; No. 16

ASSOCIATION FOR JEWISH STUDIES NEWSLETTER February 1976

Editor: A. J. Band

EDITORIAL

IN THIS ISSUE

Of all the annual conferences we have held, none has tested the vitality of the Association and the allegiance of its membership as did the Seventh Annual Conference held in Boston on December 21-23, 1975. And in no other circumstances were the results so gratifying. We were struck by a severe snowstorm which closed the Boston airport and made ground transportation arduous and hazardous. Since the attendance recorded by Sunday afternoon was discouragingly light, programs and meals had to be shifted. Throughout Sunday evening we were heartened by recurring, sudden appearances of groups of colleagues—including Prof, and Mrs. Salo Baron — who had made their way by rail or road for many hours from New York, Montreal, and the Midwest. Most startling was the thirteen hour drive by a group from the Midwest that had been grounded in Pittsburgh since the Boston airport was closed.

Editorial

1

Presidential Address (Arnold J. Band, UCLA)

2

After extemporizing all the first day, we were able to resume our regular program for Monday and Tuesday with the sole exception of the banquet which had been moved forward from Sunday to Monday evening. Despite frequent polling and various calculations, at no point during the conference could we arrive at an accurate estimate of attendance. Only after the conference, when all attendance lists were collated, could our Executive Secretary report that, of 305 registrants, only 30 had failed to attend any of the various sessions or the banquet, and not all of these 30 absences were due to the storm. The members present appreciated the efforts made to adapt to the uncertain conditions and patiently accepted the minor inconveniences. The varied program of lectures and the opportunity to chat with colleagues in gracious surroundings obviously compensated for the discomfit. Emblematic of the attitude of our colleagues was the demeanor of our newest Honorary Member, Prof. Baron. The Barons arrived Sunday evening after a trying trip from New York. Throughout the next day and a half they attended sessions and enjoyed the company of many of Prof. Baron's disciples — and his disciple's disciples. At the banquet he could contemplate from the head table, with a mixture of justifiable satisfaction and unbelieving amazement, the festive assembly of American scholars of Jewish Studies, the living exponents of the studies to which he has contributed so significantly. We, on the other hand, could glean from his remarks many insights into the moods of Jewish Studies in this country during the past half-century. His presence in our midst provided the constantly needed historical perspective upon our work.

Election of AJS Officers and Directors

4

News of Appointments

5

Positions Available

5

Eighth Annual AJS Conference

5

AJS Annual Business Meeting

5

Meeting of AJS Board of Directors

6

First Volume of AJS Review

6

News of Publications and Meetings

7

AJS Regional Conference Program

7

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo S E V E N T H A N N U A L AJS C O N F E R E N C E Abstracts of papers by: Henry L. Feingold (Baruch Coll.)

8

Stephen Poppel (Bryn Mawr Coll.)

9

David B. Ruderman (Univ. of Maryland)

10

Steven Bowman (Indiana Univ.)

11

Benjamin Braude (Harvard Univ.)

12

Arthur Lesley (HUC-JIR)

13

Ben Zion Wacholder (HUC-JIR)

14

Yona Sabar (UCLA)

15

Shaye J.D. Cohen (JTSA)

15

Baruch M. Bokser (Berkeley)

16

Michael J. Cook (HUC-JIR)

17

Reuven Kimelman (Amherst Coll.)

18

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO BIBLIOGRAPHIA JUDAICA Reviews by: Janet Hadda (UCLA)

19

Ziony Zevit (Univ. of Judaism)

22

Lawrence V. Berman (Stanford Univ.)

23

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Presidential Address by Arnold J. Band (University of California at Los Angeles) In casting about for the proper genre to shape my remarks in this, my third and last Presidential address, I encountered the usual problems engendered by period-specialization. Were I a Biblical scholar, I could choose a pseudonymous death-bed blessing, so cryptic that it is intelligible only upon radical emendation. Were I a specialist in a slightly later period, I could choose an apocalyptic vision, full of bulls and rams, enigmatic, open to all interpretations. Were I a medievalist, I could choose the ethical will, solemn, paternal, vibrant with pious hopes for rectitude and redemption. But my metier is modern literature, and the genres which suggest themselves are not so traditional or distinctive as to warrant implicit sobriety. For lack of better, I will select a modern genre which has some precedence in antiquity, the letter or memo to personages deceased, imaginary or even real, a genre exploited to advantage by such masters as Yosef Perl and Saul Bellow, neither members of our Association, since Perl died in 1839 and Bellow has not yet applied. My three letters are addressed respectively to a deceased historical character, to a figment of my imagination, and to a very real person. My first letter is addressed to Judah Monis, the first Jew on the faculty of Harvard University, the author in 1735 of the first introduction to Hebrew grammar published in the colonies, designed " t o facilitate the instruction of all those who are desirous of acquiring a clear idea of this primitive tongue by their own studies." Dear Mr. Monis: Allow me to apologize, at first, for imposing on your time, I am sure that the hours of a university instructor are very precious, especially when he has to operate a tobacco and hardware store on the side to make ends meet. So that you will not think that I have come to chide you for your conversion, perhaps inspired or subtly coerced by the millenarian zeal of your university President, Reverend Increase Mather, I hasten to inform you that this is not my purpose. I have simply been fascinated by your historical figure since my own childhood in Boston; I have wondered what you must have felt, what "ordeals of civility" you must have suffered: an Italian-born Jew, educated in Amsterdam, an instructor of Hebrew in Puritan Cambridge, you certainly could not have felt your surroundings congenial or your colleagues receptive to your studies. I have not been dulled by the official histories of Hebrew at American universities or of the American Jewish community; I know that Jews could not hold significant public offices until 1821, or legally bury their dead until 1844, about a century after your days in our home town. You might be interested to learn that today, more than two centuries after your death, civil strife continues, though the combatants have changed. Now, you might ask why I haven't written before. Why now? Well, there are two reasons. This is what we call the Bicentennial year of American national independence, feebly celebrated throughtout the land, yet certainly the occasion for historical reflections. (I assume that news of the Independence and Federation of the colonies has reached you.) The Bicentennial itself, I suppose, would not have provided sufficient impetus for this letter were I not personally involved in a profession

similar to yours. Like you, I am a Hebraist, though I deal with literary texts written after your death, some in the State of Israel, the Jewish state which, you might have heard, was created over twenty-seven years ago and where Hebrew is spoken. Tomorrow, I shall finish my third and last term as President of the Association for Jewish Studies, the learned society embracing the various professors of Jewish Studies in North America. This happy event will take place at our National Conference to be held at a gracious hotel in Copley Square, which, you might care to know, lies about a half mile west of the Common. Often, when I sum up in my mind the rapid expansion of Jewish studies in this country and, more personally, the past three years of my Presidency, I ask myself: "What would Judah Monis think?" Since I can never know what you would think, I will present some relevant facts and let the contrast between them and the world you knew speak for your possible reaction. The Association now numbers 900 members, mostly professors and graduate students, as opposed to about 200 in December of 1972; at our present conference in Boston, we have almost 300 registrants as opposed to 75 in Maryland in 1972; though our placement referral service hardly existed in 1972, it handled 2,500 referrals for 54 positions in the past academic year. These figures should be adequate though by no means full evidence of an undeniable conclusion: the Association has become the representative learned society for Jewish Studies throughout the land today, recognized as such by universities, communal organizations, and the Federal government. What I am writing about, then, is not a minor, religiously oriented and dominated study which Hebrew was in your days, or even a curious academic field almost totally neglected in the universities which Jewish Studies were even thirty years ago, but a vigorous, developing area of research and teaching found at universities from coast to coast, mostly supported by university funds, be they public or private. An academic field so widely represented is equally widely scattered, and though travel is better than it was in your time, the Association sees as one of its main functions the furtherance of communication between Judaics scholars. To this end we have organized to date seven annual national conferences, usually in the Boston area, still most convenient for the minority of our members, and, in the past three years, ten regional conferences, most of them at universities you have never heard of: UCLA, Brandeis, Pennsylvania, Duke, Toronto, HUCCincinnati, Indiana, Berkeley, Michigan, and N.Y.U. During each of the next three years we shall sponsor two regional conferences, one on the West Coast and one in the Midwest, dedicated to exploring, and establishing in the academic community, areas of Jewish Studies under-represented in American academic life. In the coming year, we shall sponsor one conference in Los Angeles on Medieval Hebrew Poetry, and another in the Midwest on an as yet undetermined subject. We hope to further communication and, hopefully, scholarly excellence through a series of publications. Our most modest effort has been a Newsletter, published three times yearly, containing both professional information, abstracts of papers delivered at conferences, and reviews of current scholarly books on Jewish Studies. We have published to date the papers of two pairs of regional conferences, those headed by Profs. S. D. Goitein and J. Katz. The former was distributed last year; the latter, in these very days. And we have finally taken our

3

most ambitious step for which we have been preparing ourselves: we are launching our own scholarly periodical. The first number already in proof contains sixteen impressive articles written by mostly young scholars in the various areas of Jewish Studies, many totally unknown in your century. This issue will be available in a few months and the editorial board is now inviting articles for the second issue. Apart from the publications sponsored by the Association, I think it is worth mentioning the publications of individual scholars either in monographs or in specialized periodicals. Though no one has as yet catalogued and studied this growing body of scholarly literature, my impression is that it already constitutes a considerable contribution to learning. In conclusion, I would like to call your attention to a point of nomenclature which might have escaped you: I have used both the term "Jewish Studies" and "Judaic." This is not accidental. In naming our Association eight years ago, we decided on "Jewish Studies" rather than "Judaic Studies" even though the latter was the more traditional, acceptable term. (My personal preference is for "Jewish" in all possible linguistic situations, not Judaic; I am forced to use "Judaic" when referring to an individual as a Judaics scholar since the term "Jewish scholar" does not necessarily or ordinarily refer to one versed in Jewish Studies.) We wanted to assert by the term "Jewish Studies" that our intellectual interests are not restricted to the historical experiences of a remote, primitive tribe, but include even the contemporary activity of living, very human Jews. Who would have understood this better than you? Sincerely yours, Arnold J. Band

My second memo is to be sent to a fictional person, clearly the figment of my imagination. Dear Charlie: This, I am happy to say, is my last presidential memo to you. After you read this letter, you will cease to exist in my imagination as the executive secretary of the association and will return to your leal, previous role. (You will, of course, continue as Executive Secretary, but you will appear transmuted or transfigured.) In the past three years I have accorded you fictive status for several reasons: 1. You have played the role of executive secretary so true to the perfect type that I conceive for the role that you must truly be a figment of my imagination, there being no discrepancy between my concept and my percept. The role involved numerous functions, mostly invisible to the general membership, from the efficient management of a considerable volume of business to the containment of inflated academic egos, as you assisted me in the drive to maintain professional standards. 2. In all frankness, I have imprisoned you in my imagination like a character in a Borges story since I knew that many of the accomplishments of the Association over the past three years for which I have been praised are your doing, not mine. 3. You have been absolutely self-effacing as you have sent hundreds of memos, notices, reminders, letters, billings — all over my signature, thereby winning for me countless lifelong enemies. It has not escaped my notice that you asked me to make a rubber stamp of my signature when you began to receive irate letters.

Having said all this, I have four final instructions: 1. Please thank Frank Talmage for his marvelous work both as editor of our periodical and as conference chairman. He has proved that decency and humility are not necessarily antithetical to erudition and talent. He has also demonstrated that one can gain twenty years of experience in one — particularly when working with our colleagues. 2. Regarding the enclosed application for membership submitted on the stationery of the Vaad Hakashrut of N County, my vote is negative. The applicant has no qualification for membership apart from a well-honed knife. 3. Please send me back my rubber stamp by return mail. 4. I will not authorize the purchase of another file cabinet. You should make more frequent use of the wastepaper basket. Sincerely yours, Arnie

The last letter is addressed to a very substantial living person. Dear Marvin, Since you are an experienced academic administrator, I need not pass on to you any general advice concerning the running of the Presidency which you inherit from me. You will have a balanced budget, established office routines, and a marvelous executive secretary to assist you. I would like to suggest for your consideration several areas which I think need constant attention. You will, to be sure, discover other areas you deem crucial. 1. We are all concerned about the continued viability of this profession. To date, we have not suffered from the current statis affecting the job market in the universities since 1970. I can envisage a continuation of the current yearly growth of about 20-25 positions for the next two or three years, perhaps even to the end of the decade. At that point I fear we shall reach a steady-state plateau which might have acute implications because of the peculiar age distribution in our profession. Inasmuch as there are today few scholars between the ages of 48 and 68, the normal age of mandatory retirement, few positions will be vacated by retirement until the end of the century. Information now available from the partial results of our survey would suggest that there are at least 250 graduate students currently enrolled in Jewish Studies programs of all sorts in this country. Not all of these will or should be granted their Ph.D.'s, but many will. When you add to these those Israel-trained scholars who will be forced into the American market because of the drastic curtailment of positions in Israel and American scholars actually trained in other areas, but with pretenses of competence in our field, the supply will surely exceed the demand and, in time, might discourage talented young scholars from entering the field. We all know what must be done: production must be controlled; only the most promising students should be admitted and advanced. But it is impossible for us to instruct any director of graduate studies to accept fewer or better students. At best we can persuade by personal example and supply factual information regarding the employment situation. We must not and need not return to the mood of the 1930's when talented scholars were discouraged from entering this field. Continued on page 4

4

Election of AJS Officers and Directors

A.J. Band (continued from page 3)

2. If you follow the flow of placement referral correspondence as I have over the past few years, you will notice that in addition to the positive service rendered both to the professor and to the university affording each the widest possible exposure with discretion, our placement referral service performs a subtle educational feat. Graduate students learn from the placement questionnaire how to fill out an application form and, in more than a few cases, what the various disciplines and specializations within Jewish Studies actually are. Students often learn that they were never trained in any particular discipline, nor guided to mastery in any one area. University search committees and deans have become more sophisticated; they now know what to ask for and no longer take the recommendation of any single director of graduate studies. They compare dossiers and choose more intelligently. Of all the areas which require your constant attention, there is none more crucial than this. 3. As President of the Association you will, if effective, lose some friends — but this is a risk you must take. Since the basic premises of the Association are democratic, you will find yourself pressured from two sides and you must resist both. You will hear cries for an absolute egalitarianism, for open admission to the Association, for involvement in a variety of community affairs. When the demands are analyzed, stripped of their apocalyptic rhetoric, you will discover that we have dealt with most of them long ago, and the others are simply nonnegotiable. One, for instance, does not become a Judaics scholar by self-declaration alone. The Association, furthermore, is ill-equipped, to my knowledge, for messianic projects and cannot be expected to solve all the problems of mankind or even of the Jewish people. On the other hand, you will hear whispered or gestured innuendos that you are debasing hallowed academic standards, that you have sanctioned ignorance and empty presumption. Upon examination you will quickly learn that the issues are intensely personal, that academic excellence is invariably identified with the scholarly activities of the prosecutor, and that other impulses, such as the control of funds and markets, are not to be discounted. There are many paths to academic excellence and not all lead from one master or one studio. In moments of distress, you can console yourself with the thought that a century from now, someone will inevitably write the history of Jewish Studies in this country and will designate who tore down and who built up, who threw stones and who gathered them, who kept silent and who spoke out. In conclusion, let me 'hank you for agreeing to assume the responsibilities of the Presidency. I retire knowing that what we have labored to build will be maintained and enhanced. I can return untroubled with renewed impetus to my study and my classroom, those arenas of struggle and achievement where, I am convinced, the future of Jewish Studies will be determined. Sincerely yours. Arnie

At the Association's Business Meeting on 22 December 1975, the following Officers and Directors were elected: President: Marvin Fox (Brandeis) Vice-president: Frank Talmage (Toronto) Secretary-treasurer: Nahum M. Sarna (Brandeis) Members of the Board of Directors, to serve until the Annual Meeting in 1978: Baruch Bokser (Berkeley) William Cutter (HUC, Los Angeles) Michael A. Meyer (HUC, Cincinnati) Stanley Nash (Pennsylvania) Stephen M. Poppel (Bryn Mawr) Ruth Wisse (McGill) The following Directors continue serving in terms to which they were elected at Annual Meetings in 1973 and 1974 respectively: To serve until the annual meeting in 1976: Marvin I. Herzog (Columbia) Avraham Holtz (JTS) Lou H. Silberman (Vanderbilt) Marshall Sklare (Brandeis) Yosef H. Yerushalmi (Harvard) To serve until the annual meeting in 1977: Daniel J. Elazar (Temple) Jane S. Gerber (Lehman) Bernard Goldstein (Pittsburgh) William W. Hallo (Yale) Barry Mesch (Florida) Eric Meyers (Duke) Jehuda Reinharz (Michigan) The following Past Presidents of the Association serve as Honorary Directors: Leon A. Jick (Brandeis) Baruch A. Levine (NYU) Arnold J. Band (UCLA) The Nominating Committee included in its Report the following two principles that served as guidelines in its deliberations and recommended that they serve as guidelines in the future as well. a.

No member of the Nominating Committee may be nominated for an Office or a Directorship while serving as a member of the Nominating Committee.

b.

Upon expiration of a term as a Director, a person shall not be eligible to serve again as a Director until the passage of at least one year from the date of expiration of said term— this not to apply to a person serving as a Director on an annual basis by virtue of holding an Office.

Members of the 1975 Nominating Committee were: Benjamin Ravid (Brandeis), Chairman Amos Funkenstein (UCLA) Alfred Ivry (Ohio State) Nathan M. Kaganoff (Am. Jewish Hist. Society) Baruch A. Levine (NYU) Deborah Lipstadt (Univ. of Washington)

5

News of Appointments Previous affiliation noted in (

Eighth Annual AJS Conference

)

Reuben Ahroni (University of Haifa) Hayyim Cohen (Hebrew University)

Ohio State University

The Eighth Annual AJS Conference will be held on 19-21 December 1976 at the Copley Plaza Hotel in Boston.

Brooklyn College (visiting)

Henry Friedlander (City College)

Brooklyn College

Emanuel Glouberman (University of Michigan-g)

Brooklyn College

Individuals who wish to propose papers for consideration for delivery at the Eighth Annual Conference are invited to submit an abstract (of approximately 600 words) in three copies by 1 May 1976. The Program Committee also welcomes proposals of groups of papers to constitute a session; abstracts in three copies of all the papers in the proposed session should be submitted by 1 May 1976.

David L. Gold (Columbia University-g)

University of Haifa

David Golomb (Harvard University-g)

Ohio State University

Benny Kraut (Brandeis University-g)

Vassar College

Steven M. Lowenstein (YIVO Institute for Jewish Research)

Leo Baeck Institute

Michael L. Morgan (University of Toronto)

Indiana University

Yosef Salmon (Ben-Gurion University of the Negev)

Harvard University (visiting)

Robert A. Segal (Princeton University-g)

Reed College

Henry Toledano (City College)

Hofstra University

Yosef Yahalom (Hebrew University)

Harvard University (visiting)

Abstracts in three copies should be sent to the Program Committee, care of the Association's office. Chairman of the Program Committee is Jane S. Gerber (Lehman College). AJS Annual Business Meeting

Corrections of listings in Newsletter No. 15: Marcia Falk

State University of New York at Binghamton

Anthony J. Saldarini

Boston College

Positions Available Brown University, Providence, RI 02912, Dept. of Religious Studies. Anticipated 3-yr. appt. beginning 7/76 of asst. prof, or inst. Primary specialization, Judaism in Late Antiquity with hist, of religions method. Secondary specialization, another phase of Hist, of Religions: Judaism. Doctoral training in univ. dept. or program of rel. st. required. Send vitae to Prof. Wendell S. Dietrich, Chairman. AA/EEO Employer. The Nicomachean Ethics in Medieval and Renaissance Hebrew Literature Project at Stanford University is considering the appointment of a Research Assistant or Postdoctoral Research Affiliate. The main area of concentration will be in editing and indexing medieval Hebrew manuscripts. For further information, applicants should write to Professor Lawrence V. Berman, Principal Investigator, Hebrew Ethics Project, Department of Religious Studies, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305. Closing date for applications is April 2, 1976.

The Annual Business Meeting of the Association was held on 22 December 1975 at 4:30 p.m., with Arnold J. Band presiding. It was voted to accept the report of the Nominating Committee presented by its chairman, Benjamin Ravid, as previously circulated to the membership. A report on Membership indicated that the Association had some 900 members, divided as follows: Regular Members, 500; Associate Members, 130; and Student Members, 270. Problems of membership qualifications were discussed and procedures for reviewing membership applications were described. A report on the AJS Review, including the contents of the first volume, scheduled to appear in the Spring of 1976. was presented by editor Frank Talmage. An invitation to submit articles for consideration for publication in volume two was issued. After considerable discussion, it was voted that articles submitted to the AJS Review be sent without indication of authorship to readers for evaluation. It was voted to express the Association's appreciation to the National Foundation for Jewish Culture for its grant in support of the publication of the AJS Review. A report on the Placement Referral Service indicated that in 1974/75 some 2,500 referrals were made and 54 positions registered. After considerable discussion of placement referral procedures, it was voted that a committee be appointed by the President to review the Placement Referral Service. It was suggested that a more detailed agenda for the Annual Business Meeting be sent to the membership. The meeting was adjourned at 6:10 p.m.

6

Meeting of AJS Board of Directors A meeting of the AJS Board of Directors was held on 21 December 1975 and continued on 23 December 1975. The following were present: Arnold J. Band (UCLA), Baruch M. Bokser (Berkeley). Marvin Fox (Brandeis). Jane S. Gerber (Lehman), Bernard Goldstein (Pittsburgh). Marvin Herzog (Columbia), Leon Jick (Brandeis). Barry Mesch (Florida). Michael A. Meyer (HUC-JIR), Stanley Nash (Pennsylvania). Stephen M. Poppel (Bryn Mawr), Nahum M. Sarna (Brandeis), Marshall Sklare (Brandeis), Frank Talmage (Toronto). Ruth Wisse (McGill), and Charles Berlin (Harvard). Executive Secretary. A report on membership was given, noting that membership, now at some 900, continues to grow; that the membership renewal rate is at an all-time high of 96% (membership is automatically terminated if dues are not paid by March 1); and that there is strict enforcement of membership requirements. A number of membership applications referred to the Board by the Membership Committee were reviewed and membership status determined. A report on the Placement Referral Service was given and a statistical summary indicating number of referrals by position was distributed. There were 2,500 referrals, 54 positions registered, and 27 appointments made. Placement referral procedures were reviewed and continued strict enforcement of requirements was approved. It was voted to establish, effective immediately, a placement service fee of ten dollars for those whose membership in the Association is of less than twelve months' standing. Treasurer Nahum Sarna presented the Financial Report including a statement of assets and liabilities and an operating budget for 1976. It was voted to accept the report of the Treasurer. A Conference Report was presented by the Conference Chairman, Frank Talmage. It was voted to hold the Eighth Annual Conference on 19-21 December 1976 at the Copley Plaza Hotel in Boston. The Program Committee was authorized to issue a call for papers. A report on the AJS Newsletter was presented. It was voted to re-appoint Arnold J. Band as editor of the Newsletter. Editor Frank Talmage reported on the AJS Review. It was voted to make volume one available at a reduced rate to members who wish to order it. Beginning with volume two, the cost of the AJS Review will be incorporated into the annual dues structure; the annual membership fee will be raised accordingly in September 1976 and all members will automatically receive copies of the Review as published beginning with volume two. It was voted to reappoint Frank Talmage as Editor of the AJS Review.

Regional Conferences for 1976 were discussed. Plans were approved to hold Regional Conferences at Hebrew Union College in Los Angeles on 25-26 April 1976 under the direction of Dan Pagis and at Ohio State University in Columbus on 16-17 May 1976 under the direction of Shaul Shaked. A report on additional publications and projects was given. It was noted that the proceedings of the 1975 series of Regional Conferences are being prepared for publication. The "Survey of Jewish Studies" being conducted by AJS is meeting with considerable cooperation on the part of members. It was suggested that a survey of graduate programs in Jewish Studies be made on the basis of data supplied by the Survey. Members who have not yet returned their questionnaire were urged to do so as soon as possible.

First Volume of AJS Review to Appear in Spring The first volume of the AJS Review, scheduled to appear this spring, includes the following articles: New Light on the Conflict over the Palestinian Gaonate, 1038-1042, and on Daniel b. Azarya: A Pair of Letters to the Nagid of Qayrawan, by Mark R. Cohen; "Alte und neue Gemeinschaft:" An Unpublished Buber Manuscript, by Paul R. Flohr and Bernard Susser; On the Refinement of the Conception of Prayer in Hebrew Scriptures, by Moshe Greenberg; The 1913 New York State Civil Rights Act, by Jeffrey Gurock; The Origins of the Jewish Reform Movement in England, by Robert Liberies; The Meaning of Torah She-Be'al Peh with Special Reference to Kelim and Ohalot. by Jacob Neusner; The Emergence of Hasmonean Coinage, by Uriel Rappaport; The First Charter of the Jewish Merchants of Venice, 1589, by Benjamin Ravid; Milhemet ha-pesukim shel mumar, by Judah Rosenthal; The Founding of a Gemilut Hasadim Society in Ferrara in 1515. by David B. Ruderman; The Recall of Rabbi Nehuniah ben Haqanah from Ecstasy in the Hekhalot Rabbati, by Lawrence H. Schiffman; Coming Home: The Personal Basis of Simon Dubnow's Ideology, by Robert M. Seltzer; A Kurdish Jewish Variant of the Ballad of "The Bridge of Arta," by Donna Shai; Three Themes in the Sefer Hasidim, by Haym Soloveitchik; Purgos as a Farm Building, by Daniel Sperber; On Some Aspects of Prayer in the Bible, by Jeffrey H. Tigay.

Those desiring to submit articles for consideration for publication in the second volume of AJS Review should send two (2) copies of each manuscript (typewritten double-spaced) to the Editor, care of the AJS office, Widener M, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. 02138.

7

News of Publications and Meetings (Continued on page 11) The Hebrew Union College Press and the Hebrew Union College Annual announce publication opportunities they offer for manuscripts which, while not commercially feasible, are of high scholarly quality. The Hebrew Union College Press Monograph Series consists of volumes either in letterpress or in photo-offset in any specialized field of Jewish studies. Following preliminary screening, each qualifying manuscript is anonymously evaluated by at least two readers. If accepted, it is published in 500 or 1000 copies and distributed through Ktav Publishing House. Subsidies granted from publication funds of the Press make it possible to sell the volumes at a reasonable price. Inquiries and manuscripts should be sent to Michael A. Meyer, Chairman, Publications Committee, Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, Cincinnati, Ohio 45220. The Hebrew Union College Annual has recently initiated a series of Supplements consisting of scholarly studies too long for an article but too short for a monograph (about 100 printed pages). Manuscripts are evaluated in the same manner as for Monograph Series. A number of manuscripts are currently under consideration and the first Supplement is expected to appear in a few months. Inquiries and manuscripts should be sent to Sheldon H. Blank, Editor, Hebrew Union College Annual, 3101 Clifton Avenue, Cincinnati, Ohio 45220.

A new series, Studies in Judaism in Modern Times, has been established by E. J. Brill, Leiden, under the editorship of Jacob Neusner (Brown University). The series will contain monographs, dissertations, and scholarly essays on the history of Judaism in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, with stress on the analysis of the modernization of Jewish religion. The series will center on three areas of research. First is the response of classical, Rabbinic Judaism, embodied in Orthodoxy, to the circumstances of modernity; the renaissance of Orthodoxy in Eastern Europe is one focus of interest. A second point of analysis is the formation of theologies and ideologies of intellectual and cultural change in the religious sector of Jewry, with studies on the apologetic for modernity worked out in Reform and Conservative Judaism in Europe and America. The third area of study will be the analysis of the consciousness and Weltanschauung of secular Jews in modern times, specifically, those Jews for whom "being Jewish" took on meanings not formed within the framework of inherited religiosity. Cultural philosophers of "Jewishness," creative writers who through their work of fiction or poetry expressed insight into the meaning of "the Jewish condition,'' and movements intended to find secular solutions to the cultural and psychological aspects of 'the Jewish problem" will be studied as evidence of the modern listory of Judaism. The series will not include works of polemic, apology, politics, or systematic theology, but solely of detached and scholarly analysis.

Proposals for titles in the series should be addressed to Professor Jacob Neusner at Brown University, Providence, R.I. 02912.

The second University of California-wide symposium on Judaic Studies was held on 9-10 November 1975 at the International Center of the University of California-San Diego at La Jolla. The theme of this year's symposium was "Stylistic Traditions in Hebrew Literature." Altogether more than sixty scholars participated in the four sessions, including representatives from all but two of the UC campuses as well as guests from San Diego State University. California Institute of Technology, Stanford, Graduate Theological Union (Berkeley), University of Judaism (Los Angeles). Hebrew Union College (Los Angeles) and the University of Washington (Seattle). The following papers were presented: Jacob Milgrom (Berkeley)

"A Formulaic Key to Deuteronomy's Sources"

Dan Pagis "The Sublime in Medieval Hebrew (Jerusalem and San Diego) Literary Theory" Baruch Bokser (Berkeley)

"Literary Patterns of Describing the Talmudic Rabbi"

Yona Sabar (Los Angeles) "Echoes of Aggadah and Halakha in the Folk Literature of Jewish Women of Kurdistan" Arnold J. Band "Semantic Rhyme in Modern (Los Angeles) Hebrew Poetry" The Sunday evening session consisted of a public poetry reading by the Israeli poets Yehuda Amichai and Dan Pagis who are currently holding visiting appointments at UC-Berkeley and UC-San Diego respectively. Translations were read by Eleanor Widmer and Jonathan Saville of the UC-San Diego literature department.

AJS Regional Conference Program The Association will hold a Regional Conference at Hebrew Union College in Los Angeles on 25-26 April 1976. The Conference theme will be "Medieval Hebrew Poetry" and Dan Pagis of the Hebrew University, visiting professor at the University of California-San Diego, will serve as Senior Scholar. The program will include papers by Dan Pagis. William Brinner (University of California-Berkeley), Amos Funkenstein (University of California-Los Angeles) and Joel Rembaum (University of Judaism). On 16-17 May 1976 a Regional Conference will be held at Ohio State University in Columbus. The Conference theme will be "Oriental Jewish Communities" and Shaul Shaked of the Hebrew University, visiting professor at Harvard University, will serve as Senior Scholar. Program details will be announced shortly. Programs and registration forms will be sent to all AJS members in March. The AJS Regional Conference Program is made possible by a grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities, with a matching grant from the National Foundation for Jewish Culture.

8

American Policy and Jewish Power: Myth and Reality by Henry L. Feingold (Baruch College-C.U.N.Y.) Historians of foreign relations have long been aware that national and group values, character and style are revealed in the stance on foreign policy issues. Evincing a more intense interest in foreign policy matters than the general public. American Jewry appears peculiarly well suited to be viewed through such a prism. American Jews are not only better informed on foreign policy matters, they and their organizations are more likely to take positions in the omnipresent foreign policy debate and to make them known to decision makers. In the twentieth century the founding of their secular organizations and the expending of their organizational energy and financial resources can be linked directly to concern for their coreligionists abroad. Historians are remiss in failing to tap this rich source for gaining insight into the historical development of American Jewry. This paper briefly peruses several core areas where the Jewish interest impinged on American foreign policy and distills some tentative generalizations regarding the American Jewish relationship to official power and its style in the foreign policy arena. I designate issues like the passport and abrogation question, the Zionist thrust between 1917 and 1922, the attempt to gain legal protection for European Jewish minorities after World War I and the effort to influence the Roosevelt administration to rescue Jews during the holocaust as core areas in order to distinguish them from the numerous other ways, through powerful individuals like Jacob Schiff or Oscar Straus or the collective influence of Jewish public opinion, through which Jewish voices make themselves heard in the corridors of power. Even these case studies are disparate so that generalizations can be made only with great care. The following seem worthy of further examination. Contrary to what many Jewish laymen believe there is rarely clear evidence of a play of Jewish influence among decision makers. In fact what passes as the Jewish interest or the Jewish question at a particular time is rarely identifiable as such by the power holders. Rather than standing alone on the foreign policy agenda the Jewish interest is customarily a minor part of a larger complex of issues and concerns. That is the reason why Louis Marshall couched the arguments in favor of abrogating the Commercial Treaty of 1832 with Russia in terms of the rights of American citizens abroad rather than Jewish rightspfr se. Similarly the opposition of the Taft administration to outright abrogation is best viewed in terms of the primacy of "dollar diplomacy" and the balance of power in the Far East which required a viable Russia to maintain the "Open Door" policy. By the same token the issue of admission of Jewish refugees in the thirties is a minor motif in the great debate between the isolationists, supported by restrictionists, and interventionists, supported by Jews as part of the urban New Deal coalition. Jews naturally view

their interest as central and paradoxically only the anti-Semitic imagination assigns them a similar importance. Victims and their tormentors are locked-in to the same illusion of centrality. When a Jewish plea for special attention is presented to decision makers it inevitably arouses countervailing hyphenate or other special interest groups. The abrogation struggle brought forth commercial interests anxious to safeguard their activities in Russia. The Zionist thrust between 1917 and 1922 aroused the opposition of missionary, naval and ultimately oil interests. Complaints regarding the mistreatment of Jews in Poland led to the mobilization of Polish-Americans. The plea to rescue Jews during the holocaust variously brought the opposition of restrictionists, all sorts of antiSemitic elements including those in the State Department and finally the military establishment who feared that the rescue of Jews would interfere with the war effort. Moreover the Jewish interest in foreign affairs faces not only strong external opposition; its impact is weakened by endemic Jewish divisiveness exacerbated by strong personality conflicts among the leadership. Before the creation of Israel the Jewish interest projected on the foreign policy establishment was rarely coherent. Jews seldom agreed on the nature of the threat or the strategy and tactics required for amelioration. Lack of unity and coherence was especially evident during the holocaust but subsided somewhat by 1948. Finally one can note that Jewish leadership placed an inordinate reliance on diplomatic intercession, notes of concern, party platform planks, congressional resolutions and legal devices to implement their interest. Yet clearly such tactics had precious little impact in ameliorating a troubled situation and merely seemed to offer various administrations a way of making points in the Jewish community. What tactics might have proven more effective for a group virtually bereft of political power is difficult to determine. Reflecting the style of their constituency, Jewish leaders naturally postulated that there existed a morally motivated concern for justice and righteousness in the world, a "spirit of civilization." They assumed that such a spirit was embodied in the "civilized" nations, especially the United States, or in such agencies as the Vatican, the League of Nations or the United Nations. Jewish moralism and historical experience pointed to the existence of such a spirit in the universe. Jewish survival, after all, depended heavily on the highest moral conduct in the domestic and international arena. Yet while there may in fact exist such a spirit in the world, finding its precise locus is problematic. Nations have not always risen to its call and clearly it no longer exists in the United Nations which American Jewry supported with special fervor. More than ever it is on the American government that the Jewish enterprise is compelled to rely. Yet those who observe the events of the recent past with a jaundiced eye might seriously wonder if such a ' 'spirit of civilization" exists today or ever existed in America's foreign relations.

9

The Theory and Practice of German-Jewish Emancipation by Stephen Poppel (Bryn Mawr College) That Jewish history is conditioned, if not determined, by external circumstances is by now a truth so well demonstrated as to seem practically self-evident. It was certainly the case for the semiautonomous medieval Jewish community, and was all the more so for modern Jewry, given its goal of more or less thorough-going integration in the non-Jewish world. Not only was the external context established, as had been the case earlier, but the goal of integration itself brought external realities to bear on the inner formulation of Jewish aspirations and the way in which they were pursued. It is the purpose of this paper to indicate the extent to which this was true in Germany. The analysis of Jewish emancipation, by which I mean the legal, political integration of the Jews, has been shaped by Salo Baron's thesis that emancipation came to the Jews as an inherent necessity of the modern state. His contention has been in part confirmed, in part conditioned, by analysis of the French situation, to which he seems to be referring primarily. The experiences of other western European nations, however, appear to deviate from the French paradigm. In England, the progress of Jewish integration in all realms was both less dramatic and less troubled. Germany seems to represent a deviation in the opposite direction. Here, integration was a halting thing, but the fact that emancipation was finally achieved, and the circumstances under which it was secured, confirm both Baron's contention (given the relative retardation of German political development) and, in a less polemical sense than he intended it, Marx's argument that the emancipation of the Jew could come only with the emancipation of society as a whole. Nevertheless, the fact that Jewish emancipation was linked to external circumstances did not prevent the Jews in Germany from believing that ihey might in some way hasten its realization by efforts of their own. This notion rested on the hopeful assumption that Jewish emancipation depended primarily on the acceptability of the Jews, which could be enhanced by strenuous attempts at selfreform. Indeed, the premise that there was afunctional link between social reform and acculturation on the one hand, and emancipation on the other, was reflected by the very use of the term "assimilation" to refer to all these processes collectively. The fact, however, that these processes were indeed not linked produced a considerable amount of frustration and cognitive dissonance among Jews who expected a corresponding reward for their efforts. In this regard, the quip that the history of the Jews in Germany was a long history of unrequited love takes on special accuracy. Indeed, the Jews experienced something of a dialectic of frustration: the very assumption that it was in their power to hasten progress made it appear that the lack of progress could somehow be ascribed to a failing of their own.

To illustrate these general contentions I have chosen for close and extended analysis two examples from the chronological and ideological extremes of modern German Jewish history, namely the Berlin Haskalah, and the German Zionist movement (both only briefly outlined in this abstract); and refer as well to some intervening episodes by way of both correction and corroboration. The Haskalah was at once the product of the Enlightenment, and the would-be benefactor of changes that it imagined the Enlightenment had wrought in German society. A detailed examination of the Haskalah's educational program indicates the extent to which the collective social acceptability of the Jews was its aim, almost necessarily so. Efforts at educational reform, such as the Berlin Freischule, reflect an attempt by leading elements in the community at revolution from above, in order to convey the burdens of modernization to the community as a whole. Likewise, the program to reshape the Jewish occupational profile on physiocratic principles was a response to a precondition attached to political acceptability, though it now appears as an economic historical anachronism. In the nineteenth century, the issue of social and political acceptability appears as a leading one in the already modernized sectors of German Jewry. Thus, it is certainly one motivation of the liberal Judaism of the movement for religious Reform, as well as a central concern of the great liberal majority of German Jewry. Again, as in the case of the Haskalah, Jewish aspirations depended on a specific ideological and political configuration, this time of the peculiar German variety of liberalism. Similarly, Jews tended to envision the external reality that most favored their own aspirations. Theirs was the Germany of Goethe and Kant. (The objective validity of this outlook is a separate question.) The liberal vision was challenged in its own time by the Zionist movement. From the viewpoint of this paper, what is striking about German Zionism is the extent to which it, too, assumed that the Jew could compel the favor, and acceptance, of non-Jewish society, though on a basis different from the liberals. This was evident in Zionist projections for the current situation of the Jews in Germany, and, even more remarkably, for their continuing future there. It was also evident in the German Zionist position concerning relations between the Jewish and Arab populations of Palestine. Thus, the group of Jews that claimed to have achieved the greatest critical self-distance from its situation in Germany ended by subscribing, like all others, to the German-Jewish postulate of optimism. It was, therefore, not only the dynamics of emancipation that were conditioned by external reality, but the dynamics of Jewish aspirations as well, shaped by the additional and transforming force of hope.

10

An Italian Jew and the Star-Crossed Renaissance: Astrological Influences in the Writings of Abraham b. Mordecai Farissol by David B. Ruderman (University of Maryland) Historians have long noted the dominant force of astrology in the popular culture and intellectual world of Renaissance society. Because of the scientific character of their enterprise, astrologers and their prognostications enjoyed widespread credibility among all classes of Renaissance society. Among earlier medieval Jewish scholars and philosophers, the impact of astrology was no less profound. The astrological interest of Abraham bar Hiyya, Abraham ibn Ezra and many others is well known. In the Renaissance period itself. Abraham Zakuto served as a professional astrologer at the court of a Christian king in Portugal while Bonet de Lattes performed the same function for the Pope in Rome. In a culture saturated with astrology as the Renaissance was, any enlightened Jew whose intellectual horizons had transcended the confines of his traditional culture could not be oblivious to the assumptions of astrology. Abraham Farissol (1452-1528?) was such an individual. Farissol. born in Avignon, settled for most of his life in Ferrara, a major center of Renaissance culture. Even a cursory view of Farissol's writings reveals the author's keen awareness of the influence of astrology in his day. As an educated individual well versed in the natural sciences and the author of the first Hebrew account of the discoveries of the new world, he could hardly disclaim this profound influence. Yet as a Jew, the assumptions that astrology obliged him to accept posed special problems to his own religious sensibilities. Farissol was hardly the first of his people to wrestle with the challenge astrology presented to Judaism; nor were the responses he finally presented any different from those of his predecessors. Yet Farissol's response still possesses historical importance as clear testimony of Jewish sensitivity to the increased force of astrology in the intellectual climate of Renaissance Italy. Furthermore, it provides special evidence of Jewish awareness to one particular astrological theory which had especially gained currency in the author's day. Farissol's family background as well as the special intellectual ambience of Ferrara help to explain the context of the many astrological references throughout his writings. Most of these references are found in his commentaries, especially on the book of Job. Since Farissol failed to present his thoughts on astrology in a systematic and organized manner, one finds only a hodgepodge of various statements often contradicting each other, without any attempt by the author to organize these discrepancies into a coherent whole. The most unusual expression of astrological influence in Farissol's writings, however, is found in the second chapter of Magen Avraham, his polemic against Christianity. Farissol here contends

that all prophets who found religions are ultimately born as a result of astrological conjunctions. This is the case, he explains, because astral conjunctions are the primary cause of all activities in the material world. As a result of these conjunctions, not only the founders of pagan faiths were born, but even Abraham and Moses. Moreover, any founder of a group or an outstanding individual is directly influenced by the conjunctions of stars, according to Farissol. The articulation of such an astrological theory of social movements by a Jew like Farissol is bizarre. With such a theory, he denies prophecy its extraordinary and supernatural character; he admits that Jewish prophecy is comparable and falls under the same universal causation as all wisdom of the pagan seers. A careful scrutiny of the astrological writings of Farissol's Christian contemporaries reveals that this Jew was not alone in presenting such a theory. Precisely at the end of the fifteenth century, the astrological writings of Albumasar(Abu Ma'shar), the ninth century Arab astronomer, were enjoying a renewed popularity throughout Italy. According to Albumasar, religions as well as people had their own horoscopes. The conjunctions of certain planets in the particular zodiacal signs of various religions marked important changes or stages in their respective destinies. For Albumasar, astrology alone was the sole cause of triumph of any religion. During Farissol's time, Paul of Middleberg, Christofero Ladino, Giovanni Nanni and others employed Albumasar's theory in understanding the origin of all religions, including Christianity. While Pico della Mirandola refuted this conjunction theory, Pietro Pomponazzi presented an even more sweeping astrological explanation of the origin and development of all religious faiths, based upon Albumasar. Thus the context of Farissol's statements is clear: the conjunction theory of religious growth and development reverberated throughout the intellectual world of Renaissance Italy. Farissol's reiteration of this theory provides an interesting example of the degree to which this Jew was cognizant of one of the intellectual currents of his generation. Yet it was quite out of character for Farissol to simply reproduce such a heretical view so contradictory to his faith. Farissol not only copies this view but transposes it in a way so as not to denigrate the unique prophetic tradition of Judaism. Farissol proclaims that in spite of the universal law of the heavenly forces, the Jewish people still maintain their special relationship to God for He interrupts the ordinary course of events to provide them with special heavenly providence. Thus in his short conclusion, Farissol was not only able to remove the unorthodox sting from Albumasar's theory; he succeeded in reinterpreting that view so as to elevate in bold relief the Jewish view of prophecy. In short, while such a novel theory as that of Albumasar had been assimilated into Farissol's thought, it not only failed to alter his traditional loyalty to the Jewish faith but even served to strengthen it.

11

Romaniote Jewry During the Renaissance by Steven Bowman (Indiana University) Romaniote Jews are the descendants of the Greek-speaking Jewish citizens of the Byzantine Empire. Their culture is a reflection of the Greco-Christian milieu of that society; its survival in the face of the successful Sephardaization of Balkan Jewry during the subsequent Ottoman period is a tribute to the tenacity of their traditions. This paper is concerned with the intellectual, demographic, and institutional framework of those Romaniote Jews, both Rabbanite and Karaite, who flourished between 1300 and 1550. The period is marked by two stages, with the natural division occurring in 1453, the year of the conquest of Constantinople by Mehmet II. The careers of the Rabbanite scholars Shemarya ha-Ikriti and of his pupil Judah Mosconi support their appellation as "Renaissance" men, as do the careers of their Karaite contemporaries Aaron ben Joseph and Aaron ben Elijah. The necessity for further study of the enigmatic period during which Adrianople was the center of the expanding Ottoman state (1361-1453) is indicated through the references to the career of the mysterious Elissaeus, teacher of George Gemistos Plethon and to the increasing Sephardi influences on Romaniote life, both in terms of the development of Rabbanite thought and the rapprochement between the Rabbanites and the Karaites as evidenced by the reforms of the House of Bashyachi. The latter include the adoption of the pre-calculated calendar of the Rabbanites, the use of Sabbath candles, and the return to the Rabbinic cycle of Torah reading. In 1453 Constantinople became the capital of the Ottoman Empire; in 1455 the Jews became an autonomous millet with the appointment of Moses Capsali as the first haham basji. These two events radically changed the structure of Romaniote life. The results of the first event were the wholesale depopulation of Romaniote centers in Anatolia, Thrace, Macedonia, and other areas of Greece and their removal to the depopulated capital. Thrace, Macedonia, and Thessaly were subsequently repopulated by Sephardim. Estimates of Romaniote population during this period are difficult. We have tentatively proposed the following figures on the basis of the few sources available: Constantinople — 10,00015,000 on the eve of the Fourth Crusade, 500 families until 1350,250 families until 1453, and 7500-8000 shortly after the Ottoman conquest; in the Balkans — perhaps 7000 families before 1350, and 3000 families in the late fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries. At the end of the fifteenth century waves of Sephardi immigrants began to flood the Balkans with inevitable results for the communal and demographic nature of the Jews there. The second date established the institutional framework for Ottoman Jewry for the next two generations under the leadership of Romaniote Jews (Moses Capsali and Elijah Mizrahi). The negotiations that lay behind Capsali's election can only be surmised, yet it

seems clear that the Jews, in return for their material and financial support of the new regime, succeeded in obtaining their own autonomous leader paralleling the Orthodox Patriarch. As a corollary, the Armenians, too, shortly became autonomous (ca. 1461). During these two generations (1453-1526) the influence of the Sephardim on Balkan Jewry increases; the rapprochement between Rabbanites and Karaites proceeds apace; while the Romaniote dominance over the emerging Ottoman Jewries correspondingly weakens. Among those Romaniote groups not subject to Sephardi teachers, a reaction set in which led to an official rejection of the Karaites (ignored) and a split of both Rabbanites and Karaites into two factions. These intracommunal conflicts, aggravated by increasing Sephardi strength, would lead to the rejection of a universally accepted leader of Ottoman Jewry after the death of the second haham basji (1526). By mid-century, the emergence of Sephardi dominance was complete. The publication of the tri-lingual Bible in 1547 containing a Ladino and a contemporary Greek translation is indicative of this shift. The Ladino translation is located on the inside column of the page, the traditional column of honor for a commentary in rabbinic texts. Also the appearance of Romaniote mahzorim indicates the necessity to stabilize and preserve what heretofore had been a fluid and living liturgical tradition in the face of the spread of the Sephardi rite. Despite the subsequent near complete Sephardaization of Balkan Jewry during the Ottoman period, pockets of Romaniote Jews survived. These communities were located in Epirus, especially Jannina, and Acarnania; in the Peloponnesus at Mistra, in Boeotian Thebes and Chalkis. Crete, in particular, remained the stronghold of Romaniote identity.

New Periodical Publication The first issue of Journal of Psychology and Judaism is planned for September, 1976. The Journal will address itself to the philosophical, clinical, and practical aspects of psychology and its relationship with Judaism. If further information is desired, please contact Journal of Psychology and Judaism, 1747 Featherston Drive, Ottawa, Ontario. Canada K1H 6P4.

Summer Seminar for College Teachers An eight-week seminar in "Metaphysical Directions in Islamic and Jewish Medieval Philosophy" will be offered by Alfred Ivry of the Ohio State University Department of Philosophy this summer. Part of the NEH Program of 1976 Summer Seminars for College Teachers, this Seminar is "intended for teachers in undergraduate and two-year colleges who are concerned primarily with improving their own knowledge of the subjects they teach." Successful applicants will receive a stipend of $2,000 plus travel and housing allowances. For additional information and applications, write Prof. Alfred Ivry, Department of Philosophy, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210. Deadline: 1 March 1976.

12

A Greek Polemic of the Renaissance against the Jews by Benjamin Braude (Harvard University) One of the outstanding achievements of the Renaissance was the revival of classical Greek learning through the establishment of such printing houses as the Aldine press in Venice. Greek printing, curiously enough, was to reach Constantinople much later, in 1627. The first book to bear the imprint of this newly founded press was a work in modern Greek, Syntomos pragmateia kata Ioudaion (A Brief Treatise against Jews). The author of this book was Cyril Lucaris (1572-1638), one of the most remarkable men to serve as Patriarch of Constantinople. His fame survives for his role as "the Protestant Patriarch" whose Calvinist confession of faith shocked Catholic Europe in the decades of the Thirty Years War. Constantinople during the years of Cyril's Patriarchate was one of the sites where Protestant and Catholic diplomatic and religious representatives fought over the neutral souls of eastern Orthodoxy. This religious battle had very important political overtones, for to the victors new allies in the wars of Europe were added. Neither the Catholics nor the Protestants expected Cyril to dispatch an army of Orthodox volunteers to the front, but his adherence to one or the other cause would have been a great morale boost, to the benefitting forces, particularly in the Orthodox-tinged and influenced areas of Eastern Europe. Thus it is not surprising that Cyril should have attracted the attention of historians from the early work of Thomas Smith (London, 1680) An Account of the Greek Church . . . To Which is Added An Account of the Greek Church Under Cyril Lucaris to the recently published (London, 1961) Protestant Patriarch: the Life of Cyril Lucaris . . . by George Hadjiantoniou. In spite of the considerable interest in the life of Cyril, his antiJewish tract has attracted little attention. One reason for this is that the book and the press which issued it were suppressed by the Ottoman authorities. Apparently only two copies of this book have survived, one in the Greek National Library in Athens and the other recently acquired by Houghton Library at Harvard University. According to the dispatches of the English and Venetian ambassadors at the Porte various copies were smuggled out of the Empire and students of Greek typography have suggested that parts of the book may actually have been printed (the title-page imprint notwithstanding) in London so it is possible that other copies may exist. Another reason for this lack of attention is that the entire tradition which this tract continued has been one barely touched by scholarship. Although Eastern Christendom has had generations of anti-Jewish polemic, scholars have not sought to examine this literature, even as they have hardly touched the rich history of Jews under Greek and Turkish rule. This study cannot hope to rectify the neglect into which this period of Jewish history has fallen, but it does hope to draw out certain conclusions about the literature of Greek Orthodox polemic which should help us to understand the particular context in which the Syntomos pragmateia kata Ioudaion was composed and published.

The history of Greek polemic against the Jews may be understood from two aspects. One is a purely literary rhetorical aspect in which the external realities of a given period seem to have little influence upon the form, content, or even production of the polemic, while the other aspect is one in which external realities seem to play a very important role in the existence, if not the form of the polemic. The basic content of the polemic follows certain rhetorical patterns — standard scriptural proof texts dealing with a standard theological dispute, e.g., a defense of trinitarian monotheism against the Jewish accusation of polytheism. At some periods, notably during the sixth and seventh centuries when accusations of collaboration with the Persian and Arab invaders of Byzantium were made against the Jews, and later when the Khazars converted to Judaism the ever-present, but oft-ignored, religious controversy between Jew and Orthodox assumed an additional, political, significance. It is during these centuries that there seems to be a particular flourishing of polemic. The Syntomos pragmateia is very much within the Byzantine tradition. Cyril's work is a defense of the divinity of Jesus against the arguments of Judaism. It is a defense mounted through question and retort based on amply quoted scripture. As a piece of theological polemic it is not distinguished by the novelty of its argument or evidence. Thus it is not the literary or rhetorical aspects of this work which concern us here, but rather the other aspect, the external context in which this book appeared, that I wish to study. Of all the books that one could imagine sallying forth from the first Greek press in the religious capital of the Orthodox world how does it happen that this first book should be one against the Jews? And how does it happen that Cyril Lucaris whose theological thrusts were sharpened by the parries of the Reformation and CounterReformation should have turned his attack to the Jews who would seem to be hors de combat? One possible explanation is that precisely because the Jews were hors de combat they were the target and that in fact the attack against the Jews was merely a feint to disguise a thrust against a more serious adversary. Perhaps Cyril was dusting off his polemic technique for what was to be the struggle of his career, that against the Jesuit missionaries dispatched to Constantinople. More likely the book was a veiled attack against Islam, for a defense against Jewish arguments concerning the divinity of Jesus and trinitarian monotheism could also be construed as a defense against similar Islamic arguments. There is evidence that the Ottoman authorities so construed the book, for in suppressing it they were wary of possible anti-Islamic content. There exists an additional explanation which while not undermining these other two does accord both with aspects of the history of Orthodox polemic and with economic and social realities during the period between the conquest of Constantinople in 1453 by Sultan Mehmet and the publication of the book. If there is in fact a correlation between anti-Jewish polemic and the presence of the Jew in the external conflicts of the day, as suggested above, then one wonders what these conflicts were. Continued on page 13

13

Two Renaissance Jewish Thinkers on the Place of Philosophy in Jewish Education by Arthur Lesley (Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion) It is not possible to reconstruct the intellectual history of the Italian Jews during the Renaissance by extrapolating from Immanuel of Rome, before this period, and Leo Modena, at its close, as those surveying the period have been forced to do. It would be strange if the documents of intellectual life did not reflect the migrations, the establishment and dispersal of settlements, and awareness of the intellectual ferment in the wider Italian society. To characterize Italian Jewish intellectual life in any part of the period, it will be necessary to have, beyond the accumulation of communal histories, editions of texts and biographies, some account of the questions over which the scholars disagreed, and analysis of the connection between the argument and its social setting. Investigation of the writings of Elia del Medigo and Yohanan Alemanno provides evidence for participation of the two, on opposite sides, in a significant dispute in the last quarter of the fifteenth century. The two writers, both physicians, both present at different times at the University of Padua, and both collaborators with Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, disagreed about the content and the form of teaching about philosophy and revelation. Elia, in Behinat ha-Dat and in a letter of 1485 to Pico, disparages those who accommodate philosophy to religious teaching. He specifies the Jewish philosophers, such as Moses Narboni, who interpret Aristotle and Averroes in a way that resembles the teachings of the kabbalists. Elia eschews such teaching, because it does not follow the method of Maimonides, his model for philosophical investigation. Yohanan Alemanno, an older contemporary of Elia, and a later colleague of Pico, begins his tJai ha-'Olamim with an attack on those who try to keep learning to themselves and obscure it from the people by not presenting it in language suitable to the audience. Yohanan examines the alternative modes of discourse: logical demonstration, dialectic, sophistic, rhetorical and poetic. After discussing the advantages and disadvantages of each, he declares that his models are Moses and the prophets, who taught deep and holy matters through the use of rhetoric; he will do the same. Although Elia emphasizes the content taught by his opponents, and Yohanan disputes the form of discourse used by his opponents, consideration of the setting of the two men's activity leads to the conclusion that the two stands are opposite sides of the same argument: should the Jewish philosopher teach philosophy to the wider Jewish public? and if so, should he teach in the technical language of the discipline, or in popular language. The question of the "double truth" in Behinat ha-Dat can, when considered along with the apposite arguments for eclecticism and popularization of Hai ha'Olamim, be understood as part of the Renaissance arguments between scholastic philosophers and humanist orators; between those

who emphasized their obligation to the community and those who emphasized their obligation to the integrity of their profession. Rather than a conflict between rationalists and anti-rationalists, the del Medigo-Alemanno dispute appears to have been part of the Renaissance debate over the rank of practical and theoretical wisdom, the active or the contemplative life, the philosopher and the statesman.

B. Braude (continued from page 12)

The evidence which I have collected from a variety of sources — Turkish economic documents of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, Hebrew responsa, the dispatches of European ambassadors at Constantinople, the letters of Greek religious leaders to their philhellene colleagues in the West, the accounts of European travelers, the records of the English Levant Company, and the judgments of modern Greek and Jewish historians all suggest that the Jews represented an aggressive threat to the economic livelihood of the Greek Orthodox communities in the Ottoman Empire. In the 1480's and 1490's, even before the arrival of the great wave of Iberian Jewish migration, Jews were replacing Greeks as tax-farmers in Rumelia, that is roughly present-day Thrace and Macedonia. By the 1520's Jews had become the majority element in Salonica, the largest city of what might be loosely called the Greek heartland. The questions of Hebrew responsa literature contain numerous incidents of attacks upon Jews in Greek-speaking areas. Of course these attacks are indicative of a general lawlessness in the highways and byways of the Empire, but in some instances they suggest specific anti-Jewish feeling among the native population. The dispatches of European ambassadors, Florentine, French, Venetian, and English show numerous instances of Jewish penetration into and occasionally control of Ottoman trade with the West, a trade in which Greeks had traditionally played an important role. The letters of Orthodox religious leaders which Martin Crusius collected, annotated, and published in Basle in 1584 contain references to the poverty of the Greeks as opposed to the wealth of the Jews. Crusius's friend Stephen Gerlach returned from his embassy to the Ottoman Empire with similar reports. The records of the English Levant Company indicate that by the 1620's practically all of its trade in Constantinople passed through the hands of Jews. Apostolos E. Vakalopoulos, the leading historian of modern Greece, and Shmuel Rosanes, though working from different perspectives and very different sources, both indicate that these centuries were characterized by Greek-Jewish hostility. The Syntomos pragmateia kata loudaion may thus be seen as an attempt to rally Greek Orthodox religious pride against the increasingly effective competition of the Jewish subjects of the Ottoman Empire.

14

Origin of Midrash: Prolegmenon to the Extant Halakhic Midrashim by Ben Zion Wacholder (Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion) This paper outlines new views as to the origin and development of Midrash. Midrash as used here refers to Midrash Halakhah, the Rabbinic system of hermeneutics that extracted from, or appended to, the Torah's verses the Halakhah. Although the Mishnah contains bits of Midrash Halakhah, and the Talmuds have a large number of them, it is the collections on the Torah that are overwhelmingly devoted to this type of exegesis: the Mekhilta on Exodus, Torat Kohanim (Sifra) on Leviticus, and Sifre on Numbers and Deuteronomy. The putative hypothesis concerning the development of these Halakhic Midrashim, as formulated by Krochmal, Kauffmann, Lauterbach, and J. N. Epstein, may be labeled "evolutionary." This theory draws a sharp distinction between forms used in Midrash and those of the Mishnah. Midrash antedates Mishnah. Ever since Ezra and the Men of the Great Assembly the Soferim (Scribes) extracted new laws from the Torah's passages (Midrash Halakhah), but the dogmatic formulation of laws without any proof texts (Mishnah) was introduced only during the early Maccabean period. Rabbi Ishmael and Rabbi Akiba (100-135) and their respective schools, according to current theory, developed parallel but divergent systems of Halakhic Midrash. R. Ishmael and his disciples attempted to stay within the limits of herementutic rules (Middot) that were employed to extract the contextual meaning from the Scriptural text (Peshat); Akiba's school used less stringent Middot, moving away farther from the basic and archeological meaning of passages. Some of the extant collections emanate from one or the other of these Rabbinic schools: Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael on Exodus, Sifre on Numbers, from Ishmael's school; Sifra on Leviticus and Sifre on Deuteronomy, from Akiba. A similar division of sources is assigned to the other so-called Tannaitic Midrashim, and even to Midrashic Baraithot that are cited only in the Talmuds. The new hypothesis presented here views the current theories on the development of Midrash Halakah as either unproven or contrary to the available evidence. There seems in fact to be no proof that the Mishnaic form of presenting the Halakhah developed later than that of Midrash. Columns 9-13 of the Damascus Documents of Qumran suggest that both the Midrashic and Mishnaic forms of Halakhah flourished side by side quite early. But whichever was the antecedent of these two forms of Halakhah, these questions have little, if anything, to do with the origin or development of the extant Midrashic collections. For the subject matter found in the Halakhic collections reflects not as is now assumed a pre-Mishnaic, but a post-Mishnaic formulation of the traditional law. An analysis of the Sifra (Torat Kohanim) and the Mekhilta suggests that their basic purpose was to teach the Mishnah. The authors of these works did so by showing many Mishnaic traditions were in fact implied in the Divine Torah. The term Yakhol, "It might be thought", rejects a potential interpretation that is contrary to the Mishnaic Halakhah; every Minayyin, "whence (do we know a halakhah)" refers to a statement formulated in the Mishnah. In fact, the Halakhic collections have the same function in relation to the Mishnah and Scrip-

ture as does Talmudic dialectic to the Mishnah. The Mishnah presupposed in the Halakhic Midrashim reflects basically the Mishnaic text of R. Judah Hanasi, plus many halakhot that have been otherwise lost or cited in the Talmuds. If this basic assumption is correct, it follows that although the Halakhic Midrashim include material that is contemporary with the 1 Mishnah, it also incorporates subject matter that was developed later than the "publication" of Judah Hanasi's Mishnah. The hypothesis that both our Mishnah and the Halakhic Midrashim are citing "the early" pre-Judah Hanasi Mishnah seems unacceptable; for if so, the wording of the Halakhah in the respective works would probably diverge more substantially than it does now. The almost identical formulation of the material in the Sifra and the Mishnah reflects a clear interdependence. And since the Mishnah rarely, if at all, quotes the Halakhic Midrash; and the Sifra and Mekhilta constantly cite our Mishnah (mi-kan ameru), we must assume that all Halakhic collections, and especially the Mekhilta, are by and large post-Mishnaic treatises. Now if the publication of R. Judah Hanasi's Mishnah marks the end of the Tannaitic period, the Halakhic Midrashim that serve as kind of Mishnaic commentary on Scripture, cannot be regarded as Tannaitic on the same level. The same is true j of the numerous Baraithot, cited in the Babli and Yerushalmi, whose basic formulation reflects a wish to interpret the Mishnah. By current definition of "tannaitic," these Baraithot, like the bulk of the Halakhic Midrashim, are Amoraic and some occasionally even j of Sabboraic origin, formulation, and edition. The term "Tannaitic" needs a redefinition. The current view that I "Tannaitic" refers only to statements uttered to about 200 C.E. is . too narrow. The Talmuds cite numerous Amoraim with the term ; tanna (teaches) or tene (taught), attributing to these statements a linguistic and authoritative formulation that had been characteristic . of the Tannaim. In the Mishnah, the treatise Abot consists of five chapters; the Sidur has a sixth chapter, which is introduced by: Shanu Hakhamin bi-leshon ha-Mishnah. "The Sages taught in the 'language', i.e., the formulation, of the Mishnah." Although authored by the Amoraim, such Tannaitic statements were attributed to the pre-Amoraic sages. This seems to account for the fact that the Halakhic Midrashim, which had originated in the second century but whose full development was not attained until in the fourth and perhaps fifth centuries, cite Sages who had lived in Mishnaic times only. But even within the Halakhic Midrashim, there exists an earlier and a later stage of development. Of the extant Midrashim, the Sifra (Torat Kohanim), which scholars mistakenly attribute to Akiba's school exclusively, reflects an earlier development of Midrash Halakah than does the hermeneutics found in the Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael on Exodus and the Sifre on Numbers. The differences in style and exegesis between the two sets of Halakhic Midrashim was due, as shown by Albeck, not to the divergence between the Ishmael's and Akiban's schools, but to a general development of Rabbinic hermeneutics: from a relatively simple but unrestricted Midrashic form, developed in the second centuries, to a system of exegesis governed by Middot, requiring, for example, every KalVa-Homer to be "unchallengeable" and that every GezerahShavah employ only grammatically otiose words.

15

Midrashic Literature in the Neo-Aramaic Dialects of the Jews of Kurdistan by Yona Sabar (University of California at Los Angeles) The manuscripts originating out of Kurdistan include a large number of midrasim in the vernacular Neo-Aramaic dialects of the Kurdish Jews. The preserved manuscripts were copied in the 17th century, in the towns Nerva and Amidya, near the border of Turkey and Iraq. They include three major midrasim to the Parasot wayhi, Besallah and Yitro, and many small ones to the Haptarot of some special sabbatot and Holidays (Pesah, Savu'ot) or fasting days (Yom Kippur, the 9th of Ab). In my paper I will discuss mainly the three major midrasim, and in particular, the one on Besallah, which is the subject of my forthcoming book. The original text, of which these homilies may be a translation, as well as their author or redactor, remain unknown. They were probably compiled from different old (i.e., Mekhiltot, Midrash Rabbah, etc.) and new — some with qabbalistic influence — midrasim, ca. the 14th century, when a number of similar Biblical homiletic commentaries, such as Bahya's, and variousyalqutim were redacted by the Rabbis of Spain. Our homilies belong to the Yalqut type, i.e, the pertinent midrasim gleaned from various sources are redacted under the headings of the Biblical verses. It may very well be that these homilies found so far in manuscripts were part of a larger collection which has not been preserved. The midrashic sources of our homilies are almost never indicated. The homilies in their present redaction cannot be traced to any single known source. This being the case, efforts were made to trace the individual homilies in the hitherto known midrashic sources. These, however, are rarely similar in the wording or scope of the story to our Neo-Aramaic text. In most cases our text merely echoes the other sources, with the anonymous redactor or darsan doing an excellent job of putting together various pertinent homilies to each Biblical verse and redacting them into one organic unit, largely expanding each homily, or just the reverse: omitting details which are not pertinent, to make it palatable to his particular audience. For a few homilies no parallel, however remote, could be found in the available sources, and they may be altogether original. Some could be found only in one or two rare sources. The Neo-Aramaic homilies were used by Hakhamin in their weekly derasa ( " s e r m o n " ) in Synagogue on Sabbath afternoon. The translation into the vernacular Neo-Aramaic was necessary, as most of the audience knew very little Hebrew (cf. the phrase qorfn bilson hoi kede seyyavTnu, which appears on one of the manuscripts). The weekly sermon had a strong impact and played a significant role in the religious-national edification of the masses, and imparted ethical principles and devotion to the faith of the forefathers. The general contents of the homilies consist of tales and legends on well-known characters of ancient Jewish literature, plus embellishments from the local Jewish-Kurdish folklore and realia. From

the Biblical period, the most prominent characters are Moses, the Forefathers and Joseph, but others, such as Judah, Job, and many more, have their share as well. From the post-Biblical period the stories on the conversion of Onqelos (in the homily on Betallah) and Bar-Qappara's mission to an emperor to reduce a decree against the Jews (in the homily on Yitro) are the most dramatically elaborated. Tales of demons and angels are included as well, together with many commentaries on the Biblical verses per se. But, of course, the main hero throughout t h e m i d r a s f m is the Almighty God Himself. ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

^ ^ ^ ^ ^

^ ^

^

Josephus in Galilee and Rome: His Vita and Development as a Historian by Shaye J.D. Cohen (Jewish Theological Seminary of America) Flavius Josephus fought the Romans in Galilee in 66-67 C.E. and twice described his actions and policies, first in his general history, the Jewish War, then, fifteen or twenty years later, in his Vita. The two accounts do not agree. Many details are narrated differently and the order of the episodes differs. How can this be explained? Since the author is describing events in which he himself was a leading participant, access to new sources of information is an irrelevant consideration. We must ask: what is the literary relationship of the two texts? what are the methods and motives of each text? Only after we have answered these questions can we attempt to reconstruct what occurred in Galilee in 66-67. Non-Josephan sources do not help much and previous research has not reached a consensus. A study of Josephus' methods when dealing with written sources (the Bible, Esdras, Aristeas, I Maccabees) and when treating the same material twice (in the War I-II and Antiquities XIII-XX), suggests that the Vita and the parallel sections in the War are based on a written document, an outline or sketch of the Galilean war prepared by Josephus before writing his War. All ancient historians were expected to draw up such a hypomnema and to use it as the basis of their literary work. The Vita accurately reflects the chronological structure of this source, the War rearranges it thematically. Similarly, in the parallel passages of Antiquities XV-XVI and War I, both based on the work of Nicolaus of Damascus, the Antiquities retains the chronological order of the source while the War rearranges it thematically. We turn now to the motives of each work. The sections of the War that parallel the Vita have two main motives; to portray Josephus as an ideal general (popular, noble, ingenious, loyal) and to defend him and his aristocratic colleagues from the charge of fomenting war. Josephus does not disguise the fact that they led the war for a brief period but he claims that they had nothing in common with the tyrants who precipitated the conflict and necessitated its catastrophic conclusion. Thus the war's beginning and end are the responsibility of a small band of crazed fanatics; in the middle is a Continued on page 16

Samuel's Commentary on the Mishnah: Its Nature, Forms, and Content by Baruch M. Bokser (University of California-Berkeley) This paper discusses a Ph.D. dissertation completed at Brown University (April, 1974), a revised and expanded version of which was published by Brill (Leiden, 1975). What was the nature of the expansion of the rabbinic movement in third century Babylonia, at the beginning of the Amoraic period? To what degree did the masters draw their teachings from Mishnah, edited in Eres Yisrael, and how did they formulate those teachings? What constituted the "Babylonian" tradition, whether deriving from earlier Jewish circles or from local Iranian practices and law? Writers have recognized the centrality of these issues in the history of Judaism but have not devised ways by which to find conclusive answers. An approach, however, is available through the use of literary criticism of Talmud, in which the teachings of masters of the third through the sixth centuries are embedded. Scholars have refined methods to isolate a sugya's component parts and strata, to separate secondary additions and revisions made to earlier traditions, and to uncover redactional considerations which affect the teaching's formulation. They have focused upon the modes in which the mishnaic materials are formulated. The present study adapts these methodologies so as to directly face the wider questions. It takes up Jacob Neusner's suggestion, in his History of the Jews of Babylonia, that first generation masters may have produced a Mishnah-commentary. The writer selected the sources attributed to Samuel that deal with Mishnah. To test the method, he chose a self contained group of sources, comments that deal with mishnayot in the Order of Zera'im. The results vindicated the undertaking. First, the literary study provided viable data and tentative conclusions. The traditions represent the remnants of a sustained effort at commentating on Mishnah. 1 Certain items use fixed stereotyped phrasings for specific purposes, e.g., brief phrases which are incomprehensible without Mishnah and which delineate circumstances of a case are prefaced by a B- form; undoubtedly they are meant to circulate along with Mishnah. The longer comments are those that are usually transmitted by a tradent and which would have been cumbersome to circulate as a gloss along with the text of Mishnah. Secondly, the research has implications: The disciplined use of literary criticism sheds light on the editing of the first stratum of gemara. The approach accords with the requirement that one must analyze the compilation and redaction of gemara on the basis of materials incorporated withinge/nara itself. The presenece of forms provides an additional tool to isolate the most fundamental formulation of a tradition and to differentiate between earlier and later formulations. 2 This is, moreover, important for the history of third Continued on page 23

S.J.D. Cohen (continued from page 15) small oasis of legitimacy where the war was popular and glorious. Only before his appointment and after his capture does Josephus say that the tyrants were in control. The motives of the Vita are more complex. The autobiography, in the main, is a response to Justus of Tiberias who had accused Josephus of being a cruel, rapacious governor and of causing the revolt of Tiberias in 66-67. Justus wanted to clear Tiberias of "warguilt" and so accused Josephus. The Vita refutes these charges but has other motives too, notably the argument, begun in the Antiquities, that the war was the inevitable result of a concatenation of circumstances and was forced upon the unwilling Jewish people. Both Antiquities and Vita, therefore, admit that the Jews of Palestine generally participated in the struggle; contrast the War which, written much sooner after the war, restricts guilt as much as possible to the small bands of revolutionaries. Part of this theory is the Vita s claim that Josephus was sent to Galilee as a representative of the Jerusalem peace party but somehow became involved in a war he opposed. Another common feature of the Vita and Antiquities is their religious viewpoint — their author passes judgment on the religious behavior of others and asserts that he himself has always been a loyal follower of the Pharisees. With this apologetic, absent from the War, Josephus attempted to ingratiate himself into the favor of the Yavnean Rabbis. By now it should be apparent how little we know of the Jewish war of 66-70. Josephus has thoroughly distorted the events and we have no way of checking him. All in all, it seems likely that Josephus was a member of the priestly war party of Eleazar ben Ananias and was sent to Galilee to organize the country for war. His priestly colleagues, first mentioned after the defeat of Cestius, had probably been prominent all along in the sedition. Their motives were varied: some hoped with apocalyptic fervor that God would support the army with the smaller battalions; others hated Rome for suppressing the rights of the aristocracy; others hoped that the Jews and Romans would come to terms before any irreparable damage took place. There must have been other motives too but we cannot know them all. Similarly we cannot know which motive(s) impelled Josephus to go to Galilee. In Galilee Josephus obtained the support of the country peasants and the brigands by exacting money from the former and paying it to the latter. He was opposed, however, by the large cities (notably Sepphoris, Gabara, and Tiberias), the traditonal enemies of the peasants, and by other brigand leaders (notably John of Gischala in upper Galilee) who resented his intrusion into their domain. Most of the populace did not want war and supported none of these conflicting groups. Thus Josephus had the impossible task of fortifying the country and preparing it for war while simultaneously maintaining his delicate position between the brigands and the peasants, overcoming pro-Roman bastions, attacking opponents from Jerusalem and Galilee, and generally trying to arouse a pacific district. It is no surprise that Josephus failed. Vespasian easily overran the entire area. Only Jotapata resisted him, but its resistance is greatly exaggerated by the War.

17

Reassessing Traditions of Controversy between Jesus and the Scribes and Pharisees by Michael J. Cook (Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion) Many scholars, Jewish and Christian, have produced studies on the seminal question of Jesus' alleged controversies with the scribes and Pharisees, as reported in the Gospels. A number of fundamental methodological considerations, however, have been overlooked in the vast majority of these studies, especially studies by Jews. Until these considerations are brought to bear, new analyses of the controversy traditions may merely reproduce errors of the past. Scholars investigating Jesus' alleged opponents have, naturally, utilized the Gospels themselves to determine and define the identity of these leadership groups presumed to have been active in Jesus' time: the scribes, Pharisees, Herodians, Chief Priests, elders, and so on. But did the four Evangelists themselves adequately understand who these groups were?—remarkably, this question has been virtually ignored. Several leadership groups appearing so frequently in the Gospels are never clearly identified; we are uncertain who the "Herodians" or the "elders" were and should feel constrained to question whether the Evangelists could actually distinguish "scribes" from "Pharisees" by any criterion other than their differing names. The frequent assumption is that these groups are not clearly defined or fully described and distinguished because the Evangelists felt no need to clarify what they presumed was already self-evident to their listeners or readers. Conceivably, however, there is a more tenable explanation: the Evangelists themselves were not sure who all these Jewish leadership groups had actually been in Jesus' time and did not define, describe and distinguish them because, in a number of cases, they could not!

It is also conceivable, for that matter, that some of the group titles in the Gospels (e.g., "Chief Priests," "Herodians," "elders") are merely general constructs, i.e., literary devices created by the Evangelists themselves (or their sources themselves), and not truly indicative of specific leadership groups actually functioning in Jesus' time or later. Should we find such imprecision in the Evangelists' use of "Chief Priests," '^Herodians," and "elders," then we must anticipate that some degree of imprecision may likewise attend their presentation of "scribes" and "Pharisees." Careful analysis bears out the above suspicions, and alerts the scholar not to accept Gospel testimony on this subject at face value.

Because the scribes and Pharisees are usually conceived of as forerunners and fashioners of Rabbinic Judaism, these are the Gospel leadership groups engaging the widest interest of both Jewish

and Christian scholars. It has gone generally unnoticed, however, that portrayals of these (and the other) Jewish authority groups in Matthew, Luke and John are essentially but preservation and embellishment of the Marcan account. Scholars who — in attempting to define and distinguish Jewish leadership groups opposing Jesus — refer indiscriminately to all four Gospels for assistance are therefore being injudicious in their use of sources, for Mark's portrayal is determinative of the others. Yet Mark, a Gentile author, removed from the Palestine of Jesus both geographically and chronologically, was himself dependent on sources for his knowledge of Jesus' relations with these groups, or, in some cases, for his knowledge of the groups themselves. The key to discovering the number and nature of these sources lies in the careful analysis of all Marcan controversy passages mentioning either "scribes" or "Pharisees" (or both). Stylistic peculiarities in the way these two groups make appearances in Mark can only be resolved by the positing of three pre-Marcan sources; Mark's accommodation of these three sources to one another, while highly skillful, is nevertheless artificial, and, accordingly, even his presentation of Jesus' controversies with Jewish leaders cannot be trusted by the historian. Other conclusions issue from this reconstruction: 1) that Mark had little idea who "scribes" were; 2) that "Pharisees" and "scribes" in the Gospels are, in their original usage, to be construed as terms referring to but one and the same group — not two separate groups, or one group and a subdivision thereof— but neither the Evangelists nor scholars trusting in them are cognizant of the terms* synonymity; 3) that many passages mentioning "scribes," "elders," or "chief priests" in Mk. 1-13 reflect interpolation by Mark himself, and scholars should no longer be misled by them in reconstructing Jesus' relations with Jewish leaders; and 4) that Jesus' alleged controversies with the Pharisees over the Law of Moses are not historical, in all probability, but rather reflect tensions between the later Church and the Pharisees retrojected from the time of Paul to Jesus' ministry. This is not to say that Jesus engaged in no controversies with religious opponents, but only that the Gospels cannot be used to confirm the occurrence of such disputations or to reconstruct their substance or the identity of the disputants. Also included in this dissertation are two chapters surveying Jewish and Christian scholarship on the following aspects of the subject: 1) "Who Are the Pharisees and Who Are the Scribes in Mark?" 2) " D o the Marcan Controversy Passages Reflect Genuine History?" There is also an appendix demonstrating that the way in which the expression "Son of man" appears in the Gospels (regardless of its meaning) may be analogous to the way in which Mark frequently inserts names of Jewish leadership groups in chapters 1-13.

18

Rabbi Yohanan and Origen on Canticles by Reuven Kimelman (Amherst College) The Rabbinic influence on Origen's exegesis has been highlighted in two major studies. The first was by Yitschak Baer in 1956 and the second by Ephraim E. Urbach in 1961. The link, however, in the transmission of Rabbinic traditions to Origen remains obscure. Origen mentioned having consulted a certain Ioullos patriarchas. H. Graetz identified him with Hillel, the brother of the Patriarch Judah II. G. F. Moore argued that Ioullos is probably a scribal error for Ioullos and referred to the Patriarch Judah II himself. W. Bacher suggested that Origen was also in contact with R. Hoshaya Rabba, the then head of the Caesarean academy. H. Graetz also thought that Origen disputed with R. Simlai, and R. P. C. Hanson guessed that Origen was in contact with R. Simeon b. Lakish. G. Scholem also presumed that Origen was in contact with a member of the Rabbinic academy of Caesarea. This study is not intended to assess the above assertions. They are recorded for the purpose of reflecting the growing scholarly consensus that Origen was in contact with some Rabbi(s). Our purpose is to examine the comments of R. Yohanan and Origen to Canticles to adduce evidence that they were aware of each other's exegetical tendency. The thesis is that R. Yohanan, the amora, led the exegetical battle against Origen's Christologication of the Canticles allegory. For the Rabbis the dramatis personae of the allegory were God and Israel, while for Origen they became Christ and the Church. It is not surprising that R. Yohanan should assume this role. He was the leading sage in Palestine in the middle of the third century. Origen wrote his commentary to Canticles in the early 240's during his stay in Caesarea (231-249?). Within a decade, R. Yohanan achieved pre-eminence as head of the major Rabbinical academy of the day, in Tiberias. R. Yohanan was also the most prominent student of the aforementioned Caesarean R. Hoshaya Rabba. Even after he had achieved prominence on his own in Tiberias, he would continue to pay his respects to his teacher in Caesarea and was even known to have adjudicated in a synagogue there. Several statements of R. Yohanan contain an explicit reference to Christianity. He punned on the Evangelion calling it Avow Gilyon "sinful margin." He also explained that a unit of Temple officials did not fast on Sunday on account of the Christians. And he had a prepared list of answers against anyone who cited certain Biblical verses to impugn the unity of God. Moreover, he probably had a smattering of Greek and, allegedly, recommended teaching it to one's daughter. Finally and most noteworthy, R. Yohanan like Origen located the original setting of Canticles at the Revelation. In Caesarea, the headquarters of Palestinian Christianity, Origen, chief homilist of the Palestinian Church, was delivering, almost daily, public sermons. Much of this material was incorporated into his writings. Caesarea, itself, had a meeting place (odeum) where

religious controversies were held. The odeum is probably to be identified with one of the By Abydan of Rabbinical literature. Professor Lee Levine, in his recent book on Caesarea, has suggested that ' 'the Bible and New Testament as well as other Jewish and Christian writings were deposited here for reference during these exchanges." In Origen's Contra Celsum (circa 248) he mentions his frequent disputes with Jews. In four of these he underscores the fact that the Jews involved were regarded as wise. This seems to refer to the Rabbis who were called "wise-ones" —hakhamin. These disputations were public. Origen recalls that "once in a discussion with some Jews . . . many people were present to judge what was said." It seems that Origen was, at times, bested by the Jews. He himself admits: For as we are so prepared for them in our discussions, they will not, as is their manner, scornfully laugh at Gentile believers for their ignorance of the true reading as they have them. Such disputes may have convinced him to undertake the compilation of the Hexapla. In a letter to Julius Africanus he explains: As I have tried to take account of all the Jewish editions, we ought not to find ourselves quoting for controversial purposes texts which are not in their copies, and conversely, we shall be able to use texts in their copies even if they are not in ours. Given that R. Yohanan and Origen resided in Caesarea in the same period; that both held similar positions in their respective religious communities as dean of the academy and popular preacher; that both had some acquaintance with the other's language; both polemicized against the other's position; that both had similar exegetical interests; and that both understood the setting of Canticles similarly — it is safe to assume that they were aware of each other's exegesis of Canticles and endeavored to counter opposing arguments in their repective teaching. In fact, in Contra Celsum, Origen records his disputant's opinion "that as a result of the scattering of the Jews among the nations many might become proselytes." This position is confirmed by R. Yohanan. The results of this examination of the comments of Origen and R. Yohanan on the first six verses of Canticles (most of Origen on Canticles is lost) shows them differing on five major issues which divided Judaism and Christianity of that period. They are: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

A revelation mediated by Moses versus one arranged by him. The NT versus the Oral Torah as "superseding" Scripture. Christ versus Abraham. The heavenly Jerusalem versus the earthly Jerusalem. Israel being repudiated versus Israel being disciplined.

Note that when these antitheses are juxtaposed to each other they appear as halves of a debate. In light of this and the commonality between the two, as mentioned above, it is safe to conclude that a contemporary Christian-Jewish disputation on the meaning of Canticles is refletcted in the exegesis of Origen and R. Yohanan.

19

BOOK REVIEWS Max Weinreich, Geshikhtefun deryidisher shprakh: bagrifn.faktn, metodn. History of the Yiddish Language: Concepts, Facts, Methods. New York, YIVO Institute for Jewish Research, 1973. 4 vols.: 353, 397, 381, 393 pp. (Yiddish) Reviewed by Janet Hadda (University of California at Los Angeles) The following is less a review than an announcement of a seminal work in the field of Yiddish. In four concisely written volumes, the late Dr. Max Weinreich has succeeded in analyzing major areas of the Yiddish language, bringing to bear years of philological research in Europe and in the United States. Although two full volumes of the History consist of footnotes, Weinreich has managed to structure the remaining two volumes so that they can be easily appreciated and understood even without his illuminating references. Thus the layout and the content of this monumental study are similar in realization: both are broad in scope yet richly detailed, indicating the enormous integrative powers of the author. Weinreich contends that all languages possess unique qualities, and therefore the necessary facts and methodologies for studying them vary as well. The central goal of his own investigation, he continues, is an understanding of the structure of Yiddish. By this he means that the system — or more precisely, the system of systems — that enable Yiddish to function as a whole must be grasped if the language is to be comprehended fully. To this end, Weinreich chooses a global approach for his study; he eschews neither diachronic nor synchronic factors and allows as well for extralinguistic perspectives. The tension resulting from this juxtaposition is summed up best by Weinreich himself: An understanding of the dynamics in the linguistic system today helps us to better understand the functioning of the system in previous periods and in the transition from period to period. The converse is also true: as soon as older material has been incorporated into research, one can learn about the present from it. Similarly, the correlation of linguistic and extralinguistic facts is a key to understanding the entirety of the language in its eternal movement. (I, 46) It might have proved impossible to write in such all-encompassing terms had Weinreich not concentrated on two major aspects of Yiddish, characteristics that touch on all the categories he wishes to study. These are (1) that a basic life-style, derekh ha-shas 'the way of the Talmud,' underlies the formation of Yiddish and (2) that in its essential nature Yiddish is a fusion language. Derekh ha-shas might be thought of as an essentially extralinguistic phenomenon, while fusion appears to be primarily linguistic in scope; in reality, however, both respond to all aspects of Weinreich's global approach. The concept of derekh ha-shas cannot be understood without the knowledge that, in pre-Enlightenment Ashkenaz, all of Jewish life rested on a fundamental relationship with God. There was no split between religious and secular matters. Therefore, if derekh ha-shas — including its secular aspects — is not seen as exclusively religious, it cannot be said that Yiddish is solely the language of religion.

it

The term derekh ha-shas itself, originally used by Rashi specifically in connection with Talmud study, has been broadened by Weinreich to underscore the fact that sacred books were of utmost importance in Ashkenaz. Their vital force lies behind the primary characteristics of derekh ha-shas. This can be seen, for instance, in the fact that legitimation of questionable ideas and practices was accomplished along vertical, instead of horizontal, lines. Stated differently, models for behavior were sought in Jewish sources, often from other eras, rather than in a contemporaneous non-Jewish milieu. This retrospective approach, coupled with an ability to conceive of Jewish chosenness as proceeding until the coming of the Messiah, yielded a view of history that Weinreich has labeled "panchronism," in which past and present are fused, each being capable of shedding light on the other. Since derekh ha-shas is intimately bound up with HebrewAramaic, many traditional elements in the culture are rendered by material that is Hebrew-Aramaic in origin. For instance, Talmudic language (used by Weinreich in its broadest sense) yields the Yiddish terms apikoyres 'heretic,' agmesnefesh 'heartache, aggravation,' akhren akhren khovev 'last but not least;' Biblical language has contributed items such as di muter rokhl 'the matriarch Rachel," ben-bayis 'member of the household, one of the family,' esn funem ets-hadaas 'to eat of the tree of knowledge; to lose one's innocence'; from the world of prayer come the terms mukhn-umzumen 'quite ready,' dayenu 'enough!, that's plenty!' Other realms of traditional Jewish life, such as kabole and khsides also enriched Yiddish. Nevertheless, Hebrew-Aramaic origin terms are far from the only contributors to the language of derekh ha-shas. This is true even of items used to denote specifically Jewish concepts: two cases in point are the words treybern (of Slavic origin) and fleyshik (of Germanic origin), both of which refer to the Jewish dietary laws. Furthermore, since derekh ha-shas encompasses all areas of life, it may appear in linguistic situations that are unconnected to traditional observance. For instance, it is said about a small income that di khale vet nit klekn af der hamoytse, literally 'the hallah will not be sufficient for the blessing said over bread.' Another example is the adjective kofl-shmoynedik 'incontestable.' The term derives originally from the specific number of threads used in tsitses (the undergarment worn by orthodox Jews). The perspective of derekh ha-shas. while it is amply and diversly represented in Yiddish, cannot be found in all linguistic items. No matter how terms are classified, they are likely to alter their original meaning and form once they enter the corpus of Yiddish; at that point they participate in the process of fusion. Fusion is the second major anchor of Weinreich's work and to him it is an essential factor in the structure of Yiddish. A few terms are necessary in order to clarify the concept of fusion. Before the beginnings of Yiddish, there existed a group of languages which, from the vantage point of Yiddish, can be termed stock languages because they contained the raw material for the fusion language Yiddish. By dint of a special - even a unique constellation, certain parts of the raw material began to fuse. The Continued on page 20

20

J. Hadda (continued from page 19)

parts of the stock language that did not touch Yiddish were not involved in its formation. Those elements of the stock languages that participated in fusion or are potentially capable of doing so are called determinants by Weinreich. At the moment of fusion, the determinants (which are still outside the new language in terms of fusion) yield the components of the fusion language, e.g., the Hebrew-Aramaic determinant yields the Hebrew-Aramaic component of Yiddish. The structure of the new language is cemented by an independent systematization and is therefore not identical with the stock languages. It possesses its own system or, as Weinreich puts it, its own system of systems. The four components of Yiddish are: Hebrew-Aramaic, Romance, Germanic, and Slavic. Weinreich's theoretical framework has major implications for both the historical and the contemporary positions of Yiddish. Fusion assumes that the language was an independent entity at the instant that fusion first occurred, regardless of when it received the name Yiddish. Weinreich brings cogent evidence for his contention that the beginnings of Yiddish date back to the ninth century, when Jews from two separate Romance lands moved into an area that he refers to as Loter, roughly delineated by a line reaching from Aachen to Cologne, from Cologne to Mainz, from Mainz through Worms and Speier, from Speier to Metz, from Metz to Trier and from Trier back to Aachen. The existence of a Romance component in modern Yiddish, one that is culled from two sources (e.g., bentshn. from the area of Northern Italy and tsholnt, from the area of Northern France) in addition to evidence of a dual-level Hebrew-Aramaic component (e.g., evidence of a reading system that originated in preAshkenazic times, thus explaining the existence of certain Hebrew-Aramaic component words in which r ispronounced /a/, as in klal, rather than /o/, as in the so-called Ashkenazic pronunciation) prove that Jews who entered Loter never spoke pure Germanic regional variants. In other words, the differentiation occurred before the spread of Jews from Loter into the broader geographical area that Weinreich calls Ashkenaz I and certainly before the movement into Slavic territory (Ashkenaz II). By stating the independence of Yiddish in categorical terms, Weinreich weakens the arguments of scholars who have sought to determine the birth of Yiddish through the evidence of mutual recognition of separateness by Jews and non-Jews, by setting up a special point beyond which Jews can be thought of as speaking Yiddish, or even by means of counting Hebrew-Aramaic lexical items in medieval manuscripts. Weinreich's system underscores the fact that componental statistics can only be successful if they deal with the roots of words. Where, for example, would the word penemer 'faces' fit? The singular, ponem, is a Hebrew-Aramaic component word, but the umlaut /ollu >ellei1li/ (using Weinreich's system of diaphonemes, which are dialectally based) stems from the Germanic determinant. We are already dealing with two components in penemer, even without a discussion of other factors. Weinreich recognizes three types of fusion in Yiddish; the first of these is fusion within a single component. In the Hebrew-Aramaic component, this first type of fusion is effected through a mixture of

the various sorts of Hebrew-Aramaic, e.g., the Hebrew of the Bible,; prayer Hebrew, Enlightenment Hebrew, modern Ivrit. The Romance component experienced inner fusion chiefly through the combining of forms from Western Laaz and Southern Laaz, the names Weinreich uses for the Jewish languages of Northern France and Northern Italy respectively. Within the Germanic component, fusion resulted from a meeting of elements originating in different areas, periods, and social levels, as in the fusion of various forms of hobn 'to have' into a unified paradigm. In the Slavic component, fusion occurred through such factors as the confrontation of different Slavic languages, and dialectal preferences. The second type of fusion distinguished by Weinreich is convergence, wherein phenomena that in various determinants are similar, although not genetically connected, become unified in Yiddish. The Yiddish form greser fun mir 'larger than I", for example, corresponds to a formation in the Hebrew-Aramaic and Slavic determinants, i.e, Hebrew-Aramaic gadol mimeni and Polish wi^kszy ode mnie. Similarly, the Yiddish noun plural suffix l-sl represents an original convergence of Hebrew-Aramaic and Romance plural forms. Weinreich's third class of fusion is manifested in a carry-over from one component to another. The most frequent and clearest form taken by this type of fusion is the use of different component words in one sentence. Another important form in this type of fusion is the compound in which elements of more than one component are seen, e.g., the noun shlimazl 'unlucky person, ne'er-do-well,' derived from shlim (a Germanic component element) and mazl (a Hebrew-Aramaic component element), or the compound leyentsimer 'reading room,' where leyen stems from the Romance component and tsimer from the Germanic component of Yiddish. Weinreich stresses throughout his work the total integration of fusion into the structure of Yiddish. Nowhere is this more easily observed than in connection with compounds, where it is necessary to study not only the elements themselves, but also the mechanism of formation. In one type of compound, from the Germanic determinant, the basic meaning rests in the second element, and the first element modifies the second. It is possible for a compound to be constructed this way even if neither element is from the Germanic component, e.g., khasene-matones 'wedding gifts,' or mishpokhesoydes 'secrets that are kept within the boundaries of the family.' It goes without saying, of course, that entire determinants were not incorporated into Yiddish but that, instead, a process of selectivity occurred. Selectivity, like fusion, is evident throughout the structure of the language. Its importance is at least two-fold and in consonance with some of Weinreich's major concerns: first, it underscores the independence of Yiddish, because the mere presence of a feature in a determinant will not insure its presence in the fusion language. Second, it is of historical interest to study the process of selectivity in order to investigate the dynamic that caused certain elements to be included in Yiddish and others to be left out. It is difficult to judge relative merit in a work of such enormous scope as Weinreich's History, but surely one of his major attainments is his construction of a set of proto-vowels for Yiddish. The system is a theoretical achievement, one that has significance for both the synchronic and diachronic approaches to Yiddish.

21

Moreover, in Weinreich's own opinion, "the necessity and possibility of constructing the proto scheme of Yiddish vocalism" is the "clearest manifestation of fusion in Yiddish." (11,321) Yiddish consists of a number of co-dialects, according to Weinreich. By this he means that, merely through certain phonetic comparisons, a speaker of one dialect can theoretically transfer into another dialect. Because of this, it is possible to set up a system of what Weinreich terms diaphonemes, comprised of these relevant correspondences. The diaphonemes help us in charting the present. Things are more complicated when it comes to the past, however. The vowels ofmon 'poppy; poppy seed,' dos 'the (neuter); this,' vos 'what; which; that' are all represented by the diaphoneme/o ilu Ju: / in modern Eastern Yiddish. How, though, are we to understand the fact that in Western Yiddish the vowel of mon is/o: ou/, while the vowels of dos and vos are, in some areas of Western Yiddish, rendered by /a/? A look at the determinants of Yiddish shows us that the vowels in words of the type mon stem from vowels that were originally long and remained long and the vowels of dos, vos were originally short in the determinant languages and subsequently became long. The vowels of dos and mon can then be seen to differ in their origin. Weinreich constructs (as opposed to reconstructs) a system of proto-vowels in order to avoid historical errors; moreover, Weinreich's concept of proto-vowels enables him to postulate the underlying cohesiveness of Yiddish, despite its actual mutability as a result of changes in time and space. In terms of fusion, too, the proto-vowels are important, for in Weinreich's system it does not matter from which determinant the words stem: they all respond to the same classification. Besides providing the ultimate proof of fusion, the proto-vowels also underscore the independence of Yiddish, because they remove the necessity of dealing with the stock languages in areas where they are not helpful in understanding Yiddish and, on the other hand, they permit the combining of phenomena that are uniquely connected in Yiddish. Weinreich's main purpose throughout his work is, of course, to provide a scholarly understanding of the Yiddish language as it was developed in its specifically Jewish milieu. But an important corollary contribution of his work concerns Jewish languages in general. For by placing Yiddish within the realm of other Jewish languages, and Ashkenaz within the realm of other Jewish communities, Weinreich succeeds in formulating certain key concepts, and with these he posits what he calls Jewish interlinguistics. The underlying link between all Jewish languages is that they belong to subgroups of a main group, namely Jews. Beyond that, Jewish languages have several characteristics in common:

1. Jewish languages are fusion languages. 2. Hebrew-Aramaic is the first component in a Jewish language because it is the oldest component in any Jewish community.

3. The second component emerges from the language spoken previous to the formation of the new tongue (e.g., the Romance component of Yiddish). 4. The third component is culled from the non-Jewish co-territorial language current at the time of the formation of the language. Jewish languages can be grouped into two categories as they undergo the process of fusion: either the community stays in one place and speakers of a non-Jewish language come to it or the community consolidates itself on new territory and forms a language there. A non-Jewish co-territorial language is essential in the formation of a Jewish language, Weinreich claims. Still, Jews always exercised selectivity in the formation of their languages, never taking over the co-territorial language in its entirety. The degree of independence achieved varies amongst Jewish languages and is connected to a variety of factors, such as the degree of fusion and systematization in the language, the degree of social differentiation and literary sophistication in the community, and the level of its scholarly accomplishments. With the common denominators and variables set down, Weinreich envisions a typology of Jewish languages, with a set of algebraic-like symbols (e.g., component, non-Jewish correlate) that could be formed into a set of formulae to systematize and clarify the information already at hand. More and clearer knowledge of Jewish languages would help yield insight into such current Jewish interlinguistic problems as polygenesis, and borrowing between subgroups. Weinreich states that concentration on Jewish interlinguistics can benefit the fields of Jewish scholarship and general linguistics. He has in fact led the way in both areas by stressing the point that Jewish languages as a group — not just Yiddish — deserve to be investigated as worthy areas of scholarship. They are not simply alternative speech varieties, they are individual languages that form a unity by dint of common structural characteristics and common roots in a Jewish community. Two volumes of Weinreich's work are currently at press in an English translation, with an index, by Dr. Shlomo Noble and are expected to be released sometime in 1976. A comprehensive Yiddish index will also appear in the future. When these aids to reading Weinreich's History become available, the accessibility of scholarly information about Yiddish will be broadened greatly. Even now, however, Weinreich has done much to destroy stereotypes that the field of Yiddish has been forced to confront unceasingly. No longer will it be possible to think of Yiddish as a dialect or, perhaps worse, as a "zhargon." No longer will the world of the Ashkenazic community be dismissed as insignificant, worthy only of nostalgic glances and necrologies. Instead, Yiddish must at last be viewed in its proper perspective, not only as a language with a rich and complex history, but also as a language capable of yielding valuable information and insights regarding contemporary questions.

Prophets and Intellectuals in the Bible by Ziony Zevit (The University of Judaism) R.V. Bergren, The Prophets and the Law. Cincinnati, Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, 1974. xv, 231 pp. (Monographs of the Hebrew Union College, No. IV). J.L. Crenshaw, Prophetic Conflict. Berlin, Walter deGruyter, 1971. xiv, 134 pp. (BZAW 124). R.N. Whybray, The Intellectual Tradition in the Old Testament. Berlin, Walter de Gruyter, 1974. xii, 158 pp. (BZAW 135). The historical and prophetic books of the Bible inform us that the prophets were common figures in ancient Israelite society (e.g. I Ki 18:4; 19:10; Jer 3:9-40; Am 2:11-12; Zach 12:4). Although there is no way of estimating their number at any one time, it is noteworthy that Ahab was able to muster 400 at Samaria on short notice for consultation (I Ki 22:6). Assuming this number to represent the sum of Israelite prophets, and estimating a total population of 500,000 for Israel at that time, the ratio of prophets to Israelites was approximately 1:1,250.1 This figure indicates a relatively high social visibility. Prophets appear to have served the people, often for some remunerative consideration, as clairvoyants (I Sam 9:6); they were consulted on problems related to health (I Ki 14:1; 17:17-24; 20:1-7; II Ki 5:1-19; 8:9); they were sought out as advisors for personal as well as for national problems (II Sam 7:1-3; II Ki 4:1; 19:1-7; Jer 38:14-28).2 In addition, there were some, most likely a small but vocal minority, who spoke out against what they conceived to be the moral, religious, and ethical corruption of Israelite society, warning against the consequences which such corruption would incur. Since the presupposition underlying the arcane art of prophecy was that certain individuals are endowed with the ability to communicate divinely imparted information concerning developments in the immediate future, the prestige of a prophet resided on his demonstrated ability to predict correctly. It was therefore inevitable that when two prophets communicated contradictory prognostications concerning the same topic, prophetic conflict would result. J. L. Crenshaw's book attempts to analyze the background and theological implications of this conflict only insofar as it affected the few who spoke out on the national destiny. After an introductory first chapter summarizing scholarly discussion about Israelite prophecy in general and false prophecy, Crenshaw describes the popular theology of Israel which formed the background to the conflict. This vox populi was characterized in good times by 1) confidence in God's faithfulness, 2) satisfaction with traditional religion, 3) defiance in the face of prophets who maintained a different view, and in bad times by 4) despair when hope seemed dead, 5) doubt as to the justice of God, and 6) historical pragmatism, a willingness to forsake God when he was deemed ineffective (cf. Jer 44:16-19). In Chapter III, after a detailed discussion of I Ki 13, Crenshaw observes that it was (and is) difficult to distinguish between true and false prophets because both asserted the divine origin of their words and because there was no valid criterion not only for distinguishing the true from the false prophet but also the true from the false prophesy since false prophesies could also be attributed to God (ch. IV section B, cf. I Ki 22:1-40).

Given the natural desire of a prophet for success which he understands as the "authentic expression of hope that God's word is trustworthy" (ch. IV, p. 65), Crenshaw argues that false prophecy was inevitable. Among the forces which led to false prophecy he identifies royal pressure, the vox populi, the power of the concept of an elect people, and the emergence of individualism. Crenshaw characterizes the false prophets as men who influenced by these forces did not quite realize that the word which they heard and spoke was not that of God (ch. IV). In a final chaper, he examines the "almost complete failure of the prophetic message to find root in the mind and actions of the hearers" and attributes this to the inability of true prophets to validate their messages. This is followed by a short conclusion, one excursus on false prophecy in the New Testament and another on the problem of authority in wisdom and prophetic literature. Crenshaw's contribution lies in his analysis of the social, psychological, and theological forces at work on the Israelite prophets which undoubtedly led to conflict among those driven to speak on the fate of the nation. A disturbing feature of this study, however, is the author's pre-judgment that the true prophets who resisted these forces are those upon whom biblical historiography rendered positive judgment, e.g. Micaiah, Elijah etc., and those whose books have become canonical. He appears to assume that these prophets were not influenced by the cultural and intellectual milieu in which they lived. Crenshaw's unfortunate decision to employ the terms " t r u e " and " f a l s e " as labels for the parties involved in conflict articulates a contemporary theology and abdicates an historical, anthropological perspective. The " t r u t h " of the canonical prophets more likely resided in their proven ability to foretell the immediate future (Is 28:1-6; 30:8; Jer 17:15; 28:15-17; Ez4:1-5:17; 33:33; cf. Deut 18:22) which convinced certain contemporary groups that their explanations for these disasters as well as their long-range predictions were of divine orgin. 3 We may refer to the editorial introduction in Amos 1:1, "The words of Amos . . . two years before the earthquake," which indicates that the editor understood the prophet to predict a famous earthquake (cf. Zach 14:5) before it occurred (Am 3:14-15; 6:11; 8:8). Some of these groups passed on edited collections of the oracles to the exilic and post-exilic community which in turn preserved and transmitted those collections which were consistent with their theology and eschatology. R. V. Bergren's published dissertation suggests an additional factor which may have influenced the winnowing of acceptable prophetic collections. 4 An examination of the accusation sections of prophetical judgment speeches in Amos, Micah, Isaiah, and Jeremiah indicates that the prophets presupposed a standard to which the accused are bound (introduction). This standard, identified as "the law in the prophets," corresponds to apodictic law ir the Pentateuch (ch. I) s which must be enforced ultimately by God because it is part of the covenant. The announced punishments are no more than the threatened actualization of treaty curses (ch. II) or the treaty people, Israel (ch. Ill), which is culpable because it ha; not punished the individual violators of this legislation (ch. IV). Th< book ends with a concluding summary (ch. V). Continued on page 2*

23

A Hebrew Abridgment of R. Judah ben Nissim Ibn Malka's Commentary on the Book of Creation. Edited by G. Vajda. Ramat-Gan, Bar-Ilan University, 1974. x, 53 pp. (Texts and Studies in the History and Culture of the Jews in the Orient, edited by H. Z. Hirschberg, volume two). Reviewed by Lawrence V. Berman (Stanford University) Judah Ibn Malka lived in the fourteenth century, probably in Fez, and is a rare representative of intellectual circles in the " W e s t " writing in Judaeo-Arabic in the post-Maimonidean period. His world view is most strikingly set off from other Jewish thinkers by his acceptance of the doctrine of astral determinism. He also firmly believed in the identification of Kabbalistic doctrines with what he took to be the teachings of reason. Both of these tendencies come to the fore in the introduction to his commentary on the Book of Creation (Sefer Yezirah). The introduction, usually treated as a separate work, is called Uns al-gharlb in Arabic which means "The Consolation of the Stranger." The stranger is the soul considered foreign to this world of matter. The estrangement of the soul has very strong Neoplatonic associations which come out quite clearly here, as well as in the commentary to the Book of Creation itself. The work presently under review is an abridged Hebrew translation of these two works by some anonymous individual. It was composed, apparently, at a time in which Judaeo-Arabic was not the medium of intellectual discourse or for people who were not conversant with Judaeo-Arabic. It seems a reasonable possibility tha' individuals coming from Spain whose language of culture was He brew and, possibly, Latin might have asked some individual to summarize the book for them so that they might acquire some idea of Moroccan intellectual activity. The Book of Creation is a short work, not running over two thousand words in even its longest version, dealing with cosmogony and cosmology of a clearly mystical nature. It was composed in great part between the third and sixth centuries C. E., apparently in Palestine, and has served as a source of commentary and meditation up to the present day (see most recently G. Scholem, Kabbalah, New York, 1974, pp. 21-30). Ibn Malka tries to relate the work to his own world view through the medium of his introduction and commentary. He quotes from the Rabbis, Plato, Hermes, Aristotle, and Pythagoras among others. Just from this list of names one becomes aware of the eclectic nature of his system, as well as his attempt to reconcile the Jewish tradition with his own concepts. Scholem mentions the possibility of the Book of Creation having incorporated Stoic and Pythagorean elements in antiquity. Here Ibn Malka is part of the living continuation of these strands of Greek thought so that original Hellenistic and Arabo-Hellenistic elements converge. In the abridgment, the introduction consists of two parts, a dialogue between a sage and his disciple in which the determining influence of the stars on human activity is discussed and a second part of ten introductory premises (haqdamot) on the highest exemplar for man, the metaphysical philosopher. An elitist attitude to the multitude comes out quite clearly, common in texts of this nature. The function of wisdom, or philosophy in Ibn Malka's understanding of the term, is soteriological in nature. Only it affords final salvation and freedom from the thrall of matter. Thus, the common

political doctrine of the philosophers is mentioned which understands scripture as a means to an end, essentially being directed toward the training of the multitude in moral perfection, without any intrinsic value. The commentary to the Book of Creation itself follows the line of Neoplatonic and astrological interpretation. Vajda suggests in his introduction that the abridger had in mind the concealment of the astrological doctrine of determinism because it is not consonant with the apparently prevailing Jewish view of man's freedom of choice. He thinks the abridger was not successful in his attempt because he did not cut out enough. However, isn't it perhaps possible that the abridger left in the astrological material because he accepted it and wanted to hint at the "higher" doctrine? There were people within the high Jewish tradition who held astrological doctrines, notably Abraham Ibn Ezra. And, of course, Maimonides' well-known letter to the Rabbis of Southern France indicates how widely astrological beliefs were held. Further, the popular belief in the influence of the stars must have been common. In any case, a full examination of this question will have to await the edition of the full Arabic text, studied by Vajda exhaustively elsewhere, but not yet published. To conclude, we are indebted to Professor Vajda and Bar-Ilan University for their publication of this precious and unusual reflection of Jewish intellectual life in the " W e s t " in the later middle ages. * * * * * * * *

A few remarks on the text follow: curious use of lo yesh passim derives from the Arabic laysa; p. 22.17 should be u-me-ha-avanim; p. 24.12 k-t-b should be k-k-b; p. 39.4 should be hamzagat; p. 51.4 he-amur should be ha-gamur, cf. below line 19.

B.M. Bokser (continued from page 16)

century Judaism. We may now see what aspects of Samuel's teachings different generations found important. For example, Samuel appeared first as an exegete of Mishnah and secondly (later) as an expounder of halakhah. Reports as to Samuel's ruling on a dispute in Mishnah include the name of the tradent since that citation probably had normative overtones. Samuel set much of his aggendum on the basis of Mishnah, such that even where he disagrees with Mishnah, he may formulate the matter in terms of Mishnah. This datum provides a criterion by which to determine which areas of teachings do not depend upon, and therefore probably do not derive from, mishnaic sources. The work also enables one to gauge intellectual - literary ' 'creativity." Eventually once one assembles all data, one may see if new modes are used to set forth teachings. Moreover, one may see if certain legal principles emplpyed in explaining Mishnah, e.g., subjective or objective criteria to define the status of an object or person, are present in different areas of halakhah and thus represent true "principles." With the methodologies developed in the study, one may hope to uncover firm data which may then yield definitive results concerning the wider issues. •Fifty-one separate items that deal with forty-one different mishnayoi are found in y. Zera'im and dispersed in twelve tractates of Bavli. 'Comparisons of analogous pericopae in Bavli and Yemshalmi proved useful in this matter.

24

Z. Zevit (continued from page 22) Bergren's study is straightforward, critically utilizing all of the recent advances in form criticism and treaty terminology as the basis for its conclusions. Although I have hesitation about some of the points which he raised, the weight of the evidence and the soundness of his argument convincingly establish his thesis for the four prophets which he thoroughly investigated. Additional work will determine whether or not it is valid for all of the canonical prophets. Bergren's thesis suggests that perhaps in the exilic and post-exilic Jewish community, a collection of ancient " t r u e " prophesies was expected to conform to the spirit and language of (apodictic) Torah legislation which was theoretically the law of the restored community. 8 R. N. Whybray's study may be described as a frontal attack on a number of scholarly constructs concerning the wisdom tradition in pre-exilic Israel. For the author, it represents a departure from some of the positions which he advocated in his earlier publications. After a brief but inconclusive survey of contemporary discussions of Israelite wisdom (ch. I), Whybray precedes to define wisdom, i.e. hokma, as " a superior degree of intelligence, natural or acquired, which confers 'life'" (pp. 9, 11) and to demonstrate that this definition is applicable wherever the words hfikam, hokma or their cognates occur (ch. II, part I). He concludes that a close reading of passages which have been used to demonstrate the existence of a professional class called hakamTm do not indicate the presence of such a class neither as royal advisers, political counsellors, writers, nor as teachers. This conclusion forces a reevaluation of the notion that there were schools with professional teachers in Israel. Whybray's results here are inconclusive: there is no direct reference to such an institution. Arguments to the contrary are based on inference from the existence of Hebrew literature which must have been recorded and edited by trained individuals, from analogy with attested formal schools in Egypt and in Mesopotamia, from the obvious need of a royal administration for a competent secretariat, and from the similarities between Israelite and foreign wisdom (ch. II, part II). In order to explain the existence of wisdom literature in Israel, Whybray suggests that there was a small, educated, wealthy class interested in the perennial problems of human existence. These men

communicated with each other; some recorded their observations which others read for edification. The oral and literary ruminations of this group are what the author identifies as the "intellectual tradition" of Israel (ch. III). Whybray's attempt to identify this tradition through an examination of its distinctive vocabulary (ch. IV) — a project which fills almost one-half of the book — does not lead to any definite conclusion, a fact of which the author himself is fully cognizant (p. 155). Whybray has almost nothing to say about the "intellectual tradition." Did it represent a class bias? What was its attitude towards the issues which concerned it? Can it be characterized as having certain historiosophical and theological parameters? Had Whybray utilized the vocabulary lists and analyses which he amassed for z description of the semantic fields of "intellectual activities and characteristics," he might have been able to determine how the "intellectual tradition" influenced traditional terminology and why it apparently developed some technical vocabulary: bina, ba'ar, kes'il, les, leqah, etc. Approached with some linguistic sophistication, Whybray's ch. IV remains a potential gold mine. The first half of Whybray's book must lead to a reevaluation oig contemporary notions about the official, established position ol, biblical wisdom. A final synthesis, however, will ultimately be;, closer to the positions which Whybray attacks than to the ill-defined . one which he advances. They take into consideration evidence • concerning the social and cultural context of wisdom from contem- . porary cultures adjacent to Israel, and they are not reluctant to draw historical inferences when the attested evidence warrants them. 1.

Compare the following doctor-patient ratios as of 1972: California 1:500; U.S.A., 1:575; Israel, 1:400.

2.

The legendary form of some of these passages does not detract fron their worth as popular presentations of the prophetic role. Cf. A. Rofe JBL 89 (1970), 427-440.

3.

Crenshaw touches upon the issue of "authority which hearers are will ing to grant the speaker" in Excursus B, p. 123 note 50.

4.

R. V. Bergren died a few days before the appearance of his book.

5.

A comparative chart listing accusations and the corresponding legisli * tion in the Pentateuch is presented on pp. 182-183.

6.

Cf. D. N. Freedman, "The Law and the Prophets," SVT 9 (1962 259-265.

ASSOCIATION FOR JEWISH STUDIES Widener Library M Harvard University Cambridge, Mass. 02138