A Vision of the Days: Studies in Early Jewish History and Historiography in Honor of Daniel R. Schwartz, 2024
The study presents a comparative analysis of two parallel petihot, from Genesis Rabbah and Leviti... more The study presents a comparative analysis of two parallel petihot, from Genesis Rabbah and Leviticus Rabbah, dealing with the direction of development and differences in worldview between the two midrashic works. The original petihah, that given in Genesis Rabbah, is shown to be an artistic composition deaing with the limitation of classical theodicy, especially regarding divine retribution to Israel and other nations. The petihah was reworked by the editor of Leviticus Rabbah, whose worldview differed, preferring a static view of God's retribution and recompense for the righteous and non-righteous nations. The reworking is itself a carefully composed composition, in which the editor borrowed freely from Tannaitic and Amoraic passages known to him, contributed new Scriptural passages and took care to render the sections of the petihah with rhetorical finesse. The comparative analysis provides additional evidence for rhetorical, compositional and theological differences between these two midrashic works.
Tosefta Studies: Manuscripts, Traditions, and Topics, 2021
In the present paper I discuss acollection of baraitot in ToseftaBerakhot1:1–2, in comparison to ... more In the present paper I discuss acollection of baraitot in ToseftaBerakhot1:1–2, in comparison to the parallel mishnayot. Certain anomalies and linguistic difficultiesin the Tosefta text are discussed. A study of parallel baraitot embedded in the discussion of the Palestinian Talmud (yBer 1:2 [3a])appended to mBer1:2 (yBer 1:2 [3a]) leads to a proposal concerning the original formulation of the Toseftanbaraitot, providing insight into the formation of collected tannaitic traditions and the activity of the Toseftan redactor and his purpose in collecting thebaraitotin the Tosefta.The proposed collection of baraitot underlying the Toseftan redaction in tBer1:2 is found to complement the collection of baraitot in tBer1:1; together, these collections are contrasted with the formulation of mishnah 1 and 2, providing further insight concerning the Redaktionsgeschichte of the early tannaitic compilations.
In the final passage of the Qumran 'Copper Scroll' (3Q15) a "duplicate copy" (MŠN' HKTB HZ') whic... more In the final passage of the Qumran 'Copper Scroll' (3Q15) a "duplicate copy" (MŠN' HKTB HZ') which includes 'PRWŠH', usually translated as "its explication" or "its interpretation." The article studies the terms found in this passage, leading to a new interpretation. In particular, the verb PRŠ in Hebrew of the late Second Temple period and the later Tannaitic period never carries this meaning; rather, it is to be understood as 'specification' or 'list'. This may refer to the 'specificied' place of each treasure, or to the list of the text of the Copper Scroll itself. In either case, the 'duplicate copy" of the scroll (if it ever existed) would have been, according to this passage, identical to the existant scroll.
Daat: A Journal of Jewish Philosophy and Kabbalah , 2018
Despite a consensus which claims that the Amoraic period of rabbinic creativity (3rd to 6th cent.... more Despite a consensus which claims that the Amoraic period of rabbinic creativity (3rd to 6th cent. CE) was, from the point of view of Scriptural exegesis, much of a continuation of the activity during the previous Tannaitic period (1st to early 3rd cent. CE), the paper lists four areas in which a significant change in hermeneutic approach may be found. These include a study of the changes in the meaning of the verb patah (open), the changing description of the sage Hillel from expounder of law to textual interpreter, the transformation of the bet midrash from a venue for teaching the general public the law to an academy of textual study, and the rise of the possibility of multiple meanings of a single verse. These four areas demonstrate that the Tannaitic period had more in common with attitudes towards law and Scripture in the late Second Temple period than with the later Amoraic period, in which a sharp change in hermeneutic awareness arose. Several possible reasons for this change are offered.
A late rabbinic passage describing the sacrificial offering of the "souls of the righteous" upon ... more A late rabbinic passage describing the sacrificial offering of the "souls of the righteous" upon the heavenly altar by the angel Michael is noted by the 16th century commentator, Rabbi Joel Sirkes, and suggested as an interpolation into the text of the Babylonian Talmud, Hagiga 12b. The earliest attestation of the motif, cited in the medieval mystical rabbinic tradition of Hasidei Ashkenaz (German Jewish Pietists, such as R. Judah he-Hasid and R. Eleazar of Worms), is in the Byzantine Jewish martyrological work, the Midrash of the Ten Martyrs. While the existence of a "depository" of the souls of the righteous under the divine 'seat of glory' appears in early rabbinic tradition and can be traced back, in different forms, to the Enochic tradition (I Enoch 20:22—35) as well as to the later Jewish apocalyptic traditions (4 Ezra, Hechalot Rabbati), the active expiatory sacrificial offering of the 'souls of the righteous' is not attested in the early apocalyptic texts, and, indeed, is a curious and jarring motif, which was nonetheless given various explanations ex post facto (as, for example, the German Pietists' explanation of the sacrifice of all righteous souls as having a purgatorial effect). In this paper I suggest the origin of this motif in the post-Temple destruction period in the Christian tradition, first attested in Revelations 6:9—10, where the blood of the slain martyrs requires divine intervention and vengeance. Thus the 'tzadikim' whose souls are sacrificed are not merely 'righteous' but more specifically martyrs, who, by their active sacrifice by the divine angel cause expiation for Israel's sins during and after the Destruction period. I propose that the motif originated in Christian circles, where, from at least the fourth century CE, the Eucharistic meal often took place above the tombs of the slain martyrs whose deaths were interpreted as a form of Imitatio Dei and whose supreme sacrifice led to the expiation of sin. Whether through literary or cultural impact, this motif impinged upon the earlier Jewish traditions concerning the heavenly 'treasure' of the souls of the righteous, transforming them from their original apocalyptic meaning to one of expiatory significance. The appearance of the motif in the Midrash of the Ten Martyrs points to an important avenue of influence of Christian martyrology upon later Jewish texts and mystical theology.
The beit midrash is among the most common institutions mentioned in Rabbinic literature, alongsid... more The beit midrash is among the most common institutions mentioned in Rabbinic literature, alongside the beit kenesset (synagogue). Most scholars understand its function as a ‘study-hall’ where the sages discuss traditions and teach them to pupils. However, early attestations of the beit midrash do not pointto Torah study or ‘lessons’ as its central activity; this is rather a public convocation in which a variety of individuals “enter” to present questions “in front of” a sage. Descriptions of questions asked of sages are not necessarily relegated to the beitmidrash.neither does the presence of pupils “sitting in front of sage” presuppose that they sit in a beitmidrash. Conversely, sources describing pupils who “sit in front” of a sage ‘in the beitmidrash’ do not mention study as the central issue, the beit midrash mentioned only obliquely as the venue for an incident.
This leads to the conclusion that the main purpose of the beit midrash was not Torah study among scholars and pupils but a public “house of instruction” in which the sage is asked questions by members of the general public, giving them instruction in the tradition. This concurs with the fact that Sabbaths and holidays are the only times specifically mentioned in the context of the beit midrash; on these days the public had leisure to convene, probably in the synagogue, and obtain instruction in the tradition. This is precisely the purpose of Sabbath convocations in the synagogue as described in sources of the late Second Temple period, where, it has been noted, worship is not singled out as the main activity. Thus the institution of the beit midrash during the Tannaitic period should be seen as a continuation of the early Sabbath convocations; only after this period, when the Mishnah and other formulated texts became central to the study of law and lore, did the beit midrash evolve into an institution of textual study. Indeed, in the mid-third century ‘synagogues and batei midrashot’ are first mentioned as ‘being (only) for the sages and their students,’ and from then on the beit midrash attained its function as a ‘house of study.’
A Vision of the Days: Studies in Early Jewish History and Historiography in Honor of Daniel R. Schwartz, 2024
The study presents a comparative analysis of two parallel petihot, from Genesis Rabbah and Leviti... more The study presents a comparative analysis of two parallel petihot, from Genesis Rabbah and Leviticus Rabbah, dealing with the direction of development and differences in worldview between the two midrashic works. The original petihah, that given in Genesis Rabbah, is shown to be an artistic composition deaing with the limitation of classical theodicy, especially regarding divine retribution to Israel and other nations. The petihah was reworked by the editor of Leviticus Rabbah, whose worldview differed, preferring a static view of God's retribution and recompense for the righteous and non-righteous nations. The reworking is itself a carefully composed composition, in which the editor borrowed freely from Tannaitic and Amoraic passages known to him, contributed new Scriptural passages and took care to render the sections of the petihah with rhetorical finesse. The comparative analysis provides additional evidence for rhetorical, compositional and theological differences between these two midrashic works.
Tosefta Studies: Manuscripts, Traditions, and Topics, 2021
In the present paper I discuss acollection of baraitot in ToseftaBerakhot1:1–2, in comparison to ... more In the present paper I discuss acollection of baraitot in ToseftaBerakhot1:1–2, in comparison to the parallel mishnayot. Certain anomalies and linguistic difficultiesin the Tosefta text are discussed. A study of parallel baraitot embedded in the discussion of the Palestinian Talmud (yBer 1:2 [3a])appended to mBer1:2 (yBer 1:2 [3a]) leads to a proposal concerning the original formulation of the Toseftanbaraitot, providing insight into the formation of collected tannaitic traditions and the activity of the Toseftan redactor and his purpose in collecting thebaraitotin the Tosefta.The proposed collection of baraitot underlying the Toseftan redaction in tBer1:2 is found to complement the collection of baraitot in tBer1:1; together, these collections are contrasted with the formulation of mishnah 1 and 2, providing further insight concerning the Redaktionsgeschichte of the early tannaitic compilations.
In the final passage of the Qumran 'Copper Scroll' (3Q15) a "duplicate copy" (MŠN' HKTB HZ') whic... more In the final passage of the Qumran 'Copper Scroll' (3Q15) a "duplicate copy" (MŠN' HKTB HZ') which includes 'PRWŠH', usually translated as "its explication" or "its interpretation." The article studies the terms found in this passage, leading to a new interpretation. In particular, the verb PRŠ in Hebrew of the late Second Temple period and the later Tannaitic period never carries this meaning; rather, it is to be understood as 'specification' or 'list'. This may refer to the 'specificied' place of each treasure, or to the list of the text of the Copper Scroll itself. In either case, the 'duplicate copy" of the scroll (if it ever existed) would have been, according to this passage, identical to the existant scroll.
Daat: A Journal of Jewish Philosophy and Kabbalah , 2018
Despite a consensus which claims that the Amoraic period of rabbinic creativity (3rd to 6th cent.... more Despite a consensus which claims that the Amoraic period of rabbinic creativity (3rd to 6th cent. CE) was, from the point of view of Scriptural exegesis, much of a continuation of the activity during the previous Tannaitic period (1st to early 3rd cent. CE), the paper lists four areas in which a significant change in hermeneutic approach may be found. These include a study of the changes in the meaning of the verb patah (open), the changing description of the sage Hillel from expounder of law to textual interpreter, the transformation of the bet midrash from a venue for teaching the general public the law to an academy of textual study, and the rise of the possibility of multiple meanings of a single verse. These four areas demonstrate that the Tannaitic period had more in common with attitudes towards law and Scripture in the late Second Temple period than with the later Amoraic period, in which a sharp change in hermeneutic awareness arose. Several possible reasons for this change are offered.
A late rabbinic passage describing the sacrificial offering of the "souls of the righteous" upon ... more A late rabbinic passage describing the sacrificial offering of the "souls of the righteous" upon the heavenly altar by the angel Michael is noted by the 16th century commentator, Rabbi Joel Sirkes, and suggested as an interpolation into the text of the Babylonian Talmud, Hagiga 12b. The earliest attestation of the motif, cited in the medieval mystical rabbinic tradition of Hasidei Ashkenaz (German Jewish Pietists, such as R. Judah he-Hasid and R. Eleazar of Worms), is in the Byzantine Jewish martyrological work, the Midrash of the Ten Martyrs. While the existence of a "depository" of the souls of the righteous under the divine 'seat of glory' appears in early rabbinic tradition and can be traced back, in different forms, to the Enochic tradition (I Enoch 20:22—35) as well as to the later Jewish apocalyptic traditions (4 Ezra, Hechalot Rabbati), the active expiatory sacrificial offering of the 'souls of the righteous' is not attested in the early apocalyptic texts, and, indeed, is a curious and jarring motif, which was nonetheless given various explanations ex post facto (as, for example, the German Pietists' explanation of the sacrifice of all righteous souls as having a purgatorial effect). In this paper I suggest the origin of this motif in the post-Temple destruction period in the Christian tradition, first attested in Revelations 6:9—10, where the blood of the slain martyrs requires divine intervention and vengeance. Thus the 'tzadikim' whose souls are sacrificed are not merely 'righteous' but more specifically martyrs, who, by their active sacrifice by the divine angel cause expiation for Israel's sins during and after the Destruction period. I propose that the motif originated in Christian circles, where, from at least the fourth century CE, the Eucharistic meal often took place above the tombs of the slain martyrs whose deaths were interpreted as a form of Imitatio Dei and whose supreme sacrifice led to the expiation of sin. Whether through literary or cultural impact, this motif impinged upon the earlier Jewish traditions concerning the heavenly 'treasure' of the souls of the righteous, transforming them from their original apocalyptic meaning to one of expiatory significance. The appearance of the motif in the Midrash of the Ten Martyrs points to an important avenue of influence of Christian martyrology upon later Jewish texts and mystical theology.
The beit midrash is among the most common institutions mentioned in Rabbinic literature, alongsid... more The beit midrash is among the most common institutions mentioned in Rabbinic literature, alongside the beit kenesset (synagogue). Most scholars understand its function as a ‘study-hall’ where the sages discuss traditions and teach them to pupils. However, early attestations of the beit midrash do not pointto Torah study or ‘lessons’ as its central activity; this is rather a public convocation in which a variety of individuals “enter” to present questions “in front of” a sage. Descriptions of questions asked of sages are not necessarily relegated to the beitmidrash.neither does the presence of pupils “sitting in front of sage” presuppose that they sit in a beitmidrash. Conversely, sources describing pupils who “sit in front” of a sage ‘in the beitmidrash’ do not mention study as the central issue, the beit midrash mentioned only obliquely as the venue for an incident.
This leads to the conclusion that the main purpose of the beit midrash was not Torah study among scholars and pupils but a public “house of instruction” in which the sage is asked questions by members of the general public, giving them instruction in the tradition. This concurs with the fact that Sabbaths and holidays are the only times specifically mentioned in the context of the beit midrash; on these days the public had leisure to convene, probably in the synagogue, and obtain instruction in the tradition. This is precisely the purpose of Sabbath convocations in the synagogue as described in sources of the late Second Temple period, where, it has been noted, worship is not singled out as the main activity. Thus the institution of the beit midrash during the Tannaitic period should be seen as a continuation of the early Sabbath convocations; only after this period, when the Mishnah and other formulated texts became central to the study of law and lore, did the beit midrash evolve into an institution of textual study. Indeed, in the mid-third century ‘synagogues and batei midrashot’ are first mentioned as ‘being (only) for the sages and their students,’ and from then on the beit midrash attained its function as a ‘house of study.’
This tightly focused collection of essays, from an invited seminar of international specialists, ... more This tightly focused collection of essays, from an invited seminar of international specialists, centres on the question of the apocalyptic worldview around the time of the Maccabean revolt. What was the nature of apocalyptic at this time? Did the Maccabees themselves have a distinct apocalyptic worldview? These questions lead to other, more specific queries: who of the various groups held such a view? Certain of the essays analyse the characteristics of the apocalypses and related literature in this period, and whether the apocalyptic worldview itself gave rise to historical events or, at least, influenced them.
The collection begins with two introductory essays. Both the main and short papers have individual responses, and two considered responses by well-known experts address the entire collection. The volume finishes with a concluding chapter by the lead editor that gives a perspective on the main themes and conclusions arising from the papers and discussion.
Uploads
Papers by Paul Mandel
This leads to the conclusion that the main purpose of the beit midrash was not Torah study among scholars and pupils but a public “house of instruction” in which the sage is asked questions by members of the general public, giving them instruction in the tradition. This concurs with the fact that Sabbaths and holidays are the only times specifically mentioned in the context of the beit midrash; on these days the public had leisure to convene, probably in the synagogue, and obtain instruction in the tradition. This is precisely the purpose of Sabbath convocations in the synagogue as described in sources of the late Second Temple period, where, it has been noted, worship is not singled out as the main activity. Thus the institution of the beit midrash during the Tannaitic period should be seen as a continuation of the early Sabbath convocations; only after this period, when the Mishnah and other formulated texts became central to the study of law and lore, did the beit midrash evolve into an institution of textual study. Indeed, in the mid-third century ‘synagogues and batei midrashot’ are first mentioned as ‘being (only) for the sages and their students,’ and from then on the beit midrash attained its function as a ‘house of study.’
This leads to the conclusion that the main purpose of the beit midrash was not Torah study among scholars and pupils but a public “house of instruction” in which the sage is asked questions by members of the general public, giving them instruction in the tradition. This concurs with the fact that Sabbaths and holidays are the only times specifically mentioned in the context of the beit midrash; on these days the public had leisure to convene, probably in the synagogue, and obtain instruction in the tradition. This is precisely the purpose of Sabbath convocations in the synagogue as described in sources of the late Second Temple period, where, it has been noted, worship is not singled out as the main activity. Thus the institution of the beit midrash during the Tannaitic period should be seen as a continuation of the early Sabbath convocations; only after this period, when the Mishnah and other formulated texts became central to the study of law and lore, did the beit midrash evolve into an institution of textual study. Indeed, in the mid-third century ‘synagogues and batei midrashot’ are first mentioned as ‘being (only) for the sages and their students,’ and from then on the beit midrash attained its function as a ‘house of study.’
The collection begins with two introductory essays. Both the main and short papers have individual responses, and two considered responses by well-known experts address the entire collection. The volume finishes with a concluding chapter by the lead editor that gives a perspective on the main themes and conclusions arising from the papers and discussion.