her and accept responsibility in her brother's life.

Sarah's victory over Jareth is also her victory over herself. She conquers the Goblin King (her own sexuality) by asserting that even though he turns her world upside-down, he nonetheless has no real power over her. She remains herself but, importantly, so does he. In the final scene, Sarah is attended in her room by all of the characters of the film (minus the goblins of teenage angst, acne, etc). They are arranged on her bed and her bookshelf, muppets amongst the toys with which she grew up. She confesses that, yes, she does still need them all and it is then that we realise that her adolescence is in some manner complete.

Outside the window, Jareth observes the scene in the form of an owl: the same owl that was responsible for transporting Sarah to the labyrinth at the film's beginning. Lest we do not notice this parallelism, the film's opening song ("Underground") begins playing again just before the credits role. Jareth was in control of Sarah at the start of the film, but the end of the film has witnessed her control over him. She is the master of her own desires and, now that she is willing to embrace her childhood and accept responsibility, she is also an adult.

Needless to say, I was quite pleased with my observation.
Having spoken to a friend of mine, it would seem that every woman in the world has known this since 1986. Am I slow? Is it a male/female thing? Anyone?

Quote for the Day #2

2006-09-21T13:10:00.000+10:00

There are only 10 types of people in this world:
Those who understand binary,
And those who do not.

The Art of Kissing; or Why Sociology is Silly

2006-09-21T11:57:00.000+10:00

Once upon a time, while I was undertaking a BA in Communications at UTS (and majoring in Writing and Contemporary Cultures), I took a class on sociology. My teacher, a lady in her mid-thirties whose name I would probably no longer even recognise were I to hear it again, decided to share with us her thoughts about kissing. She was in the process of writing a book which I hope, for her sake, was never published. Her overriding thesis was that kissing on the mouth is a thoroughly recent phenomenon, thanks to the wonderful developments in the realm of dental and oral hygiene, and that prior generations of amorous lovers (a curious tautology) kissed each other elsewhere.

O, how wrong she was.

The following are some brief examples of kissing in ancient literature, each of which testifies to the existence of this phenomenon so recently attributed solely to the French.

Song of Songs 1:2. Date of composition is disputed.

ישקני מנשיקות פיהו כי טובים דדיך מיין
Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth...
Oh, your loving is better than wine!

While one may choose to argue that the kisses of his mouth may be delivered on other parts of the nameless lady's body, the reference to wine conjures images of taste-related appreciation.

Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Ḥullin, 127a Composed no later than 700 CE.

אמר רב גידל אמר רב נרשאה נשקיך מני ככיך
Rav Gidel said in the name of Rav,
"If a Nerashean [a people criticised in the Talmud for being thieves] should kiss you: count your teeth!"

Geoffrey Chaucer. "The Miller's Tale"¹. Composed, c. 1380-1390

The first cock crew at last, and thereupon
Up rose this jolly lover Absalon
In gayest clothes, garnished with that and this;
But first he chewed a grain of liquorice
To charm his breath before he combed his hair.
Under his tongue the comfit nestling there
Would make him gracious. He began to roam
Towards the carpenter's; he reached their home
And by the casement window took his stand.
Breast-high it stood, no higher than his hand.
He gave a cough, it was a semi-sound;
'Alison, honey-comb, are you around?
Sweet cinnamon, my pretty little bird,
Sweetheart, wake up and say a little word!
You seldom think of me in all my woe,
I sweat for love of you wherever I go!
...
I eat as little as a girl at school.'
'You go away,' she answered, 'you Tom-fool!
There's no come-up-and-kiss-me here for you.
I love another and why shouldn't I too?
Better than you, by Jesu, Absalon!
Take yourself off or I shall throw a stone.
I want to get some sleep. You go to Hell!'
'Alas!' said Absalon. 'I knew it well;
True love is always mocked and girded at;
So kiss me, if you can't do more than that,
For Jesu's love and for the love of me!'
'And if I do, will you be off?' said she.
'Promise you, darling,' answered Absalon.
'Get ready then; wait, I'll put something on,'
She said and then she added under breath
To Nicholas, 'Hush... we shall laugh to death!'
This Absalon went down upon his knees;
'I am a lord!' he thought, 'And by degrees
There may be more to come; the plot may thicken.'
'Mercy, my love!' he said, 'Your mouth, my chicken!'
She flung the window open then in haste
And said, 'Have done, come on, no time to waste,
The neighbours here are always on the spy.'
Absalon started wiping his mouth dry.
Dark was the night as pitch, as black as coal,
And at the window out she put her hole,
And Absalon, so fortune framed the farce,
Put up his mouth and kissed her naked arse
Most savorously before he knew of this.
And back he started. Something was amiss;
He knew quite well a woman has no beard,
Yet something rough and hairy had appeared.
'What have I done?' he said. 'Can that be you?'
'Teehee!' she cried and clapped the window to.²

This last one, while it may perhaps not involve kissing on the mouth, as the subject of this post did promise, nonetheless testifies to the protagonist's suavic intentions.

In other news, however, this constitutes my 101st post on this blog!
Ah, I am reminded of the great Orwellian nightmare that lay behind door 101; the reflection of one's innermost self. While I may not be able to claim that this blog has enabled me to encounter and deal with my personal id, it has nonetheless enabled me to scratch the surface of my bulging and rather impersonal ego. Perhaps that's what blogs are for.

¹ 88-106 of The Canterbury Tales (trans. N. Coghill; London: Penguin, 1977).
² 102-103, ibid.

I Have Dreamed a Dream...

2006-09-20T17:20:00.000+10:00

In honour of the rapidly approaching Rosh HaShana I thought that I might post up some of the more beautiful parts of the day's liturgy. When the kohanim ascend the bimah to bless the congregation, custom dictates that they sing the words of Numbers 6:24-26 slowly enough for the congregation to insert a brief prayer in the midst of their singing. That prayer is as follows:

רבונו של עולם, אני שלך וחלומותי שלך. חלום חלמתי ואיני יודע מה הוא. יהי רצון מלפניך, יהוה אלהי ואלהי אבותי, שיהיו כל חלומותי עלי ועל כל ישראל לטובה - בין שחלמתי על עצמי, ובין שחלמתי על אחרים, ובין שחלמו אחרים עלי. אם טובים הם, חזקם ואמצם, ויתקימו בי ובהם כחלומותיו של יוסף הצדיק. ואם צריכים רפואה, רפאם כחזקיהו מלך יהודה מחליו, וכמרים הנביאה מצרעתה, וכנעמן מצרעתו, וכמי מרה על ידי משה רבנו, וכמי יריחו על ידי אלישע. וכשם שהפכת את קללת בלעם הרשע מקללה לברכה, כן תהפוך כל חלומותי עלי ועל כל ישראל לטובה, ותשמרני ותחנני ותרצני. אמן

The following is my translation:

Master of the World, I am Yours and my dreams are Yours.
I have dreamed a dream and I do not know what it was.
May it be Your will, O Lord my God and the God of my ancestors, that all of my dreams concerning myself and concerning the Jewish people be for good:
Whether I dreamed them about myself;
Or whether I dreamed them about others;
Or whether others dreamed them about me.

If they are good: strengthen them and enforce them and bring them to fulfilment in regards to me and in regards to them - like the dreams of the righteous Joseph.
But if they require healing: heal them [as You healed] Hezekiah, king of Judah, from his sickness;
And the prophet Miriam from her leprosy;
And Naaman from his leprosy;
And the bitter waters by the hand of our teacher Moses;
And the waters of Jericho by the hand of Elisha.

And in the manner that You altered the wicked Balaam's curse from a curse to a blessing,
So too may You favourably alter all of my dreams regarding myself and regarding all of the Jewish people.

May You shield me
May You be merciful to me
May You desire me.

Amen.

2006-09-18T20:21:00.000+10:00

Having recently written a post about the future, I thought that I might add my two cents concerning time travel.

According to Einsteining physics, we are all moving at the speed of light. Me, you, the tree outside my window - even an ant that I squashed underfoot earlier today in an act of clumsy non-Buddhist apathy. But before you all start jumping up and down and clicking on the comments box to inform me (politely) that nothing, save light, travels at 300,000 km every second I will also inform you that movement can occur in any of a number of dimensions. One of those dimensions is time.

If you picture a graph, the vertical axis of which represents the spatial dimensions and the horizontal axis of which represents the temporal, you can imagine the manner in which such movement may be plotted. We snail-like organisms who crawl through life at a paltry fraction of the speed of light do virtually all of our movement on the horizontal axis. The pilot of the jetplane (itself also moving at a miserable fraction of the Einsteinian "constant") does his movement almost entirely through time, as does the chair that I am sitting on and the dog running happily down the street. Light, on the other hand, does all of its movement through space. It travels so quickly that, on the horizontal axis, it does not move at all.

You heard me correctly. Particles of light ("photons") do not age. We age rapidly but, as Einstein also explained, movement through both space and time is entirely relative. That is to say that if I hopped on a hypothetical space-ship and zipped through the galaxy at speeds approaching those of light, even though the earth and all that is in it would have aged significantly beyond me by the time that I returned, I would not have experienced the slow passage of time felt by those that I had left behind me.

There is a curious practical element to all of this. Time travel, in one direction only, is actually a feasible possibility - so long as scientists can devise a way to speed up a craft to a sizeable fraction of the speed of light. Should that be possible then the occupant of that craft can move themselves as many years into the future as they so desire, simply by inhabiting it while it moves rapidly throughout space.

The downside: as I mentioned before, the future is not a place. There is no guarantee whatsoever that the world that will greet this occupant upon their exit from this craft will be anything other than a less familiar version of the one that they had left behind - now minus their families and friends. And, of course, there is no way to go back.

Mistaking the Commentary for the Text

2006-09-18T19:07:00.000+10:00

Here are some interesting questions for the Jews in the crowd:

According to the Bible:
1. What was Abraham's father's profession?
2. What did King Ahashverosh ask Queen Vashti to do? (In the Purim story)

And for the Christians in the audience:

1. What was the fruit growing on the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil? (In the Garden of Eden story)
2. How many wise men visited the baby Jesus?

It's funny just how deeply entrenched Biblical commentaries can become. For myself, I have a great deal of difficulty reading about how King Ahashverosh asked Vashti to parade in front of his guests wearing a crown, and not think that he meant only a crown. If I close my eyes and I picture the Garden of Eden, I must confess to seeing an apple tree growing in its midst. And if I think of the turning point in young Abraham's life, I see him smashing the idols in his father's shop.

These are not details contained within the Biblical text: on the contrary, they are the result of centuries of commentaries that have superimposed secondary ideas over the mainline narrative. The Midrash Rabba is responsible for contextualising Abraham's revelation of godliness, as well as explaining Vashti's refusal to leave the king's harem; Renaissance artists in their glorious realism were responsible for depicting the Garden of Eden narrative in a manner resonant with European communities; and centuries of Christian folk-tales and commentaries have wrought the conception that three kings visited Jesus. They were not kings, and there were not three of them.

With reams of commentaries being written on the Bible today, from books like Diamant's The Red Tent to films like Gibson's The Passion of the Christ, I wonder what the future holds for this ancient text?

The Future Is Not A Place

2006-09-18T18:48:00.000+10:00

There's a rather silly misconception that many people hold about the future. They believe that it is a wonderful, magical realm, within which people transport themselves in flying cars and have telephones implanted in their wrists. They foresee the abolition of money, the perfection of the incarceration system, and the glorification of the internet. None of these particular ideas is necessarily silly in and of themselves: what's silly is that people believe them.

The future is not a place to which we are all inexorably heading; it is the result of the decisions that we make in life. There are any number of an infinite range of possibilities that may describe our world several years from now. There may be implanted telephones; the internet may reach the proliferation for which it thrives; money may be abolished in its current form. But none of these things necessarily marks an improvement, and none of them is in any way definate. Equally likely is the prophecy that the internet will become privatised, that greater technologies will introduce more insidious diseases, and that flying cars will be found to be infinitely more lethal than those on the road. Seriously, what do you think happens after a collision fifty metres in the air?

Thousands of years ago, the author of Ecclesiastes wrote that the statement, "Life was better then" is a statement made from ignorance. The author may well have added that so too is the assertion that "Life will be better, when..."
It's up to us to make it so.

Styron's "Lightning in the Mud"

2006-09-17T20:55:00.000+10:00

An excellent post on clinical depression can be found here.

Speaking For Myself...

2006-09-14T19:30:00.000+10:00

I can understand where Muslims are coming from when they insist that not all Muslims are terrorists, but until they take responsibility for the fact that all terrorists are Muslims and actually speak out against the hijacking of their religion then they have no right to mourn the necessity of racial profiling.

Comedy Is No Laughing Matter

2006-09-14T16:51:00.000+10:00

Fred Phelps, the ecclesiastical leader of the Westboro Baptist Church, recently had a little to say in regards to Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. This self-styled "fire and brimstone" preacher belongs to a community that is outlawed by most other evangelical communities in America. With websites like godhatesamerica.com and godhatesfags.com, Phelps and his followers (most of whom are related to him by blood or marriage) have made names for themselves as extreme (and often offensive) fundamentalists. Their habit of turning up at the funerals of soldiers and high-ranking US army officials with denigrating placards has infuriated many. While previously being permissable under the First Amendment, President Bush recently signed the Respect for America's Fallen Heroes Act, prohibiting such activity.

It is difficult to find support for Phelps's curious brand of Baptist Christianity on the internet, but not particularly difficult to find condemnation. Phelps has been accused of everything from wife-bashing and money-laundering to murdering the first wife of his eldest son, Fred Jr. It is most probably in reference to Phelps and his renowned sermonising that Stephen Colbert greeted the audience of the recent Emmy Awards ceremony with a serious, "Good evening, godless Sodomites". While this received a large peal of laughter from the Hollywood crowd, it also elicited a sermon from Phelps himself.

It should be no surprise that Phelps also considers Hollywood (and, indeed, all of America) to be populated by godless Sodomites, and that he believes that it is now an unpardonable sin to even pray for the salvation of Americans. All Americans are going to hell, either because they are gay or because they are what Phelps endearingly refers to as "fag-enablers". In any case, while I wouldn't recommend necessarily tracking down any of his lengthy sermons and subjecting yourselves to an hour-or-so of hate speech, the short sermon delivered against Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert is perhaps worth listening to.

For those of you who can't be bothered (I hardly blame you), the following is what I considered to be the most salient point that Phelps made:

In Genesis 19, two unidentified messengers ("angels", according to many traditional translations) arrive at the home of Abraham's nephew, Lot, on the outskirts of Sodom and Gomorrah. Their message: that the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah are wicked sinners and that they are all soon to be destroyed by fire and brimstone (גפרית ואש). Lot warned his sons-in-law but they did not heed his message. According to verse 14,

ויהי כמצחק בעיני חתניו
But he seemed like a jester in the eyes of his sons-in-law

Subsequently, fire and brimstone do indeed rain down upon the twin cities and everybody, save Lot, his wife and his two daughters, dies in the desolation - including the sons-in-law who were warned directly by Lot himself. What is the message that Phelps derives from this? There are several.

One is that it is not only the sinners themselves who die in God's fury. Lot's wife was not guilty of the same crimes for which the residents of Sodom and Gomorrah burned, but she looked back longingly at the cities and can thus be understood to be supportive of their crimes. Like many of the citizens of America, Lot's wife is one of Phelps' "fag-enablers".

Another major message, and the one that allowed Phelps to rant for a time about Colbert and Stewart, was the fact that Lot was misunderstood by his sons-in-law to be joking around. Clearly, argues Phelps, such was a common joke at the time. The citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah knew what terrible sinners they were, and they frequently mocked the very fact that they were all, indeed, destined for hell.

While I do not share Phelps' sentiments, I was nonetheless pleasantly surprised at what appeared to be an interesting and rather viable exposition on the Bible. It is worth noting that there is nothing within the Biblical text itself that would indicate that homosexuality was the sin for which the residents of the two cities were to die. While men of Sodom do request the messengers/angels that they may have intercourse with them, this is not mentioned anywhere else in the Bible as being the crime for which they were guilty. In fact, the very notion that the residents of Sodom were all practising homosexuals (hence the word 'sodomy') is thoroughly post-Biblical and almost entirely of Christian origin. Nonetheless, the fact that Lot's relatives perceived what he was saying as a joke may also be taken to indicate the prevalence of such humour.

Is it a marked sign of our own depravity that, instead of being berated, we are effectively congratulated through the medium of comedy? Does liberalism, indeed, constitute depravity at all? It's fun to hate people like Phelps for their single-minded bigotry, but I am nonetheless struck by the pertinence of this particular point. I laughed at Colbert's and Stewart's performance, but I also found that it gave me pause to think.

How Am I? I'll Tell You!

2006-09-11T21:50:00.000+10:00

I'm getting a bit sick of people who seem to think that the only correct response to the question, "How are you?" is "Well". That's not true, people. "Good" is also correct.

You see, the difference between "well" and "good" is simple. "Good" is an adjective. That means that it describes nouns. A film can be good, as can a tree, a dog, an event or a thought. "Well", on the other hand, is an adverb. That means that it describes verbs. You can watch something well, climb something well, pat something, attend something or think something well. Right? Okay.

If I ask you, "How is the film?", the correct answer is "good". It is not "well". So too if I ask you, "How are you?", the correct answer is "good". It is not "well". This is because "you" is a (pro)noun, and not a verb. If I say, "How are you going?" or "How are you doing?", then the correct answer is "well" and not "good". Both "go" and "do" are verbs. Right.

Now, you might tell me that the question, "How are you?", naturally assumes one of the previous two extensions. Clearly I am not asking you how you are as a person, but how you have been keeping. "Keep", like "do" and "go" is a verb and merits the adverbial response. But I disagree. I do not think that that is necessarily what people are asking me, and I do not feel that it is incumbent upon me to treat the question as though it is possessing an invisible verb.

Next time someone asks you how you are, indicate that the sentence was a nominal one by providing them with something that is clearly an adjective! Look them straight in the eye and say,

"Tall, thanks. How are you?"

cogito, ergo...

2006-09-11T17:45:00.001+10:00

Inspired by a great couple of posts over at Bilbulatsia, I decided that it was high time that I actually write a little bit about who I really am.

Well.

My family is not religiously observant. My father always wanted me to be a Rabbi, but this was moreso because he perceived me as being genuinely interested in Judaism and he felt that I would make a good one. It is perhaps a testament to his open-mindedness that he could even advocate such a thing for his son, he not being a particularly religious man himself. We always attended synagogue services for Rosh HaShana and Yom HaKippurim, and even went through a faze when I needed to go with my father a few times a week on the lead-up to my bar-mitzvah. When I look back at it, those were very pleasant experiences, and the synagogue seemed a pleasing place for me, and a provocative one.

My interests may have all but died there, for I never pursued any degree of religiosity while still attending school. It was while I was undertaking a degree in Communications that I first began to develop a stronger interest, and it manifested itself in the form of a zeal for Qabbalah. I began reading widely (and purchasing ever more widely), but was deterred by the fact that I had no background in any of the 'more necessary' material. I had always felt attracted to the Bible, for reasons that I had never been able to put into words, but was now also feeling myself drawn towards Talmud and Halakha. I started taking classes.

The classes that I took were run by Chabad Rabbis in Sydney, and they generally continued on into farbrengens: the Yiddish term used to denote gatherings of Hassidim for the purposes of spiritual encouragement. These functions consistently had a high quantity of alcohol, but my extreme enthusiasm for the words of the Rabbi presiding over the event always ended up precluding me from actually doing much drinking. I do not even remember being dismayed by the quantity drunk by others.

I started attending synagogue services - Friday nights only at first, but I soon started going on Shabbat as well - and before long I was opting to wear a kippah. My Communications degree was actually combined at the time with International Studies, and I was to be spending 2002 in St Petersburg before returning and completing my degree in Sydney, 2003. I altered my degree, curtailed my plans and, after a brief and motivating visit to New Zealand (where I had a good friend who was also becoming very fascinated with Judaism and who was highly receptive to my wearing of a kippah), I left for Israel.

I spent six months between learning Hebrew on a kibbutz in the north and volunteering on an ambulance in Tel-Aviv before I finally entered the environment for which I had moved to Israel in the first place: yeshiva. It was a Chabad yeshiva and, within a very short space of time, I thoroughly looked the part. I grew my beard, donned the thickest and longest tzitzit that I could find, embraced wholeheartedly the Ashkenazi pronounciation employed by Lubavitchers, and bought myself a hat. By the time that my ten months were up, I had made my way through the factory and had finally come out the other end. The only things still my own were my opinions, and it was for their sake that I left.

I had become increasingly frustrated with Lubavitch Messianism¹, and fully cognizant of the fact that there was no such thing as a Lubavitcher who did not believe that the Rebbe was the Messiah. I was fed up with the amount of alcohol abuse that was going on in my so-called "yeshiva", and the fact that there were very few students there who were actually spending their time learning anything, rather than hanging out on street corners all afternoon and pestering passers-by with tefillin. I left, and I chose a Haredi yeshiva for its seriousness. I wanted Talmud, undiluted by Chassidut.

I was in for the surprise of my life. I had always learned that Lubavitchers were renowned for studying Chassidut as though it were Talmud, but I came to realise that they had only ever studied Talmud as though it were Chassidut. The real deal, as offered to my by (what I considered to finally be) a real yeshiva was infinitely more complex and conceptual. My life was becoming thoroughly cerebral, and I found myself vowing never to leave.

Life was good. For a time. It didn't take long before I realised that my opinions were as black-and-white as the clothes that I was wearing every day. I was harbouring racist thoughts about non-Jews, sexist thoughts about women, and downright disgusting thoughts about homosexuals. I was becoming one of them, and I did not like it. Every now and then, alarm bells would ring in my head, warning me of how I was behaving. I started on the road towards deciding to leave.

This was a difficult time for me, but only because of the successive psychological barriers that I had erected for myself. It was so easy to adopt a new practise, but so incredibly difficult to take one away. I had come to yeshiva in order to learn, but I was rapidly heading down the path of eradicating my entire life in order to be a part of a system to which I did not need to belong. This was not the life that I wanted to lead, but I didn't know how to leave it.

The final straw came when my mother visited me. I had not seen her in two years, and should have been very excited. Instead, I found myself feeling embarrassed by her secularism. She was not covering her hair, her dress should have been longer, her make-up was immodest. Immodest! My mother! I left the yeshiva. Although I joked afterwards to friends that I had done so "at the drop of a hat", I knew that it was a lot more complicated than that, and I suffered a lot of anxiety at the time. I didn't know who I was anymore without the elaborate mindset that I had built up for myself, and was not sure where I was going to find myself in Australia. One thing that I knew for sure: I wanted to keep studying.

To that end, I enrolled in a couple of Diplomas at Sydney University with the intention of working towards a PhD in Biblical Studies. A main part of the attraction was the excitement that was due to come with 'un-learning' everything that I had been taught to believe, and the certainty that should be provided by establishing some degree of bedrock on which my new lifestyle would be able to rest. Little did I know just how much these studies would mean to me.

It turns out that, as much as I love the Bible and as passionate as I am about Judaism, my chief interests are philological. The classes that I was encouraged to take (Biblical Hebrew, Aramaic and Syriac in my first year) quite literally blew my mind. The classes that I took in the Hebrew Bible left me astounded. This was the real deal, and it was something that no ultra-Orthodox yeshiva could ever have given me. This was real. This was a means of studying the texts themselves, not just buying into the literal truth of what their authors were saying.

I lost the kippah and I abandoned my observance of the mitzvot. There are times when I consider adopting these practises again, but I am no longer searching with the same degree of zeal with which I had once searched before. I have swum in the deep end and, while I did not drown, I knew when to leave the water and go back home. I am now taking a combined Honours program in both of my Diplomas and am thoroughly loving it. Next year will hopefully see the start of a PhD.

There is no end to this story, at least not yet. I have never regretted any of the things that I did, and I got an incredible amount out of my time in yeshiva. I am thankful every day for the fact that I went there, but I am equally thankful for the fact that I left. Fourteen months was quite long enough for me, but I look forward to the other places that my life may lead me.

¹ For those of you who are unaware, Chabad and Lubavitch are two names for the same phenomenon. Chabad is the name of the ideology, Lubavitch the name of the group.

By the Rivers of the Mississippi

2006-09-08T17:23:00.000+10:00

One of the more interesting contemporary readings of the Bible is that which is undertaken by African-American Christian communities. Having been converted to Christianity by their former masters, many of them felt a particular degree of affinity with the Israelites of the Old Testament. Like them, the Israelites were a nation of slaves and, like them, the Israelites were redeemed. Similarities do not stop there, however, for African-Americans were expected to sing and dance for their patronising overlords, and there is good indication within the Bible that the same thing was expected of the Judeans.

Psalm 137, often referred to as "By the Rivers of Babylon", expresses this very idea. Made popular by The Melodians' cheerful version in the 1960s, this particular psalm is actually a dirge of grief, encapsulating the mood felt by the Judeans who were thrown into exile after the Babylonian conquest of Jerusalem in 596-586 BCE. Many of the psalms composed prior to this one are believed to have been sung in the temple, and this psalm indicates in particular the renown that Judea had for its singing.

The following is the JPS translation of the first half of this psalm:

By the rivers of Babylon,
there we sat,
sat and wept,
as we thought of Zion.
There on the poplars
we hung up our lyres,
for our captors asked us there for songs,
our tormentors, for amusement:
"Sing us one of the songs of Zion."
How can we sing a song of the Lord
on alien soil?
If I forget you, O Jerusalem,
let my right hand wither;
let my tongue stick to my palate
if I cease to think of you,
if I do not keep Jerusalem in memory
even at my happiest hour.

The references to hanging up lyres in an interesting one, for it demonstrates that the Judeans were renowned for more than their singing alone. Indeed, the legendary king David is also presented as a celebrated lyre player, from whom the Israeli Hebrew word for harp (כינור דוד) is derived. The request to "sing us" a song is not to be understood as a benevolent one; rather it is much as the African-Americans themselves have experienced it. Belittling and condescending, it reduces the Judeans to the status of chattel.

The overriding theme of this particular part of the psalm is encapsulated in the question, "How can we sing a song of the Lord on alien soil?" This is also the overriding concern for the prophet Ezekiel, whose prophetic vision commences with the image of God in a fiery chariot, moving like the wind. Scholars have indicated the wheels of the chariot along with its rapid movement as a way of indicating that even in Babylonia (which is where Ezekiel's text is composed) prophesy is possible. The God of Israel, in other words, is a portable God and the worship of Him is not contingent upon residing in the Holy Land.

This is an issue that turns up elsewhere as well, particularly when the Aramean Naaman requests Israelite earth so that he may pray to the Israelite god (2 Kings 5:17). It would seem that the psalmist in our example is also struggling with the idea that the Israelite god may indeed be an Israelite god, and that His song may not be sung in a foreign land. While such a conception may have changed over time (although note the Rabbinic assertion that every synagogue is considered to be built on Israelite soil), it was a pressing issue for the earliest generations of exiles. Such a generation is credited with the composition of this particular psalm, not least because of the fact that the temple was rebuilt less than a century after its destruction, and there is no indication within this song of so happy an event.

I would like to make one more observation about this particular psalm, concerning the nature of its translation by JPS.

If I forget you, O Jerusalem,
let my right hand wither;
let my tongue stick to my palate
if I cease to think of you

There is nothing within the Hebrew that gives any indication that the psalmist is speaking of his hand withering and, short of it being a possible reference to God indicating His strength by making Moses' hand leprous, I do not know from where the editors are deriving this particular word. The common translation is "let my right hand forget its cunning", but even this is a stretch.

The Hebrew reads, quite simply,

אם־אשכחך ירושלם
תשכח ימיני

In other words, "let my right hand forget". There is no object in the sentence and therefore no indication as to what the hand is going to be forgetting. I have even seen some translations that attempt to deal with this problem by suggesting that "hand" is the object and that the psalmist is saying, "forget my right hand", but this is only plausible if the author is speaking to a male and Jerusalem is a feminine word.

On the contrary, I would argue that the right hand is destined to forget its ability to play the harp. This would also fit with the following line that, by speaking of the tongue cleaving to the palate, would indicate the inability to sing. Just as the African-Americans have struggled to retain their culture in the face of an overbearingly European society, so too did the ancient Judeans stress that they may sing and they may play music, but only on the condition that they do not forget Jerusalem.

Summer Approaches

2006-09-07T11:02:00.000+10:00

Well, for us folks in the so-called antipodes, Summer is only getting ready to begin. Guess how I'll be spending it?

sigh

An Argument of Cosmic Proportions

2006-09-05T22:10:00.000+10:00

lu•na•tic |'loōnə¸tik|
noun
a mentally ill person (not in technical use)
• an extremely foolish or eccentric person

ORIGIN Middle English : from Old French lunatique, from late Latin lunaticus, from Latin luna 'moon' (from the belief that changes of the moon caused intermittent insanity).
- Oxford American Dictionary

In Genesis 1:16, we are told:

ויעש אלהים את־שני המארת הגדלים את־המאור הגדל לממשלת היום ואת־המאור הקטן לממשלת הלילה ואת הכוכבים
And God created the two large luminaries: the large luminary to rule by day and the small luminary to rule by night, along with the stars

Faced with the obvious question (why are we told that the sun and the moon are both large, only to then be told that the sun is large and the moon is small?), the Rabbis come up with a curious explanation. In Tractate Ḥullin of the Babylonian Talmud (page 60b), they wrote:

אמרה ירח לפני הקב"ה רבש"ע אפשר לשני מלכים שישתמשו בכתר אחד אמר לה לכי ומעטי את עצמך
"The moon spoke up before the Holy One, Blessed is He: 'Master of the World, is it possible for two kings to share a crown?' He said to her, 'Go and reduce yourself'."

For the moon's impertinence, she is reduced to being a minor luminary, while the sun is granted supreme dominion over the day. The midrash takes this even further by demonstrating that the nations of the world (who are many times more numerous than the Jewish people) shall mark their calendar by the sun, while the moon shall be utilised for the calendrical observations of the Jews. The text was written some time before the rise of Islam (which utilises a solely lunar calendar and which now may boast numbers surpassing the global population of Christians), but the implication is that the sun is used by those with many adherents to their faith while the moon is used by those with few.

The Talmud goes on to relate the benefits of being small by listing a variety of important personages in the Bible who happened to either be the youngest in their families or the shortest in physical stature. Among such greats are Jacob (whose epithet Israel became the name given to all of his descendants) and David (whose reign typified the commencement of Israel's glory-days and who is taken as a model of piety and stature).

Every month, religious Jews bless the new moon and express their hope that one day the moon will be granted its former status and will actually eclipse the sun. On that day, Judaism shall be the recognised truth and all of the nations of the world will come to the mountain of God in Jerusalem to praise the creator of heaven and earth. Like the editors of the Oxford American Dictionary supposed, perhaps we're all a little mad...

Crocodile Tears

2006-09-05T21:20:00.000+10:00

In honour of the passing of Australian wildlife conservationist, Steve Irwin, I have decided to make a few comments concerning reptiles in the Hebrew Bible.

The first reference to these animals can be found in the beginning of Genesis. We are told, in 1:21, that:

ויברא אלהים את־התנינם הגדלים
"God created the large taninim"

What does this word mean?
To answer this question, the best place to look is a Biblical concordance. According to mine, this word appears some fourteen times. Of these times, several of the references are poetic and there is not much contained within them that may shed light on the word's meaning. Some of the others, however, are a little more explicit.

Isaiah (27:1) speaks of taninim that exist in the sea, and Ezekiel (29:3) speaks of one 'crouching' within a river. Perhaps the most interesting reference is found in Exodus 7 when God teaches Moses a trick by which he may prove his power to Pharaoh.

God tells Moses that he should cast his rod upon the ground and it shall turn into a tanin. Moses does so and, behold, that is exactly what his staff does. Pharaoh's response, however, is to have his magicians perform the same trick, and we are told that their rods turn into taninim as well. The tanin of Moses and Aaron, however, eats the taninim of Pharaoh's magicians and, assumedly, God's supreme power is demonstrated.

This all seems very simple until a few verses later when Moses is told to meet Pharaoh at the bank of the river. God explicity tells Moses that he should bring his staff with him: the one that had turned into... a snake. What's going on? It would seem that tanin and nachash ('snake') are not too dissimilar! So a tanin must be something very like a snake, that lives in water, and 'crouches' within a river...

I considered inserting a photo of a crocodile here, but I thought that might be a little too obvious. Indeed, tanin means crocodile in Israeli Hebrew.

So, in the beginning of Genesis, God created giant reptiles on the fifth day...
No comment.

What's In A Name?

2006-09-04T19:15:00.000+10:00

"Though it comes into futility and departs into darkness, and its very name is covered with darkness"¹, the archetypal Jew in English literature captivates me. What is it about the miserable fiend who holds me so enthralled? Is it his lisping self-effacement? The simpering manner in which he seeks to gratify his worldly masters whilst nonetheless stabbing them all in the back? Or is it the darkness with which he appears to envelop himself like a thick and dirty cloak, invisible to those who dwell in light and laughter, and detested by the very creator of the world?

There are reams of commentaries devoted to his character; rivers of ink have been spilled in understanding his author's prejudice. What was the motivation behind the apparent hatred that underlies texts like Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice and Marlowe's The Jew of Malta? What was the root of Chaucer's fixation with the blood libel in "The Prioress' Tale"? In answering this question, it is pertinent to note the role of the Jew's daughter in much of the literature. Both Shylock's daughter (Jessica) and Barabbas' daughter (Abigail) serve a common purpose. They abscond from their communities, reject their faith, cause untold despair to their hated fathers, and marry a virile and virtuous Christian man. So triumphs Christianity.

Was this the world-view of Shakespeare and Marlowe (respectively)? Do the actions of their Jewish protagonists reflect the experiences that they both had with Jews? In actual fact, the answer is no. In 1290, Edward I ("Edward Longshanks") had all of the Jews in England expelled. For 350 years, England was completely rid of its erstwhile Hebrew citizens. Shakespeare, Marlowe and Chaucer, all three of whom were writing during this period, had never met a Jew. So deep was the racial prejudice ingrained, however, that the moneylenders they presented to their audience were steeped in characteristics that simply reeked of age-old Jew hatred. And their unfamiliarity with Jews and Judaism is reflected most clearly in the names that they chose.

Jessica and Abigail are names that were also prevalent amongst non-Jews at the time. Abigail is a Biblical name, but common enough in English society so as not to appear even slightly Hebraic. The purpose here is reflected in the protagonists themselves: just as Jessica and Abigail righteously abandon their dead faith in favour of the living Christianity, so too are they graced with 'real' names by their authors. Their stiff-necked fathers, condemned literarily to a dying religion, are not granted names with which a Christian may necessarily be familiar. Shylock, a mock name, reflects Shakespeare's ignorance. Not having met a Jew, he was incapable of choosing a genuine Jewish name. The name that he ended up choosing, however, was most probably designed on the basis of its sound.

The word shy conjures up the image of a simpering and an ingratiating person, as Shylock himself proves to be. The word lock, on the other hand, may have been chosen for its proximity to the word 'forelock', the English name for the curls of hair that some religious Jewish men grow from the sides of their face. The combination of the two terms, that mixture of obsequiousness and piety, encapsulates the manner in which Jews were considered by the Christians amongst whom they had once lived. For Chaucer too, whose characters do not have names, there is this same combination of fearful gratification, coupled with an almost satanic degree of religious ritual.

For Marlowe, whose Barabbas embodies this same distasteful combination again, there is more on which to elaborate. The name Barabbas speaks volumes for, unlike Shylock, Barabbas is a Biblical name. It features in the New Testament gospels of Matthew, Luke and John, when Pilate offers the citizens of Jerusalem a choice between liberating Jesus ("the king of the Jews") and an instigator of rebellions by the name of Barabbas. The people, spurred on by Caiaphas and the Pharisees, select Barabbas and have Jesus condemned to death. While we hear more of several of the other minor characters in the narrative, Barabbas departs from the written record almost as soon as he had entered it. His name, however, is a curious one.

Barabbas is the Greek transliteration of an Aramaic name, Bar Abba. This name translates, literally, to "the father's son". In a world where many people's names featured patronymics, this name is a mockery. It is one thing to be given a name like Abba Shaul (The Father of Saul²) or Bar Kosiba (The Son of Kosiba³) but Bar Abba by itself makes no real sense. On the contrary, the name is ironic. When faced with the opportunity to redeem the Son of the Father (Jesus), the fickle multitudes instead opted to redeem a man whose name merely happened to be "Son of the Father". Over the reality, they opted for appearances.

In many ways, Marlowe's protagonist (like Shakespeare's) has a most fitting name. It is not a Jewish name and, short of simply lifting a name from the pages of the Hebrew Bible, there was no real way for him to have chosen one. Nonetheless, it conveys certain images. While "Shylock" conveys the distasteful combination of excessive flattering and false piety (the very stereotypical image of the Jew in Shakespeare's England), "Barabbas" conveys images of misplaced hope. His character, as a moneylender, has all the appearances of somebody who services his community, but his very soul is bare. He is a reminder, as Jews themselves served as a reminder in many Christian communities, that God was dead; killed by the Jews themselves before salvation could be effected. Just as the role of Barabbas' and Shylock's daughters was to indicate the triumph of Christianity over a religion of appearances, so too was this role reflected in the very names of the protagonists themselves.

[Postscript: It may also be worth noting that, of the other Jewish names chosen by Marlowe in the same text, Ithamar is the name of Aaron's son; Obed is the name of the son of Ruth and Boaz; Nones was a contemporaneous Jewish doctor who had converted to Christianity; and Kirriah Jearim was an Israelite town, mentioned in the Hebrew Bible.]

¹ Ecclesiastes 6:4.
² More probably "Saul the Elder"; a Rabbi of the Babylonian Talmud.
³ Possibly "sheep-shearer", or "resident of KSB"; the failed hero of an insurrection against Roman rule.

Author Biographies

2006-08-31T17:45:00.000+10:00

The Appeal of The Lord of the Rings

2006-08-31T15:07:00.000+10:00

In an essay entitled "Time"¹, Barry Langford suggests that the chief appeal to be found in The Lord of the Rings is in its unremarked extension. As he explains, all novels require narrative and temporal extension. The diegetic element of the tale (ie: the manner in which the narrative appears to move through a temporal sequence) is always grounded within a broader set of preconditions. A contemporary novel alludes to those broader preconditions in an unremarked fashion, relying upon the reader's familiarity with the cultural norms of the novel's setting. Books about modern-day New York do not assume that the reader may be unfamiliar with cars, skyscrapers, stock-market crashes or bureaucracy. These backdrop elements to the story, utilised at will by the author, do not require additional narrative explanation. An historical novel, set for example in Victorian England, does require such explanation and can thus be referred to as a remarked novel. The means by which the author remarks upon the novel's extension is entirely up to them.

The Lord of the Rings, taking place in a purely fantastic reality, likewise requires a degree of remarking and, to this end, Tolkein relied to a great extent upon such characters as the Hobbits. By their very unfamiliarity with much of the world in which the story takes place, Tolkein is able to provide explanations of things, presented through the medium of more hardened characters who would explain things for the Hobbits' benefit. Yet, to a great degree, the world remains unremarked altogether. There are places on the provided maps that are never visited, creatures whose motivations are never fully explained, and periods of history that lie in the shadows.

Most fantasy novels eschew these absences yet, for Tolkein (who was, in many ways, the father of the genre) they were the very substance of his world. As he explains,

Part of the attraction of The Lord of the Rings, is, I think, due to the glimpses of a large history in the background: an attraction like that of viewing far off an unvisited island, or seeing the towers of a distant city gleaming in a sunlit mist. To go there is to destroy the magic, unless new unattainable vistas are again revealed².

To achieve this end, Tolkein relied upon both a narrative and a temporal extension. The narrative extension was developed through the usage of language (found in the names of places and beings, as well as the untranslated portions of epic poetry throughout the text), geography and time. This last one is especially interesting for it is not found merely in the references to historical events but also in the extended life spans of some of the protagonists, whose very longevity reminds the reader that they are glimpsing but a passing vignette of Middle-Earth's history.

To what extent may one put together the missing pieces? Is it possible, as many Tolkein fans do, to determine exactly what Denethor saw when he gazed into the palantír? Or the means by which Elrond and Isildur mustered the armies of elves and men against Sauron? Surely there is enough information within the text to provide the keen reader with substantial clues, should the book and the other corresponding writings of its author be appropriately scoured. Is such an approach valid?

Some would certainly think so. With essays entitled "Events Before the Opening of the Action in Hamlet", "Where Was Hamlet at the Time of his Father's Death?" and "Hamlet's Age", A.C. Bradley attempts to do just this. By analysing the extant manuscripts of Shakespeare's greatest tragedy, and by assuming a certain degree of consistency within each one, Bradley is able to make various definitive statements concerning that which is not directly related by the play's author. Nonetheless, there are others (myself included) who would disagree with the supposed viability of such a study.

Perhaps Tanner said it best, in his brief commentary on Austen's Pride and Prejudice³. When faced with the issue of locating the period of the text's action in a brief reference to peace with France at the end of the novel, Tanner responds by stating that "where she [Austen] has been content to leave a matter as absolutely peripheral to her particular action and fiction, then so should we". Such a decision, pertinent not only in its warning against over-contextualising the works of Austen (as a dramatic novelist) and Tolkein (as a fantasy author), may be equally enforced in analyses of other texts as well.

The pseudo-historical desire to ground the works of the Hebrew Bible in chronology is likewise destructive in that it may often be seen to ruin the original import of the Biblical stories. Just as academics today are unconcerned with dating the "historical" flood, so too should they be unconcerned with locating the reigns of David and Solomon in history. Whether one concedes that both David and Solomon were historical personages or whether one views them as no more than the Arthurian legends is irrelevant. The text that immortalises them is a work of literary creativity and the analysis of history is a task better left to archaeologists to ponder.

¹ Langford, B. "Time". Pages 29-46 of Robert Eaglestone (ed.), Reading the Lord of the Rings: New Writings on Tolkein's Classic (London: Continuum, 2005).
² Carpenter, H. (ed.) Letters of J.R.R. Tolkein (London: Allen and Unwin, 1981), 333; cited in Langford, 33.
³ Austen, J. Pride and Prejudice (ed. T. Tanner; Middlesex, Penguin: 1972), 399 n4.

Just a little guy...

2006-08-27T13:12:00.000+10:00

Now that Pluto is officially a "dwarf planet", and the number of planets in our solar system down to a paltry eight, it has rightly been observed that a new mnemonic is required. No more may children declare that their very eldery mothers are doing anything that even remotely concerns their pa. The following are my two suggestions so far:

"Murdered Vietnamese Envoy May Justly Startle UN"

and

"Mexican Viagra Embargo Makes Juan So Unbelievably Numb"

Feel free to add your own suggestions: either here or with Allegorical Nonsense, who first came up with the idea!

The Ever Elusive Thesis

2006-08-27T11:42:00.000+10:00

The Book is Dead: Long Live the Book!

2006-08-26T13:15:00.000+10:00

Faced with the question as to whether or not books are liable to see their demise in the advent of the internet, Umberto Eco waxes philosophical in his analysis of just what a book is. Differentiating between texts that are utilised for reference and those that are utilised for the dramatic telling of a story, Eco foresees the redundancy of one and the undiminished usefulness of the other.

A Parable

2006-08-23T11:24:00.000+10:00

Once upon a time, there was a boy named Izzie.
Izzie liked girls.
Izzie also kept a diary.
In this diary, Izzie wrote all about his girlfriends.
Whenever he was in a relationship, Izzie would write poetry for his girlfriends, and he would put this poetry in his diary. Izzie would write stories describing his girlfriends' incomparable beauty, and he would put those in his diary as well.

One day, Izzie fell in love.
Izzie's love was so fierce and so jealous that he decided to eradicate every diary entry that spoke of a different girl.
But Izzie couldn't do it.
Izzie's entries were so nicely written that it seemed a shame to simply erase them all. So, do you know what Izzie did?
He edited them.
He changed the details so that it looked as though it was the love of his life of whom he had been speaking all along.
And nobody knew the difference.

At first.

You see, many years after Izzie died, somebody found his diary entries. And, reading them, they noticed various inconsistencies.
References to the love of Izzie's life in one place seemed to describe her in a particular manner, while references to the "same" girl elsewhere seemed to describe her in a manner that was... contradictory.
Not only that, but some of these girls turned up in diary entries written by other boys. And slowly but surely, people pieced together the true history of Izzie's life.

Incidentally, Izzie's diary is available for purchase. Do you know what it's called?

The Hilarious Hebrew Bible

2006-08-18T13:55:00.000+10:00

In a book entitled On Humour and the Comic in the Hebrew Bible, Radday and Brenner attempt to demonstrate the assertion that Biblical authors knew how to have a good laugh. The fact that the Bible seems like so serious a text is simply because the people who have translated it over the ages have tended to be reasonably serious people. What is more, that which was funny two thousand years ago is not necessarily funny today. Today, even the reruns of Friends are starting to get tiring: how banal will they appear next millenium?

Throughout the essays in Radday's and Brenner's book, a variety of comic examples are listed. Some of them are slapstick (such as the manner in which the Egyptian magicians, when faced with a plague of blood, demonstrated their own prowess by making the plague worse), while others are simply sweet (such as the manner in which the local girls seem to speak over each other in answering the handsome Saul's questions). I would like to relate another example, but one which is not listed in this entertaining book. It involves the aftermath of Abel's murder.

Once God realises what Cain has done (or, at least, once God forces Cain to confess), Cain is immediately exiled. His punishment? To be a ceaseless wanderer for the rest of his days. He may never dwell amongst humanity, but he must wander the earth as a nomad. The first thing, however, that Cain does is settle in a city, and the rest of his days are spent living an urbanised life. Did Cain contravene the Lord's punishment? It would seem so, but upon closer examination it would appear that Cain found a loophole.

The exact wording of Cain's punishment is

נע ונד תהיה בארץ
na´ v'nad tihyeh va`aretz
You shall be a wanderer and a nomad on the earth

- Gen 4:12

Cain loudly bemoans his fate, for who would wish to be a ceaseless wanderer? In verse 16, however, we are told that he settles down in the land of Nod (to the East of Eden) and, we may assume, meets his wife for in the following verse they have a child. Did he not understand the punishment that he was given? On the contrary, it would seem them he understood it all too well. The name of the city that he chose was Nod, which is formed off the same verbal root as the imperative nad, as seen in the wording of his punishment.

While contemporary readers of modern-day translations may miss the joke, God is effectively telling Cain to be a wanderer and Cain is responding by dwelling in a land called Wander. A Wanderer he shall indeed be for the rest of his days.

How to Pick Up a Girl in Tel-Aviv

2006-08-16T22:12:00.000+10:00

(Translated from the Hebrew: מדריך תל־אביב מקוצר: איך להתחיל עם בחורה, by Chanoch Levin)

In a coffee shop; Friday, after lunch

[A young man approaches a girl sitting alone in a coffee shop and sits on her]

Girl: Excuse me, but you're sitting on me!
Man: Waiter! I hear that you have talking seats?

[The waiter approaches]

Waiter: That's not a seat - it's a lady.
Man: So why don't you use seats!?
Waiter: We do use them, only you've sat upon a lady by mistake...
Man: Fine, fine! Bring me a cup of tea and stop screwing with my brain! Women and seats!

[to the girl]

The waiters here, I'm telling you!... What's your name?
Girl: Shoshana.

Putting My Cards on the Table

2006-08-16T21:35:00.000+10:00

Well.

This is going to be a very difficult post to write. I realise that I am about to make myself very unpopular, but I am becoming fed up with the fact that everybody assumes that I, and countless other "diaspora" Jews, am something that I am not. It is time to come out of the closet and declare for one and all that I am not a Zionist. I am not even a Non-Zionist, whatever that is. If I have to be completely and dangerously honest, I am an anti-Zionist. I feel no connection to the State of Israel and I detest the fact that it is referred to in the media as the Jewish State. It is not a Jewish State, it is a Zionist State, and they are by no means the same thing.

I utilised the inverted commas above (in referring to myself as a "diaspora" Jew) because I do not believe in the existence of this curious phenomenon. A diaspora? Since when? Since 1948, to be perfectly honest, when the Israeli nation unofficially declared itself to be the centre of the Jewish world. It is not, nor has it ever been, the centre of the Jewish world. Palestine (in the classical sense), which is a great deal larger than the present political entity known as Israel, has always been a focal point for Jews around the world. There is nonetheless not so much as a single halakha that mandates living in Palestine. Why the sudden shift?

This is indeed a good question, for the Zionist movement was not born of the tragedy referred to as the Holocaust. Zionism was born of the emancipation, which is a most curious phenomenon for never in history have the Jews required it less. Indeed, Jews in South America and in Russia may desire the freedom granted to them in Israel today, but they would also no doubt relish the freedom that is granted Jews in Australia - a land of truly equal opportunity. Israel is, too, a land of equal opportunity, but only in the Orwellian sense. There, all are equal (although some are certainly more equal than others).

Israel is not only deserving of the epithet "apartheid state" for both their barbarous treatment of the Palestinians and for the second-class status awarded to Israeli Arabs, but they have effectively committed a cultural genocide against Jews from all around the world. No longer do the beautiful traditions of the Eastern Jews (the עדות מזרח) exist; no more the minhagim of the Yemenites, Moroccans, Iraqis, Syrians, Palestinians nor Ethiopians. All cultures have been equally erased and replaced by the single hegemonic culture of European Judaism.

In many respects, I do believe that the declaration of a state was the single worst thing to have happened to the Jewish people. It is a populist form of messianism, one that perceives salvation in the form of a secular political entity. The erstwhile conception that salvation lies with God and good deeds has become a relic of a bearded past. The old Jew, incinerated in Auschwitz, has been replaced by the new Jew: muscular and energetic, bearing an AK-47 and eking out a living in his ancestral home, while battling evils of Biblical proportion.

Is this a viable representation of life in Israel? Or is it merely a bastardisation of Biblical texts; a reappropriation of classical rabbinic dogma in a thoroughly secular light? I vote steadfastly for the latter and, while I do feel an emotional attachment to Israel, it rests solely upon the time that I have spent there. I have friends in Israel, and there are places that I truly love. I wish no harm to come upon it or its citizens, but that is as far as my feelings for it go. My ancestors are European and I am an Australian: can I really buy into the lie that Israel is my "homeland"?

Around the world, Israel has created an equation in the minds of intelligent people that Judaism = Zionism, and woe betide any fool who dares to publicly question Israel's actions! The one dogma held dear by secular Jews is that criticism of Israel is tantamount to anti-semitism (as though Israel bears the flame for Judaism around the world and sets the global standard) and a Jew who commits so heinous a crime is clearly a "self-hater". Well, here is one self-appreciating Jew who has nothing to do with Zionism.

The (somewhat) Legendary Dan Osman

2006-08-14T21:02:00.000+10:00

He's dead now, incidentally. That probably shouldn't surprise you.

שחמט

2006-08-14T19:33:00.000+10:00

לאן הלך ילדי, ילדי הטוב לאן?
חייל שחור מכה חייל לבן
לא יחזור אבי, אבי לא יחזור
חייל לבן מכה חייל שחור
בכי בחדרים ובגנים שתיקה
המלך משחק עם המלכה

ילדי שוב לא יקום, לעולמים יישן
חייל שחור מכה חייל לבן
אבי בחשיכה ולא יראה עוד אור
חייל לבן מכה חייל שחור
בכי בחדרים ובגנים שתיקה
המלך משחק עם המלכה

ילדי שבחיקי, עכשיו הוא בענן
חייל שחור מכה חייל לבן
אבי בחום ליבו, עכשיו ליבו בקור
חייל לבן מכה חייל שחור
בכי בחדרים ובגנים שתיקה
המלך משחק עם המלכה

לאן הלך ילדי, ילדי הטוב לאן?
נפלו חייל שחור, חייל לבן
לא יחזור אבי, אבי לא יחזור
ואין חייל לבן, חייל שחור
בכי בחדרים ובגנים שתיקה
על לוח ריק רק מלך ומלכה

- Chanoch Levin, 2000.

שלא עשני גוי

2006-08-09T17:54:00.000+10:00

Oh dear...

A New Judaism

2006-08-09T11:31:00.000+10:00

Just a quick note to mention that I found myself looking at the Universal Jewish Encyclopedia (published 1941) the other night and was most interested to note certain omissions from its pages. Despite the fact that it was only printed a mere sixty-five years ago, there is no reference to the Holocaust, no mention of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and not so much as an allusion to the State of Israel. I find that it truly boggles the mind to think of the extent to which Judaism has changed in the last century.

The Holocaust, the Dead Sea Scrolls and the State of Israel have each bequeathed to us a lens through which to view the last two thousand years. Through the lens of the Holocaust we see a history wracked with anti-semitism (despite the anachronistic nature of this term prior to the 1800s); through the Dead Sea Scrolls we gain an insight into the sectarian nature of Judaism prior to the Talmud and to the traditions that bridged the Bible to both the Mishna and the New Testament; through the State of Israel we see an exile based around the lack of military power and a messianism that lies within the notion of a secular state.

Isaiah prophesied a new heaven and a new earth, but it seems that in the last century we have been given a new Judaism instead.

Oy...

2006-08-02T22:15:00.000+10:00

Achieving Buddha Consciousness

2006-07-31T22:57:00.000+10:00

Master Goso Hoen Zenji said,

It is like when a water buffalo leaves the safety of its enclosure to the edge of a cliff over an abyss. His horns, head, and hoofs pass through, but why can't his tail?

Wu-Men then added the verse:

If the buffalo runs, he will fall into the abyss;
If he returns, he will be butchered.
That little tail
Is a very strange thing.

Brothers In Arms

2006-07-27T14:58:00.000+10:00

For more images of the current war, see Baleboosteh

You Say "Potato" and I Say... "LATKES"!!

2006-07-27T12:46:00.000+10:00

The award for the stupidest word in the English language officially goes to "phylacteries". What the hell are phylacteries? Well, according to the Oxford American Dictionary, they are "small leather box[es] containing Hebrew texts on vellum, worn by Jewish men at morning prayer as a reminder to keep the law". Ohh, Tefillin ! Why didn't you say so? You see "phylactery" comes from Greek (φυλακτηριον) and literally means an 'amulet'. Only it is never used to refer to an amulet, you see: it only ever means Tefillin. So if we expect non-Jews to learn the word "phylactery", why can't they just learn to use the word Tefillin instead??

Philologos has a great article in The Forward that touches upon just this issue.

Faithless Believer

2006-07-27T10:50:00.000+10:00

Thomas Mann once described apostasy as the greatest act of faith. However irreverent such an assertion may appear, it has an almost mathematical quality to it. An act based on lack of faith is still a faith-based act. A Jew who organises his Saturday around not going to the synagogue falls into the same category as she who does go every single week. The first believes that there is no god while the second believes that there is a god, but both are believers.

Atheism never held an appeal for me and still strikes me as being an inherently untenable position. If I were to encounter someone who believed that his next-door neighbours were keeping a great white shark in a tank beneath their home, I might choose to disagree. I do not share that belief for I have never encountered this shark nor, indeed, anything else that could lead me to the conclusion that it may exist in such a place. But I couldn't believe that they weren't doing it for the simple reason that I haven't checked!

So too with God. I have neither encountered God in my life nor anything else that has led me to the conclusion that God exists. It goes without saying that, to me, this idea is as foreign as a three-metre shark in a suburban home. Can I believe that God does not exist? No, of course not. The universe is simply too large and I am too small and there may be somebody out there who has had an experience that has led him to believe in the existence of this divinity.

Ah, so I must be an agnostic. I neither believe in the existence of a god nor will I commit myself to the belief in God's absence. I quite literally don't know and, were I to be a Christian, then that would suffice to render me as such. Christianity, save a few rules that my ethnocentrism may permit me to declare performed by every civilised individual, is not a religion of law. On the contrary, one must render unto Caesar all that is Caesar's - in other words, follow the law of the land. Unlike Islam, Christianity has never been a model for political leadership, and Christian nations have been ruled in accordance with secular law, under God.

Islam and Judaism, on the other hand, are religions of law. As a Jew, it is not enough for me to declare myself agnostic and go about my irreligious day. How can I so openly flaunt the Sabbath if, as an agnostic, I acknowledge that maybe God does exist? Maybe God did reveal Himself to the souls of every unborn Jew, standing at the foothills of Mount Sinai? Maybe the Torah really is the magnum opus of this god? Maybe the Rabbis really are infused with cosmic fairydust, and all their sayings are the only truth?

If I were a true agnostic then I would have to acknowledge every one of these separate possibilities, and live my life accordingly. Should my doctor tell me that he thinks that I might have a particular disease and that if I do it will surely kill me, I will take the medication and forgo any minor side effects for the sake of prolonging my life. The side effects of observing the Sabbath are pretty minor, all things considered, so I would be a fool of an agnostic were I not to observe it! Ah, but who said that I was an agnostic?

No, as a Jew, this position is just as untenable as atheism and I propose a new word. I am an arevelarian. Arevelarianism is the belief that, while God may or may not exist, HE DID NOT WRITE A BOOK. No, and not only that! God never revealed Himself at Mount Sinai, never spoke to prophets, never endowed people with the ability to plug themselves into His unchanging essence - in short, never told me what to do. If you haven't guessed yet, arevelarianism is the belief that there was no revelation.

I may not believe that God either exists or does not exist, but I can put my foot down and believe with perfect faith in the non-existence of all the sort of patent nonsense that only the religiously initiated ever lull themselves into believing. If God did write a book, it probably would have been funnier.

Rahab... RAHAB!!

2006-07-26T19:06:00.000+10:00

In the Biblical book of Joshua, a curious character appears. Her name is Rahab and we are told that she lives within the wall around the fortified city of Jericho. Her role is an enigmatic one: when Joshua sends spies into the land, she hosts them for the evening and hides them from the local authorities. The spies themselves say little within the narrative, but she is given several lines, and she appears to be the one who is completely in charge of the situation. She sends the spies to the roof, she covers them with a protective blanket, speaks to the authorities and even tells the spies what they are to do next. Oh yes, we are also told that she is a prostitute.

Prostitute is an interesting word. Deriving from two Latin words (pro-, meaning 'before' and statuere, meaning 'set up, place'), the prostitute is somebody who exposes themselves publicly or who is, themselves, for sale. In common usage this refers specifically to somebody (generally a woman) who sells her body for sexual purposes. A text about prostitution is known as a 'pornographic' text (from the Greek: πορνη, 'prostitute' and γραφην, 'write'). Does this story actually fall within that category? Were our two heroes soliciting sex when they went to spend the night at Rahab's inn?

The Babylonian Talmud, while it does not suggest the (obvious) conclusion, nonetheless gives a resounding affirmative to the former question. Rahab was a woman who sold her body, and was so beautiful that one need only mention her name twice to be so overcome with lust that he will actually ejaculate. When Rab Nahman notes that he is able to say the name twice without experiencing this curious phenomenon, Rab Yitzhaq responds by informing him that this only occurred to those who were familiar with her beauty. While the Talmud does not suggest as much, this may seem to include the two spies themselves.

There are several references to prostitutes within the Bible, but it is not always so clear that this is what they are. When Judah mistakes Tamar for a prostitute, sitting as she was at the cross-roads, it is quite clear that the word possesses the meaning familiar to us, for Judah solicits sex with Tamar in exchange for payment. In our story, however, the word is slightly more dubious and a brief note on the word's etymology is not out of order.

The Hebrew is זונה (pron. 'zonah') and is used for the English 'prostitute' in modern Israeli society. Is this what it always meant? Actually, no. The root of the word (זנה) is related to the word for food (מזון, 'mazon') and literally means 'nourisher'. The location of Rahab's house at the very entrance to the city, coupled with the fact that she was a suitable person for the authorities to question concerning wayfarers, indicates that 'innkeeper' would be a more appropriate translation.

So much for defending Rahab's honour, but what may be done to salvage Tamar's?

The narrative, found within the book of Genesis, describes the means by which the thrice-widowed Tamar manages to curry the sexual favour of her father-in-law. She removes her widow's garb, covers her face with a veil and sits at the cross-roads, waiting for Judah to walk past. We are told that he mistook her for a prostitute, "for she had covered her face", and he immediately solicited her for sex. There may be no means of salvaging his reputation, but exegetes have found very clever ways of salvaging hers.

In many respects, these methods rest upon changing conceptions of female seduction. The Wiles of the Wicked Woman (known, more technically, as 4Q184) is a short tract from Qumran that likens sin to a temptress and describes her seductive ways. One of these (in line 5) is the wearing of a veil, something that had obviously been perceived in the ancient world as an alluring characteristic of a flirtatious woman. Not so in later societies, where such an adornment was perceived to be a sign of modesty. Assuming that, were Tamar to really play the harlot, she must have removed the veil prior to Judah's approach, how is it that he did not recognise her?

The answer, according to the Midrash, is that Judah's reference to her wearing a veil (the reason for his not recognising her) lay in the fact that she had worn a veil, every other time that he had seen her. So great was her modesty that she had covered her face in all of her dealings with her father-in-law and that now, while she's sitting at a cross-roads with face uncovered, he does not recognise her and mistakes her for a prostitute. The word used in this text is actually קדשה (pron. 'qedeisha') but, when Tamar is accused of having been a harlot, the author slips back to the more familiar זונה ('zonah').

While such exegetical concerns are clearly secondary to the text and the plain-sense understanding demands that Tamar wore a veil, there is nonetheless a world of difference between her activities in Genesis and the activities of Rahab in Joshua. The only connection that may be drawn between them is the usage of the noun that, while primarily referring to the keeper of an inn, also came to designate a prostitute by virtue of the innkeeper's reputation in the ancient world.

A Controversial Question

2006-07-23T12:16:00.000+10:00

A question: Could the Jews have held a place in Hitler's vision of the Master Race? To explain the pertinency of this, seemingly facile, question it is first important to understand a key distinction between different approaches to Holocaust studies in the academic world. This distinction has been labelled the intentionalism vs. functionalism dialectic. In brief:

Intentionalists argue that Hitler, from the outset, aimed to obliterate the Jewish people. He was the true architect of the Final Solution, and the brilliant instigator of a diabolical scheme. The Third Reich, in other words, was completely controlled by Hitler himself, and its activities were the result of his forthright planning and skilled statesmanship.

Functionalists, on the other hand, argue that Hitler was a weak dictator, blessed with oratorial skills that made him suitable for the role but with no real capabilities of planning. The Third Reich was effectively run by bureaucrats at a lower level and its activities were the result of spiralling bureaucracy moreso than the carrying-through of a particular plan. When the Nazis initially began looking into ways of transporting Jews to other countries (such as the famed Madagascar plan), these were genuine attempts and not just a means of easing into the Final Solution and, ultimately, making murder more palatable.

If we should choose to approach the topic from a purely functionalist perspective, a good argument can be made that (had history worked out slightly differently) the Jews themselves may have held a place in Hitler's vision of the ubermensch. In other words, just as 'honorary Aryan status' was conferred upon the Japanese and the Arabs, so too may it have been conferred upon the Jewish people. But how?

The Nazis had many dealings with the Zionists in Palestine, and even sent Eichmann at one stage as an ambassador to their fledgling country. Eichmann was a worthy choice of emissary, for he remarked at great length in his trial upon the fact that he was a great supporter of the Zionist movement. Of the only two books that he ever recalled reading, Herzl's political tract was one that left a great impression upon him. While he disliked religious Jews for their weakness, he admired the strength and ideological determination of the Zionists.

Indeed, this was what the Nazi party also admired about the Japanese and the Arabs. They were strong, they were powerful, and they were deeply committed to ideology. This is the very way in which the Nazis also sought to view themselves. Proof of the fact that other Nazis within Hitler's Third Reich viewed the Zionists in a similar fashion lies in the deals made with various Zionist representatives, who were allowed to hand-pick strong and mentally active Jews from concentration camps, and take them to Zionist training camps in Yugoslavia.

There is some debate over whether or not these training camps existed or, if they did, for how long they were operational - and no doubt an intentionalist would argue that the Nazi Party (as orchestrated by Hitler) was never going to sanction such activity. There is also evidence from the opposite perspective, and it is not too difficult to envisage a situation where, had the State of Israel been declared a decade earlier, the Zionist country may have found themselves supported by the murderous regime in Europe, and granted a status most ironic.

The Lubavitcher Rebbe, Aged 3

2006-07-12T16:24:00.000+10:00

Quote of the Day

2006-07-12T16:23:00.000+10:00

"Nietszche is dead"
- God

The Eleventh Stanza

2006-07-12T11:01:00.000+10:00

Another poem from Yehuda Amihai - this one requiring a brief prefatory explanation. The following is an example taken from the synagogue liturgy, read towards the end of certain services:

אין כאלהינו, אין כאדוננו
מי כאלהינו, מי כאדוננו
אתה הוא אלהינו, אתה הוא אדוננו
אתה הוא שהקריבו אבותינו לפניך את קטרת הסמים

There are none like our God, there are none like our Lord.
Who is like our God? Who is like our Lord?
You are our God! You are our Lord!
You are the one who drew our fathers close to you with the sacrificial burning of the incense.

Stanza eleven of "אלים מתחלפים, התפלות נשארות לעד":

אין כאלהינו, אין כאדוננו כך מתפללים
אין כאלהינו, אין כאדוננו שרים בקול גדול
והוא לא מגיב. ואנו מגבירים את קולנו ושרים
מי כאלהינו, מי כאדוננו והוא לא זז
ולא פונה אלינו. ואנו מוסיפים עוד בכח תחנונים
אתה הוא אלהינו, אתה הוא אדוננו. אולי יזכר
אותנו עכשו? אבל הוא נשאר אדיש, אפילו
פונה אלינו בעינים זרות וקרות
והפסקנו לשיר ולצעק ואומרים לו בלחישה
ומזכירים לו משהו פרטי, משהו קטן
אתה הוא שהקריבו אבותינו לפניך
את קטרת הסמים אולי יזכר עכשו
(כמו איש שמזכיר לאשה אהבה ישנה
את לא זוכרת איך קנינו נעלים
בחנות הקטנה בפנה וירד הרבה גשם בחוץ וצחקנו הרבה)
ונדמה שמשהו מתעורר בו ואולי זכר
אבל העם היהודי כבר נגמר

"There are none like our God, there are none like our Lord": so we pray.
"There are none like our God, there are none like our Lord": singing with voices raised.
But He does not respond, so we strengthen our voices and sing:
"Who is like our God? Who is like our Lord?" Yet He does not move
And He will not face us. So we increase the strength of our supplications:
"You are our God! You are our Lord!". Perhaps He will recall
Us now? But He remains indifferent, even
Turning to us with a cold stranger's eyes.
So we stop singing and crying out, and we speak to Him in a whisper
And we remind Him of something specific, something small.
"You are the one who drew our fathers close to you
With the sacrificial burning of the incense". Perhaps He will remember now?
(Like a man who reminds a woman of old love:
'Do you not remember when we purchased shoes
In the little store on the corner, and the rain poured down
Outside? How we laughed!')
And it seems that something has stirred within Him and He now turns around...
But the Jewish people can no longer be found.

Maximalism vs. Minimalism

2006-07-11T18:46:00.000+10:00

How does one reconcile Biblical 'history' with archaeology? How do we go about uniting different historical accounts of the same event? The second book of Kings (2 Kgs 3) relates a war that took place between Israel and Moab. The following is the account of this war as presented by the Biblical historian:

1. The Israelite king, Ahab (son of Omri), dies and the Moabites rebel against their Israelite overlords;
2. The new Israelite king, Jehoram (son of Ahab) musters his troops and heads south to unite with the Judean king, Jehosephat, and the Edomite king;
3. The three allied kings run low on water to sustain their armies and are forced to ask for assistance from the prophet Elisha;
4. Elisha miraculously produces rainfall and, thinking that the reflection of the sun in the water is the blood of the allied armies, the Moabite King (Mesha) throws caution to the wind and advances against them;
5. The Moabites are sorely routed and left with a single fortress: Kir-Hareseth;
6. Mesha sacrifices his son on the battlements, a "great wrath" comes upon Israel, and the allied armies retreat to their respective countries.

The following is the account of the Moabite king, Mesha, as engraved upon the so-called Moabite Stele:

1. The Israelite king, Omri, oppressed the land of Moab for the length of his reign and half the reign of his son (Ahab): a total of forty years;
2. During Ahab's reign, Mesha revolts and wages war against a series of Israelite military installations to the north;
3. Mesha slaughters all of the inhabitants of some cities, taking others captive and turning them into slaves;
4. Mesha utilises his new slaves to build greater fortifications for himself, including the moving of his capital from Kir-Hareseth to Dibon;
5. There is no Israelite counter-attack.

A number of problems exist, making the two accounts difficult to harmonise. They are as follows:

1. According to the Biblical chronology, Omri ruled for twelve years and Ahab ruled for twenty-two. Omri's reign plus half of Ahab's reign does not even almost amount to forty years;
2. According to the Biblical chronology, Jehoram (Ahab's son) is the ruler of Israel at the time of the insurrection, and the preceding king was his brother, Ahaziah. According to the Moabite Stele, Ahab is still the king of Israel;
3. The Biblical account has the allied armies delivering a stunning victory against Moab, while the Moabite account presents the exact opposite: the unchallenged conquest of several Israelite cities and Moab's return to greatness on the world's stage.

Even taking into account a king's propensity to lie in his own favour, these difficulties are difficult to resolve, but attempts to do so are perceived to fall upon a particular spectrum. This spectrum is characterised by its two poles: maximalism and minimalism.

The maximalist seeks to ascribe historical veracity to the Bible's account, over the accounts of other sources. They will seek to find a way to harmonise the sources and, if such a way does not present itself, assume errancy on the part of the non-Biblical text. The minimalist, on the other hand, is more inclined to view the Bible as the result of lengthy textual evolution and Biblical history as too theologically charged to constitute an accurate recording of events. Neither extremity is desirable, and both positively reek of ideology. To gain an understanding of the differences between them, the following are the thoughts of two different scholars: G. Rendsburg of the maximalist camp and P.D. Stern of the minimalists.

[Note: Neither scholar is an extremist in his views. Considerably more extreme conceptions actually exist, but they are not always worth taking seriously]

Rendsburg harmonises the accounts as follows:

1. The insurrection began during Ahaziah's reign but, as Ahaziah only reigned for two years, it is falsely ascribed to the reign of his predecessor;
2. Forty years is a round number, designed to convey the sense of 'a generation';
3. Israel was weak during the reign of Ahaziah (who is portrayed by the Bible as a sickly man) and opposition did not mount until the reign of his successor, Jehoram.

This still leaves us with a problem. The Biblical account would have us believe that Israel's retaliation was swift. How do we explain the fact that Israel did not respond to the insurrection until the reign of the following king? By inserting a passage from Chronicles (2 Chr 20) in the midst of the narrative in Kings. The following is the order of events:

1. The Moabites revolt against Israelite oppression and succeed in conquering a variety of cities to the north;
2. The Moabites then head south and conquer the kingdom of Edom;
3. The Moabites force the Edomites to fight with them and, together, they invade Judah - marching within five miles of Jerusalem;
4. Unable to conquer Jerusalem, Mesha then turns against the Edomites again;
5. The new king of Israel, Jehoram, musters his army and heads south to find support amongst the Judeans and the Edomites;
6. The war continues as per the Biblical description.

Rendsburg's final suggestion is that the Moabite Stele was erected closer to the commencement of the insurrection and, thus, could not take into account the stunning retaliation.

The following, however, is the indictment of Stern.

1. Based upon the fact that the Bible's concerns appear to be chiefly theological (with most of the account centred around the miracles of Elisha) and the Moabite account chiefly historical (demonstrating a profound awareness of topography and military strategy), we must side with the latter;
2. During the latter days of Ahab's reign, Israel was at war with Aram and Assyria in the north. This was a prime time for the Moabites to revolt;
3. The route south, as taken by the (wrong) Israelite king is another example of the Biblical account being an historical fiction: according to the Moabite source, Mesha was busy conquering cities in the north. Heading south would not only have exposed Israel's rear to Moab, it would also have exposed Israel's rear to Aram and Assyria;
4. Further indications of the fictitious nature of the Biblical account lie in the realm of archaeology. According to finds, there was no king in Edom at the time of Jehoram, and the Moabites went on to maintain their kingdom (something that they could not have done had they been reduced to a single fortress).

The Bible's perspective? Utterly theological: the story is brought as a means if indicating the notion that Yahweh saves and not Khemosh (the Moabite god). This is demonstrated chiefly through the use of names: "Mesha" (Saviour) and "Elisha" (God saves). The Biblical historian had no concern for actual history, and certainly did not intend their audience to interpolate stories from another text altogether in order to make sense of the events.

Neither account is perfect. Rendsburg fails to explain why the Moabites recorded the insurrection as having occurred during the reign of Ahab and Stern fails to take into account the alternative passage from Chronicles. There is no ready answer to this question, and disagreements tend to fall along the maximalism vs. minimalism spectrum. An awareness of the Bible as intended history is necessary (in the light of genre analyses that indicate that such is what much of it is), but a recognition of the process of editorial development is likewise of the essence.

While we can continue hoping for another discovery that may reveal, once and for all, what happened between Israel and Moab in the tenth century BCE, it is likely that this particular issue will never be resolved.

Amen

2006-07-11T17:33:00.000+10:00

For some unknown reason, I have started rekindling my interest in Gothic literature. As I don't wish to lead this blog away from its stated purpose, I have decided to devote this post to the first stanza of Yehuda Amihai's beautiful poem, "אלים מתחלפים, התפילות נשארות לעד". The following is the text of this first stanza, followed by my own (perhaps, unworthy) translation. I have taken a certain degree of license with my translation, both in content and in form:

ראיתי ברחוב, בערב קיץ,
ראיתי אשה שכתהב מלים
על ניר פרוש על דלת עץ נעולה,
וקפלה ושמה בין דלת למזוזה והלכה לה.

ולא ראיתי את פניה ולא את פני האיש
שיקרא את הכתוב
ולא ראיתי את המלים.
על שלחני מנחת אבן שכתוב עליה "אמן",
שבר מצבה, שארית מבית קברות יהודי
שנחרב לפני כאלף שנים, בעיר שבה נולדתי.
מלה אחת "אמן" חרותה עמק באבן
אמן קשה וסופי על כל שהיה ולא ישוב,
אמן רך ומזמר כמו בתפלה,
אמן ואמן, וכן יהי רצון.

מצבות נשברות, מלים חולפות, מלים נשכחות,
שפתים שאמרו אותן הפכו עפר,
שפות מתות כבני אדם,
שפות אחרות קמות לתחיה,
אלים בשמים משתנים, אלים מתחלפים,
התפלות נשארות לעד.

I saw on the street, on a summer evening,
I saw a woman who was writing words
On a sheet of paper, flattened against a locked oak door,
And she folded it and placed it between the door and the doorpost
And she went her way.

I did not see her face, and I did not see the face of the man
Who is fated to read the writing
Nor did I read the words.
Upon my desk lies a stone, upon which is written "Amen":
A fragment from a tombstone, the remains of a Jewish cemetary
Which was destroyed a thousand years ago, in the city of my birth.
One word, "Amen", engraved deep in the stone
An emphatic and a conclusive Amen on all that was before and is no more,
A soft and a lyrical Amen, such as is spoken in prayer.
Amen and Amen, and May it be His will.

Broken tombstones, vanished words, forgotten words,
Lips that spoke them, returned to dust
Dead languages - like dead men
Other languages - brought to life
The gods in heaven are different, gods change
But the prayers remain the same.

2006-07-09T16:48:00.000+10:00

I was recently criticised by a good friend of mine for not including anything about my life in this blog. In his words, "you never write anything about your friends or about yourself". Well, his name is Dave (so there you go, Dave, you made the blog) and the following is a little blurb about my day today.

Today I went out on a boat (What? Everything I do has to relate to Semitic languages and Tanakh?? Sheesh!). My father joined a particular club, through which we are able to take out a boat a certain number of times a year. Today was our first time! My dad drove the boat most of the time, although he also handed the controls over to me for what constituted my first lesson. We went out past the bridge (starting from Rose Bay), turned it around and headed over to Clifton Gardens where we dropped anchor and ate lunch. After that, we took off for Manly, turned around again and headed home. All up, I was on the boat for about four hours.

It was wonderful! I can really see how such an experience could become completely addictive. Admittedly, I started to feel a little under the weather as we were heading home, but I've been assured that such feelings pass as one becomes accustomed to the sensation. Also, even though I am thoroughly grounded again and sitting in my room, the keyboard before me seems to sway slightly as though I were still onboard. But it is not unpleasant.

Having previously been a student at UTS, I look forward to joining their diving society ("DOUTS") as an alumnus, after which I plan to use this boat for diving. There is plenty of room onboard for the storage of tanks, and more than enough room on deck for getting geared-up. Compared to paying anywhere between $60 and $90 for the hiring of equipment, DOUTS-membership guarantees me as little as $30! You hear that, Dave (and Sean and Toffee)? WE'RE GOING DIVING.

Well, wasn't this little excursion into my own personal life entertaining? Now, back to work!

A New Hebrew Grammar

2006-07-07T14:03:00.000+10:00

I've been doing a lot of thinking about the differences between formal English grammar and dialectic English grammar. Now, I've never actually studied English grammar before so I am prepared to stand corrected in much (if not all) of what I am about to say. Nonetheless, it appears evident to me that there are a couple of very simple rules when it comes to the usage of prepositions: don't start a sentence with them, and don't end a sentence with them. The following are incorrect English sentences:

"To the citadel, gentlemen!"
"For king and country!"
"Who were you speaking to?"
"Where is he from?"

The first two sentences commenced with a preposition ('to', 'for') and the second two ended with a preposition ('to', 'from'). If I were to be writing an essay, I would alter each of these sentences to:

"Let us advance to the citadel, gentlemen!"
"We fight for king and country!"
"To whom were you speaking?"
"From where (whence?) is he?"

Each of the above sentences (despite the archaic use of the accusative in the final one) is now grammatically correct - in accordance with the aforementioned rules of formal English grammar. But, dialectically speaking (is there any other way?), the former sentences were correct as well. Literary convention these days also allows me to write the sentences as they initially appeared, so long as I indicate the fact that they are direct speech.

Another example of where dialectic English grammar may find its way into a formal text is where the clause in question constitutes a fixed expression. The following two examples would indicate two expressions utilising this phenomenon:

"Over my dead body!"
"I honked like mad but the bugger cut in!"

Well, maybe that last one doesn't constitute an expression in its entirety, but "cut in" certainly exists as a verb in its own right, when speaking about driving a car. There is no way that I can alter either of the above sentences to produce something formally 'correct'.

Now, all this is by way of an introduction.
When studying Classical Hebrew literature, scholars have a habit of formalising the grammar. Rules are developed and then, in the situations where those rules no longer hold, further categories are delineated that allow for these aberrations. At the end of the day, what we are left with is a gigantic corpus of syntactic formulae, to which the ancient Israelite supposedly adhered when penning his or her texts. This seems odd.

Gary Rendsburg of Rutgers University pioneered the notion that the Bible testifies to a variety of 'grammars'. He isolated regional variations (chiefly, Israelian and Judahite Hebrew), and also went so far as to say that Hebrew itself was a diglossic language. This means that, like Arabic, Hebrew had one system of rules for writing, and another system of rules for speaking. In truth, it means even more than this. For Hebrew to be truly diglossic then it would constitute, like Arabic, one language for writing and another language entirely for speaking. But let's not get too carried away.

Rendsburg also argued that certain texts within the Bible give away this manner of speaking. My favourite example of this phenomenon was not first noticed by Rendsburg, but is nonetheless one of the examples that he brings. It appears in the first book of Samuel (1 Sam 9:10-13) and takes place when the devastatingly handsome Saul approaches a gaggle of young girls to enquire after the whereabouts of the prophet Samuel. Their answer is ridiculous and reminds me of the terrible habit that people from Shenkin St, Tel-Aviv, have of ending every sentence with כאילו.

The 'confused syntax' as manifested in their answer to Saul was taken by many scholars as being proof of the fact that this story had undergone extensive editorial revision and that the finished product was moreso the work of a committee, so to speak, than the polished prose of a single author. On the contrary, however, this marvellous example of girlish chatter can actually be read as being both highly polished and, it must be noted, somewhat satirical. All struggling to answer the handsome Saul at once, the author depicts them as actually speaking in unison. This is not formal Hebrew grammar of course, but it does constitute an example of what may have been dialectic Hebrew grammar.

So, what is my point? The lesson that I have taken from all this is that I should stop being such a 'grammar Nazi'. So quick to correct the syntactic errors of others, I seem to forget the true value of letting one's own self shine through accidentally in prose. Without such glorious slip-ups, the world in 2,000 years may indeed know nothing of how twentieth century Australians spoke. And, after all, is that not what we're writing for?

"Not Normally Political"? Well...

2006-07-06T17:12:00.000+10:00

The following is an article taken from TIME, and to which all I can offer is my own small "ditto".

Remember What Happened Here
Gaza is freed, yet Gaza wages war. That reveals the Palestinians' true agenda

Israel Invades Gaza. That is in response to an attack from Gaza that killed two Israelis and wounded another, who was kidnapped and brought back to Gaza ...which, in turn, was in response to Israel's targeted killing of terrorist leaders in Gaza...which, in turn, was in response to the indiscriminate shelling of Israeli towns by rockets launched from Gaza.

Of all the conflicts in the world, the one that seems the most tediously and hopelessly endless is the Arab-Israeli dispute, which has been going on in much the same way, it seems, for 60 years. Just about every story you'll see will characterize Israel's invasion of Gaza as a continuation of the cycle of violence.

Cycles are circular. They have no end. They have no beginning. That is why, as tempting as that figure of speech is to use, in this case it is false. It is as false as calling American attacks on Taliban remnants in Afghanistan part of a cycle of violence between the U.S. and al-Qaeda or, as Osama bin Laden would have it, between Islam and the Crusaders going back to 1099. Every party has its grievances--even Hitler had his list when he invaded Poland in 1939--but every conflict has its origin.

What is so remarkable about the current wave of violence in Gaza is that the event at the origin of the "cycle" is not at all historical, but very contemporary. The event is not buried in the mists of history. It occurred less than one year ago. Before the eyes of the whole world, Israel left Gaza. Every Jew, every soldier, every military installation, every remnant of Israeli occupation was uprooted and taken away.

How do the Palestinians respond? What have they done with Gaza, the first Palestinian territory in history to be independent, something neither the Ottomans nor the British nor the Egyptians nor the Jordanians, all of whom ruled Palestinians before the Israelis, ever permitted? On the very day of Israel's final pullout, the Palestinians began firing rockets out of Gaza into Israeli towns on the other side of the border. And remember: those are attacks not on settlers but on civilians in Israel proper, the pre-1967 Israel that the international community recognizes as legitimately part of sovereign Israel, a member state of the U.N. A thousand rockets have fallen since.

For what possible reason? Before the withdrawal, attacks across the border could have been rationalized with the usual Palestinian mantra of occupation, settlements and so on. But what can one say after the withdrawal?

The logic for those continued attacks is to be found in the so-called phase plan adopted in 1974 by the Palestine National Council in Cairo. Realizing that they would never be able to destroy Israel in one fell swoop, the Palestinians adopted a graduated plan to wipe out Israel. First, accept any territory given to them in any part of historic Palestine. Then, use that sanctuary to wage war until Israel is destroyed.

So in 2005 the Palestinians are given Gaza, free of any Jews. Do they begin building the state they say they want, constructing schools and roads and hospitals? No. They launch rockets at civilians and dig a 300-yard tunnel under the border to attack Israeli soldiers and bring back a hostage.

And this time the terrorism is carried out not by some shadowy group that the Palestinian leader can disavow, however disingenuously. This is Hamas in action--the group that was recently elected to lead the Palestinians. At least there is now truth in advertising: a Palestinian government openly committed to terrorism and to the destruction of a member state of the U.N. openly uses terrorism to carry on its war.

That is no cycle. That is an arrow. That is action with a purpose. The action began 59 years ago when the U.N. voted to solve the Palestine conundrum then ruled by Britain by creating a Jewish state and a Palestinian state side by side. The Jews accepted the compromise; the Palestinians rejected it and joined five outside Arab countries in a war to destroy the Jewish state and take all the territory for themselves.

They failed, and Israel survived. That remains, in the Palestinian view, Israel's original sin, the foundational crime for the cycle: Israel's survival. That's the reason for the rockets, for the tunneling, for the kidnapping--and for Israel's current response.

If that history is too ancient, consider the history of the past 12 months. Gaza is free of occupation, yet Gaza wages war. Why? Because this war is not about occupation, but about Israel's very existence. The so-called cycle will continue until the arrow is abandoned and the Palestinians accept a compromise--or until the arrow finds its mark and Israel dies.

- Charles Krauthammer, TIME

Cowards and Hypocrites

2006-07-06T11:49:00.000+10:00

Gil Student, in one of his more recent posts, has taken the passing of Rabbi Jacobs zt"l as an opportunity to discuss this man's 'heresy'. The shameful comments appended to this despicable post are not even worthy of acknowledging, and it is an absolute travesty that somebody like Student, who is apparantly a Rabbi himself, should unabashedly attack one of the leading scholars of our generation so. The greatest injustice that one can perpetrate upon another is that which is done after their death. Rabbi Jacobs zt"l was stabbed many times by his erstwhile 'friends' and colleagues, but this represents the deepest cut of all.

I am reminded of the Talmud's consideration of who is the worse sinner: the thief who attacks by day or the thief who attacks by night. The conclusion is that the thief who attacks by day is worse, for neither thief fears the retribution of God, but the thief who creeps under cover of darkness fears the retribution of his fellow humans. Cowards and hypocrites have no place within our tradition.

Barukh Dayan HaEmeth

2006-07-03T18:11:00.000+10:00

The founder of the English branch of the Conservative movement, Rabbi Louis Jacobs zt"l, passed away on Shabbat. The author of over fifteen important works (one of the greatest of which was We Have Reason to Believe), Rabbi Jacobs was nominated in 1961 to be the successor of Rabbi Isidore Epstein, the principal of Jews' College, London. Due to the controversy generated by his published opinions - controversy that culminated in his founding of the English Conservative Movement - Rabbi Jacobs' recommendation was ultimately vetoed. Prior to the rejection of his scholarship by the mainstream orthodox establishment, it was also rumoured that Rabbi Jacobs would have served as a candidate for the next chief Rabbi of the British Commonwealth, after the then serving Rabbi Israel Brodie.

Those cultured Philistines

2006-06-30T19:48:00.000+10:00

Discovered a mere ten years ago, the so-called "Eqron Inscription" constitutes the sole extant Philistine-language text. While the Philistine names given in the Bible all appear to be Aegean, the language of this text is undeniably Semitic. Aside from the fact that the script is closely related to the Phoenician script (also dubbed the paleo-Hebrew script due to it being likewise used by the authors of Hebrew inscriptions prior to their adoption of the Aramaic script), the syntax is also Semitic. The inscription is (unfortunately) very short but it is complete and, due to it having been stratified, has been dated with a reasonable degree of certainty to the early seventh century BCE. The following is a word-by-word analysis of this important inscription.

בת.בנ.אכיש.בנ.פדי.בנ.
יסד.בנ.אדא.בנ.יער.שרעק
רנ.לפתגי.ה.אדתה.תברכה.ות
ש(מר)ה.ותארכ.ימה.ותברכ
(א)רצה

בת - Equivalent to the Hebrew בית, this means either 'house', 'dwelling', 'palace' or 'temple'. As the inscription was found in Eqron (one of the five major Philistine cities) at the site of a temple, the latter English term would be the most applicable. The plene spelling (lacking the central vowel, yodh) indicates that this word features a contracted diphthong (ie: beit as opposed to bayit). It should not be read as a construct noun ('temple of...') but in the absolute and, it should be noted, emphatic. It is interesting to note that, from this word alone, it may appear that definate articles were absent in Philistine.

בנ - Equivalent to the Hebrew בנה, 'he built', although probably pronounced bani, due to the fact that this verb was historically √בני. We should have expected a relative particle here (Hebrew אשר; in Phoenician a preformative ז), so its absence is strange. In meaning, "The temple that he built".

אכיש - This is the subject of the verb, a proper name. The pronounciation of this name is disputed, although it is certainly an Aegean name. Some have drawn parallels to the name Anchises (from Homer's The Iliad), although this may be too forceful a reading. The Bible makes reference to a king from Gath (another of the five Philistine cities) with the name Akish, and many have speculated that this is the king referred to by the Biblical text (cf: 1 Sam 21:11). If that is the case, Akish is merely the Hebraic pronounciation of an Aegean name which was probably pronounced Akhayus - lit. 'Aegean'.

בנ - A good Semitic word! With a final consonant, this would be written בן and it makes up four of the twenty-one words in the inscription.

פדי - Another proper name. Probably Padi.

יסד - This would appear to be a good Aegean name: Hesiod.

אדא - Probably Iddo.

יער - Ya'ir. A Semitic name.

So far: "The temple that Akhayus son of Padi son of Hesiod son of Iddo son of Ya'ir built..."

It is a shame that so much of this already tiny inscription is made up of personal names. Fortunately the rest is a little more revealing, both culturally and grammatically. The following two words are in construct, and that may be the reason for them lacking a word divider.

שר - In Hebrew, this word means 'governor', but the context (should we assume Akhayus to be the same Akish as mentioned in the Biblical text) demands that it be read as 'king'. For that reason, it was probably vocalised with a שׁ (shar) and is cognate to the Akkadian word for king, šarru.

עקרנ - Another proper name, this time the name of the city-state, Eqron.

לפתגי.ה - Interesting! The lamed at the beginning is a particle denoting 'to, for'. The following appears to be the name of a goddess, although much ink has been spilled in ascertaining exactly which goddess it is. The pre-emptive word divider would seem to indicate a simple scribal error, and the medial gimmel looks as though it had originally been started as a nun. The name has been rendered by some scholars as Pytho-Gaia, or Pythian Gaia.

אדתה - This is a feminine noun with a masculine suffix. The noun itself is the feminine form of אדון, 'lord, master'. The final nun has elided with the taw, the taw being a feminine marker for singular nouns. This marker persisted in Hebrew for plural forms (בנות, for example) but dropped away for singular nouns in favour of a final heh. Phoenician also utilised the final taw, showing another point of similarity between the two languages. Finally, the heh at the end looks like an Aramaic suffix (אדתֵה) but is actually of the same stock as the Hebrew/Phoenician waw, and would have been pronounced אדתֹה. It means, "his lady".

To recap: "The Temple that Akhayus son of..., king of Eqron, built for Pytho-Gaia, his Lady."
In other words, this stone seems to have stood as a foundation stone for the temple that stood on this particular Philistine site, marking the name of the king who commisioned its construction. The final section marks a blessing for the king in the name of this illustrious goddess.

תברכה - This is a verb, the second so far. The root of this verb is √ברכ, meaning 'bless'. In form, it is a feminine jussive with a masculine suffix - 'may she bless him'. Again, the final heh was probably vocalised in the same manner as a final waw in Hebrew/Phoenician and not as a final heh in Aramaic.

ותש(מר)ה - Another verb, this time slightly difficult to make out. It would appear to be from the root √שמר, meaning 'guard, keep', but the form is the same as the previous verb save the usage of a waw conjunctivus ('and') affixed to the beginning. It has been noted that this verbal root is very rare in Phoenician, indicating a similarity this time to Hebrew. It has also, however, been noted that the Phoenician corpus is very small and the Hebrew corpus so very large, so one must be wary of drawing too hasty a conclusion.

ותארכ - Another verb, also with a waw conjunctivus at the beginning. With the root √ארכ ('lengthen'), this verb takes as its object the following word:

ימה - A noun, presumably plural. The noun itself is equivalent to the Hebrew יום, meaning 'day', and this formula is a common formula - as evinced by its usage in various Phoenician inscriptions. The Hebrew plural would take an extra yodh (ימיו) so one is left here with one of three possibilities. Either the noun is singular ('his day'), the yodh is pronounced although not written, or the plural form is the same as the singular form - without a yodh.

ותברכ - Another verb of root √ברכ, this time without the suffix. The object lies on the final line:

ארצה - A noun, with the masculine suffix: 'his land'.

The entire inscription reads as follows:

The Temple that Akhayus son of Padi son of Hesiod son of Iddo son of Ya'ir, king of Eqron, built for Pytho-Gaia, his Lady. May she bless him and may she guard him, and may she lengthen his day(s) and may she bless his land.

The formula of blessing and guarding, while also utilised in various Phoenician inscriptions, is strikingly reminiscent (to my mind) of the formula in Leviticus:

יברכך ה' וישמרך
May the Lord bless you and guard you

ጌዔዝ

2006-06-30T15:49:00.000+10:00

I have now started studying Classical Ethiopic (Ge'ez) and I thought that I might use this post as an opportunity to write down some basic information about the language.

There are several ways of distinguishing between languages, one of which is on the basis of script. Alphabets feature a set number of characters, each of which is useful as a building block in the construction of words. Cuneiform and hieroglyphic languages have a much larger variety of such blocks, where each one could either represent a word, a syllable or a determinative (ie: an indicator as to the type of word that either follows or precedes this particular symbol. For the purposes of clarification, some words in English could be thought of as determinatives. For example, "number" in "number one" or "year" in "the year 2000". In both instances, the second word - be it 'one' or '2000' - is what conveys the primary meaning, with the first serving the disambiguating role of clarifying just what that meaning is). A third type of language is the syllabary, within which symbols represent a particular syllable.

Ethiopic is a curious language, for it is effectively an alphabetic syllabary. There are only twenty-six primary letters, but each one possesses seven forms, yielding a total of 182 symbols altogether. These different forms exist for the purposes of vocalisation, to explain:

The basic consonant may be represented as C. The forms of this consonant are Ca (ie: with a short a-vowel; this is the standard means of representing a consonant by itself - say, in a dictionary entry), Ci, Ce, Co, Cu, Cā (ie: with a long a-vowel) and Cə (ie: with a shewa - the sound produced between the t and the l in the English "bottle"). The following will serve as an example of this phenomenon.

በ is the Ethiopic ba.
ቢ is bi
ቤ is be
ቦ is bo
ቡ is bu
ባ is bā and
ብ is bə

For this reason, Ethiopic words are also remarkably terse (although no moreso, it must be admitted, that languages like Hebrew and Syriac, etc that don't indicate vowels within the body of the text). Some of these words are very similar to Hebrew. Compare, for example, ወረደ (warada) with Hebrew ירד (yarad), both meaning 'he descended'. With other words, however, Ethiopic is very different. Compare ኔጉሥ (neguš) with Hebrew מלך (melekh), both meaning 'king'. Languages should never be related to each other on the basis of lexicon and, with a great deal of syntactic overlap, it is easy to see why Ge'ez is classified as Semitic.

The chief difference that does lie, however, between Ge'ez and Hebrew is in the direction of the script: moving from left to right as English does, rather than the right-to-left movement so common amongst Semitic languages. Some of the letters appear to have more in common with Greek and Latin over Hebrew as well - መ is ma, ለ is la (Greek λ), for example. There only appears to be one letter in the alphabet that looks akin to the Hebreo-Aramaic alphabet, and that is ሠ (ša) for Hebrew ש (šin). A few of the letters have much in common with proto-Hebrew, however, and this probably comes down to the time at which the languages separated - Hebrew abandoning the Phoenician alphabet in favour of the Aramaic and Ethiopic adopting the Arabic monumental script.

A curious pehnomenon, and one which I am prepared to chalk up to being a bizarre coincidence, is in the similarity between a letter in Ge'ez and letter in Thai! Thai is a south-western Tai-Kadai language with no common ground with Semitic, so it does seem odd that ከ (ka) looks so similar to the Thai ก (kai)...

Gaster, redux.

2006-06-30T11:45:00.000+10:00

Published in 1961, Gaster's magnum opus still has relevance today. Entitled, Thespis, this book presents the thesis that all festivals are owed, initially, to seasonal concerns. Based upon the work of other scholars who dealt with the English mummers' play, the Rig Veda, ancient Chinese folk songs, the Grail romances, the Scandinavian Elder Edda and Greek tragedy, Gaster applies the same formulae to an appreciation of cultic festivals in the ancient Near East. His argument: that there are four types of festivals, falling into two clear categories.

The first category is that of Kenosis ('emptying'). This category contains the following two rites:

1) Rites of Mortification: An example of this would be the festival of the 9th of Ab (תשעה באב). This was originally a festival to the Babylonian god of fertility, Tammuz. Occurring in the driest part of the Palestinian year, the festival aims at encouraging rainfall through encouraging tears. Such rites were common throughout the region, making the Psalmist's declaration that "he who sows in tears will reap with joy" (Ps 126:5) a pertinent one indeed.
2) Rites of Purgation: An example of this would be Yom HaKippurim. It is common for rites of purgation to precede rites of jubilation (dealt with shortly), and Gaster refers to the contemporary practise amongst Orthodox Jews of fasting on their wedding day.

The second category is Plerosis ('filling'). This category contains the following two rites:

1) Rites of Invigoration: These rites celebrate the onset of the harvest and are frequently marked with overt sexual practises. Passover is the classic example, an indication of its sexual nature lying within the circumcision performed by the nation prior to eating the paschal sacrifice (Jos 5:2-11), as well as the association between Passover and Song of Songs.
2) Rites of Jubilation: Once the harvest is assured, festivals take on a greater sense of celebration. An example of such a festival is Shabuot, not to mention Sukkot (which follows on from Yom HaKippurim, as mentioned) - the first day of which is referred to as being the most joyful day in the Hebrew calendar.

Every one of these festivals also possesses an added historical reason. The 9th of Ab commemorates the destruction of the two Temples in Jerusalem; Shabuot celebrates the reception of the law at Sinai; Passover celebrates the exodus from Egypt; etc. These (pseudo-)historical reasons are supplementary to the festival, and were associated with the festival at such a time as the Israelites saw fit to distance themselves from the cultic practises of their forebears. While they were not able to eradicate the observance of the seasonal festivals from popular consciousness, they were able to subvert them. While it may come as a surprise to some, the celebrations of our world lie steeped in purely practical (not to mention, climatic) concerns.

שר הטבעות

2006-06-28T22:25:00.000+10:00

שָׁלֹשׁ טַבָּעוֹת לְמַלְכֵי עֲלָפִים תַּחַת שְׁמֵי הַטְּלָלִים
שֶׁבַע לְשַׂרֵי גַּמְדָּאִים בִּנְקָרוֹת עוֹטוֹת־צֵל
תֵּשַׁע לִבְנֵי־הָאָדָם, בְּנֵי־תְּמוּתָה אֻמְלָלִים
אַחַת לְשַׂר הָאֹפֶל עַל כִּסְאוֹ הָאָפֵל
בְּאֶרֶץ מוֹרְדוֹר, שָׁם רוֹבְצִים הַצְּלָלִים
טַבַּעַת אַחַת לִמְשׁוֹל בּכֻלָּן, טַבַּעַת אַחַת לְמָָצְאָן
טַבַּעַת אַחַת לְהָשִׁיב אֶת כֻּלָּן, בָּאֹפֶל לְכָבְלָן
בְּאֶרֶץ מוֹרְדוֹר, שָׁם רוֹבְצִים הַצְּלָלִים

מתרגם: אוריאל אופק

Not normally political...

2006-06-28T22:09:00.000+10:00

I am finding myself increasingly frustrated with the Palestinians. They complain that they don't have valid leadership and that their woes are not of their own devising. But the leader is not just the one who stands up the front; leadership manifests itself at every level of the community. Why do they spend so much time and effort training suicide bombers and missile-manufacturers? Why don't they spend this time training doctors, so that they don't have to rely upon Israeli hospitals? Or training teachers, so that the next generation will not be as irretrievably stupid as the current one?

Israel has left Gaza, but due to typical Palestinian belligerence (firing missiles, kidnapping an Israeli serviceman, etc), Israel is now threatening to go back in. And, of course, the Palestinians are loudly bemoaning their fate in true Islamic fashion. What is preventing them from declaring a state? They could declare a state in Gaza, and that would give them the political leverage they need to force Israel out of the West Bank. But they are lazy, and their laziness will prevent them from declaring a state even if the Israelis were to leave them the entire region.

Israel will, eventually, withdraw from the West Bank. They have no choice. But still the Palestinians will complain. They will complain that Israel needs to establish a state for them, that Israel needs to supply them with buses, banks, schools, hospitals. That Israel needs to train their army, raise their children, cook their dinner. Are they ever going to do anything for themselves? In a move that was strikingly similar to Joshua's hamstringing of the enemy horses, the Palestinians burned to the ground every item of Israeli infrastructure in Gaza. Rather than utilise pre-existent businesses, they preferred to loot and ransack them. We could always build them schools, but they'd probably only steal the pens and burn the building.

קרב

2006-06-18T16:48:00.000+10:00

קרב דומה בראשו אל יפיפה
אשר כל איש לשחק בה יאוה
וסופו כזקנה המאוסה
אשר כל שוחרה יבכה וידוה

War is at first like a beautiful girl
With whom all men long to play,
But in the end like a repulsive hag
Whose suitors all weep and ache

- by Samuel HaNagid (993-1056)
The Penguin Book of Hebrew Verse (trans. and ed. T. Carmy; New York: Penguin, 1981), 291.

ELIJAH THE PROPHET

2006-06-14T13:51:00.000+10:00

Q: I recently attended a Passover seder and was rather confused by the fifth cup of wine, poured for Elijah at the end of the meal. Aside from the fact that, as an adult, I find it difficult to believe that Elijah is really supposed to come and drink this cup of wine, wasn't there supposed to be some significance to the number four? We tell the story of four sons, we ask four questions in Mah Nishtana and - I thought - poured (only) four cups of wine. Please explain this strange fifth cup to me.

A:
The answer to your question is bound up with matters concerning the Messiah. This is a Hebrew word (in Hebrew, משיח) which means 'anointed'. Kings and high priests used to be anointed with oil and the reference to a Messiah is really a reference to a (future) king who will be anointed and will rule over the entire world. Tradition states that this king must be of the Davidic dynasty but, old though this tradition may be, all traditions have an origin.

If we look at the New Testament, we see that this tradition is very old indeed. Remember, all four Gospels were written by Jews. Luke was a convert to Judaism, but Matthew, Mark and John were all Jews by birth. Their texts (the Gospels) were committed to writing even before the Mishna and are an excellent source of information on Jewish beliefs 2,000 years ago. Of course, much may needed to be taken with a grain of salt (a consideration that even needs to be borne in mind when dealing with the Rabbinic literature!), but a quick glance shows us that this tradition was in effect even then. Matthew commences his Gospel by demonstrating Jesus' lineage back to King David, and the Greek word used for Jesus' position throughout all four texts is χριστος (Christos, 'anointed').

To get any dissent on this matter, we have to go back to the Hebrew Bible itself and, when there, we have to read between the lines. There are numerous statements concerning redemption, but they don't all fit into the 'traditional' mould. Many of them speak of God as effecting the redemption: bringing back all of the remnants of his nation to the land of Israel, returning them to an era of peace and prosperity. Isaiah's famous vision of the end of days when the wolf shall lie down with the lamb, says nothing about a king. On the contrary, it speaks about all the peoples of the world flocking to the mountain of God. This is understood to be a reference to the Temple mount, but it does not have to be. It may, instead, be a reference to Sinai - when God was the only king.

Of course, if references were limited to either God or a Davidic monarch, things would be pretty simple. Things, however, are never that simple. Malachi 3:23-24 uses a different expression again, this time promising the arrival of the prophet Elijah. As Malachi states, "Lo, I shall send Elijah the prophet to you before the coming of the great and awesome day of the Lord. And he shall reconcile the hearts of fathers with their sons and of sons with their fathers, lest I come and smite the land with destruction". Jewish liturgical tradition has the synagogue leader repeat the first part of this proclamation ("Lo, I shall send...") so as not to end the reading on a sour note.

But what is the proclamation foretelling? It would appear to be a messianic redemption at the hands of Elijah the prophet! Perhaps this is not so strange for, of all the prophets, Elijah is the only one who scripture records as having ascended alive to heaven (II Kings 2:11) - in a fiery chariot, no less, which is reminiscent of Ezekiel's vision of the throne of God. That such a tradition may have existed is likely, though by no means certain. By the time the germ of the messianic idea attains fruition, this verse is utilised to show that God will send Elijah the prophet before sending the Davidic Messiah.

This is certainly a very old tradition as well, as can be testified to (again) by the New Testament. When John the Baptist is questioned regarding his identity (John 1:21-23), the first question that he is asked is as to whether or not he is Elijah. Although he answers in the negative, he is elsewhere identified as the same (cf: Matthew 17:10-13; Mark 9:11-13). Jewish tradition also perceives Elijah as the harbinger of the messianic era and captures this belief in a popular children's song which, sung to a simple tune, recounts various names of the prophet. The lines of the song are as follows:

"Eliyahu HaNavi" - Elijah the prophet
"Eliyahu HaTishbi" - Elijah the Tishbite (ie: resident of Toshav)
"Eliyahu HaGileadi" - Elijah of the Gileadite clan
"Bimheirah yavo eleinu" - May he come speedily to us
"Im Mashiakh ben David" - With the Messiah, son of David.

Now, there is one more issue of relevance before I am able to answer your question concerning the fifth cup of wine. The Babylonian Talmud utilises a couple of interesting expressions in those rare instances where it is unable to arrive at a conclusion. These expression are the work of the Talmud's 7th and 8th century editors, whose role it was to compile the various opinions and to indicate whose opinion was to emerge as the consensus in any given situation. Some of the arguments are rather protracted and a clear victor is difficult to determine; in others, there is no victor.

One of these expressions, utilised specifically in monetary debates, is יהא מונח עד שיבא אליהו (Let it rest until Elijah comes). In other words, when Elijah comes to herald the messianic era, such matters will become clear to us. Another expression is תיקו, and this one is understood in a couple of different ways. One is to read it as an abbreviation for תיקום (Let [the question] stand), but another is to read it as תיק"ו, where the inverted commas in the Hebrew indicates that it is an acronym. People who read it as such are inclined to understand the words as being תשבי יתרץ קושיות ובעיות (Let the Tishbite [ie: Elijah] solve all complications and questions).

Now: on to your complicated question! There are two parts to the tradition and, therefore, two answers. The first and easy part involves the opening of the door. This is the result of an unfortunate calendrical coincidence. As Passover happens to (roughly) coincide with Easter, European Jews found themselves persecuted during their own festivities. Blood libels under the ridiculous premise that Jews were utilising Christian blood in their celebration of Passover were propagated by intoxicated Christians, returning home from incendiary Passion plays. The opening of the door was mandated by the local authorities as a means of ensuring that nothing untoward would be occurring within Jewish homes.

As for the fifth cup of wine, the answer is slightly more complicated. The tradition of drinking wine at the Passover seder is related to the tradition of sanctifying the festival. As the Talmud states (in Tractate Pesakhim), every festival must be sanctified with both fire (candles) and wine. But how many glasses of wine are we expected to drink? The answer given by the Talmud is four: one for each expression of redemption in Exodus 6:6-7:

So say to the children of Israel that I am the Lord and that I shall take you out of Egyptian travails, and I shall rescue you from their servitude; and I shall redeem you with an outstretched arm and with mighty judgements. And I shall take you to me as a nation and I will be your God; and you will know that I am the Lord your God who brings you out of Egyptian travails.

For each of these expressions of redemption, we should drink one glass of wine. But wait! What about verse 8? The text continues:

And I will bring you into the land which I have raised my hand [ie: swore] to give to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; and I will give it you as an inheritance for I am the Lord.

Does this not constitute a fifth expression of redemption? Of course! But there is a problem. Since the Romans destroyed the Temple and exiled the Jewish people, this promise is no longer expressed in actuality. While we are supposed to believe that such will one day be the case again, not everybody in the Talmud agrees that we should memorialise it by drinking a glass of wine. Glasses, which are smashed under a wedding canopy to symbolise the fact that our joy can never be complete when we are in exile, are not fitting to house wine in celebration of this particular promise.

And the argument goes unresolved to this day. Some sages declared that a fifth cup should be drunk, while others argued that it should be left until such time as the Temple is rebuilt and a Davidic king rules over Jerusalem. The solution of the editors: תיק"ו. Let Elijah come and the matter will be resolved - it is not for us to ponder it. And to this very day, this is the tradition. Four cups of wine are drunk, but the fifth cup (Elijah's cup) is merely poured and then left. Not so a phantom Elijah can walk in our door and drink the cup, but as a purely legalistic formality that requires the pouring of five cups but is unresolved concerning the drinking of the fifth.

A Stone's Throw From Jerusalem

2006-06-13T22:57:00.000+10:00

Every now and then you hear another story about some crazy idiot on Bar Ilan St, throwing rocks at passing motorists and yelling, "Shabbos!" I've seen these people yelling (because, obviously, the driver is simply unaware of the gravity of their inexcusable sin), but have fortunately never witnessed the throwing of rocks - some of which have caused serious injury and even death.

What can their excuse possibly be? A story is told of a Rabbi who emigrated to America from Poland along with all of his disciples. One Shabbat morning, while walking to shul, he saw a Jewish man mowing his lawn. Immediately, the Rabbi burst into tears. When his disciples wanted to know why he was crying he told them that this was the first time he had ever seen a Jew break Shabbat. The following week, however, he saw the same man doing the same thing on the same day and again he burst into tears. When his disciples wanted to know why he was crying this time he told them, "Already I am becoming used to it."

It's an interesting story, and very serious for many people. I was told once, by some bokhurim on Bar Ilan, that when they say "Shabbos!" they are seeking to remind themselves, lest they should ever forget. Interesting. That might account for those who mutter it under their breath, but it certainly doesn't account for those who scream furiously at the passing cars, eyes wide and mouth foaming. And nothing excuses the throwing of a rock.

Again, why do they do it? A rock, after all, is muqtzeh, meaning that it cannot be picked up on Shabbat anyway. That would mean that the rock had to have been put aside before Shabbat with the intention of being used in this manner. Is that really what people do? I doubt it. It's more likely that they see this as more important than a simple law of "מוקצה מחמת גופו" (the specific category of muqtzeh into which a rock falls).

Perhaps there is permission to throw rocks on Shabbat, granted by some Rabbi in Bnei Brak. I was thinking about where such proof could come from, and I think I've found the answer! [WARNING: The following is not meant to be taken seriously. Really.]

In Mishna Sukkah (4:9) a story is told of a Sadducee who did not comply with Rabbinic law. The law in question related to the pouring of water on the altar during Sukkot, but this Sadducee poured it on his legs instead (thus serving as the origin of the stipulation that the priest must pour the water in full view of the congregation). The outcome? All of the people standing around picked up their etrogim and threw them at the Sadducee, stoning him to death.

This story is also related in the Babylonian Talmud (Sukkah 48b-49a), but the Talmud's version of the story is typeset slightly differently, running Mishnayot 4:9 and 4:10 together into one. As Mishna 4:10 commences with the words, "כמעשהו בחל כך מעשהו בשבת" ('as it was done during the week, so was it done on Shabbat'), this could also be taken to refer to the stoning of the Sadducee. Such an understanding relies on taking the clause completely out of context, but this is not unheard of within the Rabbinic system of exegesis.

What is more, Rashi comments on the clause in a very strange way, indicating the existence of alternative 12/13th century Talmudic manuscripts. In his words, the congregation witnessed the Sadducee pouring the water on his legs, picked up stones and proceeded to throw them at him...

Permission granted?

How 'bout THEM Apples?

2006-06-11T12:24:00.001+10:00

Another brilliant exposition by DLC.

The End of Television

2006-06-10T15:25:00.000+10:00

I found myself in an interesting conversation last night with my grandmother. An elderly lady of 82, she spends most of her nights sitting and watching television. One night, not so long ago, she happened to change over to Big Brother. She has since decided to get in touch with the network executives of the television station responsible for "this filth" and tell them what she thinks of it. Her actions would be futile, and I told her so. Television networks do not care for the opinions of individuals on a matter such as this, they care for ratings. Big Brother, as a hugely popular television programme, will remain on the air despite the protests of an individual who, it should be noted, does not belong to their targeted demographic. Yet, despite all this, she has a powerful point.

"Reality TV", the new craze to sweep our television-infatuated generation, is a misnomer. The programs that fall into this category constitute neither an adequate reflection of reality, nor a satisfactory form of 'TV' entertainment. They are, as my grandmother so succinctly observed, "filth". The days of shows like Leave it to Beaver and The Brady Bunch are over. Today, television audiences want to see the limits of the media pushed ever further into what they deem to be 'real'. The family-oriented sit-coms of the '70s and '80s are unreal: the lifestyles that they promote and the values that they advertise are as false as the smiles and the hairdos of their polished protagnonists. But does Big Brother truly represent a viable alternative?

My grandmother, along with others of her generation, feels that Reality TV is encouraging vice. It promotes sexual promiscuity, pornographic voyeurism and (although perhaps only indirectly) drug-abuse and violence. The reason for the rise in crime over the last few decades falls squarely (in her opinion) on the media. If television shows continued to present the same plastic decency as they had in the past, our lives would be greatly improved. She is wrong.

Art is as much a product of its surrounding environment as it is a catalyst of the same. Oscar Wilde, in his brilliant The Picture of Dorian Gray, dealt precisely with this issue. His conclusion: art imitates life, imitating art. While the films that present (or attempt to present) violence and sexual abuse in all of their gritty reality may be promoting such activities, they are moreso driven by the rise of such activities in our society. The real cause lies with population explosion and STDs - the latter of which has promoted frank and honest discussion of sexual matters.

So, what's wrong with Big Brother?

While Reality TV may not be (directly) promoting the sorts of problems that are tearing our society apart, it is encouraging another vice: stupidity. Ours is a generation raised on television. People today are more comfortable vegetating in front of a screen - irrespective of what is being shown - than they are reading a book. A book requires effort, it's not going to sit there and read itself. It requires skill. Television programmes make few such demands and, as time progresses, they make even fewer.

The West today is experiencing a cultural phenomenon much like the decline of the Roman Empire. The height of our glory marks also the very depths of our depravity. Reality TV is proof of the fact that audiences are no longer discerning. Toilet humour and sexual lewdness are sufficient to keep somebody glued to the set. Lines do not need to be memorised, themes do not need to be portrayed; so long as somebody takes off their clothes, the show is a winner. Is this a taste of the future of television? It is merely an exaggeration of what television has been all along, and I see no salvaging of the industry at all.

Mind Over Matter

2006-06-10T14:01:00.000+10:00

How can you be sure that I am typing this post with my hands?

On the Pleasures of Smoking...

2006-06-09T12:38:00.000+10:00

It is official: I have started smoking a pipe! Is there any way to fully describe the pleasure of sitting and thinking, with soft music playing in the background and curls of sweet-smelling smoke rising in twisting grey towers and floating out the window? When I first put a pipe to my lips (a month ago now), it took a short time before the smoke tasted smooth and aromatic. At first, as with cigarettes, the smoke was acrid and burnt my tongue. The subtleties of its texture were lost on my untrained palette. With time, I learned to appreciate the smoke and to pack my pipe properly so as not to overheat it with every drag.

The chief difference between pipes and cigarettes lies in the quality of tobacco smoked. Cigarette tobacco is, in a word, foul. I do not fear offending smokers for I was a cigarette smoker once and throughout all the years that I drew habitually upon each cigarette it never once tasted pleasant. Nobody has ever, in the protracted history of cigarette smoking, enjoyed the 'taste' of a cigarette. The tobacco is generally poor quality, dried to point of being brittle and chalk-like, and nasty in its odour. The cigarette smoker sucks desperately at the filter, eager to achieve the hit for which they thrive. This burst of nicotine is the sole reason that a cigarette smoker smokes.

Not so with pipe tobacco! Fresh, moist and springy, it conveys a pleasing smell while even in the packet. When burning, its odour is sweet and delightful, it's taste smooth and pleasant. Any seasoned pipe smoker can immediately tell the difference between poor- and high-quality tobacco, long before they have even begun the process of packing their pipes. Even a novice such as myself is not blind to the inherent qualities that pipe tobacco possesses over its dried-out cigarette cousin. But which tobacco does one choose?

I have only, as yet, savoured two different brands - both produced by the good folks at Sol Levy: Tobacconist Extraordinaire (George St, Sydney). The first, Levy's #4, was of a mild pistachio nut flavour and the second, Light and Dark, is of vanilla "with a hint of chocolate". A man who calls himself The Professor has a detailed (and, I suppose, reasonably exhaustive) review of each of the major pipe tobacco brands and flavours. As well as providing links to various sites aimed at facilitating the learning process for a beginning smoker, his site also offers enjoyable descriptions of the pleasures of pipes.

The pipe that I chose for myself, similar in appearance to the one pictured above, was also purchased at Sol Levy, and was chosen for its provocative style - reminiscent of depictions of Sherlock Holmes, lost in thought. That, for me, sums up the major appeal of pipe smoking. It is not just the taste nor the smell of the smoke that arouses my curiosity, but the pensive lifestyle promoted by the activity. Smoking is not a means of passing the time before making an appointment; it can not be done (comfortably) while driving a car or dancing at a club. Smoking a pipe is an activity to be performed while sitting. What is more, the gentle noise of crackling embers in the polished briar, along with the lilting strains of orchestral music, should be the only noises to invade the smoker's mind.

"Killing Me Softly": Cultic Infanticide in Ancient Israel

2006-06-06T21:48:00.000+10:00

There is no doubt that people feel an aversion to the issue of infanticide. Despite several indicators within the Hebrew Bible that some people were murdering their children, as a 'sacrifice' or otherwise, Rabbinic literature insists on employing euphemisms (cf: bTa'an 4a - "שאלו שלו כהוגן") and some mediaeval commentators avoid the issue entirely. The Bible itself appears uneasy, as can be seen by contrasting the suspense in leading up to the non-sacrifice of Isaac (Gen 22) with the brevity of the actual sacrifice conducted by Jephtha (Jud 11). This would seem to indicate that ancient audiences felt a similar aversion to the issue.

So far as the narrator's description of Jephtha's sacrifice is concerned, mediaeval exegetes employed the brevity of the text to support the notion that, as with the Pentateuchal aqeidah story (Gen 22:1-14), Jephtha's daughter had not actually been sacrificed at all. This is despite the fact that other ancient witnesses to the story appear to accept the sacrifice as having occurred. Instead, some commentators decided that she had merely been forced to lead a life of pious seclusion - an assertion made possible through the narrator's repeated reference to the girl's virginity (Jud 11:37, 38, 39).

Although we have already mentioned the non-sacrifice of Isaac, the story nonetheless testifies to the possibility of human sacrifice, as does the story of Jephtha's daughter (irrespective of what became of her). The following is a list of places within the Hebrew Bible that speak of this same phenomenon. For the sake of completeness, I have included the Isaac and the Jephtha stories.

1) Gen 22:1-14 (Abraham is told to sacrifice his son. He already knows what to take with him and what to do. Assumedly, the audience is also familiar with the procedure);

2) Lev 18:21 (You may not pass your seed through the fire to Molekh: for a range of classical interpretations, see G. Vermes, "Leviticus 18:21 in Ancient Jewish Bible Exegesis", Studies in Aggadah, Targum and Jewish Liturgy in Memory of Joseph Heinemann (Jerusalem, 1981), 108-124);

3) Lev 20:2-5 (All those who give their seed to Molekh must be executed);

4) Deut 18:10 (Nobody may consign their son or daughter to the fire, or practice divination);

5) Jud 11 (Jephtha swears to sacrifice the first thing to leave his house; Jephtha's daughter runs out to greet him; Jephtha is said to fulfil his vow);

6) 2 Kgs 3:27 (Moabite king sacrifices his son on the city wall. It appears to work, as the Israelite armies then return home);

7) 2 Kgs 21:6 (Menasseh consigned his son to the fire, and practiced divination);

8) 2 Kgs 23:10 (Josiah destroyed the Topheth in the valley of Ben Hinnom so that nobody may consign their son or daughter to the fire of Molekh);

8a) 2 Kgs 23:14 (Josiah shattered the pillars, cut down the sacred posts, and covered the site with human bones. It is in my opinion that this verse may be read to imply that the breaking of the pillars and the posts was what caused the site to be covered with bones, ie: human remains had been stored within these casings);

9) Isa 28:15, 18 (Jerusalemites made a covenant with death: a reference to child sacrifice, according to J. Day, Molech: A God of Human Sacrifice in the Old Testament (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 58-64).

In light of references to the Ammonite God Milcom/Molekh (1 Kgs 11:5, 7 and 2 Kgs 23:13), it appears reasonable to assume that this may have been an Ammonite - and not an Israelite - phenomenon. This could account for familiarity with the practice, as well as the implicit irony in Jephtha's sacrifice (having returned from conquering the Ammonites). Is this a reasonable assumption?

Archaeological evidence for this practice in Palestine is scanty, but literary evidence does exist. If the Israelites had not practiced cultic infanticide as had their neighbours (not only the Ammonites: evidence exists to likewise incriminate the Phoenicians and the Carthaginians), then there would be no need to forbid it in such harsh terms.

The strongest evidence (omitted above) lies in Ex 22:28-29. I reproduce the two verse below:

מלאתך ודמעך לא תאחר
בכור בניך תתן־לי
כן תעשה לשרך לצאנך
שבעת ימים יהיה עם־אמו ביום השמיני תתנו־לי

The first clause is of dubious translation, but is rendered by JPS as:

"You shall not put off the skimming of the first yield of your vats"

This clause is probably a metaphorical allusion to the following (my translation):

"You shall give me your first-born son;
Such shall you do with your ox(en), (and) with your flocks:
Seven days will he be with his mother, (but) on the eighth day you shall give (him) to me"

At first glance, this appears to be of the same nature as other laws that mandate the sacrifice of first-born livestock (Ex 13:12-13; Ex 34:19-20; Num 18:15). Upon deeper investigation, however, we notice a problem. The subject in the first line is in the singular (your first-born son) and singular in the third (he will be with his mother), but plural in the second (oxen, flocks). What is more, the connective clause כן תעשה (such shall you do) is noted by Fishbane to be an example of a later editorial edition (M. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2004), 181). Once we realise this, we also notice that two of the other parallel verses - Ex 13:12-13 and Ex 34:19-20 - also feature additions. Not content with merely stipulating the law that relates to livestock, they also hastily add that such is not the case with human offspring.

What are we to make of this? Several academics perceive this to be a clear indication that cultic infanticide was practiced in ancient Israel. This would explain references to it, familiarity with it, laws against it, editorial work to cover it, and exegetical discomfort with it. It would also do much to indicate that such, indeed, was the fate of Jephtha's daughter, robbed of name and robbed of future, for her father uttered a vow to the Lord and it could not be retracted (Jud 11:35).

A Time For Everything

2006-06-06T19:19:00.000+10:00

לכל זמן ועת לכל־חפץ תחת השמים
עת ללדת ועת למות
עת לטעת ועת לעקור נטוע
עת להרוג ועת לרפוא
עת לפרוץ ועת לבנות
עת לבכות ועת לשחוק
עת ספוד ועת רקוד
עת להשליך אבנים ועת כנוס אבנים
עת לחבוק ועת לרחק מחבק
עת לבקש ועת לאבד
עת לשמור ועת להשליך
עת לקרוע ועת לתפור
עת לחשות ועת לדבר
עת לאהב ועת לשנא
עת מלחמה ועת שלום
Ecc 3:1-8

A season is set for everything, a time for every experience under heaven:
A time for being born and a time for dying,
A time for planting and a time for uprooting the planted;
A time for slaying and a time for healing,
A time for tearing down and a time for building up;
A time for weeping and a time for laughing,
A time for wailing and a time for dancing;
A time for throwing stones and a time for gathering stones,
A time for embracing and a time for shunning embraces;
A time for seeking and a time for losing,
A time for keeping and a time for discarding;
A time for ripping and a time for sewing,
A time for silence and a time for speaking;
A time for loving and a time for hating,
A time for war and a time for peace
(JPS)

10 Things I Hate About Commandments

2006-06-05T21:48:00.000+10:00

"My Soul Thirsts"

2006-06-05T09:43:00.000+10:00

This may be the new Satmar Rebbe of Kiryat Joel, but his song sounds a little familiar... Perhaps the revolution will be televised?

Elisha ben Abuya VI

2006-06-02T23:08:00.000+10:00

We now move on to the second and somewhat more complex component of the Babylonian EbA narrative. As before, all translations (unless indicated otherwise) are my own.

כי נח נפשיה דאחר אמרי לא מידן לידייניה ולא לעלמא דאתי ליתי לא מידן לידייניה משום דעסק באורייתא ולא לעלמא דאתי ליתי משום דחטא אמר ר"מ מוטב דלידייניה וליתי לעלמא דאתי מתי אמות ואעלה עשן מקברו כי נח נפשיה דרבי מאיר סליק קוטרא מקבריה דאחר אמר רבי יוחנן גבורתא למיקלא רביה חד הוה ביננא ולא מצינן לאצוליה אי נקטיה ביד מאן מרמי ליה מאן אמר מתי אמות ואכבה עשן מקברו כי נח נפשיה דרבי יוחנן פסק קוטרא מקבריה דאחר פתח עליה ההוא ספדנא אפילו שומר הפתח לא עמד לפניך רבינו
bHag 15b

When Akher died, they said, "He should not be judged and he should not be brought into the world [to come]. He should not be judged because he busied himself with Torah, but he should not be brought into the world [to come] because he sinned".
Rabbi Meir said, "It is better that he be punished and not brought into the world [to come]. When I die, I shall cause smoke to rise from his grave". When Rabbi Meir died, a column of smoke ascended from the grave of Akher.
Rabbi Yohanan said, "Is it a great deed to burn one's master? One who was amongst us, and we are not able to save him? If I take him by the hand, who will tear him away from me? Who?" He said, "When I die, I will extinguish the smoke from his grave". When Rabbi Yohanan died, the column of smoke departed from the grave of Akher. The eulogiser [of Rabbi Yohanan] commenced [his discourse] concerning him, "Even the guardian of the gate would not have stood before you, Our Rabbi".

From the sequence of events, it would seem that "they" in the first section refers to the heavenly court. Condemned to a form of eternal limbo, EbA is neither to be punished for his sins, nor rewarded for his good deeds. In the Palestinian version we saw how EbA was punished automatically and the column of smoke, a symbol of that punishment, was removed by Rabbi Meir. In the Babylonian version we see how Rabbi Meir, after his own death, instigates EbA's punishment himself. One can assume that this is simply in order that EbA may, later on, enter the world to come.

Rabbi Yohanan has a different approach, and that is to bring EbA into the world to come with him. He succeeds in negating the punishment and, from the words of his eulogiser, we can assume that he also succeeded in bringing EbA into the world to come. The reference to the guardian of the gate, so far as that is concerned, could be either a reference to the gate of Paradise or the gate of Hell, although the latter probably makes more sense in context. It is curious, not only that Rabbi Yohanan is fulfilling the role of redeemer and Rabbi Meir of accuser, but that Rabbi Yohanan's statement is the first indication within the Babylonian story that Rabbi Meir was EbA's disciple. As we shall soon see, the Babylonian Talmud is markedly more reserved about acknowledging the validity of EbA's teachings.

בתו של אחר אתיא לקמיה דרבי אמרה ליה רבי פרנסני אמר לה בת מי את אמרה לו בתו של אחר אני אמר לה עדיין יש מזרעו בעולם והא כתיב לא נין לו ולא נכד בעמו ואין שריד במגוריו אמרה לו זכור לתורתו ואל תזכור מעשיו מיד ירדה אש וסכסכה ספסלו של רבי בכה ואמר רבי ומה למתגנין בה כך למשתבחין בה על אחת כמה וכמה
bHag 15b

Akher's daughter came before Rebbe [Yehuda HaNasi]. She said to him, "Rebbe, support me".
He said to her, "Whose daughter are you?"
She said to him, "Akher's daughter".
I [ie: he] said to her, "Is there yet of his seed in the world? Behold, it says, 'He has no seed or breed among his people, no survivor where he once lived' (Job 18:19, acc. to JPS)".
She said to him, "Remember his Torah and do not remember his actions!"
Immediately, a fire descended and singed Rebbe's bench. Rebbe cried and said, "And what [a thing] for those who dishonour her [ie: Torah]! How much more so for those who respect her!"

Once more, there are some interesting differences between this version of the story and the one in the Palestinian Talmud. There, we were encountering EbA's daughters, while here it is a sole girl. There it was but their admonition that won them Rebbe's respect but here we see a repeat of the fire motif where, due to the girl's tremendous piety, heaven itself attempts to demonstrate the validity of her suggestion. While the Palestinian version was strong enough to seal the narrative, our version here is merely being used as a segue to a broader discussion about the viability of learning from a sinner.

ור"מ היכי גמר תורה מפומיה דאחר והאמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן מאי דכתיב כי שפתי כהן ישמרו דעת ותורה יבקשו מפיהו כי מלאך ה' צבאות הוא אם דומה הרב למלאך ה' צבאות יבקשו תורה מפיהו ואם לאו אל יבקשו תורה מפיהו אמר ר"ל ר"מ קרא אשכח ודרש הט אזנך ושמע דברי חכמים ולבך תשית לדעתי לדעתם לא נאמר אלא לדעתי רב חנינא אמר מהכא שמעי בת וראי והטי אזנך ושכחי עמך ובית אביך קשו קראי אהדדי לא קשיא הא בגדול הא בקטן כי אתא רב דימי אמר אמרי במערבא ר"מ אכל תחלא ושדא שיחלא לברא
bHag 15b

As for Rabbi Meir, how could he learn Torah from Akher's mouth? Did not Rabba bar bar Hana say in the name of Rabbi Yohanan, "Why does it say, 'For the lips of a priest guard knowledge, and Torah is sought from his mouth; For he is the angel of the Lord of Hosts' (Mal 2:7)? If the master is like the angel of the Lord of Hosts, Torah may be sought from his mouth. But if he is not, one must not seek Torah from his mouth!"
Reish Laqish said, "Rabbi Meir found a verse and expounded it: 'Incline your ear and hear the words of the sages, and pay attention to my wisdom' (Pr 22:17). It does not say 'to their wisdom', but 'to my wisdom'."
Rav Hanina said, "From here: 'Listen, daughter, and look. Incline your ear; and forget your people and the house of your father' (Ps 45:11)."
(These verses contradict each other! There is no contradiction: [one speaks of] an adult, [the other speaks of] a child.)
Rav Dimi came along and said, "They say in the west [ie: in Palestine], 'Rabbi Meir ate a partially ripe date and he threw the skin away' ".

We commenced this section with a principle learned from Rabbi Yohanan, that if one is not sufficiently like the angel of the Lord, one is also not a fitting teacher for Torah. This would seem to be a clear indictment of Rabbi Meir who, we are now reminded, learned Torah from EbA. What follows, however, are three attempts to salvage Rabbi Meir's reputation. In the process, they also serve to legitimise EbA's teachings. The message of each of these expositions is effectively the same. Rabbi Meir indicates that the Torah taught by EbA was still the Torah of God, even if EbA himself was an unworthy vessel for such wisdom. Rav Hanina stresses a focus on the teachings and a lack of concern for the man's lineage and personal history. Rav Dimi effectively expresses both notions again with the metaphor of a partially ripe fig. While the contents are still edible, the exterior is only worthy of being thrown in the street.

This is a fairly harsh indictment of the man himself, but it is one which is true to form. It adequately represents the manner in which the Talmud perceived him but, from the obvious care and deliberation that went into the Talmud's story (as shall become evident shortly), we can read sufficiently between the lines to detect the extent to which the man's teachings were truly cherished.

דרש רבא מאי דכתיב אל גנת אגוז ירדתי לראות באבי הנחל למה נמשלו ת"ח לאגוז לומר לך מה אגוז זה אע"פ שמלוכלך בטיט ובצואה אין מה שבתוכו נמאס אף ת"ח אע"פ שסרח אין תורתו נמאסת
bHag 15b

Rava expounded, "Why does it say, 'I went down to the nut grove to see the budding of the vale [to see if the vines had blossomed, if the pomegranates were in bloom]' (SoS 6:11, acc. to JPS)? To what end is a sage compared to a nut? It is to teach you that, just as with a nut, if it is soiled with mud and with excrement, its contents are not filthy; so too a sage, even if he spoiled [ie: sinned], his Torah is not filthy".

אשכחיה רבה בר שילא לאליהו א"ל מאי קא עביד הקב"ה א"ל קאמר שמעתא מפומייהו דכולהו רבנן ומפומיה דר"מ לא קאמר א"ל אמאי משום דקא גמר שמעתא מפומיה דאחר א"ל אמאי ר"מ רמון מצא תוכו אכל קליפתו זרק א"ל השתא קאמר מאיר בני אומר בזמן שאדם מצטער שכינה מה לשון אומרת קלני מראשי קלני מזרועי אם כך הקב"ה מצטער על דמן של רשעים ק"ו על דמן של צדיקים שנשפך
bHag 15b

Raba bar Sheila came across Elijah. He said to him, "What is the Holy One, Blessed be He, doing?"
He said to him, "He recites traditions from the mouths of all of the Rabbis, but He does not recite from the mouth of Rabbi Meir".
He said to him, "Why?"
"Because he learned traditions from the mouth of Akher".
He said to him, "Why? Rabbi Meir found a pomegranate, he ate the interior, [and] he threw away the husk".
He said to him, "Now He says, 'Meir, my son, says, 'At a time when a man is aggrieved, what terminology does the Shekhina employ [lit. 'what language does the S.. say']? 'I am pained in my head, I am pained in my arm'. If the Holy One, Blessed be He, can be so aggrieved over the blood of the wicked, how much more so over the blood of the righteous which is spilled!' ' ".

This story concludes the Babylonian Talmud's version of the narrative. Raba bar Sheila, in encountering Elijah, is upset to find that God himself has dismissed the teachings of EbA - to the extent that he will not even justify the teachings of Rabbi Meir. After presenting the same defence that we heard before (in strikingly similar terminology to that of Rav Dimi), God acquiesces and Elijah relates this fact. We are informed of it by hearing a tradition in Rabbi Meir's name (taken from mSan 6:5) being recited by God. The tradition in question is not necessarily attributable to EbA's influence, but its usage here is deliberate. As it speaks of the pain that God feels even over the death of the wicked, we are reminded of EbA's death and the pain felt by the sages who respected him enough that it was necessary for them to legitimise his teachings so.

This story has a "chiastic" structure. This means that, like the shape of the Greek letter χ (chi), the first part of the story corresponds to the last, the second to the second-last, and so on. A schematic of the Babylonian Talmudic narrative is as follows:

[I] EbA rejected by God and angel (Metatron)

[II] Sins of EbA (with prostitute)
[III] Rabbi Meir learns Torah from EbA:
3 expositions
[IV] God rejects EbA (13 synagogues); EbA murders child (13th synagogue)
[V] 3 narratives:
EbA's death (neither judged nor rewarded)
EbA's punishment (Rabbi Meir)
EbA's reward (Rabbi Yohanan)
[IV'] God accepts EbA, bringing life to a child (EbA's daughter)
[III'] Defence of Rabbi Meir learning Torah from EbA:
3 expositions
[II'] Defense of EbA's Torah (Rava)

[I'] EbA accepted by God and angel (Elijah)

(I am indebted to Rubenstein for his observation of this phenomenon; J.L. Rubenstein, Talmudic Stories: Narrative Art, Composition, and Culture (Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore, 1999), 69)

It is impossible to believe that the authors of the Babylonian Talmud cared little for EbA. Despite their display of ambivalence - or, at the worst, open antagonism - the care and deliberation that went into forming their narrative belies these emotions. While not always referred to by his real name, EbA (aka Akher) is known intimately by the protagonists of our stories. We have seen how his teachings (both halakhic and homiletic) are preserved by the literature, and even how he himself came to fulfil a key halakhic and homiletic role within the same.

Ultimately, EbA's personality is a complex one. He is neither good nor bad, wise nor foolish. As with all real people, EbA exhibits elements from different extremes. It is not up to us to either admire or reject him as a person; ours is to merely appreciate the intellectual honesty of a man who (even if wrong) acted upon what he truly believed, irrespective of the opinions of others. At the end of the day, it may have been that aspect of his personality that won him the respect that he deserved.

Dr Dan Streetmentioner's Time Traveler's Handbook of 1001 Tense Formations

2006-06-02T11:18:00.000+10:00

"One of the major problems encountered in time travel is not that of accidentally becoming your own father or mother. There is no problem involved in becoming your own father or mother that a broad-minded and well-adjusted family can't cope with...
The major problem is quite simply one of grammar, and the main work to consult in this matter is Dr. Dan Streetmentioner's Time Traveler's Handbook of 1001 Tense Formations. It will tell you, for instance, how to describe something that was about to happen to you in the past before you avoided it by time-jumping forward two days in order to avoid it. The event will be described differently according to whether you are talking about it from the standpoint of your own natural time, from a time in the further future, or a time in the further past and is further complicated by the possibility of conducting conversations while you are actually traveling from one time to another with the intention of becoming your own mother or father.
Most readers get as far as the Future Semiconditionally Modified Subinverted Plagal Past Subjunctive Intentional before giving up; and in fact in later editions of the book all the pages beyond this point have been left blank to save on printing costs. The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy skips lightly over this tangle of academic abstraction, pausing only to note that the term "Future Perfect" has been abandoned since it was discovered not to be."

- D. Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe, pp145-309 (213) of The Ultimate Hitchhiker's Guide (New York: Wings Books, 1996).

Thesis Title

2006-06-02T11:17:00.000+10:00

Elisha ben Abuya V

2006-06-01T15:51:00.000+10:00

We now turn to the version of the story as it is recorded by the Babylonian Talmud. Much of this may appear repetitive, as many of the traditions recorded here are also to be found in other sources at which we have already looked. Nonetheless, this story is more developed than the others and it behoves us to look at it in its own right. The translation throughout is my own.

אחר קיצץ בנטיעות עליו הכתוב אומר אל תתן את פיך לחטיא את בשרך מאי היא חזא מיטטרון דאתיהבא ליה רשותא למיתב למיכתב זכוותא דישראל אמר גמירא דלמעלה לא הוי לא ישיבה ולא תחרות ולא עורף ולא עיפוי שמא חס ושלום ב' רשויות הן אפקוהו למיטטרון ומחיוהו שיתין פולסי דנורא א"ל מ"ט כי חזיתיה לא קמת מקמיה איתיהיבא ליה רשותא למימחק זכוותא דאחר יצתה בת קול ואמרה שובו בנים שובבים חוץ מאחר
bHag 15a

[The Talmud begins by quoting the Tosefta:]
"Akher cut the seedlings". It is concerning him that the verse says, "Do not let your mouth cause your body to sin [and do not say before the angel that it was unintentional. Why allow God to be angry by your talk? For He will destroy the work of your hands]" (Ecc 5:5).
What did he see? Metatron, to whom was given permission to sit and write the merits of Israel.
He said, "It is taught that on high there is no sitting and no rivalry and no division and no weariness. Perhaps, God forbid, there are two powers?"
They took Metatron away and lashed him with sixty discs of fire. He asked them, "What is the reason [for this]?"
"When you saw him, you did not stand up before him!"
He was then given permission to burn the merits of Akher.
A heavenly voice came forth and said, "Return, rebellious children (Jer 3:22): except for Akher!"

Here we see the extended version of the narratives indicated in the Tosefta, the Mishna and the baraita. Once more, we are told that Akher "cut the seedlings", and once more we are given the verse from Ecclesiastes. This verse is somewhat more applicable in this narrative for, just as Ecclesiastes had warned, Akher's mouth led him into sin (by suggesting that there may be more than one god) and God also set about destroying the work of his hands (ie: his every merit). The proclamation at the end may also align with the verse's admonition not to declare the statement an error: a possible suggestion that repentance may be disallowed.

What exactly was it that encouraged Akher to consider the existence of two gods? We had occasion to mention Metatron at the end of the preface, noting that he was considered by various traditions to have been the post-mortem manifestation of the ante-diluvian Enoch. We also had occasion to consider the sectarian nature of the Enochic tradition, one that had been thoroughly rejected by Rabbinic Judaism. It is no accident that the instrument of Akher's demise in this passage is none other than Enoch himself (aka Metatron). It is also no accident that Metatron serves no real function in this narrative other than to be severely beaten.

אמר הואיל ואטריד ההוא גברא מההוא עלמא ליפוק ליתהני בהאי עלמא נפק אחר לתרבות רעה נפק אשכח זונה תבעה אמרה ליה ולאו אלישע בן אבויה את עקר פוגלא ממישרא בשבת ויהב לה אמרה אחר הוא
bHag 15a

He said, "Since that man [ie: I] has been banished from that world [ie: the world to come], I shall enjoy myself in this world!"
Akher went out: he went out to a wicked lifestyle. He found a prostitute [and] propositioned her. She said to him, "Are you not Elisha ben Abuya!?" He uprooted a radish from the ground (it was on Shabbat) and he gave it to her. She said, "He is someone else."

Here we learn, not only Akher's real name, but the reason for the pseudonym. Having been prohibited from repentance (and having had all of his deeds erased), EbA decides to enjoy himself in this world without any fear of further reprisals in the world to come. The word employed for 'lifestyle' (תרבות) literally means 'growth'. There is a particular irony affected here, as EbA has thus far proven himself to be one who cuts things down, rather than allows them to grow. When we are first introduced to him it is to be told that he "cut the seedlings". Soon afterwards we are informed of the fact that all his deeds in life have been destroyed. In a moment we are also to be told that he desecrated the Sabbath by uprooting something. The only thing that is actually allowed to grow in EbA's life is wickedness.

It is of no small importance to our profile of EbA that the prostitute is depicted as knowing his name. As we have already seen, EbA was one of the greatest sages of his time, and it is likely that after his death, the eponym Akher was also widespread. The origin of the name, as given here, may be fanciful. Nonetheless, it adequately reflects the message that the name conveys.

שאל אחר את ר"מ לאחר שיצא לתרבות רעה א"ל מאי דכתיב גם את זה לעומת זה עשה האלהים אמר לו כל מה שברא הקב"ה ברא כנגדו ברא הרים ברא גבעות ברא ימים ברא נהרות אמר לו ר"ע רבך לא אמר כך אלא ברא צדיקים ברא רשעים ברא גן עדן ברא גיהנם כל אחד ואחד יש לו ב' חלקים אחד בגן עדן ואחד בגיהנם זכה צדיק נטל חלקו וחלק חברו בגן עדן נתחייב רשע נטל חלקו וחלק חברו בגיהנם אמר רב משרשיא מאי קראה גבי צדיקים כתיב לכן בארצם משנה יירשו גבי רשעים כתיב ומשנה שברון שברם
bHag 15a

After having turned to a wicked lifestyle, Akher asked Rabbi Meir, "What does it mean when it says, '[So in a time of good fortune enjoy the good fortune; and in a time of misfortune, reflect:] The one no less than the other was God's doing (Ecc 7:14a, acc. to JPS)'."
He said to him, "Everything that God created, He also created its opposite. He created mountains, He created hills; He created seas, He created rivers".
He said to him, "Your master, Rabbi Akiva, did not say this! Rather, He created righteous people, He created wicked people; He created heaven, He created hell. Everybody has two portions: one in heaven and one in hell. Should a righteous man merit it, he shall take his portion and the portion of his companion in heaven. Should a wicked man deserve it, he shall take his portion and the portion of his companion in hell".
Rav Mesharshia said, "What is the verse concerning righteous people? It is written, 'They shall have a double portion in their land' (Is 61:7). Concerning wicked people it is written, 'Shatter them with double destruction' (Jer 17:18)".

Here we have the first of our recorded conversations between EbA and Rabbi Meir. We are not informed of EbA's status relative to Rabbi Meir until the end of the narrative, so it is harder to perceive here the respect in which he is being held. As with the Palestinian version, however, EbA is intent on disagreeing with Rabbi Meir's opinion, citing the opinion of Rabbi Meir's late teacher. In this case, Rav Mesharshia comments at the end of the discussion, ratifying the validity of EbA's opinion over that of Rabbi Meir. While it appears possible that Rabbi Meir is avoiding the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, due to its possibly offensive nature, such is unlikely given the version of the story presented by the Palestinian Talmud.

In this instance, Rabbi Meir's interpretation of the verse is remarkably simplistic. The breaking of clauses in EbA's interpretation is enough to indicate that the breaking of clauses is the same in Rabbi Meir's. In other words, Rabbi Meir perceives mountains and hills as being opposites, as well as oceans and rivers. Not only does this appear to be an almost child-like appraisal of the natural order, his interpretation of the verse lacks any form of ethical clarification.

שאל אחר את ר"מ לאחר שיצא לתרבות רעה מאי דכתיב לא יערכנה זהב וזכוכית ותמורתה כלי פז אמר לו אלו דברי תורה שקשין לקנותן ככלי זהב וכלי פז ונוחין לאבדן ככלי זכוכית אמר לו ר"ע רבך לא אמר כך אלא מה כלי זהב וכלי זכוכית אע"פ שנשברו יש להם תקנה אף ת"ח אע"פ שסרח יש לו תקנה אמר לו אף אתה חזור בך אמר לו כבר שמעתי מאחורי הפרגוד שובו בנים שובבים חוץ מאחר
bHag 15a

After having turned to a wicked lifestyle, Akher asked Rabbi Meir, "What does it mean when it says, 'Gold or glass cannot match its value, nor vessels of fine gold be exchanged for it' (Job 28:17, acc. to JPS)?"
He said to him, "These are words of Torah which are as difficult to acquire as are vessels of gold and vessels of fine gold, but as easy to lose as are vessels of glass".
He said to him, "Your master, Rabbi Akiva, did not say this! Rather, just as vessels of gold and of glass have a means of being repaired when they have been broken, so too does a sage have a means of being repaired even though he has sinned".
He said to him, "So you too should repent!"
He said to him, "I have already heard from the other side of the curtain, 'Return, rebellious children: except for Akher'!"

In this instance it is Rabbi Meir who provides an interpretation which may be critical of EbA but, yet again, it proves too simplistic. A sign of its simplicity is in the fact that it disregards the natural parallelism of the biblical verse, which contrasts vessels of gold and glass with vessels of fine gold, by grouping vessels of gold and fine gold together in a contrast with vessels of glass. EbA's interpetation, which protects the parallel structure, is again a clever interpretation. Interestingly, it opens up the possibility of his own repentance, and we are reminded of the divine decree that forbade this act.

The exposition presented here is an interesting one, for it is only here that we see it presented in such a manner: Rabbi Meir delivers the first part and EbA corrects him with the second. In the Palestinian version (pHag 77b), we saw how the entirety was credited to Rabbi Meir; in the later Babylonian tractate (bARN 24:5), we saw how the entirety was credited to EbA himself. We suggested before that it is possible that the entirety was, indeed, EbA's exposition, and that Rabbi Meir's presentation of it in pHag 77b may have been the reason that EbA, in that instance, did not correct him. While that may be the case in relation to the Palestinian Talmud, it is unlikely to be the case here where Rabbi Meir only delivers a part and the rest is credited to Rabbi Akiva. Of greater likelihood is that the editors of the Talmud conflated the tradition.

ת"ר מעשה באחר שהיה רוכב על הסוס בשבת והיה רבי מאיר מהלך אחריו ללמוד תורה מפיו אמר לו מאיר חזור לאחריך שכבר שיערתי בעקבי סוסי עד כאן תחום שבת א"ל אף אתה חזור בך א"ל ולא כבר אמרתי לך כבר שמעתי מאחורי הפרגוד שובו בנים שובבים חוץ מאחר

Our Rabbis taught that Akher was once riding on his horse [lit. 'the horse'] on Shabbat while Rabbi Meir was walking beside him in order to learn Torah from his mouth. He said to him, "Meir. Go back, for I have already measured out the footsteps of my horse: the Shabbat boundary is thus far."
He said to him, "So you too should return!"
He said to him, "Have I not already told you? I have already heard from the other side of the curtain, 'Return, rebellious children: except for Akher'!"

In the Palestinian Talmud, all three discussions take place while EbA is riding his horse on the Sabbath; in the Babylonian Talmud, this occurrence appears to be at a separate time. It is our first indication of EbA's stature: that, despite his flagrant violation of the Sabbath, Rabbi Meir is still intent on learning Torah "from his mouth". A certain poetic justice is affected here for, a moment ago, Rabbi Meir is recorded as having suggested that words of Torah may be easily lost. Despite EbA's lifestyle, we see here that he is still in full possession of his knowledge. Not only is he wise, but he is able to measure out the distance to the Shabbat boundary while in the act of teaching Rabbi Meir about something else (something that Rabbi Meir, even as a passive recipient, was incapable of doing).

Another major difference between this story and the one in pHag 77b is that this one is presented in the form of a baraita. This would imply that it is a particularly old tradition that the two Talmuds were quoting. Being an earlier source, it is reasonable to suppose that the version in the Palestinian Talmud may have been more accurate. In the Palestinian version, reference was made to having heard God's voice from the Holy of Holies, and we noted the anachronistic nature of this assertion. In our case, reference is made to the "curtain" which, while most probably a reference to the partition within the Holy of Holies, may also be a more chronologically viable reference to the partition between the Torah and the congregation of a synagogue.

תקפיה עייליה לבי מדרשא א"ל לינוקא פסוק לי פסוקך אמר לו אין שלום אמר ה' לרשעים עייליה לבי כנישתא אחריתי א"ל לינוקא פסוק לי פסוקך אמר לו כי אם תכבסי בנתר ותרבי לך בורית נכתם עונך לפני עייליה לבי כנישתא אחריתי א"ל לינוקא פסוק לי פסוקך א"ל ואת שדוד מה תעשי כי תלבשי שני כי תעדי עדי זהב כי תקרעי בפוך עיניך לשוא תתיפי
bHag 15a-b

He took hold of him and he brought him to a study house. He said to a youth, "Recite your verse [ie: a verse that you are studying] to me".
He said to him, "There is no peace, said the Lord, for the wicked" (Isa 48:22).
He brought him to another synagogue. He said to a youth, "Recite your verse to me".
He said, "Though you wash with natron and use much lye, your guilt is ingrained before me [- declares the Lord God]" (Jer 2:22, acc. to JPS).
He brought him to another synagogue. He said to a youth, "Recite your verse to me".
He said, "And you, who are doomed to ruin, what do you accomplish by wearing crimson, by decking yourself in jewels of gold, by enlarging your eyes with kohl? You beautify yourself in vain. [Lovers despise you, they seek your life!]" (Jer 4:30, acc. to JPS).

Here we see Rabbi Meir actively attempting to convince EbA to repent his sins. He is brought to one synagogue/study hall after another and, in each of them, a child is encouraged to recite a verse. Each time, the verse happens to be one which prophecies ruin to one who sins. The third verse is difficult, however, to understand. Addressed to Jerusalem, it likens the city to a woman who beseeches her lovers (ie: allies) yet finds herself betrayed. It may be that the relevance of this verse to EbA lies in his 'beautification' of himself with Torah knowledge: all in vain if he fails to maintain the Torah's teachings. Alternatively, we may be forced to suggest that this is a very personal accusation made against EbA who may have been in the Hellenistic habit of beautifying himself literally.

עייליה לבי כנישתא אחריתי עד דעייליה לתליסר בי כנישתא כולהו פסקו ליה כי האי גוונא לבתרא א"ל פסוק לי פסוקך א"ל ולרשע אמר אלהים מה לך לספר חקי ההוא ינוקא הוה מגמגם בלישניה אשתמע כמה דאמר ליה ולאלישע אמר אלהים איכא דאמרי סכינא הוה בהדיה וקרעיה ושדריה לתליסר בי כנישתי ואיכה דאמרי אמר אי הואי בידי סכינא הוה קרענא ליה
bHag 15b

He brought him to another synagogue until he had brought him to thirteen synagogues. They all [ie: the youths within each synagogue] recited for him in a similar manner. At the final one, he said to him, "Recite your verse to me."
He said to him, "And to the wicked, God said: Who are you to recite my laws [and mouth the terms of my covenant]?" (Ps 50:16)
Now, that youth stuttered with his tongue. It sounded as though he said to him, "And to Elisha, God said: [Who are you to recite my laws, etc.]".
Some say that he [ie: EbA] had a knife with him and he cut him up and sent him to thirteen synagogues. Others say that he said, "If I had a knife with me, I would cut him up".

It is in this final story that we see the strongest indication of divine control over the events. Not only has each of the children recited a verse pertinent to EbA, the final child accidentally mentions EbA by name. The climax of this story is, from an historical perspective, patently absurd. Not only is it unlikely that EbA had ever murdered a child, but it is ridiculous to assume that, had he ever done so, there would be disagreement as to whether he had gone through with so heinous an act or had merely spoken of it. What is more, the similarity of this story and the story of the concubine at Gibeah who was cut into twelve pieces (Jud 19:29) is enough to suggest that this part of the story is designed to bring the Babylonian account into line with the Palestinian.

Elisha ben Abuya IV

2006-05-31T22:20:00.000+10:00

As was noted in the previous installment, my translations of the Palestinian material are taken from Jeffrey L. Rubenstein, Talmudic Stories: Narrative Art, Composition, and Culture (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999), 82-86. Rubenstein's scriptural quotations are all taken from JPS. Emphasis and parentheses are his.

וכל דא מן הן אתה ליה אלא פעם אחת היה יושב ושונה בבקעת גינוסר וראה אדם אחד עלה לראש הדקל ונטל אם על הבנים וירד משם בשלוה למחר ראה אדם אחר שעלה לראש הדקל ונטל את הבנים ושילח את האם וירד משם והכישו נחש ומת אמר כתיב שלח תשלח את האם ואת הבנים תקח לך למען ייטב לך והארכת ימים איכן היא טובתו של זה איכן היא אריכות ימיו של זה ולא היה יודע שדרשה רבי יעקב לפנים ממנו למען ייטב לך לעולם הבא שכולו טוב והארכת ימים לעתיד שכולו ארוך
pHag 77b

And why did all this happen to him?
Once he was sitting and learning in the plain of Genesaret and he saw a man ascend to the top of a palm and take the mother bird together with her young and descend safely from there. The next day he saw a man ascend to the top of the palm and take the young after shooing away the mother. He descended from there, and a snake bit him and he died. He said, "It is written, [Do not take the mother together with her young.] Let the mother go, and take only the young, in order that you may live well and have a long life (Deut 22:6). Where is the welfare of this man? Where is the long life of this man?"
He did not know that R. Yaakov had previously expounded it: "In order that you may live well - in the world to come that is all good. And have a long life - in the future that is all long."

[Note: It would appear from Rubenstein's translation that the text that he is using lacks the full scriptural quote. As I am taking his translation from him directly, I have copied it as he prints it, although the full quote from Deuteronomy is present in the Hebrew above]

We noted before in relation to the first of EbA's discussions with Rabbi Meir that theodicy appears to be an issue with which EbA struggles. This was apparant in his frequent laments over the passing of Rabbi Akiva, and it is especially apparant here in this (possibly) mythologised understanding of what had led EbA to apostasy in the first place. It is doubtful, should we take this story at face value, that the simplistic rationale of Rabbi Yaakov could have assuaged the concerns felt by EbA.

ויש אומר ע"י שראה לשונו של רבי יהודה הנחתום נתון בפי הכלב שותת דם אמר זו תורה וזו שכרה זהו הלשון שהיה מוציא דברי תורה כתיקנן זה הוא הלשון שהיה יגיע בתורה כל ימיו זו תורה וזו שכרה דומה שאין מתן שכר ואין תחיית המתים
pHag 77b

Some say [it happened to him] because he saw the tongue of R. Yehuda the Baker dripping blood in the mouth of a dog. He said, "This is Torah and this is its reward? This is the tongue that used to bring forth fitting words of Torah? This is the tongue that labored in Torah all its days? It seems that there is no giving of reward and there is no resurrection of the dead."

[Note: Again, the text that I have reproduced above appears to differ from Rubenstein's text. My text, as written above, repeats the phrase, "This is Torah and this is its reward?" prior to EbA presenting his conclusions]

The crucial part of this incident lies in EbA's exclamation. This same exclamation (זו תורה וזו שכרה) can be found in two other places, both in reference to the death of Rabbi Akiva. The first is in bMen 29b where the exclamation is made by Moses after having been shown both the teachings and the fate of Rabbi Akiva; the second is in bBer 61b where it is made by the angels after Rabbi Akiva dies. The connection to these two sources is clearly not accidental and, while it is Rabbi Yehuda's death that EbA is witnessing, it is certainly also to Rabbi Akiva that he is alluding.

EbA's remarks here are passionate but, at the same time, slightly inappropriate. There is no apparant connection between dismemberment and the impossibility of resurrection, save for the most simplistic understandings of the latter. That EbA has progressed from denying reward for the righteous to denying resurrection of the dead is illogical, and probably being presented as indicative of an irrational and easily excitable mind.

וי"א אמו כשהיתה מעוברת בו היתה עוברת על בתי ע"ז והריחה מאותו המין והיה אותו הריח מפעפע בגופה כאירסה של חכינה
pHag 77b

And some say that when his mother was pregnant with him she would pass by houses of idol worship and smell that stuff. The aroma seeped into his body like the venom of a snake.

Once more we are given a reason that pins the blame on somebody other than EbA himself: this time, his mother. The accusation that she used to walk past houses of idol worship and smell the emanating smoke (presumably of incense) implies deliberate action, and casts aspersions on her own level of piety.

לאחר ימים חלה אלישע אתון ואמרון לר"מ הא רבך באיש אזל בעי מבקרתיה ואשכחיה באיש א"ל לית את חזר בך א"ל ואין חזרין מתקבלין א"ל ולא כן כתיב תשב אנוש עד דכא עד דיכדוכה של נפש מקבלין באותה שעה בכה אלישע ונפטר ומת והיה ר"מ שמח בלבו ואומר דומה שמתוך תשובה נפטר רבי
pHag 77b-c

Years later Elisha became sick. They came and said to R. Meir, "Behold your master is sick." He went desiring to visit him and found him sick. He said to him, "Will you not repent?" He said to him, "If one repents, is it accepted?" He said, "Is it not written, You return man to dust (dakka'), [You decreed, Return you mortals] (Ps 90:3)? Until life is crushed (dikhdukha) it is accepted." At that point Elisha wept and passed away and died. R. Meir rejoiced in his heart and said, "It seems that my master died repenting."

This scene reminds me of the closing scene of Marlowe's Dr. Faustus, where Faust is encouraged to repent but, instead, seals anew his pact with Lucifer. In our case, however, there is every indication to assume that EbA repented, save perhaps the lingering doubt made possible by the narrator's failure to relate EbA's final words. If there should be any doubt (and it is my opinion that there should not), it may also be strengthened by the usage of the word, דומה ('it seems'): the same word that EbA employed in making his erroneous deduction concerning the resurrection.

A couple of points relating to Rubenstein's translation before we move on. The text does not specify that this occurred after some years but, rather, after 'days'. This is a reference to a passing of time that may have been measured in years, but may not have been. In a moment we shall see another example where Rubenstein renders it as "years" correctly although, in this case, it is equally likely that it occurred within a week of EbA's three conversations with Rabbi Meir. In addition to this, the word that the text uses to describe EbA's sickness is באיש, which literally means 'bad'. It is in a 'bad' state that Meir is told of EbA, and in a 'bad' state in which he is found. This word can also carry connotations of wickedness, and this ambiguity should not be passed over lightly.

מן דקברוניה ירדה האש מן השמים ושרפה את קברו אתון ואמרון לר"מ הא קבריה דרבך אייקד נפק בעי מקברתיה ואשכחיה אייקד מה עבד נסב גולתיה ופרסיה עלוי אמר ליני הלילה ליני בעולם הזה שדימה ללילה והיה בבוקר זה העולם הבא שכולו בוקר אם יגאלך טוב יגאל זה הקב"ה שהוא טוב דכתיב ביה טוב ה' לכל ורחמיו על כל מעשיו ואם לא יחפוץ לגאלך וגאלתיך אנכי חי ה' ואיטפיית
pHag 77c

After they buried him fire came down from heaven and burned his grave. They came and said to R. Meir, "Behold, your master's grave is burning." He left desiring to visit it and found it burning. What did he do? He took his cloak and spread it upon him. He said, "Stay the night... (Ruth 3:13). Stay the night (Ruth 3:13) - in this world that is similar to night. Then in the morning (Ruth 3:13) - this is the world to come that is completely morning. If he will redeem you, good (Ruth 3:13) - this refers to the Holy One, Blessed be He, who is good, as it says, He is good to all and his mercy is upon all his creatures (Ps 145:9). But if He does not want to redeem you, I will redeem you myself, as God lives! (Ruth 3:13)." And it was extinguished.

This section serves as something of a finale to the narrative. Once more (for the third time) "they" have come to inform Rabbi Meir of something relating to his master. Initially it was to tell him that his master was outside, then it was to inform him that his master was ill (lit. 'bad'), and now it is to tell him that his master's grave is burning. What is more, this burning is reminiscent of the fire in Abuya's household when Rabbis Eliezer and Yehoshua were turning words of Torah.

When Rabbi Meir spreads his cloak it is over EbA's grave, paralleling the request of Ruth for Boaz to spread his cloak over her in Ruth 3. The response of Boaz to Ruth is explained, line by line, as being a reference to Rabbi Meir redeeming EbA from some unmentioned post-mortem torment. In that sense, this section is an inverse of EbA's story concerning his father. In that story it was words of Torah that brought a fire so great that Abuya thought the sages had come to demolish his house, but in this story Rabbi Meir's words of Torah are powerful enough that they succeed in extinguishing a fire that came to wreak havoc on EbA's grave.

אמרון לר"מ אין אמרון לך בההוא עלמא למאן את בעי למבקרה לאבוך או לרבך אמר לון אנא מיקרב לרבי קדמיי ובתר כן לאבא אמרון ליה ושמעין לך אמר לון ולא כן תנינן מצילין תיק הספר עם הספר תיק תפילין עם התפילין מצילין לאלישע אחר בזכות תורתו
pHag 77c

They said to R. Meir, "If they say to you in that world, 'Whom do you desire to visit?' [will you say] your father or your master?" He said to them, "I will first approach my master and then my father." They said to him, "Will they listen to you?" He said to them, "Did we not learn, They save the casing of the scroll with the scroll, the casing of the phylacteries with the phylacteries (=mShab 16:1)? They save Elisha-Aher for the merit of his Torah."

This section, and the one following, serve as the climax to the Palestinian Talmudic story. It is here that we see the main concern rising to the fore, as we have tentatively sensed it already. If EbA is perceived as genuinely wicked (murdering children, violating the Sabbath, etc): why are his teachings preserved? May we preserve the nectar of a fruit that is rotten? Or - in this case - if the fruit is good, must the husk also be maintained? It would appear that the answer is in the affirmative. This is indicated, not only in Rabbi Meir's response here and in Rebbe's response in the following narrative, but in the very inclusion of these stories within the Talmud, and in the inclusion of EbA's teachings.

לאחר ימים הלכו בנותיו ליטול צדקה מרבי גזר רבי ואמר אל יהי לו מושך חסד ואל יהי חונן ליתומיו אמרו לו רבי אל תבט במעשיו תבט בתורתו באותה השעה בכה רבי וגזר עליהן שיתפרנסו אמר מה אם זה שיגע בתורה שלא לשום שמים ראו מה העמיד מי שהוא יגע בתורה לשמה על אחת כמה וכמה
pHag 77c

Years later his daughters went to ask for alms from Rabbi [Yehuda HaNasi].
Rabbi decreed and said, "May no one show him mercy, may none pity his orphans (Ps 109:12)." They said to Rabbi, "Do not look at his deeds. Look at his Torah."
At that point Rabbi wept and decreed that they be supported.
He said, "If this one, who laboured in Torah not for the sake of heaven - see what [children] he raised, he who laboured in Torah for its own sake, how much the more so!"

Elisha ben Abuya III

2006-05-31T12:42:00.000+10:00

The Palestinian Talmud (pHag 77b-c) commences its narrative concerning EbA by quoting the Tosefta. There are a few differences in their version of the Tosefta but, as these are limited to the choice of verbs and the order of the sages involved, I shall only reproduce it here from the point where it begins by speaking of EbA himself.

Throughout this entire section, the translation presented is that of Jeffrey L. Rubenstein, Talmudic Stories: Narrative Art, Composition, and Culture (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999), 82-86. Rubenstein's scriptural quotations are all taken from JPS. Emphasis and parentheses are his.

אחר הציץ וקיצץ בנטיעות מני אחר אלישע בן אבויה שהיה הורג רבי תורה אמרין כל תלמיד דהוה חמי ליה משכח באוריתא הוה קטיל ליה
pHag 77b

Aher gazed and cut the shoots (=tHag 2:3).
Who is Aher? Elisha ben Abuya, who would kill the young students of Torah. They said: He would kill every student whom he saw distinguish himself in Torah.

It is clear that 'cutting the seedlings / shoots' in the Palestinian tradition is a reference to murdering students of the Torah. As we shall see, there is a great deal of animosity in the Palestinian Talmud directed towards EbA, although it goes without saying that there is no basis to any of the vicious claims made against him, as evidenced both by their extreme nature and by their absence elsewhere.

ולא עוד אלא דהוה עליל לבית וועדא והוה חמי טלייא קומי ספרא והוה אמר מה אילין יתבין עבדין הכא אומנותיה דהן בנאי אומנותיה דהן נגר אומנותיה דהן צייד אומנותיה דהן חייט וכיון דהוון שמעין כן הוון שבקין ליה ואזלין לון עליו הכתוב אומר אל תתן את פיך לחטיא את בשרך שחיבל מעשה ידיו של אותו האיש
pHag 77b

Not only that, but he would go to the meeting-place and see children in front of their teacher, and he would say, "What are these sitting and doing here? This one's profession is a builder. That one's profession is a carpenter. This one's profession is a hunter. That one's profession is a tailor." When they heard this they would leave him and go away.
About him scripture says, "Let not your mouth lead you into sin, [and do not say before the messenger that it was an error, else God may be angered by your talk and destroy the work of your hands (ma'ase yadekha)] (Qoh 5:5)." (=tHag 2:3) For he destroyed the works (ma'asei yadav) of that man (i.e., himself).

It may be that this discouragement of Torah scholarship (albeit almost certainly not having happened in so simplistic a manner) is the true origin of the Talmud's accusation that he murdered young scholars.

אוף בשעה שומדא הוון מטענין לון מטולין והוון מתכוונין מיטעון תרי חד מטול משום שנאמר שעשו מלאכה אחת אמר אטעוננון יחידאין אזלין ואטעונינון יחידיין והוון מתכוונין מיפרוק בכרמלית שלא להוציא מרה"י לרשות הרבים אמר אטעונינון צלוחיין אזלין ואטעונינון צלוחיין ר' עקיבה נכנס בשלום ויצא בשלום עליו הכתוב אומר משכני אחריך נרוצה
pHag 77b

Also, when there was a persecution, they made them (Jews) carry burdens, but they (Jews) arranged to have two carry one burden, on account of [the rule that] two who perform one labor [on the Sabbath are not culpable]. He (Elisha) said, "Make them carry individually." They went and made them carry individually, but they arranged to set [the burdens] down in a karmelit in order that they not carry out from a private domain to a public domain. He said, "Make them carry flasks." They went and carried flasks (which could not be set down, for they would break).
Rabbi Akiba entered in peace and went out in peace. About him scripture says, "Draw me after you." (=tHag 2:4)

The most interesting feature of this description, in my opinion, is the fact that the author has EbA completely separated from the Jews of his time. Not only does he not appear to be facing the same penalties as other Jews (under, presumably, the persecutions of Hadrian after the failed bar Kosiba rebellion), but his suggestions to the Romans are being obeyed to the letter. The fact that the Tosefta's description of Rabbi Akiva is appended to the end of this narrative would possibly indicate that this severing of his connection to the Jewish people is precisely the manner in which he was harmed by his experiences in the 'orchard'. Without intending to read too far into the story, this may be an alternative explanation for the enigmatic 'Akher cut the seedlings'.

From an historical perspective, however, the reference to Rabbi Akiva in this passage is also somewhat chilling. After the failed insurrection, of which Rabbi Akiva was a very vocal part, the Romans subjected the Jewish population to several torments. One of these was the execution of various religious leaders, Rabbi Akiva included. The Talmud contains some very confronting descriptions of Rabbi Akiva's torment, making this reference to him (at a time when we realise that he would be already dead) a very effective means of contrasting his pious mortality with EbA's sinful longevity.

ר"מ הוה יתיב דרש בבית מדרשא דטיבריה עבר אלישע רביה רכיב על סוסייא ביום שובתא אתון ואמרון ליה הא רבך לבר פסק ליה מן דרשה ונפק לגביה
pHag 77b

Rabbi Meir was sitting and expounding in the academy in Tiberias. His master Elisha passed by riding a horse on the Sabbath. They came and said to R. Meir, "Behold your master is outside." He ceased his homily and went out to him.

This is the first indication that we have so far been given (within a narrative) that EbA was a great scholar. Not only does Rabbi Meir cease his teaching in order to greet his master, but he does so regardless of the fact that his master is in the act of violating the Sabbath. The tremendous esteem with which he was held is a further indication that the stories regarding his murdering of children are unfounded. What follows next is the extended discussion held between the two of them.

א"ל מה הויתה דרש יומא דין א"ל ויי' ברך את אחרית א"ל ומה פתחת ביה א"ל ויוסף יי' את כל אשר לאיוב למשנה שכפל לו את כל ממנו אמר ווי דמובדין ולא משכחין עקיבה רבך לא הוה דרש כן אלא ויי' ברך את אחרית איוב מראשיתו בזכות מצות ומעשים טובים שהיה בידו מראשיתו
pHag 77b

He (Elisha) said to him, "What were you expounding today?" He said, "The Lord blessed the latter days of Job's life more than the beginning (Job 42:12)." He said to him, "And how did you begin it?" He said to him, "The Lord gave Job twice what he had before (Job 42:10) - that he doubled his money." He said, "Alas for things lost and not found. Akiba your master did not expound it like that. Rather, The Lord blessed the latter days of Job's life more than the beginning (Job 42:12) - on account of the mitsvot and good deeds that he had done from the beginning."

The expression that EbA employs here for the deeds done by Job literally translates to the deeds which were "in his hand" (שהיה בידו). There is a powerful allusion here to the notion of God having destroyed the work of EbA's hands (as alluded to in the Tosefta, and as will be explored later in more depth), and the commentary that EbA is providing in the name of Akiva appears deeply personal. Just as the latter days of Job's life were blessed on account of the deeds done in the beginning, so too should the latter days of EbA's life be blessed, despite his present apostasy.

The difference between EbA (/Akiva)'s exposition and that of Rabbi Meir's is an interesting one. While Rabbi Meir is actually providing an interpretation of the verse, EbA is merely providing a reason for it. In other words, Rabbi Meir explains what the verse is discussing, while EbA seems to take that discussion for granted and explain why it is that such a thing should have occurred. As we shall see in a moment, this is the way in which EbA appears to be intent on interpreting things.

The curious exclamation, "Alas for things lost and not found" is presumably a reference to the teachings of Rabbi Akiva himself. As we have noted, Rabbi Akiva had already been brutally murdered by the Romans, and all of his vast learning had been lost. That Rabbi Meir, his former pupil, does not appear to recall it is a cause of concern for EbA. As we shall see shortly, theodicy in general (the concern over how God functions in a world where bad things happen to righteous people) is a matter with which EbA appears to struggle. For that reason, it is especially interesting that the present topic of departure happened to be a verse taken from Job: the theodical Biblical text par excellence.

א"ל ומה הויתה דריש תובן א"ל טוב אחרית דבר מראשיתו א"ל ומה פתחת ביה א"ל לאדם שהוליד בנים בנערותו ומתו ובזקנותו ונקיימו הוי טוב אחרית דבר מראשיתו לאדם שעשה סחורה בילדותו והפסיד ובזקנותו ונשתכר הוי טוב אחרית דבר מראשיתו לאדם שלמד תורה בנערותו ושכחה ובזקנותו וקיימה הוי טוב אחרית דבר מראשיתו אמר ווי דמובדין ולא משכחין עקיבה רבך לא הוה דרש כן אלא טוב אחרית דבר מראשיתו בזמן שהוא טוב מראשיתו
pHag 77b

He (Elisha) said to him, "What else were you expounding?" He (Meir) said to him, "The end of a thing is better than its beginning (Qoh 7:8)." He said to him, "And how did you begin it?"
(a) He said to him, "[By comparing it] to a man who had children in his youth who died, and in his old age who lived. Behold, 'The end of a thing is better than its beginning.'"
(b) "[By comparing it] to a man who did business in his youth and lost money, and in his old age and earned. Behold, 'The end of a thing is better than its beginning.'"
(c) "[By comparing it] to a man who learned Torah in his youth and forgot it, and in his old age and fulfilled it. Behold, 'The end of a thing is better than its beginning.'"
He (Elisha) said, "Alas for things lost and not found. Akiba your master did not expound it like that. Rather, The end of a thing is better than its beginning (Qoh 7:8) - when it is good from the beginning.

[Note: my version of the text concludes the first of Rabbi Meir's three expositions with the verb ונקרימו. I have understood that to be an editorial error for ונקיימו]

Once again we can see the marked difference between Rabbi Meir's interpretative explanation and EbA (/Akiva)'s stipulatory explanation. While Rabbi Meir is concerned with providing examples that indicate exactly what sorts of situations the relevant verse discusses, EbA is more concerned with explaining when such examples would come into effect. In other words, EbA's explanation of this (and the former passage) is not at odds with the explanation of his student, and the only way to understand EbA's dissatisfaction with Rabbi Meir is in terms of his steadfast devotion to his deceased colleague. As Rabbi Akiva expressed an opinion concerning this verse, that is the opinion which should be maintained. While possibly heartwarming in its commitment to the teachings of Rabbi Akiva, EbA's understanding of Torah is presented as stagnant and academic: fixated on the works of a particular scholar yet out of touch with the living component.

וכי היה המעשה אבויה אבא מגדולי ירושלם היה ביום שבא למוהליני קרא לכל גדולי ירושלם והושיבן בבית אחד ולרבי אליעזר ולרבי יהושע בבית אחר מן דאכלין ושתון שרון מטפחין ומרקדקין א"ר ליעזר לרבי יהושע עד דאינון עסוקין בדידון נעסוק אנן בדידן וישבו ונתעסקו בדברי תורה מן תורה לנביאים ומן הנביאים לכתובים וירדה אש מן השמים והקיפה אותם אמר להן אבויה רבותיי מה באתם לשרוף את ביתי עלי אמרו לו חס ושלום אלא יושבין היינו וחוזרין בדברי תורה מן התורה לנביאים ומן הנביאים לכתובים והיו הדברים שמיחים כנתינתן מסיני והיתה האש מלחכת אותן כלחיכתן מסיני ועיקרו נתינתן מסיני לא ניתנו אלא באש וההר בוער באש עד לב השמים אמר להן אבויה אבא רבותיי אם כך היא כוחה של תורה אם נתקיים לי בן הזה לתורה אני מפרישו לפי שלא היתה כוונתו לשם שמים לפיכך לא נתקיימו באותו האיש
pHag 77b

And this matter happened to me: Abuya my father was one of the notables of Jerusalem. On the day he was to circumcise me he invited all the notables of Jerusalem and seated them in one room. [He invited] R. Eliezer and R. Yehoshua [and seated them] in a separate room. When they were eating and drinking and singing and clapping and dancing, R. Eliezer said to R. Yehoshua, 'As long as they are busying themselves with their own [business], let us busy ourselves with ours.' They sat and busied themselves with words of Torah. From the Torah to the Prophets and from the Prophets to the Writings, and fire came down from the heavens and encircled them. Abuya said to them, 'My masters! Have you come to burn down my house upon me?' They said to him, 'God forbid. But we were sitting and turning (hozrin) words of Torah. From the Torah to the Prophets and from the Prophets to the Writings. And the words rejoiced as when they were given at Sinai. At Sinai they were given primarily in fire, And the mountain was ablaze with flames to the very skies (Deut 4:11).' Abuya my father said to them, 'My masters: If that is the power of Torah, if this son of mine prospers (nitqayyem), I will dedicate him to Torah.' Since his intention was not for the sake of heaven, therefore it did not prosper (lo' nitqayyemu) for that man (= for me)."

This is the only extant narrative mentioning EbA's father, Abuya. The story appears to be serving an explanatory purpose, detailing the events that led inexorably to EbA's apostasy. While other, alternative, explanations are soon to be given, this one is especially interesting as it pins the blame squarely on the shoulders of somebody else. EbA, himself, was only eight days old when the events supposedly took place, but his father's inability (despite, himself, being one of the 'notables' of Jerusalem) to dedicate his son to Torah for the sake of heaven is enough to condemn his son to a life of sin.

This story is brought by EbA as an example of something, the end of which is only better than the beginning if its beginning were also good. Here, EbA's beginning is in the actions of his father and as they were bad, so too is EbA's future. This would appear to contradict other dicta concerning both free will, and the sins of the fathers not being visited upon the children, but such is not our concern. Of greater import here is simply the fact that EbA, himself, is decrying responsibility for his own actions. We shall see shortly how this is recorded as being something of a trend for EbA.

א"ל ומה הויתה דרש תובן א"ל לא יערכנה זהב וזכוכית א"ל ומה פתחת ביה א"ל דברי תורה קשין לקנות ככלי זהב ונוחין לאבד ככלי זכוכית ומה כלי זהב וכלי זכוכית אם נשתברו יכול הוא לחזור ולעשותן כלים כמו שהיו אף תלמיד חכם ששכח תלמודו יכול הוא לחזור וללמדו כתחילה: א"ל דייך מאיר עד כאן תחום שבת א"ל מן הן את ידע א"ל מן טלפי דסוסיי דהוינא מני והולך אלפיים אמה א"ל וכל הדא חכמתא אית בך ולית את חזר בך א"ל לית אנא יכיל אמר ליה למה א"ל שפעם אחת הייתי עובר לפני בית קודש הקדשים רוכב על סוסי ביום הכפורים שחל להיות בשבת ושמעתי בת קול יוצאת מבית קודש הקדשים ואומרת שובו בנים חוץ מאלישע בן אבויה שידע כחי ומרד בי
pHag 77b

He (Elisha) said to him, "What else were you expounding?" He said to him, "Gold or glass cannot match its value (Job 28:17)." He said to him, "And how did you begin it?" He said, "The words of Torah are as difficult to acquire as vessels of gold and as easy to lose as vessels of glass. But just as if vessels of gold and vessels of glass are broken one can return (lahazor) and make them vessels as they were, so a sage who forgets his Torah can return (lahazor) and learn it as at the beginning."
He said to him, "Enough, Meir, the Sabbath limit is up to this point." He said to him, "How do you know this?" He said to him, "From the steps of my horse which I have been counting. And he has walked two thousand cubits." He said to him, "You have all this wisdom yet you will not repent (hazar)?" He said to him, "I cannot." He said to him, "Why?" He said to him, "Once I was passing by the Holy of Holies, riding my horse on Yom Kippur that fell on a Sabbath. I heard a heavenly voice come out of the Holy of Holies and say, 'Return, rebellious children (Jer 3:22) - except Elisha ben Abuya, for he knew my power and rebelled against me.'"

There is much about this final part of EbA's conversation with Rabbi Meir that is deserving of mention. Firstly, we have already had occasion to note that Rabbi Meir's present exposition is the same as EbA's exposition in bARN 24:5. Without trying to read too far into a text that often conflates the opinions of its protagonists, it is possible that Rabbi Meir is deliberately utilising EbA's own famous opinion. Such may also be indicated in EbA's failure to correct Rabbi Meir as he has done in the previous examples.

Another reason for EbA's silence may be the pertinence of this particular homily to EbA's own personal situation. Rabbi Meir, by commenting upon the verse in such a manner, is effectively asking EbA to repent. The word for repent is the same as the word for return, hence the efficacy of the exposition. This bivalency is also reflected, poetically, in the manner in which EbA changes the subject. Telling Rabbi Meir that he should "return", for they have reached the maximum distance to which it is permissable to walk on the Sabbath, Rabbi Meir responds by asking for EbA's "return" (ie: repentance) as well. EbA refuses.

The reason given for the refusal is strange. When we read the Babylonian Talmud's version of the story, this reason will take on greater depth, but it appears as something of a tangent within the Palestinian tradition. Claiming that a divine voice issued an imperative for all rebellious children (according to the rest of the quoted verse) to return to God, but then stipulating that EbA himself is forbidden, we are left wondering why such should have been the case. As will become evident later in the story, EbA's repentance is considered desirable before God. The only reason given here, 'for he knew my power and rebelled against me', flatly contradicts EbA's prior explanation as to why he apostasied - ie: that his father failed in his service, but not he.

Another reason as to why this story is strange is in its mention of the Holy of Holies, which had been destroyed by the Romans some sixty or seventy years before EbA's conversation with Rabbi Meir. It is inherently ridiculous to assume that EbA could have been old enough to have ridden a horse past the Temple at such a time. Seeing as EbA's apostasy is also connected with the Tosefta's story, we know that his fate was bound up with that of Rabbi Akiva, whose journey to the orchard took place some years after the Temple's destruction.

How are we to understand this anachronism? Is it, perhaps, a reference to the place where the Holy of Holies once stood? The Babylonian Talmud (to which we will soon turn) makes specific mention of the curtain, indicating that such could not be the case. Of greater likelihood is the possibility that this statement is a further indication of EbA's inability to let go of the past. Just as he insists on clinging to the statements made by the late Rabbi Akiva, so too does he seem intent on reinventing himself during the time of the Second Temple. EbA's personality is again portrayed as stagnant and academic, seeking to blame others for faults of his own, whilst justifying his own apostasy with a patently ridiculous excuse. Before looking at the Babylonian version of the story, the Palestinian Talmud continues by offering other reasons for EbA's life of sin. It is to those that we will turn next.

On the Transmission of the MT

2006-05-30T20:17:00.000+10:00

In the interests of equanimity, the following are the remarks of Dr Ian Young, of Sydney University, concerning Rabbi Gil Student's article on the precise transmission of the Masoretic Text (linked to in the previous post). These sentiments were obviously not intended for any form of publication, but were e-mailed to me in a private correspondence after I requested a scholarly opinion on the article.

First up, I was impressed that the author hung his whole argument on a fictional history of the text. Moses wrote 13 copies of the Torah. Does he get that from the Biblical sources? No, from Rabbinic midrash. The Torah was kept pure all through the pre-exilic period. Evidence? None. The only text he cites, the story of King Josiah’s astonishment and fear upon the discovery of the Torah in 2 Kgs 22, would seem to indicate that the Torah was unknown at that time. We have Biblical evidence that there was a goddess in Solomon’s Temple for most of its history, but no corresponding evidence for a true Torah scroll! In fact any evidence we have is contrary to this assertion. He says textual variations arose in the exilic period. Evidence? Radak! He was a great scholar, but did he have access to reliable historical traditions or was he just speculating? Scholars of Rabbinics would say the latter. Ezra restored the true text of the Torah? No ancient evidence for that, only an unusual reading of the 3 scrolls in the Temple story.

He asserts that in the late second temple period the true copy of the Torah was in the Temple and that the majority of Torah scrolls agreed exactly with it. This is possible, of course: everything is. But the fact is that all the evidence we have from the last centuries BCE indicates a variety of Biblical texts in use. He fails to mention that the Samaritan text is very similar to texts found at Qumran- indicating that that sort of text was at least being used by two quite different groups, even if he wants to condemn them as evil sectarians. The two other sources we have for the Torah are the Septuagint (LXX) and the Dead Sea Scrolls. If the LXX only deviates, as he sometimes claims, due to reasons of translation, how come it shares so many readings with the Hebrew texts of the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Qumran scrolls? He seems to assert that all these sorts of differences are deviations from the true MT, introduced erroneously. What basis does he have for judging that the MT is always more original? Only his presupposition that it is. There is no rational argument here - just an assertion that despite the evidence, his presuppositions may actually turn out to be correct.

His treatment of the Dead Sea Scrolls is bizarre. He says both that the scrolls were the property of an evil orthodoxy-hating sect, and that the majority of scrolls come from outside Qumran. You can’t have both. If the majority of scrolls come from outside Qumran (and they must), they represent at least to some extent the more general state of the Biblical text at the time. The most important piece of misinformation is his claim that 80% of the scrolls in any case are like the MT. I could see how you could get this from a superficial reading of Tov’s first edition. But what Student means by this is that 80% of the scrolls are identical to the letter with the MT. Note his conclusions: we can be confident that 99.99% of the letters of the Torah are what Moses wrote. In fact, only 3 of the 108 Biblical scrolls with 50 or more preserved words have no variations against the MT. If we take into account plene and defective spellings that number must be reduced to zero (although that could be said even of the authoritative medieval codices too). More than half of the scrolls have a non-orthographic variant every 20 or less words. So, if Student admits that most scrolls are not sectarian, the evidence would seem to suggest that the textus receptus was virtually unknown in the last centuries BCE.

How do we know whether the Qumran scrolls are typical of their time? All we can do is point to the evidence. The Samaritans used the same sort of Torah scroll as some of the Qumran scrolls. The LXX is a collection of Biblical scrolls of similar nature to Qumran: a mixture ranging from texts quite close (not identical) to the MT e.g. LXX Ruth, to texts representing different editions of Biblical books e.g. LXX Jeremiah. Student may still be right: the MT may have been the true text held by a majority of people in the last centuries BCE. It’s just that every single piece of evidence currently in our possession is contrary to his theory. In those circumstances, scholars usually admit that there is something wrong with the theory, rather than claiming that there is something wrong with all the evidence. (The foot is the wrong size for the shoe!)

The author claims that the textus receptus of the Torah is nearly letter perfect identical with the text Moses received on Mt Sinai. You should know that textual criticism is but one of the problems this theory has to face. You are probably aware that scholars usually consider the Torah to be the end result of a process of editing and re-editing, and that it only reached its current form long after Moses’ time. As a small example, how could Moses refer to the town of “Dan” in Genesis 14:14, when Judges 18:29 tells us that the town was not even named Dan until long after Moses time? An argument that is less often mentioned relates to language and spelling. According to everything we know, the language in which the Torah is expressed is completely inappropriate for Moses’ time c.1400BCE. As an example, the definite article (ha- in Hebrew) is unattested in any Semitic language before c.1000BCE. Likewise, all the evidence we have indicates that the spelling of the Biblical text in 1400BCE would have been quite different. For one thing, it is likely that only consonants would have been spelled. Even as late as our inscriptions from c.600BCE Hebrew is spelled with far fewer waw’s and yod’s marking vowels than in any Biblical text we know. Also our earliest evidence for spelling the suffixes for “his” as -w on singular and -yw on plural is the Dead Sea Scrolls. All our earlier evidence indicates Hebrew used -h for singular and -w for plural instead. These then are a couple of other big problems for a theory which claims that 99.99% of the letters of the current textus receptus are identical to the ones given to Moses on Mt Sinai.

I have no issue with someone who says “I believe God miraculously preserved the MT version of the Bible”. I do have problems with someone who claims that this sort of statement gives the best interpretation of the available evidence. While this theory is possible, I hope I have shown that none of the evidence is in favour of it.

- Ian Young

Wow

2006-05-28T16:52:00.000+10:00

This is a fantastic article by Rabbi Gil Student, defending the belief in the immutability of the Torah.
This is another fantastic article, this one by Rabbi Nathan Lopes Cardozo, presenting a history of textual criticism and indicating its many flaws.

Has The Exodus Been Disproved?

2006-05-28T16:37:00.000+10:00

The following is written by Prof. Lawrence Schiffman of New York University. I have not been able to find where it is that he says this (nor have I been able to prove that he actually did), but I received it in an e-mail from daatemet.org.il. Daat Emet, for those who are unfamiliar with it, is an Israeli organisation designed purely to convince Haredi Jews not to be Haredi. While they may be a very controversial organisation, some of their material is both informative and fascinating. This, for example, is an essay by Naftali Zeligman (also to be found on talkreason.org): one which I enjoyed. In any case, the following essay credited to Prof. Schiffman is not the usual sort of thing published by Daat Emet, and is perhaps a testiment to their growing intellectual honesty.

Has the Exodus been disproved? That there are people who do not believe the biblical accounts of the ancient history of the Israelites is not new. What is new in "Doubting the Story of the Exodus" (LA Times, April 13, 2001) is that doubt seems to have been turned into historical fact. Readers were told that there is a consensus of biblical historians and archaeologists that the Exodus did not happen. In reality, though, no such consensus actually exists.

Many archaeologists, Bible scholars and historians continue to conclude from the evidence that the Exodus did indeed occur, among them the editor of Biblical Archaeology Review, Hershel Shanks (Ha'aretz Magazine, Nov. 5, 1999).

Evidence for ancient events is very difficult to come by. Sometimes, to be sure, indications of an event's historicity is uncovered but more often all that can be done is to see whether the event can plausibly fit into what is presently known about the historical period. Lack of direct evidence does not disprove an ancient event. Nor can the existence of evidence only in later literary texts be taken as an argument against their reliability; the discovery of ancient Troy came about on the evidence of the much later writings of Homer.

The Exodus is dated by most of those who accept its veracity to about 1250 BCE. We know that for the previous few centuries, the period during which the Israelites are reported to have come down to Canaan from Egypt and to have become influential, there was indeed a rise in Semitic influence in Egypt, led by a group of western Semites known as the Hyksos, who were closely related to the Hebrews. At some point, ca. 1580 BCE, the native Egyptians rebelled against these foreigners, and this development can be taken to be reflected in the Bible's description of the Pharaoh "who did not know Joseph." As a result of this change, the Semites, including the Israelites, found themselves in the difficult position the Bible records, one which must have lasted for centuries. From this point of view, the story of the slavery and Exodus is perfectly plausible within the framework of Egyptian and Near Eastern history. Further, we have letters which describe the life of work gangs from Pharaonic Egypt and these seem to paint a picture very close to that of the biblical report.

The Bible describes the period immediately after the Exodus as one of extended wandering in the desert. This wandering was said to result from the fear of the Israelites that a direct route to Canaan, along the Mediterranean coast toward what is now the Gaza Strip, would be dangerous because of the Egyptian armies stationed there. This circumstance has been confirmed as historical by the discovery of the remains of extensive Egyptian influence, habitation and fortification in the Gaza region in this period, especially at Deir al-Balakh. Again, the biblical record is confirmed.

Further support for the historicity of the Exodus comes from a stele of the Egyptian ruler Merneptah (1224-1214 BCE). In reviewing his victories against the peoples of Canaan, he claimed, " Israel is laid waste; his seed is not." Here the text designated the people of Israel, not the land, as can be shown from the Egyptian linguistic usage. Many scholars believe that this text refers to the people of Israel before they entered Canaan --that is, in the period of desert wandering. More likely, it is a reference to Israel after they have entered Canaan, but before they established themselves as a sedentary population in the hill country in today's West Bank (Judea and Samaria). Since this view accords with the dating of the Exodus we suggested above, it seems that in this text, the only Egyptian document to mention Israel, we have a direct reference to the Israelites in the period of the Exodus and the conquest of Canaan.

Assuming the biblical account to be unreliable, some scholars have substituted a Marxist theory of class revolution to explain the formation of ancient Israel. According to this approach, the masses revolted against their Canaanite overlords and, after taking control, forged for themselves the new collective identity and mythology of the Israelites. Other scholars have suggested a process of differentiation in which some Canaanites began to see themselves as a separate people, and created an identity and a sacred history from whole cloth, thus inventing the Exodus and conquest narratives. But who would invent a history of slavery and disgrace?

Further, this theory must explain away the historical and archaeological evidence. Numerous cities from this period show a cultural change at precisely the point when the Israelites are said by the Bible to have appeared. Indeed, the newcomers, since they came from the desert, show a lower level of material culture than the Canaanites whom they displaced. This situation fits well the notion of Israelite conquest and infiltration. Second, the Israelites, throughout their history in the land, were concentrated in those areas easiest to defend against the superior arms of the Canaanites, a fact that supports the notion that they were invaders. Third, the doubters have claimed that few cities from this period show evidence of armed destruction. But careful consideration of the biblical narrative, with due attention to the account in Judges and the evidence that the Canaanites were never entirely displaced, eliminates this inconsistency fully. Indeed, the archaeological record supports a reconstruction of the historical events of the conquest when both Joshua and Judges are studied together. Finally, these scholars often claim that the Bible is the only source supporting the Exodus. But they forget that several different accounts of the Exodus exist in the Bible, in books written at different periods, thus providing corroborative evidence for the basic scheme of events.

We may not possess, at least at present, conclusive proof that the Israelites left Egypt en masse as the Bible describes. What we do have, though, are several indications of the Exodus' historicity, and ample evidence that the biblical account is entirely plausible.

It is a simple matter to claim that lack of clear, decisive external confirmation of the biblical account is itself a disproof, but no rational person believes that what has not been proven is false. What can be stated with certainly, however, is that there is no consensus that the Exodus is a myth.
- Prof. L. Schiffman

"How To Write Screenplays. Badly."

2006-05-26T19:24:00.000+10:00

I think that this might just be the single funniest blog I've ever seen. You know what? I'm going to add it to my link list!

The Evolution of Dance

2006-05-26T14:46:00.000+10:00

Elisha ben Abuya II

2006-05-25T18:51:00.000+10:00

תניא מעשה ומת אביו של רבי צדוק בגינזק והודיעוהו לאחר שלש שנים ובא ושאל את אלישע בן אבויה וזקנים שעמו ואמרו נהוג שבעה ושלשים וכשמת בנו של רבי אחייה בגולה ישב עליו שבעה ושלשים
baraita, bMo'ed 20a

My translation:
It is taught: It once happened that Rabbi Tzadoq's father died in Ginzaq and they informed him [of the fact] after three years. He came and he asked Elisha ben Abuya and the sages who were with him and they said, "Observe thirty-seven days".
And when Rabbi Ahiah's son died in Babylonia [lit. 'in exile'], he sat over him for thirty-seven [days].

This is the sole attributed halakhic statement of EbA. While what he says may be of some import, of greater significance is the fact that the editors of the Talmud saw fit to include it - despite traditions to which we will soon turn.

אלישע בן אבויה אומר הלומד ילד למה הוא דומה לדיו כתובה על נייר חדש והלומד זקן למה הוא דומה לדיו כתובה על נייר מחוק רבי יוסי ברבי יהודה איש כפר הבבלי אומר הלומד מן־הקטנים למה הוא דומה לאוכל ענבים קהות ושותה יין מגתו והלומד מן־הזקנים למה הוא דומה לאוכל ענבים בשולות ושותה יין ישן רבי אומר אל תסתכל בקנקן אלא במה־שיש בו יש קנקן חדש מלא ישן וישן שאפילו חדש אין בו
mAbot 4:20

My translation:
Elisha ben Abuya says, "To what is a child who learns to be compared? To ink written on a fresh sheet; and to what is an old man who learns to be compared? To ink written on an erased sheet [ie: a used and re-used sheet]".
Rabbi Yosi, son of Rabbi Yehuda (from the Babylonian village [or, Kfar HaBabli]), says, "To what is one of the little ones who learns to be compared? To one who eats unripe grapes and drinks wine from the winepress [ie: which has not yet matured and is still sour-tasting]; and to what is one of the old people who learns to be compared? To one who eats ripe grapes and drinks aged wine".
Rebbe says, "Don't focus on the vessels, but what is within it! There are new vessels full of old wine and old vessels that don't even have any new wine in them".

This is the sole attributed statement of EbA in the Mishna. Again, while what he says may be of some import, of greater significance is its inclusion. Let us look next at some of the later traditions for, as the narratives in the two Talmuds are the lengthiest and the most deserving of attention, they are better dealt with last.

The commentary on Pirqei Aboth known as Aboth deRebi Nathan features a chapter on EbA. It is not necessary for us to write the whole section out here, as the content is not of great importance. The chapter (chapter 24) consists of a variety of similes portraying the difference between those who learn Torah and do good deeds and those who do neither, followed by a lengthy description of the ease with which Torah can be forgotten. The exhortation that bridges these two sections is an interesting one, and I produce that short sentiment here:

הוא היה אומר קשין דברי תורה לקנותם ככלי זהבים ונוחין לאבדם ככלי זכוכית שנאמר לא יערכנה זהב וזכוכית מקיש זהב לזכוכית מה כלי זהב לאחר שנשבר יש לו תקנה וכל כלי זכוכית אין להם תקנה כשנשברו אלא א"כ חזרו לברייתן ומה אני מקיים ותמורתה כלי פז לומר לך כל העמל בהן ומקיימן פניו מצהיבות כפז וכל העמל בהם ואין מקיימן פניו משחירות כזכוכית
bARN 24:5

My translation:
He [ie: EbA] used to say, "Words of Torah are as difficult to acquire as vessels of gold, and as easy to lose as vessels of glass - as it says, 'Gold or glass cannot match its value [nor vessels of fine gold be exchanged for it]' (Job 28:17, acc. to JPS). Gold and glass are compared for, just as a vessel [lit. 'vessels', although the rest of the sentence is in the singular] of gold has a means of being prepared when it has been broken [so too, vessels of glass have a means of being prepared when they are broken] - only, vessels of glass have no means of being prepared when they are broken unless they are returned to their natural state. And what can I establish [from the juxtaposition of 'glass' with] 'vessels of fine gold be exchanged for it'? It is to tell you that all who labour over them [ie: study Torah laws] and fulfil them, their faces will shine like gold. But all who labour over them and do not fulfil them, their faces will darken like glass".

This section is of particular textual interest because, as we shall see in both Talmudic stories, the same exposition is related. In the Palestinian Talmud, Rabbi Meir (EbA's student) is credited with having said it and, in the Babylonian Talmud, he is credited with the first part to which EbA reacts and corrects him with the second. Of interest as well is the position of this chapter within Aboth deRebi Nathan. Chapters 23, 25 and 26 deal with statements made by ben Zoma, ben Azzai and Rabbi Akiva respectively. The grouping together of these four sages indicates a degree of familiarity with the narrative from the Tosefta and the baraita (as discussed previously).

Before we are ready to read both of the Talmud's stories concerning EbA, there is one final source to look at. This is found within the Babylonian Talmud but, as will be especially clear when we have finished with the broader Babylonian Talmudic text, this section is a later addition.

אחר מאי זמר יווני לא פסק מפומיה אמרו עליו על אחר בשעה שהיה עומד מבית המדרש הרבה ספרי מינין נושרין מחיקו
bHag 15b

My translation:
[This passage continues on from a short discussion concerning two other men who had fallen from greatness to sin]
What about Akher [ie: what was it that he had done which had led him to apostasy]? Greek songs never ceased from his mouth.
It is said about him (about Akher) that whenever he would stand in the study hall, several heretical books would fall from his lap.

Rosh Shel Yisrael

2006-05-25T14:34:00.000+10:00

If you turn to Bava Batra 29a you can see the point where the commentary of Rashi is finally brought to an end, and the task is turned over to the Rashbam. The Talmud (Yoma 38b) explains Qoheleth 1:5 ("the sun rises and the sun sets..."), in the name of Rabbi Yohanan, to mean that God does not allow a tzaddiq to die until another tzaddiq is there to take his place. Tradition states that Rashi was born in 1039/40 (4800), right after the death of Rabbeinu Gershom. So too, when it was Rashi's time to die, the Rashbam was there to take his place.

But I think that this section of the gemara is a lot deeper than that. If you look to the right of the notice in the above picture, you'll note that some printings of the Talmud contain a different text. Their ones say, כאן מת רש"י ז"ל - Here died Rashi, of blessed memory. It's fascinating to notice the different types of post-mortem interment. Some people have illustrious tombs, others ornate graves - others still, very simple tombstones to note the place where they have finally come to rest. It is almost ironic that the simplest should also be the most majestic: a single notice on a page of gemara.

Perhaps that is why Rashi is so revered. 800 years after he put down his quill, scholars and laymen alike continue to search deep into the heart of his words. Because it is here, in the pages of the Babylonian Talmud, that Rashi finally died. And that is why he is of blessed memory.

Elisha ben Abuya

2006-05-24T19:24:00.000+10:00

The following document is designed to serve as an analysis of Elisha ben Abuya (henceforth, EbA) and his role throughout the Rabbinic literature. While it is not strictly necessary for an appreciation of EbA's personality, I have provided a preface that deals with the antediluvian ("pre-flood") character, Enoch. We had occasion to note at the end of that preface that Enoch, in his afterlife, became an angel known as Metatron (מיטטרון). In our upcoming appraisal of the main EbA narrative, this association will have interesting connotations.

There are several texts that are relevant to an understanding of EbA and we shall endeavor to approach them in a chronological order. For the purpose of clarity, I shall list those texts here:

1. mHag 2:1 - m = Mishna
2. tHag 2:1-3 - t = Tosefta; Hag = Hagigah / חגיגה
3. baraita, bHag 14b - b = Babylonian Talmud
4. baraita, bMo'ed 20a - Mo'ed = Mo'ed Qatan / מועד קטן
5. mAbot 4:20 - Abot = Pirqei Aboth / פרקי אבות
6. pHag 77b-c - p = Palestinian Talmud
7. bHag 15a-15b
8. bHag 15b, additions
9. bARN 24 - ARN = Aboth deRebi Nathan / אבות דרבי נתן

There is some debate over which came first: the Tosefta or the Mishna (cf: Judith Hauptman, "The Tosefta as a Commentary on an Early Mishnah", JSIJ 3 (2004), 1-24), although the tradition assumes that the latter derived from a body that contained the former as well. As the Tosefta is somewhat more detailed than both the Mishna and the baraita in this instance, we shall use the former as a launching pad to discuss the latter two as well.

אין דורשין בעריות בשלשה אבל דורשין בשנים ולא במעשה בראשית בשנים אבל דורשין ביחיד ולא במרכבה ביחיד אא"כ היה חכם מבין מדעתו
tHag 2:1

The following is my translation:
One should not expound upon the [forbidden] sexual matters to three people, although one may do so to two; nor [may one expound upon] the work of creation to two people, although one may do so to a single person; nor [may one expound upon] the chariot [of Ezekiel's vision] to a single person - unless he is wise, discerning in his knowledge.

The Tosefta then goes on to relate an incident that led Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakai to appreciate the stature of Rabbi El'azar ben Erekh and to agree to expound upon 'the chariot' in his presence. The correlating Mishna (mHag 2:1) is effectively identical, save for the the stipulation that the former two matters may be discussed at all. The Mishna is also lacking the concluding narrative.

כל המסתכל בארבעה דברים ראוי לו כאלו לא בא לעולם מה למעלה מה למטה מה לפנים ומה לאחור
tHag 2:3

My translation:
All who consider [these] four things, it is better for them had they not come into the world: what is above, what is below, what is before and what comes after.
[The Tosefta then continues by deducing this principle from Deut 4:32]

כל המסתכל בארבעה דברים ראוי לו כאילו לא בא לעולם מה למעלה מה למטה מה לפנים ומה לאחור וכל שלא חס על כבוד קונו ראוי לו שלא בא לעולם
mHag 2:1

The following is my translation:
All who consider [these] four things, it is better for them [some manuscripts, 'it would be a mercy to them': רתוי instead of ראוי] had they not come into the world: what is above, what is below, what is before and what comes after. And all who are not considerate regarding the honour of their creator, it is better for them [/ 'it would be a mercy for them'] had they not come into the world.
[This is the second half of mHag 2:1, following on from the section mentioned above]

This forthright ban on speculative thinking served as the crux of Charles' argument that apocalyptic writing died in the Jewish tradition and was replaced by the immutability of the Law (cf: R.H. Charles (ed.), The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, Volume Two: Pseudepigrapha (Berkeley: The Apocryphile Press, 2004), ix). Whether or not Charles was correct, traditions such as those espoused by the authors of Daniel 7-12, Ezekiel 1 and Enoch (to name only a few) received their death-knell in mishnayot like mHag 2:1. Proceeding to the next source, we see where this idea is given narrative expression.

ארבעה נכנסו לפרדס בן עזאי ובן זומא אחר ורבי עקיבה אחד הציץ ומת אחד הציץ ונפגע אחד הציץ וקיצץ בנטיעות ואחד עלה בשלום וירד בשלום בן עזאי הציץ ומת עליו הכתוב אומר יקר בעיני ה' המותה לחסידיו בן זומא הציץ ונפגע עליו הכתוב אומר דבש מצאת אכול דייך אלישע הציץ וקיצץ בנטיעות עליו הכתוב אומר אל תתן את פיך לחטיא את בשרך רבי עקיבה עלה בשלום וירד בשלום עליו הכתוב אומר משכני אחריך נרוצה
tHag 2:2

My translation:
Our Rabbis taught: Four people entered an/the orchard [without the vocalisation, it is impossible to tell whether this is לְפַרְדֵּס or לַפַּרְדֵּס. Tradition assumes the definite article]: ben Azzai and ben Zoma, Akher and Rabbi Akiva. One looked and died; one looked and was wounded; one looked and cut the saplings; and one ascended in peace and descended in peace. Ben Azzai looked and died. Concerning him, the passage says, "The death of His righteous ones is valuable in the Lord's eyes" (Ps 116:15). Ben Zoma looked and was wounded. Concerning him, the passage says, "If you found honey, eat [only] until you're full [lest you overly sate yourself and vomit it up]" (Pr 25:16). Elisha looked and cut the seedlings. Concerning him, the passage says, "Do not let your mouth cause your body to sin [and do not say before the angel that it was unintentional. Why allow God to be angry by your talk? For He will destroy the work of your hands]" (Ecc 5:5). Rabbi Akiva ascended in peace and descended in peace. Concerning him, the passage says, "Draw me after you, let us run! [The king has brought me to his chambers]" (SoS 1:4, acc. to JPS).
[The Tosefta continues with two parables regarding the nature of the orchard, but they are not of relevance to our discussion.]

ת"ר ארבעה נכנסו בפרדס ואלו הן בן עזאי ובן זומא אחר ורבי עקיבא אמר להם ר"ע כשאתם מגיעין אצל אבני שיש טהור אל תאמרו מים מים משום שנאמר דובר שקרים לא יכון לנגד עיני בן עזאי הציץ ומת עליו הכתוב אומר יקר בעיני ה' המותה לחסידיו בן זומא הציץ ונפגע ועליו הכתוב אומר דבש מצאת אכול דייך פן תשבענו והקאתו אחר קיצץ בנטיעות רבי עקיבא יצא בשלום
baraita, bHag 14b

My translation:
Our Rabbis taught: Four people entered an/the orchard [as above, tradition assumes the definite article] and they were ben Azzai and ben Zoma, Akher and Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Akiva said to them, "When you reach the stones of pure marble, do not say, 'Water! Water!' For it is said, "He who speaks lies will not stand before my eyes" (Ps 101:7). Ben Azzai looked and died. Concerning him, the passage says, "The death of His righteous ones is valuable in the Lord's eyes" (Ps 116:15). Ben Zoma looked and was wounded, and it is concerning him that the passage says, "If you found honey, eat [only] until you're full, lest you [overly] sate yourself and vomit it up" (Pr 25:16). Akher cut the seedlings, but Rabbi Akiva left in peace.

This is a fascinating passage and it merits closer examination. Who is Akher? What happened to each of the protagonists? Why was Rabbi Akiva not harmed? The question of what happened in relation to Akher (whose true name is divulged in the Tosefta's version of the story) is soon to be discussed at greater length by the Talmud. The other issues go unresolved.

Tradition states that פרדס, a Persian word meaning 'orchard', is actually an allusion to Torah. Many consider it an acronym for P'shat, Remez, Drosh, Sod: four modes (apparantly) of Torah study. P'shat ('straight, simple') refers to the basic meaning of the text. Remez ('hint, allusion') is a level deeper than the P'shat. Drosh ('scratching, searching') is a level deeper still, and one which is characterised by the so-called Midrashim. Finally, Sod ('secret') is the deepest level and one which is epitomised by the study of the Qabbalah. It is particularly in relation to the Qabbalah that this passage is commonly understood, with some even suggesting that the protagonists were practising an ancient form of meditation.

Whatever the case may be, it is apparant that this 'orchard' is a somewhat mystical place, as Rabbi Akiva's enigmatic warning would testify. The 'pure marble', which would appear to be at the highest point of their journey, is both a wonderful and a terrible place. So pure is this marble that one may even mistake it for water, yet so deadly that one may be destroyed for doing so. Such is the fate, it would seem, of two of Rabbi Akiva's fellows (as we will see, Akher's fate is somewhat more complex).

Ben Azzai and ben Zoma appear to be guilty of looking. We are not told if their looking by itself was a crime, or if it had been accompanied by something else. Perhaps, although we cannot be sure, they were guilt-free but simply incapable of containing that which they saw. Whatever it was, the verb utilised in both instances is הציץ, which is rare. In form, it is a hiph'il (ie: causative) of √צוצ, which means 'bloom' or 'sprout'. It is related to the noun ציצית, which are the fringes worn on the corners of garments. While it certainly means 'look', it may also be establishing a parallel structure with Akher's experience. The verb used in reference to him is קיצץ ('he cut'), which sounds similar to הציץ ('he looked'). Also, while the verb for looking used in relation to the other two also has connotations of sprouting, Akher is guilty of cutting that which has already sprouted: the seedlings.

Finally, there is the issue of Rabbi Akiva. The text states that Rabbi Akiva ascended in peace and descended in peace, although it is difficult to know what this means. Presumably it means that the others did not enter in peace, and were perhaps not ready for what they were going to encounter. This unreadiness should not be mistaken for ignorance for, as we are about to see, Akher was one of the greatest scholars of his generation.

The Baal HaTanya's Yarmulke

2006-05-24T15:53:00.000+10:00

Just think: what sorts of thoughts went on beneath this?

Enoch

2006-05-23T14:29:00.000+10:00

Gen 5 is a genealogy of the descendants of Adam through his third son, Seth. There is a particular formula: so-and-so lived x years and sired such-and-such. After siring such-and-such, so-and-so lived y years and sired sons and daughters. The total number of days of so-and-so's life was x+y years, and he died. There is one exception: Gen 5:21-24 speaks of Enoch (חנוך). We are told that once Enoch had lived 65 years, he sired Methuselah, and after doing so "he walked with God" for 300 years, siring sons and daughters. The total number of years of Enoch's life were 365 and then "he was no more, for God took him".

What strange terminology! While everybody else simply lives their lives, Enoch does his walking with God; while everybody else simply dies, Enoch is taken by God and is no more. What are we to make of this? A quick look at some other traditions concerning Enoch will shed light on what the Enoch tradition may actually involve.

The first place to look would be the Books of Enoch themselves. Of these, 1 Enoch (also, 'Ethiopic Enoch') is the most relevant for our purposes, although 2 Enoch (also, 'Slavonic Enoch') and 3 Enoch belong within the tradition as well. These texts treat Enoch as a hero of sorts, alongside heroes like Noah and Adam. These three figures have received very little attention outside of the 'Enoch tradition' as they feature prior to the exclusivity of the covenant tradition. God's covenant with Abraham, which takes its strongest shape after Moses' reception of the Law, is not in effect prior to the flood. For that reason, traditions such as those which revered Enoch may have become marginalised after the normalisation of Rabbinic Judaism.

Another reason for this may be the terminology employed in the narrative. Where I have here translated "walked with God", the Hebrew reads "ויתהלך חנוך את־האלהים". Elohim is a word that could be translated in a variety of different ways. Where it refers to God, it generally takes a singular verb (although not always: witness Gen 1:26) but, as it serves here as the object of the verb, we have no way of knowing if God is indeed the referent. The Enoch tradition (typified mainly by 1 and 2 Enoch, as well as Jubilees and 1QapGen) understands אלהים to mean "gods". They may even be a reference to the giants that roam the earth in Genesis 6:1-7 - another theme to feature strongly in Enochic literature.

The assertion that Enoch had little to no appeal in Jewish circles is testified to in the unpopularity of Enoch in later Jewish traditions. While 1 Enoch may have been very popular at Qumran (as was Jubilees, a work that appears to revere Enoch as the founder of the calendar), it was not popular elsewhere. Aramaic translations of the Bible ('targumin') refer rather dismissively to Enoch. Onkelos says that, at the end of his life, Enoch "was not, for God killed him", and various other translations (such as Neofiti, Fragmentary Targum msV and Pseudo-Jonathan) present this idea as well.

The Midrash is explicit. Genesis Rabba 23:6 states that humanity was only in the image and likeness of God until the generation of Enosh (Enoch's great-great-grandfather), after which the generations successively worsened and produced destroyers (which is probably a reference to the giants of 6:1-7). Genesis Rabba 25:1 even goes so far as to declare that Enoch was a hypocrite - sometimes righteous, sometimes wicked - until such time as God removed him from the earth and wrote his name in the scroll of the Wicked. Two short stories follow, the purpose of both of which is to emphasise the fact that Enoch truly died. Enoch is not mentioned so much as once in the entire Talmud.

In the New Testament, however, Enoch receives a facourable report in both Hebrews 11:5 and Jude 1:14-16, not to mention the Christian "Testament of Levi", chapters 14 and 16. The apocryphal Jesus ben Sirakh ("Ecclesiasticus") sees Enoch as a model of repentance for all generations (44:16). Why was Enoch detested by the Jews? The answer may become apparant if we have a look at Jubilees 4:17-23. There, Enoch is credited with the development of the calendar (amongst other things). Many of these things (writing and knowledge and wisdom) are ascribed to the giants in Midrash Avkir. This conflation of roles may indicate that Enoch was perceived as one of the "destroyers", alongside the giants themselves.

Jubilees is also famous for being a work that emphasises a solar calendar - indeed, much the the book is effectively a polemic against those who utilise the moon in calendrical observations. Some scholars have argued, on the basis of the utilisation of dates in the Pentateuch, that the Israelite calendar was initially a solar calendar, and that the luni-solar calendar of the Pharisees was a corruption of the same (cf: Ellis Rivkin, "The Book of Jubilees - An Anti-Pharisaic Pseudepigraph?", ארץ ישראל v16, 1982 - pp193*-198*). A quick comparison of Enoch with the other antediluvian patriarchs may indicate that the connection between Enoch and the solar calendar was well known. The following is a list of Adam and his descendants, up until the flood, with the age at which they died written alongside.

Adam - 930
Seth - 912
Enosh - 905
Kenan - 910
Mahalalel - 895
Jared - 962
Enoch - 365
Methuselah - 969
Lamech - 777
Noah - 950

None of the ages of the other individuals appear to represent anything. Enoch, however, with his 365 years, appears to match up to the solar calendar exactly. Well, not exactly. Jubilees suggests 364 days to the year (Jub 6:32). Some have suggested that the author of Gen 5 is deliberately subverting the Enoch tradition but, even if that's the case, it proves the existence of the tradition nonetheless.

While we have had occasion to note that Enoch is not mentioned so much as once in the Talmud, a statement made by Pseudo-Jonathan in his Aramaic translation of Genesis is relevant here. He argues that when Enoch ascended to heaven, he became an angel named Metatron (מיטטרון). This is also reflected in 3 Enoch 4:2 - another late Jewish text (no earlier than 100 CE). There are different theories concerning the provenance of this name, one popular one being that it is the conjunction of two Greek words, μετα and θρονως, and that it literally means, 'alongside the throne'.

Whether or not this is the case, Metatron's role within the Rabbinic tradition is an entirely passive one, serving effectively as the mouthpiece of God. This subversion of the Enochic tradition is the means by which the Rabbis allow the tradition to live on, albeit in a thoroughly harmless way. Such may also have been the intentions of the author of the genealogy in Genesis: to include references to Enoch and the giants, but to render them meaningless within the broader tradition. As Michael Stone noted,

"...there is no reason to think that the body of literature that is transmitted as the Hebrew Bible is a representative collection of all types of Jewish literary creativity down to the fourth century. It is a selection of texts and the process of transmission and preservation that created this selection reflects the theological judgement of certain groups"

Selected Studies in Pseudepigrapha and Apocrypha: With Special Reference to the Armenian Tradition (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1991), pp195-196.

The Book is Dead: Long Live the Book!

2006-05-22T23:36:00.000+10:00

An excellent article on the future of the printed word. Thanks, mentalblog for this one.

i am shocked

2006-05-22T23:04:00.000+10:00

This is an amazing blog. As Gil Student put it, "If this doesn't make you cry in sympathy and scream in outrage then you should check to make sure you have a pulse". It is one incredibly brave man's recounting of the sexual abuse he suffered at the hands of a perverted Rabbi.

I'm not religious, but I cannot believe how close a prayer is to my lips. This should never happen.

Insulted

2006-05-22T21:40:00.000+10:00

I recently went and saw The DaVinci Code. I was shocked. Not by the film itself (which wasn't bad), but by the pathetic disclaimer at the beginning. It seems that the Catholic Church, threatened as they are by what they claim is not a threat to them, has paid a substantial sum of money to have a little clip shown prior to the film that encourages people to find out "the truth" for themselves. Aside from the fact that this clip spoils some key elements in the plot for moviegoers who have not read the book (a demographic that, I am prepared to admit, is pretty small), it is an absolute insult to their intelligence.

Can you imagine: you've just gone to see Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ. You're very excited - should be a good film. Suddenly, lo and behold, there's a little disclaimer before the film can start. The Jewish Board of Deputies would like you to know that they think that what you are about to see is fiction. Do I care!? Do they really think that I give a damn!? NO, they don't! And they wouldn't be so stupid as to presume that I did!

Where on earth does the Catholic Church get off, ramming their blind religion down my throat? Why are they so threatened that a generation of Christians is going to turn their back on them? They feel forced to get up and condemn the book, producing god knows how many pamphlets and spin-offs trying to discredit it, and then they have to subject cinema audiences to a further earful of holy Catholic trite! Because they think that Christians may watch the film and then disbelieve in Jesus? That people might renounce their faith in the Gospels? In all honesty, I don't think that this is what threatens them.

Instead, the Church is terrified that people are going to renounce them. That the Christian world is finally going to stand up and say, "We don't need the clergy. We're sick of your dogma; we're fed up with your hackneyed prejudice; we're tired of your control". They're worried that Christians might find and love another Jesus. And, as these are no longer the days when the Church can exercise their control with a good old-fashioned burning (either of the book or its author), they have to reason with it instead.

Ian McKellen said it best, in a recent interview, when he suggested that it is the Bible itself that should feature a disclaimer, warning its readers that what ensues is fiction. I wonder how many more people there would be in the world if that were the case.

Mountain Climbing: It's A Man Thing

2006-05-20T18:46:00.000+10:00

The Omer: Why Do We Mourn? - part II

2006-05-20T16:24:00.000+10:00

This post continues on from this one.

What then ensues, after this brief passage, is a lengthy description of Hadrian's seige, and a long-winded depiction of the seige's aftermath. This depiction is both grisly and exaggerated (making a claim that 800 million people were killed). I reproduce part of it here:

pTa'an 69a

The following is the translation of Peter Schafer, The History of the Jews in the Greco-Roman World (London: Routledge, 1995), p158 - emphasis and parentheses are all his:

They [= the Romans] continued to slay them [= the inhabitants of Bethar] until the horses sank up to their nostrils in blood. And the blood rolled boulders weighing forty seah [forwards] until [after] four miles it reached the sea...

They said: The brains of three hundred small children were found on one rock. [Likewise] three baskets were found containing phylacteries [with a capacity] of nine seah each. Others say: Nine [baskets with a capacity] of three seah each.

It is taught: Rabban Shimon b. Gamaliel says: There were five hundred schools in Bethar, and in the smallest of them were not less than five hundred children. They used to say: If the enemy comes upon us, we shall go out to meet them with these pencils and bore out their eyes. When however sin caused this to happen, [the Romans] wound every one of them in his own scroll and burnt him...

Hadrian the blsphemer had a great vineyard of eighteen square miles, as much as the distance from Tiberias to Sepphoris. He surrounded it with a fence made from those slain at Bethar as high as a man with outstretched arms. And he commanded that they were not to be buried until another king arose and ordered their burial.

Can we learn history from this story? Not entirely, but there is also corroboration to be found in other sources. The midrash, Genesis Rabba (64:10), speaks of the revolt under Hadrian (although it does not name Shimon bar Kosiba) and the Tosefta (Shabbat 16:6) speaks of bar Kosiba but does not mention the revolt in which he participated. Sources that mention both are, unfortunately, scanty within the Jewish tradition.

There are Roman sources for the revolt, such as (Pseudo-)Spartianus and Dio Cassius - the latter mentioning bar Kosiba as well - and Christian historians Eusebius and Justin also relate their version of the events. It would be impossible to know anything for certain were it not for a few remarkable archaeological discoveries.

Coins issued by bar Kosiba's followers testify to his real name - in opposition to the bar Kochba of Rabbi Akiva, the bar Koziva of his detractors, and the Barchochebas of the Christian historians. They would also seem to indicate that, even if only briefly, his role of deliverer was somewhat promising. Leasehold agreements from Wadi Muraba'at use the formula, 'In the x-year of the Redemption of Israel by Shimon bar Kosiba, the Nasi of Israel', and the coins address their hero with the same term. What is more, collections of the man's letters have been found in Nahal Hever, testifying to the existence of his rebellion as well.

The language employed in these sources raises eyebrows. It is easy to see the tendentious nature of the Roman, Jewish and Christian sources (the last of which have bar Kosiba forcing Christians to renounce their Lord), but we must also learn to read between the lines of bar Kosiba's texts themselves. References to the liberation of Jerusalem (as found on some of the coins) do not necessarily indicate that he had been successful in liberating that particular city, and the despotic tone within his letters belie a great general's true success.

However bitter-sweet the all-too-brief moment of victory may have been, history has demonstrated to us its tragic end. The death of bar Kosiba himself was but a small thing compared to the destruction that ensued after his rebellion, and the overall catastrophe serves as a lens through which to understand the two Talmudic takes. The Palestinian Talmud, not content with grossly over-exaggerting the scale of the rebellion and its aftermath, reduces itself to snide name-calling and dubs the architect of the revolution a "liar". The Babylonian Talmud's response is somewhat more breathtaking.

Rather than reading the story of Rabbi Akiva's disciples as history, we should read it as what it truly is: a deep grief that can find no better expression than to completely eradicate bar Kosiba and his fateful insurrection from the annals of history. However moving this Talmudic response to crisis is, let us not perpetuate the Babylonian lie. Let us not condemn so many thousands of people to a second death every year by mourning their passing for an incorrect reason. And let us honour the memory of Rabbi Akiva, not by making him the mythological leader of a non-existent 24,000 disciples, but a true disciple himself. And one who did not mind declaring his allegiance in the face of widespread Rabbinic antagonism.

Horny Jew

2006-05-20T13:50:00.000+10:00

So, what's with the horns on Michaelangelo's Moses? An ancient European anti-Semitic slur? A mistake, the result of reading the Bible incorrectly? Neither, in my opinion. This is simply the result of being heir to a tradition that does not centralise the Masoretic text of the Bible. To explain:

There are lots of Bibles. Even if we assume that there had once been such a thing as an 'original' Bible, there ended up being many developments from it. In the 3rd century BCE the Pentateuch was translated into Greek, producing several Greek versions; the Greek was translated several times into Latin, producing different versions there; by the 2nd century CE, the Hebrew was again translated into Syriac and, at some stage, into a variety of Aramaic translations; by the 5th century CE, the Hebrew was translated directly into Latin. Then there are all of the further translations into Coptic, Ethoipian, Armenian, English, German, etc. Many of these translations are, themselves, made from translations and not the 'original' text. In fact, even the Hebrew today does not represent an original for a very simple reason.

In putting together the standard text of the Hebrew Bible, 9th century CE scholars in Tiberias (known as the Masoretes) chose readings based on majority texts. To put it simply, if there were two Hebrew manuscripts with a particular reading and three with a different one, then they would side in favour of the three scrolls over the two. That's all well and good, but it means that they ended up with a text that does not represent any ancient text. It's a conglomerate. A text designed by a committee. And it's known as the Masoretic text.

Now, the Masoretic text (or MT) also features something that previous Biblical texts lacked: a system of vocalisation and punctuation known as the מסרה (Masorah, 'tradition'). This was a purely Tiberian development (although there were cognate developments in both Southern Palestine and Babylonia). I mentioned in the previous post that such vocalisation can also serve a disambiguating role. Let's have a look at Exodus 34:29-30:

My translation:

29. And when Moses was coming down from Mt. Sinai, the tablets of testimony were in Moses' hand during his descent down the mountain. But Moses did not know that קרן עור פניו from having spoken to Him.
30. Aharon and all the Israelites saw Moses, and look! קרן עור פניו! And they were too scared to draw close to him.

It is obvious that an understanding of the passage (which continues in v33 with Moses needing to cover his face before speaking to people) depends upon an understanding of the clause קרן עור פניו. What was it that happened to Moses' face? Let's look at each word in turn.

קרן is a word meaning 'protuberance', but is here vocalised as a verb - 'he/it protruded'. (Verb. √קרן Qal 3ms perfective)
עור is a word meaning 'flesh'. (Noun m.sg. Either const. or abs. See discussion below)
פניו is a word, פנים, meaning 'face'. It is followed by the 3rd person masculine singular pronominal suffix: 'his face'.
(Noun m.pl.abs. - pl. in form but sg. in meaning, it sometimes takes a sg., sometimes a pl., verb - cf: GKC §145h)

In English, one of the ways that we express the genitive case is with the word 'of'. The hand of the king, for example. Hebrew, on the other hand, utilises what's known as the construct chain. Sometimes (generally, with singular masculine nouns or plural feminine nouns) the noun itself does not change. Hand is יד and the king is המלך. Hand of the king is simply יד המלך. Of course, 'hand' is actually a feminine word, but I refer here to the form rather than the meaning. A word which is feminine in form (say, מלכה - 'queen') will change its form if it is in a construct chain. Queen (מלכה) of the land (הארץ) becomes מלכת הארץ and the ה changes to a ת. So too with masculine plurals (such as בנים - 'sons'): the ם drops away altogether and leaves us with clauses like בני המלך, the sons of the king.

The confusion in verses 29 and 30 rests on this issue. Does the word עור ('flesh') serve as the object of the verb קרן ('it protruded')? Or is it in construct with the word פניו ('his face')? The truth is, from a purely consonantal reading of the text, we don't know. Because עור is a singular masculine word, it could actually be either: the form wouldn't change to alert us. What is the difference in meaning? Well, let's look at what the Masoretic scholars did with the text and we'll see.

In both instances, they've placed what's known as a disjunctive accent under the word קרן. The two accents are different from each other, but they are both equally disjunctive: they both separate that word from the words following (much like a comma in English). In other words, they don't want us to see עור as the object of the verb. Under the word עור (both times), they have placed a conjunctive accent - indicating that we are to read the word עור as being in a construct chain with פניו. The meaning:

It protruded: the flesh of his face OR (as it is traditionally read) "The flesh of his face radiated". Moses, in speaking with God, began to shine from the pores of his skin and his appearance was so blinding that people feared to draw close to him unless he covered himself up.

That's great, but what's the alternative? What happens if we read עור as the object of the verb instead, and פניו as the sole subject?

"His face protruded flesh". Pretty different, hey? So, it seems, that Michaelangelo was neither an anti-Semite (necessarily) nor incapable of reading Hebrew (again: necessarily). Instead, he was simply heir to a different and equally valid reading tradition.

Stuff

2006-05-20T13:30:00.000+10:00

I've started reading an important text for my Honours work, but I'm having difficulty maintaining my interest in it. Entitled, A Search for Method: A Study in the Syntactic Use of the H-Locale in Classical Hebrew, it is a study from the 1980's that deals in depth with this particular grammatical feature. I've read the introduction and have only scratched the surface of his methodology, but now have to get through a further 250-or-so pages of his analysis. I guess that's not much. And, after all, there's no problem that caffeine can't solve.

This is, at least, the best of the thesis topics that I've alighted upon so far, so I should be pleased. My favourite one (and one which, I was told, I may wish to pursue later) was to be an analysis of disambiguation techniques in unvocalised literature. Vocalised literature (being anything with vowels and other diacritical markings) can employ subtle means of clarifying the meaning of clauses in a text. I will post up examples of this later. Unvocalised literature, on the other hand, would have to rely on things like repetition (I suspect). Genesis 40:5 and 41:7 might be two good examples of this phenomenon at work. But I don't know if any studies have been done on this, and there might not actually be anything to follow up on.

The Seventh Fridge

2006-05-20T00:35:00.000+10:00

A man, making aliyah, is taking advantage of the customary lifting of import tax for returning Jews by bringing in a total of seven fridges. Naturally, the Israeli clerk is somewhat surprised and wants to know why anybody would need so many.

"Well, let's see," explains the young man. "I have a fridge for meat, a fridge for dairy, and a fridge for parve."
"O-kay," responds the clerk, "but you have seven fridges."
"Oh, well when Pesakh comes around, I need a fridge for meat, a fridge for dairy, and a fridge for parve."
"That's all very well," notes the clerk, "but what is the seventh fridge for?"
"Well," answers the young man. "Sometimes I eat treif..."

The Omer: Why Do We Mourn?

2006-05-19T13:25:00.000+10:00

I would certainly be remiss if I limited my 'Omer observations' to comments on other peoples' blogs and failed to reproduce them here, on my own. These observations are not my own, except insofar as I have adopted them, and they are based on both archaeological and textual evidence. The following is the tradition as it has been handed down:

bYeb 62b

The following is my translation:

Rabbi Akiva says, "He who learned in his youth will learn in his old age; he who had disciples in his youth will have disciples in his old age, as it says: 'Sow your seed in the morning', etc." [Qoh 11:6. The full quote, courtesy of JPS, reads: "Sow your seed in the morning, and don't hold back your hand in the evening, since you don't know which is going to succeed, the one or the other, or if both are equally good". This passage in the Talmud appears as part of a baraita and Rabbi Akiva is effectively disagreeing with Rabbi Yehoshua, whose opinion concerning the meaning of this verse is the reason for the Talmud mentioning the baraita in the first place.]

They said, "Rabbi Akiva had 12,000 pairs of disciples between GBT and 'NTYPRS [two cities, according to Rashi] and they all died at one time for they did not respect one another [lit. 'because they did not practise respect']. The world was desolate [due to its lack of Torah scholars: Rashi] until Rabbi Akiva came to the Rabbis of the South and adorned Rabbis Meir, Yehuda, Yossi, Simon and Elazar ben Shamua. And they were the ones who re-established Torah at that time."

[Note: I am unsure of the word ושנאה, which I have here assumed to be √נאה and have taken the ש to be a prefixed relative particle - hence, "and adorned".]

It is taught [concerning Rabbi Akiva's former students] that they all died between Pesakh and the reaping [עצרת, normally a reference to the last day of Sukkot, is here referring to Shavuot instead].

Rav Hama bar Aba (some say, Rav Hiyya bar Abin) said that they all died a horrible death. What was it? Rav Nahman says that it was by choking.

The Talmud then continues by declaring Rabbi Yehoshua correct in this instance and we hear no more of the related incident. Was it history? A resounding no. Aside from the fact that the story of Rabbi Akiva's disciples is brought as part of an ethical aside ("he who has students in his youth..."), are we really to believe that Rabbi Akiva possessed a staggering 24,000 students? There are a little over 4,000 today in Lakewood - one of the world's largest yeshivot! And what is this of a 'choking' plague that wiped them all out "at one time"?

Part of the answer lies within the Palestinian Talmud's version of the story (which is considerably longer). I reproduce here two of the relevent sections:

pTa'an 68d

My translation:

Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai taught that Akiva, the Rabbi, used to expound upon "a star has gone forth from Jacob" [Num 24:17. Many translations understand the verb as being an imperfective in meaning: 'a star shall go forth...']: "Kosiba has gone forth from Jacob". [This is a play on the similarity of the Hebrew word for star, כוכב, and the name כוסיבא]

When Rabbi Akiva saw bar Kosiba he would exclaim, "It is official that he is the king Messiah!"
Rabbi Yohanan ben Torta said to him, "Akiva! Grass will sprout from your cheeks and the son of David will have still not come."

It is to Rabbi Akiva that we owe the pseudonym "bar Kochba", by which Shimon bar Kosiba is traditionally known. The Rabbis who opposed bar Kosiba (strenghtened, no doubt, by his failure to lead the Jews to victory against the Roman army) named him "bar Koziva" instead. While R' Akiva's designation means 'son of a star', the Rabbis effectively named him 'liar'.

[To be cont.]

Songs

2006-05-18T20:56:00.000+10:00

We finally finished studying Song of Songs this morning: that magnificent love song between the wild young man and the girl with a head like a split pomegranate (SoS 4:3b, 6:7). Praise the Lord. Below are a few of my favourite lines from this wonderful example of Ancient Israelite porn - I mean poetry. Sorry.

This verse (SoS 5:2) has been one of my favourites ever since I read a beautiful commentary of it by Rabbi Yitzchak Ginsburgh: "I am asleep yet my heart is awake" (Rechovot: Gal Einai, 1996). The following is my translation:

I am asleep, yet my heart is awake;
The sound of my darling knocking:
"Open for me,
My sister, my lover,
My dove, my sweetheart
For my head is drenched with dew, and my curls with the drippings of nighttime."

The bottom line is that, despite being a beautiful poem (or collection of poetry), Song of Songs is also highly erotic. Perhaps moreso than many have realised. Another quick look at the same passage (and this is only one of many) reveals much of the sexual imagery.

The Hebrew word for 'knocking' (דופק) is also a reference to sexual intercourse. This is also the case in Israel today, where the word stands in for the English "fuck" (with approximately the same semantic range, and likewise considered an obscenity). It is probably reasonable to assume that the word was not particularly obscene in the days of this text's composition, for the simple reason that other obscene terms actually get deleted by later editors (witness, for example, the systematic removal of √שגל as a verb, in favour of √שכב: Deut 28:30, Isa 13:16, Jer 3:2, etc). "The sound/voice of my beloved knocking" could thus be rendered into English as "the noise of my beloved pounding", where 'pounding' contains the same semantic bivalency.

As far as I had previously been concerned, the sexual imagery of this verse stopped there. I was wrong. "My head is drenched with dew, and my curls with the drippings of nighttime" is a thinly disguised reference to male sexual arousal. The previous verse (also a favourite amongst Chabad Chassidim) notes that the speaker - at this point in the poem, the man - has just descended to his "garden". Even the most conservative of the religious commentaries understand the sexual implications, based on the similarity to the word for 'bridal chamber' (cf: Shir HaShirim Rabba 5:1).

The second of my favourite verses is not as charged as the first, but stunning in its imagery.
This is Sos 6:4 and my translation is as follows:

My darling, you are as beautiful as Tirzah, as lovely as Jerusalem,
As dreadful as a bannered (host)

Quite a transformation is affected by this enigmatic verse! The previous verse (verse 3) - another Chabad favourite - states, "אני לדודי ודודי לי" (I am my darling's and my darling is mine), while the following begs her to take her eyes off him for her appearance is somehow disturbing. Where does this shift occur? The references to Tirzah (the capital of Israel prior to Omri's founding of Samaria in the 9th century BCE) alongside Jerusalem has enabled some scholars to tentatively date the text. What is the reference to a bannered host doing?

Perhaps a more contemporary translation will suffice to clear away the ambiguities. Eco, in his The Name of the Rose (Suffolk: Picador, 1984) describes the girl who tempted Brother Adso as "beautiful and terrible as an army arrayed for battle" (p277). I'm always reminded by that line of three things. The first is Tolkein's description of the Elven witch Galadriel as "beautiful and terrible as the Morning and the Night" (The Lord of the Rings - London: HarperCollins, 1995 - p356); the second is Shakespeare's image of armies battling on the cheeks of fair Lucrece ("Lucrece", lines 52-77); and the third is our verse from Song of Songs.

Not To Be...?

2006-05-18T18:28:00.000+10:00

Rather frustrating: it's been almost 10 years and Kenneth Branagh's four hour masterpiece ("Hamlet") has still not been released on DVD. Warner Bros has stated that the film should be released in November 2006, but they made this claim back in February of 2005 so I don't know whether or not it still holds up. What's more, as it appears to be part of a private correspondence, it's validity is pretty questionable.

Divided, But One

2006-05-18T18:06:00.000+10:00

2006-05-17T18:48:00.000+10:00

I found a wonderful critique of textual criticism over here.

Also, an excellent overview of the history of Lubavitch messianism (from the perspective of an anti-meshichist) can be found here.

And this is still my favourite clip:

There we go! How's that for an eclectic post?

2006-05-15T19:03:00.000+10:00

I'm finally starting to get some work done on my thesis, which is good. Accordance 6.9.1 arrived in the mail the other day and it's a fantastic program. At the push of a button, I'm able to conduct complex grammatical searches. A simple, but relevant, example: I searched for every instance of directive heh in the Bible and 1101 verses came up. Each verse is parsed for me (although some of the parsings are slightly dubious) and an impossible task has merely turned into a menial one! But I am enjoying it (which probably means that I'm a really boring person) and am presently cataloguing them all. My only real gripe is that it does not have the Peshitta - it would be amazing if it did!

Not much else to add, really. Another day at uni, another night preparing for the next day's classes. Tomorrow that will be Syriac and it's not too difficult to prepare for that. We're about to finish ch42 of Genesis in the Peshitta and then we'll be starting on something else - some example of Syriac patristic literature, I think. Oh well, I'm sure that my next post will be more exciting.

2006-05-14T10:17:00.000+10:00

Wow, this is an amazing book!

Entitled, "The End of Wisdom: A Reappraisal of the Historical and Canonical Function of Ecclesiastes", it is based on a PhD by Martin Shields (under Ian Young, of Sydney University). Traditional scholarship on Ecclesiastes (aka Qoheleth) has tended to view the epilogue (12:9-14) as being secondary to the rest of the text. It has also tended to view 1:1 and 7:27 (sometimes even 1:2 and 12:8, although I see this as unlikely) as being additions of the same stock as the epilogue. Their purpose: to subvert the words of Ecclesiastes and make the book sufficiently palatable as to be included in the canon.

Shields not only critiques this perspective convincingly, he also provides an entirely new rubric for reading the epilogue - one that perceives it as being primary to the text. Arguing that the final form of the text is the creation of the epilogist, Qoheleth's words are not being subverted at all but merely contextualised. His analysis is thorough and impressive. For a (brief) time, I considered abandoning my own thesis topic in order to do something more similar to what he does. But then, I have my whole life to do as I please: of primary importance at the moment is obtaining the necessary results.

Back to work!

2006-05-13T11:39:00.000+10:00

Well, here I am in a bit of a conundrum.
I am, effectively, reading three different books at the moment - none of which are related to my Honours work. One is entitled, "The End of Wisdom" (Martin Shields, PhD Sydney Uni) and is a study of Ecclesiastes; the second is, "The Bible in History" (Thomas L. Thompson) and is a presentation of his (minimalistic) philosophy; and the third is the famous "Don Quixote" by Cervantes. My Honours thesis, however, is supposed to be an analysis of the locative heh (also, "heh locale"), with a view to appreciating its apparant decline in Late Biblical Hebrew (LBH) literature. To that end, I've done virtually nothing - and it's due in less than six months.

Problem is, I'm a deadline person. I do my best work closest to the time when the work needs to be submitted, and I have my best ideas under pressure. Prior to that, I am inherently lazy. Between reading these three books (watching films and episodes of Family Guy to boot!), I'm really doing nothing else. Oh, I have a kick-boxing class ever Thursday evening in Bondi, and I teach a scripture class at a local high school every Friday morning (not to mention going into uni for a few hours each day, and all day on Mondays) but - aside from all that - I'm doing nothing. No Honours work.

Thinking of taking up the piano again, actually...

2006-05-09T18:40:00.000+10:00

Had a few interesting observations the other day.
The first one was prompted by a passage in Daniel (which I am currently studying in my Aramaic class). The verse is Dan 2:20 and it runs, "לְהֱוֵא שְׁמֵהּ דִּי־אֱלָהָא מְבָרַך ְ מִן־עָלְמָא וְעַד־עָלְמָא" (trans. 'May the name of God be blessed forever and ever'). I am assuming, incidentally, that the word להוה is a jussive (which makes a great deal more sense than just "God's name will be blessed...") but it does appear to be a regular imperfective in form. In any case, I was chatting to a friend after the class and he noted that the word מברך also appears in the Hebrew liturgy. This seemed strange to us at the time (because it is an Aramaic pa'el passive participle, and the Hebrew equivalent (a pu'al participle) should have the form, מְקֻטַּל), but it later turned out to be an ordinary Hebrew form for a word with a medial guttural.

But this is all beside the point! The passage in question (in the Hebrew liturgy) is the one spoken at the beginning of Birkat HaMazon (the Grace after Meals). The passage, יהי שם ה' מברך מעתה ועד עולם, is basically a word-for-word translation of the passage in Daniel. But then it occurred to me that this line also appears, in modified Aramaic, in the longer of the responses to the Qaddish: יהא שמה רבה מברך לעלם ולעלמי עלמיא. There is, however, a major difference between the two. The passage in Daniel speaks of God's name being blessed; the passage in the Qaddish says, "May His great name be blessed..." There is no reference in Daniel 2:20 to God's name being great. Ah, but then a thought occurred to me! Perhaps the accusative suffix on the word שם is actually an anticipatory pronominal suffix! That would make the meaning, "May the name of the great one be blessed...": not only a literal rendering of the passage in Daniel but an indication that רבה, 'great one', was an epithet for God. Or maybe it was just written by the students of Raba...

My second observation was more fun, but only because it touches upon a HILARIOUS Ibn Ezra.
Ex 21:35a relates some of the laws of a goring ox: "וכי־יגף שור־איש את־שור רעהו ומת" (trans. by JPS, 'When a man's ox injures his neighbour's ox and it dies'). This reading follows the traditional Jewish understanding of the verse, indicated in the Masorah by the conjunctive accent under the second שור: the ox of his friend, in other words. This is probably indicated by Rashi who explains that שור איש means שור של איש ('the ox OF a man'), although Siftei Khakhamim understand him differently. It is certainly indicated by Ibn Ezra who mocks the alternative hypothesis - that of a certain Ben Zuta of Qara'ite fame. The following is Ibn Ezra's commentary, with my translation:

אמר בן זוטא כי רעהו תואר לשור. ולא ראה כי שור איש סמוך הוא, וכן הוא שור רעהו. ואין לשור ריע רק בן זוטא לבדו

"Ben Zuta says that 'his friend' is a reference to the ox (ie: 'when one ox injures his friend, an ox'). But he does not see that the words 'ox' and 'man' are in construct, and so are 'ox' and 'his friend'! (ie: just as the first ox belonged to a man, so too must the word 'his friend' be a reference to that man's friend, the owner of the second ox'). After all, the only person suitable to be an ox's friend is Ben Zuta himself!"

This Ibn Ezra always makes me smile. But, if I may also speak in Ben Zuta's defence, Gen 15:10 uses a strikingly similar syntax. When Abraham separates the animal pieces in the Covenant of the Parts, it says: ויתן איש־בתרו לקראת רעהו ('and he placed each piece opposite its counterpart'). Ibn Ezra does comment here on the usage of the word איש (although not רעהו), but does so in exactly the manner that we can assume Ben Zuta did in Exodus! I raised this question to Dr Shani Berrin, and she also indicated to me a passage in mMak 1:3 which does the same. While Ibn Ezra was not renowned for his Talmudic acumen, he was certainly aware of the validity of this syntax. Perhaps, however, the opportunity to mock a Qara'ite was just too good to pass by.