The Dialogical Beast. The Identification of Rome with the Pig in Early Rabbinic Literature (PhD thesis, March 2013)

Misgav Har-Peled

While a finding of pig remains has often been regarded in Iron Age archaeological studies as an indication of the inhabitants' identity, several recent zooarchaeological studies have shown that the archaeological record is more complex, and that pig remains cannot serve as an identity marker. The textual evidence analyzed in this paper supports this direction and suggests a discussion of a multistage development process leading up to various expressions of the pig taboo in ancient Israelite belief. While in the Pentateuch pigs are mentioned alongside other impure animals and are not accorded excessive impurity amongst them, the textual sources indicate that pigs received a special status and became an identity marker only from the Greco-Roman period onwards. This paper also shows that during this period even the word "pig" became taboo in certain instances, as seen from three texts preserved in the LXX of Samuel-Kings (1-4 Kingdoms) but missing from the MT.

Pork consumption, or to be more precise, its avoidance, became a major issue in the study of ancient Israel in the 1980s. Subsequently, it became closely associated not only with the debates over Israel's emergence in Canaan and ethnic interaction during the Iron Age I, but also regarding the transformations of Philistine society, as well as with general debates on relations between pork consumption and taboos, ecology, and environment. Relying on the vast database that accumulated, it is my aim here to reexamine the distribution of pork-consuming communities during the Late Bronze and Iron Ages in order to see if clear and meaningful patterns can be identified. Subsequently, the paper will study the emerging patterns, and examine how they should be interpreted, and whether patterns of consumption and avoidance can, or cannot, be associated with the different groups that inhabited the region at the time, and if the explanations to these patterns should be attributed to culture or to ecology and economy.

In the Quaestiones convivales (669E–671B) Plutarch presents a discussion on the reason why Jews do not eat pork meat. The diners propose two opposing solutions to the question: according to some, the pig is held in great honour among the Jewish people, while others state it is despised because of its dirtiness. The reasons for both opinions clearly reveal the viewpoint of the Greeks when confronted with the customs, dietary prohibitions, and religious habits of another people. In their discussion on the topic, the diners establish a comparison between the Jews’ abstention from pork and the Egyptians’ veneration of certain animals, and also an analogy with the Pythagoreans and the Magi is suggested. The purpose of this study is to investigate these connections in the Plutarchean passage: it is compared with other Greco-Roman sources reporting the same Jewish practice, in order to clarify the mechanisms by which Greek culture defined and distanced itself from another civilisation.

THE DIALOGICAL BEAST THE IDENTIFICATION OF ROME WITH THE PIG IN EARLY RABBINIC LITERATURE By Misgav Har-Peled A dissertation submitted to Johns Hopkins University in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Baltimore, Maryland March, 2013 © 2013 Misgav Har-Peled All Rights Reserved Abstracts The purpose of this dissertation is to examine the logic behind the identification of Rome with the pig in rabbinic literature. This identification is observed in the light of the broad context of the discourse concerning the pig and the avoidance of pork in rabbinic literature. Following this, we address the possible link of the rabbinic identification with porcine simile in Roman political discourse. We also identify the role of the pig in the legend of the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE, the midrsh concerning Jacob and Esau in Genesis Rabbah, and the midrash concerning forbidden animals in Leviticus Rabbah chapter 13 as well some in other midrashim. It is proposed that by identifying Rome with the pig, the sages made the avoidance of pork a locus o f resistance to the Empire, which was first pagan and later Christian. By making the pig a symbol of dialogical relations with the other in time, the avoidance of pork was inscribed in history as embodying past, present, and future relations between Jacob and Esau, between Jews and Romans, and between Judaism and Christianity. Advisors: David Nirenberg (University of Chicago) Gabriel Spiegel (Johns Hopkins University) ii Acknowledgements I was lucky to have two remarkable supervisors: Professor David Nirenberg (The University of Chicago), and Professor Gabrielle M. Spiegel (Johns Hopkins University). David Nirenberg made me cross an ocean, not just geographically but also intellectually, making my sojourn at Johns Hopkins University a determining experience. Gabrielle M. Spiegel took me under her wing after David Nirenberg moved to the University of Chicago. She became one of my most critical readers, as she was severe and extensive in her critique while extremely kind and cordial. My parents, Michal and Nehemiah, encouraged me to finish my PhD long before I started it, and were extremely helpful when pockets were empty and doubts abundant. Also, thanks to my brother Sariel - with no further excuses, with all the excuses. Thanks to my sister Lily, for her warm hospitality during my sojourns in California, much encouragement, and help with the Shakespearian language. Thanks to Ann Greenberg for being extremely thorough in the cyclical editing process. Luz del Rocio Bermudez H., a true intimate colleague of love, wisdom and patience, helped this research become a collective adventure. Thanks to Luz, I came to know the warm generosity of Nati, Carmen, Francisco, Paco, Ana, Armando, Monica and Victor. Most significantly, Maya joined Luz and I halfway along this journey, a happy reminder of the possibility of enjoying dialogics - of being with others in life. All I know is theirs; all errors, mine. iii A note on Style Unless otherwise noted, translations from Greek and Roman sources are from the Loeb Classical Library (LCL) edition. Biblical citations are from New Revised Standard Version (NRSV). Abbreviations Rabbinic Texts Abrevations of mishanaic and talmudic tractates generally follow those of H. L. Strack and G. Stemberger in Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash. Edinburgh: Clark, 1991, 374-376. ARN B. CantR DeutR DEZ EcclR ExodR EsthR GenR LamR LevR M. Mek MHG MidAgada MidrPss MidProv Midr Tann MRS NumR LamR Abot de-Rabbi Nathan, Text A or B Bavli = Bablylonian Talmud Song of Songs Rabbah Deutronomy Rabbah Derekh Eretz Zutta Ecclesiastes Rabbah Exodus Rabbah Esther Rabbah Genesis Rabbah Lamentations Rabbah Leviticus Rabbah; M. = M. Margulies, Midrash Wayyikra Rabbah, 5 vols., Jerusalem, 1953-60. Mishnah Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael; L = J. Z. Lauterbach, Mekilta de Rabbi Ishamael, 3 vols. Philadelphia, 1933-35. Midrash ha-Gadol Midrash Agada, ed. Buber, Vienna, 1894. Midrash on Psalms; B. = S. Buber, Midrash Tehillim, Vilna, 1892; repr. Jerusalem, 1966. Midrash on Proverbs; B. = S. Buber, Midrasch Mischle, Wilna, 1893; repr. Jerusalem, 1965. Midrash Tannaim; H. = D. Hoffmann, Midrasch Tannaim zum Deutronomium, Berlin, 1908-09. Mekhilta de R. Simeon b. Yohai; E.-M. = J. N. Epstein & E. Z. Melamed, Mekhilta de R. Simeon b. Yohai, Jerusalem, 1965. Numbers Rabbah Lamentations Rabbah; B. = S. Buber, Midrasch Echa Rabbati, Wilna, 1899; repr. Hildesheim, 1967. iv PesR. PRE PRK RuthR Sifre Deut Sifre Num SongR SZ T. Tan. TanB Y. YalShim Pesikta Rabbati; F. = M. Friedmann, Pesikta Rabbati, Vienna, 1880. Pirqe deRabbi Eliezer; L. = D. Luria, Pirqe deRabbi Eliezer, Warsaw, 1852; repr. Jerusalem, 1960. Pesikta de Rab Kahana = B. Mandelbaum, Pesiqta de Rav Kahana: According to an τxford εanuscript with Variations….With Commentary and Introduction, 2 vols. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1962. Ruth Rabbah Sifre to Deuteronomy Sifre to Numbers Song of Songs Rabbah Sifre Zuttah; H. = H. S. Horowitz, Sifre Zuttah, 2nd ed. Jerusalem, 1966. Tosefta Tan uma Tan uma Buber. Yerushalmi (Palestinian Talmud) Yalkut Shimoni Primary Literature ANF ANRW CCSL GLAJJ HUCA HTR JJS JQR LCL PG NPNF PNF PL REJ SC Ante Nicene Fathers. The Early Church Fathers, 38 vols., ed. A. Roberts and J. Donaldson. Edinburgh: T. & T. 1885-1887. Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt. Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina Menahem Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism, 3 vols. Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1974-1984. Hebrew Union College Annual Harvard Theological Review Journal of Jewish Studies The Jewish Quarterly Review Loeb Classical Library Patrologia Graeca. 161 vols., ed. J. P. Migne. Paris, 1857-1966. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers A Select Library of the Nivene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church. First and second series, tr. P. Schaff and H. Wace. Buggalo and New York (Reprint: Grand Rapids, MI, 1980-1991.) Patrologia Latina, 221 vols, ed. J. P. Migne, Paris, 1844-1855;1862-1865. Revue des Études Juives Sources Chrétiennes v Table of Contents Abstract Acknowledgements A note on style Abbreviations Table of Contents List of Illustrations ii iii iv iv vi viii Introduction 1 1. The Nature of the Pig Omnivorous Animal Excrement and Dirt Sexual Lust Harmfulness Injurious Voice Uselessness and Idleness Diseases Drunkenness Hypocrisy Discussion 19 21 22 24 25 27 27 28 30 31 31 2. The Prohibited Animal Prohibition of Breeding Feeding and Commerce Pig Hide Purity and Classification The Sages’ Refusal to Explain the Avoidance of Pork Discussion 33 33 38 40 40 48 54 3. Boundary Keeping Persecutions Forbidden Sexual Relations with Non-Jews Apostasy Epikorusiut and the Pig Elisha ben Abuya, A er Proselytes Conclussion 61 61 65 76 81 85 90 93 4. The Pig and the Destruction of the Temple August 70 CE The Pig and the Profanation of the Temple Prior to 70 CE The Legends of Destruction The Pig’s Head The Exchange of Lambs for Pigs The Sprinkling of Pig’s Blood 95 95 97 101 101 106 111 vi Discussion 113 5. The Boar Emble m of the Legion X Fretensis and Aeneas’ Sow The Boar Emblem Aelia Capitolina The Sculpture of the Sow 117 117 121 122 6. The Diocletian Legend in Genesis Rabbah Dicletian the Swineherd Diocletian the Hunter The Ruler as a Boar-Hunter The Midrashic Context of the Rabbinic Legend 132 132 140 144 149 7. Leviticus Rabbah Leviticus Rabbah 13.2 Leviticus Rabbah 13.3 Leviticus Rabbah 13.4 Leviticus Rabbah 13.5 Discussion 158 158 165 168 169 176 8. The Boar out of the Wood Sifri Numbers 316-317 Bavli Pesa im 18b Bereshit Rabbati of Moses ha-Darshan Discussion Christian Reading of Psalms 80 (79):14 Conclusion 183 185 188 193 195 199 202 9. Why is it called ḥazir? Ecclesiastes Rabbah Hamidrash HaGadol Discussion Conclusion 205 206 210 211 218 10. The End of the Pig Esther Rabbah Discussion 221 221 227 Discussion and Conclusion 231 Bibliography 258 Vita 285 vii List of Illustrations Figures 1. Cysticercosis Muscle of a Pig. The Several Vesicular Ovoid Nodules, Whitish-Yellow and Smaller than a Green Pea, are Larvae of Taenia solium. (Gil J. Infante and J. Costa Durão, A Colour Atlas of Meat Inspection (London: Wolfe, 1990), 66, fig. 104). 30 2. The Porcine Greco-Roman Discursive Sphere with the Rabbinic topoi (framed). 32 3. Classification of beasts in Leviticus 11 according to Sifra Shemini 4.1. 43 4. The Three Parallel Domains of Classification According to Jacob Milgrom. (Jacob εilgromέ “Ethics and Ritual: The Foundations of the Biblical Dietary δaws,” in Religion and Law: Biblical, Jewish, and Islamic Perspectives, ed. E. B. Firmage (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1989), 179,181). 57 5. δegion X Fretensis' standards on Aelia Capitolina’s coin, Elagabal (21κ222 CE). A. topped with eagle, B. topped with boar. (Yaakov Meshorer, The Coinage of Aelia Capitolina (Jerusalem: Israel Museum, 1989), 118). 96 6. Suovetaurilia Sacrifice to Mars on Arch of Titus (c. 81 CE). 96 7. Illustration of the Troops. Arch of Constantine (dedicated in 315 CE). 96 8. Standard with a boar on a Roman bas-relief, Narbonne, France. Photo by the author. Narbonne, Musée Lapidaire, 737. 118 9. Two Brick Stamp Impressions of the Legio X Fretensis from Jerusalem, 68-132 CEέ (Dan Barag, “Brick Stamp-Impressions of the Legio X Fretensis,” Bonner Jahrbücher 167 (1967): 255). 119 10. A Roman Coin Found in Jerusalem with a Secondary Mint of the Symbols of the Legion X Fretensis. (Félicien De Saulcy, “δettre à εέ δéon Renier sur une monnaie antique contremarquée en judée,” Revue archéologique 20 (1869): 252). 120 11. Aelia Cpitolina, Coin of Herennius Etruscus (250-251 CE). Boar running; legionary eagle on its back, with vexillum topped by star. Meshorer, Yaakov. The Coinage of Aelia Capitolina, (Jerusalem: Israel Museum, 1989), 114. 122 12. The Plan of Aelia Capitolina (cfέ Yaron Zέ Eliav)έ (Yaron Zέ Eliav, “The Urban Layout of Aelia Capitolina: A New View from the Perspective of the Temple εount,” in The Bar Kokhba War Reconsidered: New viii Perspectives on the Second Jewish Revolt against Rome, edέ Peter Sch fer (T bingen: Mohr, 2003), 277, map 2). 123 13. Legion X Fretensis in Judea (Cf. Dabrow 1993). (Edward Dabrowa, Legio X Fretensis: a prosopographical study of its officers (I-III c. A.D.) (Stuttgart: F. Steiner, 1993), 6). 125 14. Rome, 2nd century marble sculpture of sow with piglets. Rome, Vattican Museum (sala degli Animali, inv. 176). (Frederick Cameron Sillar, Ruth Mary Meyler, and Oliver Holt. The Symbolic Pig: An Anthology of Pigs in Literature and Art (Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1961), pl. 7). 127 15. Ara Pacis: Relief of Aeneas sacrificing to the Penates. <http://www.bluffton.edu/~sullivanm/italy/rome/arapacis/0083.jpg> Consulted October 07, 2012. 128 16. The Belvedere Altar. A. Aeneas and the Laurantine sow. B. Augustus and the Vicomagistri. Belvedere Altar, Vatican, Rome (DAIR 1511). (Lowell Edmunds, “Epic and εyth” in A Companion to Ancient Epic, ed. John Miles Foley (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2005), 31-44). 128 17. Vespasian, Denarius, minted 77-7κ CEέ δaureate head right ή Aneas’ sow with piglets. 129 18. Antonine copy of the Hadrianic 'Aeneid' medallion, reverse design. Source: bronze cast from original held in the Cabinet des Medailles, Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris. Actual size: 3.5 cm diameter (approx.). (Michael R. Jenkins, “The ' Aeneid' medallion - a narrative interpretation,” The Numismatic Chronicle 148 (1988): 148-152, pl. 12/3-4). 19. Bronze Medallion of Antionius Pius (Reign 138-161 CE). (Andreas Alföldi, Early Rome and the Latins (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 1965), plate VI). 130 20. Hadrianic Boar Hunt Relief, Arch of Constantine, Rome. (Jones Mark Wilson, “Genesis and εimesis: The Design of the Arch of Constantine in Rome,” The Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 59, no. 1 (2000): 54, fig. 64). 147 21. Alexander the Great Hunting a Wild Boar. 1st century. Sardonyx; cameo. The Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg. 148 22. The three-four model in Leviticus Rabbah 13. 178 23. Hypothetical reconstruction of the midrashic process of identification of Rome with the pig. 237 24. The Discursive spheres of Israel and the Pig in Rabbinic literature. 239 ix Tables 1. The pig and the destruction or profanation of the Temple. 116 2. The Four Kingdoms in Leviticus Rabbah 13.5. 170 3. Structure and message of Leviticus Rabbah 13.2-5. 177 4. Structure and content of Psalm 80 184 5. The reading of Deuteronomy 32: 13-14 in Sifre 316-317. 195 6. The interpretation of Psalm 104: 20-22 in Bereshit Rabbati. 204 7. Psalm 80:14 and the association of the pig with Rome. 214 8. Different answers to the question, “Why is it called azir”ς 217 9. 247 The pig in the historical model of the midrashic discursive sphere. x Introduction The prohibition of pork is the Jewish food avoidance par excellence, one of the strongest markers of Jewish identity in the eyes of Jews and non-Jews alike. Many scholars have tried to explain the origin and raison d'être of this biblical avoidance. Likewise modern research has placed much attention on the Christian association of the Jews with the animal they disdain, the pig. In 1974, art historian Isaiah Sachar published a monograph on the European image of the Judensau, the Jews’ sow, which depicted a group of rabbis with a sow, riding it, sucking its tits, licking its anus, and eating its excrement. 1 Twenty years later, ethnologist Claudine Fabre-Vassas published the book The Singular Beast: Jews, Christians, and the Pig (1994). In this fascinating book, based on her fieldwork in the French East Pyrenees and material from throughout Europe, the author demonstrates the rich association of the Jew with the pig in European folklore. 2 As does much research on anti-Judaism, both scholars ignore the Jewish side of the story. Were the Jews just figures of thought? Were they passive and not active actors? Were they solely victims of Christian hate discourse? Can we assume that Jews were not aware of the degrading association of them with the pig? Did they not react to this insulting association of them with the impure animal? Can we assume that the Christian association of the Jews with the pig has nothing to do with Jewish discourse concerning the pig? This asymmetric history where the Jewish voice is absent is quite problematic, not only because it renders the Jews into non-historical persons, and hence lacking 1 Isaiah Shachar, The Judensau: A Medieval Anti-Jewish Motif and Its History (London: Warburg Institute, 1974). 2 Claudine Fabre-Vassas, The Singular Beast: Jews, Christians, and the Pig (New York: Columbia University Press, 1997) [Original title: La bête singulière. Les Juifs, les chrétiens et le cochon (Paris: Gallimard, 1994)]. 1 responsibility, but also because it ignores the dialogical nature of Jewish-Christian relations, relations that have never been simple, almost never symmetrical, and rarely unidirectional. In fact, if the Christians associated the Jews with the pig at least since the High Middle Ages, already by the end of antiquity, rabbinic literature identified the Roman Empire with the pig, and since the Christianization of the Roman Empire, sages have identified the pig with Christianity. 3 Was there no link between the Christian and the Jewish identification? If there was a link, what was its nature? To answer these questions, we must observe discourses concerning the pig, the avoidance of pork, and the other religion, both in Judaism and Christianity in the longue durée (long term). The dialogical history of the interrelations between the two around the pig should not only seek direct polemics, but also seek the meta-dimensions of the theological, anthropological, and moral issues at stake. In other words, the dialogical history should ask to what extent the logic of each side was constructed vis-à-vis the logic of other, and in what ways differences between the different religions were constructed. Notions emphasizing the negation of the other, such as polemics, anti-Judaism, racism, etc., are problematic for they often assume a “pure” existence of selfήgroupέ However, no selfήgroupήidentity exists in a vacuum. Like language, culture is highly dialogic. Therefore, otherness is not a secondary dimension of human experience, but rather a primordial one. Negation of the other is just one manifestation of the triangulation of identities, where the location of one 3 In fact, both Sachar and Fabre-Vassas demonstrated that the association of the Jews with the abominable pig in Europe had its roots in Christian writings from Late Antiquity, hence from the same period as classical rabbinic literature. 2 entity is understood by its real or imagined location in a network of entities. 4 In this play of triangulation, similarities, distinctions, and negations together create rather complex relations. By focusing our analysis on the negative/violent dimension of intergroup relations, we risk ignoring the broad span of configurations of identities. One can compare the researcher who focuses on the negation of the other, and hence focuses on the violent nature of the relations, to a geologist who analyzes earthquakes while ignoring plate tectonics. Just as earthquakes are a consequence of movement of plates along a common rift, so the negation of the other between human groups which are dialogically connected is a part of their mutual construction of identity along the same frontier. This is the case of Judaism and Christianity, whose grids of alterity in diverse ways encompass each other. In this dissertation, I hope to contribute to the dialogical history of JewishChristian relations over the longue durée. However, for practical reasons, the actual work focuses on the identification of Rome with the pig in early rabbinical literature. Hence, the work mainly covers: the Mishnah and Tosefta from the Tannitic period (50-200 CE); the Midrash Sifre from the Amoraic period (200-400 CE); and Midrash Genesis Rabbah, Midrash Leviticus Rabbah, the two talmudim, the Yerushalmi (Jerusalem Talmud) Talmud, and the Bavli (Babylonian) Talmud, all from the post-Amoraic period (400-700 CE). In some cases, material from later midrashim is discussed (900-1300 CE). The main period addressed in this work is Late Antiquity (2th - 7th cent.), a period corresponding to the formative stages of Christianity and Rabbinical Judaism. Due to the limited scope of this dissertation, the Christian discourse concerning the pig and avoidance of pork will On the concept of triangulation, see: Jean-Loup Amselle, ranchementsμ anthropo ogie de uni ersa it des cu tures (Paris: Flammarion, 2ίί1)έ Ibidέ “εétissage, branchement et triangulation des cultures,” Revue germanique internationale 21 (2004): 41-51. 4 3 briefly be addressed in those cases in which rabbinic literature seems to be polemical or in which the church fathers refer to rabbinic literature. However, several elements contributing to the understanding of rabbinic discourse concerning the pig and the identification of Rome with the pig in its Jewish-Christian dialogic context will be provided, mainly in the final discussion. In order to fill the gap, detailed analysis of the Christian discourse on the pig and the avoidance of pork in the patristic era will be necessary. The Current State of Research Unlike the great body of literature on the biblical prohibition of pork, relatively little attention has been paid to the avoidance of pork in rabbinic literature in general and the identification of Rome with the pig in particular. 5 Jacob Neusner, in Judaism and Christianity in the Age of Constantine: History, Messiah, Israel, and the Initial Confrontation (1987), analyzed the identification of Rome both with the fourth kingdom and the pig in Midrash Leviticus Rabbah 13, explaining this identification as being a polemic with Christianity. 6 In 1986, Mireille Hadas-Lebel dedicated an article to the identification of Rome with the fourth kingdom of the book of Da niel and with the pig; this was further developed in her book Jerusalem Against Rome (2005, a translation of Jérusalem contre Rome, 2003).7 Her main interest was to reconstruct the history of the The entry “ azir ” in the Tamudic Encycopedia, like any encyclopedical entry, is far from complete. Encyclopedia talmudit, vol. 13 (Jerusalem: Talmudic Encyclopedia Institute, 1977), 443-44θ (Hebrew). 6 Jacob Neusner, Judaism and Christianity in the Age of Constantine: History, Messiah, Israel, and the Initial Confrontation (Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1987), 102. 7 Mireille Hadas-Lebel, “Rome ‘Quatrième Empire’ et le symbole du porc,” dans e enica t udaicaμ ommage Va entin σi iprowet y, édέ André Caquot, Mireille Hadas-Lebel et. J. Riaud (Leuven: Peeters, 1986), 297-312. Ibid. Jerusalem Against Rome, trans. Robyn Fréchet (Leuven: Peeters, 2005) [original title: Jérusalem contre Rome (Paris: Cerf, 2003)], 413-416. 5 4 creation of this identification. She did not analyze the midrashim in depth or try to analyze the inner logic of the midrashic construction or locate it in its larger context of Roman or Christian discourses. David Kraemer, in Jewish Eating and Identity through the Ages (2007), briefly explains why the pig became the food avoidance par excellence in Judaism, but does not analyze in detail the relevant rabbinic texts. 8 In 2010, Jordon D. Rosenblum published the article, “Why Do You Refuse to Eat Porkς Jews, Food, and Identity in Roman Palestineέ” 9 His main point is that the sages identified Rome with the pig following the metonymic logic of “you are what you (do and do not) eatέ” Aside from this idea, Rosenblum’s discussion does not add much to Hadas-δebel’s work (which he seems not to be aware of). Since the nineteenth century, five explanations have been given in the literature for the identification of Rome with the pig; these have to do with: 1) The god Mars, 2) The boar emblem of the Legion X Fretensis, 3) The erection of a sculpture of a sow in Jerusalem, 4) The Roman myth of Aeneas, and 5) A metonymic identification of the Romans with their meat. 1. The God Mars Abraham Epstein (1κκη) proposed that the equation ‘Rome = Esau = Pig’ had its origin in the Roman cult of the war-god Mars, who, in his view, was portrayed as a pig. According to Epstein, the Syrians called εars “ aziran,” derived from a ir (pig). Because Mars gave his name to the red planet (Mahadim in Hebrew), his redness was 8 David Kraemer, Jewish Eating and Identity through the Ages (New York and London: Routledge, 2007), 30-33. 9 Jordon Dέ Rosenblum, “Why Do You Refuse to Eat Porkς Jews, Food, and Identity in Roman Palestine,” The Jewish Quarterly Review 100, no. 1 (2010): 95-110. See also his Food and Identity in Early Rabbinic Judaism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 48-51, which is based on his PhD dissertation:‘They Sit Apart at εea s’μ ar y Rabbinic Commensa ity Regu ations and Identity Construction. PhD dissertation (Providence, Rhode Island: Brown University, 2008). 5 linked to Esau-Edom, both of whom had red hair. 10 This interpretation is far from convincing, and will not be discussed here. 11 2. The Boar Emble m of the Legion X Fretensis Theodore Reinach suggested (1903) that the sages identified Rome with the pig because the boar was the emblem of the Legion X Fretensis, which participated in the conquest of Jerusalem in 70 CE and was stationed in the city ruins after the Great Revolt.12 3. The Erection of a Sculpture of a Sow in Jerusalem Samuel Krauss (1λ14) proposed that “there is reason to believe that this [symbolization of Rome as a pig in rabbinic literature] came into prominence only since Abraham Epstein, “The Beasts of the Four Kingdoms,” Bet Talmud 4 (1885): 177 (Hebrew). Ibid., Mi-Qadmoniot ha-Yehudim, 2 vols (Jerusalem: Mossad ha-Rav Kook, 1965 (Vienna, 1887)), 33 (Hebrew). Epstein is followed by Jay Braverman, erome’s Commentary on Daniel: A Study of Comparative Jewish and Christian Interpretations of the Hebrew Bible (Washington: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1978), 79. 11 For criticism of this explanation, see: Jane Barr, “Review of Braverman, Jayέ Jerome’s Commentary on Daniel: A Study of Comparative Jewish and Christian Interpretations of the Hebrew Bible, Washington, The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1λ7κ,” Journal of Biblical Literature 100, no. 2 (1981): 288. Gershon Dέ Cohen called it “farfetched,” see: Gershon Dέ Cohenέ “Esau as Symbol in Early εedieval Thought,” in Jewish Medieval and Renaissance Studies, ed. Alexander Altmann (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press, 1967), 21, note 7. 12 Théodore Reinach, “εon nom est δégion,” Revue des études juives 47 (1903): 172-178. Louis Ginzberg writes, for example, “The designation of Esau (=Rome) as “swine” is very common in rabbinic literature, and occurs in so old a source as Enoch 89. 12. Originally it was not intended as an expression of contempt, but was coined with reference to the standard of the Roman legion stationed in Palestine, which had as its emblem a boar, a wild swine, and hence the designation of Rome as ‘the boar out of the wood’έ” δouis Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews, vol. V (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1947), 294, note 162. Isaac Heinemann, The Methods of the Aggadah (Darkhe ha-agadah) (Jerusalem: Magness, 1949), 32 (Hebrew). Samuel Krauss, Paras VeRomi BaTalmud UbaMidrashim (Persia and Rome in the Talmud and Midrashim) (Jerusalem: Mosad HaRav Cook, 1948), 100-105; 177178 (Hebrew). Irit Aminoff, The Figure of Esau and the Kingdom of Edom in Palestinian MidrashicTalmudic Literature in the Tannaic and Amoraic Periods. PhD dissertation (Melbourne: Melbourne University, 1981), 258-2θη (“Chapter 4: The Swineέ”). Louis H. Feldman, Josephus's Interpretation of the Bible (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998), 323. Ibid., Remember Amalek: Vengeance, Zealotry, and Group Destruction in the Bible According to Philo, Pseudo-Philo, and Josephus (Cincinnati, OH: Hebrew Union College Press, 2004), 67. Daphne Barak-Erez, Outlawed Pigs: Law, Religion, and Culture in Israel (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 2007), 20. Samuel Tobias Lachs, A Rabbinic commentary on the New Testament: the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke (Hoboken, NJ: Ktav; New York: Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, 1987), 139. For criticism of this identification, see: Hadas Lebel, Jerusalem Against Rome, 104. 10 6 the time of Hadrian and the fall of Betar (135 CE) since, in order to insult the Jews, the image of a pig was attached to the southern gate of Jerusalem which had been transformed into the Roman colony, Aelia Capitolinaέ” 13 4. The Roman Myth of Aeneas Moshe David Herr (1970) proposed that the rabbinical identification of Rome with the pig was linked to the sow and her thirty piglets. According to Virigil’s Aeneid, this was the sign given Aeneas as to where the city of Lavinium, the mother city of Rome, should be founded, and hence the sow with piglets became a symbol of Rome. 14 5. A Metonymic Identification of the Romans with their Meat David Kraemer (2007) proposed that the sages identified the Romans with the pig because of the importance of pork in the Roman diet. 15 Likewise, Rosenblum proposed that “if to be Roman meant, in some sense, to eat pork, then the pig makes a seemingly logical symbol for Rome: after all, ‘‘you are what you eatέ’’ 16 My approach While each of the explanations that have been given for the identification of Rome with the pig may be worthy, it seems reductionist to attempt to explain the Rabbinic identification of Rome with the pig by a single cause. If the pig had rich, diverse meanings in rabbinic literature as well in the Greco-Roman world, we can assume 13 Samuel Krauss, Monumenta Talmudica , vol. 5, Geschichte, 1. Teil: Griechen und Rimer (Wien: Orion, 1914), 15. Cited in: Braverman, erome’s Commentary on Danie , 94. Mireille Hadas-Lebel argues against the idea that: “after 13η, there was little contact between the Jewish populations and the Xth Fretensis quartering at Aelia Capitolina where the Jews were forbidden the right to stayέ” Hadas -Lebel, Jerusalem Against Rome, 518. 14 Moshe David Herr, Roman Rule in Tannaitic Literature Its Image and Conception, PhD Dissertation (Jerusalem: The Hebrew University, 1970), 128, note 99. 15 Kraemer, Jewish Eating, 31. 16 Rosenblum, “Why,” 1ί7-108. 7 that the identification of Rome with the pig will correspond to this complexity, that it will function at diverse levels and with diverse meanings. Current research suffers from what εarc Bloch called historians’ “obsession with origins,” 17 an “obsession” which shifts us from the question of the logic behind the identification. Hence, to seek to understand the identification of Rome with the pig, I will analyze it in the broader context of discourse concerning the pig in rabbinic literature. Due to the semi-oral nature of Rabbinic literature, it is very hard to date the different texts within it; therefore I will not analyze the rabbinic discourse in a supposed chronological order. However, in the discussion, I will propose some historical observations on the evaluation of rabbinic porcine discourse over time, from the Mishnah to the medieval midrashim. Before going on to Chapter One, I will briefly summarize the place of the pig in the Hebrew Bible. The Pig in the Hebrew Bible The Hebrew word a ir, which means both pig and wild boar,18 is mentioned in the Hebrew Bible only seven times (Deut. 14:8; Lev. 11:7; Is. 65:4; 66:3; Ps. 80:14; Prov. 11:22). 19 Consumption of pork is prohibited in Leviticus 14 and Deuteronomy 11, priestly sources which probably date from the end of Iron Age, but may reflect an earlier tradition: Leviticus 11 Deuteronomy 14 2: From among all the land animals, these are the creatures that you may eat. 17 3 You shall not eat any abhorrent thing. 4: These are the animals you may eat: Marc Bloch, The Historian's Craft (New York: Knopf, 1953), 24. Likewise, Aramaic and Arabic do not distinguish between the domestic and the wild animal. 19 Compare this to other animals, such as the dog, which is mentioned thirty-two times, the goat seventy-four times, and the sheep one hundred and seven times. 18 8 3: Any animal that has divided hoofs and is cloven-footed and chews the cud ḳ such you may eat. 4: But among those that chew the cud or have divided hoofs, you shall not eat the following: the camel, for even though it chews the cud, it does not have divided hoofs; it is unclean for you. 5: The rockbadger, for even though it chews the cud, it does not have divided hoofs; it is unclean for you. 6: The hare, for even though it chews the cud, it does not have divided hoofs; it is unclean for you. 7: The pig, for even though it has divided hoofs and is cloven-footed, it does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you. 8: Of their flesh you shall not eat, and their carcasses you shall not touch; they are unclean for you. the ox, the sheep, the goat, 5: the deer, the gazelle, the roebuck, the wild goat, the ibex, the antelope, and the mountain-sheep. 6: Any animal that divides the hoof and has the hoof cloven in two, and chews the cud, among the animals, you may eat. 7: Yet of those that chew the cud or have the hoof cloven you shall not eat these: the camel, the hare, and the rockbadger, because they chew the cud but do not divide the hoof; they are unclean for you. 8: And the pig, because it divides the hoof but does not chew the cud, is unclean for you. You shall not eat their meat, and you shall not touch their carcasses. The prohibition of touching the dead body of impure animals seems to reinforce the prohibition of consumption. 20 Curiously, the Hebrew Bible does not give a theological explanation for food avoidance, but does clearly link it to purity as a state of separateness, as summarized in Leviticus 20:24: 21 I am the Lord your God; I have separated you from the peoples. You shall therefore make a distinction between the clean animal and the unclean, and between the unclean bird and the clean; you shall not bring abomination on yourselves by animal or by bird or by anything with which the ground teems, which I have set apart for you to hold unclean. You shall be holy to me; for I the Lord am holy, and I have separated you from the other peoples to be mine (Lev. 20:24-27). As Walter Houston notes, this ban “is intended as a kind of ‘hedging of the law’; in order to remove even the temptation of eating the flesh of these animals, or the possibility of doing so accidentally, it is forbidden even to touch their bodiesέ” Walter Houston, Purity and Monotheism: Clean and Unclean Animals in Biblical Law, JSOTSupSer, 140 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1993), 40. Jacob Milgrom. Leviticus 1-16. The Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday, 1991), 655. 21 Ibid., 54. 20 9 This logic of purity and separateness does not, however, explain the reason for the criteria given for the purity or impurity of each particular animal. In any case, the pig is explained as an anomaly of a purity classification system: it holds the first mark of purity but not the second. In this sense, it can be understood as a symbol of impurity, hybridism, and the transgression of category boundaries. Third Isaiah (c. late sixth century - mid fifth century BCE), 22 rebukes the presence of a foreign cult in the Temple. In this passage, the blood of the pig symbolizes the profanation of the Temple (Isaiah 66:3): “]He[ who presented a cereal offering ]would now present[ the blood of a swineέ” 23 Isaiah 66:17 declares that “those who sanctify and purify themselves to go into the gardens, following the one in the centre, eating the flesh of pigs, vermin, and rodents, shall come to an end together, says the Lordέ” δikewise, Isaiah θη:4 condemns the ones “who sit inside tombs, and spend the night in secret places; who eat swine’s flesh, with broth of abominable things in their vesselsέ” In Psalms 80:14, the wild pig ( ) symbolized the destruction of the Temple: “(13) Why hast thou broken down its walls, so that all who pass along the way pluck its fruit? (14) The boar from the forest (ya’ar) ravages it, and the beasts of the field feed on itέ” 24 The pig, as a thing out of place, is also found in the book of Proverbs (tenth to sixth centuries BCE), 25 which says “δike a gold ring in the snout of a pig is a beautiful woman bereft of sense” (Provέ 11:22)έ 26 22 On the date of Third Isaiah, see Joseph Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 56-66: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, Anchor Bible, vol. 19b (New York: Doubleday, 2003), 42-54. 23 Jack εurad Sasson, “Isaiah θθ:3-4a,” Vetus Testamentum 26 (1976): 200. 24 Arthur Weiser, The Psalms: A Commentary (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1962), 546. 25 Proverbs is a collection of texts produced probably over the course of a very long period (10 th to 6th cent. BCE) which was edited in its final form perhaps as late as the third century BCE: Leo G. Perdue, Proverbs (Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 2000). 26 The saying as Tova δέ Forti notes is “a moral statement about the advantage of intellect over beauty,” Tova L. Forti, Animal Imagery in the Book of Proverbs (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2008), 52. 10 In all of these passages, the pig is mentioned in a negative context, standing for a thing “out of placeέ” In δeviticus and σumbers, the pig is an anomaly of the classification system; in Isaiah, it is a forbidden food (eaten in an impure place, the tomb) or inappropriate sacrifice. In Psalms, the pig is the animal that penetrates and destroys the vineyard (Temple). In Proverbs, the pig is a vulgar creature. Hence, the pig in the Hebrew Bible is above all an impure animal, its consumption is forbidden, and its general symbolism makes it stand for an anomaly, whether ontological, cultic, or moral.27 Romanization and Pork Consumption David Kraemer notes that the “major development in Jewish eating practices between the Bible and the rabbis is the emergence of pork as a uniquely abhorred substance” by the early first century CE, 28 which he explains through the central role of pork in the Greco-Roman diet, which made pork a marker of difference in daily life: (…) When the common Palestinian Jew viewed the common gentile eating meat at her or his table Ḳ in the first century BCE or the first century CE Ḳ that meat was far more likely to be pork than anything else. In other words, of all the species marked as off limits by the Torah’s legislation, the only one concerning which this would make a difference on a regular basis was the pig. The rest were primarily of academic interest, the pig was a presence and potentially a temptation. But it was also, crucially, their meat Ḳ ubiquitously so. And thus, it was taboo Ḳ because the Torah outlawed it, taboo because it was so readily associated with “the otherέ” It emerged as the abhorred symbol par excellence because it was available to serve in that capacityέ σo other species on the Torah’s list could do the same. (…) Palestine, in the second century BCE, saw rising numbers of Hellenized soldiers, traders and other residents within its territories. Notably, pork was a mainstay of the Hellenistic Ḳ and later, Roman Ḳ diet. By contrast, in the centuries before the Hellenistic conquest, local peoples in Palestine rarely consumed pork (…) What this means is that in the Hellenistic period, for the first time, Jews observing the Torah’s prohibitions would have had increasing opportunity to witness their neighbors regularly consuming a 27 Except for Psalms and Proverbs, the pig is mentioned mainly as a concrete animal and not as a metaphor or symbol. 28 Kraemer, Jewish Eating, 30. 11 particular prohibited flesh: pork. As this awareness grew, pork could grow into a symbol Ḳ it could be viewed more and more prominently as the food of the other. 29 According to Baruch Rozen, the Roman occupation was a turning point in the importance of pig breeding in Palestine, as witnessed by the increase percentage of pig bones in archeological excavations in layers from the Roman period to the Arab conquest in the seventh century. 30 The neo-Platonist Porphyry, in his Against the Christians, argues against the story of the Gaderian pigs (Mt. 8:28-34; Mark 5:12-17; Luke 8:27-37) - that it is not possible that Jesus had drowned so many pigs in the sea of Galilee, for “how could there be so large a swineherd grazing in Judea, animals most unclean and from the beginning hated by the Jewsς” 31 However, even this polemical argument takes for granted that pigs were raised in the Holy Land. In fact, the sages of the Talmud even imagined that the emperor Diocletian was a swineherd in the city of Tiberias, on the shore of the sea of Galilee.32 29 Ibid. Baruch Rozen, “Swine Breeding in Eretz Israel after the Roman Period,“ Cathedra 78 (1995): 25-42 (Hebrew)έ See also: Shimon Dar, “Food and Archeology in Romano-Byzantine Palestine,” in Food in Antiquity, ed. John Wilkins, David Harvey & Mike Dobson (Exeter, UK: University of Exeter Press, 1995), 328. εagen Broshi, “The Diet of Palestine in the Roman Periodέ” Cathedra 43 (1987): 15-32 (Hebrew). Ibidέ, “The Diet of Palestine in the Roman Period: Introductory σotes,” in Bread, Wine, Walls and Scrolls (London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 121-43 [originally published in: The Israel Museum Journal 5 (1986): 41-56]. For a detailed discussion of pork consumption in a Roman site, see for example the Roman legionary fortress of el-δejjun (Jordan): εichael Toplyn, “δivestock and Limitanei: The Zooarchaeological Evidence,” in The Roman Frontier in Central Jordan: Final Report on the Limes Arabicus Project, 1980 1989, ed. S. Thomas Parker (Washington (D.C.): Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 2006), 484-486. 31 Porphyry, Against the Christians, fr. 177 (apud Apokritikos 3.4). Robert M. Berchman, Porphyry against the Christians, Studies in Platonism, Neoplatonism, and the Platonic tradition, v. 1 (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 200. A later scholiast (in the margin of the Manuscript) argues that the Jews raised pigs and sold the meat to Roman solders and thus broke the law. Consequently, the Savior vindicated the law by letting the demons go into the pigs. See Apocr. 3.4 (Blondel), discussed in John Granger Cook, The Interpretation of the Old Testament in Greco-Roman Paganism (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 178. 32 Rosenblum, “Why, ” λθέ 30 12 In Rome, even more than in Greece, 33 pork was a popular, inexpensive meat; it was the meat par excellence.34 Pig breeding was so widespread in Rome that Varro (d. 27 BCE) asked the rhetorical question: “Who of our people cultivates a farm without keeping swineς” 35 Polybius notes that “the number of swine slaughtered in Italy for private consumption as well as to feed the army is very large,” 36 mentioning herds of thousands of pigs, 37 while Pliny the Elder (d. 79 CE) notes that “no other animal produces so much material for cooking: the pig has about fifty different flavorsέ” 38 In Roman Italy, all parts of the pig were consumed, as pork, ham, sausage, or lard. 39 Pork was an important component in the diet of the Roman soldier, especially during a campaign. 40 Pork was supplied in large quantities to the city of Rome, where a public 33 Plutarch, Life of Cato the Younger 46.3. Emily Gowers, The Loaded Table: Representations of Food in Roman Literature (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), 69. 34 Jacques André, L'alimentation et la cuisine à Rome (Paris: Klincksieck, 1961), 139-41. Eugenia Salza Prina Ricotti, “Alimentazione, cibi, tavola e cucine nel l’età imperiale,” in δ’A iment ione ne mondo antico (Roma: Instituto Poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato, 1987), 90-94. 35 Varro, On Agriculture 2.4.3. 36 Polybius, The Histories 2.15.2. 37 Polybius, The Histories 12.3.8-4.14. 38 Pliny, Natural History 8. 209. The following is an idea found in a satire of Petronius (Sat. Trim, 69.): serving a meal in which everything was made of pork, the host explains: “my cook prepared all this from porkέ There is none more valuable than heέ If you wish, he’ll prepare you a fish from a pig’s womb, a wood pigeon from bacon, a turtle-dove from ham, and a chicken from pork loin …” Patrick Faas, Around the Roman Table: Food and Feasting in Ancient Rome (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1994), 255. 39 “The haute cuisine of Imperial Rome presents an astonishing array of recipes based on the pig; there is scarcely any part of the carcass that did not provide the basis for some gourmand’s delight…Pliny alone mentions fifty such recipes“ K. D. White, Roman Farming (New York: Cornell University Press, 1970), 231. 40 “The Roman military ate pork in a number of forms: cooked, roasted or boiled, made into sausages (ifarcimina), ham (perna) or bacon (lardum/laridum)έ ]…[ Smoked or salted pork was particularly important during a campaignέ Indeed, from the quartermaster’s, if not the soldier’s, point of view, salt pork has always been a favorite food for campaigning because it is cheap and long-lastingέ” Jonathan Pέ Roth, The Logistics of the Roman Army at War (264 B.C. – A.D. 235) (Leiden; Boston; Köln: Brill, 1999), 29-30. Hadrian, if we have to believe the Historia Augusta (late 4th century): “led a soldier’s life among the maniples, and ]…[ cheerfully ate out of doors such camp-fare as bacon, cheese and vinegarέ” Historia Augusta¸ Hadrian 10.2 13 system of pork distribution existed. 41 Authors from the imperial period presented pork consumption as part of the ideal Roman diet, that of early Roman times, which they contrasted to the “corrupted” diet of their own daysέ 42 Juvenal, in Satire Eleven, praises the old practice of consuming homemade bacon: “For feast days, in olden times, they would keep a side of dried pork, hanging from an open rack, or put before the relations a flitch of birthday bacon, with the addition of some fresh meat, if there happened to be a sacrifice to supply itέ” 43 This humble diet is contrasted with that of his own day, characterized by a “magnificent feast of hares and sow's paunches, of boars and antelopes,”44 or that of Satire One: (…) lordly patron will be devouring the choicest products of wood and sea, lying alone upon an empty couch; for off those huge and splendid antique dinner-tables he will consume a whole patrimony at a single meal. Ere long no parasites will be left! Who can bear to see luxury so mean? What a huge gullet to have a whole boar----an animal created for conviviality----served up to it! 45 It seems that pork consumption was subject to sumptuary laws, as Pliny the Elder (d. 79 CE) notes: Nor does any animal supply a larger number of materials for an eatin g-house: they have almost fifty flavors, whereas all other meats have one each. Hence pages of sumptuary laws, and the prohibition of hog’s paunches, sweetbreads, testicles, matrix and cheeks for banquets, although nevertheless no dinner of the pantomime writer Publius after he had obtained his freedom is recorded that did not include paunch - he actually got from this Peter Garnsey, “εass Diet and σutrition in the City of Rome,” Cities, Peasants and Food in Classical Antiquity: Essays in Social and Economic History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 226-252, especialy pp. 242- 245. 42 τn this theme in the satire of Plautus, see: Jέ Cέ Bέ δowe, “Cooks in Plautus,” Classical Antiquity 4, noέ 1 (1λκη): 77έ “The Roman stereotype of the humble peasant with his flitch of salted bacon assumed that, once a year at least, the fatted animal would be killed, perhaps at a festival or wedding which coincided with the start of winter. This, incidentally, helps to explain the particular connections between pigs and the Saturnalia (along with their anthropomorphic features)έ” See also σicholas Purcell, “The Roman Villa and the δandscape of Production” in Urban Society in Roman Italy, ed. T. Cornell and K. Lomas, 151-179 (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1995), 155-ηλέ Ibidέ “The Way We Used to Eat: Diet, Community, and History at Rome,” American Journal of Philology 124, no. 3 (2003): 329-358. 43 Juvenal, Satiries 11έ δikewise, Varro “contrasts modern luxury with the opprobrium attached in the old days to a peasant who bought bacon at the market instead of producing it on his own plotέ” Gowers, The Loaded Table, 72. 44 Ibid. 45 Ibid. 41 14 the nickname of Pig’s Paunchέ But also wild boar has been a popular luxuryέ As far as Cato the Censor we find his speeches denouncing boar meat bacon. Nevertheless a boar used to be cut up into three parts and the middle part served at table, under the name of boar loin. Publius Servilius Rullus, father of the Rullus who brought in the land settlement act during Cicero’s consulship, first served a boar whole at his banquets - so recent is the origin of what is now an everyday affair; and this occurrence has been noted by historians, presumably for the improvement of the manners of the present day, when it is the fashion for two or three boars to be devoured at one time not even as a whole dinner but as the first course. 46 Likewise, after bringing the menu of a banquet for a pontiff, Macrobius mentions the reproach made in 161 BCE by a certain C. Titius to the people gathered to receive the Fannia sumptuary law.47 This reproach was made to them because they ate the dish called “Trojan pig” (porcus troianus), a pig that “was stuffed with other animals that were closed inside the same manner that the Trojan horse was filled with warriorsέ” 48 If this critique of luxury by the regimen in imperial Rome involves that of pork, consuming it confirms and reinforces the role of pork consumption as part of Roman identity. If the Empire incorporated the food of the different cultures under its control, creating a kind of cosmopolitan diet, while at the same time making the Roman diet the unified diet of the empire,49 was pork in the diet an important part of Romanization? In Pliny, Natural History 8. 127-12κέ As Emily Gowers notes, “It is not known which sumptuary laws contained the restrictions on pig-meat mentioned by Plinyέ” Gowers, The Loaded Table, 70. 47 Vincent Jέ Rosivach, “δex Fannina Sumptuaria of 1θ1 BC,” The Classical Journal 102, no. 1 (2006): 1-15. 48 Macrobius, Satires 3.16.14. Cited by Ilaria Gozzini Giacosa. The Taste of Ancient Rome (Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1992), 98. Also see the description of Petronius, Cena Trimalchionis (The Banquet of Trimalchio). An idea of this dish is also given by Apicius´ (4th/5th cent. CE) recipe of stuffed piglet: “Suckling pig with two types of stuffing: Clean it, gut it from the throat, truss ]the feet] to the neck. Before cooking it, open the ear under the skin. Fill the ox bladder with Terentian stuffing, and attach a bird’s quill at the neck of the bladder: through this squeeze as much ]stuffing[ into the ear as it will hold. Then plug the hole with paper and close with fibulas, and prepare another stuffing. Make it thus: Grind pepper, lovage, oregano, a bit of silphium root; moisten with garum; add cooked brains, raw eggs, cooked spelt, cooking broth, small birds if available, pine nuts, peppercorns. Mix with grum. Stuff the pig, plug with paper, and close with fibulas. Place in the ovenέ When it is cooked, spread with oil, and serveέ” Apicius 367. Cited in Giacosa, The Taste of Ancient Rome, 97. 49 τddone δongo, “δa nourriture des autres,” in istoire de ’a imentation, dir. Jean-Louis Flandrin et Massimo Montanari (Paris: Fayard, 1996), 274. 46 15 other words, if “the Roman polity was more inclusive than the Greek, built to expand,” 50 was this true also of the Roman diet, and pork consumption in particular? Was consuming pork sine qua non for becoming a true Roman? Louis H. Feldman notes that “the abstinence from their national dish ]pork[ must have struck the Roman nationalists much as a deliberate abstention from roast beef would have affected an English citizen in our day who believes that patriotism and roast beef are somehow connectedέ” 51 As noted above, Rosenblum goes one step further: “By refusing to eat pig, Jews are never able to ingest Romanness and thus can never truly become Romanέ” 52 This is an essentialist and simplistic conception of Roman identity. While “Roman nationalists” such as Juvenal or Tacitus would probably agree with Rosenblum, this does not change the fact that the paths of Romanization were diverse, including with respect to diet. 53 However, the idea that pork consumption became common after the Roman conquest must be nuanced. Many groups, beside Jews in the Roman Levant, abstained from pork: Phoenicians, Syrians, Arabs, Egyptian priests, Samaritans, and some Jewish Christians. Therefore, either pork consumption was not part of the traditional diet in these particular cultures, or it had a marginal place in it, and it is not clear to what extent these groups maintained their preference for meats other than pork. 54 In fact, as the zoo-archeologist Justin Lev 50 Peter Garnsey, Food and Society in Classical Antiquity (Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1λλλ), κίέ Ze’ev Safrai, “Pigs,” The Economy of Roman Palestine (London and New York: Routledge, 1994), 172-173. 51 Feldman, Jew and Gentile, 167. 52 Rosenblum, Why,” λθέ 53 On the diverse opinions of Greco-Roman authors on Jewish avoidance of pork see: Louis H. Feldman, “The Attack on the Jewish Dietary δaws,” Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993), 167-17ίέ Peter Sch fer, “Abstinence from Pork”, Judeophobia. Attitudes toward the Jews in the Ancient World (Cambridge, MA; London: Harvard University Press, 1997), 66-81. 54 As Leonard V. Rutgers notes, the presence of pig bones in a house in Shephoris (Dioceasria) does not necessarily testify that its occupants were Christiansέ δeonard Vέ Rutgers, “Some Reflections on the Archeological Finds from the Domestic Quarter on the Acropolis of Sephoris,” in Religious and Ethnic Communites in Later Roman Palestine, ed. Hayim Lapin (Bethesda, MD: Univeristy Press of Maryland, 1λλκ), 1λ1έ Regarding ethnic diversity in Roman Palestine: Glen Wέ Bowersockέ “The Greek εoses: 16 Tov proposes, the real impact of Romanization on the diet in Palestine seems not so much to be regarding pork consumption, but rather regarding fish consumption: Foodways, as much as any other cultural habit, have as much the power to unite as to divide. What this survey of bone data most clearly suggests is that, contrary to much wishful thinking on the part of archaeologists working in a variety of periods, ethnic and religious groups are difficult to separate by dietary traditions. Pigs are universally rare in the Near East, while fish, starting in the Roman period, are universally abundant. In searching for the evidence that can be used to separate the ancient populations of Palestine, we have overlooked the evidence that the external influences of Rome and the desire of many to imitate Roman culture to an extent unified these ethnic and religious groups. Perhaps both the pig and the fish bone evidence are significant and complementary. While the general lack of pig bones may indicate the maintenance of a traditional Near Eastern, if not specifically Jewish, diet on the one hand, the popularity of fish indicates that Jews and others were able to emulate Roman culture without sacrificing their own. With the advent of the Roman-era, fish consumption rises in importance at both civilian and military sites (Kreuz 1995:80). Acculturation is not the same phenomenon as assimilation, and in late antique Palestine it appears from dietary evidence that many people adopted those foreign practices which did not conflict with their own traditions, thus undergoing dietary acculturation but not assimilation. 55 Taking into account the many paths of acculturation and the wide range of assimilation, it is possible that for some (both Jews and non-Jews), not eating pork was an obstacle to fully becoming part of the Empire, while for others (both Jews and non Jews), this was not at all the case. However, it is reasonable to assume that Romanization roused the tension around Jewish avoidance of pork and that it influenced the vivacity of the rabbinic association of Rome with the pig. Confustion of Ethnic and Cultural Components in Later Roman and Early Byzantine Palestine,” Ibidέ, 3148. 55 Justin Lev-Tov, “‘Upon what meat doth this our Caesar feed…ς’ A Dietary Perspective on Hellenistic and Roman Influence in Palestine,” in eichen aus Text und Steinμ Studien auf dem Weg u einer Arch o ogie des σeuen Testaments, ed. S. Alkier and J. Zangenberg (Tübingen: Francke, 2003), 21. 17 The Plan of the Dissertation This dissertation will discuss the rabbinic discourse concerning the pig and avoidance of pork (chapters 1-3) before turning to the role of porcine symbols in the confrontation between Jews and Romans in the first and second centuries (ch. 4-5), and then analyze the midrashic identification of Rome with the pig (chapters 6-10). Chapter One deals with diverse topoi that define the nature of the pig in rabbinic literature. Chapter Two analyzes legal aspects concerning the pig and the sages’ refusal to explain the avoidance of pork. Chapter Three deals with the pig as a frontier marker involving persecutions, sexual relations, apostasy, and proselytes. Chapter Four shifts the discussion to the role of the pig in the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 CE and in the legends concerning this destruction. Chapter Five deals with the link between the rabbinical identification of Rome with the pig and the boar emblem of the Legion X Fretensis, its representation on the coins of Aelia Capitolina, and the statue of the sow near the Jaffa Gate. Chapter Six addresses the rabbinical legend according to which emperor Diocletian was a swineherd, which is analyzed in the light of Roman legend regarding Diocletian as a boar hunter and the midrashic context of this legend in midrash Genesis Rabbah. Chapter Seven is dedicated to the discourse on eating in midrash Leviticus Rabbah 13. Chapter Eight discusses the interpretation of Psalms 80:14 (“The wild boar out of the wood doth root it up, and the wild beasts of the field devour it”) by the sages as well as by the Church Fathers. Chapter Nine deals with the midrash on the name of the pig, and Chapter Ten addresses why the sages rarely use the simile of the killing of the pig. 18 Chapter 1 The Nature of the Pig What was the nature of the pig for the sages of the Talmudim and midrashim? Before we proceed to discuss the diverse porcine topoi in rabbinical literature (omnivores, excrement and dirt, sexual lust, harmfulness, injurious voice, uselessness and idleness, diseases, drunkenness, hypocrisy) let us observe the diverse observations that the sages made concerning the biology and realia of the pig: the domesticated pig and the wild boar, although similar to each other, are considered to be diverse-kinds;56 pregnancy of the sow lasts sixty days;57 a sow becomes smaller as her litter grows;58 the pig is one of three animals whose strength increases with age; 59 the pig has “sixty-hundred thousand “Rέ Judah said, “A female mule which craved a male ]mule[ Ḳ “they do not mate with it either ]one[ of the horses or of the asses, but only [one] of the male mules. The ox and the wild ass, the hog and the wild boar, even though they are similar to one another, they are [considered] diverse-kinds [when they mate] with one anotherέ” Tέ Kilayim 1έκέ Translation by Jacob σeusner, The Tosefta, vol. I, Zeraim (The Order of Agriculture) (New York: Ktab, 1977), 250, with a slight alteration. ] . : ' [ . " 57 T. Bekhorot 1.9-110 (cf. B. Berakhot 8a. GenRab 20.4.) “]Even though they said[ A small clean beast gives birth at five months. A large clean beast gives birth at nine months. A large unclean beast gives birth at twelve months, the dog at fifty days, the cat at fifty-two, the pig at sixty days, the fox and all creeping things at six months; the wolf, the lion, the bear, the panther, the leopard, the elephant, the baboon, and the ape at three years, and the snake at seven yearsέ” Translation by σeusner, The Tosefta, vol. V, Qedoshim, 164. The period of sixty days is given by Aristotle, History of Animals 8.6 and Pliny, Natural History 8.77.207. 58 LamR 1.51: “εy children are desolate, for the enemy has prevailed” (δamentations 1:1θ): Rέ Aibu said, “It is like the tuber of a cabbageέ As the cabbage increases in size, the tuber shrinksέ” Rέ Judah bέ Rέ Simon said, “It is like a sow that shrinks as the litter growsέ” Translation by Jacob Neusner, Theological Commentary to the Midrash: Lamentations Rabbati (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2001), 172. ' , : ' -( , )” [ ] “ έ : ' 59 B. Avodah Zarah 30bέ εy translationέ “Rav Safra said in the name of R. Yehoshua of the South: There are three types of venom: that of a young [one] sinks, that of a young [one] penetrates, and that of an old [one] floats. To say that the older [one] grows the weaker it becomes? And it was taught in a Braisa: three as they age their strength increases. These are they: the fish, the snake, and the pig. Its strength increases, ]but[ its venom weakensέ” , έ , , : : ' , ! , , : , : ς έ And b. Sabbath 77b. 56 19 (θίί,ίίί) cards ]foldersήmembranes[” in its stomach; 60 pig’s intestines are similar to those of human beings; 61 and each seven years the field mouse is transformed into a boar.62 Mishnah Bechoroth 4.4, referring to the physician Todos, mentions that a cow or a sow does not leave Alexandria unless it is castrated,63 probably so that other breeders will not be able to breed the Alexandrian race.64 As we will later see, the midrashim play with B. Be orot 57b. “Pigs in our places have sixty-hundred thousand (600,000) cards [folders/membranes] in their stomachsέ” έ 61 . Ta’anit 21b. Translation by A. Steinsaltz, The Talmud, The Steinsaltz Edition, vol. XIV, Tractate Ta’anit, part II (New York: Random House, 1995), 98-99 62 Y. Shabbat 1:3, 3b. “Once in seven years God changes his world: the chameleon becomes a great serpent, the head-louse after seven years becomes a scorpion, the horse worm becomes a human worm, the ox worm is changed into another species of vermin, the male hyena becomes female, the field-mouse becomes a wild boar, the fish vertebra turns into a centipede and the human vertebra turns into a serpent (…)” Translation by A Rabbinic Anthology, ed. Claude Goldsmid Montefiore and Herbert Loewe (New York: Schocken, 1974), 662. " : 60 … Columella notes an operation is which is “performed with the knife on the wombs of the females to make them suppurate and close up as a result of scarring over, so that they cannot breedέ” Columella, On Agriculture 7.9.5. 64 ε. e orot 4.4. “If one that was not a ]properly qualified[ expert beheld the firstling, and it was slaughtered at his word, it must be buried, and [this examiner] must pay compensation from his own possessions. If [an unqualified person] gave a legal decision, declaring the guilty exempt or declaring the innocent culpable, or declaring the clean unclean, or declaring the unclean clean, what he has done can not be undone, but he must compensate [the wronged litigant] from his own means. But if an [authorized] expert approved by the court [to act as judge gave a wrongful decision], he is exempt from having to make restitution. It happened once that a cow had its womb removed, and R. Tarfon declared the carcass trefah and fed it to the dogs; and when the matter came before the Sages they declared it permitted. Todos the physician said, No cow or sow leaves Alexandria before they cut out its womb so that it can not bear offspringέ Rέ Tarfon said, ‘Gone is thine ass, Tarfon! Rέ Akiba said to him, ‘Rέ Tarfon, tho u art exempt, for thou art an expert [qualified] by the court, and every expert [authorized] by the court is exempt from having to make restitutionέ’” Translation by Philip Blackman, Mishnayoth, vol. V. Order Kodashim. (New York: Judaica Press, 1964), 259-260. , έ έ έ , : έ , : έ : έ έ And see also: . e orot 28b; B. Sanhedrin 33a; 93a. Psikta Zutara (Lekach Tov), Genesis 45.19. Sechel Tov (Buber), Genesis 45.19. The Bavli (Sanhdrin 93a) asks what Daniel was doing when his friends Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah were in the furnace (Daniel 3): “And where did Daniel go [that he was absent when this incident occurred]? Rav said: [He was sent by Nebuchadnezzar] to dig a great river in Tiberias. And Shmuel says: [He was sent] to import aspasta seed [to Babylon]. And R. Yochanan says: [He was sent] to import Alexandrian hogs [to Babylon to be bred there]. [The Gemara asks:] Is that so? But it was taught in a Mishnah: Todos the Physician said: No cow or sow leaves Egyptian Alexandria without their cutting out her womb so that she not bear young. [The Gemara aswers:] [Daniel] brought young ones [out of Egypt] without their knowledge [of his intended purpose].” 63 20 the root H.Z.R ( έ έ ) of the word for pig, azir ( ) to insist on its nature of return, while the later medieval Psikta Zutara explains the name of the pig, in that it “turns all its body, and does not turn its neckέ” 65 Omnivorous Animal The pig is an omnivorous animal that puts whatever it finds in its mouth: 66 it is even an eater of corpses. According to Mishnah Ohalot 18.8, a Jew that enters to live in house in Eretz Israel that previously belonged to a goy should examine it for buried aborted babies because of corpse impurity, since according to the sages, the Goyim are suspected to be buried in their houses.67 The school of Hillel states that “wherever a pig or a rat can get into no examination is required,” probably because it was considered that where a pig or a stoat can enter they took out or ate any buried body: What [parts about a dwelling] have to be examined? The deep drains and the foul water. The School of Shammai says, also the manure heaps and loose earth. And the School of Hillel says, wherever a pig or a stoat can get into no examination is required. 68 : , 65 έ : έ : Psikta Zutra, Leviticus Shemini 29b. έ , : ς , έ ς ! έ έ Ecclesiastes Zuta 1 (ed. Buber). . ] [( ) Compare to Aristophanes’s saying: “What is the pig’s favorite weaknessς” “Anything you give themέ” Aristophanes, The Acharians 795. See also: Aristotle, History of Animals 8.6.15-22.595A. 67 For Gentile impurity and corpse impurity, see: Christine Elizabeth Hayes, Gentile Impurities and Jewish Identities: Intermarriage and Conversion from the Bible to the Talmud (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 202. 68 M. Ohalot 18.8 (And B. Pesachim 9a). Mishnayoth, vol I. Order Taharoth (New York: Judaica, 1964), 291. : : έ ? έ 66 21 Excrement and Dirt Few rabbinic texts refer to the well known topos in the Greco-Roman world of the pig’s love for excrement and dirt: 69 a Bavli’s proverb says: “Give a pig the heart of pal m and he will do its deeds (burrow in the waste).”70 According to Ecclesiastes Rabbah, “at two and three [years old, the child] is like a pig, sticking his hands in the guttersέ”71 In other versions, the reason the child is compared to a pig is that he rolls in waste heaps and excrement, 72 or because he looks in niches like a pig, putting whatever he finds in its mouth. 73 According to Tan uma, the drunkard is like the pig, “wallowing about in urine and other things [sexual relations/excrement?].” 74 A famous Talmudic saying states that “a pig is a moving toiletέ” 75 The Yerusalmi states that one should remove himself at least four cubits from pig dung before reciting the prayer of Sema: Rabbi Yose bar Hanina said: One removes himself four cubits from animal dung. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, if it is soft, but only from donkeys. Rebbi Hiyya bar Abba See: Cristiano Grottanelli, “Avoiding pork: Egyptians and Jews in Greek and δatin texts,” in Food and Identity in the Ancient World, ed. C. Grottanelli and L. Milano (Padova: S.A.R.G.O.N., 2004), 74-77. 70 YalShim 968. 71 “Rέ Samuel bέ Rέ Isaac taught in the name of Rέ Samuel bέ Eleazar: The seven ‘ anities’ mentioned by Koheleth correspond to the seven worlds which a man beholds. At a year old he is like a king seated in a canopied litter, fondled and kissed by all. At two and three he is like a pig, sticking his hands in the gutters. At ten he skips like a kid. At twenty he is like neighing horse, adoring his person and longing for a wife. Having married, he is like an ass. When he has begotten children, he grows brazen like a dog to supply their food and wants. When he has become old, he is [bent] like an ape. What has just been said holds good only of the ignorant; but of those versed in the Torah it is written, Now king David was old (1 Kings 1:1) Ḳ although he was ‘old’, he was still a ‘king’έ” EcclR 1.1 72 Tan Pekudei 3 (and minor tractate semachot 1.3) . , 73 Ecclesiastes Zuta 1 (ed. Buber). 74 Tan σoa 13. (and YalShim, σoa 61). 75 As for example in Yerushalmi (Berakhot 2.4.3.3) which deals with the question as to whether one may pray in a bathouse which is not in use: “Rabbi Jermiah asked before Rabbi Zeïra: If it was used as bath house in summer but not in the rainy season, what is the rule? He said to him, a bath house even if it is not in use, a toilet even if it does not contain excrement. Mar Uqba said: a pig is a moving toilet.” Y. Berakhot 2:3, 4c. Translation by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer, The Jerusalem Talmud, Berakhot (Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2000), 187. And: b. Berakhot 26a. " : " ς' ' ' : ' ' . ' ' ' έ " 69 22 said, if it arrived from a trip. Levi said, one removes himself four cubits from the excrement of a pig. And it was stated: One removes himself four cubits from the excrement of a pig, four cubits from the excrement of a marten, four cubits from the excrement of chickens. Rebi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Huna: Only from red76 one.77 Bavli Nida 58b notes that in a city in which there are pigs, a woman should not fear that a bloodstain on her cloths is from her menstruation, and hence that she is impure: Rav Ashi said: In a city, in which there are pigs, we are not concerned about [blood] stains. Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak said: And this city Dedokart [a city in Mesopotamia] is like a city in which there are pigs. 78 Some commentators prefer to understand “Edomite.” Y. Berakhot 3:5, 6d. Translation by Guggenheimer, The Jerusalem Talmud, Berakhot, 314. έ : έ : : έ : έ : έ ] [ Bavli Berakhot 2ηa: “It has been stated: a putrid odor that has a tangible source. Rabbi Huna said: [one] distances himself four cubits and recites the Shema. And Rabbi Chisda said: distance four cubits from the place where the odor has dissipated, and recite the Shema. It was taught in a Baraisa in accordance with Rabbi Chisda: A man will not recite the Shema opposite human excrement, nor opposite dog excrement, nor opposite pig excrement, nor opposite chicken excrement, nor opposite a trash heap whose odor is putrid. But if [one of the above] was a place ten spans [tefyachim] higher or ten palms lower, [one should] sit alongside [that place] and recite the Shema and if not he distances within eyesight, and so it for prayer. A putrid odor that has a tangible source, one distances four cubits from the place of the smell and recites the Shema. Rava said: the law is not in accord with this [aforementioned] Baraisa, but with this [other] Baraisa: a man will not recite the Shema opposite human excrement, nor opposite pig excrement, nor opposite dog excrement, when one placed hides in them ]for tanning[έ]…[ It was stated: passing excrement. Abaye said: it is permitted to recite the Shema. Rava said: it is forbidden to recite the Shema. Abaye said: From where do I say this? As we learned in a Mishnah: if an impure [person] is standing under a tree and a pure [person] passes [underneath that tree], [the latter] is impure. If a pure [person] is standing under a tree and an impure [person] passes [underneath], [the former, remains] pure. And if [the impure man stops and] stands [under the tree, the other person is] impure. And so in the case with contaminated stone [with leprosy]. Rava could tell you [that] there the matter is dependent on [the] permanence as it is written: “He shall dwell in isolation; his dwelling shall be outside the camp (Lev.13:4θ)”έ Here, the εerciful τne said, “And your camp shall be holy” (Deutέ 23:1η), and this there is not [the case]. Rav Pappa said: The mouth of a pig is like passing excrement. [This is] obvious. [This teaching] is not necessary even though [the pig] has [just] emerged from a river.” : ; : . : , , : έ , ; , , έ ; , : ( ) , έ , : έ , έ , : ς ; : ; , έ , ; , : ς : έ : ": , : . ; , : έ : ,( , )" ": ,( , )" ! έ 78 B. Nida 58b. 76 77 23 The reasoning seems to be that the pig dirties its environment with drops of bloods coming out of his mouth. A city of pigs stands for a filthy city, and hence a city that is considered impure, such as Dedokart, is “like” a city of pigsέ This rabbinical disgust for the dirty pig became famous due to the 12th century Rabbi, doctor, and philosopher εaimonides’ explanation of avoidance of pork: I maintain that the food which is forbidden by the Law is unwholesome. There is nothin g among the forbidden kinds of food whose injurious character is doubted, except pork and fat. But also in these cases the doubt is not justified. For pork contains more moisture than necessary [for human food], and too much of superfluous matter. The principal reason why the δaw forbids swine’s flesh is to be found in the circumstance that its habits and its food are very dirty and loathsome. It has already been pointed out how emphatically the Law enjoins the removal of the sight of loathsome objects, even in the field and in the camp; how much more objectionable is such sight in towns. But if it were allowed to eat swine’s flesh, the streets and houses would be dirtier than any cesspool, as may be seen at present in the country of the Franksέ A saying of our Sages declares: “The mouth of a pig is like passing excrement" (B. Berakhot 25a)” 79 This explanation suggests that we differentiate between the sages who refuse to directly explain the reason d’être of the avoidance of pork and medieval rabbis who attempt to give a few rational explanations for this. In early rabbinic literature, the pig’s dirtiness does not explain the avoidance of pork, but rather indirectly reinforces its meaning by insisting on the repugnant nature of the animal. Sexual Lust The pig is associated in several texts with negative sexuality. Bavli Avoda Zara states that a man should not look at a male pig and a sow while they procreate: Nor upon the colorful clothing of a woman. Nor shall one gaze upon a he-donkey, nor upon a she donkey, nor upon a pig, nor upon a sow, nor upon birds, at the time they mate with one another. 80 έ : " έ : Moses Maimonides, The Guide for the Perplexed, trans. M. Friedlander (London: Geroge Routledge, 1919), 370-71. 80 B. Avodah Zara 20b. 79 24 Another link between the pig and sexuality is found in Bavli Moed Katan, where the pig is the instrument of punishment for having forbidden sexual relations: Rafram bέ Papa said, It is taught in the Ebel Rabbathi: “A mourner is forbidden to use the [conjugal] couch during his [seven] days of mourning;” and it happened ]once[ with one who used his [conjugal] couch during the [seven] days of his mourning that a swine hauled away his carcass. 81 Likewise, the later Midrash on Proverbs interprets the pig as representing a prostitute in Proverbs 11:22: “Gold ring in a pig's snout, a beautiful woman of errant sense”: “Gold ring in a pig's snout, a beautiful woman of errant sense,” (Proverbs 11:22) - If he put all the gold in a pig’s snout and it ]the pig[ goes and makes it dirty in the mud it does not corrupt it [the gold]. Likewise a Ta mid a am ]Torah’s scholar[ that goes to a prostitute and has sexual intercourse with her, did not corrupt his Torah. And it is true, for concerning it was said: “Gold ring in a pig's snoutέ” 82 Harmfulness The Hebrew Bibe describes the pig as a harmful animal: In Psalms 80:14, the wild pig ( ) symbolized the destruction of Israelήthe Temple: “(13) Why hast thou broken down its walls, so that all who pass along the way pluck its fruit? (14) The boar ] [ ' . Also Midr Tann, Deutronomy 23.10. " ' ' ' " :' -" 81 έ B. Moed Katan 24a. , ( , : ' "έ ' έ ' : 82 έ( : , - " έ MidProv 11, 62-64. My translation. έ , [ , έ )” ) " " , έ ' έ( : )] Midrash Mishle: A Critical Edition based on Vatican MS. Ebre. 44, ed. Burton I. Visotzky (New York: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1990), 91-92 (Hebrew). 25 from the forest (ya’ar) ravages it, and the beasts of the field feed on itέ” 83 As we will later see, in several midrashim this phrase refers to the oppression of Israel by the Romans, who, like “the boar of the forests kills people and injures folk and smites menέ” 84 The boar is an evil beast, which one has to eradicate. Referring to Leviticus 26:6, “I will give you peace in the land, after I will cause evil beasts to cease from the land,” the midrash notes that “evil beasts can refer only to the boar, for it is said, “The wild boar out of the wood doth root it up, and the wild beasts of the field devour it” (Psέ κί:14)έ” 85 The damage caused by pigs led to legal problems. The Tosefta notes that one has to pay the full payment for the damage caused by a pig that ate pieces of meat. 86 In the discussion on tzerorot laws concerning the damage done indirectly by an animal which, while walking, splashes stones or earth which damage things in its way, it is noted that - for “a pig which was rooting around and did damage with its snout Ḳ [the owner] pays the full value of the damages it has causedέ” 87 The danger of the pig is also magical. According to Bavli Pesa im, a man should not pass between two pigs or a pig between two men: “Our Rabbis taught: There are three who must not pass between [two men], nor may [others] pass between them, viz.: a dog, a palm tree, and a woman. Some say: a swine too; some say, a snake tooέ” The Talmud also provides the remedy for such a transgression: “Said, Rέ Papa: δet them commence ]a 83 Weiser, The Psalms, 546. ARN A 34. Translation by Goldin, The Fathers, 138. . , , 85 Translation by William G. Braude, The Midrash on Psalms, vol. 2 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1959), 293. , ,( , , ) " "ς έ( , )" " ( , )" ": 86 T. Baba Kama 1.8. 87 T. Baba Kama 1.8. B. Baba Kama 17bέ See: Amitai Salomon, “Din Tzerorot veεekorotav, (The δaw of Tzerorot and its τrigin),” Petuhi Hotam 3 (2008): 110-145 (Hebrew). Avishalom Westreich, “Gibuso ePituho she din t erorot bedibrei haTana’aim, bedibrei haAmora’aim ubata mudim (The Formation and Development of Tzerorot δaw in the Saying of the Tannaits, Amoraics and the Talmuds,” Sidra 19 (2004): 77-100 (Hebrew). 84 26 verse] with el [God] and end with el. Others say: Let them commence [a Scriptural passage] with lo [not] and finish with lo.88 Injurious voice A later midrash notes, “Three voices are hard to humans: the voice of adolescent; the voice of mice; the voice of pigs. And there are who say also the voice of thunder and the voice of donkeysέ” 89 It is also possible that in some versions of the legend of the destruction of the Temple, the pig is said to cause the destruction by its screaming. 90 Uselessness and Idleness The uselessness of the pig is a common Greco-Roman topos,91 which goes hand in hand with the idea that the pig is an idle animal which is only good after its death. This is an idea found in an Aesopian story incorporated in midrash Esther Rabbah (which will be discussed in detail in chapter ten). According to this story, a man that had a filly, a sheḲass, and a sow gave the sow more to eat than he gave to the working animals, but finally this worked against the sow´s interest, for after being fattened it was butchered. Observing this, the she-ass barely ate. However, “her mother told her: “my daughter, it is not the food that is the cause, but the idlenessέ”92 A similar observation on the use lessness 88 B. Peshim 111a. Translation by Hebrew-English Edition of the Babylonain Talmud, Pesahim (London: The Soncino Press, 1967), with slight alteration. έ : , : έ , : , : έ : έ : ς 89 Otzar haMidrashim, ed. J. D. Eiesenstein (New York: Eiesenstein, 1915), 168 (hupat Eliyau). έ " , ( ") 90 See: Saul Liberman, Tosefta Ki-Fshutah: A Comprehensive Commentary on the Tosefta, vol. 9, Second Augmented Edition (New Yotk: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1992), 185 (Hebrew). And Ibid. Studies in Palestinian Talmudic Literature (εe arim be-Torat rets- i ra e ) (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1991), 488-490 (Hebrew). 91 See for example Ovid, Fasti 1. 349-362; 1.655; Metamorphoses 15.111-121. 92 Esther Rabbah 7.10. . : 27 of the pig is found in Midrash Zuta’s comment that while the sheep is sheered and grows wool, the pig is not sheered and does not grow wool: A man should not say: I reduce my goods if I will give [alms] to the poor. [Rather] a man should observe that what does not diminish does not increase. The hair of the head and beard which are cut always grow, and the eyebrows are not cut ever and never grow. And indeed Israel was compared to a sheep that is sheered and grows wool, while the pig is not sheered and does not grow ]wool[έ” 93 Diseases Bavli, Ta’anit explicitly notes the danger of contagion between pigs and humans: They said to Rav Yehudah: “There is pestilence among the pigsέ” He decreed a fastέ Shall we say [that] Rav Yehudah maintains [that] an epidemic that is spread among one species will spread among all the species? No. Pigs are different, because their intestines are similar to those of human beings. 94 It is not clear what sort of epidemic the Talmud associates with pigs and humans. However, in some rabbinic sources we find the link between the pig and leprosy. 95 Bavli Kidushin 4λb notes: “Ten measures of disease ]nèga’im] descended to the world. Pigs took nine, ]and the rest of the world took one[έ” 96 The word nèga’im (pl.), nèga’ (sing.) is one of the words for ‘leprosy” and other skin diseases in rabbinical textsέ The saying can be understood to mean that the pig suffers from leprosy more than any other creature of the world, that it is the leprous animal par excellence. In Bavli Sabbath, another connection seems to be made between pork and leprosy: 93 94 , ς Midrash Zuta, Song of Songs (ed. Buber) 1.15. My translation. : έ , B. Ta’anit 21b. έ έ , : έ , 95 The link between leprosy and pigs is also found in Egyptian and Greco-Roman sources. See Grottanelli, “Avoiding Pork,” 7ί-74 and Youri Volokhine‘s forthcoming book: Le porc en Egypte: Mythes et histoire à ’origine des interdis a imentaires. 96 B. Kiddushin 49b. ' ' , 28 έ : , Rav and Shmuel both say: One who undergoes the procedure [of blood letting] should eat something [first] and then leave [the house]. For if he does not eat anything [before leaving, he exposes himself to a host of dangers:] if he meets up with a corpse, his face will turn greenέ If he meets up with a murderer, he will dieέ If he meets up with “that other thing,” ]which Rashi identifies as a pig] it is harmful with regard to “that other thing” ]Rashi: iέeέ leprosy[έ 97 The eleventh century commentator Rashi based his reading of ‘another thing’ [davar ha er] as first meaning once pig and then leprosy on Kidusin 4λb (“Ten measures of disease [nega’im] descended to the world. Pigs took nine, [and the rest of the world took one[)έ” Similarly, he understood a story in Bavli, Ketubot: Ameimar, εar Zutra and Rav Ashi were ]once[ sitting by the entrance to King Izgur’s palaceέ The king’s steward passed by ]carrying the king’s food[έ Rav Ashi saw that εar Zutra’s face became paleέ He took ]some of the food[ with his finger ]and[ placed it into ]εar Zutra’s[ mouthέ ]The steward[ said to ]Rav Ashi[, “You ruined the king’s meal!” ]They[ said to him, “Why did you do thusς” ]Rav Ashi[ said to them, “Whoever prepared ]food[ in this manner disqualifies the king’s foodέ” They said to him, “Whyς” ]Rav Ashi[ said to them, “I saw another thing ](Rashi) leprous pig meat[ 98 ]in the dish[έ” They inspected [the dish] and did not find ]any leprous meatέ Rav Ashi[ took ]the chef’s finger ]and[ placed it on ]one particular peace[ of the meat, ]and[ said to them, “Did you inspect hereς” They inspected ]that piece of meat and miraculously[ they found ]it to be leprous[έ The Rabbis said to ]Rav Ashi[ “What is the reason you relied on a miracleς” He said to them, “I saw a spirit of leprosy sprouting on himέ” 99 We may conclude that the alleged connection between the “leprous” pig meat, iέeέ meat suffering from Taenia solium custicercus, and leprosy, which is known to us from the Middle Ages, also existed in early rabbinic literature (as in Greco-Roman literature). Leprosy however must not be understood as only referring to Hansen’s disease, but rather to a great number of skin diseases that cause scales and measles. 97 B. Sabath 129a. Translation by Schottenstein Talmud (Brooklyn: Mesorah Publications, 1990Ḳ2005), with slight alteration. , , , : έ , 98 Rashi: " , 99 B. Ketubot 61a. Translation by Schottenstein Talmud, with sligth alteration. , , , : ς : έ : " έ , : έ έ έ : έ : έ έ : έ " : έ έ 29 Fig. 1: Cysticercosis muscle of a Pig. The several vesicular ovoid nodules, whitishyellow and smaller than a green pea, are larvae of Taenia solium. Interestingly, despite the negative nature of the pig, Bavli Shabbat 110b provides a remedy for a disease called Yerakon (probably jaundice):100 take a “speckled another thing (da har a er = pig), tear it open and apply it to the sick heartέ” 101 Drunkenness Referring to σoah’s drunkenness after the flood, during which his pudenda was exposed to his younger son Ham (Gn 9:21-28), the sages compare one of the stages of drunkenness to the behavior of pig: Our teachers of blessed memory stated: While Noah was planting the vineyard; Satan appeared before him and asked: “What are you plantingς” He answered: “A vineyardέ” “What is itς” inquired Satanέ “Its fruits are sweet, whether moist or dry,” he answered, “and from them one produces a wine that causes the heart of man to rejoice, as it is written: “And wine doth make glad the heart of man (Psέ 1ί4:1η)έ” Satan suggested: “Come, let us be partners in the vineyardέ” And σoah replied: “Certainlyέ” What did Satan do? First, he obtained a lamb and slaughtered it beneath the vineyard. Then, he took a lion and slaughtered it there, and after that he obtained a pig and an ape and slaughtered them in the same place. Their blood seeped into the earth, watering the vineyard. He did this to demonstrate to Noah that before drinking wine man is as innocent as a sheep: “δike a sheep that before her shearers is dumb (Isέ η3:7)έ” But after he drinks a moderate amount of wine he believes himself to be as strong as a lion, boasting that no one in all the world is his equal. When he drinks more than he should, he behaves like a pig, wallowing about in urine and performing other base acts. After he becomes completely intoxicated, he behaves like an ape, dancing about, laughing Fred Rosner, “Yerakon in the Bible, and Talmud: Jaundice or anemia,” The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 25, no. 6 (1972): 626-628. 101 B. Shabbat 110b. . , 100 30 hysterically, prattling foolishly, and is completely unaware of what he is doing. All this happened to the righteous Noah. If the righteous Noah, whom the Holy One, blessed be He, praised, could behave in such a fashion, how much more so could any other man! 102 Hypocrisy In Leviticus Rabbah 13 (and Genesis Rabbah 65.1), it is argued that the Roman Empire/Esau is compared to a pig because the empire in its hypocrisy pretends to be pure: “Just as the swine when reclining puts forth its hooves as if to say: See that I am cleanέ”103 Discussion We have reviewed some of the topoi concerning pigs found in the rabbinic literature: omnivores, excrement and dirt, sexual lust, harmfulness, injurious voice, uselessness and idleness, diseases, drunkenness, and hypocrisy. To these, we must of course add impurity, which is the most present and will be at the heart of our discussion later on. All these topoi are found in Greco-Roman literature, 104 but many other topoi found in these texts are absent in rabbinic literature: criminality, tyranny, injustice, death, Tan, σoa 13. (and YalShim, σoa 61). Translation by Samuel A. Berman, Midrash TanhumaYelammedenu: An English Translation of Genesis and Exodus from the Printed Version of Tanhuma Yelammedenu with an Introduction, Notes, and Indexes (Hoboken, NJ: KTAV, 1995), 66-67 ς : " έ : " ς : " , : " : " , : " έ( )" ": " , " , " , ς έ , , ,( , )" " , έ , " έ For this story in the context of the rabbinic folktale, see: Eli Yassif, The Hebrew Folktale: History, Genre, Meaning (Bloomington, Ind: Indiana University Press, 1999), 82. 103 LevR 5.4. (and GenR, Toledoth 64.1). Translation by J. Israelstam and Judah J. Slotki, Midrash Rabbah, Leviticus (London; New York: Soncino Press, 1939), 174. 104 Grottinelli is wrong when stating that aside from the topos of the filthiness of the pig, other GrecoRoman topoi concerning the pig are not found in Talmudic literatureέ See Grottanelli, “Avoiding Pork,” 78. 102 31 being nothing but meat, earthiness, fecundity, gluttony, excrement-eating, cannibalism, courage, ferocity, and stupidity. However, the rabbinic portrait of the pig more or less resembles the main traits of this animal in Greco-Roman discourse, as for example in the anonymous Latin Treatise of Physiognomy (4th cent. CE?), where the pig is portrayed as violent, ignorant, filthy, voracious, foulmouthed, insatiable, unclean, irascible, a drunkard and a criminal [fig. 2]. 105 sky Improper meat for philosophers Pig sacrifice The courageous Boar Enemy of the divinty Positive Negative Stupidty Boar sterility Criminality Downcast eyes Impurity Strong meat Flthiness Gluttony Rich as the soil excrement Lust Death Rooting animal Leprosy Fecundity Plowing animal Earth Fig. 2: The Porcine Greco-Roman Discursive Sphere (Rabbinical δiterature’s themes in boxes)έ Two characteristics of the rabbinic porcine discourse distinguish it from GrecoRoman discourse: first, it does not give any positive place to the pig, and secondly it tends to refer to the domestic animal and the savage one in the same terms, associating both animals together, which is manifested by calling both a ir. As we will later see, this negative nature of the pig reinforces the meaning of the avoidance of pork as well of its eaters. 105 Treatise of Physiognomy (De Physiognomonia Liber) 14, 17, 18, 48, 51, 194. Anonyme Latin, Traité de physiognomonie, trad. Jacques André (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1981), 61, 64, 66, 88-89, 90, 127. 32 Chapter 2 The Prohibited Animal For the sages, the pig was above all a prohibited animal that raised diverse legal issues. While Deuteronomy 14 and Leviticus 11 prohibit only its consumption and the touching of its carcass, the Sages also discuss a variety of other possible prohibitions: breeding, feeding, commerce, or using pig hide. After discussing these cases, I will address the Sages’ understandings of the biblical prohibition of pork and their refusal to explain the grounds for this prohibition. Prohibition of Breeding One of the manifestations of the repulsion the sages held for the pig is the εishnaic’s law that “no one may raise swine in any place”έ 106 Likewise, Avot deRabbi Nathan (version A), speaking about the ritual laws concerning Jerusalem, notes that “neither geese nor chickens may be raised there, nor needless to say, pigsέ” 107 In the Tosefta, Rabbi Eleazar is quoted saying, “One who raises dogs is like one who raises pigs.” 108 The context of the mentioned curse is given in the Bavli: 109 the civil war M. baba Kamma 7.7. “They may not raise small cattle in the δand of Israel, but they may rear them in Syria or in the wilderness in the Land of Israel. They may not raise fowls in Jerusalem because of the sacrifices; nor may priests [rear them] in the Land of Israel because of [the laws regarding Levitically prepared] clean foods. And no one may raise swine in any place. A man may not rear a dog unless it is tied on a chain. They may not set snares for doves unless they are thirty ris from an inhabited placeέ” Translation by Blackman, Mishnayoth, vol. IV, 62. . . . . : 107 ARN A 35. Translation by Goldin, The Fathers, 144. έ 106 108 T. Baba Batra (ed. Liberman) 8.17. έ : See also the discussion of Rabi Eleazar in Tosefta Yevamot 3έ3: “They asked Rέ Eleazar, “A mamzer Ḳ may he inheritς” He said to them: “εay he perform halisahς” “εay he perform halisahς” He said to them, “εay he inheritς” “εay he inheritς” He said to them, “εay one plaster his houseς” ] “εay one plaster his houseς”[ He said to them, “εay one plaster his graveς” “εay one plaster his graveς” He said to them, “εay one raise dogsς” “εay one raise dogsς” He said to them, “εay one raise pigsς” “εay one raise 33 between the brothers Hyrcanus II and Aristobulus II at the end of the Hasmonean dynasty. According to the story (discussed in detail in chapter four), during the siege of Jerusalem each day the besieged lowered dinars over the wall in a box, and the besiegers raised up to them sacrificial animals for the daily offering (the tamid). However, one day, following the advice of an old man who was knowledgeable about Greek wisdom, the besiegers replaced the pure sacrificial animals with a pig. When the pig thrust its paws against the wall, the city fell. Hence, “at that time did they declare: “Cursed be the man who will rear pigs! And cursed be the man who will teach his son Greek wisdom. 110 Here, pig breeders are analogous to assimilated Jews who blur the boundary between Jews and non-Jews and finally became traitors. The sages’ disdain for pig breeding is also pigsς” He said, “εay one raise roostersς” “εay one raise roostersς” He said to them, “εay one raise small cattleς” “εay one raise small cattleς” He said to them, “εay one save the shepherd from the wolfς” “εay one save the shepherd from the wolfς” He said to them, “It seems you have asked me only concerning the lambς”And as regards the lamb, “εay one save ]it[ς” He said to them, “It seems you have asked only about the shepherdέ” So-and-so, what is he as to [does he enter] the world to come? So and so, what is he as to the world to comeς” He said to them, “It seems that you have asked only about so-and-soέ” “And so-and-so, what is he ]=his status[ as the world to comeς” Rέ Eleazar was not putting them off, but he never said anything which he had not heardέ” Translation by Jacob σeusner, Eliezer Ben Hyrcanus: The Tradition and the Man, Part 1, The Tradition (Leiden: Brill, 1973), 178. : ς : ς : " ς ? : ? : " ς ς : " ς : ς : ς : ς ς : " ς ς : : ς : " ς ς ] : ς " " . " ] " 109 B. Baba Kamma 72b; Menahot 49b; Sota 49b. The three versions are identical, but in the Sota 49b version the place of Aristobolus and Horkanus is reversed. 110 B. Menahot 49b. έ , ": , , έ έ " έ , , έ" έ , ": The Yerushalmi (Ta’anit 4.68; Berachot 4.7) tells two analogous episodes from the time of Greece and Rome. Bavli Baba Kama (κ3a) after discussing the studying of Greek refers to Rabbi Eleazar’s saying: “It was taught in ]another[ Beraitah: R’ Elieser the Great says: One who raises dogs is like one who raises pigs. [the Gemara asks:] Regarding what [matter] is this relevant? To implicate him, [the one who raises dogs,] in the ]Rabbis’ imprecation,[ “Cursed be ]the man who raises swine[έ” έ ς έ : 34 manifested in a story told by the Yerusalmi of how a non-Jewish noble woman told a rabbi that his face is radiant like that of a pig breeder: When Rabbi Yona drank four cups during the night of Pesach, he held his head until Pentecost. Rabbi Yuda son of Rabbi Elai, drank four cups in the night of Pesach, and held his head until Sukkot! A Matrona saw his face glowing. She said to him: Old man, old man, one out of three things is in you: Either you are wine drinker, or a usurer or a pig farmer. He answered her: May the spirit leave this woman! None of these three things is in me but my learning as is written: “the wisdom of man makes his face shineέ” (Ecclέ 8:1) 111.112 Why does the face of wine drinker, or a usurer or a pig farmer shine? Rashi explains that the three faces shine of happiness for they gain a lot without effort. 113 In rabbinic and Greco-Roman sources, we find the link of the pig to drunkenness, 114 and also to richness, 115 which might explain the analogy the story creates between a wine drinker, a usurer, and a pig farmer. What is important to our subject here is that the pig breeder is presented as the opposite of the Talmudic scholar.116 In another version of the story, the reason for the shining visage of the sage is very different from Torah learning (here b. Berakhot 55a): Ecclέ κ:1έ “Who is like the wise manς And who knows the interpretation of a thingς Wisdom makes one's face shine, and the hardness of one's countenance is changedέ” . ֻ‫ ְ פ ְש‬, ‫ת פ‬ ְ ; ‫פש ד‬, ֹ ּ , ְ , 112 Y. Pesa im 10:1, 37c (and: y. Shabbat 8:1, 11a; y. Shekalim 3:2, 47c). Translation by Daniel Stökl Ben Ezra, “Parody and Polemics on Pentecost: Talmud Yerushalmi. Pesahim on Acts 2?” in Jewish and Christian Liturgy and Worship: New Insights into Its History and Interaction , ed. Albert Gerhards and Clemens Leonhard (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 287. ' ' . : . : έ ". ": 113 Rashi: " , " 114 Tan, σoa 13 (and a Shim, σoa 61). 115 “σone richer than a swineέ” B. Sabbath 155b. 116 Midrash Samuel (ed. Buber) 16, notes the analogy of the effect of wine drinking and Torah studying: “δike this vine ]=Torah[ that as much one eats and drinks from it he has a beaming face, hence “the wisdom of man makes his face shineέ” (Ecclέ κ:1) - [this is] when he has been asked and responds, “and the hardness of one's countenance is changedέ” (Ecclέ κ:1) Ḳ when he has been asked but does not responseέ” My translation. - ( , )" " , . -( , )" ", 111 35 (…) a certain noblewoman said to R’ Yehudah the son of R’ Il’ai, “Your ]radiant[ face resembles ]that of[ pig breeders and usurersέ” He said to her, “Faith! Both of these [occupations] are prohibited to me. Rather, there are twenty-four privies between my lodging and the house of study. [And] when I go [from one location to the other] I check myself in all of themέ”117 In this version, the sage’s face shines because he is relieved after using the toilet. Perhaps this is because in contrast to breeders of pigs (an animal whose mouth was considered by the sages to be a walking toilet) or usurers, the sage does not accumulate impurity but to the contrary eliminates it. Indeed, what the midrash seems to reproach pigs breeders for is excess. In Koelet (Ecclesiastes) Rabbah Zuta, Rabbi Hunah notes on Ecclesiastes 6:11: “The more words, the more vanity, [so how is one the better?]” - “like 117 B. Berakhot 55a (and: b. Nedarim 49b; PesR 14; Tan ukkot 191; YalShim 977). , : , ς , , , , , , έ , , -! : , ! : -έ : έ , , ; In Bavli Nedarim 4λb, a version of this story the one that says Rabbi Yehudah’s face resembled that of pig breeders is a Sadducee: “]A certain Sadducee once said to R’ Yehudah, “Your face seems to be ]the fac e of] either usurers or pig farmersέ” ]R’ Yehudah[ replied to ]the Sadducee[, “By the oath used among, Jews, both of those [occupations] are prohibited [to me and are not the reason for my glow.] Rather, I have twenty-four lavatories between my house and study hall, and each and every hour I enter each and every one of themέ ]This explains my shining faceέ”[ , : " ! : ' έ , And Tan uma (edέ Buber) 1λ “A certain gentile saw Rέ Judah bέ Rέ Il’ay with his shiningέ He said: σow one of three things is the matter with the man: Either he is lending at interest, or he is raising swine, or he is drinking wineέ ]When[ Rέ Judah bέ Il’ay heard his remark, he said to him: May the breath of that man blow out ]of him[, for none of them applies to meέ I am not lending at interest, because it is written:’ “You shall not lend to your brother at interest” (Dtέ 23:2ί)έ εoreover, I am not raising swine, because a child of Israel is forbidden to rear swine, since we are taught there (cf. Bavli, Qidushin κ2b) ‘σo one may raise swine in any place’έ σor am I sotted with wine, because the four Paschal cups which I drink at Passover has my head tied in knots from Passover to Pentecost. R. Mani had his head tied in knots from Passover to the feast of Tabernacles. [The gentile] said to him: Then for what reason is your face shining? He said to him: It is the study of Torah that makes my face shine for me. It is written: ‘A person’s wisdom lights up his face’ (Ecclέ κ:1)έ” , , : . " ' , , : " , " ' . , , , , ,( , )” “: , ' έ , , , ": , : " ς : έ "έ And PesR 14; YalShim 977. , 36 the breeders of monkeys, cats and pigsέ” 118 It seems that pigs stand for vanity not jus t because they are impure but also because they are prolific animals, and hence demonstrate vain excess. We find the contrast “pig breeder - Talmudic scholar” also in a legend (discussed in detail in chapter six) concerning the emperor Diocletian. According to the legend the young Diocletian was a swineherd in Tiberiasέ Whenever he came near Rabbi’s school, the young students would come out and beat him up. When he became emperor, he tried to take vengeance on the sages, but miracles protected them. Diocletian criticized the sages, saying that they disdained the king because they knew that God performs miracles on their behalf. To this, the sages answered: “Diocletian who was a swineherd we did indeed disdain, but to Diocletian the king we are enslavedέ” 119 Another foreign ruler whom the sages compare to a swineherd is Pharaoh. In a parable in Exodus Rabbah (also discussed in detail in chapter six), Pharaoh is compared to a swineherd who found an ewe-lamb (=Israel), and kept it among his pigs. The owner (God) asked for his ewe-lamb (Israel) but in the face of the swineherd’s refusal, acquired it only after a serious of sanctions. 120 Hence, Israel is the lamb, the non-Jews (Egyptians) are pigs; the foreign ruler (Pharaoh) is a swineherd, while the ruler of Israel, God, is the ultimate shepherd. The swineherd is the opposite social pole of the King, hence referring to a king as a swineherd is degrading. Yalkut Shimoni tells a story about the Persian King who dreamed that the Romans captured him and forced him to feed pigs: Koelet Rabbah Zuta 6.11." " ' έ” See: Reuven Kipperwasser, Midrashim on Kohelet; Studies in their Redaction and Formation, PhD Thesis (Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University, 2005), 54. 119 GenR Toledoth 63.8.7. and Y. Terumot 8:11, 46c. My translation. έ , :' 120 ExR 20. 118 37 The Emperor [of Rome] said to R. Joshua b. R. Hananyah: You [Jews] profess to be very clever. Tell me what I shall see in my dream. He said to him: You will see the Persians coming and taking you captive and making you grind date-stones in a golden mill. He thought about it all day, and in the night he saw it in his dream. King Shapor [I, the Persian king] once said to Samuel: You [Jews] profess to be very clever. Tell me what I shall see in my dream. He said to him: You will see the Romans coming and taking you captive and making you feed pigs with a golden crook. He thought about it the whole day and in the night saw it in a dream. 121 Feeding and Commerce Contrary to the texts that forbid pig breeding, other texts deal with questions of feeding or selling pigs (theoretically but likely also practically). Bavli Shabbath notes that one should feed a dog on the Sabbath but not a pig. The logic seems to be explained later by the observation that “there is no poorer than a dog, and richer than the pigέ” The question is how long the animal will not suffer without being fed. The Braitah seemed to assume that the dog digests quickly and thus has to be feed even on the Sabbath, while the pig digests slowly,122 and thus should not be fed. 123 121 ς YalkShim Daniel 1060. My translation. : " ς : έ : έ ' " . , : Compare to Bavli Berakhot ηθa: “The Emperor ]of Rome[ said to Rέ Joshua bέ Rέ Hananyah: You ]Jews[ profess to be very clever. Tell me what I shall see in my dream. He said to him: You will see the Persians making you do forced labor, and despoiling you and making you feed unclean animals with a golden crook. He thought about it all day, and in the night he saw it in his dream. King Shapor [I] once said to Samuel: You [Jews] profess to be very clever. Tell me what I shall see in my dream. He said to him: You will see the Romans coming and taking you captive and making you grind date-stones in a golden mill. He thought about it the whole day and in the night saw it in a dreamέ” : ς : ' : έ έ . έ : ς Becoming a swineherd as sign of humiliationή”fall” is found in the σew Testament’s parable of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11-32). 122 For a similar distinction between the digestive systems of the dog and that of the pig in Greek thought, see: Christophe δafon, “Un organisme interne semblable au chaudron du sacrifice,” La sacrifice antique: vestiges procédures et stratégies, Sous la direction de Véronique Mehl et Pierre Brulé (Renne: Presses Universitaires de Rennes, 2008), 155-166. 123 B. Sabbath 1ηηbέ “Even as it was taught: Food may be placed before a dog but not before a swineέ And what is the difference between them? You are responsible for the food of the one, but you are not responsible for the food of the otherέ ]…[ R. Jonah lectured at the entrance to the Nasi's academy: What is 38 While pig breeding is clearly forbidden, under some circumstances a Jew can sell pigs. For example, according to the Bavli, Baba Kama, a proselyte who inherited pigs, is not obliged to sell them all immediately, but may sell them off little by little. 124 However, Mishnah Ukatzin states that the carcass of a pig, camel, hare, and rabbit could be sold to a non-Jew anywhere. 125 Tosefta Avodah Zara states that one can sell pigs to a taga r because there is no danger that he will sacrifice them to idolatry: And of all of them, he would sell them a bundle. And how much is a bundle? R. Judah b. Peterah says, “In the case of frankincense, it is no less than three by numberέ” τne sells [the stated substances] to a tagar [merchant], but does not sell to a householder [M. Avodah Zara 1.5A]. But if the tagar [merchant] was suspect [of idolatrous practices], it is prohibited to sell [them] to him. One sells them pigs and does not scruple that he might offer them up to an idol. One sells him wine and does not scruple that he might offer it as a libation to an idol. But if he explicitly stated to him [that his intent was to make use of what he was buying for idolatry], it is prohibited to sell him even water, even salt [M. Avodah Zara 1.5f]. 126 As Emmanuel Friedheim notes, the tagar is probably a Syrian or Arab nomad merchant, for whom pork and wine are forbidden and thus there is no risk that he will use them for idolatry.127 meant by the verse, “The righteous knoweth the cause of the poor”? The Holy One, blessed be He, knoweth that a dog's food is scanty, therefore He makes him retain his food in his stomach for three days. As we learnt: How long shall the food remain in its stomach and yet defile? In the case of a dog, three full days of twenty-four hours; while in the case of birds or fish, as long as it would take for it [the food] to fall into the fire and be burnt. R. Hamnuna said: This proves that it is the proper thing to throw raw meat to a dog. And how much? Said R. Mari: Measure its ear and the stick [straight] after! But that is only in the fields but not in town, because it will come to follow him. R. Papa said: None are poorer than a dog and none richer than a swineέ” έ - ς έ , : ς( )" ": : (έέέ) , , : έ , - ς έ : : έ , : έ , , έ , : έ 124 B. Baba Kama 80a. 125 M. Ukatzin 3:3. 126 T. Avodah Zara (ed. Zurkmendel) 1.21. έ : ' ς , έ , έ , 127 Emmanuel Friedheim, “The Travelling εerchant and Arabian-Syrian Pagan Rituals Mentioned in the Toseftaέ” Tarbiz 69, no. 2 (2000): 170 (Hebrew). And Ibid. Rabbinisme et Paganisme en Palestine 39 Pig Hide Mishnah u in 9:1 states that in general the hide of an animal is not subject to the rules of food impurity, but rather to those of carcass impurity. Mishanh u in 9:2 lists some animals whose hides follow the rules of flesh in all respects. R. Johanan holds that for eating pigskin one never can be prosecuted, while R. Shimeon ben Laqish holds that eating pigskin, not yet transformed into leather, is as punishable as eating pork. 128 Purity and Classification How did the sages understand the prohibition of pork in Deuteronomy 14:8 and Leviticus 11:7? The early midrash Sifra questions the logic of the biblical classification system concerning the pig in diverse places. Sifra Shemini 2.4 asks how one knows on the basis of the four anomalous animals mentioned in Leviticus (camel, rock badger, hare, and pig) that one may not eat other impure animals? “…έWhich you may eat among all the beasts” (δevέ 11:1): ]…[ I know only that the prohibition of eating an unclean beast is subject to a positive commandment ]“which you may eat,” meaning the others may not be eaten; eat these only[έ How do I know that unclean beasts are subject also to a negative commandmentς Scripture says, “The camel…the rock badger…the hare…the pig…of their flesh you shall not eatέ” I know that is the case only for these that have been specified alone. How do I know that is the case for other unclean domesticated beasts? It is accessible through a logical argument: If these, which possess some of the indicators of cleanness, lo, they are subject to a negative commandment against eating them, those that lack any of the indicators of cleanness surely should be subject to a negative commandment against eating them. Thus the rule governing the camel, rock badger, hare, and pig derives from Scripture, and the rule romaine: étude historique des Realia talmudiques (Ier -IVème siècles) (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2006), 250262. The avoidance of pork in ancient Syria is mentioned by Syrian avoidance of pork by Epictetus, Porphyry and Damascius. The avoidance of pork in proto Islamic Arabia is mentioned by: Solinus, The Wonders of the World (De mirabilibus mundi) 33.2.4; Pliny, Natural History 8.78.213; Jerome (d. 420 CE), Against Jovinian 2 (NPNF2-06); Hermias Sozomen (c. 440 CE), Church History 6.38 (PG 67.1412C; NPNF 2, 375). 128 M. u in 9.2. : έ : : έ : έ : And b. u in 122a; b. Shabbat 14b; y. Pesahim 7:11, 35a; y. Shabbat 14:1, 14b. 40 governing other unclean beasts from an argument a fortiori. The affirmative commandment affecting them derives from Scripture, the negative one from an argument a fortiori.129 The pig is understood here as a generic symbol for impure animals. While it is doubtful that this was the intention of the biblical text itself, it probably reflects the special importance of the avoidance of pork in the rabbinic period. We find a similar legal discussion in Sifra Shemini 4.1, which deals with the prohibition of touching the carcass of an animal (Leviticus 11:24-28).130 The midrash starts by questioning whether the law covers all animals: “And by these you shall become unclean” (δevέ 11:24): εight one suppose that “these” refers to all the categories stated in context [so that the rules that follow pertain through, and not only to carrion of beasts]? And what are the categories stated in context? Domesticated beasts, wild beasts, birds, fish and locusts. In order to eliminate this possibility by reducing the span of the law, proof texts are taken from δeviticus 11:2θ (the word “animal” excludes fish, “parts the hoof” excludes locusts and fowl, and “cloven-footed” eliminates birds): Might one suppose that a limb cut from a living creature should impart uncleanness in the case of all of themς Scripture says, “animalέ” I may then eliminate fish that live in the ocean, which are not susceptible to uncleanness, but I shall not eliminate locusts. To the contrary, Scripture says, “Every animal which parts ]the hoof[…” I shall then eliminate locusts, to the species of which uncleanness does not apply, but I shall not eliminate fowl, to species of which uncleanness does applyέ To the contrary, Scripture says, “]Every animal which parts[ the hoof…” Then perhaps I should eliminate unclean birds but not eliminate clean birds? It is a matter of logic. If a beast, which cannot impart uncleanness 129 Sifra 2.4. Translation by Jacob Neusner, Sifra: An Analytical Translation, vol. 2 (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1988), 155-156. " ": " - " " ", ": " ς , ( )έ , , , , έ 130 “24: And by these you shall become unclean: whoever touches their carcass shall be unclean until the evening, 25: and whoever carries any part of their carcass shall wash his clothes and be unclean until the evening. 26: Every animal which parts the hoof but is not cloven-footed, or does not chew the cud, is unclean to you. Everyone who touches them shall be unclean. 27: And all that go on their paws among the animals that go on all fours are unclean to you; whoever touches their carcass shall be unclean until the evening, 28: and he who carries their carcass shall wash his clothes and be unclean until the evening; they are unclean to youέ” (Lev. 11: 24-28). 41 to clothing when a bit of it is in the gullet, produces a limb from the living creature which does impart such uncleanness, a bird, which does impart uncleanness to clothing when a bit of it is in the gullet, surely should yield a limb from the living creature which does impart such uncleanness! To the contrary, Scripture says, “But is not cloven-footedέ” [That eliminates all birds.]131 After explaining that Leviticus 11:26 reduces the law to only four footed animals, it is explained how the same phrase covers all the possible cases among those animals: I know then that the law applies only to clean beasts. How do I know that it applies to unclean beasts as wellς Scripture says, “Every animal” (δevέ 11:2θ) and as to a beast that is cleanς Scripture says, “Every animal which partsέέέ” (Ibidέ) And as to a beast that is uncleanς Scripture says, “…the hoofέ” (Ibidέ) And as to those that have cloven hoofsς Scripture says, “Cloven-footedέ” (Ibidέ) And those that do not have cloven hoofs? Scripture says, “But is not cloven-footedέ” And as to those that chew the cud among domesticated beastsς Scripture says, “τr does not chew the cudέ” σow is there not the case of the pig, which parts the hoof and is cloven-footed? Is it possible that the limb cut from a living creature in that case should not impart uncleannessς Scripture says, “Does not chew the cud, is unclean to youέ”132 If it is prohibited to touch the carcass of pig, 133 this prohibition is taken to its extreme by being inscribed in the discussion of eating a limb cut from a living creature. It is clear that what is at stake is not the real possibility but a theoretical one. In any case, the classification system is described as perfect, for it covers all imaginable possi bilities. 131 , Sifra 4.1. Translation by Neusner, Sifra, vol 2, 171-172. "έ ": " ς , "έ - " ": " ς "έ ": " " ς 132 Sifra 4.1. Translation by Neusner, Sifra, vol 2, 171-172. ς , : " ς , : " ς ": " ς "έ ": " ς : " ς , "έ "έ ": " ": " ς έ : " ": " ς "έ "έ " 133 The Mishnah, Okazin 3.3 notes that the pig is polluted in any case, whether contact with it was intentional or random: “The carcass of an unclean beast anywhere, and the carcass of a clean bird in villages, need intention, but [being already unclean] they do not require to be rendered susceptive to uncleanness. The carcass of a clean beast in any place, and the carcass of a clean bird and fat in the markets do not need either intention or to be made susceptive to uncleanness. R. Simon says, Also, [the carcass of] the camel, or the hare, or the cony, or the pig [- these do not need intention[έ” " έ : : " έ And εidrash Tana’aim to Deutronomy 14.7; b. e orot 10a. 42 "έ The textual inquiry by a series of distinctions repeats and reinforce the original distinction of the classification system in general and that of the pig in particular (fig. 3). Fig. 3: Classification of beasts in Leviticus 11 according to Sifra Shemini 4.1. u in 59a: We find the pig as a locus of distinction also in Bavli And Rav Chisda said: [If] one was traveling on the road and he found an animal whose mouth was mutilated, [so that he cannot determine whether it had upper front teeth] he may examine its hooves [and thereby determine its status:] If its hooves are split [then] it is definitely pure, and if [they are] not [split then] it is definitely non kosher; [but he may rely on this method only] provided that he can identify a pig. Did you not say [that] there is the pig, [which represents an exception to your rule that any animal with split hooves is kosher? Perhaps, then] there is also some other species [of animal of which we are unaware] that resembles a pig [in that it has split hooves yet is nonkosher. How can anyone who does not see an animal’s mouth assume, simply because it has split hooves and is not a pig, that it is kosher species? It should not enter your mind [that there is any such speciesέ[ For it was taught in a Braitah in the academy of R’ Yishmael: ]Scripture states: But this is what you shall not eat …[ The pig, for it has a split hoof [and its hoof is completely separated, but it does not bring up its cud.] The ruler of his universe knows that there is no creature that has a split hoof yet is impure [on account of not bringing up its cud] except for the pig. Therefore scripture specifies regarding [the pig that] it [has a split hoof but does not bring up its cud.] 134 B. u in 59a. , έ ς ! , : ! ": ' έ , 134 έ , ς ,] , - ! ! έ ,( " - ) "' - [ " , , ! , 43 ": , , : - , , ς ; έ , ς ,( , , ! έ' : - )" , : Also here we find the idea of the uniqueness of the pig, as well of his classificatory ambiguity. These aspects are at the heart of Sifra Shemini 2.5, which asks why the four anomalous animals (the camel, hare, rock badger, and pig) are prohibited both in Deuteronomy 14 and in Leviticus 11: “…the camel, because it chews the cud but does not part the hoof is unclean to youέ And the rock badger, because it chews the cud but does not part the hoof, is unclean to you. And the hare, because it chews the cud but does not part the hoof, is unclean to you” (δevέ 11: 5) What is the point of Scripture here? If it is only to provide Scripture with a complete account, lo, it is written, “The camel, the hare, and the daman - for although they bring up the cud, they have no true hoofs - they are unclean for you; [also the swine - for although it has true hoofs, it does not bring up the cud - is unclean for youέ You shall not eat of their flesh or touch their carcasses[” (Dtέ 14: 7-8). What then is encompassed in the statement above? The included items we have already listedέ “…the camel, because it chews the cud but does not part the hoof is unclean to you” (δevέ 11: η): What is the point of Scripture hereς τne might have thought that that beast should be permitted if it displays a single validating trait. And the opposite of that proposition is a matter of logic: If the pig, which has a cloven hoof, is unclean, the camel, which does not have a cloven hoof, surely should be unclean! If that were so, I should reply, “What is it that causes the prohibition of the pig?” It is the matter of its not chewing the cud. Then that same matter should render the camel permitted! Accordingly, Scripture says, “…the camel, because it chews the cud but does not part the hoof is unclean to you” (δevέ 11: η): δet the rule be given for the camel, and an argument a fortiori for the pig will follow: If the camel, which chews the cud, is unclean, the pig, ' , ,[ ; [ " ς ! , , ς ,( )" έ : , έ" ": ": έ , , έ : ς έ ! According to Genesis Rabbah, in order to avoid uttering an unclean expression, God enumerated the positive sign of the pig before its negative one: “τf every clean beast thou shalt take to thee…and of the beasts that are not clean, etc.” (Gnέ 7:2)έ Rέ Judan in Rέ Johanan’s name, Rέ Berekiah in Rέ δeazar’s name, and Rέ Jacob in Rέ Joshua’s name said: We find that the Holy τne, blessed be He, employed a circumlocution of three words in order to avoid uttering an unclean [indelicate] expression: It is not written, ‘And of the unclean beasts,’ but…That are not cleanέ Rέ Judan said; Even when ]Scripture[ comes to enumerate the signs of unclean animals, it commences first with the signs of cleanness [which they possess]: it is not written, ‘The camel, because he parteth not the hoof, ‘but, Because he cheweth the cud but parteth not the hoof (Lev. 11: 4); The rock-badger, because he cheweth the cud but parteth not the hoof (ib. 5); “The hare, because he cheweth the cud but parterth not the hoof” (ibέ θ); “The swine, because he parteth the hoof, and is cloven-footed, but cheweth not the cud” (ibέ 7)έ” GenR 32.4. Translation by Freedman, Midrash Rabbah, Genesis, vol. I, 251. : ' ' , ' ' ' ,'" " ": " , , " : " " έ , ,( , )" ": , : , ( )” “: , έ( )" "έ ": , - 44 which does not chew the cud, surely should be unclean. If that were the case, then I should reply, What is it that causes the prohibition of the camel? It is the matter of the hoof. Then the same matter should render the pig permitted! Accordingly, Scripture says, “And the pig, because it parts the hoof and is cloven footed but does not chew the cud” (Lev. 11:5). 135 The repetition of the law is understood here as provided in order to avoid any misunderstanding which will follow just one sign of purity. The emblematic status of the pig makes it a token of impurity: the Mishnah for example discusses whether a sacrificial animal is blemished if it has its mouth 136 or tail like that of a pig is blemished. 137 Likewise, the Mishnah forbids taking a vow of eating pork (because one has to take a vow on something which is not inherently forbidden). 138 Similarly, if a man conditioned 135 : " Sifra Shemini 2.5. Translation by Neunser, Sifra, vol 2, 160. " ()έ , , () έ : " , έ Also Bavli e orot θb: “]The Gemara returns to its discussion at the top of this amud: ] But now [that you have explained that the two times the term “camel” is stated in Scripture is for expositional purposes, when it states:] hyrax, hyrax; hare, hare; pig, pig;[two times each,] are they coming for these [types of expositions?] Indeed, not!] Rather, [they are repeated] for [the reason] that was taught in a Baratia: [why as the enumeration of those that are kosher and nonkosher] repeated regarding the animal [species,] for [t he addition of ] the shesuah, [which was not mentioned the first time.] And regarding the birds [the enumeration is repeated] for the Raah. [If so,] camel, camel also comes for this [reason, and not for the purpose of the expositions cited above!-?- The Gemara answers:] Wherever it is possible to expound [the verse[ we expoundέ” , ς : ς , , έ , 136 M. e orot θέκ: “If a bone of its foreleg or a bone of its hindleg be fractured, even if it be not evident [when the beast stands up, but is manifest when it walks, this is deemed a blemish]. These [two] blemishes Ila recounted in Jabneh, and the Sages concurred. And, further, he added three [other blemishes], [but the Sages] said to him, We have not heard [any tradition] about these [that they should be considered blemishes, namely], if its eye-ball be round like that of person, or if its mouth be like that of a pig, or if the greater parts of its fore-tongue had been removed; but the court [that succeeded] after them said that these ]three, also[ were blemishesέ” Translation by Philip Blackman, Mishnayot, vol V. Order Kodashim (New York: Judaica, 1964), 271-272. . And: Tosefta (ed. Zukermendel) 4.11; B. Bechoort 3b; 40a. 137 M. Bechorot 6.9. B. e orot 50b. : : 138 M. Nedarim 2έ1: “]And these are declarations that leave the vower[ permitted: “ ulin which I eat of yours,” “δike pork,” “like an idol,” “like skins perforated at the heart,”, “like neveolos and tereifos,” “δike 45 the validity of a get, a divorce document, on the wife eating pork, then the get is valid and the condition annulled, for the husband does not really intend to this condition for he knew that it is forbidden. 139 Being a token of impurity, the pig serves the sages to discuss hypothetical cases. Bavli u in, for example, while discussing whether a fetus of impure animal in the uterus of pure animal is pure or not, asks if “the pig within the womb of a sow should not be uncleanέ”ς 140 Likewise, in Bavli Bechorot, the sages asked what is the rule in a case where a pig follows a ewe and suckles from her? Is this the ewe's first offspring, born in the form of a pig, and so subject to the laws of the firstborn (forbidden for non-priests to eat) or is this a real piglet, born to a sow, but since its own mother shekatizm and remasim,” “δike Aaron’s challahm” or “like ]Aaron’s[ terumah,” Ḳ [In all these cases, the vower is] permitted [to eat his fellow’s food[έ” έ -, , , , , , , : Also see the discussion of B. Nedarim 14a. 139 M. Nedarim 2.1; T. Ketubot (ed. Liberman) 7.2; T. Nedarim (ed. Liberman) 7.2; Y. Nedarim 2:41, 37a; B. Nedarim 14a. B. Gitin 84b-κηa states: “According to Abaye, the “general rule” of Rέ Yehudah comes ]to include[ a condition that she eat pig meat,” what is ]the law; iέeέ is the condition bindingς[ Abaye responds: This is identical [to the case of R. Yehudah ben Teima, and the condition is void.] Rava responded: It is possible [for her] to eat pig [meat] and be lashed [as a punishment. Therefore, the condition is bindingέ[ According to Abaye, the “general rule” ]of Rέ Yehudah coms] to include [a condition that she eat] pig meat [as non-binding[έ According to Rava, ]Rέ Yehudah’s statement void of stipulations,[ “such as this” ]comes[ to exclude ]a condition that she eat[ pig meatέ” , έ : ; : ς , " : , , " : έ , ; , ; , , , : ! , , , έ , ς έ , ; 140 B. u in 70b. : ' έ : ς έ ' ' ' ς . : έ " Also Y. Terumot κ:1, 4ηcέ “Abba bar Rav Huna in the name of Rabbi Johanan: He who slaughters an animal and found in it a pig may eat it. Rabbi Jonah said, it is forbidden to eat, what is the reason? An animal “inside an animal you may eatέ” (δevέ 11:3)έ You should not eat a bird inside an animal and not an abomination inside an animalέ” Translation by Guggenheimer, The Jerusalem Talmud,, Zeraïm, 267. : έ : . 46 abandoned him he follows the ewe and has adopted her as his mother? 141 The emblematic status of the avoidance of pork makes it fit for discussing exceptional situations where u in for example notes that even impure animals were consuming is permitted: Bavli, permitted to the Israelites during the conquest of the promised land, “as it written: “And houses full of all good things ]…you will eat[” (Deutέ θ:11) and Rabbi Yirmiyah bar Abba said in the name of Rav: [this refers to] baconέ” 142 Likewise Bavli Pesa im states an opinion that it is permitted to eat a kosher animal that was roasted together with a pig: Rabh said: “(Ritually) slaughtered fat meat, if roasted together with lean meat of carrion, must not be eaten, because one draws the juice of the otherέ” δevi, however, said “Even slaughtered lean meat roasted together with fat meat of carrion may be eaten, because it only draws the odor of the fat meat, and that does not interfere with itέ” δevi acted in accordance with his decision in the house of the Exilarch, where a goat and “another thing” ]a pig[ were roasted togetherέ 143 To the prohibitions concerning pig mentioned thus far, we should add a few other laws: The Tosefta forbids shearing pig hair on the Sabbath, noting that “there are those who make a distinction in the case of a pig between its snout and the rest of its body,” B. e orot 24a. " : , , ! , " " : : , , , , - 144 141 142 B. u in 17a. 143 B. Pesahim 76b. : : - ,] : ' ! :] ς [ " ς Ḳ , έ έ , ! - , ς - ς" - , ( ,(' έ [ )" , ' έ ] έ(' , : . έ έ [ " Ḳ ), " " ! )" - " : έ T. Sabbath (edέ δiberman) κέ1έ “He who shears a domesticated beast, a wild beast, fowl, even a hide, so much as a double-sit’s measure - Lo, he is liable. There are those who make a distinction in the case of a pig between its snout and the rest of its bodyέ” . ' T. Sabbath λέ2 (edέ δiberman): “He who takes out two hairs of horse’s tail or a cow’s tail, lo, this one is liable, because he makes them into hunting nets. He who takes out two stiff bristles of a pig, lo, this one is liableέ Rέ Shimon bέ Elieazar says, “Even oneέ” There are those who make a distinction in the case of a pig between its snout and the rest of its bodyέ” Translation by Neusner, Tosefta, Moed, 25, 30. 144 47 or that it is lawful on the Sabbath to take food out to feed an animal, “as much as a pig’s mouthful,” which is equal to one pitέ 145 Likewise, the sages forbid eating cheese made by a non-Jew inter alia because he may add to it pig fat, 146 or salkundris salt because the non-Jew may add to it or coat its surface with pig fat. 147 The Sages’ Refusal to Explain the Avoidance of Pork The singling out of the avoidance of pork for the sages might seem problematic: from a pure halachic point of view, all food avoidances have the same status, and eating pork is one of the minor offenses, for which one only receives lashes. 148 Placing importance on the avoidance of pork might put other food avoidances in the shadows. Hence, the later midrash Numbers Rabbah notes that the avoidance of pork is a symbol of all other food avoidances: An analogous instance [of the singling out of one item from among a number[: “Eating swine’s flesh, and the detestable thing, and the mouse” (Is. 56:17). In what way is the prohibition of the swine stricter than that of other unclean beasts, or that of the mouse than that of other creeping things? Truly, not at all; but the swine was mentioned, and the ' :' ' έ T. Sabbath (ed. Liberman) 8.31; Y. Sabbath 8:2, 11b; B. Sabbath 90b. 146 B. Avoda Zara 35b. έ : 147 Y. Avoda Zara 2:9, 42a. 145 : . : . : . B. Avoda Zara 39b. : έ : ς έ ; , : ; , , , : έ : , ; , ; έ , : έ 148 B. Gitin 84b-85a. See also the comment of Yehuda Halevi in the eleventh century in The Kuzari 3.49. 48 same applies to all other unclean cattle and unclean beasts; the mouse was specified and the same applies to all creeping things in the world. 149 Although it is hard to evaluate the scope of non-Jewish criticism of the Jewish avoidance of pork, it is clear that of all Jewish food avoidances, that of the pig received the greatest attention from non-Jews. While Greco-Roman opinions concerning the Jewish avoidance of pork diverged, ranging from strong hostility (as in the case of Roman authors such as Juvenal, Petronius, or Tacitus) to a positive opinion (for example: Plutarch or Julian the Apostate),150 Christian authors are strongly hostile to the avoidance of pork. 151 Thus, it seems that with the rise of Christianity, the avoidance of pork beca me increasingly problematic, for Christians as well as for Jews. Whether in their real or imagined encounters with Greeks and Romans, Jews had to answer the question, “Why do you not eat porkς” In Jewish Hellenistic literature Philo answers Emperor Caligula (38/39 CE), 152 Josephus Apion (1st cent. CE), 153 the elder Eleazar King Antiochus (2 and 4 Books of Maccabees, 2nd cent. BCE and 1st cent. CE). Interestingly, there are no parallel early rabbinic answers. In fact, the sages consciously refused to answer the question according to a famous Tana’itic midrash in Sifra, Qedoshim 9.13: “You shall keep my ordinances“ (δevέ 1κ:4): This refers to matters that are written in the Torah. But if they had not been written in the Torah, it would have been entirely logical to write them, for example, rules governing thievery, fornication, idolatry, blasphemy, murder, examples of rules that, had they not been written in the Torah, would have been logical to include them. Then there are those concerning which the impulse to do evil 149 NumR 12. Translation by Jusah J. Slotkin, Midrash Rabbah: Numbers (London; New York: Soncino, 1983), 462-463, with slight alteration. ( )" ": έ " ς 150 Feldman, Jew and Gentile, 167-170. Schäfer, Judeophobia, 66-81. 151 See for example: Novatian, On the Jewish Meats; Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor 2.15.4; Augustine, Reply to Faustus the Manichaean, 16. 152 Philo, The Embassy to Gaius 363-364. 153 Josepus, Against Apion 2. 137. 49 raises doubt, the nations of the world, idolaters, raise doubt, for instance, the prohibition against pork, wearing mixed species, the rite of removing the shoe in the case of the deceased childless brother’s widow, the purification-rite for the person afflicted with the skin ailment, the goat that is sent forth - cases in which the impulse to do evil raises doubt, the nations of world, idolaters, raise doubt. In this regard, Scriptures says, “I the δord have made these ordinances, and you have no right to raise doubts concerning themέ”154 The Sifra interprets here Leviticus 18:1-5: “The δord spoke to εoses, saying: 2: Speak to the people of Israel and say to them: I am the Lord your God. 3: You shall not do as they do in the land of Egypt, where you lived, and you shall not do as they do in the land of Canaan, to which I am bringing you. You shall not follow their statutes ( ). 4: My ordinances ( ) you shall observe and my statutes ( ) you shall keep, following them: I am the Lord your God. 5: You shall keep my statutes ( ) and my ordinances ( ); by doing so one shall live: I am the δordέ”155 The Sifra distinguish between two types of commandments: ordinances ( mishpatim) which are universal and “natural”, and statutes ( huqqim) which, like the commandment to avoid pork, are particular and apparently arbitrary. As David Novak notes regarding the latter, “precisely because they have neither universal nor historical reasons, because their sole authority is God’s mysterious will, they are able to function as active reminders that Israel is totally defined by the covenant, whereas God participates in the covenant but is not defined by itέ” 156 Hence, the sages appear to accept at least i n some sense the critique of some non-Jews such as the Roman physician Galen who wrote that “it is his ]εoses´] method in his books to write without offering proofs, saying, ‘God 154 Sifra, Qedoshim 9.13. Translation by Neusner, Sifra, vol. 3, 79, with slight alteration. " : , - " " " , " έ ' ' 155 Lev. 18: 1-5. ;ּ‫ש‬ ֹ ּ‫ש ְש ְת ב‬ ְ ‫׃ ְ ש‬ ֹ ְ ; ‫ְ ְת‬, ְ‫ְב ש‬ ‫׃ דב‬ ‫ש‬ ְ ‫ְב‬ ; ‫ב‬ ּ ְ ְ‫תש‬ ֻ ְ ּ‫שְפ ת ש‬ ‫ּ׃‬ ֹ ֻ ְ ּ ,ּ‫ש‬ ֹ ‫ְ שמ‬ ‫ש‬ ְ ‫ְּ ש‬ ‫ְ ׃‬ ; ‫ב‬ ‫ ש ש‬, ‫שְפ‬ ְ ֻ ‫׃ ּשְ ְ ת‬ ֹ ְ 156 David Novak, The Election of Israel: The Idea of the Chosen People (Cambridge; New York; Melbourne: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 251-52. 50 commanded, God spokeέ” 157 In early rabbinical literature it is exactly the arbitrary nature of avoidance of pork that renders it a powerful symbol of separateness, chosenness, and holiness, which are concieved dialogically vis-à-vis God and non-Jews. This characteristic of the Jewish avoidance of pork might be better understood in light of Edmund Leach’s discussion of food avoidanceέ As Leach notes, “the edible part of the environment usually falls into three main categories:” 11. Edible substances that are recognized as food and consumed as part of the normal diet. 12. Edible substances that are recognized as possible food, but that are prohibited or else allowed to be eaten only under special (ritual) conditions. These are substances which are consciously tabooed. 13. Edible substances that by culture and language are not recognized as food at all. These substances are unconsciously tabooed.158 The Jewish avoidance of pork is of the second category, for as δeach notes, it “is a ritual matter and explicitέ It says, in effect, “pork is a food, but Jews must not eat itέ” 159 The sages are conscious of this dimension. They do not present avoidance of pork as natural, or give it rational explanations as some Greco-Roman (and later medieval) authors might. As Claudine Fabre-Vassas observes, following Mary Douglas, “if forbidden foods manifest the categories of a culture, they also necessarily demonstrate the indigenous distinctions between societies. They are only fully affirmed, and can only be understood, in the context of this confrontationέ” 160 The sages admit the inter-cultural confrontation around the avoidance of pork, for which “the impulse to do evil raises 157 Richard Walzer, Galen on Jews and Christians (London: Oxford University Press, 1949), 11 (from an Arabic version of Galen’s ippocrates’ Anatomy). 158 Edmund δeach, “Anthropological Aspects of δanguague: Animal Categories and Verbal Abuseέ” New Directions in the Study of Language, ed. E. H. Lenneberg (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1964), 31 159 Ibid., 32. 160 Fabre-Vassas, The Singular Beast, 6. Also: Claudine Vassas, “Questions anthropologiques autour de l’interdit du porc dans le judaïsme et de son élection par le christianisme,” dans De la domestication au tabou : le cas des suidés dans le Proche-Orient ancien. Travaux de la Maison René-Ginouvès 1, éd. B. Lion et C. Michel (Paris: De Boccad, 2006), 229. 51 doubt, the nations of the world and idolaters raise doubt,” or the Bavli put it: “Satan and the nations of the worldέ”161 This dialogical dimension, which as we have seen above, is at the heart of Leviticus 18:1-5, is also found in Leviticus 20:22-26: 22: You shall keep all my statutes ( u im), and all my laws ( mishpatim) and observe them, so that the land to which I bring you to settle in may not vomit you out. 23: You shall not follow the practices of the nation that I am driving out before you. Because they did all these things, I abhorred them. 24: But I have said to you: You shall inher it their land, and I will give it to you to possess, a land flowing with milk and honey. I am the Lord your God; I have separated you from the peoples. 25: You shall therefore make a distinction between the clean animal and the unclean, and between the unc lean bird and the clean; you shall not bring abomination on yourselves by animal or by bird or by anything with which the ground teems, which I have set apart for you to hold unclean. 26: You shall be holy to me; for I the Lord am holy, and I have separated you from the other peoples to be mine. 162 The interpretation in Sifra Qedoshim of this paragraph inscribes in it, inter alia, the avoidance of pork: “I am the δord your God who has separated you from the peoples ] [” (δevέ 2ί:24): “see how vast is the difference between you and the nations [ [! “τne of them fixes up his wife and hands her over to someone else [for sexual relations], a man fixes up himself and gives himself to someone else ]for sexual relations[έ” “You shall therefore make a distinction between the clean beast and the unclean”: Scripture should say, “between a cow and an assέ” For has the matter at hand not already been spelled outς Why therefore does it say, “You shall therefore make a distinction between the clean beast and the unclean” (δevέ 2ί:2η)ς The sense is, between what is clean for you and what is unclean for you, specifically, between the one the greater part of the gullet of which has been cut and the one only half of which has been cut. And what is the difference between the greater part and halfς A hair’s breadthέ “…and between the unclean bird and the clean; you shall not make yourselves abominable by beast or by bird or by anything with which the ground teems, which I have set apart for you to hold unclean” (δevέ 2ί:2η): that is, to subject such to a prohibitionέ “You shall be holy to me, B.Yoma θ7b: “such commandments to which Satan objects, and the nations of the world, object,” (“ ”); YalShim, Ahri mot 587: Satan, the impulse do evil and the nations of the world (“ ”); Tan, Mishpatim 7 : “the impulse to do evil raises doubt, the nations of the world raise doubt,” ( “ " “)έ On the impulse to do evil (Yetzer Hara), see: Ishay Rosen-Zvi, “Yetzer Hara in Amoraic δiterature: A Reevaluation,” Tarbiz 77 (2008): 1-38 (Hebrew). Ibid., Demonic Desires: Yetzer Hara and the Problem of Evil in Late Antiquity (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011). 162 Lev. 20:22-26. ּ ְ ְֹ ‫ְ שמ ש בּ׃‬ ‫ ש‬, ְ ְֹ ; ‫ ש‬, ‫שְפ‬ ְ ֻ ‫ּשְ ְ ת‬ ‫ש‬ ְ‫ת‬ , ְ ּ‫ ת ת ְ ש‬, ‫ ֻ ב‬, ּ‫ש‬ ; ‫ְפ‬ ‫ְש‬ ‫ ש‬, ֹּ ֻ ‫ְב‬ ֹ ּ, ְ ְ ‫ְב‬ ‫מ ְ ְד ְת ב‬ ְ ‫ְד ְת‬ ‫ ש‬, ֹ ְ ;‫ּ ְ ש‬ ,ּ , ‫ְ ש‬ ְ ‫ְ מ ׃‬ ‫ְד ְת‬ ‫ ש‬, ‫ש תְ ש‬ ְ ּ, ֹ ּ ‫ב ְב‬ ‫ְש‬ ּ ְ ‫; ְֹ ְש‬ ‫ְֹ ׃‬ ‫מ‬ ְ ‫ְ ; ְד‬ ‫ֹש‬ 161 52 for I the δord am holy”: “Just as I am holy, so you be holy,” “Just as I am separate, so you be separate,” “…and have separated you from the peoples, that you should be mine” (Lev. 20:26): If you are separated from the nations, lo, you are for my Name, and if not, lo, you belong to σebuchadnezzar, king of Babylonia, and his associatesέ” Rέ Eleazar bέ Azariah says, “How do we know that someone should not say, ‘I do not want to wear mixed fibers, I don’t want to eat pork, I don’t want to have incestuous sexual relationsέ Rather: I do want [to wear mixed fibers, I do want to eat pork, I do want to have incestuous relations.] But what can I do? For my father in heaven has made a decree for me!’ So Scriptures says, ‘and have separated you from the peoples, that you should be mineέ’ (δevέ 2ί:2θ) So one will turn out to keep far from transgression and accept upon himself the rule of Heavenέ” 163 As Gherhard Bodendorfer notes, “this explanation of the commandment is very significant as it makes the biblical text [Lev. 20:22-26] topical in a most drastic way. It is put down to the unconditional divine will and on the next level is connected to sanctificationέ” 164 An analogy is created between three distinctions: Jewish morality a nd non-Jews’ moral deviance (itself present as lack of separateness in sexual morality); Judaism’s distinction between pure and impure foods; and God’s separateness and Israel’s separatenessέ Some midrashim soften the idea of the arbitrariness of the divine commandment: God in his compassion, for each thing which He prohibited, He authorized another 163 Sifra, Qedoshim 10.11. Translation by Neusner, Sifra, vol. 3, 137, with slight alteration. , " ' " , ", "( ) . , ” “ , “( ) έ ( ) ",' "( ) έ ” ". "( ) έ , : ' . : " . , , “έ . And also: YalShim, Qedoshim 626. 164 Gherhard Bodendorfer, “ : God’s Self-Introdution Formula in Leviticus in Midrash Sifra,” in Book of Leviticus: Composition and Reception, ed. Rolf Rendtorff, Robert A. Kugler, and Bartel S. Smith (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 417. 53 similar thing; while God forbid pork, He permitted brains or the tongue of a fish called shibuta, which tastes similar to the pig (here Bavli ulin 1ίλb’s version): 165 Yalta said to Rav σachman, ]her husband:[ “σow, ]let us see,[ whatever the εerciful One forbade us, He permitted us something corresponding. He forbade us blood, [but] permitted us liver, [He forbade relations with a niddah, [but permitted relations with a woman who has discharged[ ‘blood of purity’; ]He forbade eating the[ cheilev of a domestic animal, [but permitted] cheilev of an undomesticated animal; [He forbade] pork, [but permitted] the brains of a shibuta. [He forbade] girusa, [but permitted] fish tongue; [He forbade relations with] a married woman, [but permitted relations with] a divorced [woman] while her husband is alive; [He forbade relations with[ one’s brother’s wife, [but permitted] a yevamah; ]He forbade relations[ with a Cuthian, ]but permitted[ ‘the beautiful captiveέ’ I wish to eat meat in milkέ Rav σahman said to the cooks: Cook her the udder. 166 Yalta, the wife of Rav Nachman, the daughter of Resh Galuta, who was known for her wittiness and eruditeness, gives a list of permitted things which are substitute for a forbidden thingέ As Eliezer Diamond notes, Yalta argues that the Torah “regulates pleasure but does not forbid itέ” 167 Discussion For the sages, the prohibition of pork is a practical legal question that is more extensive than the simple prohibition of its consumption. May a Jew breed pigs? May a Jew feed pigs or trade them? And, if yes, under what conditions? The sages, however, do not only ask practical questions concerning the pig, but use its emblematic status to discuss exceptional or hypothetical situations: Can a Jew eat pork during war? Can he eat For the identification of the Shibuta, see: Zohar Amar and Ariέ Zέ Zivotofsky, “Identification of the Shibuta Fish,” HaMa'ayan 45, no. 3 (2005): 41-46 (Hebrew). And: Ari Z. Zivotofsky and Zohar Amar. “Identifying the Ancient Shibuta Fish,” Environmental Biology of Fishes 75, no. 3 (2006): 361-363. In August 2005, the Israeli newspaper The Jerusalem Post published that the fish indentified as the Shibuta had recently been smuggled from Iran to Israel for the purpose of breeding. Judy Siegelέ “Kosher 'pork of the sea' makes aliya from Iran,” Jerusalem Post (Friday, August 19, 2005), 6. 166 B. u in 109b. Translation by Schottenstein Talmud. , , , , : έ , , , , , . : ! 167 Eliezer Diamond, Holy Men and Hunger Artists: Fasting and Asceticism in Rabbinic Culture (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 130. 165 54 meat that was cooked near pork? Is a pig in a uterus of a pure animal pure or impure? etc. If for some issues such as selling pigs, the sages seem to demonstrate some openness to the possibility of proximity between pigs and Jews, most of their discussion insists upon increasing the distance between Jews and the abominable animal, which became a strong boundary marker with non-Jews. This tendency is clearly observed in the sages’ ban on pig breeding which is linked to the ban on learning Greek wisdom: both learning the other’s wisdom and eating the other’s meat became a symbol of impurity. The inner classification anomaly of the pig (being pure and impure) came to stand for anomal ous relations between Jews and non-Jews: the inner negative mixing of categories became exterior negative mixing of categories. In other words, the sages follow and enlarge the biblical tendency to link the inner legal distinction of classification between pure and impure animals to the distinction between Jews and non-Jews. This classificatory discrimination is repeated by legal speculations as well as by respect for the avoidance of pork itself. To distinguish and be distinguished became the leitmotiv of the religious system: one who discriminates between pure and impure animals, pure and impure foods, and pure and impure humans will be distinguished from the impure and will be holy. Not eating pork is an active way of affirming a categorical world order: it is a locus of repetition and at the same time of eternal distinction, a minor distinction but at the same time a very concrete one which embodied the larger distinction between God and the world, that of the process of Creation (heaven and earth, light and darkness, etc.), as well as of his chosen people and the nations. As Walter Houston notes, the discrimination between clean and unclean flesh is part of Jewish national and religious identity, for “it defines and protects equally their ‘vertical’ relationship to God 55 and their ‘horizontal’ difference from all other peoplesέ” 168 For the sages, avoidance of pork “vertically” marks their unique relations with God, while it “horizontally” marks their separateness from the rest of humanity. Jacob Milgrom, following Mary Douglas, 169 argues that the tripartite biblical animal classification between pure-sacrificed, pure-edible, and impure animals is parallel to the biblical classification of humanity priests, Israel and non-Jews, as well as the classification of space into: Sanctuary, Land of Israel, and Earth (fig. 4).170 If we refer to this basic unified-analogical conception of humanity, animality, and space, the pig is part of the outermost sphere. 168 Houston, Purity and Monotheism, 260. Mary Douglas, Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo (New York: Praeger, 1966). Ibid. “Impurity of δand Animals,” Purity and Holiness. The Heritage of Leviticus, ed. M. J. M. Poorthuis and J. Schwartz, 24-45 (Leiden; Boston; Köln: Brill, 2000). 170 Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16 (New York: The Anchor Bible, 1991), 718-725. Ibid., Leviticus 1722, (σew York: The Anchor Bible, 2ίίί), 171κέ εilgrom interprets the dietary laws as an “ethical systemέ” Jacob εilgromέ “The Biblical Diet δaws as an Ethical System,” Interpretation 17 (1963): 288-301 (reprinted in Studies in Cultic Theology and Terminology, 105-106. Leiden: Brill, 1983). For criticism of this idea, see: Houston, Purity and Monotheism), 76-78. 169 56 Fig. 4: The three parallel domains of classification according to Jacob Milgrom. In light of this categorical order, perhaps it is not surprising that some non-Jews saw Judaism as misanthropic, for it introduced a strong distance between Israel and the rest of humanity, 171 especially with respect to customs such as the prohibition of pork which create a real culinary difference and made eating together problematic. The Hellenistic tradition viewed misanthropy as the opposite of hospitality, a crucial element As Jean Bottéro remarks, Judaism “volontairement constitué comme isolé et ferméέ Il y avait là le germe d’une opposition, où d’Israël au reste des hommes ou du reste des hommes à Israël. Mais cet isolement, ce sentiment de l’altérité, comme disent les philosophes, se tenait toujours sur le seul plan de la cultureέ” Jean Bottéro, “δ’homme et l’autre dans la pensée babylonienne et la pensée israélite,” in Hommes et bêtes, Entretien sur le racisme, ed. Léon Poliakov (Paris; La Haye: Mouton, 1975), 112. Although Jean Bottéro’s generalization is problematic, it is valuable at least with respect to the way many Jews and nonJews viewed Judaism. 171 57 of which was the sacrifice of an animal and partaking of its meat with the guest. 172 Hence, the refusal of Jews (or some Jews) to eat non-Jewish food (especially meat), could be understood as implying that the Jews also do not invite foreigners to eat their food, and therefore that they are misanthropes. 173 For example, the Roman historian Tacitus writes that “Jews are extremely loyal toward one another, and always ready to show compassion, but toward every other people they feel only hate and enmityέ” 174 He especially targeted Judaism’s separateness: They sit apart at meals, and they sleep apart, and although as a race, they are prone to lust; they abstain from intercourse with foreign women; yet among themselves nothing is unlawful. They adopted circumcision to distinguish themselves from other peoples by this difference. Those who are converted to their ways follow the same practice, and the earliest lesson they receive is to despise the gods, to disown their country, and to regard 175 their parents, children, and brothers as of little account. Such accusations were repeated by the sophist Philostratus, in the early third century: (…) the Jews have long been in revolt not only against the Romans, but against humanity; and a race that has made its own a life apart and irreconcilable, that cannot share with the rest of mankind in the pleasures of the table nor join in their libations or prayers or sacrifices, are separated from ourselves by a greater gulf than divides us from Susa or Bactra or the more distant Indies. 176 172 From the Greek perspective, perhaps the pig was not the most valuable offering to a host, but it was probably the most common animal to sacrifice and eat with a guestέ The refusal of the Jews to “partake” of the pig strongly contrasts with one of the emblematic scenes of hospitality in Greek culture - that of τdysseus’ swineherd, Eumaeus, who immolates pigs for his master who is disguised as a stranger (Odyssey 10.407-44; 14.80-109). In the Odyssey, this scene of sacrificing and partaking of the pig are the antipode of the pretenders’ swinish, misanthropic behavior: they eat without sacrificing, they insult the stranger (Odysseus), giving him the worst parts of the meat. 173 Katell Berthelot, Phi anthrôpia udaicaμ e d bat autour de a “misanthropie” des ois juives dans ’Antiquit (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 90. According to Berthelot, the accusation of misanthropy against the Jews is often linked to “une perception négative des lois alimentaires juives, qui découle de l’observation de leurs conséquences sur la convivialité entre Juifs et non-Juifsέ” Ibid. 83. 174 Tacitus, Histories 5.5. 175 Tacitus, Histories 5.5. 176 Philostratus, Life of Apollonius of Tyana , 33. See: Berthelot, Philanthrôpia Judaica , 153-156. Simmilar accusation can be found in Rutilius Namatianus, A Voyage Home to Gaul, 382-398. 58 While the sages were aware of this common accusation of misanthropy against the Jews by Greco-Roman authors, 177 they did not seek to deny Jewish separateness but rather to glorify it. Hence, in the face of the accusation that Jews do not marr y non-Jews, the sages insist on the prohibition of sexual relations with non-Jewish women, which came to stand for idolatry. Refusing sexual relations with non-Jewish women came to represent the moral superiority of the Jews, their control of their desires. As seen above, Sifra Qedoshim (10.11) contrasts the sexual deviance of the non-Jews with Jewish morality, emphasizing food avoidances. It also contrasts non-Jews´ sexual proximity with the Jewish keeping of purity laws. Hence, food purity serves as an a fortiori argument: while the Goyim do not maintain separateness concerning sex, the Jews even keep the separateness of food avoidances which are of minor importance. Another message here is that the Jews must distinguish between themselves and non-Jews as much as they distinguish between clean animals (which are analogous to Jews) and impure ones (which are analogous to non-Jews). As the Sifra states, Jewish social exclusion is parallel to that of God: “You shall be holy to me, for I the δord am holy, just as I am holy, so you be holy, j ust as I am separate, so you be separateέ” (δevέ 2ί:2θ)έ” 178 Hence the Sifra placed the avoidance of pork and forbidden sexual relations together, one after the other, in the list of commandments concerning which “someone should not say, ‘I do not want to wear mixed fibers, I don’t want to eat pork, I don’t want to have incestuous sexual relations. Rather: I do want. But what can I do? For my father in heaven has made a decree for me!’ 179 See: εoshe David Herr, “Persecutions and εartyrdom in Hadrian’s Days,” Scripta Hierosolymitana 23 (1972): 85-125. Herr, Roman Rule in Tannaitic Literature, 33. 178 Ibid. 179 Ibid. 177 59 The sages refuse to enter into dialogue regarding the sense of the avoidance of pork with non-Jews in the Greco-Roman manner. Their argument about the arbitrary nature of food avoidance is part of their declaration of uniqueness and hence holiness. This refusal to dialogue is highly dialogic for it inscribes the avoidance of pork in a deep tension with the customs of the other, and hence reinforces its power as a boundary marker. The vivacity of the boundary is not due to its being an impenetrable fixed obstacle, but rather a dynamic one, a mediatory zone, part of a field of tensions. 60 Chapter 3 Boundary Keeping In chapter two, we observed the extent to which the sages´ analyzed the avoidance of pork in relation to non-Jews. Now we will observe how pork was used to maintain boundaries around Jewishness. We will focus on four liminal situations: persecutions, forbidden sex with non-Jews, apostasy, and proselytes. Persecutions Contrary to the common modern impression that Jews throughout history have been persecuted by being forced to eat pork, the early rabbinic texts are almost silent concerning cases of this sort. The topic of persecution by Antiochus in the Books of Maccabees, in which pork plays an important role, and in which the king forces the Jews to sacrifice pigs and eat their flesh, are absent from early rabbinic literature. In the Mishnah, the Talmud, and the Midrashim, we do not hear of the sacrifice of the pig in the Temple, or of forcing the Jews to eat pork; we hear nothing about the martyrs who prefer death to eating the forbidden meat. Nor do we find in the rabbinic literature stories such as the one that Philo of Alexandria tells about forcing Jewish women to eat pork in the Alexandrian riots of 38 CE.180 Furthermore, although in the early rabbinical literature we do not find martyrdom stories about not eating pork, we do find stories about trickery or deception on the theme. One example is the story about Rabbi Meir who pretended to eat pork, expressing the tactic of deceit: They (…) engraved Rέ εeir's likeness on the gates of Rome and proclaimed that anyone seeing a person resembling it should bring him there. One day [some Romans] saw him and ran after him, so he ran away from them and entered a harlot's house. Others say he happened just then to see food cooked by heathens and he dipped in one finger and then 180 Philo, Flaccus 96. 61 sucked the other. Others again say that Elijah the Prophet appeared to them as a harlot who embraced him. God forbid, said they, were this R. Meir, he would not have acted thus! [and they left him]. He then arose and ran away and came to Babylon. Some say it was because of that incident that he ran to Babylon; others say because of the incident about Beruria. 181 Rabbi εeir’s conduct is very different from that of τld Eleazar in 2 and 4 Maccabees, who refused to pretend to eat pork to save his life. 182 It also differs from the actions of the mother and her seven sons, who refused even to touch pig’s meatέ 183 While the martyrdom story of Eleazar came to glorify martyrdom as resistance, the story about Rabbi εeir prefers what Daniel Boyarin calls “the trickster option.” 184 Another rabbinic legend in the later midrash Numbers Rabbah tells about a Jewish innkeeper who 181 , : , B. Avoda Zara 18b. , : , : έ έ έ , έ : , : ' ' , έ : , , έ Compare to Ecclesiastes Rabbah 7έ12έ1: “Rέ εeir was being sought by the ]Roman[ Governmentέ He fled and passed by the store of some Romans. He found them sitting and eating from that species ]swine’s flesh[έ When they saw him they said, ‘Is it he or notς Since it may be he, let us call him over to us; if he comes and eats with us ]it cannot be he[έ’ He dipped one finger in the swine’s blood and placed another finger in his mouth, dipping one finger and sucking the otherέ They said one to the other, ‘If he were Rέ εeir, he would not have done soέ’ They let him go and he fledέ The text was therefore applied to him, The excellency of knowledge is, that wisdom preseveth the life of him that hath itέ” EcclR 7.12.1. Translation by A. Cohen, Midrash Rabbah, vol. VIII, Ruth and Ecclesiastes (London: Soncino Press, 1939), 194. : έ έ έ ' , έ : , : ς ": , έ ' : έ , έ" Maimonides, in The Epistle on Martyrdom (wrέ cέ 11θη) relates another version of the story: “It is common knowledge that in the course of a persecution during which Jewish sages were executed, Rabbi Meir was arrestedέ Some who knew him said: “You are εeir, aren’t youς” and he replied: “I am notέ” Pointing to ham, they ordered: “Eat this if you are not Jewishέ” He responded: “I shall readily eat it,” and he pretended he was eating, but did not in fact. In the view of this modest person who knows the true meaning of Torah, Rabbi Meir is undoubtedly a gentile, for so his responsum rules: He who acts openly as a gentile, although secretly he behave like is a Jew, is a gentile, since according to him worship of God is open, and he hides it, as Rabbi Meir didέ” Translation by Abraham Sέ Halkin and David Hartman, Epistles of Maimonides: Crisis and Leadership (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1993), 20. 182 2 Macc. 6; 4 Macc. 1. 183 2 Macc. 7. 184 Daniel Boyarin, Dying for God: Martyrdom and the Meaning of Christianity and Judaism (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1999), 73. 62 pretended to be a non-Jew. To non-Jews he served pork, but to the Jews, whom he recognized because they washed their hands before the meal, he served kosher meat: 185 ’And he ]Balaam[ took up his parable’ (σumbers 24:3)έ Halachah: if a man has eaten without previously washing his hands, does he incur a penalty? Our Rabbis have taught: Washing the hands before a meal is optional; after the meal it is obligatory. An incident is related that during the period of religious persecution a certain Israelite shopkeeper used to cook ritually clean meat as well as the flesh of swine and sell them, so that it might not be suspected that he was a Jew. His practice was that if anyone came into his shop [to eat] and did not wash his hands, he would know that he was an idolater and would place before him the flesh of swine, but if a man washed his hands and recited the blessing he would know that he was an Israelite and would give him clean meat to eat. Once a Jew came in to eat and did not wash his hands, so he thought that he was an idolater and placed swine’s flesh before himέ The man ate and did not say the Grace after εealsέ When he came to settle the account with him for the bread and the meat the shopkeeper said to him: ‘I have a claim on you for such-and-such a sum on account of the meat you have eaten, for each piece coasts ten ma nehsέ’ Said the other: ‘Yesterday I got it for eight and today you want to take ten from me, do youς’ The shopkeeper answered him: ’The piece you have eaten is from the swineέ’ When he told him this his hair stood on end, and he fell into a great fright and said to him under his breath: ’I am a Jew and you have given me swine’s flesh!’ Said the shopkeeper to him: ‘A plague on you! When I saw that you ate without washing your hands and without a blessing I thought you were an idolater!’ Hence the Sages have taught: The [neglect of the] water before the meal killed the soul. 186 T he eating of pork is the consequence of non-fulfillment of a minor commandment: the washing of the hands before the meal. 187 This is parallel to the transgression of another minor commandment: the second washing of the hands that leads 185 B. Holin 106a; Yoma 83b; Y. Hala 2:1, 58c. NumR 10.21; Tan, Balak 24. NumR, Balak 20.21. Translation by Judah Slotki, Midrash Numbers Rabbah, vol. II (London and Bourmemouth: Soncino Press, 1939), 817-818. , : . ς :(3 , , )" " έ : , έ : έ ": έ" ' ": έ , ": έ" ": έ" : έ" , έ , 187 τn hand purity see: Avrham Aderet, “Tumat Yadaim (Impurity of the Hands),” in From Destruction to Restoration: The Mode of Yavneh in Re-Establishment of the Jewish People (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1990), 210-231 (Hebrew)έ Chaim εilikowsky “Reflections on Hand-Washing, Hand-Purity and Holy Scripture in Rabbinic δiterature,” in Purity and Holiness: The Heritage of Leviticus, ed. M. J. H. M. Poorthuis and J. Schwartz (Leiden; Boston; Köln: Brill, 2000), 149-162. 186 63 to a murder. 188 After telling a story concerning a man who, because he did not wash his hands after the meal, killed his wife, the midrash resumes: For this reason the Holy One, blessed be He, exhorted Israel to be careful even in regard to a trifling precept; as it says, For it is no vain thing for you; because it is your life (Deut. 32:47), which implies that even a precept which you consider to be vain and trifling contains the reward of like and length of days. The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Israel: ‘If you observe εy commandments I shall cast down your enemies before you’; as 188 The two episodes detailed in Numbers Rabbah allude to Yerusalmi and Bavli, while Bavli Yoma 83b relates the story concerning the second washing of the hands. Y. Berakhot κ:2, 12aέ “]washing both before and after the meal is compulsory in accordance with the following:[ Said Rέ Jacob bar Idi, “τn account of [neglect of] the first [washing before the meal], they came to eat swine’s meatέ And on account of ]neglect of[ the second ]washing after the meal[, three persons were killedέ” Translation by Tzvee Zahavy, Talmud Yerushalmi, Berakhot (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1989), 286. Y. Hala 2:1, 58c. . : B. u in 106a. : ; , : . Ḳ , : , ; , B. Yoma κ3bέ “Also, Rέ εeir and Rέ Judah and Rέ Jose were on a journey togetherέ (Rέ εeir always paid close attention to people's names, whereas R. Judah and R. Jose paid no such attention to them). Once as they came to a certain place, they looked for a lodging, and as they were given it, they said to him [the innkeeper]: What is your name? ḳ He replied: Kidor. Then he [R. Meir] said: There from it is evident that he is a wicked man, for it is said: For a generation [ki-dor] very forward are they. R. Judah and R. Jose entrusted their purses to him; R. Meir did not entrust his purse to him, but went and placed it on the grave of that man's father. Thereupon the man had a vision in his dream [saying]: Go, take the purse lying at the head of this man! In the morning he [the innkeeper] told them [the Rabbis] about it, saying: This is what appeared to me in my dream. They replied to him: There is no substance in the dream of the Sabbath night. R. Meir went, waited there all day, and then took the purse with him. In the morning they [the Rabbis] said to him, ‘Give us our purses’έ He said: There never was such a thing! Rέ εeir then said to them: Why don't you pay attention to people's names? They said: Why have you not told this [before]. Sir He answered: consider this but a suspicion. I would not consider that a definite presumption! Thereupon they took him [the host] into a shop [and gave him wine to drink]. Then they saw lentils on his moustache. They went to his wife and gave her that as a sign, and thus obtained their purses and took them back. Whereupon he went and killed his wife. It is with regard to this that it was taught: [Failure to observe the custom of] the first water caused one to eat the meat of pig, [failure to use] the second water slew a person. At the end they, too, paid close attention to people's names. And when they called to a house whose [owner's] name was Balah, they would not enter, saying: He seems to be a wicked man, as it is written: Then said I of her that was ]balah[ worn out by adulteriesέ” έ , ": , : -έ : -ς : έ , έ έ( )" : ! : έ : : ! : έ , έ , : ς : ς : έ έ , , , ς , έ , :( ) έ ": ( )" ": , : έ έ : ,( )" 64 it says, “τh that εy people would hearken unto εe a little…I would subdue their enemiesέ” (Psέ κ1:14f)έ 189 The avoidance of pork is portrayed as a minor commandment that has a major importance: its keeping brings life; its transgression, death. Interestingly, the personal reward (long life) is paralleled here to the freedom of Israel from outside oppression. It is not the Jewish innkeeper who served pork who is criticized, but rather the Jew who does not wash his hands before eating. It seems than that the focus of the story is not Roman oppression, but rather the failure of some Jews to keep the law and thus cause the subjection of Israel to foreign rule. The message is that the real field of action for a Jew is not the fight against the foreign oppressor but that of fulfilling the Divine law. Forbidden Sexual Relations with non-Jews In the Greco-Roman world eating and sex were associated (mainly negatively, but not exclusively so) with the pig. 190 Hence, for example women´s genitals were called pig in Greek and Latin. 191 Likewise, in rabbinic literature the term da ar a er (another thing) designated the pig as well as the female sex. Both eating and sex, as much as they are fundamental to human survival, are sources of anxiety and phobias, subject to strong prohibitions, and therefore particularly apt to serve as boundary markers between groups. It is not surprising than that we find the pig in the sages’ discussions of forbidden sexual relations with non-Jews. 189 ,( NumR, Balak 20.21. )" “: , έ , έ( , ) "έ , ": , 190 εichel Briand, “Grec π ο : du (porc) au sanglier,”dans Les Zoonymes : Actes du colloque international tenu à Nice les 23-25 Janvier 1997 (Nice: Publications de la Faculté des Lettres, Arts et Sciences humaines de Nice, 1997), 99-100. 191 εark Golden, “εale Chauvinists and Pigsέ” Echos du Monde Classique/Classical Views 32, no. 7 (1988): 1-12. , , 65 The sages extended the earlier connection of impurity with non-Jews (goyim) to the idea that Goyim are intrinsically impure. One of the reasons for Goyim impurity is their diet, as bavli Shabbath 145b notes: “Why are idolaters impure ( they eat abominable ( ) and creeping things ( )? Because ).”192 Indeed, as will be seen, the sages linked the eating of forbidden food on the one hand, and having forbidden sexual relations with non-Jews on the other, with states of impurity. As in the two stories concerning Rabbi Akiba’s master, Rabbi Joshua in Avot deRabbi Natan (version B): A story is told of Rabbi Joshua that he went to ransom a woman taken captive. And when he returned, he went (into the pool) and bathed. He said to this his disciples: Comrades, what did you say about me? They said to him: Rabbi, what we said about you was: We have no one in Israel like you. What (laws of) uncleanness and cleanness are there current in Israel which did not come from your mouth. He said to them: And afterwards, what did you say about me? They said to him: We said: When you were among the unclean, uncircumcised Gentiles, you were like one who eats pork, and when you came back among (the people of) Israel, you said: I will go (to the pool) and bathe and become like them, clean. He said to them: I swear that you were exactly right. About you it is said: “And judge everyone with the scale weighted in his favourέ” (mέ Avot 1έθ)έ 193 The mere being in a non-Jewish environment is compared to the state of impurity involving eating pork. The following episode of the midrash associates this state of impurity to the impurity of non-Jewish women: A story is told about a woman in Ashkelon [a non-Jewish city]. None the likes of Eve was more beautiful than she. Rabbi Joshua went to talk with her. When he reached her door, he removed his (outer) garment and phylacteries. When he entered, he locked the door behind him and when he came out, he went (into the pool) and bathed. He said to his disciples: Comrades, what did you say about me? They replied: Rabbi, what we said about you was: We have no one in Israel like you. What (laws of) uncleanness are there B. Shabbath 145b. " ' ' " As Christine Hayes notes, “the verifiably ancient desire to prohibit intermarriage and ultimately apostasy is the rationale for a rabbinic decree of Gentile impurity, not the other way aroundέ” Christine Hayes, “Intermarriage and Impurity in Ancient Jewish Sources,” HTR 92, no. 1 (1999): 36. 193 ARN B 19. Translation by Anthony, J. Saldarini, The Fathers According to Rabbi Nathan (Abot de Rabbi Nathan version B) (Leiden: Brill, 1975), 126-127. ς : ' ] [( ) : ' έ ; ς ' : ] [ ( ) : ς ' , : ' έ έ : 192 66 in Israel which did not come from your mouth. He said to them: And afterwards, what did you say about me? They said to him: We said (You are removing your garment and phylacteries) so that nothing clean will enter into something unclean, or so that no one will recognize that you are a Jew. And when I entered and locked the door behind us, what did you say about me? They replied: We said that while the door is open, permission is given for one about to go out and for one about to enter to enter. You said: I will lock the door behind us until I have discussed all my business with her. And when I came out and went (into the pool) to bathe, what did you say about me? They replied: We said: Perhaps when she was talking with you, a drop of spittle sprayed from her mouth onto you and you said: I will go (to the pool) to bathe and I will be like them, clean. He said to them: In this you were exactly rightέ About you it is said; “And judge everyone with the scale weighted in his favour” (mέ Avot 1έθ)έ 194 The two stories seem to explain Rabbi Joshua ben Perahyah’s saying in εisnah Avot (1.6), “Appoint for yourself a teacher, acquire for yourself a fellow ]haver], and judge everyone with the scale weighted in his favourέ” 195 The irony of course is that “everyone” in the stories in Avot deRabbi Natan concerns only the sage and not the nonJew, who is portrayed as impure, and suspect of sexual corruption. For the sages, the gentile is like a zab (impure man due to abnormal seminal discharge), who defiles through spit, urine, and indirect contact. This explains the risk of impurity by the nonJewish woman’s spittleέ Indirectly, between the two episodes, a parallel is created between eating forbidden food and having forbidden sexual relations, eating pork and eating saliva. To this anxiety of eating impure food in the context of intimacy with a non Jew we can add the discussion in Bavli Megilla 13a concerning Queen Esther’s diet in the Persian king palace: 194 : : 195 ARN B 19. Translation by Saldarini, The Fathers, 126-127. ' έ ς ' : ' έ : ' έ ; ' : ς ς ' έ () ; Ḳ , Ḳ : ' : ς ' :' , : ' έ M. Avot 1.6. ; , 67 ς () ς ' ' ' έ , έ [The girl pleased him [the king] and won his favor, and he quickly provided her with her cosmetic treatments and her portion of food, and with seven chosen maids from the king's palace,[ and advanced her ]and her maids to the best place in the harem[έ” (Esther 2:9) Rav says that he fed her Jewish food. And Samuel says that he fed here with pork chops. And Rabbi Yohanan says ]that he fed her[ seeds, as it was written: “So the guard continued to withdraw their royal rations [and the wine they were to drink,] and gave them seedsέ” (Daniel 1:1θ)έ 196 Rav and Rabbi Yohanan think Esther did eat pure food, while according to Samuel, she failed to keep the kashrut laws in the King’s palaceέ 197 Queen Esther’s porcine diet is contrasted to the exemplary behavior of Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, who refused to eat the royal rations of food in the Book of Daniel. 198 An even more virulent critique of mixed marriage is found in Genesis Rabbah 65.1; while commenting on Esau´s marriage with Hittite women, Esau is described as a pig (Genesis 26:34): And when Esau was forty years old, he took to wife Judith the daughter of Beeri the Hittite, and Basemath the daughter of Elon [the Hittite, 35: and they were a source of grief to Isaac and Rebekah[ (Gnέ 2θ:34)έ It is written, “The swine out of the wood doth ravage it, ]that which moveth in the field feedeth on it[” (Psέ κί: 14)έ Rέ Phinehas and Rέ Helkiah in Rέ Simon’s name said: τf all the prophets, only two, εoses and Asaph, exposed it: Asaph: “The boar ]swine[ out of the wood doth ravage it.” While Moses said: “And the swine, because he parteth the hoof” (Dtέ 14:κ)έ Why does he compare it ]the Roman State] to a swine? For this reason: when the swine is lying down it puts out its hoofs, as if to say, ‘I am clean’; so does this wicked State rob and oppress, yet pretend to be executing justice. So for forty years Esau used to ensnare married women and violate them, yet when he attained forthy years he compared himself to his father, saying, ‘As 196 B. Megilla 13a. My translation. έ : έ : Ḳ ( , ) "' " ( , )” έέέ “: , See also: YalShim, Esther 1053. 197 For traditional views on the question, see: Sara Weinstein, “Aaron Arend, A Critical Ḳ Annotated Edition of Elef Haεagen,” Pathways Through Aggadah IV-V (2001-2002): 317-321 (Hebrew). 198 Daniel asks that they not be fed this food, but the palace master feared for the children’s healthέ Daniel proposed that the palace master make a test and feed the children only seeds for ten days to see if it affected their health. After eating seeds and drinking water for ten days “to these four young men God gave knowledge and skill in every aspect of literature and wisdom; Daniel also had insight into all visions and dreamsέ” (Dan 1:17)έ The abstention from non-Jewish foods, a topos almost absent from the Hebrew Bible, is repeated in a few Jewish texts of the Hellenistic period; see: David Moshe Freidenreich, Foreign Food: A Comparatively-Enriched Analysis of Jewish, Christian, and Islamic Law (PhD Dissertation, New York: Columbia University, 2006), 58-95. Kraemer, Jewish Eating, 25-3κέ σathan εacDonald, “Food and drink in Tobit and other ‘Diaspora novellas’,” in Studies in the Book of Tobit: A Multidisciplinary Approach (London and New York: T&T Clark, 2006), 165-178. : 68 my father was forty years old when he married, so I will marry at the age of fortyέ’ Hence it is written, “And when Esau was forty years old, he took to wife, etc.”199 While in this midrash, the context of the identification of Rome with Esau and the pig is commonly commented upon, the connection between Esau, the pig, and his marriage to foreign wives is ignored. The hypocrisy of the pig, which pretends to be pure while being impure, which in the midrash is related to the Roman Empire, also relates to Esau’s marriage. Clearly, the midrash made Esau a violator who pretends to be an honest man by marriage, but taking in consideration the negative view of the sages regarding Esau´s marriages with the Hittites wives, 200 which the Bible condemns (Gn. 26:35), it seems that the midrash hints that Esau is a pig inter alia due to his marriage with nonJewish women. The Amoraic midrash (5/6th cent.?)201 Pesikta de Rab Kahana (and Avot deRabbi Nathan, version A) relates three successive stories about Jewish men in captivity who refuse to have sexual relations with non-Jewish women, after a short paragraph about the inclination to evil (Yetzer hara) and the inclination to good (Yetzer haTov), the latter of which is compared to a ruler in a prison: When a man, his imagination heated, proceeds to commit an act of unchastity, all the parts of his body obey him. But when he sets out to fulfill a religious obligation, all the parts of his body protest from deep within him because the Inclination to evil in his innermost being is king over the two hundred and forty-eight parts that make up a man; the Inclination to good, however, may be likened to a king who is shut up in a prison, as is said “For out of prison he comes forth to rule” (Eccles. 4:14) that is, the Inclination to good [finally comes out in a man and ruled his conduct]. 202 199 GenR, Toledoth 64.1. Translation by H. Freedman, Midrash Rabbah, Genesis, vol. II (London and Bournemouth: Soncino Press, 1951), 580. 200 Aminoff, The Figure, 85-91. 201 On the dating of Pesikta de Rab Kahana , see: H. L. Strack and G. Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash (Edinburgh: Clark, 1991), 295-297. 202 PRK, Annex 3. Translation by W. G. Braude and I. J. Kapstein, Pesikta deRab Kahana : R. Kahana's Compilation of Discourses for Sabbaths and Festal Days (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1975), 475. 69 The sinner is ruled by the inclination to evil, but the just man is freed by the inclination to good and becomes a king. As will later be seen, the dialectic “to be ruled/to rule” is at the heart of the episodes that follow. The first story the midrash relates is about Joseph and Potiphar’s wife: Another comment: The words “For out of prison he came forth to rule” (Ecclesέ 4:14) apply to Joseph, of whom it is said “Then Pharaoh sent and called Joseph” (Genέ 41:14)έ Of the righteous Joseph - concerning the time when Potiphar’s wife said to him, “δie with me,” and he refused: “He refused, and said unto his master’s wife…’How can I do this great wickednessς’” (Genέ 3λ:κ,λ) - the following is told: When she threatened “I shall shut you up in prison,” he replied, “The δord looseth prisoners” (Ps 14θ:7)έ When she threatened, “I shall put out your eyes,” he replied, “The δord openeth the eyes of the blind” (Psέ 14θ:κ)έ When she threatened, “I shall make a humpback out of you,” he replied, “The δord raiseth up them that are bowed down (ibidέ)έ When she threatened, “I will make you into a stranger - banish you,” he replied, “The δord preserveth the strangers” (Psέ 14θ:λ)έ 203 Although here food is not mentioned, in the medieval Midrash Tan uma Joseph’s refusal of Potiphar ’s wife is presented as a refusal to eat pork: 204 “Why will you not listen to meς She pleadedέ “Since I am the wife of another man, no one will know that there is anything between usέ” He replied: “Your virgins are forbidden to us, how much more so is the wife of a man,” as it is said: “σeither shall thou make marriages with them (Deutέ 7:3)έ” That is why he would not listen to herέ R. Judah the son of Nahman explained: This may be compared to an idolater who tells an Israelite: “I have some delicious food for youέ” “What kind of food do you haveς” he asksέ “The meat of a pig,” he repliesέ Whereupon the Israelite retorts: “You fool! If the flesh of a pure animal that you kill is forbidden to us, how much more so is the flesh of a " :' 203 PRK, Annex 3. έ( , ' έ( , )"' )" ) "' " ": ' ' " :' " ": , ": έ έ' ' , : - " έ " ,( : ' )" ": " : )" : ,( : : " έ( , )" " ": έ έ( , " ) "' " ": ' έ : " 204 In the a Hellenistic-Jewish version of the story Testimony of Joseph 6:1-5 one of the ways Potiphar’s wife tries to seduce Joseph is by serving him enchanted foodέ See: εέ Braun, “Biblical δegend in Jewish-Hellenistic Literature with Special Reference to the Treatment of the Potiphar Story in the Testament of Joseph,” in History and Romance in Graeco- Oriental Literature (Oxford: Blackwell, 1938), 44-104. Devora εatza, “The Story of Joseph and Potiphar’s Wife,” in Studies in Jewish Narrative: εa’aseh Sippur, ed. Avidov Lipsker and Rella Kushelevsky (Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 2006), 249-50 (Hebrew). The connotation between forbidden food and sex with non-Jewish women is found also in Joseph and Aseneth, See: Gideon Bohak, Joseph and Aseneth and the Jewish Temple in Heliopolis (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1996), 55-58. έ( " : , ,' 70 pigέ” Similarly, Joseph told her: “If your virgins are forbidden to us, how much more so another man’s wifeέ” 205 The second story the Pesikta de Rab Kahana relates concerns Rabbi Zadok in Roman captivity: And do not be astonished at Joseph. Witness R. Zadok who showed even greater restraint when he was taken as captive to Rome where a prominent noblewoman [matrona] purchased him [in the slave market] and sent a beautiful maidservant to tempt him to lie with her. When he saw the maidservant, he fixed his eyes upon the wall and sat silent and motionless all night. In the morning the maidservant went and complained to her mistress, saying, “I would rather die than be given to this man ]and be rebuffed by him[έ” When the noblewoman asked Rέ Zadok: “Why did you not do with this woman what men generally seek to doς” he replied: “I am of a family from which High Priests are chosen, and I thought: Shall such as I lie with such as she and multiply bastards in Israelς” At once the noblewoman gave orders that R. Zadok be freed with great honor. 206 What is at stake in this story is the purity of noble blood. The story that follows concerning Rabbi Akiba‘s refusal to have sex with non-Jewish women takes a more extreme tone: And do not be astonished at R. Zadok. Witness R. Akiba who showed even greater restraint than he. When R. Akiba went to Rome, it was slanderously said of him before a certain general [that he enjoyed the company of loose women]. Thereupon the general sent two very beautiful women to him. These were bathed, anointed, and adorned like brides for their grooms. All night, they kept thrusting themselves at R. Akiba, one saying, “Turn to me,” and the other saying, “Turn to meέ” Sitting between them, he spat in disgust at both. In the morning the women went off and complained to the general, saying to him, “We would rather die than be given to this man [and be rebuffed by him]έ” Whereupon the general asked Rέ Akiba: “Why did you not do with these women what men generally seek to do? Are they not beautiful? Are they not human beings like yourself? Did not He who 205 MidTan, Vayshev 8. Translation by Berman, Midrash Tanhuma -Yelammedenu, 240-241. , : έ , ς : " ": έ " έ( , ) " ": ' , ": " έ : " ς : " ," ": έ" " ' ": έ" ] [ " The association of sex, forbidden food, and idolatry is also known from other midrashim. For the the me of food, sex, and idolatry in a Christian context, see: Stephen Cέ Barton, “Food Rules, Sex Rules and the Prohibition of Idolatryέ What’s the Connectionς,” in Idolatry: False Worship in the Bible, Early Judaism and Christianity (London; New York: T&T Clark, 2007), 141-162. Michael Satlow, Tasting the Dish: Rabbinic Rhetorics of Sexuality (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995). 206 PRK, Annex 3. , ' ' , ' , : ' , έ( )' : ' ς( ) " : ' έ έ έ] [' ' ' 71 created you create themς Rέ Akiba replied: “What could I doς The odor of their bodies, as foul as the stench of carrion or of swine overcame meέ” 207 Adiel Schremer, referring to the version of the story in Avot deRabbi Nathan, sees in it an inner humanistic critique. According to his interpretation, the Roman general’s reproach to Rabbi Akiba (“Are they not human beings like yourself? Did not He who created you create themς”) alludes to Rabbi Akiba’s statement in the Mishnah Avot (3.14) - “beloved is man, for he was created in the image ]of God[έ” 208 This might be the case at some level, but as Sacha Stern notes, “this edifying story is clearly perspective and designed for emulationέ” 209 Indeed, the Pesikta de Rab Kahana summarizes the three stories about Rabbi Akiba, ending with: Of men [such as Joseph, R. Zadok, R. Akiba], and their like, Scripture says, “Bless the δord, ye messengers of His, ye mighty in strength, that fulfill His wordέ” (Psέ 1ί3:2ί)έ 210 207 PRK, Annex 3. ' ,' " , ' ' , ' , : : , ' " έ : έ ) " ς ς ( ) " : " έ " ς ς ( Compare to ARN A 16. “And do not be astonished at Rabbi Zadok, for lo, there was (the case of) Rabbi Akiba, greater than he. When he went to Rome, he was slandered before a certain hegemon. He sent two beautiful women to him. They were bathed and anointed and outfitted like brides. And all night they kept thrusting themselves at him, this one saying “Turn to me,” and that one saying “Turn to meέ” But he sat there in disgust and would not turn to them. In the morning they went off and a complained to the hegemon and said to him: “We would rather die than be given to this man!” The hegemon sent for him and asked: “σow why didst thou not do with these women as men generally do with womenς Are they not beautifulς Are they not human beings like thyself? Did not He who created thee create themς”“What could I doς” Rabbi Akiba answered: “I was overcome by their breath because of flesh of carrion, terefah, and creeping things they ate! ]in τxford manuscript: and Pig’ meat[” Translation by Goldin, The Fathers, 84. , " έ έ ] έ [έ έ] " [ έ Adiel Schremer, “τther Brothers,” Reshit 1 (2009): 183, note 39 (Hebrew). 209 Stern, Jewish Identity, 58, note 57. For the broader link of this story to Rabbi Akiba and the GrecoRoman world see David Stern, “The Captive Woman: Hellenization, Greco-Roman Erotic Narrative, and Rabbinic Literature,” Poetics Today 19, no. 1 (1998): 115. 210 PRK Annex 3. έ( : ) "' " " :' 208 72 Rabbi Akiba’s answer to the Roman general: “What could I do ( )”ς recalls the Sifra’s rule that a man should not say that he do not want to eat pork, or incestuous relations, etc., but should say: “ ut what can I do ( ) ? For my father in heaven has made a decree for me!” 211 Hence, what seems to be part of the humoristic tur n in Rabbi Akiba’s answer is that instead of answering with the obliged nature of God’s rule, he answers with a physical repulsion. In a sense, the story asks to glorify the notion that the subjection to God´s commandments should become second nature. Thus, if the Sifra argues that the Jews should not intellectualize the commandments but rather simply obey them, 212 the story concerning Rabbi Akiba argues that a Jew should interiorize and naturalize the commandments. The smell of the non-Jewish women is for Rabbi Akiba as repulsive as the “stench of carrion” or, in Avot deRabbi Nathan, that of “flesh of carrion, terefah (the flesh of a torn animal), and creeping thingsέ” While Avot deRabbi Nathan explains this smell of the non-Jewish women as the result of what “they ate,” the Psikta states that their bodies had the smell “as of carrion or of swineέ”213 Aside from these differences, in both versions, the non-Jewish women are repulsive as are their impure foods. As Sacha Stern notes, revulsion “goes well beyond the level of the mind: the entire body can be shaken with revulsion, typically with a nauseous tremor or with actual nausea. It must be stressed that nausea itself does not merely ‘represent’ or indicate mental revulsion, but is itself a bodily form of rejection and revulsion. The same may well apply to spitting: thus, R. 211 Sifra, Qedoshim 10.11. The story concerning Rabbi Akiba and the critique of the Roman General could be seen as echoing Sifra, Qedoshim λέ13, saying that to the commandments “concerning which the impulse to do evil ] ] raises doubt, the nations of the world, idolaters, raise doubt, for instance, the prohibition against pork, wearing mixed species ]…[”έ In this regard Scriptures says, “I the δord have made these ordinances, and you have no right to raise doubts concerning themέ” Sifra, Qedoshim 9.13. Translation by Neusner, Sifra, vol. 3, 79, with slight alteration. 213 PRK, Annex 3. 212 73 Akiba spat in the presence of repulsive non-Jewish female captives. But the midrash also refers to other forms of bodily revulsion: when the Jew discovered that he had accidentally eaten pork, ‘his hair stood up - he was agitated and in a flurryέ’ 214 Whatever its form, the whole person is mobilized in the experience of revulsion; it acquires thereby tremendous potencyέ” 215 As noted by P. Rozin et al., disgust “becomes the means by which culture can internalise rejection of an offensive object, behavior, or thoughtέ (…) The process of socialization in any culture involves acquisition of many values. It is more efficient to have these values internalized than to have to ensure compliance by policing compliance with a rule or law. Disgust accomplishes much of this internalization of negative values. A good way to prevent traffic with something is to make it an elicitor of disgustέ” 216 However, the repulsion one feels to the other’s forbidden diet might be merely a consequence of cultural difference, not necessarily a rejection of the other. 217 Visigothic law (7th cent. Spain), for example, recognized such physical repulsion when it 214 B. Holin 106a; Yoma 83b; Y. Hala 2:1, 58c; NumR 10.21; Tan, Balak 24. Stern, Jewish Identity, 61-62. 216 Pέ Rozin and Jέ Haidt, Cέ εcCauley, and Sέ Imada, “Disgust: Preadaptation and the Cultural Evolution of a Food-Based Emotionέ” in Food Preferences and taste, ed. H. MacBeth (Providence: Berghahn Books, 1λλ7), 77έ τr, as notes anthropologist David δe Breton, “δe dégoût est essentiellement une menace réelle ou symbolique pour le sentiment d’identitéέ Danger pour soi, pour l’entre-soi, il instaure les frontières symbolique qui permettent de se poser de manière cohérente à l’intérieur de l’ambig ité essentielle du mondeέ Inassimilable à soi, principe de destruction d’une identité personnelle ou collective toujours précaire, il est irréversible, altérite absolue, sans appelέ C’est pourquoi le dégout est aussi un sentiment moral provoquant une répulsion envers un individu, un groupe ou une situation (...) Le dégout est une « réaction de défense », la mise à distance sans rémission d’un danger (Kolani, 1λλ7, 27)έ Son paradoxe, s’il est partagé par les membres d’un même groupe, est de fonder le lien social sur une séparation radicale, de se rassembler contre l’abjection, et simultanément de se démarquer des autres qui en apprécient l’objet ou y prêtent moins d’attentionέ Il n’est pas anomalie au sein du système culturel, il s’inscrit dans un ordre global ou tout se tient plus ou moins, il n’est pas une fantaisie individuelle ou collective mais un principe culturel appliqué à un objet ou à une situation. Le dégoutant recouvre le hors-champ du pensableέ” David Le Breton, La saveur du monde: une anthropologie des sens (Paris: εétailié, 2006), 389. 217 For the disgust pork evokes for many Jews and Muslims in contemporary Europe, see for exemple: Andrew Buckser, “Keeping Kosher: Eating and Social Identity among the Jews of Denmark,” Ethnology 38, no. 3 (1999): 191-209. Mohammed Hocine Benkheïra, “Tabou du porc et identité en Islam,” dans Histoire et identités a limentaires en Europe, dir. Martin Bruegel et Bruno Laurioux (Paris: Hachette, 2002), 37. 215 74 exempted baptized Jews from eating pork because of the disgust it provoked in them. 218 However, the story about Rabbi Akiba does not seek to neutralize this “natural” disgust, but rather to mobilize it in order to reinforce the boundary between Jews and non-Jews. The disgust felt by Rabbi Akiba is not just a manifestation of “proto racism,” 219 but also a resistance to oppression. The refusal of the prisoner to have sex according to the will of his Roman jailor mani fests his moral supremacy and moral freedom, in the spirit of the introduction to the three stories in which Rabbi Akiba’s episode ended: “the Inclination to good, (…) may be likened to a king who is shut up in a prison, as is said “For out of prison he comes forth to rule” (Eccles. 4:14).220 Hence, the resistance is transferred from the political (Rome-Israel) to the interior (the inclination to evil-the inclination to good), and finally the first is subjected to the last. To be free is to be subjected to Gods’ commandments; to rule means to refuse the rule of the inclination to evil, not that of foreign power. The difference between Israel and Rome parallel s the difference between the person who accepts the kingdom of God and the one who does not, as well as the difference between the inclination to do good and the inclination to do evil, Oath of the baptized Jews to the Visigoth king Recceswinth (640-672 CE): “We shall truly hold and sincerely embrace all the usages of the holy Christian religion, in holidays, marriage, and food, as well as in all its observances, without any reservation of an opposition or of a device of falsity by which we should do again what we undertake to repudiate or execute only exiguously or insincerely what we promise to do. Concerning pork, we promise to observe this, that if we could not possibly take it according to custom, at least we shall take the food cooked with pork without loathing and horror [fastidio et orrore[έ” And likewise King Erwig (680-687 CE): “As for the foods, however, namely, the meat of pork alone, we decree out of a discerning rather than negligent piety, that if anyone of them should absolutely abhor the eating of pork and if perchance they should avoid it out of fastidious nature and not condemn it - be discriminating according to that perverse custom, and particularly if they are considered to be similar to the Christians in other actions and they are not wanting in their commitment to Christianity and in their wish to act in any way in the Christian manner, such as those who are found to be faithful in all the other ways of life shall not be held punishable by the law’s sanction as mentioned above for this rejection of pork aloneέ”Amnon Linder, The Jews in the Legal Sources of the Early Middle Ages (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1997), 280, 297. 219 For the term “proto racism,” see: Benjamin Isaac, The Invention of Racism in Classical Antiquity (Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2004). 220 PRK, Annex 3. Translation by Braude and Kapstein. Pesikta deRab Kahana , 475. έ ,( : )" " :' ,' 218 75 and the difference between to rule and to be ruled Ḳ a series of oppositions linked to the difference between not eating pork (self-control) and eating pork (lack of self control). Apostasy For the sages, eating pork is the transgression par excellence of food purity laws and of the law in general.221 Rabbi Akiba compares for example one who wanted to sin but did not to one who wanted to eat pork but ate lamb, and the one who wanted to sin and indeed sinned to the one who wanted to eat pork and indeed ate it: The woman who took a vow to be a Nazir Ḳ her husband annulled the vow for her, but she did not know that her husband had annulled the vow, she went around drinking wine and contracting corpse-uncleanness Ḳ lo, this one receives forty flogging. When R. Akiba would reach this matter, he would cryέ Saying, “σow if someone who intended to take up in his hand pig-meat and took up in his hand lamb-meat who ate it has to effect atonement, he who intends to take up in his hand pig-meat and who actually does take up in his hand pig-meat Ḳ how much the more so that requires atonement and forgiveness!” 222 The woman did not know that her vow was annulled and hence she is like the one that sinned with intention. To this, the second case applies, as Rabbi Akiba says: the one that “intends to take up in his hand pig-meat and who actually does take up in his hand pig-meatέ” In several places, the one who eats pork became a token for a transgressor of 221 A later legend in Midrash Hagadah (Buber) Exodus 20.7 tells of a couple who ate pork on Yom Kippur, the day of Atonement. έ "έ' " , , , , , , ,] [ , , , , , , , , , , : , , 222 T. Nazir (Liberman) 3.14. :' ' . And: Sifri Numbers 153; 154; Evel Rabbati 6.1; Y. Nazir 4:3, 53b; B. Nazir 23a; B. Kidushin 71b; YalShim, Vayikra 479. 76 the law. Mishnah, Shevi'it 8.10 states that the one who eats from the bread of Samaritans (Kutim) is like one who eats pork:223 If one has smeared a hide with oil of Sabbatical Yea r produce, R. Eliezer says, it must be burned; but the Sages say, He must consume of equal value. They stated before R. Akiba that R. Eliezer used to say, if one smeared a hide with oil of Sa bbatical Year produce it must be burntέ He replied to them, ‘Be silent! I will not state to you what R. Eliezer says regarding thisέ’ And they stated further before him, ‘Rέ Eliezer used to say, He that eats of the bread of Samaritans is as one who eats the flesh of swine’έ He replied to them, ‘Be silent! I will not state to you what Rέ Elizer says regarding this’έ 224 Eliezer ben Hurcanus (1st-2nd century) was a student of Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakai, but contrary to his master, who was inclined towards the extremist line of Beith Samai, Rabbi Eliezer was more inclined toward the moderate school of Beith Hillel. Hence, Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion here goes hand in hand with the hard line view concerning separation between Jews and non-Jews.225 It seems that Rabbi Akiba rejected his master´s thought that Samaritan food is not forbidden. However, there is an inner problem in the mishnah’s text: what is the link between the first and second saying of Rabbi Eleazar: the one that deals with oil of the sabbatical year and the one that deals with Samaritan bread? A possible solution is that the second saying deals with the Sabbatical year. The Samaritans should respect the Sabbatical year but do not do so, and hence their fruits are forbidden. 226 If this is the case, Rabbi Eleazar states that the one who eats the Samaritans’ bread during the Sabbatical year is like the one that eats pork. 227 223 M. Sheviit 8.10. y. Sheviit 8: 48, 37d. YalShim, II Kings 234. Tan, Vayeshev 2. M. Sheviit 8:9-10. Translation by Blackman, Mishnayoth, vol. 1, 276-277. : έ : : . ] [ : ][: : έ : : : έ : 225 Neusner, Eliezer Ben Hyrcanus, 18-45. 226 Ze'ev Safrai, “The Exemption of the Territory of Caesarea from the Commandments Relating to the Land,” Sinai 96, no. 5-6 (1985): 223 (Hebrew). 227 The later Pirke deRabbi Eliezer, chapter 36, provides the historical context of the ban on Samaritan bread, which is understood as ban on Samaritan meat: “What did Ezra and Zerubavel ben Shaltiel and Yehoshua ben Yohtzadak then do in response (to the Samaritan attack on building the Temple)? They 224 77 The idea that one who transgresses the Sabbatical year is like one who eats pork is also found in an obscure story in Tosefta Ahilot:228 Testified Judah ben Jacob of Bet Guvrin and Jacob b. Isaac of Bet Gufnin concerning Qisri ]Caesarea[ that they possessed it from ancient times and declared it free without a voteέ Said Rέ Hanin, “That year was the seventh year, and gentiles went to their circuses and left the market full of fruits, and Israelites came and swiped them, and when they came back, they said, ‘Come, let us go to sages, lest they permit them pigs alsoέ’ 229 The story may be set during the patriarchate of Yehudah Ha-Nasi, called Rabbi, during the latter quarter of the 2 nd century CE, when he and his court released Caesarea from the condition of impurity decreed earlier upon the land of the Gentiles.230 The stor y gathered all of Israel into the Courtyard of the Temple, and they brought 300 Kohanim and 300 shofars and 300 Torah scrolls and they were blowing the shofars and the Levites were chanting, and they excommunicated the Samaritans with the secret of the explicit name of God, with the script that is inscribed in the Tablets, and with the excommunication of the heavenly court and of the earthly court, that no perso n should ever eat the bread of Samaritans. As a result of this, it is said that whoever eats from the slaughtered meat of a Samaritan is as if he ate from the meat of a pig. And [they further decreed that] a person should not convert a Samaritan, and that they have no portion in the Resurrection of the Dead, as it is stated: “It is not for you, but for us [to build God's house] (Ezra 4:3) Ḳ you have no portion with us not in this world or in the next. And they sent this excommunication to all of Israel, and they heaped excommunication upon excommunication, and even Cyrus the King decreed upon them an eternal excommunicationέ” ’ ” ’ , , … , , … ” And also: y. Shevhit 8:4, 37d. Tan Vayesev 2. YalShim, Kings 234. 228 The tractus intially deals with Ohalot: the uncleanness imparted to persons and objects by reason of their location within the tent of a corpse, which is to say, under the same roof as a corpse (Num. 19:14 -19) 229 T. Ahilot 18. 15 (ed. Zukermandel, 617). Translation by Neusenr, The Tosefta, vol. VI, Tohorot , 132. ' έ ' : έ : 230 For the story in the context of the history of the Jews in Caesarea, see: Irving εέ δevey, “Caesarea and the Jews,” in The Joint Expedition to Caesarea Maritima , vol. I. Studies in the History of Caesarea Maritima, ed. Charles T. Fritsch, (Missoula, MN: Scholars Press for the American School of Oriental Research, 1975), 44. It is not clear based on what prooftext A. Büchler and Lee I. Levin date the episode to 61/62 CE, Sabbatical year. A. Büchler, “Der Patriarch R. Jehuda I. und die Griechisch-Römischen Städte Palästinas,” The Jewish Quarterly Review 13, no. 4 (1901): 688. English translation: A. Büchler,“The Patriarch R. Judah I and the Graeco Roman Cities of Palestine,” in Studies in Jewish history: the Adolph Büchler memorial volume, ed. Israel Brodie and Joseph Rabinowitz (London: Oxford University Press, 1956), 184-185. Lee I. Levine, Caesarea Under Roman Rule (Leiden: Brill, 1975), 30. Ze’ev Weiss’ interpretation that “the story of stealing the fruits in Caesarea, during the first century, where it is mentioned that the “pagans had gone and plundered it,” may indicate that the Jews did not attend games and spectacles at that time,” taking into cosideration that the legendary nature of the story is farfetched. Ze'ev Weiss, “The Jews and the Games in Roman Caesarea,” in Caesarea Maritima: A Retrospective After 78 of R. Hanin (late 2nd cent.?)231 addressed how Caesarea came to be declared permitted i n a sabbatical year.232 Hence, the story puts in the mouth of the non-Jewish residents of Caesarea the rabbinical idea that one who does not respect the sabbatical year is like one who eats pork. 233 Eating pork was already associated by the Tannaitic period with apostasy, as Tosefta Horayot testifies when it enumerates it as one of the actions of apostasy: One who eats abomination Ḳ behold, this one is an apostate [ ]. [This also applies to] the one who ate carrion and/or ter efah, abominations or creeping things; the one who eats pork or drinks libation wine, the one who desecrates the Sabbath; the one who stretches his foreskin ]in order to conceal his circumcision[έ Rέ Yosi bέ Rέ Yehudah says: “Also the one who wears garments of mixed speciesέ” Rέ Simon bέ Elazar says: “Also the one who does something ]prohibited[ that his impulse does not desireέ” 234 Two Millennia , ed. Avner Raban, Kenneth G. Holum, and Jodi Magnes, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research. no. 308: 108 (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 445. 231 Ze'ev Safrai, “The Exemption of the Territory of Caesarea from the Commandments Relating to the Land,” Sinai 96, no. 5-6 (1985): 219 (Hebrew). 232 R. Abbahu, who lived in Caesarea, relates how the non-Jews mocked the sabbatical year (LamR. 17). See: Weiss, “The Jews and the Games,” 446. 233 Ephrat Habas, “The Halachic Status of Caesarea as Reflected in the Talmudic δiterature,” in Caesarea Maritima: A Retrospective After Two Millennia , ed. Avner Raban, Kenneth G Holum, and Jodi Magnes (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 462. 234 T. Horayot 1:5 (ed. Zukermandel, 474) : ' ' ' ' ' ' Rosen-Zvi, Demonic Desires, 30. See also Bavli Horayoth 11a. In the sixteenth century, Gdaliah ibn Yahia’s Sefer Shalshelet ha-Kabbalah told the story of an apostate who ate pork in front of his rabbi: “With the rabbi standing before him, he killed a pig, cut it up, cooked it and ate itέ When he finished eating, he asked his teacher how many condemnable offenses he had committed, to which Rabbi Moses replied, “Fourέ” Abner said that he wished to dispute his teacher and claim that there were really fiveέ The rabbi stared angrily at him and silenced him Ḳ for he still retained some fear of his teacher. Finally his teacher asked him who it was that had led him to his apostasy. [Abner] said that he had once heard it explained that all the commandments and everything in the world was contained within Parashat ha’a inu (the thirtysecond chapter of Deuteronomy), and that in order to disprove this idea, he became a different person (nehefakti le-ish a er)έ The rabbi answered, “I still say this is trueέ Ask whatever you wantέ” The man was very surprised and said to him, “τKέ tell me if you can find my name written thereέ” The RaεBaσ…έimmediately walked himself to a corner of the room and prayed, and into his mouth came Deuternomy 32: 2θ: “I said I would scatter them into corners, I would make the remembrance of them to cease from among menέ” Ḳ for the man who was Rabbi Abner is contained within the [combination of the] third letter of each [Hebrew] word. When the man heard this, he became sad, and asked his rabbi if there was a remedy for his afflictionέ The rabbi said, “You heard the words of the verse!” and went on his wayέ Immediately, and without uttering a word, the man boarded a ship. He went where the wind would take him, and nothing was ever heard of him againέ” Gdaliah ibn Yahia, Sefer Shalshelet ha -Kabbalah (Chain of Tradition) (Venice, 1585. Reprint: Jerusalem: τtza’at HaDorot HaRishonim veKorotam, 1972), 56a. Translation by Mark Barry Ross, “Kabbalistic Tocinofobia: Américo Castro, δimpieza de Sangre, and the 79 It seems that because eating pork is understood as apostasy, Bavli Sanhedrin 26b states that the pork eater is incompetent as a witnesses: R. Nahman said: those who eat of another thing [pork] 235 are incompetent as witnesses. Provided, however, that they accept it publicly, but not if they accept it in private. And even if publicly [accepted], the law is applicable only if, when it was possible for them to obtain it privately they yet degraded themselves by open acceptance. But where [private receipt] is impossible, it [public acceptance] is vitally necessary. 236 What is at stake here is not so much the eating of “another thing,” but if this was done in public. Eating pork was one of the laws of the Torah about which the Mishnah argues: “every law of the Torah, if a man is commanded: 'Transgress and suffer not death' he may transgress and not suffer death, excepting idolatry, incest [and adultery], and murder” (Sanhedrin 74a). This law, however, was limited: “When Rέ Dimi came, he said in Rέ Yohanan’s name: If there is a royal decree ]forbidding the practice of Judaism[, one must incur martyrdom rather than transgress even a minor precept. When Rabin came, he said in Rέ Yohanan’s name: Even without a royal decree it was only permitted in private; but in public one must be martyred even for a minor precept rather than violate itέ” ( B. Sanhedrin 74a). Therefore, while eating pork is a minor precept that one can transgress (at least in private) and not die, if it is a part of an idolatrous sacrifice or a form of persecution, one should die rather than transgress the law. If a person prefers to transgress the law in public he is a heretic. Inner εeaning of Jewish Dietary δaws,” in Fear and its Representations in the Middle Ages and Renaissance, ed. Anne Scott and Cynthia Kosso (Turnhout: Brepols, 2002), 173-174. 235 Rashi thoght that “those who eat of another thing,” are those who received alms from the Goyimέ : 236 B. Sanhedrin 26b. έ , έ : . , , 80 Epikorsiut and the Pig The word epikorus became in rabbinic literature a generic word to designate the heretic, while the word epikorsiut designated heresy. 237 Epicurus (d. 270 BCE) held a n ethical theory of eudemonistic hedonism, advocating tranquility, ataraxia, as the goal of life, or telos. This has two aspects: “First, it is identified as the absence of pain Ḳ where pain is understood to be not only physical pain but also the mental pains of anxiety, distress, or worry. Second, it is identified as pleasure or at least as a certain kind of pleasureέ”238 Because hoggishness was seen as a pursuit of pleasure, it was maliciously associated with Epicureanism. 239 Clement of Alexandria writes for example: “Epicurus, in placing happiness in not being hungry, or thirsty, or cold, uttered that godlike word, saying impiously that he would thereby vie even with Father Jove; teaching, as it were, that the life of pigs devouring rubbish and not of rational philosophers, was supremely happyέ” 240 The pig, after being associated with the Epicureans by their adversaries, was Joseph Geiger, “To the History of the Term Apikoros,” Tarbiz 42 (1972-73): 499-500 (Hebrew). Saul δieberman, “How εuch Greek in Jewish Palestineς” in Biblical and Other Studies, ed. A. Altmann (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1963), 130. Jenny Rέ δabendz, “’Know What to Answer the Epicurean’ - A Diachronic Study of the Apiqoros in Rabbinic δiteratureέ” Hebrew Union College Annual 74 (2003): 175-214. Hans-Jürgen Becker, “Epikureer im Talmud Yerushalmi,” in The Talmud Yerushalmi and Graeco-Roman Culture, vol 1, ed. Peter Sch fer (T bingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998), 379-421. 238 James Warren, Epicure and Democritean Ethics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 3. 239 Timon, Fr. 51 Diels. Cicero, Against Piso 16.37. Plutarch, That Epicurus Actually Makes a Pleasant Life Impossible 7 (Moralia 1091C). Horace, Epistle 1.4.15-16; 2.2.72-75. See: Jacques Boulogne, P utarque dans e miroir d’Épicure. Ana yse d’une critique syst matique de ’ picurisme (Villeneuve d’Ascq: Presses Universitaires du Septentrion, 2ίί3), 141-143. A silver cup from Boscoreale, near Pompeii (c. 30 CE), represents skeletal figures belonging to various philosophical schools. On one side of the cup, a pair of philosophers is depicted: to the left is the Stoic Zeno; to the right is Epicurusέ “The latter figure is not only intent on the meal in the pit at the centre of the picture (above which is written an Epicurean tag: ‘pleasure is the telos’), but he is also indentified as a hedonist by the presence of the pot-bellied pig jumping up to smell the cookingέ” Warren, Epicure, 131. 240 Clement of Alexandria, Miscellanies (Stromata) 2.21 (ANF). Likewise, Isidore of Seville (6th cent. CE): “The Epicureans are so called from a certain philosopher Epicurus, a lover of vanity, not of wisdom, whom the philosophers themselves named ‘the pig,’ wallowing in carnal filth, as it were, and asserting that bodily pleasure is the highest goodέ” Isidore of Seville, Etymology 8.6.15. The Etymologies of Isidore of Seville, trans. Stephen A. Barney (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 179. For another 237 81 associated by Christianity with the heretics (sometimes described as Epicureans).241 In Christianity, the identification of the heretic with the pig is mainly based on 2 Peter 2:22:“’The dog returns to its vomit’ and ‘The pig, once washed, wallows in mudέ’” (wr. ca. 130 CE ?).242 The image of the pig returning to the mud after the bath is from a known saying attributed to Heraclitus. The two parallel proverbs summarizing a paragraph (2 Pe 2:1-22) deal with the “false prophetsήteachers” (2:1), who are compared to dogs and pigs.243 Hoggishness is a movement towards the earthly, the bodily desires, toward animality. This downward movement is the opposite of the upward movement of salvation: the turning to Christ, from the body to the spirit, from the earth to heaven, from animality to the divine. Because conversion is understood (literally) as an act of turning in Christianity, the image of the heretic is as one who takes a negative turn: hence the simile of the pig returning to the mud. As great as is the salvation, so great is the fall. 244 patristic mention of Epicurus as a pig, see: M. Di Marco, “Riflessi della polemica antiepicurea nei Silli di Timone II: Epicuro, Il porco e l’insaziable ventre,” Elenchos 4 (1983): 60, note 3. 241 As Pierre Courcelle notes: “le porc et son bourbier, après avoir désigné Épicure et ses disciples, ont été considérés comme désignant les hérétiquesέ” Pierre Courcelle, “δe thème littéraire du bourbier dans la littérature latine,” Comptes rendus de ’Acad mie des Inscriptions et e les-Lettres (avril-juin 1973): 281. Rέ Jungkurtz, “Fathers, Heretics, and Epicureans,” The Journal of Ecclesiastical History 17 (1966): 310. 242 Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the the New Testament, The Anchor Bible Reference Library (New York et al.: Doubleday, 1997), 767. 243 The “false teachers” which “follow the polluting desires of the flesh” (2:1ί) are compared to “beasts without reason, creatures of instinct for capture and destruction” (1ί:12)έ They are doggish and hoggish, filthy and impure: “17. These men are springs without water, mists driven by storms; for them gloomy darkness is kept. 18. They mouth empty boasts; they entice with debauchery and desires of the flesh those who but recently fled from the company of those who live in error. 19. They promise them freedom, but are themselves slaves of destruction. For people are slaves to that which masters them. 20. For if they, who fled the pollution of the world by acknowledging our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, again are entangled in evil company and are mastered by it, this last state is worse than the first. 21. Far better for them that they should never have acknowledged the way of righteousness, than acknowledging it, to turn away from the holy rule given them. 22. For them the proverb has proved true: “The dog returns to its vomit” and “The pig, once washed, wallows in mudέ” (2 Pe 2:17-22). See: Jerome H. Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. The Anchor Bible, vol. 37C (New York et al.: The Anchor Bible, 1993), 217. 244 For example, the Armenian Bishop εovsēs of Siwinik‘ (dέ 731 CE) writes:“Wherefore, you, high priests and heads of the Church: Rejoice with ecstasy and shake with fear and much trembling, lest you who are elevated heads and knowledgeable about heaven should become like swine that crawl on earth and wallow in ashes, thinking only of the earthlyέ” εovsēs Bishop of Siwinik, “Hymn to Stέ Gregory the 82 Hence, 2 Pe 2:22 was mainly understood to refer to heretics.245 Were also the minim, epikorsim, or mesumadim of rabbinic heresiology associated with the pig? Tosefta Avoda Zara contrasts the scholars of Torah, who are likened to a lawful sacrificial animal, with those who do not learn Torah, who are likened to impure animals such as the camel and the pig: R’ Shimon ben Yochai says: one does not say, “examine that camel that it might have a deformity” or examine that pig that it might have a deformity”; just pure ]temimim] are checked ´(for deformities). And who is this? This is a Torah scholar who forsakes the Torahέ Regarding him scripture says: “What is crooked cannot be made straight,” (Ecclέ 1:1η) and “The wicked borrow and do not repay” (Psέ 37:21)έ And Rabbi Yehuda says on him He says: “Like a bird wandering from its nest,[so is a man who wanders from his place.] (Proverbs 27:8). And: What wrong did you forefathers find in me,[that they distanced themselves from me.] (Jeremiah 2:5). 246 The pig is inherently impure, unfit for sacrifice, and hence one does not look to see whether it had defects as with pure animals which are fit to sacrifice. Similarly, only a person who was initially straight can be said to have become “crooked ( )έ” Hence, as a pure animal that has a defect, the Talmud scholar acts impurely. What is implicit is that by acting so, he is even worse than the camel and the pig, which in their natures are impure, for he is acting against his own nature. In a similar manner, chapter six of Illuminator,” hymn η2 ]Part II[, In Abraham Terian, Patriotism and Piety in Armenian Christianity: The Early Panegyrics on Saint Gregory (New Rochelle, NY: Avant, 2005), 149. 245 “δe porc et son bourbier, après avoir désigné Épicure et ses disciples, ont été considérés comme désignant les hérétiquesέ” Courcelle, “δe thème littéraire,” 2κ1έ See Robert M. Grant, Early Christians and Animals (London and New York: Routledge, 1999), 6-7έ Terrance Callan, “Comparison of Humans to Animals in 2 Peter 2,10-22,” Biblica 90 (2009): 101-113. For the Middle Ages see: Jacques Voisenet, Bestiaire chrétien. L'imaginaire animale des auteurs du Haut Moyen Age (Toulouse: Presses universitaire du Mirail, 1994), 219. See for example Hilary of Potiers, On Matthew 6.1. Hilaire de Poitiers, Sur Matthieu, vol 1, trans, Jean Doignon, SC 254 (Paris: Cerf, 1978), 170-171 246 T. Avoda Zara 1.8. ς έ , ' :' ' :' ' "έ "' " " :' ."' "' " " ς' And b. Hagigah 9B; EcclR 1.5.2έ In both places, the midrash is told in the context of prohibited sexual relations with a married woman. 83 Mishnah Avot (Pirke Avot), which is a later addition to the Mishnah, compares one who does not learn Torah to a pig: Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Every day a heavenly voice goes forth from Mount Horev ]εount Sinai[ proclaiming and saying: ‘Woe to mankind for their disdain of the Torah!’ For he who does not occupy himself with the Torah is called “rebuked ]nazuf [,” as it is written: “As a golden ring in the snout of a swine, so is a fair woman without discretionέ (Provέ 11:22)” And it says: “And the tablets were the work of God, and the writing was the writing of God, graven upon the tabletsέ” (Ex. 32:16) Read not “graven” (harut), but “freedom” (her ut); for no man is free but he who occupies himself with the study of Torah, and he who devotes himself regularly to the study of Torah shall be exalted, as it is written: “And from εattanah ]=gift[ to σahaliel [=inheritance of God]; and from σahaliel ]=inheritance of God[ to Bamoth ]heights[έ” (σum 21:1λ)έ 247 The midrash reads the word “censured ( of gold in a swine’s snout ( )” as notrikon (acronym) of “As a ring )έ” It seems also that being “rebuked ” means here losing one´s freedom, as the animal that is controlled by its nose-ring. 248 This idea that the one who does not learn Torah is not a free man is followed by the idea of the second part of the midrash that only the one who learns Torah is free. While in the Mishnah the one who deviates from the study of Torah (= gold) is indirectly compared to a pig, 249 in Kala Rabati’s version of the same midrash he is fully a pig: 247 M. Avot 6.2. Translation by Pinhas Kehati, The mishnah, vol. 4, Seder Nezikin (Jerusalem: Eliner, 1987), 195. Also: Seder Eliyahu Zuttah 17.5 (ed. Friedmann (Ish-Shalom)). , : : : "έ ": , , έ :( , :) " ": , 248 The midrash seems to play with the proximity of the word “rebuked ( )” to “nose-ring ( ). 249 We find a similar idea in midrash Tan uma : “If a man makes a vow involving human life, as it is said, “the fruit of the righteous is a tree of life; and he that winneth souls is wise” (Provέ 11)έ If a man is just, even though he is just and does not study the Torah, he has nothing. Rather, the fruit of the just is the tree of life, meaning that since he is a Torah scholar he learns how to deal with human life; as it is said, wise is he who deals with human life. If he knows how to deal with vows regarding human life he learned it from the Torah, and if he has no learning he has nothing. Thus it was with Jephthah the Gileadite, who because he was not a Torah scholar, lost his daughter when he was fighting Ammonites, in the hour when he made the vow: “…if thou shalt without fail deliver the children of Ammon into my hands, then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house shall surely be the δord’s and I will offer it up for a burnt offering” (Judges 11:3ί-31). In that hour the Lord was angry with him and he said, if a dog or a pig or a camel comes out of his house he would offer it up as a sacrifice to me? So he provided his daughter. Why? So that all who make vows will study the laws of pledge and oaths, and will not act mistakenly when they make vowsέ” Tan Behukotai ηέ Translation by Shulamit Valler, “The Story of Jephtah’s Daughter in 84 For whoever is not constant in the study of the Torah is termed “rebuked ]nazuf [;” as it is stated, “As a ring of gold in a swine’s snout”- gold refers to the Torah, for so it states, “And I put a ring upon thy nose,” (Provέ 11:22); and it also declar es, “As a ring of gold in a swine’s snout” : this refers to one who studies the Torah at ]irregular[ intervalsέ The Holy τne, blessed be He, says: “τf what ]use[ is this before swine, seeing that εy Torah is beautiful and I have given it [to man] to meditate thereon, but he does not meditate on it until he forgets itέ’ 250 This midrash is similar to Sifre’s note that, “At the time that Torah comes from his mouth he [the priest=Israel] is like an angel; when [it does] not, he is like a beast and an animal that knows not its creatorέ” 251 In these texts, animalization is not turned outward (toward non-Jews) but inward (to Jews); the pig is the one who is going astray from the world of Torah. In fact, the heretic par excellence in the Rabbinic tradition, Elisha ben Abuya, known as A er (Other), was perhaps associated through this very nickname with the pig. Elisha ben Abuya, Aḥer According to the Babylonian Talmud, it is a prostitute who named Elisha ben Abuya A er (Another): “He went and found a prostitute and asked for herέ She said to him: Are you not Elisha ben Abuya? When he tore a radish (or turnip) out of the ground the εidrash,” in A Feminist Companion to Judges, ed. Athalya Brenner (Sheffield: Sheffield academic Press, 1999), 54-55. , ,( ) "] [ " " "έ' " " , , ", ": , ,( - , ) "' ,' ": , ", ": , " , : " , " . " 250 Kala Rabati 54b (ed. Higger). Translation by A. Cohen, The Minor Tractates of the Talmud: Massektoth Ketannoth, vol. II (London: Soncino Press, 1966), 502. ": , ”έ “: , : , : έ ", ": ", ; , 251 For a reading of the universalistic trends of this text, see: Marc Hirshman, “Rabbinic Universalism in the Second and Third Centuriesέ” HTR 93 (2000): 101-105. 85 on the Shabbat and gave it to her, she said: ‘He is another ]a er hu[έ’”252 The change within the Sage is so great, that even the prostitute is astonished. The otherness/strangeness became his name, his essence. The name A er (another), recalls the expression for the pig in rabbinic literature: Davhar A er (Another thing). Both bynames are used in order to avoid pronouncing the abominable min: word which designs heretic but also species and kind. The Yerushalmi (Hagiga 2έ1) answer the question “Why did all this happen to himς” in three episodes. The first is as follows: Once Elisha was sitting and studying in the plain of Gennesaret, and he saw a man climb to the top of a palm tree, take a mother bird with her young, and descend safely. The following day he saw another man climbing to the top of the palm tree; he took the young birds but released the mother. When he descended a snake bit him and he died. Elisha thought, “It is written, ‘you shall let the mother go, but the young shall you take to yourself; that if may go well with you, and that you may live long (Deut. 22:6f). 253 Where is the welfare of this man, and where his length days? 254 The second episode explains A er’s heresy by his reaction to the martyrdom of Rabbi Judah the Baker in the times of Hadrian’s persecutions: 255 (…) he saw the tongue of Rabbi Judah the Baker, dripping blood, in the mouth of a dog. He said, “This is the Torah, and this its reward! This is the tongue that was bringing forth the words of the Torah as befits them. This is the tongue that labored in the Torah all its B. Hagigah 1ηaέ Different explanations are given to A er´s name in the Bavli Hagiga 1ηb: “Why was he called A er ς ]Because[ Greek songs were always on his lips”έ His hellenophilia is thus the origin of his name. See: Nurit Be’eri, Went Forth into Evil Courses: Elisha Ben Abuya – A’her (Tel-Aviv: Miskal ḲYedioth Ahronoth Books and Chemed Books, 2007) (Hebrew). 253 ‘]If you chance to come upon a bird’s nest, in any tree or on the ground, with young ones or eggs, you shall not take the mother with the young;[ ‘you shall let the mother go, but the young shall you take to yourself; that if may go well with you, and that you may live long (Deut. 22:6f). 254 Y. Hagiga 2:1, 77b. Translation by Jacob Neusner, The Talmud of the Land of Israel, vol. 20, Hagiaga nad Moed Qatan (Chicago and London: The Univeristy of Chicago Press, 1982), 48-49. ? έ( , )” " , ? ? The Talmud suggests that his doubts will not let him to go astray if he knew the explanation of Deuteronomy 22:θ: “He did not know that Rέ Jacob had explained it before him: “That it may go well with you” in the World to Come which is wholly good, “And that you live long,” in the time which is wholly longέ” Y. Hagiga 2:1, 77b. . -" “ -" :“ 255 On the martyrdom of Rabbi Judah the Baker, see: Herr, “Persecutions and εartyrdom,” 114, note 103. 252 86 days. This is the Torah, and this its reward! It seems as though there is no reward [for righteousness[ and no resurrection of the deadέ” 256 According to Bavli Hullin 142a, Elisah-A er saw the tongue of R. Huzpit, the Interpreter, cast in a rubbish heap, 257 while according to Bavli Kiddushin 39b, he saw it dragged by a pig: Now what happened with A er ? Some say, he saw something of this nature. Others say, he saw the tongue of utzpit the translator being dragged by davhar a er [another thing = a pig[έ He said: “The mouth that uttered pearls now licks the dirtς” He went out and 258 sinned. The words of Elisha- A er in front of the tongue dragged by the pig recall the words of Jesus in the sermon on the mountain:”Do not give what is holy to the dogs, or throw your pearls before the swines, so that they will not trample on them with their feet, and turn around and tear you apartέ” (εtέ 7:θ)έ In both cases, pearls stand for Torah (or Holy things)έ εatthew’s parable refers to a thing out of place; the “holy” and “pearls” represent something valuable, which contrasts with ignoble, impure animals such as dogs and pigsέ The pig trampling the pearls refers to the pig’s destructive nature as well to the Greco-Roman idea that the pig reverses the “normal” hierarchy of values, it detests marjoram but delights in the mud. 259 In the Christian exegetical tradition, Matthew 7:6 256 ! 257 : 258 : Y. Hagiga 2:1, 77b. ?! B. Holin 142a. , : ?! , " : ?! , ?! : B. Kidushin 39b. , : , : ς : ς έ ς Also Hagadot Hatalmud 56a (Kiddushin) = 135c/d ( u in): “He saw the tongue of a great man being dragged by a pigέ” 259 As for example Lucretius, in On the Nature of Things writes: “Pigs detest oil of marjoram and fearή all kinds of ointments, for to the bristly pig/ What seems to us refreshing is rank poison./ But on the other hand, what is to us/ Most loathsome filth, why, pigs delight in itή And love to roll their bodies in the mudέ” Lucretius, On the Nature of the Things 6.973-978; Lucretius, On the Nature of the Universe, trans. Ronald Melville (Oxford: Clarendon, 1997), 208. 87 ; ς was often understood as referring to heretics.260 In the Talmud, the image of the pig tha t dirties the pearls with mud refers to a world turned upside down: a strong image of injustice. The third possible reason the Yerushalmi gives might be also related to the pig: “But some say that when his mother was pregnant with him, she passed by temples of Idolatry, and smelled from that kind (Veheriha meoto ha-min).261 And that odor pierced her body like the poison of a snakeέ” 262 Rather than thinking that what Elisha-A er’s mother smelled was incense, it seems more probable that “that kind” refers to sacrificial meat, perhaps pork (as in the expression “another thing”). Whatever the case, this episode may become clearer by observing the case mentioned in Bavli Yoma 82a of a pregnant woman who during the fast of Yom Kippur smelled sacrificial meat or pork and wanted to eat it: The Rabbis taught in a Baraita: [If] A pregnant woman smelled sacrificial meat or pork [and craved it], we stick a pindle into the soup [in which the prohibited food was cooked] and place it on her mouth. If she feels relieved, fine; But if not, we feed her the soup itself. If she feels relieved, fine; But if not, we feed her the very fat [ of the prohibited food,] for there is nothing that stands in the way of saving a life, other than [the cardinal sins of] Idol worship, illicit relations, or murder. 263 In the continuation of the discussion, the Bavli relates the following two episodes: The Alexandrian gnostic Basilides (c. 130-14ί CE) goes far as to say in his gospel: “We (…) are the human beings, but all the others are pigs and dogs. And because of this he [scέ Jesus[ said, ‘Do not throw the pearls before the pigs, nor give the holy to the dogsέ” Epiphanius, Pan 24έ5.2. Cited by Hans Dieter Betz, The Sermon on the Mount: A Commentary on the Sermon on the Mount, including the Sermon on the Plain (Matthew 5:3-7:27 and Luke 6:20-49) (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1995), 498. 261 Jacob σeusner translates “smelled their particular kind of incensesέ” Jacob Neusner, Hagigah and Moed Qatan (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986), 49. 262 Y. Hagiga 2:1, 77b. : έ 263 B. Yomah 82a. , έ , : , , , έ 260 88 There was a certain pregnant woman who smelled food [and craved it on Yom Kippur.] They came before Rebbi [and asked him what to do.] [Rebbi] said to them: whisper to her that it is Yom Kippur. They whispered [it] to her, and she accepted the whisper. [Rebbi] applied the [following] verse to [the fetus]: Before I formed you in the womb I knew you etc [before you left the womb I sanctified you[έ (Jeremiah 1:η)έ From her issued R’ Yochanan. There was [another] pregnant woman who smelled food [and craved it on Yom Kippur]. They came before R’ Chanina ]and asked him what to doέ[ He said to them: Whisper to her [that it is Yom Kippur.] [They whispered it to her,] but she did not accept the whisper; ]R’ Chanina[ applied the ]following[ verse to ]the fetus[: The wicked are estranged, fr om the womb. [And indeed,] Shabasi, 264 the hoarder of produce, issued from her. 265 Two contradictory cases are exposed here: the pregnant woman who does not eat the forbidden meat and the one that does; the one that begot a just man and the one that begot a wicked man. It seems that the story of Elisa/A er’s mother refers to the second case. Indeed, according to Ruth Rabbah and Ecclesiastes Rabbah, A er’s mother did not just smell the forbidden meat but also ate it. 266 The forbidden meat of a pagan sacrifice is described as having a magical quality - as having the power to alter the nature of the fetus and hence influence the nature of the adult, as in the case of Elisha’s heresyέ The apostasy of Elisha-A er is indirectly associated with what might stand for the pig. Perhaps this hints at an equation: Elisha ben Abuya = A er (Another) = Davar A er (Another thing) = Min (Apostate) = pig. This porcine connection to A er might also be associated with the supposed epicurean element of his heresy, mainly his negation of divine providence. This is perhaps the subject of a midrash in Bavli Berakhot 43b were heresy seems to be associated with the pig: 264 Shabsai was a well-known market manipuator who engineered price increases in produce by hoarding large supplies. He then took advantage of the poor by selling the produce at the inflated prices (see b. Baba Batra 90b). 265 B. Yoma 83a. Translation by Schottenstein Talmud. " έ έ : , , : , , έ έ( ) "' έ ,( )" ": έ 266 RuthR 6. , ," :' έ EcclRab 7.1. έ 89 R. Zutra b. Tobiah said in the name of Rab: Whence do we learn that a blessing should be said over sweet odorsς Because it says, “δet every soul praise the lordέ”(Psέ 1ηί:θ) What is that which gives enjoyment to the soul and not to the body? Ḳ you must say this is a fragrant smell. Rabbi Zutra b. Tobiah further said in the name of Rab; The young men of Israel are destined to emit a sweet fragrance like δebanon, as it says: “ His branches shall spread, and his beauty shall be as the olive tree, and his fragrance as Lebanonέ” (Hosea 14:6) R. Zutra b. Tobiah further said in the name of Rab: What is the meaning of the verse: He hath made everything beautiful in its time [He has also set eternity in the hearts of men; yet they cannot fathom what God has done from beginning to end.]? (Eccl. 3:11) It teaches that the Holy τne, blessed be He, made every man’s trade seem fine in his own eyes. R. Papa said: This agrees with the popular saying: Hang the heart of a palm tree on a pig, and it will do the usual things with it [take it to the dung heap]. 267 Why does the text, after praising the Torah learners, turn to Ecclesiastes 3:11 and finally to the proverb concerning the pig? It seems that the students of Torah are contrasted with those who, like the pig, take a good thing and make it filthy. Who are those persons? It is hard to know. But the continuation of Ecclesiastes 3:11 may propose that they are the ones that doubt God’s deeds, for: “He has also set eternity in the hearts of men; yet they cannot fathom what God has done from beginning to end.” Proselytes To cease eating pork was one of the markers of the process of conversion to Judaism, at least according to Juvenal’s Fourteenth satire (wr. c. 90 Ḳ 127 CE), which describe the children of god-fearers who convert to Judaism: 268 267 B. Berakoth 43b. Transltion by Hebrew-English Edition of the Babylonian Talmud, Pesahim (London: The Soncino Press, 1967): 190. ,( )" ": : : έ -ς ": , έ( )" ": , : , έ , ς( )" , ]( =) [ έ] =[ And YalShim Ecclesiastes 968. : , " : ," " έ : 268 See: E. Courtney, A Commentary on the Sattires of Juvenal (London: Athlone, 1980), 561-562. 90 Some who have had a father who reveres the Sabbath, worship nothing but the clouds, and the divinity of the heavens, and see no difference between eating swine’s flesh, from which their father abstained, and eating that of human beings; and in time they take to circumcision. Having been wont to flout the laws of Rome, they learn and practice and revere the Jewish law, and all that Moses handed down in his secret tome, forbidding to point out the way to any not worshipping the same rites, and conducting none but the circumcised to the desired fountain. For all of which the father was to blame, who gave up every seventh day to idleness, keeping it apart from all the concerns of life. 269 Juvenal distinguishes two stages of Jewishness: in the first stage the Sabbath is kept, and the “heavenly god” is worshiped and pork is avoided; in the second stage comes circumcision. Like Juvenal, the rabbis refer to avoidance of pork as a sign of conversion. Mekilta deRabbi Ishmael (4-5th century) states that one should not mention to the convert his past porcine diet: “And a Stranger Shalt Thou σot Vex, σeither Shalt Thou τppress Him; for Ye Were Strangers in the δand of Egyptέ” (Exέ 22:2ί)έ You shall not vex him Ḳ with words. Neither shall you oppress him Ḳ in money matters. You should not say unto him: But yesterday you were worshiping “Bel, bowing (kores ) Nebo,” (cfέ Is 4θ:1θ) 270 and unti now swine’s f esh has stic ing out from between your teeth, and now you dare to stand up and to speak against me!271 And how do we know that if you vex him he can also vex youς It is said: “And a stranger shalt thou not vex, neither shalt thou oppress him; for ye were strangers in the land of Egyptέ” (Ex. 22:20) In connection with this passage R. Nathan used to say: Do not reproach your fellow man with a fault which is also your own.272 269 Juvenal, Satire 14.96-106. Jacob Z. Lauterbach [Mekilta de Rabbi Ishmael, vol. 3 (Philadephia: The Jewish Publiciton Society of America, 1935), 137] and Jacob Neusner [The Mekhilta According to Rabbi Ishmael: An Analytical Translation, 2 vols. Vol. 2 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1988), 210.] translate this phrase as refering to three gods: Bel, Kores, and Nebo. This seems a mistake for the phrase is a pharprase of Isaiah 4θ:1: “Bel has bowed down, Nebo stoops over; Their images are consigned to the beasts and the cattle. The things that you carry are burdensome, A load for the weary beast.” See: Rosenblum, Food, 56, note 82. 271 Saul δiberman suggests that in the convert’s voice can be heard the voice of the pig, see: Liberman, Tosefta Ki-Fshutah, vol. 9, 185. And Ibid. Studies, 488-490. 272 Mekilta de Rabbi Ishmael, Tractate Nezikin, 18.95.1 (ed. Lauterbach). Translation by Jacob Z. Lauterbach, Mekilta de Rabbi Ishmael, vol. 3 (Philadephia: The Jewish Publicaton Society of America, 1935), 137-138. Italics mine. ( , )" " , έ 270 91 Bel and Nebo are both Babylonian deities mentioned in Isaiah 46:1 (“Bel boweth down, Nebo stoopeth ֹ ְ , ‫ב‬ ”) and their cult was popular in Syria.273 Interestingl y, in Bavli Sanhedrin we find Isaiah 46:1 as the proof text that one may mock idolatry: R. Nahman said: All scoffing is forbidden, excepting scoffing at idols, which is permitted, as it is written, Bel boweth down, Nebo stoopeth … they stoop, they bow down together; they could not deliver the burden. 274 Hence, Mekilta deRabbi Ishmael excludes the Gerim from the mockery of idolatry. The midrash plays with the double sense of the word Ger : a proselyte and a stranger. Hence, a Jew should not mention to a proselyte (ger) his foreign origin nor his past nonJewish diet, because the Jews themselves were strangers (gerim) in Egypt. We find a link between the proselyte and the pig also in Bavli Baba Kama 80a, where it is stated that “a proselyte to whom dogs and pigs fell in his inheritance, we do not obligate him to sell ]them all[ immediatelyέ Rather he may sell ]them off[ little by littleέ” 275 For others variants of the text, see the online critical edition of the Mekhilta of Bar Ilan University, The Primary Textual Witnesses to Tannaitic Literature, <http://www.biu.ac.il/JS/tannaim/mekhilta/> Consulted February 5, 2012. Also: Minor treatises, Gerim 4.1 ( , , , έ ). TanB, Vayera 14; 32 ( ). Leqah Tob, Exodus 22.20 ( , , ). YalShim, Mishpatim 349 ( ). MidAgada, Exodus 22.20 ( " , ). 273 See the chapter “The Cult of σebo and Bel,” in Hέ Jέ Wέ Drijvers, Cults and Beliefs at Edessa (Leiden: Brill, 1980), 40-75. Bel was one of the gods of Palmyra, see: Ted Kaizer, The Religious Life of Palmyra: A Study of the Social Patterns of Worship in the Roman Period (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2002), 67. In the Greco-Roman period Bel was sometimes identfied with Zeus and Nebo with Hermes/Mercur. The bavli Avodah Zarah 11b mentiones the famous temple of Bel in Babylon and the temple of Nebo in Chursi. See: Jacob εartin, “Pagan tempel in Pal stina Ḳ rabbinische aussagen im vergleich mit arch ologischen funden,” in The Talmud Yerushalmi and Graeco-Roman culture [2] II, ed. Peter Sch fer and Catherine Hezser (T bingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998), 148. 274 B. Sanhedrin 63b and b. Megilah 25b. 275 B. Baba Kama 80a. έ , , T. Baba Kama κέ14 (edέ δiberman) does not mention the man as a proselyte: “]if[ a person has received an inheritance of pigs or dogs, they do not require him to sell all of them at once. But he goes along to sell them little by littleέ” 92 Conclussion Eating pork is associated by the sages with non-Jews, persecutions, impurity of non-Jews, forbidden sexual relations with non-Jewish women, eating Samaritan bread or forbidden fruits during the sabbatical year, and heresy. The eater of pork is impure, a defiled person. A Jew who eats pork is a transgressor of the law; if he eats it intentionally he is a heretic. Eating pork, literally or metaphorically, stands for transgression of the law, and the “eater of pork” is synonymous with an heretic. If the non-Jews are eaters of pork (aside from exceptional cases such as that of the tagar), then for the Jews pork-eating can serve as a sign of alterity or otherness. This sense is manifested in the Rabbinic hyponym to the pig: davar a er = another thing. This expression not only manifests the will to not utter the impure (a kind of reverse of the prohibition to utter the tetragrammaton, Yahweh ), but also to mark it as an outsider element, its deep otherness. Furthermore, A er is not just the “other,” but also the name of the heretic par excellence: Elisah ben Abuya, whose heresy as we have seen was perhaps associated with the pig/pork eating. The heretic is like the pig, because like the pig he is half pure - half impure. His alterity lies in his proximity, his monstrous status due to his hybridityέ Becoming “other” is becoming a pork eater, as becoming Israel means to cease to eat pork. 276 As we have seen, eating pork is a sign of heresy already in Tannaitic sources (20-200 CE), but this seems to be even more developed in later sources. If the creation of heresiologies and orthodoxies of both Christianity and Rabbinic The “pork eaters” stand for hertics who follow a forigien cult Isaiah θθ:17: “those who sanctify and purify themselves to go into the gardens, following the one in the centre, eating the flesh of pigs, vermin, and rodents, shall come to an end together, says the Lordέ” This phrase however is not linked to heretics in rabbinical literature, but rather, as we will later see, to punishment of the non-Jews, especially Rome in the messianic era. 276 93 Judaism were not without connection, 277 then we may ask (and will later try to answer) to what extent the Christian denouncement of avoidance of pork as heretical influenced the sages’ marking of eating pork as a sign of heresy? For now, we can simply observe that contrary to Christianity, in rabbinic discourse on heresy we do not find a strong use of porcine similes. What seems to be the main difference between Christian similes and the rabbinic similes of the heretic is that, in the first, the pig stands more for a negative return while in the second it seems rather to signify transgression of the law. Because separation and distinction is so central to Judaism, the hoggishness of the heretic seems to lie mainly in his failure to respect the boundary: a failure symbolized and embodied by the eating of the forbidden meat. To the contrary, in Christianity, because of the centrality of positive mediation between categories (transfiguration, transubstantiation, conversion) the heretic is portrayed as the one who fails to convert, or more specifically, as a person who undergoes a negative conversion; the heretic is the pig that after washing in the river returns to the mud. In other words, in rabbinic thinking the pig is a locus of distinction between two categories, while in Christianity, as Jonathan Boyarin notes, following the work of Claudine Fabre-Vassas, the pig is the locus of passage, poros. 278 From this comes the basic difference of eating and not eating pork in the two religions’ orthodoxies and heresies. However, as we have seen, in rabbinic porcine discourse on heretics, we find some points of possible convergence with the Christian discourse on heretics as hoggish and the philosophical tradition which portrays the “heretics among the philosophers,” the Epicureans (and perhaps also the sophists) in similar terms. 277 See: Daniel Boyarin, Border Lines: The Partition of Judeo-Christianity (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004). 278 Jonathan Boyarin, “δe porc en dieu Pôrosέ” Penser/Rêver 7 (2005): 151-176. I thank Jonathan Boyarin for allowing me to read the Englsih version “The Pig as Poros: On the Uses (and Loss) of a Swinish Symbolic εediator,” (April 2ίίη), unpublished paperέ 94 Chapter 4 The Pig and the Destruction of the Temple August 70 CE In August 70 CE, after a four-month siege, on the 9th of Ab in the year 3830 according to the Jewish calendar, Roman soldiers stormed the Temple Mount. 279 The ne xt day, according to Josephus, while: “the sanctuary itself and all around it were in flames, [the Romans] carried their standards into the temple court and, setting them up opposite the eastern gate, they sacrificed to them, and with rousing acclamation hailed Titus as imperatorέ” 280 The emblems worshiped probably included those of the Legion X Fretensis , which included the boar [fig. 5].281 Whatever the sacrifice, it might have resembled tha t of the suovetaurilia sacrifice to Mars, the god of war, of a pig (sus), a ram (ovis) and a bull (taurus), as depicted on the Arch of Titus in Rome or the Arch of Constantine [fig. 67]. For the 9th of Ab as the date of the Destruction, see: Yuval Shahar, “Rabbi Akiba and the Destruction of the Temple: the Establishment of the Fast Days,” Zion 68, no. 2 (2003): 153-159 (Hebrew). 280 Josephus, Jewish War 6.6.1. By doing so, the Romans transgressed several Jewish prohibitions: that of non-Jews entering the Temple, that of making an image of a being (aniconism), and idolatry. Josephus tells us how pious Jews destroyed a statue of an eagle that Herod erected in one of the entrances to the Temple (Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 1.33.2-4), and of the violent reaction of the Jews when the Roman governor Pilate (26-36 CE) ordered Roman legionary standards with the imperial emblems to be taken into Jerusalem (Josephus, Jewish War 2.10). This was detestable idolatry to the Jews, as the Qumran scroll Pesher on Habakkuk (1QaHab 6:1-η) describes: “the Kittim ]the Romans[, and they increase their wealth with all their booty/ like the fish of the sea. And when it says ‘Therefore he sacrifices to his netή and burns incense to his seine ]Habakkuk 1:1θ[,’ the interpretation of it is that theyή sacrifice to their standards, and their military arms areή the objects of their reverence…” Hanan Eshel, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Hasmonaean State (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K: Eerdmans; Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi Press, 2008), 174. 281 Kέ εέ Tέ Atkinson, “The Historical Setting of the Habbakuk Commentary,” Journal of Semitic Studies 4 (1959): 238-263. Helmut Schwier, Tempe und Tempe erst rungμ ntersuchungen u den theo ogischen und ideo ogischen a toren im ersten disch-r mischen rieg (66-74 n. Chr.) (Freiburg: Schweiz: Universit tsverlag Freiburg Schweiz, 1989), 315 (non vidit). Brian J. Incigneri, The Gospel to the Romans: The Setting and Rhetoric of Mark's Gospel (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 192. 279 95 Fig. 5: δegion X Fretensis' standards on Aelia Capitolina’s coin, Elagabalus (218-222 CE). A. topped with eagle, B. topped with boar. Fig. 6: Suovetaurilia sacrifice to Mars on Arch of Titus (c. 81 CE). Fig. 7: Illustration of the Troops. Arch of Constantine (dedicated in 315 CE). 96 If this was the case, the abominable animal was present in the destruction of the Temple as an image (on the δegion’s standard, as well on the shields and helmets of its soldiers) and in flesh and blood as a sacrificial animal. In any case, we find the pig in several legends concerning the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple: Avot de Rabi Nathan, Yerushalmi, Bavli, Targum of La mentations, Targum Sheni to Esther , and the JudeoPersian Apocalypse. In order to better understand the formation of these legends, before adressing them we will identify the role of the pig in Jewish traditions concerning the profanation or destruction of the Temple prior to 70 CE. 4.2. The Pig and the Profanation of the Temple Prior to 70 CE Third Isaiah (Is. 66:3, (c. late sixth century - mid fifth century BCE), rebukes a foreign cult in the Temple: He who slaughtered an ox Who sacrificed a lamb Who presented cereal offering Who burnt commemorative incense (would now) slay a man, (would now) break a dog’s neck, (would now present) the blood of a swine (would now) worship an idol. 282 The prophet rebukes cultish observance without a pure heart (which is metaphorically described as a foreign/impure cult) or the replacement of the pure cult with idolatry. Here, pig blood symbolized the profanation of the Temple in a scheme of Sasson, “Isaiah θθ:3-4a,” 200. For a comparison of pork in Isaiah 66:3 and in 1 and 2 Maccabees, see Brian Hesse and Paula Wapnish, “Pig Use and Abuse in the Ancient Levant: Ethnoreligious BoundaryBuilding with Swine,” in Ancestors for the Pigs: Pigs in Prehistory, ed. Sarah M. Nelson, MASCA Research Papers in Science and Archaeology, vol. 15 (Philadelphia, PA: Museum Applied Science Center for Archaeology, University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, 1998), 131. 282 97 pollution-purification. 283 In Psalms 80:14, dated by some to Eighth Century BCE, 284 the boar ravaging the vineyard symbolized the foreigners destroying Israel or the Temple: 13 14 15 Why hast thou broken down its walls, so that all who pass along the way pluck its fruit? The boar from the forest ravages it, and the beasts of the field feed on it. Return to us, O God Sabbath! Look down from heaven, and see, And visit this vine, The sapling which thy right hand planted… 285 The penetration of the boar and other savage animals into the holy space symbolizes destruction and defilement. 286 This description of the destruction of the vineyard (Israel/the Temple) by the boar may perhaps represent the Assyrians, and, as we will see, was understood in rabbinic literature as standing for Rome. 287 The pig plays a central role in some versions of the history of the profanation of the Temple by the Sasson, “Isaiah θθ:3-4a,” 200. The “abomination” (sikutz), the sacrilege, is answered by a punishment: “Just as they have chosen their ways and take pleasure in their abomination [ubesikutzeyhem]; so will I choose to mock them, to bring on them the very thing they dreadέ (Isέ θθ:4)” 284 As Craig Cέ Broyles notes, “Psέ κί has been variously considered to reflect every national crisis from the Tenth Century division of the kingdom to the time of Maccabees. The most plausible conjectures locate the psalm either in 732-722 BC when the northern tribes were under threat (…) or in the time of Josiah and his reformέ” Craig Cέ Broyles, The Conflict of Faith and Experience in the Psalms: A FormCritical and Theological Study (Sheffield, UK: JSOT Press, 1989), 161. 285 Weiser, The Psalms, 546. 286 The topos of the penetration of the animal into the holy or urban space as a sign of destruction appeared in many biblical texts: Isaiah (5:18; 7.25;13:20-23; 27:10; 32:14; 34:11,14-15), Jeremiah (9:10; 10:22; 12:8-10; 15:3; 49:33;50:39; 51:27,37), Ezekiel (14:15,21; 25:5; 31:13), Tsefania (1:6,14,15), Pssalms (80:14), Lamentations (4:18). For medieval use of this topos, see: Penny Jέ Cole, “‘τ God, The Heathens Have Come into Your Inheritance’ (PSέ7κέ1) - the Theme of Religious Pollution in Crusade Documents, 1095-11κκ,” in Crusaders and Muslims in Twelfth-Century Syria, ed. Maya Shatzmiller (Leiden; New York; Köln: Brill, 1993), 84-111. Misgav Har-Peled, “Animalité, pureté et croisadeέ Étude sur la transformation des églises en étables par les Musulmans durant les croisades, XIIe -XIIIe siècles,” Cahiers de civilisation Médiévale 52 (2009): 113-136. The Roman historian Dio Cassius describing the result of the revolt of Bar-Kockva uses also the metaphor of the penetration of savage animals in the holy place: “The whole of Judea was almost like a desert, as had been predicted before the war. For the tomb of Solomon, which they highly revere, collapsed by itself and many wolves and hyenas entered their cities and howledέ” Dio Cassius, Roman History 69.14. 287 David Bryan, Cosmos, Chaos and the Kosher Mentality (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), 116-117. Several scholars prefer to read ya’ar as ye’or (‘ayin suspensum), seeing in the boar the invasion of Pharaoh σechoin θίλ BCE from the land of the σile (=ye’or) during the reign of Josiah (θ41 609 BCE). See: Gέ Jέ Botterweck, “ chazîr,” in Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, vol. IV (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1980), 296. 283 98 Seleucid King Antiochus IV, in 167 BCE. According to 2 Maccabees (θ:η), “The altar was filled with abominable sacrifices which the δaw prohibited,” while 1 εaccabees tell how the King seeks to force the Jews to “sacrifice pigs and other clean animals” in the Temple (1:47), and how the abomination of abominations was placed on the altar (1:51). It is probable that the Greek words used in 1 Maccabees for the “abomination of desolation” are a translation of the Hebrew shikutz meshomem ( ‫ְש‬ ּ ‫ )ש‬used in the Book of Daniel to describe the same event. According to the book of Daniel, the daily offering in the Temple, the tamid, was replaced by the. 288 But what was the nature of the latter? Was it a statue of an idol (a god) or of the king? Was it an altar dedicated to foreign gods or a kind of sacrifice? All these possibilities have been raised by scholars. J. Lust and O. Keel suggest that the shikutz meshomem in the book of Daniel and in 1 Maccabees was an altar dedicated to an idol or, more likely, the sacrifice itself: a pig. 289 According to Keel, the expression shomem ( ‫ )ש‬or meshomem ( ‫ ) ְש‬stands for King Antiochus, who ordered the shikutz ( ּ ‫)ש‬. 290 The idea that the “Abomination of desolation” was the sacrifice of a pig is supported by later authors Diodorus of Sicily and Josephus Flavius. According to Diodorus (d. c. 30 BCE), Antiochus IV Epiphanes sacrificed a “great sow” before the image of εoses that he found in the temple and the open-air altar of the god, “and poured its blood over themέ” 291According to Josephus The tamid is a technical abbreviation for the olat tamid the “dailyήconstant holocaust, or “constant whole burnt-offeringέ” This offering was made twice daily, in the morning and in the eveningέ It consisted of a lamb, fine flour, oil and wine (Ex 29:38-42)έ Johan δust, “Cult and Sacrifice in Daniel: The Tamid and the Abomination of Desolation,” in The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception, ed. John Joseph Collins, Peter W. Flint and Cameron VanEpps (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 672. 289 δust, “Cult and Sacrifice in Danielέ” 290 τthmar Keel, “Die kultischen εassnamen Antiochus’ IVέ Religionsverfolgung undήoder reformversuchς” in Hellenismus und Judentum: vier Studien zu Daniel 7 und zur Religionsnot unter Antiochus IV, Hellenismus und Judentum, ed. Othmar Keel und Urs Staub (Freiburg Schweiz: Universitätsverl; G ttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000), 103-112. 291 Diodorus of Sicily, The Library of History 34-35.1:3f. 288 99 (probably based on Diodurus), 292 “The king also built a pagan altar upon the temple-altar, and slaughtered swine thereonέ” 293 One may conclude that in the ancient sources Daniel and 1 and 2 Maccabees, the tamid is replaced by the sikutz haMeshukatz, the abomination of desolation. In later sources such as Diodorus and Josephus, the tamid is replaced by a pig sacrificeέ Hence, whatever the exact meaning of the term “abomination of desolation (shikutz meshomem),” it is clear that at the end of the first century BCE and the beginning of the first fentury CE, there was a tradition that the climax of the profanation of the Temple was a sacrifice of a pig or a sow on the holy altar by Antiochus himself. We find here a binary opposition: the sacrifice of the tamid versus the sacrifice of the pig, purity versus impurity, Jew versus Greek. To the sources mentioned above we may add 1 Enoch, probably written in the early Hasmonean period (140 to 137 BCE), in which impure animals stand for the enemies of Israel, while pure animals stand for Israel. The sheep is the main symbol of Israel, while the boar symbolizes Esau or his descendants: the Edomites or the Amalekites. 294 For example, the destruction of the First Temple (587/586 BCE) is described in the following manner: And the lions and tigers ate and devoured the greater part of those sheep [Israel], and the wild boars [the Edomites] ate along with them; and they burned that tower and demolished that house. And I became exceedingly sorrowful over that tower because that house of the sheep was demolished, and afterwards I was unable to see if those sheep entered that house. 295 We can assume that the image of the boar as the destructor of the Temple was well established before 70 CE, inscribed in a narrative of pollution and purification, 292 Schäfer, Judeophobia, 66. Josephus, Jewish Antiquites 12.253. 294 A. Patrick Tiller, A Commentary on the Animal Apocalypse (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993), 32. Bryan, Cosmos, 115-18. 295 1 Enoch 89.66-67. Translation by R. H. Charles, The Book of Enoch Translated from Professor Di mann’s thiopic Text (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1893), 245. 293 100 bondage and redemption. This image creates a contradiction between the lamb/sheep symbol of Israel, and the boar - symbol of its enemy; between the pure sacrifice (tamid) and the impure (sikutz) abominable sacrifice. We can presume that this tradition influenced the post 70 CE legends of destruction. The Legends of Destruction We may observe three different versions of the legends of destruction: 1) The throwing by a war machine of a pig’s head into the Temple (Avot deRabbi Nathan, Origen, Jerome), 2) The replacing of sacrificial animals with a pig (Bavli, Yerusalmi, and the Jewish-Persian Apocalypse of Daniel), and 3) the sprinkling of pig’s blood during the destruction of the First Temple (Targum of Lamentations, Targum Sheni to Esther, and Jewish-Persian Apocalypse of Daniel). The Pig’s Head Although a post Talmudic compilation, Avot de Rabi Nathan seems to tell an ancient version of the legend of destruction. 296 In version A (4), the legend of destruction is part of the narrative of the running away of Raban Yohanan ben Zackkai from the besieged Jerusalem, which may be understood as the foundation myth of Rabbinical Judaism. The legend begins with the coming of Vespasian to Jerusalem and its inhabitants´ refusal of his peace proposal: Now when Vespasian came to destroy Jerusalem, he said [to the inhabitants of the city,], “Idiots! Why do you want to destroy this city and burn the house of the sanctuaryς For what do I want of you, except that you send me a bow or an arrow [as marks of submission to my rule[, and I shall go on my wayέ” They said to him, “Just as we sallied εenahem Kister, “δegends of the Destruction of the Second Temple in Avot De-Rabbi σathan,” Tarbiz 67, no. 4 (1998): 483-530 (Hebrew). 296 101 out against the first two who came before you and killed them, so shall we sally out and kill youέ”297 Those who are guilty of the destruction of the city are the city’s extremist inhabitants. This is even more strongly emphasized by Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai, opponent of the Zealots: When Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai heard, he proclaimed to the men of Jerusalem, saying to them, “εy sons, why do you want to destroy this city and burn the house of the sanctuary? For what does he want of you, except that you send him a bow or an arrow, and he will go on his wayέ” They said to him, “Just as we sailed out against the first two who came before him and killed them, so shall we sally out and kill himέ” Vespasian had stationed men near the walls of the city, and whatever they heard, they would write on an arrow and shoot out over the wall. [They reported] that Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai was a loyalist of Caesar’sέ 298 The pragmatic Sage, after a third vain attempt to change the opinion of the city´s inhabitants, runs away from the besieged city: After Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai had spoken to them one day, a second, and a third, and the people did not accept his counsel, he sent and called his disciples, R. Eliezer and Rέ Joshua, saying to them, “εy sons, go and get me out of hereέ εake me an ark and I shall go to sleep in itέ” R. Eliezer took the head and R. Joshua the feet, and toward sunset they carried him unt il they came to the gates of Jerusalemέ The gate keepers said to them, “Who is thisς” They said to him, “It is a corpseέ Do you not know that a corpse is not kept overnight in Jerusalemς” They said to them, “If it is a corpse, take him out,” so they took h im out and brought him out at sunset, until they came to Vespasian. 299 The escape from the city is followed by the dramatic interview with Vespasian: 297 ARN A 4. : 298 ς . Ibid. : 299 : έ : έ ς έ έ Ibid. ( : ) ς : έ έ 102 έ : : ς έ They opened the ark and he stood before himέ He said to him,” “Are you Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai? Indicate what I should give youέ” He said to him, “I ask from you only Yavneh, to which I shall go, and where I shall teach my disciples, establish a prayer ]house[, and carry out all of the religious dutiesέ” He said to him, “Go and do whatever you wantέ” He said to him, “Would you mind if I said something to youς ]He said to him, “Go aheadέ”[ He said to him, “δo, you are going to be made sovereignέ” He said to him, “How do you knowς” He said to him, “It is a tradition of ours that the house of the sanctuary will be given over not into the power of a commoner but of a king, for it is said, “And he shall cut down the thickets of the forest with iron, and δebanon ]which refers to the Temple[ shall fall by a mighty one (Isέ 1ί:34)έ” People say that not a day, two or three passed before a delegation came to him from his city indicating that the [former] Caesar had died and they had voted for him to ascend the throne. 300 As Shaye J. D. Cohen notes, when Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai quoted before Vespessian from Isaiah 10:34: “And the δebanon ]= the Temple constructed from the cedars of Lebanon] shall fall by a majestic one [=Vespessian],” he “neglected to inform the Romans that the next verse of the prophecy begins with the messianic prediction, “A shoot shall come out from the stump of Jesseέ” Had Vespasian known the Bible of the Jews, he might not have received the rabbi so kindlyέ” 301 The prophecy of the destruction is but the first part of the script, hinting to its second part: the redemp tion. The ascent of Vespasian to the throne of the emperor and that of Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai to the head of the house of study of Yavne, is followed by the destruction of the Temple with the pig: They brought him a catapult and drew it up against the wall of Jerusalem. They brought him cedar beams and put them into the catapult, and he struck them against the wall until a breach had been made in it. They brought the head of a pig and put it into the catapult and tossed it toward the limbs that were on the Temple altar. At that moment Jerusalem was captured. 302 300 Ibid. : : έ : έ( , : έ ς )" : ]: " [ έ έ : : ": έ έ : έ έ Shaye J. D. Cohen, From the Maccabees to the Mishnah (Louisville and London: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006), 24. 302 ARN A 4. 301 103 Another version is found in Avot deRabbi Nathan: 303 When Vespasian surrounded Jerusalem ]…[ They brought him planks of wood and he made them into something like a masbih [covered with branches? shielded?], like a kind of klunos [bridle?]. He made them into two pegusot [catapults?] and they kept firing (projectiles) against the wall until it was breeched. He made an arch of zir [ballista?] and put a pig’s head in itέ They kept shooting and hitting with the machine [ballista?] and they kept moving down (the length of the wall) until (the head) landed on the entrails that were on the altar and defiled itέ” 304 The machine made of cedar beams that Vespasian used seems to correspond to the first part of the prophecy of Isaiah (10:34), which Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai cites: “He will hack down the thickets of the forest ( ) with an axe and the Lebanon [cedar ] shall fall by a majestic one[έ” As in the pre - 70 CE tradition concerning the profanation of the Temple, in Avot deRabbi Nathan, the pig stands for the highest profanation of the Temple, and as in the tradition concerning the sacrifice of a pig/sow on the Temple’s altar by Antiochus IV Epiphanes in the times of the εaccabees, we find here the description of the pig touching the sacrifice on the altar; the ending of the tamid with the pig. As in Psalm 80, the profanation by the pig is inscribed in a scenario of profanation-purification, destruction-redemption. The creation of the center in Yavne ( ). 305 Rabban ) is the diametrical response to the destruction of Jerusalem ( έ 303 304 έ " Wiesenberg, “Related Prohibitionsέ” ARN B 7. " ]έέέ[ ' έ () () ” ”έ > < The text includes several unclear technical words. For the different possible interpretations and text variations, see: Kister, “δegends of the Destruction,” 4κ3-530 (Hebrew). Anat Yisraeli-Taran, The Legends of the Destruction (Tel-Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad, 1997), 90-94 (Hebrew). My translation follows Kister’s explanationsέ 305 It is probably significant that the place chosen to be the new center of Judaism, Yavne, means to build. However, it seems that this play on words is not implict in the sages’ writingέ For the meaning of Yavne in Rabbinic δiterature, see: Bέ Zέ Rosenfeld, “The Changing Significance of the σame ‘Yavne’ in Rabbinic Tradition,” in Jews and Judaism in the Second Temple, Mishna and Talmud Period: Studies in 104 Yohanan ben Zakkai is compared to Eli the high priest, and hence the house of study of Yavne is implicitly compared to the Tabernacle, hinting that Yavne is a kind of substitute for the destroyed Temple, as the sages replaced the Temple’s priests: Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai was in session and with trembling was looking outward, in the way that Eli had sat and waited: “δo, Eli sat upon his seat by the wayside watching, for his heart trembled for the ark of God (1 Sam. 4:13). When Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai heard that Jerusalem had been destroyed and the house of the sanctuary burned in flames, he tore his garments, and his disciple tore their garments, and they wept and cried and mourned. 306 As Menahem Kister notes, the story of the destruction of the Temple with the pig probably expressed an ancient tradition, as evidenced by the fact that the Church fathers Origen (c. 185 Ḳ c. 254 CE) and Ambrose (c. 339 Ḳ 397 CE) mentioned it. Origen, in his Commentary on Matthew, notes that the Jews think that “the abomination of desolation” (εatthew 24:1η; Daniel 12:11) concerns “the last plot of the Romans, or the pig head that was launched to the Temple, or the emblems that Pilatus brought into the Templeέ” 307 The first event, the “last plot of the Romans,” probably refers to the foundation of Aelia Capitolina (c. 130 CE); the launching of the pig’s head may refer to the destruction of 70 CE; while the third may refer to the events during the government of Pontius Pilate in Judea (26-36/19-37 CE?).308 Interestingly, according to Ephrem the Syrian (c. 306-373 CE), “some say that the sign of its ]Jerusalem´s[ destruction was the pig’s head which the Honor of Shmuel Safrai, ed. Isaiah Gafni, Aharon Oppenheimer and Menahem Stern (Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, 1993), 149-164. 306 Translation by Jacob Neusner, The Fathers According to Rabbi Nathan (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1955), 42-43, with slight alteration. ": έ( " ' ' )" : 307 Origenes Werke, XII, Origenes Matthäuserklärung: Fragmente und Indices, III, ed. Erich Klostermann (Berlin: Akademie Verl, 1968 (1943)), 194. Cited in: Kister, “δegends of the Destruction,” 502 . 308 For the dates Pontius Pilate’s office, see: Flavius Josephus Translation and Commentary, vol. 1b, Judean War 2, trans. Steve Mason (Boston: Brill, 2008), 139. Josephus, Jewish Wars 2.169-174; Antiquities 18.55-59. 105 Romans gave Pilate to carry into the interior of the temple to place thereέ” 309 Ambrose writes, in his commentary on δuke 21:2ί (“When you see Jerusalem surrounded by an army”), “Indeed Jerusalem was besieged and was taken by storm by a Roman army: concerning which the Jews thought that the “abomination of desolation” was accomplished, because the Romans threw a pig’s head into the Temple to mock the ritual observance of the Jewsέ” 310 These Christian authors testified that the legend in Avot deRabbi Nathan dates at least to the beginning of the third century and that, at least by Christians, it was associated with the “abomination of desolationέ” The Exchange of Lambs for Pigs The Yerusalmi (Ta’anit 4:5, 68c; Berakhot 4:1, 7b) tells two analogous episodes from the time of Greece and Rome: ‘And the tamid (the daily whole offering) was canceled (Mishnah Ta’anit 4έθ)έ’ Rabbi Simon in the name of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi: In the days of the Kingdom of Greece, [the besieged in Jerusalem daily] lowered over the walls two baskets of go ld and obtained in exchange two lambs (required for the Tamid offering). Once they lowered over the walls two baskets of gold [of pigs Ḳ Vatican Manuscript, fol. 66] and obtained in exchange two goat kids (which are unfit to sacrifice). At that time, the Holy One blessed be He enlightened their eyes and they discovered two duly examined lambs in the Chamber of Sacrificial Lambs. At that time did it happen that, as reported by R. Judah. Abba, the offering of the Tamid was delayed till the fourth hourέ” Ephrem the Syrian, Commentary on Tatian’s Diatessaron 17.12. Translation by C. McCarthy, Saint phrem’s Commentary on Tatian’s Diatessaron. An ng ish Trans ation of Chester eatty Syriac εS ι0λ with Indtroduction and Notes, JSSt Supplement 2 (Manchester: Oxford University Press on behalf of the University of Manchester, 1993), 276-277. Ephrém de Nisibe, Commentaire de l' Evangile concordant ou Diatesseron, trad. Louis Leloir, SC 121 (Paris: Cerf, 1966), 322-232έ See: Phil Jέ Botha, “The Relevance of the Book of Daniel for Fourth-Century Christianity According to the Commentary Ascribed to Ephrem the Syrian,” in Die Geschichte Der Daniel-Auslegung in Judentum, Christentum Und Islam: Studien Zur Kommentierung Des Danielbuches in Literatur Und Kunst, ed. Katharina Bracht and David S. Du Toit (Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 2007), 118. 310 Ambrose, Commentary on Luke 10.15. “Cum uideritiscircumdari ab exercitu Hierusalemέ Vere Hierusalem ab exercitu obessa est et expugnata Romano, unde et Iudaei putauerunt tunc factam abominationem desolationis, eo quod caput porci in templum iccerint illudentes Romani Iudaeicae ritum observantiaeέ” Ambroise de Milan, Traité sur l`Evangile de S. Luc, trad. Gabriel Tissot, SC 45 (Paris: du Cerf, 1976), 162. 309 106 R. Levi said: also in the days of this Wicked Kingdom (Rome), the besieged in Jerusalem likewise lowered daily over the walls two baskets of gold and obtained in exchange two lambs. In the end they lowered over the walls a basket of gold and obtained in exchange two pigs. Hardly half way up, the pig thrust its paws against the wall. A tremor shook the wall, and the pig leapt 40 parasa ngs from the Land of Israel. At that time, on account of our sins (avonot), the Tamid ceased and the temple was destroyed. 311 The Talmud explains the Mishnah Ta’anit 4.6 which states a list of events that are believed to have happened on the 17th of Tammuz and on the 9th of Av. The text of the first episode is somewhat distorted, but it seems that in the original text, in the first episode as well as in the second, the besiegers replaced the lambs for the daily offering (tamid) with an animal unfit for sacrifice (goat kids/pigs), but miraculously the besieged found two lambs in the Temple, so that continual sacrifice did not cease. This miracle of the lambs, reminiscent of the oil jar of Hanukah, is contrasted with the second episode in which the exchange of the lambs for the pigs ended the daily offering (tamid) and the coincided with the destruction of the Temple. Thus, if in the first episode the Greeks sent two kid goats, which were unsuitable for sacrifice, in the second episode the Romans sent pigs, not only unsuitable, but impure animals. It seems, then, that the Maccabean motive for replacing the tamid with the pig is here transferred to the Roman period, as is also the case in the Bavli version of the legend. . Ta’anit 4:5, 68c. εy translationέ For textual variants see Wilk, “When Hyrcanus was Besieging Aristobulus,” 1ί3έ , : έ " έ ]θθ , " Ḳ [ έ έ έ : έ έ έ 311 107 The Bavli (Baba Kamma 72b; Menahot 49b; Sota 49b) locates the second episode mentioned in the Yerusalmi in the civil war between the brothers Hyrcanus II and Aristobulus II at the end of the Hasmoneans dynasty (here b. Menahot 49b):312 When the Hasmonean kings were laying siege to each other, Hyrcanus [II] was outside and Aristobulus [II] inside. Day after day, they [the besieged] lowered over the walls dinars in a box, and they [the besiegers] raise them temidim [sacrificial animals for the offering of the Tamid]. There was an old man who was knowledgeable in Greek wisdom [language]. He told them [the besiegers] in Greek wisdom [in Greek language]: as long as they [the besieged] went on working [sacrificing], they would not be delivered to youέ” Next day, when they lowered them the dinars in the box, they sent up to them a pig [in return]. Half way up, it thrust its paws against the wall. The land of Israel trembled for four hundred pa rsotέ At that time did they declare: “Cursed be the man who will rear pigs! And cursed be the man who will teach his son Greek wisdom [the Greek language]. 313 Although the Mishnah dated the ban of learning Greek and breeding pigs to the Polmus of Titus (meaning to the Great Revolt of 66-73 CE, or perhaps to Polmus Kitos {Quintus}, 314 the general of Trajan who oppressed the Jewish Diaspora revolt in 117 CE), this did not prevent the Bavli from setting it in the time of Hyrcanus’ siege of his brother Aristobulus in Jerusalem in 65 BCE. The transfer of what had been told in the Yerusalmi about the destruction of the Temple by the Romans in 70 CE to the end of the Hasmonean period and the beginning of the Roman occupation might be significant. This might be a typical Talmudic process, whereby different historical events are mixed together.315 There was also a deeper link between the two events for the Babylonian sages: 312 The three versions are identical, but in the Sota 49b version, the places of Aristobolus and Horkanus are reversedέ For the Historical background of the siege and additional bibliography see: Eyal Regev, “How Did the Temple εount Fall to Pompeyς” The Journal of Jewish Studies 48, no. 2 (1997): 276-289. 313 B. Menahot 49b. έ , ": , , έ έ " έ , , έ" έ" , ": 314 Regarding the Cambridge and Parma manuscripts, see: Lieberman, Studies, 225, note 6. For criticism of this identification, see: David Rokeahέ “Polmus shel Kitos–LeBirura shel Bayia PhilologitHistorit,” in Meridot ha-Yehudim bi-yeme Trayanus, 115-117 li-sefirat ha-Notsrim, ed. David Rokeah (Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar Center, 1978), 172-173 (Hebrew). 315 In fact, the prohibition of the teaching of Greek wisdom is mentioned by the Rabbinic corpus in three different episodes: Polmus Kitus (M. Sota 9.14; Sifri Devarim 34), the civil war between Horkonus 108 the siege of 65 BCE was the climax of the quarrel between the two sons of Alexander Jannaeus and Alexandra Salome over their inheritance. Hyrcanus with his allies Aretas III, the king of the Nabateans, and Antipater the Idumean tried to take back the kingship and the title of the great priest that his brother took from him just four years earlier. The siege lasted a long time, and both sides asked the Roman general Pompeius in S yria to intervene in their favor. Finally, in 63 BCE, Pompe y conquered the city and desecrated the Temple by entering the Holy of Holies. This event officially marks the end of Hasmonean rule and the subjection of Judea to Rome. In this sense, for the Babylonian sages, the events which brought Pompeius to conquer Jerusalem foreshadowed the siege of Jerusalem by Titus. The Talmudic legends do not seek to clarify history, but to pass along a message. In tractate Menahot, the legend places the bringing of the Omer offering over a long distance from Jerusalem in a particular historical context; 316 in the two others tracts, it was used to clarify the logic of two Mishnaic prohibitions: in Baba Ka mma (72b) the ban on breeding of pigs, and in Sota (49b) the ban on Greek wisdom. Both prohibitions are bound together in Menahot.317 Whether it was the pig’s legs striking the wall or its cry which caused an earthquake that destroyed the land of Israel,318 the destruction was not and Aristobulus (B. Sota 9b), and after the Great Revolt in 66AD (Y Sabath 1.4.3c). See: I. Lee Levine, Judaism and Hellenism in Antiquity: Conflict or Confluence? (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1998), note 34. 316 The ‘τmer to be offered on the second day of Passover was normally collected from the neighorhood of Jerusalem. The story is told in the gemarah to explain in which context it was brought from Gaggoth Serfin, far away from Jerusalem (m. Menahot 10. 2). 317 Joshua Efron, “The Psalms of Solomon, The Hasmonean Decline and Christianity,” in Studies on the Hasmonean Period (Leiden: Brill, 1987 (1980)), 230. 318 Jordan Dέ Rosenblum, (“Why,” 1ί3) notes that pigs were used as weapons in war, citing Adrienne Mayor, Greek Fire, Poison Arrows, and Scorpion Bombs: Biological and Chemical Warfare in the Ancient World (Woodstock: Overlook Duckworth, 2003), 200-203, which mentions several texts speaking of the use of pigs to terrorize war elephants, but just one episode concerning siege warfare. It seems that the pig in the story has nothing to do with real military practices, nor with any siege machine (As Jacques André notes: “Aucun nom de la truie ne semble avoir, comme au εoyen Age en français, par une substitution du 109 possible without the treachery of the old man “who was knowledgeable in Greek wisdom”, and who gave the besiegers the advice on how to impede the Temple sacrifices. 319 The legend here creates a parallel between the breeding of the impure animal and the raising of one’s son in the light of the foreign wisdom, that is, between pigs and Hellenized Jews. The Babylonian legend strengthens the ideal of the cultural seclusion of the Jews from Hellenistic culture, and emphasizes the danger of blurring the boundaries between the two. The legend is a transformation of a story told by Josephus in Jewish Antiquities: While the priests and Aristobulus were besieged, there happened to come round the festival called Phaska [Pessah], at which it is our custom to offer numerous sacrifices to God. But as Aristobulus and those with him lacked victims, they asked their countryman to furnish them with these, and take as much money for the victims as they wished. And when these others demanded that they pay a thousand drachmas for each animal they wished to get, Aristobulus and the priests willingly accepted this price and gave them the money, which they let down from the walls by a rope. Their countrymen, however, after receiving the money did not deliver the victims, but went to such lengths of villainy that they violated their pledges and acted impiously toward God by not furnishing the sacrificial victims to those who were in need of them. But the priests, on suffering this breach of faith, prayed to God to exact satisfaction on their behalf from their countrymen; and He did not delay their punishment, but sent a mighty and violent wind to destroy the crops of the entire country, so that people at that time had to pay eleven drachmas for a modius of wheat. 320 Both Josephus (1st century) and the Bavli (edited 5th-6th centuries) give the same historical context for the episode, but they express two different conceptions as to the reasons for the Destruction of the Temple: in Josephus it is because of the wickedness of the besiegers and the brothers’ hate; in the Bavli, it is the disloyalty of one of the besiegers and the wickedness of strangers. porc au bélier, désigné des machines de guerre, un bélier ou une catapulte qui lançait des pierresέ” Jacques André, “δa part des suidés dans le vocabulaire grec et latin,” Anthropozoologica 15 (1991): 21. 319 On the use of Greek in Second Temple Jerusalem, see: Levine, Judaism and Hellenism, 33-95. 320 Josephus, Jewish Antiquity 14.25-28. 110 The Sprinkling of Pig Blood This version of the legend of destruction transfers the pig episode to the destruction of the first Temple by Nebuchadnezzar. Targum of Lamentations, version of δamentations 2:λ: “Her gates have sunk into the ground; he has ruined and broken her bars,” reads: “Her gates have sunk into the earth because they slaughtered a pig and brought its blood over them. He has destroyed and shattered her doorpostsέ” 321 The Targum Sheni to Esther 1:3 (4th-10th century CE?) reads similarly: Then came the Chaldean armies, who brought with them 360 camels loaded with iron axes, but the outer gates of the Temple swallowed them up. Nevertheless, they did not want to open until Parnatos [prnitus] came and slaughtered a swine, sprinkling its blood upon the Temple, thus defiling it. After being defiled, it opened itself, and the wicked σebuchadnezzar entered the Temple (…)έ 322 According to Fέ Perles, “prnitus” refers to Fronto Haterius, the commander of the legions from Alexandria that besieged the Temple Mount in 70 CE.323 This detail ma y indicate that the original story was indeed about the Roman destruction of the Temple. 324 In the later Jewish-Persian Apocalypse of Daniel (εa‘aseh Danī’e ) (a unique manuscript, c. 1600), we find a mixture of the second and third versions of the legend of destruction:325 321 See: Christian M. Brady, The Rabbinic Targum of Lamentations: Vindicating God (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 45. In Lamentations Rabbah (17a and 74b), the wall of the city sunk after the Babylonians measured the city wall, see: Shaye Hέ Dέ Cohenέ “The Destruction: From Scripture to εidrash,” Prooftexts 2 (1982): 21. 322 Targum Sheni to Esther 1:3. ]έέέ[ έ έ 323 Fέ Perles, “σachlese zum neuhebr ischen und aram ischen W rterbuch,” in Festschrift Adolf Schwarz zum siebzigsten Geburtstage, 15. Juli 1916, edέ Samuel Krauss and Victor Aptowitzer, 2λ3-31ί (Berlin: Rέ δ wit, 1917), 305. Manuscripts read: Parnesos, Partanos, Parsutnos, Peranetos. See: Bernard Grossfeld, The Two Targums of Esther, The Aramaic Bible, 18 (Collegeville, MN: Michael Glazier, 1991), 119, note iiiii. 324 Rosenblum, “Why,” 1ίθέ 111 Now they (i.e., Israel) possessed two commandments, which while they were observing them, no enemy could achieve victory against them. One of them was sacrifice, and the other circumcision, and they did not maintain (the observance) of any other commandment. Every day they would put a dirham for this sacrifice in a basket and lower it from the wall with a rope into the camp of Nebuchadnezzar in order to purchase a lamb for this sacrifice. Now one day an Israelite youth was on the wall of Jerusalem, and so they asked him: ‘This lamb which you have been purchasing from us Ḳ what do you do with itς’ The youth answered ]them[: ‘We offer it as an offeringέ’ Then they stopped selling them any more lambs and devised a stratagem: instead of a lamb they placed a pig in the basket and sent it to the wall. As soon as [the basket] had reached the top of the wall, they shot arrows at the pig, the blood spewed onto the wall, and the wall cracked openέ That day was the ninth of the month Avέ σebūzarādan realized that the Lord was handing them over into his control. He entered Jerusalem and proceeded directly to the Temple. Zedekiah, the king of Judah, fled and the officers of Nebuchadnezzar chased after him (and captured him). When they saw King Zedekiah, they said: ‘These eyes of yours are handsome!’ Then the order was given to kill two of his sons before his eyes, and afterwards they blinded his eyes. Then σebū arādan s aughtered a pig within the Temp e of the δord. Nebuchadnezzar himself did not come to Jerusalem Ḳ he remained in Riblah Ḳ but he had dispatched σebūzarādan to Jerusalem in order to gain profit through these deedsέ 326 325 Dan Shapira notes that his part of the text seems to be a kind of a paraphrase of Targum Sheni to Esther 1:3 which the author adds to the Talmudic legend. Dan Shapira, “Qīṣṣa-ye Dāniyāl Ḳ ’o εa‘aseh Danī’el Ḳ be-farsit-yehudit: Ha- ibbur we-targumo,” Sefunot 7 (1999): 339 (Hebrew). 326 The Jewish-Persian Apocalypse of Daniel (εa‘aseh Danī’e 4. Translation by Dan Shapira from the Hebrew translation (cited below) of the original Judeo-Persian text by John C. Reeves (available on line: <http://religiousstudies.uncc.edu/people/jcreeves/maaseh%20daniel.pdf> consulted 17 Janaury 2012. , , Ḳ , έ4 ]‫ درهم‬,Dirham[ έ , ": έ , έ" ": ] [ "ς έ , ] [ έ έ έ ' , έ" ": , έ , , έ' έ έ Shapira, “Qīṣṣa-ye Dāniyāl,” 1η4έ Wiesenberg’s English translation (“Related Prohibitions,” 22κ) seems to follow both the Hebrew translation of M. Caplan, published in Jellinek (Bet Ha Midrash, V (Vienne, 1873), 117-13ί) and εέ Zotenberg’s German translationέ Caplan’s Hebrew translation, however, is a translation of the German translation, See: Jέ Darmesteter, “δ'Apocalypse persane de Daniel,” dans Mélanges Renier; recueil de travaux pub. par l'École pratique des hautes études (Section des sciences historiques et philologiques) en mémoire de son président Léon Renier (Paris: École pratique des hautes, 1887), 407, note 1. For the Judeo-Persian text, see: Hermann Zotenberg, “Geschichte Daniels: ein apokryph,” Archiv für wissenschaftliche Erforschung des Alten Testamentes 1 (1867-69): 385-427. Jes Peter Asmussen and H. Dadkhan, “En jødisk-persisk Daniel apocalypse, en oversšttelse af en apokryf Daniel tekst (A JewishPersian Daniel apocalypse, a translation of an apocryphal Daniel text),” Dansk Teologisk Tidsskrift (1998): 199-215. While it probably has no direct connection to the destruction legends, the Persian general that conquered Jerusalem in the seventh century perhaps was a man named Farrokhan, nicknamed Shahrbaraz, the wild boar. Theophilus of Edessa in the eighth century explains this nickname: “]Khursau said[: “I am ready to exact vengeance on the Romans. Which of you distinguished generals and nobles of the Persians is ready to serve my purposeς” Thereupon Romizan, a powerful diligent man, with considerable experience in combat, said in reply: “I am ready to accomplish your purpose; I will have the strength to do battle with Romans. I flinch from nothing; I show no compassion nor pity nor remorse for any man; I know no 112 Discussion Does the role of the pig in the legends of destruction echo the sacrifice of a pig on the Temple Mount by the Roman soldiers? Perhaps, but not necessarily. As Anat Yisraeli-Taran notes, the pig is “fit” for symbolizing the destruction-profanation of the Temple because it was a strong symbol both of impurity and Rome, and because it was the emblem of the Legion X Fratensis. 327 However as we have seen, the profanation/destruction of the Temple by a pig, and especially the idea of the replacement of the tamid with the pig, is a literary topos found in earlier Jewish texts, such as the book of Isaiah and Psalms, or in the memory of the Maccabean revolt [table 1]. It seems, then, that early rabbinical texts transferred this topos to the Roman’s conquests of Jerusalem by Pompeius in 63 BCE and especially to that of 70 CE, while in later sources it is traced to the destruction of the first Temple by the Babylonians in 586 BCE. The first version provided a violent image of penetration and profanation; the second version stressed the danger of relations between insiders (Jews) and outsiders (Romans), as well as the replacement of the tamid with the abominable animal; the third version stressed the magical nature of the event. The first version seems to be the most ancient, perhaps from the Tannaitic period, for the throwing of the pig’s head into the Temple is mentioned by Origen, who died in 254 CE. The second version, which first appears in the Yerusalmi, of the replacement of the sacrificial animals with the pig, appears to be dated to the reverence nor regret for the aged or the youngέ” When he heard his words, Khursau rejoiced greatly and said: “σo longer will you be called Romizan, but rather Shahrbaraz, that is, the wild boar!” Theophilus of Edessa, Chronicle, 1234 (8th century CE). Translation by Robert G. Hoyland, Theophilus of Edessa's Chronicle and the Circulation of Historical Knowledge in Late Antiquity and Early Islam (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2011), 56-57. 327 Yisraeli-Taran, The Legends of the Destruction, 85-86. 113 Ammoraic period, while the third version, which concerns the First Temple, is postAmoraic. In the porcine legends of destruction, the abominable animal has magical qualities: its contact with the wall or the altar causes destruction. 328 The pig’s killingήbodyήblood serves as the anti-thesis of the normal-pure sacrifice. In the same way the tamid sacrifice has the power to defend the city, the “sacrifice” of the pig has the power to destroy it. This magical dimension comes to emphasize the unnatural character of the event, and hence its being the fruit of divine intervention. The profanation of the Temple by pigs has a long history, from the Bible to the Maccabean era, to post 70 CE, to the Middle Ages, to the modern era, moving from the profanation of the Jewish temple to profanation of the Muslim mosques built on the Temple Mount. Already in the seventh century, the Bishop of Bagratunis, Sebeos, in his History (wr. 660s), tells a legend of how, after the Muslims built the mosque on the Temple Mount, three Jews slaughtered two pigs and put them in the mosque, plotting that the fault would fall on the Christians. 329 In the era of the Crusades, Arab historian Yaqut Kister, “δegends of the Destruction,” ηί3έ Sebeos, History 31έ “σow I shall speak about the plot of the Jewish rebels, who, finding support from the Hagarenes for a short time, planned to [re]build the temple of Solomon. Locating the place called the holy of holies, they constructed [the temple with a pedestal, to serve as their place of prayer. But the Ishmaelites envied [the Jews], expelled them from the place, and named the same building their own place of prayer. [The Jews] built a temple for their worship elsewhere. It was then that they came up with an evil plan: they wanted to fill Jerusalem with blood from end to end, and to exterminate all the Christians of Jerusalem. Now it happened that there was a certain grandee Ishmaelite who went to worship in their private place of prayer. He encountered three of the principal Jewish men, who had just slaughtered two pigs and taken and put them [in the Muslim] place of prayer. Blood was running down the walls and on the floor of the building. As soon as the man saw them, he stopped and said something or other to them. They replied and departed. The man at once went inside to pray. He saw the wicked [sight], and quickly turned to catch the men. When he was unable to find them, he was silent and went to his place. Then many [Muslims] entered the place and saw the evil, and they spread a lament throughout the city. The Jews told the prince that the Christians had desecrated their place of prayer. The prince issued an order and all the Christians were gathered together. Just as they wanted to put them to the sword, the man came and addressed them: "Why shed so much blood in vain? Order all the Jews to assemble and I shall point out the guilty ones". As soon as they were all assembled and [the man] walked among them, he recognized the three men whom he had previously encountered. Seizing them, [the Arabs] tried them with great severity until they disclosed 328 329 114 (1179-1229) wrote that the Franks transformed the Mosque of Omar and Al Aksa into a pigpen, while Abu Shama (1203-1267) reports that the El-Aksa, and especially its mihrab, were full of piglets. 330 More recently, in 1997, two Israeli far-right activists, Avigdor Eskin and Damian Pakovitch, were arrested for planning to throw a pig’s head by a catapult into the Temple Mount/al-Haram el-Sharif. 331 One may wonder how much this plan was influenced by the rabbinic legend of the pig’s head that the Romans threw into the Temple. Whatever the case, these examples demonstrate the vitality of images or acts of profanation in narratives of purification. In the case of the rabbinic tradition, the profanation of the Temple by the pig marks the ever continuing situation of the Temple being impure, where the Jews are under the yoke of Rome, a profane world which is to be purified in messianic times. the plot. And because their prince was among the Jews present, he ordered [The subject probably is the Arab, not Jewish, prince] that six of the principals involved in the plot be killed. He permitted the other ]Jews[ to return to their placesέ” Translation by Robert Bedrosian, Sebeos' History (New York: Sources of the Armenian Tradition, 1985), 131-133. Cyril εango, “The Temple Mount AD 614-638,” in Bayt alMaqdis: 'Abd al-Malik's Jerusalem, ed. Julian Raby and Jeremy Johns (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992), 1-16. 330 Yaqut al-Hamawi, Dictionary of Countries ( itab εu’gam a -Buldan), 4; Abu Shama, The Book of the Two Gardens on the History of the Two Reigns (Kitab al-Rawdatayn fi akhbar al-dawlatayn), see: HarPeled, “Animalité, pureté et croisade,” 132 331 Ha’aretz 2η December 1λλ7έ 115 Source Date JewishPersian Apocalypse of Daniel Targum Sheni to Esther 1:3 Targum of Lamentations 3.2.9 Avot deRabbi Nathan Bavli Ms. c. 1600 Yerusalmi 5th -6th cent. 4th-10th cent.? Actor Destruction/ Profanation of the Temple 1st 2nd σebūzarādan under the orders of Nebuchadnezzar Parnatos Nebuchadnezzar Nebuchadnezzar ▲ ▲ ▲ Romans ▲ d. 397 Romans ▲ 306-373 Romans ▲ Origen Commentary on Matthew Daniel c. 185Ḳ c. 254 Romans ▲ 2nd cent. BCE [Greeks] ▲ The besiegers put pigs in the basket but two lambs were found the pig thrust its paws against the wall Pig’s head ▲ Pilate carries the pig’s head into the temple Pig head ▲ ? ? 5th cent BCE Table 1: The pig and the destruction or profanation of the Temple. 116 Other Sprinkling of blood upon the Temple Sprinkling pig’s blood on the city gates The pig touches the wall and the altar the pig thrusts its paws against the wall (Siege of 65 BCE) ▲ The Romans ? (war between Hyrcanus and Aristobulus) Greeks Psalms 80:14 Sac rific e ▲ ▲ Ambrose Commentary on Luke Ephrem the Syrian Isaiah 66:3 tamid ▲ Vespasian 6th -7th cent. The action with the pig The abomination of desolation was a sacrifice of a pig? “The boar from the forest ravages it” Offering of pig blood Chapter 5 The Boar Emblem of the Legion X Fretensis and Aeneas’ Sow In the current chapter, we will discuss three explanations which have been provided for the identification of Rome with the pig: 1) the boar emblem of the Legion X Fretensis, 2) the erection of a sculpture of a sow in Aelia Capitolina, and 3) the myth of Rome’s founding as told in Virgil’s Aeneid. First, we will discuss the recurrent explanation following Theodore Reinach’s idea (1λί3) that the Rabbis identified Rome with the pig because the boar was the emblem of the Legion X Fretensis.332 The Boar Emblem The legion derived its appellation Fretensis from Fretum (Siculum), where it had distinguished itself in the naval battle fought between Agrippa and Sextus Pompeius in 36 BCE. This explains the special link of the legion to Neptune and its symbols of the galley and the dolphin. In 1869, Félicien de Saulcy suggested that the boar became the δegion X Fretensis’s emblem with the intention of annoying the Jewsέ333 As Dan Bara g notes “this theory has been rejected because three other legions ( Legio I Italica, II Adiutrix, and 20th Valeria Victrix) had the same symbol, but never had any connection Reinach, “εon nom est δégion,” 172-178. Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews, 294, note 162. Heinemann, The Methods of the Aggadah, 32. Krauss, Paras VeRomi, 100-105; 177-178. Aminoff, The Figure, 258-265. Feldman, Josephus's Interpretation of the Bible, 323. Feldman, Remember Amalek, 67. Barak-Erez, Outlawed Pigs, 20. Lachs, A Rabbinic commentary, 139. Against this identification, see: Hadas-Lebel, Jerusalem Against Rome, η1κέ See also: “Swine” Jewish Encyclopedia έ Wilk, “When Hyrcanus was Besieging Aristobulus,” 1ί4έ 333 De Saulcy, “δettre,“ 259. Félicien de Saulcy, Numismatique de la Terre Sainte, description des monnaies autonomes et impériales de la Palestine et de l'Arabie Pétrée... (Paris : J. Rothschild, 1874), 90. Followed by P. Germer-Durand, “Aelia Capitolina,” Revue biblique 1 (1892): 384. Cagnat rejects this argument, noting that the boar was the sign of other legions which had no connection to the war with the Jews, Kέ εέ Rέ Cagnat, “δ’armée romaine au siège de Jérusalem,” Revue des études juives 22 (1891): xlii. Eέ εichon, “εélanges, III, σote sur une inscription de Ba’albek et sur des tuiles de la légion Xa Fretensis,” Revue Biblique 9 (1900): 95-105. 332 117 with the Jewsέ”334 The boar emblem manifested the strong long-standing identification of the warrior with the boar in the Greco-Roman world, and especially in the Germanic world (Fig. 8).335 Fig. 8: Standard with a boar on a Roman bas-relief, Narbonne, France. 336 The legion X Fretensis arrived in Judea in the spring of 66 CE. After assembling the Roman troops in Ptolemais, in 67 CE the legion took part in the war in Galilee, at the siege of Jotapata. After spending the winter in Caesarea Maritima, the legion participated in the conquest of Tiberias, Tarichease, and Gamla, spending the winter of 68 CE in Scythopolis. In 69 CE, after Vespasian ordered his son Titus to conquer Jerusalem, the legion X Fretensis moved to Jerusalem via Jericho. First camping on the Mount of Olives, Titus then moved the legion to the northern part of the city. Our unique source for the history of the siege, Josephus, does not relate the exact role of the legion in the conquest of the city, but it is probable that its troops took part in the conquest of the Temple Mount. Barag, “Countermarks,” 11κέ For a general survey of boar emblems, see: Bernard Marillier, δe sang ier h ra dique (Le CoudrayMacouard: Cheminements, 2003). 336 See: Émile Espérandieu, Recueil général des bas-reliefs de la Gaule romaine, tome 1 (Paris: Impr. Nationale, 1907), 444. ]“Sanglier entre deux casques gaulois pourvus de cornes et de jugulaires; à droite, deux bouclier d’amazone superpose, recouvrant deux lancesέ”[έ 334 335 118 After the fall of Jerusalem, Judaea received the status of a senatorial province and the legate of the X Fretensis held the office of governor, until the time of Trajan, when the legate was subordinated to the governor of Judea. 337 After capturing the fortresses of Herodium, Machaerus, and Masada in 73 CE, the legion was stationed in Jerusalem until the end of the third century when it was transferred to Aelia (modern Aqaba/Eilat) on the shore of the Red Sea. 338 Tiles and brick-stamps with the legion X fretensis’s boar emblem were discovered in Jerusalem and its vicinity (fig. 9) 339 and on countermarks (secondar y mints on coins) (fig. 10). 340 Fig. 9: Two Brick Stamp Impressions of the Legio X Fretensis from Jerusalem, 68-132 CE. 337 Dabrowa, Legio X Fretensis,15-16. Josephus, Jewish War 7.1-2: “Caesar ordered the whole city and the temple to be razed to the ground, leaving only the loftiest of the towers, Pasael, Hippicus, and Mariamme, and the portion of the wall enclosing the city on the west: the latter as encampment for the garrison that was the remains (…) As the local garrison Caesar decided to leave the tenth legion, along with some squadrons of cavalry and companies of infantry (…)έ” 339 Barag, “Brickέ” Approximately two kilometers west of Jerusalem (Binyanei Ha'uma/Seikh Bader), a tile kilnworks was found with some tiles with the boar emblemέ Bέ Arubas and Hέ Goldfus, “The Kilnworks of the Tenth δegion Fretensis,” in The Roman and Byzantine Near East: Some Recent Archaeological Research, ed. John H Humphrey (Ann Arbor, MI: Journal of Roman Archaeology, 1995), 273έ Hέ Goldfus and Bέ Arubas, “The Kilnworks of the Tenth δegion at the Jerusalem Convention Center,” Qadmoniot 122, no. 2 (2002): 111-119 (Hebrew). 340 Dan Barag, “The Countermarks of the δegio Decima Fretensis (Preliminary Report),” The Patterns of Monetary development in Phoenicia and Palestine in Antiquity. Proceedings of the International Numismatic Convention, Jerusalem 27-31 December 1963, ed. Arie Kindler (Tel Aviv: Schocken, 1967), 117-125, plates IX-XIέ Kenneth Kέ Aέ δ nnqvist, “σew Vistas on the Countermarked Coins of the Roman Prefects of Judaea,” Israel Numismatic Journal 12 (1992): 56-70. Countermarks of the boar emblem also appear on a coin of a Palestinian Judaea Capta of Titus and of Vespasian Barag,”Countermarks,” 12ίέ A. Spijkerman, “Some Rare Jewish Coins,” Liber Annuus 13 (1962/3): 315, fig. 56. 338 119 Fig. 10: A Roman Coin Found in Jerusalem with a Secondary Mint of the Symbols of the Legion X Fretensis. Whatever the exact location of the Legion X Fretensis camp in Jerusalem, 341 it is clear that its mere presence in the holy city was a scandal for the Jews, as demonstrated, for example, by the Jerusalem Talmud’s prayer to the ninth of ‘Av, the day of lamentation of the destruction of the Temple: “Have mercy, δord our God, out of your bountiful mercy and true loving-kindness, upon us, and upon your nation Israel, and upon the city Jerusalem, and upon Zion your honored dwelling, and upon the city of mourning, ruin, destruction, and desolation, which has been given over into the hands of strangers, which the wicked devastated, foreign legions inherited, and idolaters desecratedέ”342 341 Scholars disagree as to the location of the tenth legion camp in the city; some propose it was on the southwestern hill of the city; others in the area of the Holy Sepulcher, the city citadel (Jaffa gate), south of the Temple Mount; and some even claim that it was on the Temple Mount itself. For a general review of the various opinions, see: Yoram Tsafrir, “The Topography and Archaeology of Aelia Capitolina, “The History of Jerusalem. The Roman and Byzantine Periods (70-638 CE), ed. Yoram Tsafrir and Smuel Safrai (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi Press, 1999), 125 (Hebrew). Eilat εazar, “The Camp of the Tenth Roman δegion at the Foot of the South-West Corner of the Temple εount Enclosure Wall in Jerusalem,” in New Studies on Jerusalem, Proceedings of the Fifth Conference December 23 rd 1999, ed. A. Faust and E. Baruch (Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University, Ingeborg Rennert Center for Jerusalem Studies, 1999), 52-67 (Hebrew). G. D. Stiebel, “The Whereabouts of the Xth δegion and the Boundaries of Aelia Capitolina,” in New Studies on Jerusalem, Proceedings of the Fifth Conference December 23 rd 1999, ed. A. Faust and E. Baruch (Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University, Ingeborg Rennert Center for Jerusalem Studies, 1999), 68-103 (Hebrew). See also: Jodi εagness, “In the footsteps of the Tenth Roman δegion in Judea,” The First Jewish Revolt: Archeology, History, and Ideology, ed. Andrea M. Berlin and Andrew J. Overman (London and New York: Routledge, 2002), 189-212έ Dan Barag, “Brickέ” 342 Y. Berakhot 4:3, 8a. Italics mine. Translation by Neusner, The Talmud of the Land of Israel, vol. 1, Berakhot, 174. 120 Aelia Capitolina Approximately sixty years after the destruction of the Jewish city by Titus, Emperor Hadrian founded the Roman colony of Aelia Capitolina on its ruins. The new colony was named after the second name of the emperor Hadrian (Aelius) and the supreme deity in the Roman pantheon (Capitoline Jupiter). The founding of the new city was probably one of the reasons for the Bar Kochba revolt (132-135 CE), at least if we believe Dio Cassius, who notes that “the Jews deemed it intolerable that foreign races should be settled in their city and foreign rites planted thereέ” 343 The city, for two centuries until its Christianization in the fourth century, was a typical oriental pagan Roman colony. As a veteran colony, the military cult was one of Aelia Capitolina’s principal cults; one of these cults to the Legion X Fretensis’ signboards included the boar emblem, 344 which was minted on the city´s coins (fig. 11).345 ' ' ' ' ' ' .' See: Isaiah, εέ Gafni, “Jerusalem in Rabbinic δiterature,” in The History of Jerusalem. The Roman and Byzantine Periods (70-638 CE), ed. Yoram Tsafrir and Smuel Safrai (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi Press, 1999), 35-60 (Hebrew). 343 Cassius Dio, Roman History 69.12έ1έ Hanan Eshel, “Aelia Capitolinaέ Jerusalem no moreέ” Biblical Archaeological Review 23, no. 6 (1997): 46-48. 344 σicole Belayche, “’Dimenticareέέέ Gerusalemme’: les paganismes à Aelia Capitolina du IIe au IVe siècle de notre ère,” Revue des Études Juives 158, no. 3-4 (1999): 302. 345 Aelia Capitolina (Jerusalem): Antonius Pius (138-161 CE), Elagbal (218-222 CE), (250-251 CE). Caesarea: Herennius Etruscus, (249-251 CE), A boar walking to the right surmounted by two vexilla, coin number 186. In Leo Kadman, The Coins of Caesarea Maritima (Tel-Aviv: Schoken; Jerusalem: Publications of the Israel Numismatic Soceity, 1957), 69, 210, plate XV. As Yaakov Meshorer notes, “it seems that Hadrian gave great prominence to the symbols of the legions on the coins of Aelia Capitolina in order to emphasize that the colony was founded after a military victoryέ” Yaakov Meshorer, “An Unpublished Coin of Aelia Capitolina,” Israel Exploration Journal 13 (1963): 60. Nichole Belayche writes: “δe fait que la colonie tout juste naissante ait été confonté à la seconde révolte juive a dû contrivuer à renforcer les symboles légionaires sur les monnaies hadrianiennes, histoire d’insister sur la victoire de 13ηέ“ Belayche, “Dimenticareέέέ,” 3ί4έ 121 Fig. 11: Aelia Cpitolina, Coin of Herennius Aelia Cpitolina, Coin of Herennius Etruscus (250-251 CE). Boar running; legionary eagle on its back, with vexillum topped by star.346 The Sculpture of the Sow In the Chronicon of Eusebius (c. 311 CE), which came to us in its Latin translation by Jerome (cέ 3κί CE), it is written for the year 13θ CE: “Aelia founded by Aelius Hadrian; on the front [in fronte] of that gate, by which we go out to Bethlehem, a sow was sculpted in marble [sus sculptus in marmore], denoting that the Jews were subject to Roman authority. Some believe it was constructed by Titus Aelius, the son of Vespasianέ” 347 The statue mentioned was erected in front of the western gate of the city, As Kadman notes, the image of “the boar of the Decima Fretensis surmounted by eagle and vexillum, occurs also on coins of Neapolis Samaria and Ptolemais-Acre, minted under Trebonianus Gallus [Emperor 251-253 CE]; but on these coins the military symbol is associated with the figure of Poseidon and Ḳ in the case of Neapolis Ḳ of εount Gerizimέ” Kadman, The Coins of Aelia Capitolina, 57. 347 “Aelia ab Aelio Hadriano condita, et in fronte ejus portae, qua Bethleem egredimur, Sus sculptus in marmore, significans Romanae potestati subjacere Judaeos. Nonnulli a Tito Aelio filio Vespasiani exstructam arbitranturέ” Jerome (Eusebius), Chronicle, 20. Repeated later on by Prosper of Aquitaine (d. 455 CE; PL 51, Col. 0560D.) and Cassiodorus (d. c. 585 CE; PL 69, Col.1232D), and in the middle ages by Freculphus (Frechulf) of Lisieux, Chronicle 2.12 (written around the 820s in France; PL 106, col. 1160D). Interestingly, since the end of the sixteenth century, some explained the medieval image of the Judensau, which shows Jews riding a sow, eating its excrement, breast-feeding from it, and kissing it, as originating from the sow sculpture Hadrianus, allegedly erected in Jerusalem. Shachar, The Judensau, 1213. 346 122 the modern Jaffa Gate, between the city Forum and perhaps the camp of the Legion X Fretensis (fig. 12). 348 Fig. 12: The Plan of Aelia Capitolina (cf. Yaron Z. Eliav). Contrary to the Chronicon, K. M. R. Cagnat and Yoram Tsafrir believed that the sculpture was not erected to humiliate the Jews, but to commemorate the contribution of the Legion X Fretensis to the construction of the gate. 349 Whether or not the erection of the statue was motivated by the intention to humiliate the Jews, in later periods it was so conceived by Christian authors. Indeed, it seems probable that the pig, regardless of Belayche, “Dimenticareέέέ,’” 3ί3έ Tsafrir, “The Topography and Archaeology of Aelia Capitolina,” 12ηέ Also: Frederic Wέ εadden, History of Jewish Coinage, and of Money in the Old and New Testament: With 254 Woodcuts, and a Plate of Alphabets (London: Quaritch, 1864), 211. 348 349 123 whether it was a priori used against the Jews, could be seen in the eyes of the Jews and Romans as insulting the Jews in the context of the conflict between the two. Samuel Krauss goes as far as to propose that “there is reason to believe that” the symbolization of Rome as a pig in rabbinic literature “came into prominence only since the time of Hadrian and the fall of Betar (135 CE), since, in order to insult the Jews, the image of a pig was attached on the South gate of Jerusalem which had been transformed into the Roman colony, Aelia Capitolinaέ” 350 Mireille Hadas-Lebel argues that the link between the sculpture of the sow at the Jaffa gate and the identification of Rome with the pig is doubtful since, “after 13η, there was little contact between the Jewish populations and the Legion X Fretensis quartering at Aelia Capitolina where the Jews were forbidden the right to stayέ” 351 This is indeed true on some level, but we know that the legion was not only active in the vicinity of Jerusalem (fig. 13), and that furthermore, the ban on Jewish presence in the holy city was not fully respected and was exaggerated by Christian authors for polemical reasons.352 Krauss, Monumenta Talmudica , 15. Cited in: Braverman, erome’s Commentary on Danie , 94. Hadas-Lebel, Jerusalem Against Rome, 518. On the ban of Jews from the city, see: R. Harris, “Hadrian’s Decree of Expulsion of the Jews from Jerusalem,” Harvard Theological Review 19 (1926): 199206. 352 Sέ Safrai, “The Holy Congregation in Jerusalem,” Scripta Hierosolymitana 23 (1972): 62-78. Belayche, “Dimenticareέέέ,” 294. G nter Stemberger, Jews and Christians in the Holy Land: Palestine in the Fourth Century (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000), 40-43. For the patristic discourse concerning the destruction of Jerusalem, see: εέ Cέ Paczkowski, “Gerusalemme negli scrittori cristiani del II-III secolo,” Liber Annus Studii Biblici Franciscani 45 (1995): 165-174. 350 351 124 Fig. 13: Legion X Fretensis in Judea (Cf. Dabrow 1993). The idea that the sculpture was of the legion X Fretensis’ emblem is itself problematic. If this was the case, why does the Chronicon say that the sculpture was of a sow (sus) and not of a boar (aper)? Because Rome itself was evoked in the official image that Aelia Capitolina gave to itself, one can wonder if the marble statue that was erected 125 at the Jaffa gate (hence near the Forum of the city) was not that of the boar of the Legion X Fretensis but of Aeneas’ sow, one of Rome’s symbols.353 According to Virgil’s Aeneid (wr. 29-19 BCE), after the fall of Troy Aeneas and his companions left the ruined city, looking for a place to found a new home. After seven years of hardship along the Mediterranean, Aeneas finally founded the city of Lavinium, the parent city of Alba Longa and Rome. According to the poem, Helenus prophesized to Aeneas that he should build his new city where he finds an albino sow with thirty piglets: 354 When, under pressure, you come to streams of a well-hidden river, Under the bankside’s oak-shrub brush you’ll find an immense sow Lying sprawled on the soil, on her side Ḳ an albino, with thirty Newborn piglets, albino themselves, at her teats in a cluster. This is the seat for you future state and your refuge from troubles. 355 Aneas’s sow became a symbol of Rome, and hence, as Andreas Alföldi notes in early times, “it even seems that the statue of the sow with her piglets was erected in all the forums of the new colonies of Rome which had a Latin status.” 356 It is not clear whether sculptures of Aeneas’ sow were erected in Roman colonies in later periods, but 353 This was proposed by Cesare Baronius in his Annales Ecclesiastici (1588-1607). Cesare Baronio, Annales ecclesiastici Caesaris Baronii, vol. 2 (Barri-Ducis: Guerin, 1κθ4), 22λ (“sixti annus θ-Christi 137”)έ 354 For the different configurations of this tradition see : Jacques Poucet, “δe motif de la truie romaine aux trente gorets,” Folia Electronica Classica (Louvain-la-Neuve) 7 (janvier-juin 2004), <http://bcs.fltr.ucl.ac.be/fe/07/TRUIEήGesine23έhtm <έ Consulted April 1κ, 2ί12έ Joël Thomas, “δa truie blanche et les trente gorets dans l’Énéide de Virgile,” dans Mythologies du Porc. Actes du Colloque de Saint Antoine ’Abbaye (4-5 avril 1998), texte réunis par Philippe Zalter, 51-72 (Grenoble: Jérôme Million, 1λλλ)έ Joël Thomas, “δe boeuf, la truie et la louve: les animaux-totems et les voyageurs dans le mythe des origines de Rome,” dans Bouleversants voyages. Itinéraires et transformations, éd. P. Carmignani (Perpignan: Presses universitaires de Perpignan, 2000), 67-84. 355 Virgil, Aeneid 3.387-393 (and also 8.42-46; 8.80-85). Translation by Frederick Ahl and Elaine Fantham, Virgil, Aeneid (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 66. 356 Alföldi, Early Rome and the Latins, 272. Varro (116-24 BCE) notes that in his time there were bronze images of Aneas’ sow in public spaces in the city of δavinium: “It is recorded that the most ancient portent of this kind is the sow of Aeneas at Lavinium, which bore thirty white pigs; and the portent was fulfilled in that thirty years later the people of Lavinium founded the town of Alba. Traces of this sow and her pigs are to be seen even to this day; there are bronze images of them standing in public spaces even now, and the body of the sow is exhibited by the priests, having been kept in brine, according their accountέ” Varro, On Agriculture 2.4.17. 126 the theme received special importance in the political propaganda of the Imperial period (fig. 14). Fig.14: Rome, 2nd century marble sculpture of a sow with piglets. In the time of Augustus, the scene of the sacrifice of the Laurentine sow appears on the Ara Pacis, which the Roman Senate erected in λ BCE to celebrate Augustus’ triumph in Spain and Gaul several years earlier (fig. 15). Around the corner from the scene of Aeneas sacrificing the sow, Augustus and his family are depicted. Hence, a symbolic association is made between Aeneas and Augustus, which portrays the latter as the new founder of Rome. The scene of the sacrifice of the white sow is exhibited also on the Belvedere Altar that commemorates Augustus’ reorganization of the cult of the δares compitales (fig. 16). 357 Augustus´ propaganda portrayed Aeneas as the founder of Alba Longa and of the Julian lineέ Hence, Augustus’ filial piety originates from Aeneas. 358 Just Pέ Zanker, “Die Larenaltar im Belvedere des Vatikans,” Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archaologischen Instituts, Romische Abteilung 76 (1969): 205-218. 358 Jane DeRose Evans, The Art of Persuasion: Political Propaganda from Aeneas to Brutus (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1992), 43-45. 357 127 as Aeneas was the founder of Rome, so was Augustus portrayed as the re-founder of Rome after a series of civil wars.359 Fig. 15: Ara Pacis: Relief of Aeneas sacrificing to the Penates. B. A. Fig. 16: The Belvedere Altar. A. Aeneas and the Laurentine sow. B. Augustus and the Vicomagistri. Contrary to the the Julio-Claudian dynasty which preceeded it, the Flavian dynasty founded by Vespasian did not lay claim to any divine lineage in general, or to Aeneas in particular. However, like their predecessors, they use the image of Aeneas’ 359 Ibid., 46 128 sow in their propaganda: the white sow with her piglets appeared on Titus and Vespasian’s coins (fig. 17), 360 and on medallions which Marcus Aurelius, Hadrian, and Antoninus Pius’ minted with the nine hundredth anniversary of Rome in mind (figs. 1819).361 Fig. 17: Vespasian, Denarius, minted 77-78 CE. δaureate head right ή Aneas’ sow with pigletsέ Fig. 18: Antonine copy of the Hadrianic 'Aeneid' medallion, reverse design. For propaganda on Vespasian coins see: Barbara δevick, “Propaganda and the Imperial Coinage,” Antichton 16 (1982): 104-116. 361 Alföldi, Early Rome and the Latins, 273, pl. IV-VII. Stefan Weinstock, “Pax and the 'Ara Pacis',” Journal of Roman Studies 50 (1960): 44-58. 360 129 Fig. 19: Bronze Medallion of Antoninus Pius (Reign 138-161 CE). As in the case of Augustus, the association of the emperor with Aeneas sacrificing the sow came to represent the emperor as a new founder of Rome. 362 Herr seems to go too far when he proposes that the pig that the sages identified with Rome is really Aeneas’ symbol of Rome. We can at least remark that if the Romans inscribed the pig (and its sacrifice) in one of their foundation myths, the Jews inscribed the pig in their destruction myth. While Aeneas’ sow symbolized fortune for the Romans, for the sages the boar symbolized both current Roman fortune and future misfortune in the messianic era, when God would punish Rome. The problem with the above explanations of the identification of the pig with Rome is that we do not find any echoes of them in rabbinic sources. The Midrashim and the Talmudim do not even mention the Legion X Fretensis, its boar emblems, the statue of a sow at the Jaffa Gate, or Aeneas’ sowέ If the boar emblem was ”an insult thrown in the face of the Jewish nation,” 363 as Félicien de Saulcy proposed, we do not find any evidence of this in Jewish sources. The silence of the Rabbinic sources make it difficult Francois Philippe Gourdain noted in 1787 that the representation of this theme on Vespasian’ coins (and on later coins) “is not made with the intention of offending the Jewsέ” Francois Philippe Gourdain, “Translation of a Dissertation on Satyrical εedals addressed to the Society by Pere Francois Philippe Gourdain,” Archaeologia, or, Miscellaneous Tracts Relating to Antiquity, vol. IX (London: The Society of Antiquaries of London, 1789), 61-81. Frederic W. Madden, History of Jewish Coinage, 212, note 4. 363 “]u[ne insulte jetée à la face de la nation juive,” De Saulcy, “δettre,” 259. 362 130 to argue that the identification of Rome with the pig is a direct reaction to Rome’s porcine symbols. Rather than asking to which particular porcine Roman symbols the sages react, I propose that we ask to what Roman porcine discourse the sages react. In other words, what was the political meaning the Romans gave to the pig or the boar, and how did the sages react to this? We will respond to this question in the following chapter. 131 Chapter 6 The Diocletian Legend in Genesis Rabbah Diocletian the Swineherd According to a legend in the Jerusalem Talmud, and a more elaborated version in the 4/5th century Genesis Rabbah (below), Emperor Diocletian in his youth was a swineherd: 364 The emperor Diocletian was a swineherd in Tiberiasέ Whenever he came near Rabbi’s school, the children would come out and beat him up. Later he became king. He went and stayed at Paneas, [Caesarea Philippi, currently Banias[ and sent letters to Tiberias just before the eve of the Sabbath, saying: “I command the Rabbis of the Jews to appear before me on the first morning of the week [Sunday morning[έ” He instructed the messenger and told him: “You will not give them the message until just before the sunset in the Sabbath eveningέ” Rέ Samuel bέ σahman went down to bathe. He saw Rabbi standing before the House of Study with his face pale. He told him: why is your face all paleς He ]Rabbi[ told him: “So and so, letters were sent to me from Diokletianus the Kingέ” He ]Rέ Samuel bέ σahman[ told him: “Come to bathe, that our creator performs miracles for youέ” He ]Rabbi[ went in to bathe, and came Argantin [a sort of spirit] jesting and dancing before him. Rabbi wished to scold him. R. Samuel bέ σahman said to him ]to Rabbi[: “δeave him alone, for sometimes he makes miracles appearέ” He told him ]Rέ Samuel bέ σahman to Argantin[: ‘Your master is in distress, yet you giggleς’ He ]Argantin[ told them: “Go, eat and make a good Sabbath, for your Creator performs miracles and I will set you in the first morning of the week in the place you desireέ” At the end of the Sabbath, after the Service, he [Argantin] took them and set them before the gate of Paneasέ They ]Diocletian´s servants[ entered and told him ]Diocletian[: “δo, they are standing before the gateέ” He said: “close the gateέ” He ]Argantin[ took them and set them on the wall of the city. They [Diocletian´s servants] entered and told him ]Diocletian[έ He said: “I command that the baths be heated for three days, then let them go and bathe therein and then appear before meέ” They went and heated the baths for three days, and Argantin entered and poured [cold water] before them, and they entered and bathed and they came before himέ He ]Diocletian[ told them: “Because you know that your God performs miracles on your behalf, you disdain the kingέ” They ]the Rabbis[ told him: “Diocletian that was a swineherd we did indeed disdain, but to Diocletian the king we are enslavedέ” He told them: “Even so, you will not disdain the humblest Roman or the meanest servant [Guliar[”365 364 365 : I thank Hakim Salem for sharing with me his reading of the story. GeR Toledoth 63.8.7. My translation. , : έ έ : έ : ς : , έ : έ 132 , , , : , έ Scholars have long searched for the historical background of this story. Heinrich Graetz (1κκη) imagined that “the emperor was secretly informed that the Patriarch and his companions made merry over his obscure parentage and his surname Aper (Boar), concerning which the emperor was especially sensitiveέ” 366 Yitzhak Baer saw in this story proof that Diocletian persecuted not just the Christians but also the Jews, an opinion that was rejected by others. 367 A. Marmostein proposed that the story originally was about Galerius, Diocletian’s adopted son, with whom he shared the rule of the East in 2λ3 CE. He noted that Galerius, according to some Roman sources, was a shepherd in his youth, and because he ruled the East the sages in Eretz Israel would have known this. This biographical detail was incorporated into the story, but later generations attributed it to Diocletian who was better known to themέ Hence, the word “Guliar” in the response of Diocletian is a later transformation of the original name ‘Galerius’έ Thus, according to Marmostein, it was Galerius who told the sages: ‘ έ : : έ : έ : έ : . ' :' έ έ : : έ . not disdain the έ : : ' ? : ς έ , έ Compare to Yerusalemi, Terumot 8:11, 46b-c: . έ en so, you wi . : έ ' έ : : ' . , , έ : ? Heinrich Graetz, History of the Jews, vol. II (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1956 [1893]), 533. Günter Stemberger mentions the link between the two stories, but does not explain it. Günter Stemberger, “Die beurteilung Roms in der rabbinischen literatur,“ ANRW II. 19, no. 2 (1979): 379. 367 Yitzhak Baer, “Israel, the Christian Church and the Roman Empire from the time of Septimius Severus to the Edict of Toleration of AέDέ 313,” Scripta Hierosolymitana 7 (1961): 127. A contrary opinion: Saul δieberman, “The Persecutions of the Jewish Religion,” in Salo Wittmayer Baron Jubilee Volume on the Occasion of His Eightieth Birthday, vol. 3, ed. Saul Lieberman and Arthur Hyman (Jerusalem: American Academy for Jewish Research, 1λ74), 241έ εordechai Alfredo Rabello, “τn the Relations between Diocletian and the Jews,” Journal of Jewish Studies 35 (1984): 147-167. 366 133 humblest Roman or the meanest Galerius.”368 For Zvi-Uri εa’aoz, “Diocletian was in the Levant in 290 CE and traveled as far south as Tyre. Paneas was in the hinterland of the Phoenician coastal cities and on the main route to Damascus.(…) It is, therefore, highly likely that during his stay at Paneas, Diocletian summoned the leaders of the Jewish community, who were located only about θη km away, in Tiberiasέ” 369 However, evidence of this is insufficient. In any case, the story tells us more about the way the sages understood history than about a real historical event. The sages, more than writing history, are telling a story: “While the historical documents serve to describe events, the stories serve to clarify, resolve, and teach a lesson o n “moralsέ”370 This story is indeed a significant historical document, not about a doubtful historical event, but rather about the way in which relations between Rome and the Jews were understood by the sages. Freed from the burden of positive historicism, we may turn again to the story itself. 371 The story may be divided into three parts: I. Introduction, II. Tiberias, and III. Paneas, while each scene may be divided into two sub-scenes. The Introduction explains the motive for Diocletian’s hostility to the sages: revenge for the bad treatment he received from Rabbi´s peoples when he was a humble man, a swineherd. Now that he is the Emperor, Aέ εarmorstein, “Dioclétien à la lumière de la littérature rabbinique,” Revue des études juive 98 (1934): 24. 369 Zvi Uri εa’oz, “The Civil Reform of Diocletian in the Southern δevant,” Scripta Classica Israelica 25 (2006): 109. 370 Eliezer Marcus, The Confrontation Between Jews and Non-Jews in Folktales of the Jews of Islamic Countries, vol 2 (Ph.D. thesis, Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 1977), xliv (Hebrew). 371 The talmudic legend is not different in its nature from any other legend, for example from this late Jewish legend: A swineherd is badly treated by the Jews. When he becomes king, he asks for the Jews to be exterminatedέ A Jewish sage asked him what is the diffrence between two words “klia ” (anhilation) and “Klia " (roasting) [both words without punctuation marks might be read in the same way]. The king did not know the answer. The sage told him, “Death and life are in the power of the tongue” (Proverbs 18:21). The king repented and became a friend of the Jews. Israel Folktale Archives named in honor of Dov Noy at the University of Haifa [no.18949. Collected by: Yifrah Habib; told by: Hasher ben Harush (Marocco), 1993]. 368 134 he is the one that orders.372 He orders his messengers, and he orders the sages. Diocletian knows that the Jews are prohibited from travel on the Sabbath, so he orders that they receive his command a short time before the beginning of the Sabbath (an hour before Friday sunset). Diocletian puts the sages in a dilemma: to respect “the queen, the Sabbath,” or the King’s orderς Should they respect the divine commandment - “you shall keep my Sabbaths: I am the δord your God (δeviticus 1λ:3),” or the imperial orderς The Tiberias episode is divided into two scenes. In the first, we see Rabbi Shmuel ben Nahman on his way to bathe before Sabbath. But the idyl is broken with the meeting with Rabbi Judah, the patriarch, standing in front of the house of study (Beith ha-Midrash), his “face all paleέ” τut of his kingdom - the space of learning, hopeless and in need of advice, Rabbi the patriarch (Nasi) seeks advice in the street. It is Rabbi Shmuel and not the Patriarch who has advice: “Come to bathe, that our creator perform miracles for youέ” One must continue in the routine of preparations for the Sabbath, as if it is a normal Friday; in other words, they should observe the divine commandment and not the imperial one. The second scene occurs in the bathouse, 373 a Roman institution, a place of blurred frontiers, of mixing: non-Jews and Jews, rich and poor, the intimate body and public nudity. 374 In this ambiguous place, the reversal of hierarchy between Rabbi Shmuel ben Nahman and Rabbi became accentuated. The text uses the term ‘Ana i ion’, which stands for the Greek υον - “I ordered”έ Yaron Tzvi Eliav, Introduction to the Research of the Jewish Daily life in the Roman Bath-Houses in Eretz Israel: History, Halacha and Talmudic Realia (M.A. Thesis, Jerusalem: The Hebrew University, 1993), 80 (Hebrew). 373 As εarc Gέ Hirschman notes, in the Yerusalmi five stories are told which happen in Tiberias’s bath houseέ εarc Gέ Hirschman, “Stories of the bath-house of Tiberiasέ” Idan 11 (1988): 119 (Hebrew). 374 Joshua δevinson, “Enchanting Rabbis: Contest σarratives between Rabbis and εagicians in Rabbinic δiterature of δate Antiquityέ” Tarbiz 75 (2006): 295-328 (Hebrew). 372 135 At the heart of this legend is the belief in miracles. Three times it is said in Tiberias that one must believe in miracles, and three miracles take place: the demon “jumped” with the sages from Tiberias to Panias, he set them on the wall of the city, and he poured cold water to cool the sages’ bodies in the boiling bathέ Diocletian recognized this: “Because you know that your God performs miracles on your behalf, you disdain the kingέ” A tension is created in the legend between past and present, the eve of Sabbath and its end, between two options, two cities: Tiberias, a mainly Jewish city which is t he seat of the Sanhedrin [the court of 70 sages], in the Province of Palestina, and Panias, which lies 65km to the north, a pagan city, in Syria-Phoenice Province. 375 The contradictions between the two cities are emphasized by the symmetry the legend creates between them: Tiberias - Three times the belief in miracles is expressed. - The sages bathe in the bathhouse to honor the Sabbath. - The demon giggles and dances in the bath. - Rabbi Shmuel ben σahman: ‘δeave him alone, for sometimes for miracles he [the demon[ appearedέ’ Panias - Three miracles happen. - The sages bathe in boiled water. - The demon poured cold water on the sages. - Diocletian: ‘Even so, you will not disdain the humblest Roman or the meanest servant [Guliar[” This is the symmetry of Providence: measure for measure, “with whatever measure you measure others you yourself are measured” (m. Sota 1.6; b. Sanhedrin 100a), or “he who took the trouble to prepare on the eve of the Sabbath ]Friday[ will eat on the 375 For the city of Panias, see: John F. Wilson, Banias: The Story of Caesarea Philippi, Lost City of Pan (London: I.B. Tauris, 2004). 136 Sabbath” (b. Avodah Zarah 3a). 376 The Jews are persecuted for their poor treatment of a non-Jew, a swineherd; the punishment is according to the measure of the crime. 377 By the same token, God’s help corresponds to the measure of the Sages´ belief in miracles and in their guarding of the Lord´s commandment - the keeping of the Sabbath. The story, however, does not only concern the relations with Roman power. In fact, in the story, two circles of power exist: an external circle between Israel and Rome between the Nasi and the Emperor, and an internal conflict between the Nasi and a Sage. As Origen (c. 185Ḳ254 CE) noted, the Nasi was like the king of the Jews.378 Because Rabbi did not prevent his people from respecting a non-Jew; he put all the sages, if not all Israel, in danger. The violation of the equilibrium between Jews and non-Jews finally causes the breach of equilibrium between the Nasi and a sage. In the moment of crisis, the one who leads is Rabbi Shmuel ben Nahman and not Rabbi the Nasi. In times of crisis, the sages have no other option than to rely on God’s rescue, on miraclesέ In this sense, the sages and the Nasi are equal before their creator. As Ofra Meir notes, this divine intervention is at once a salvation and a rebuke; indeed the demon ( Argantin) saves the sages from Diocletian, but the sages are rebuked for needing the help of a demon. 379 The dictatorship of Diocletian is contrasted with the collective decision-making of the Jewish patriarch, Rabbi Yeuda Hanasi, and the others sages. While Diocletian sent See: Isabel Aέ εassey, “εeasure for εeasure,” in Interpreting the Sermon on the Mount in the Light of Jewish Tradition as Evidenced in the Palestinians Targums of the Pentateuch: Selected Themes (Lewiston: Mellen, 1991), 74-89. 377 Saul Lieberman noted that the story in fact justifies Diocletian, when the rabbis themselves admit that they despised the Swineherd Diocletian. See: Saul Lieberman, Studies in Palestinian Talmudic Literature, ed. David Rosenthal (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1991), 378 (Hebrew). 378 Origen, Epist. Ad. Africanum 20.14. 379 Ofra Meir, The Acting Characters in the Stories of the Talmud and the Midrash (A Sample) (PhD Thesis, Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 1977), 186 (Hebrew). See also: Ofra Meir, Questions about Life: Selected Stories from Bereshit Rabba (Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad, 2000), 110 (Hebrew). 376 137 messengers with his orders, Rabbi the Nasi left the house of study to seek advice. The opposition between the emperor and the patriarch may serve internal Jewish polemics regarding the status of the patriarch, for example, regarding the question of who had the authority to appoint judges, the sages or the patriarch. 380 In the story, the contrast between Diocletian and the Patriarch is clear: the latter is a first among equals (primus inter pares) who takes the advice and criticism of his peers: the relation between the patriarch and the sages is not like the relation between Caesar and his citizens. The moral of the story is that one should not despise the lowly; in the Jerusalem Talmud version, “not in a little (simple) Roman, and not in little haverέ” The word haver has several meanings, but it seems that here, it means a pupil. The moral thus refers to both external and internal social circles; one should not despise the minor Goy (non-Jew) nor the minor pupil of the house of learningέ εarmorstein relates the story’s moral to Bavli, Pesahhim 113a: “τur Rabbis said: three things one does not envy ]despise[: a small foreigner, a small serpent and a small pupilέ” 381 This suggestion might have bee n more convincing if Marmorstein had cited the following sentence which explains the meaning of the saying: “What is its reasonς For it rules after his masterέ” 382 We have here the implicit explanation of the explicit logic of the moral of the Diocletian legend; one must respect the minor or powerless person for he might become important and take revenge. The moral in Genesis Rabbah’s version: “you will not disdain the humblest Roman or the meanest Guliar,” repeats this ideaέ The word Guliar comes from the Latin See: Alon Gedaliahέ “Inner Tensions: The Patriarchate and Sanhedrin,” in The Jews in their Land in the Talmudic Age (70-640 C.E. (Cambridge, MA. and London: Harvard University Press, 1989), 308-322. 381 B. Pesahhim 113a ("έ , ' "). See: Marmorstein, “Dioclétien,” 22έ 382 "έ , " " As Rashi explains: “they ]a small foreigner, a small serpent, and a small pupil[ will grow, and their terror will grow, and they will revenge youέ” 380 138 word galiarius, soldiers serving in the army, and in the sages’ literature it indicates a simple man. 383 The use of this word here may be understood in two senses: 1) one should not disdain a simple man, or 2) an allusion to Diocletian’s humble origin. 384 Diocletian was the first emperor with a full Greek name: Dioclês.385 When he ascended to power, he Latinized his name to Diocletianus (Gaius Aurelius Valerius Diocletianus)έ Diocletian was from the lower classes (a slave’s son, according to one tradition), virum obscurissime natum (Eutropius λέ1λέ2), but became Emperorέ As a “self-made man,” his ascent raises the question of electionέ As we will see, a Roman legend explains Diocletian’s rise to power as a fulfillment of a prophecy - that is to say, the wish of the gods. In the Talmudic legend as well, the question of election is central; even the lesser might become the king. But in the sages’ story, his lesser origin testifies to the lesser value of Roman powerέ The sages´ answer to Diocletian is equivocal (in the Jerusalem Talmud): “We despised Diocles the swineherd; we did not despise Diocletianus the king,” playing with the name change of the emperor from Dioclês to Diokletianus, from swineherd to emperor, from Greek to Roman. Joseph Tabory, “The Poems of the Seventh Chapter of Esther Rabba and εidrash Abba Gurion,” Jerusalem Studies in Hebrew Literature 16 (1997): 11 (Hebrew). 384 For Christian allusions to Diocletian´s humble origin, see: William Seston, Dioclétien et la tétrarchie (Paris: E. de Boccard, 1946), 42. 385 Derived from the Greek díos kletos ("sky-called"). 383 139 Diocletian the Hunter Gbyaliah ibn Yahia, a Jewish historian of the sixteenth century, proposed that the rabbinical legend concerning Diocletian is connected to a Roman legend: The chronicles say that when he [Diocletian] was a young man and humiliated [humble], he went to eat. When the house keepers asked him to pay, he answered that when he becomes Caesar he will pay his debt. An old woman [that was present there] told him that when he has killed a certain pig he will became Caesar. He went and killed many pigs. Eventually he went to Rome and joined one of the parties of warriors, and he killed one of the ministers of the opposite party, who in the language of Rome was called pig [Aper]. By this act he became finally emperor. And necessarily this [story] hints to Midrash Rabbot [Rabbah[ with the phrase: “And the first came forth ruddy” (Gn 1η:24), that he [Diocletian] was swine herder, etc.386 Diocletian was probably born in 243 CE at Salona [Dalmatia], 387 to a lower-class family (the humiliores), and joined the army at an early age. In 283, after a long military career as the commander of the Emperor´s bodyguard, the protectors, he accompanied the Emperor Carus in the war against the Sassanid Empire. During the campaign, the Emperor died, and his son Numerian was declared Emperor. While the army was moving toward the west back to the frontier of the Empire, Lucius Aper, the Praetorian prefect and father-in-law of Numerian, claimed that due to illness, the Emperor would have to travel in a closed wagon. When the soldiers smelled a foul odor rising from the Emperor’s wagon, they opened it and found in it the Emperor’s bodyέ Diocletian took advantage of the opportunity, blaming Lucius Aper for the death of the emperor, and executed him with his own hands in front of the army, who declared him Emperor on 386 Gdaliah ibn Yahia, Sefer Soshelet ha-Kabala, Venice, 1585 (Jerusalem: Hadorot HaHronim VeKorotam, 1962), 150 (Hebrew). My translation. : 387 έ " Stephen Williams, Diocletian and the Roman Recovery (New York: Methuen, 1985), 22. 140 November 20, 284 CE. The Historia Augusta (late 4th cent.)388 retells “an incident whic h he ]Diocletian[ regarded as an omen of his future rule,” allegedly reported by Diocletian to the grand-father of the factious author of the book, Flavius Vopiscus: “When Diocletian” (…) “while still serving in a minor post, was stopping at a certain tavern in the land of the Tungri in Gaul389 and was making up his daily reckoning with a woman, who was a Druidess, she said to him, ‘Diocletian, you are far too greedy (avar us) and far too stingy (parcus),’ to which Diocletian replied, it is said, not in earnest, but only in jest, ‘I shall be generous enough when I become emperorέ’ At this the Druidess said, so he related, ‘Do not jest, Diocletian, for you will become emperor when you have slain a Boar (aper)έ’ Now Diocletian always had in his mind a desire to rule, as Maximian 390 knew and my grandfather also, to whom he himself told these words of the Druidess. Then, however, reticent, as was his wont, he laughed and said nothing. Nevertheless, in hunting, whenever there was opportunity, he always killed the boars with his very own hand. In fact, when Aurelian received the imperial power, then Probus, then Tacitus, and then Carus himself, Diocletian remarked, “I am always killing boars, but the other man enjoys the meatέ” It is now well known and a common story that when he had killed Aper, the prefect of the guard, he declared, it is said, “At last I have killed my fated Boarέ” εy grandfather also used to say that Diocletian himself declared that he had no other reason for killing him with his own hand than to fulfill the Druidess’ prophecy and to ensure his own ruleέ For he would not have wished to become known for such cruelty, especially in the first few days of his power, if Fate had not impelled him to this brutal act of murder. 391 This is a story in three acts: I. the prophecy of ruling, II. the hunt (striving for power), and III. fulfillment of the prophecy (ascension to power). The story starts with a dispute over the quantity of payment between young Diocletian and a woman, a Druidess. The woman teases him that he is stingy: “Diocletian, you are far too greedy (avarus) and far too stingy (parcus).” Diocletian jokingly answers that when he becomes Caesar he will be generous. Diocletian’s joke creates a contradiction between the young soldier/officer, serving in a frontier post on the border of the empire, and the emperor in Ronald Syme, “The Composition of the Historia Augusta,” in Historia Augusta Papers (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983), 12-29. 389 Modern Tongres in eastern Belgium. 390 The Roman Emperor (together with Diocletian) from March 286 to 305. Maximian was the ruler of the West, while Diocletian was the ruler of the East. 391 Historiae Augustae, Carus et Carinus et Numerianus, 14-15. Translation by David Magie, The Scriptores Historiae Augustae, LCL (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1922), 437-439. 388 141 Rome; between the concrete present and a far-off, impossible future. Nonetheless, the joke exposed Diocletian’s concealed motivations for power, to become Caesarέ The Druidess, in her prophetic power, well understands that behind the cynical remark there is a grain of truth, and answers Diocletian enigmatically: “Do not jest, Diocletian, for you will become emperor when you have slain a Boar (aper).” Is the prophecy uttered seriously, taking into account its context? What is the connection between killing the pig and ruling? The status of the prophecy is ambiguous - serious and ridiculous at the same time. The story moves constantly between the humorous and the serious, the low and the high, through a series of witty sayings: “Diocletian, you are far too greedy (avarus) and far too stingy (parcus)… ‘I shall be generous enough when I become emperor… Do not jest, Diocletian, for you will become emperor when you have slain a Boar (aper)…I am always killing boars, but the other man enjoys the meat…At last I have killed my fated Boarέ” The laughter conceals the bare truth at the same time that it exposes it: Diocletian says he will be generous when he becomes emperor “not in earnest, but only in jest”έ The Druidess turns the amusing to serious: “Do not jest, Diocletian, for you will become emperor when you have slain a Boar (aper)έ” When Diocletian tells the prophecy later on, he laughs. This is a laugh of embarrassment in the face of the risk that his lust for power will be exposed, a laugh of disguise that gives the listener the impression that for Diocletian, the prophecy is nothing more than an amusing anecdote. Diocletian laughs, but while going to hunt, he “always killed the boars with his very own handέ” Diocletian laughs a third time when he says, ”I am always killing boars, but the other man enjoys the meatέ” This is a real expression of Diocletian’s frustration, that he remains a servant of a succession of emperors. This recalls the statement of Eumaeus, the old swineherd of 142 Ulysses in the τdyssey, who refers to the pigs eaten by Penelope’s suitors: “We have had trouble enough this long time feeding pigs, while others reap the fruit of our labourέ” 392 The play of exposure-concealment ends with the fourth and final joke, the grotesque jesting of the executor: “At last I have killed my fated Boar (aper)έ”393 We may understand the dialogue in the following way: the Druidess argues that Diocletian behaves like a pig. Diocletian answers that he will cease his hoggish behavior when he becomes emperor. The Druidess says that in order to become Caesar, he has to stop being hoggish, to kill the boar. Following Plato, we may distinguish between the domestic pig (sus) - a symbol of the negative passions - and the savage pig, the boar, which is the symbol of ardor and courage of the thumos.394 Diocletian must cease being the domestic pig, and become the savage animal, master of himself. Diocletian must pass from pettiness to greatness, from servitude to lordship. The object of the story is to justify Diocletian’s rule in general, particularly the murder of Aper, where he acted as prosecutor, judge and executor, killing with his own hands: “Diocletian himself declared that he had no other reason for killing him with his own hands than to fulfill the Druidess’ prophecy and to ensure his own rule, for he would not have wished to become known for such cruelty, especially in the first few days of his power, if Fate had not impelled him to this brutal act of murderέ” 395 More than bei ng critical, the story shows a Diocletian full of wisdom and virtue, a man whom the gods had 392 Homer, Odyssey 15: 415. The joke of the porcine name of Aper recalls Cicero´s jokes on the name Verres: Cicero, Against Verres 2.4.95; 2.2.77. Plutarch, Lifes, Cicero 7. θ. See: Brian A. Krostenko, Cicero, Catullus, and the Language of Social Performance (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001), 161. 394 Frère, Le bestiaire de Platon, 53-54. 395 Historiae Augustae, Carus et Carinus et Numerianus, 14-15. 393 143 marked among men to avenge the murder of an emperor beloved by all. 396 The story binds together the entertaining with the serious, telling of the rise of a simple man from servant to master, from the inn in a remote border post to Caesar’s palaceέ The story’s apparent lack of seriousness should not hide the fact that “The ‘hidden meaning’ is not truly unconscious at all, but rather represents a layer which is neither quite admitted nor quite repressed Ḳ the sphere of innuendo, the winking of an eye, and ‘you know what I meanέ’” 397 In this legend, the ascent of Diocletian to power is complex: a mixture of ambitiousness, courage, and luck, and above all, the predestination of fortuna. Cruelty is justified as being part of the edict of fortuneέ This justification of power is that of “might is always right” or la raison de plus fort. This concept is manifest in the hunting of the boar, in the image of the ruler as hunter, and more particularly as a boar-hunter. The Ruler as a Boar-Hunter In Greece and Rome, the wild boar, as with many other savage animals (such as the bear, the lion, or the eagle) symbolizes power and sovereignty. The Latin poets use the following adjectives to describe the boar: “acer, ferox, ferus, frendens, fulmineus, rabidus, saevus, spumans, torvus, violentus,”398 the very characteristics the upper class Roman generally chose for himself, as testified by names of important Roman families. 399 Seston, Dioclétien, 4κέ “montre un Dioclétien plein de sagesse et de vertu, que les dieux ont désigné avant les hommes pour venger le meurtre d’un empereur aimé de tousέ” 397 Theodor, W. Adorno, The Stars Down to Earth and Other Essays on the Irrational in Culture (London and New York: Routledge, 1994), 54. 398 εichel Pastoureau, “δa chasse au sanglier: histoire d'une dévalorisation (IVe-XIVe siècle),” dans La Chasse au Moyen Age: Société, traités, symboles, éd. Michel Pastoureau, Paravicini Bagliani, Agostino & den Abeele van Baudouin (Firenze: SISMEL-Edizioni del Galluzzo, 2000), 9. And also: J. Aymard, Essai sur les chasses romaines des origines à la fin des Antonins (Paris: De Broccard, 1951), 324. 399 In Europe until the end of the Middle Ages, the boar and the bear competed to be the King of the animals, see: εichel Pastoureau, “Quel est le roi des animauxς” dans Le Monde animal et ses représentations au Moyen-âge (XIe-XVe siècles): actes du XVe congrès de la Société des historiens médiévistes de l'enseignement supérieur public, Toulouse, 25-26 mai 1984 (Toulouse: Université de Toulouse-Le Mirail, Service des publications, 1985), 133-142. 396 144 Boar hunting was second in importance after lion hunting, but due to a lack of lions it was the most practiced. 400 The killing of the boar in a face-to-face battle expresses “the ability of the hunter and his courage, in one word, his Virtusέ”401 The bravery of the boar - his anger - was what the warrior had to imitate on the battle-field.402 Vegetius (4 t h century) noted that “boar-hunters may usefully be joined to the military. This is a matter on which the safety of the entire State depends, that recruits be levied who are outstanding both in physique and moral qualityέ” 403 Boar images were on Greek a nd Roman helmets and shields, as well as on the emblems of several Roman Legions. The hunting of the wild boar expresses the victory of man over animal, the courage of the hunter over the savagery of the animal. However, during the hunt, the boundary between the hunted and the hunter, between the biped human animal and the four footed animal, becomes blurred. The hunter must sharpen his animal sensation to track the animal, to catch up with it, and to confront it in a face to face battle. This proximity with the beast is dangerous, not just because of the risk of deadly injury, but also because of the risk of savage animalization, that the hunter will become confused with the hunted. The hunter might become a wild animal, a predator, a wild boar. Killing the boar is the moment when the hunter proves his superiority over the animal. The Aymard. Essai, 32κέ As εichel Pastoureau notes: “δes Romains aiment chasser le sanglierέ Il s’agit d’un gibier noble, d’une bête redoutable dont on admire la force et le courageέ Pour les chasseurs c’est un adversaire extrêmement dangereux qui se bat jusqu’au bout et meurt sans fuir ni renoncerέ Par là même, c’est un adversaire respecté er recherchéέ D’autant que la chasse au sanglier, qui se pratique le plus souvent à pied, se termine en général par un combat au corps à corps, face contre face, souffle contre souffle. Le travail de rabattage se fait avec des chiens et des filets, mais c’est un homme seul qui supporte le dernier assaut de la bête furieuse : ne craignant ni ses coups, ni ses cris, ni son odeur épouvantable, il tente de l’achever à l’épieu ou au couteau, en frappant à la gorge ou bien entre les yeuxέ Etre vainqueur d’un sanglier est toujours un exploit. Rares sont ceux qui y parviennent sans être blessé par les défenses ou par les soies hérissées de l’animalέ” Pastoureau, “δa chasse,” κέ 401 “l’habilité de veneur et son courage, en un mot sa Virtus [sert] à caractériser la performance sportive constituée par la mise à mort du sanglierέ” Aymard, Essai, 319. 402 Plutarch, Gryllos 388. 403 Vegetius, Epitome of Military Science 1. Translation by N. P. Milner, Vegetius, Epitome of Military Science (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1993), 7-8. 400 145 victory of man over the wild animal is the victory of rationality over irrationality. In the words of Ovid, the feral, uncontrolled instinct, the irrational power of the boar, is what brings him to his death; encircled by dogs and man, the boar charges the hunter, running directly into his spear: The hunted boar displays his anger with his hairy bristles. He rushes vigorously unto fixed, wounding steel. Checked by a spear thrust through his guts, he dies. 404 The animal´s power, contrary to that of the hero, is uncontrollable, arbitrary, and irrational. The man who kills the wild boar appropriates the force of the animal, while at the same time proving his superiority over it. 405 Only those who have enough power can rule and protect society from the uncontrolled violence of the wild animal. This is the logic of the plus forte. Killing the wild animal not only meant the promise of superiority of man above animal, that of culture over nature, but also of the elite over the plebeians. Controlling the animal is controlling society. Killing the animal is the manifestation of the ruler´s power over human life, his capacity and duty to protect the citizens from outside danger. The image of the ruler as hunter was common in the Ancient Near East, in Persia, and in Hellenistic Greece,406 and from the first century CE on was adopted by the Roma n 404 [Pseudo] Ovid, Halieutica, vv. 60-62. Latin text: The Halieutica ascribed to Ovid, ed. J. A. Richmond (London: Athlone Press, 1962), 18. Translation by Peter Toohey, Melancholy, Love, and Time: Boundaries of the Self in Ancient Literature (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2004), 236. 405 “In Greek thought, with its emphasis on reason (logos) as the distinguishing characteristic of the Greek-speaking adult male citizen, force (bia) was thought to be a necessary component of the relationship between rational beings and those with whom one could not reason, including slaves, barbarians and children as well as animals (…)” Thomas Wiedemann, Emperors and Gladiators (London: Routledge, 1992), 62. 406 J. K. Anderson, Hunting in the Ancient World (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985), 5782. 146 emperors. 407 A relief from the period of Hadrian’s rule, later placed on the Arch of Constantine in Rome (dedicated in 315 CE), is a visual manifestation of the imperial propaganda of hunting. The emperor Hadrian is portrayed on his horse, followed by two other riders, chasing a wild boar. He is in a position of spearing the boar with a javelin (now destroyed)έ As Steven Tuck noted, “This is predator-control hunting showing Hadrian bringing the benefits of his rule to the Roman world by removing dangerous animals and thus ensuring peace and stabilityέ” 408 By this discourse the Emperor identified itself with Alexander the Great, Conqueror of the World. 409 Fig. 20: Hadrianic Boar Hunt Relief, Arch of Constantine, Rome. 410 Steven δέ Tuck, “The τrigins of Roman Imperial Hunting Imagery: Domitian and the Redefinition of Virtus under the Principate,” Greece and Rome 52, no. 2 (2005): 221-245. The description of Herod by Josephus in The Jewish Wars (c. 80-100 CE) might serve as an example of this conception of the ruler as hunter and warrior bound together: “Herod’s genius was matched by his physical constitutionέ Always foremost in the chase, in which he distinguished himself above all by his skill in horsemanship, he on one occasion brought down forty wild beasts in a single day; for the country breeds boars and, in greater abundance, stags and wild asses. As a fighter, he was irresistible; at practice spectators were often struck with astonishment at the precision with which he threw the javelin, the unerring aim with which he bent the bow. But besides these pre-eminent gifts of soul and body, he was blessed by good fortune; he rarely met with a reverse in war, and, when he did, this was due not to his own fault, but either to treachery or the recklessness of his troopsέ” Josephus, The Jewish War 1.13.429-430. 408 Tuck, “The τrigins,” 23κέ 409 Ibidέ, 243έ τn the “Roman Alexander complex,” see: Diana Spencer, The Roman Alexander: Reading a Cultural Myth (Exeter: University of Exeter Press, 2002), Ch. 5. 410 Jones εark Wilson, “Genesis and εimesis: The Design of the Arch of Constantine in Rome,” The Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 59, no. 1 (2000): 54, fig. 64. 407 147 Fig. 21: Alexander the Great Hunting a Wild Boar. 1st century CE. Sardonyx; cameo The Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg. The political discourse of the hunter was also an important aspect of the Roman games since the first century CE. The celebration began in the morning with the venationes: hunting and killing of dozens if not hundreds of savage animals, including boars.411 The “noon break” was dedicated to the execution of criminals or war prisoners, and the afternoon to munera: gladiators combating each other or savage animals, including boars. The games reaffirmed the social order: in the arena, the struggle between the uncontrolled forces (criminals, enemies, savage animals) was presented. The ritualized killing of these beings brought back the rule of order, demonstrating the might of imperial rule. 411 Boars took part in these festivites in large numbers: the Historia Augusta says that during the games of Septimus, one hundred and fifty boars were killed, and that during the games of the emperor Probus in the Circus Maximus in 281 CE, one hundred boars were killed. Historia Augusta, Gordiani Tres 3, 6.7; Probus 19. See: Wiedemann, Emperors and Gladiators, 61. 148 The story of Diocletian in the Historia Augustae demonstrates this boarish metaphor of power.412 Diocletian is not just portrayed as a bold hunter; his hunting skills demonstrate his qualities as emperor. At the same time, the story demonstrates the tension between the boar-hunter metaphor and the transformation of the hunted boar into a man. This is not, however, a critique of the ideal of the hunter; rather, the narrative conforms to this ideal in a grotesque way. The Rabbinic legend express a totally different conception of power than that of the imperial legend of the Historia Augusta; the people of Israel must subjugate themselves to Roman rule, and not profit from even a temporary, isolated moment of superiority, even if it is to a lower-ranking Roman. At the same time, the legend subverts the foreign rule: the emperor was originally just a swineherd, 413 but if Rome is identified with the pig, is he not a swineherd also in the present? As the later Midrash on Psalms stated: “The boar out of the wood doth ravage it, and that which moveth in the field feedeth on it” (Psέ κί:14): “The boar out of the wood” - refers to the emperor ]of Rome[, while “that which moveth in the field” - refers to his generals in the field. 414 The Midrashic Context of the Rabbinic Legend To better understand how the midrashic legend relates to the imperial discourse, we must analyze its broader midrashic context. The story in Genesis Rabbah is part of a 412 As François Pachoud notes, boar hunting is related to several emperors and those who have been destined to be emperors: Histoire auguste. Tome V, 1ère partie, Vies d'Aurélien, Tacite, texte établi, traduit et commenté par François Paschoud (Paris: Les belles lettres, 1996), 378. 413 Likewise, in Coptic hagiography, Diocletian was a goatherder in Egypt: Leary O. De Lacy. The Saints of Egypt (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge; New York: The Macmillan Company, 1937), 17-18; The Book of the Saints of the Ethiopian Church, vol. εas aram mt h d r (September 8-December 6), trans. E.A. Wallis Budge (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1928), 39, chapter XIέ “εaskaramέ” 414 The Midrash on Psalms 80:14.6. Translation by Braude, The Midrash on Psalms, 51. 149 midrash on the birth of the twins Esau and Jacob. According to the biblical story, Jacob, the younger son, stole by cunning the right of primogeniture from his elder brother, Esau. This myth tells the origin of two neighboring nations: Esau is the father of the people of Edom, and Jacob is the father of Israel. The book of Genesis tells us how in the womb of their mother, Rebecca, the two brothers (the two nations) “struggled together within her” (Gn 2η:22)έ Their destiny was proclaimed by God himself before their birth: “And the Lord said unto her, two nations are in thy womb, and two nations shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one nation shall be stronger than the other nation; and the elder shall serve the youngerέ” (Gn 2η:23)έ Esau was the first of the twins to be born, but was immediately followed by his usurper brother, who, in the process of emerging from his mother’s womb, latched onto his brother’s heelέ Was this a first attempt to take his older brother’s birthrightς Indeed, this act gave him his name: Jacob ( that is holding the heel” (Aqev= ‫ =י‬a’aqo ): “the one ). The second time that Jacob attempted to take his brother’s birthright was when Esau returned from huntingέ Exhausted, Esau asks to eat from a lentil stew that Jacob has cooked. Jacob asks him to sell him his birthright in exchange for the stew: “And Esau said, Behold, I am at the point to die: and what profit shall this birthright do to me? And Jacob said, Swear to me this day; and he swore unto him: and he sold his birthright unto Jacob” (Gn 2η: 31-33). The third and final episode of the “fight” for the birthright is the blessing from the father. When the blind father, Isaac, asks to bless Esau, he sends Esau to hunt for him. Encouraged by his mother to profit from the absence of Esau, Jacob represents himself to his father disguised as his brother. Five times the father suspects that this is not Esau, but finally he gives his blessing to Jacob believing that he is Esau. The elder brother returning from the hunt discovers the 150 plot, but the benediction cannot be taken back. Robbed of his birthright, Esau desires to murder Jacob (Gn 27). In Genesis Rabbah, the legend of Diocletian comes after an interpretation of the first part of Genesis 2η:2η telling of Esau´s birth: “And the first came forth ruddy”: “Ruddyέ” Rέ Abba bέ Kahana said: Altogether a shedder of bloodέ And when Samuel saw that David was ruddy, as it is written, “And he sent, and brought him inέ σow he was ruddy” (1 Samέ 1θ:12), he was smitten with fear, thinking he too might be a murdererέ But the Holy τne, blessed be He, reassured him that he was “Withal of beautiful eyes” (ib.) [which meant] Esau slew by his own judgment, whereas he [David] would slay only on the sentence of the Sanhedrin . 415 The midrash contrasts not Esau and Jacob, but Esau and David. The interpretive question is the resemblance between the redness of Esau and David; if having red hair ( ) is a sign of being a blood shedder ( ), how does one explain that David was red haired? At a more profound level, the question is: if sovereignty is negative because it involves shedding blood, what is the difference between the ideal Jewish kingship and the Roman kingship, between legitimate and illegitimate blood shedding ?416 The answer is that the bad regime (the Roman) sheds blood according to its own judgment, and not according to the law, while the good regime (King David) killed according to the judgment of the court of seventy sages, the Sanhedrin, the only one that can judge to death. 417 Here, the midrash tells the story that “the emperor Diocletian was ]originally[ a swineherd…” But whyς How does the story illustrate the midrashic ideaς This would be evident if the midrash told us how Diocletian killed Aper not according to the judgment of a court (the Roman Senate) but on his own judgment, where he was the 415 , , GenR Toledoth 63.8. Translation by Freedman, Midrash Rabbah, vol. II, Genesis , 563-564. : -( , )" " [...] ( , )" ": " -( , )" ": έ , ,( , )" ": " 416 Irit Aminoff proposes that the Midrash originly was about Herod, see: Aminoff, The Figure, 226. 417 For the rabbinical anology of “eyes = Sanhedrin,” see: Aminoff, The Figure, 231. 151 prosecutor, the judge, and the executioner at the same time. Instead, the midrash tells a strange story about Diocletian the swineherd, a story which apparently has no relation to killingέ We can presume that the story of Diocletian’s rise to power (as told by the Historia Augusta) is implicit in the midrash. It is thus enough to mention Diocletian, in this midrashic context, who is clearly an example of a king who kills without justice. Nevertheless, the image of the Emperor in the story as the one who is right demonstrates another voice in the midrash that holds a milder vision of Roman rule. If, in the midrash, Esau (Rome) is a “blood shedder” by nature (red haired), in the Diocletian legend the hostility of the Emperor to the Jews does not result from his nature, but from the Jew’s own deeds - their poor treatment of Diocletian in his youth. Roman violence is conditioned by the deeds of the Jews.418 After the story on Diocletian, Genesis Rabbah interprets the second part of the sentence of Genesis 25:25: “]And the first came forth ruddy,[ all over (kullo ) like a hairy mantle [aderet [” (Gn. 25:25). Hanina b. Isaac said: Every one (kullo ) [of his descendants] is eligible for a toga.419 The midrash interprets the word aderet [mantle] as the Roman toga: any one of Esau´s offspring (the Romans) may become an emperor. If the legend ended with Diocletian saying to the sages, “Even so, you will not disdain the humblest Roman or the meanest servant [Guliar[,” the midrash reverses the sense of the phrase, or at least confirms it ironically, that indeed any one of the Romans might become emperor, perhaps alluding to the lower origin of Diocletian himself. 418 419 An idea that we observe in ARN A 34.19. GenR 63.25. . : 152 -( , )" " The midrash not only rejects Rome and its political system, but also comforts the Jews that Rome will fall: The Rabbis of the South in Tέ Alexandri’s name, and Rahabah in the name of Rέ Abba bέ Kahana, said: He came out destined to be altogether scattered like the chaff in the threshing-floor, as it is written, “Then was the iron…broken in pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer threshing floors” (Daniel 2:35). R. Hanina b. Isaac said: Why will they become like chaff (idre) of the summer threshing floors? Because they attacked the noble ones (addirim).420 Roman power, represented by the mantle (aderet (idre ), is associated with chaff ). Its destiny is to be burned in the threshing floor, a punishment for its action ), the Jews.421 In other words, the success of the against the noble ones (addirim Roman Empire will also be the reason for its fall, when it will be punished for its treatment of the Jews. The midrash continues: “And they called his name Esau” (Gn 2η:2η)έ It is for naught (shav ) that I created him in εy universeέ Rέ Isaac said: ]God declared[: ‘Ye have given a name to your sow; then I too will name εy firstborn,’ as it says, “Thus saith the δord: Israel is εy son, εy firstborn” (Ex 4:22)έ 422 According to the common reading, the midrash is playing with the proximity in sound between the name Esau ( ) and the word naught (shav ). The porcine vanity of Esau’s (Rome’s) claim of being the primogeniture is contrasted with Exodus 4:22: “Thus saith the δord: Israel is εy son, εy firstbornέ” 423 Two principal problems are raised by this midrash: 1) The idea that the creation of Esau was for naught contradicts the rabbinic idea that nothing is in vain in God’s creationέ 2) If Rέ Isaac’s saying refers to 420 , GenR 63.25. : 421 422 ": έ( )" See Aminoff, The Figure, 187-188. GenR 63.25. , : , "( έ : έ ) "' ' ς" " ": " - " " έ( , )" ' 423 For the problem with this reading, see: Ronald N. Brown, “Midrashim as oral traditions,” HUCA 47 (1976): 188, note 32. 153 ' ' Esau, the text should not refer to a sow ( ) but to the masculine form ( ). 424 Samuel Krauss proposed that the use of the word sow stems from Rome’s generally being described in the feminine (Roma ),425 while Moshe David Herr, proposed that it is hinting at Aeneas’ sow, one of the symbols of Rome. 426 However, as Ronald N. Brown proposed, it seems that we have here a midrash about a name that used the Greek language - that the sages read in the name of Esau (Η αύ) the Greek word for a sow ( υό sus),427 hence: “and they called his name Esau” (Gn 2η:2η) - the sow which I created in my worldέ Rabbi Isaac said, “Ye have given a name to your sow, etcέ” 428 The Esau-Jacob conflict in the Bible is the conflict between the hunter and the shepherd.429 From the Rabbinical point of view, Esau the hunter is cruel, a shedder of blood, while Jacob/Israel the shepherd is merciful. The first is identified with a devastating, savage, impure animal, the pig/boar; the second with a domestic, pure animal, the lamb. In the Midrashic legend, Esau=Diocletian became a swineherd and not a boar 424 The masculine form ( ) is found in the manuscripts Vatican 30 and Oxford 2335, but this form appears to be a later correction. 425 Krauss, Paras VeRomi, 103-105. 426 Herr, Roman Rule, 128. 427 For midrashim on a name which uses Greek ) see: Fraenkel, Darkhei ha-Agadah ve-ha-Midrash, vol. I, 115-118. 428 See Ronald N. Brown’s article (“Midrashim,” 188-189) and his PhD dissertation: The Enjoyment of Midrash: The Use of the Pun in Genesis Rabba (Ph.D. Thesis, Cincinnati, OH: Hebrew Union College, 1980), 441-446. See also the discussion in Aminoff, The Figure, 12-15. A less likely possibility is that here the feminine form of the word pig replaces the masculine form. If this is the case, one may wonder if this is a hint to Diocletian´s statement when he executed Aper, “At last I have killed my fated Boarέ” What seems even more probable is an illusion to the Midrash that explains the nomination of Rome = pig, in Leviticus Rabbah: “And why it ]Rome[ is called ‘ a ir’ [swine or boar]? Ḳ Because it will yet restore (hazar) the crown to its ]rightful[ ownerέ This is indicated by what is written, “And saviors shall co me up on Mount Zion to judge the mount of Esau; and the kingdom shall be the δord’s” (τbadiah 21)έ” LevR 13.5. Translation by Israelstam and Slotki, Midrash Rabbah, vol. 4. Leviticus, 176. ' ": , ς έ( )" If this assumption is true, the Midrash played twice with the idea that the Roman claim of superiority over Israel is vain: first in the Midrash of the name of Esau = shaw (naught), and second with the Midrash: a ir (pig) = hazar (return). 429 Jesse Rainbow, “Sarah Saw a Hunter: The Venatic εotif in "Genesis Rabbah" η3:11,” in Midrash and the Exegetical Mind: Proceedings of the 2008 and 2009 SBL Midrash Sessions, ed. Lieve M. Teugels and Rivka Ulmer (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2010), 155-179. 154 hunter. Perhaps the midrash tries to reduce the Emperor´s honor by mentioning his simple origin. However, it seems significant that the rabbinic legend does not create the opposition hunter-shepherd. Diocletian is not depicted here in a negative light; he is not a “blood shedderέ” He is not a hunter but a herder, not an arbitrary ruler but a logical one. This is a more softened, compromising depiction of Roman power. However, Diocletian is not depicted as a perfect or ideal shepherd, he is ultimately a swineherd. As the pig is half pure, half impure, Roman rule pretends to be a shepherd while being a swineherd, a dichotomy that we find in midrash Exodus Rabbah (20) where another enemy of Israel is a swineherd: Concerning, “When Pharaoh had let the people go,” (Exέ 13:17) scripture says: “A whip for the horse, a bridle for the donkey, ]and a rod for the back of fools[έ” (Provέ 2θ:3) ]…[ “A bridle for the donkey,” (Ibidέ) is a parable of Pharaohέ This may be compared to a swineherd who found a ewe-lamb and kept it among his swine. When its owner demanded its return, he replied: ‘I have no ewe-lambέ’ The owner then made inquiries as to where he watered his flocks. When he was told, he stopped the waters up, and again sent word to the shepherd: ‘Restore my ewe-lambέ’ Again the reply was: ‘I have no ewelambέ’ The owner then inquired ]of his friends[: ’Tell me where he stalls his beastsέ’ When they told him, he destroyed the swineherd’s folds and then sent word again: ‘Restore my ewe-lambέ’ τnce more the reply was: ‘I have no ewe-lambέ’ The owner then said: Tell me where his beasts actually feedέ’ When they told him, he burnt all the grass there, and again sent word: ‘Restore my ewe-lambέ’ The replay again was: ‘I have no ewe-lambέ’ He then asked: ‘δet me know which school his son attendsέ’ He then went and seized the child, and once again sent word: ‘Restore my ewe-lambέ’ The replay now was: ‘Here is your ewe-lambέ’ He took it away and then seized the swineherd also, as he had done to his sonέ The swineherd protested: ‘Since the lamb is no longer in my possession, why do you seize meς What have I of yours stillς’ the reply was: ‘I claim from you all that she had given birth to, and also the value of the fleece which you have sheared all the time she was in your handsέ’ He then began to cry: ‘Would that I had not given her back at all; for then people would say: “The very fact that he refuses to give it up, [in spite of intimidation], proves that the man is only seeking an opportunity to slay himέ” ‘This king, ]the owner[, is the kings of kings, The Holy One, blessed be he Ḳ the ewe-lamb is Israel; the swineherd is Pharaoh. 430 430 ExodR 20.1. My translation. έ ,( )" " ]έέέ[ ,( )" έ : " έ : έ έ : " έ : " έ έ : έ : " έ : έ : έ : " έ " έ : " έ : " έ ς " 155 ": " " : : : Israel is the ewe-lamb, the Egyptians pigs; against Pharaoh (the swineherd) stands God, the ultimate shepherdέ δikewise, in the rabbinic equation: ‘Esau=Edom=Rome=Pig’ the association: ‘Jacob=Israel=δamb’ is implicitέ As in the midrash about Egypt, in the midrashic legend about Diocletian, the non-Jewish ruler is a swineherd, while the ruler of Israel is a shepherd. In this context of Exodus, one recalls Moses, a shepherd who became a prophet. In his Life of Moses, Philo of Alexandria provides an idealistic explanation: After the marriage, Moses took charge of the sheep and tended them, thus receiving his first lesson in command of others; for the shepherd’s business is a training-ground and a preliminary exercise in kingship for one who is destined to command the herd of mankind, the most civilized of herds, just as also hunting is for warlike natures, since those who are trained to generalship practice themselves first in the chase. And thus unreasoning animals are made to subserve as material wherewith to gain practice in government in the emergencies of both peace and war; for the chase of wild animals is a drilling-ground for the general in fighting the enemy, and the care and supervision of tame animals is a schooling for the king in dealing with his subjects, and therefore kings are called “shepherds of their people,” not as a term of reproach but as the highest honourέ And my opinion, based not on the opinions of the multitude but on my own inquiry into the truth of the matter, is that the only perfect king (let him laugh who will) is one who is skilled in the knowledge of shepherding, one who has been trained by management of the inferior creatures to manage the superior. For initiation in the lesser mysteries must precede initiation in the greater. 431 Philo follows a philosophical tradition which goes back to Plato, Xenophon, and Aristotle and describes the good king as one who takes care of his people, like the shepherd cares for his herd. 432 The same is found in the biblical ideal manifested in the figure of Moses and King David.433 The sages thus follow a general idea of the Greco - : " έ έ : , " έ : " έ έ , [ ] " Philo of Alexandria, Moses I (De Vita Mosis), lines 60-62. 432 Philo of Alexandria, Writings, vol. I. The historical Writings, the Apological Writings, tr. and ed. Suzanne Daniel-Nataf (Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1986), 224, note 69 (Hebrew). 433 On the image of King David as a shepherd, see: Yair Zakovitech, David: From Shepherd to Messiah (Jerusalem: Yad Izhak ben Zvi, 1995), 167 (Hebrew). 431 156 Roman world, which contrasts the hunter (boarish) political imperial ideal of power with that of the shepherd.434 The direct connection between the Historia Augustae legend of Diocletian and the rabbinical one proposed by Gdaliah ibn Yahia in the sixteenth century remains speculative. However, comparing one with the other, a more profound connection arises the confrontation of two contradictory political discourses. The sages, rejecting the politics of raw power, reject the boarish/boar hunter metaphor of the ruler. Rather, they inverse the Roman identification with the boar from a sign of legitimacy to a sign of illegitimacyέ The sages did not resist in the enemy’s (boarish) terms of hunting but by longing for a future where the boar ( a ir) will return the rule to Israel. This messianic projection avoids the politics of force - which lead to a direct violent confrontation with the Roman Empire, and advocates the politics of subjection to non-Jewish rule. However, the rabbinic resistance to the Empire does not just represent a passive messianic solution; by equating the impure, non-kosher animal par excellence with the Empire, the avoidance of pork became an act of a total resistance, here and now. Even a daily act of eating became an act of resistance to the omnivore-homogenized politics of Imperial universalism. Not partaking of pork meant not partaking of the Empire. For Judaism´s hostility to hunting, see: Paul Aέ Kay and Bob Chodos, “εan the Hunterς Hunting, Ecology, and Gender in Judaism,” Ecotheology 11 (2006): 494-509. Rainbow, “Sarah Saw a Hunterέ” 434 157 Chapter 7 Leviticus Rabbah 13 Chapter thirteen of midrash Leviticus Rabbah,435 edited in Palestine/Eretz Israel in the 4th-6th century, includes a compilation of diverse midrashim concerning the pig. Because most of the chapter (13.2-5) is dedicated to the interpretation of the purity laws concerning four legged animals in Leviticus 11:1-8,436 we will discuss all its parts and not just its statements regarding the pig. 437 Leviticus Rabbah 13.2 The first section (13.2) opens with the question of election (of Israel, generation of the wilderness, Mount Moriah (the Temple Mount), Jerusalem, Mount Sinai, and the Land of Israel), referring to Habakkuk 3:θ: “He stood and measured the earth; he looked and shook [yatar=released] the nations; then the eternal mountains were scattered as the everlasting hills sank low. His ways were as of old:”438 R. Simeon b. Yohai began: “He stood and measured the earth; he looked and shook [yatar =released[ the nations; (Habέ 3:θ)έ “The Holy τne, blessed be he, took the The text use here follows Mordechai εargaliot’s edition (1956Ḳ8; Reprint. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1993). See also the Bar Ilan University’s online edition of δeviticus Rabbah: <http://www.biu.ac.il/JS/midrash/VR/outfiles/OUT13-02.htm>. Consulted May 16, 2012. 436 Leviticus 11:1-κ: “1: The δord spoke to εoses and Aaron, saying to them: 2 Speak to the people of Israel, saying: From among all the land animals, these are the creatures that you may eat. 3 Any animal that has divided hoofs and is cleft-footed and chews the cud--such you may eat. 4 But among those that chew the cud or have divided hoofs, you shall not eat the following: the camel, for even though it chews the cud, it does not have divided hoofs; it is unclean for you. 5 The rock badger, for even though it chews the cud, it does not have divided hoofs; it is unclean for you. 6 The hare, for even though it chews the cud, it does not have divided hoofs; it is unclean for you. 7 The pig, for even though it has divided hoofs and is cleft-footed, it does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you. 8 Of their flesh you shall not eat, and their carcasses you shall not touch; they are unclean for youέ” ‫׃‬ ‫ש‬ ‫ְב‬ ,ּ ְ ‫ש ת‬ ; ְ‫ְב ש‬ ּ ‫ד ְב‬2 ‫׃‬ ְ ‫ש‬ ְ ‫ְב‬ 4 3 ; ְ‫פ‬ ְ‫ּ מ‬, ּ ‫ מ‬,ּ ְ ֹ ְ ‫ּ ב ְב ; ּ ת ּ׃‬ , ‫ְפ‬ ‫ש‬ ‫ ְש‬, ְ ‫פ‬ ְ 5 ‫׃‬ ּ ; ְ ֹ ְ ּ, ּ , ‫ש‬ ְ ‫׃‬ ּ , ְ ּ ְ ּ, ּ ּ ּ ְ , ְ ‫ ְש ש פ‬, ּ ְ‫ְ פ‬ ְ7‫׃‬ ְ ; ְ ֹ ְ ּ, ּ , ְ ְ6 8 ‫׃‬ ְ ;ּ ּ ֹ ְ ְ ּ ,ּ ֹ ‫׃ בְש‬ ּ ; ּ ֹ ּ 437 The first part of the chapter (13.1) deals with the death of Nadab and Abihu in Leviticus 10. 438 Hab. 6:3. .ֹ , ֹ ֹ ; ֹ ֹ ְ ּ ּ ‫ ש‬, - ְ ּ ְ ‫ ְפ‬, ֹּ ‫ת‬ , ְ 435 158 measure of all the nations and found no nation but Israel that was truly worthy to receive the Torah. The Holy One, blessed be he, further took the measure of all generations and found no generation but the generation of the wilderness that was truly worthy to receive the Torah. The Holy One, blessed be he, further took the measure of all mountains and found no mountain but Mount Moriah that was truly worthy for the Presence of God to come to rest upon it. The Holy One, blessed be he, further took the measure of all cities and found no city but Jerusalem that was truly worthy in which to have the house of the sanctuary built. The Holy One, blessed be he, further took the measure of all mountains and found no mountain but Sinai that was truly worthy for the Torah to be given upon it. The Holy One, blessed be he, further took the measure of all lands and found no land but the Land of Israel that was truly worthy for Israel. That is in line with the following verse of Scripture: ‘He stood and took the measure of the earthέ” 439 After emphasizing that the election was done vis-à-vis all other options (Israel was elected from all the nations, mount Sinai from all the mountains, etc.), the midrash moves to the second part of the first phrase of Habakkuk 3:6 which concerns the conquest of the land of Canaan by the Israelites, described in terms of eating: ]“He rose and measured the earth[ and He released ( yatar) nations” (Habέ 3:θ) Ḳ Rab said: He declared [the shedding of] the blood of heathens permitted, and He declared the [appropriation of the] property of heathens permitted. He declared [the shedding of] their blood permitted, as it is said, “Thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth”(Deutέ 2ί:17)έ He declared ]the appropriation of[ their property permitted, as it is said, “Thou shalt eat spoil of thine enemies,” (Deutέ 2ί:14)έ R. Yohanan says: He jumps them to Hell as it is written “to leap [lenater ] with them on the ground.” (δevέ 11:21)έ R. Huna of Tzippori said: He permitted their harlotry (zonim ‫) י‬, as it is written, “He looses the bond [musar ] of kings and binds their loins with a girdle” (Job 12:1κ)έ 440 439 LevR 13.2. Translation by Jacob Neusner, A Theological Commentary to the Midrash, vol. 4, Leviticus Rabbah (Lanham, Md: University Press of America, 2001), 47. " έ( , ) ”' “: ' " έ " έ " έ " έ " έ έ " έ Parallels: Sifri Deutronomy 311; Midr Tann 32.8; PesR, annex 1.3 440 LevR 13.2. Translation by Israelstam and Slotki, Midrash Rabbah, vol. 4. Leviticus, 165, with slight alteration." ", έ( , )" ", έ :' "έ “ ' έ( , )" " :' ' ' έ( , )" έ( , )" ": " , ' Parallels: NumR, Aqev 5; B. Baba Kama 38a; TanB Shemini 10. 159 Habakkuk 3:6 is part of a psalm which describes how, after coming from Teman and Para (in the vicinity of Mount Sinai), God takes revenge on the evil nations . 441 Therefore, by choosing this verse, Leviticus Rabbah refers to both the election in Sinai in the past and the future redemption. In Habakkuk 3:6, “yatar ” means “drove asunder,” but can also mean “to make permissible,” but it may also, as the midrash proposes, mean “to release ή be releasedέ” The idea is that while the Canaanites were released from the commandments, it was permissible for the Israelites to take their lives and land. In another words, while the Canaanites were authorized to eat, Israel was authorized to “eat” them and their land. Hence, the midrash links Israel’s election in Sinai with the messianic judgment of the evil nations, which will be “eaten” as were the seven nations of Canaan in the past. 442 441 Robert D. Haak, Habakkuk (Leiden: Brill, 1992), 82-83. Neusner, A Theological Commentary 2001), 169-206. Habakkuk 3:6 is part of the prophetic lesson (haftarah) on the second day of Pentecost, which the Sages identified with the anniversary of the recieving of the Torah in Mount Sinai. 442 This idea is emphsized in other versions of the midrash. See: Midr Tann 33.2 : ' ' ς " ' " " :( , )" " :' " ": " ' .( , ) Mek Yetro 318.5. , , , ' , έ( , ) "' ' " :' , ": , : "έ ": ς : έ ": ς : έ : , έ( , )" , έ ,( , )" ": : "έ , : "έ ": ς : έ : ": έ( , )" ": ( , )" ": " ": , ' : ,( , )" έ( , ) B. Avoda Zara 2b: )" ' " :' ς ς , " : " : " ς ,( ) "' ": ,( , ς : ! , ": ς , , " : ς : , " : ,( )" )" " :' , : " ! , ,( , )" ": ς ! ,( ! " ς έ , ' ς 160 In the following paragraph Leviticus Rabbah tells two parables which explain why the commandments were given to the Jews and not to all nations of the world: Ulla Biraah in the name of Rέ Simeon bέ Yohai: “The matter ]of the reference to ‘releasing the nations’[ is to be compared to the case of one who went out to the threshing floor [for harvesting his crop], taking his dog and ass with him. He loaded his ass with five seahs of grain, and his dog with two. The dog went along panting. He took one seah off the dog, but it continued to pant. He took off the second, but it continued to pant. He said to it, ‘σow you’re carrying nothing, yet you’re continuing to pant!’ So as to even the seven religious duties that the children of Noah accepted: since they could not endure under their burden, the [nations] went and loaded them onto Israel. 443 The message is that if the commandments are a burden, the Jews by obeying them demonstrate their superiority to other nations. We may refer to this idea as the Burdening Principle:444 to the extent that an individual or a group burdens itself, it demonstrates or claims superiority over other individuals or groups. 445 This line of thinking is inter alia a counter argument to the Christian view of the yoke of the law as a punishment to Israel, from which Jesus liberates humanity. If Christians argue that “the letter of the Law kills” (cf. 2 Cor. 3:6), the midrash to the contrary argues that freedom from the Law kills, as is emphasized in the second parable of the midrash which uses medical imagery: Said Rέ Tanhum bέ Rέ Hanilai, “The matter ]of releasing the nations[ may be compared to a physician who went to pay a call on two sick persons. One of them [he judged] to have the strength to live, and the other of them [he judged] not to have the strength to live. To the one who he judged to be able to survive, he said, “Such and so you must eatέ” But to the one who he judged to be unable to survive, he said, “Whatever he wants ]to eat[, give himέ” So the nation of the world, who are not going to enjoy the world to come: “]Every 443 LevR 13.2. Translation by Neusner, Leviticus Rabbah, 48 έ , ' ' έ ' έ , έ έ Parallels: Sifri Deutronomy 343. 444 Amots Zehavi and Avishag Zahavi. The Handicap Principle: A Missing Piece of Darwin's Puzzle (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997). 445 We can find the handicap principle also in the distinction the sages make between themselves and the Jewish mob (am ha-aretz)έ See for example bavli Pesahim 4λb: “Rabbi said, it is forbidden for an am ha-aretz to eat meat - as it is written, 'This is the torah of beast and fowl' (Lev 11:46) - for all who engage in Torah - it is permitted to eat the flesh of beast and fowl. But for all who do not engage in Torah, it is not permitted to eat beast and fowlέ” Jonahan Brumberg-Kraus, “εeat-eating and Jewish Identity: Ritualization of the Priestly 'Torah of Beast and Fowl' ]δevέ 11:4θ[ in Rabbinic Judaism and in εedieval Kabbalah,” Association for Jewish Studies Review 24, no. 2 (1999): 227-262. 161 moving thing that lives will be food for you], as the green herb have I given you everything” (Genέ λ:3)έ But to Israel, who will enjoy the world to come: “]And the δord said to Moses and Aaron, Say to the people of Israel,] these are the living things which you may eat among all the beasts that are on the earth” (δevέ 11:1-2) 446 If in the first parable the burden of the commandments was placed on Israel because of its healthy capacity to carry it, in the second parable the commandments were given to Israel to improve its health. The pure diet is metaphorically the healthy one, while omnivorous regimen is equal to death. Life and death however, are not in this world but in the world to come. Interestingly enough, we find a si milar argument in the neoplatonist Porphyry (c. 234-c.304), Against the Christians, where Porphyry notes that Paul “mutters like a man on his deathbed,” when he said: “Eat whatever’s sold in the meat market without raising questions on the basis of conscience, for the earth is the δord’s and everything in it (1 Corέ 1ί:2η-26).”447 The midrash´s citation of Genesis λ:3, “Every moving thing that lives will be food for you, as the green herb have I give you everything,” as being what permits the idolaters to eat everything, likely refers to the Christian reading of this verse. According the Christian exegesis, beginning with Justin Martyr in the middle of the second century, 446 ' : LevR. 13.2. Translation by Neusner, Leviticus Rabbah, 48. έ , έ ' ": ,( , Compare to: tanB Shemini 10. , , , , ," ( [ ,] " , ) " ,( ,] 162 , , : ' )" ' έ( , , ' ' : " )" : ' , [, , , )] [ ,( έ"' " ,( )" ' 447 Porphyry, Porphyry's Against the Christians: The Literary Remains, ed. and trans. R. Joseph Hoffmann (Amherst, NY.: Prometheus Books, 1994), 63. ": ) , , , , ή this verse as proofs that all kind of food are pure and therefore permitted. 448 Interestingl y enough, more or less in the period of the writing of Leviticus Rabbah, the emperor Julian “the Apostate” or “the Philosopher,” in his anti-Christian treaty Against the Galileans (wr. June 362-March 363, cf. Cyril of Alexandria, Against Julian), criticizes the Christians’ “omnivorousness:” Why in your diet are you not as pure as the Jews, and why do you say that we ought to eat everything “even as the green herb (Gen λ:3),” putting your faith in Peter, because, as the Galilaeans say, he declared, “What God hath cleansed, that make not thou common (Acts 1ί:1η)”ς 449 This “omnivorousness” for Julian was scandalousέ In his discourse, To the Uneducated Cynics, he criticizes his interlocutor for despising Diogenes of Sinope’s diet:450 “For you are an Egyptian, though not of the priestly caste, but of the omnivorous type whose habit it is to eat everything “even as the green herb” (Gnέ λ:3)έ You recognize, I suppose, the words of the Galilaeans.” 451 Thus the Christians (the Galilaeans) are associated with the omnivorousness of the Egyptian mob, and hence indirectly with the omnivorous animal par excellence Ḳ the pig - from which Egyptian priests abstained. While Peter’s vision in Jaffa (Acts 1ί: λ-22) plays an important role in the Christian argument that all foods are permitted, the later Christian interpretation of Genesis 9:3 448 Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 20.2. See: David Rokeah, Justin Martyr and the Jews (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 112. The anti-Christian message of the midrash is also found in its paralell in Exodus Rabbah 30.22 which cites Ezekiel 22:25, which is used to support the Christian argument that the Jewish law is negative. See: Jean-δouis Déclais, “Du combat de Jacob avec l’ange à la licéité de la viande de chameau: le devenir d’un récit,” Islamochristiana 25 (1999): 47. 449 Julian, Against the Galilaeans 306B-314E (Apud Cyril of Alexandria, Against Julian). 450 On Julian and the cynics, see Rowland Smith, Julian's Gods: Religion and Philosophy in the Thought and Action of Julian the Apostate (London: Routledge, 1995), 49-90. 451 Julian, To the Uneducated Cynics 1λ3Aέ See: Derek Krueger, “The Bawdy and Society: The Shamelessness of Diogenes in Roman Imperial Culture,” in The Cynics: The Cynic Movement in Antiquity and Its Legacy, edέ Robert Bracht Branham and εarie-τdile Goulet-Cazé. Hellenistic culture and society, 23 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996), 232. Pseudo Aristeas makes a similar connection between Egypt’s mob and omnivorousness: “The priests who are the guides of Egyptians have looked closely into many things and are conversant with affairs, and have named us ‘men of God,’ a title applicable to no others but only to him who reveres the true God. The rest are men of food and drink and raiment, 141: for their whole disposition has recourse to these thingsέ” Letter of Aristeas 139-140. 163 goes further by arguing that Peter’s vision merely returned the status of animals to their primordial state at the time of Noah. Jewish food avoidances were thus limited in time, a temporal exigency placed upon the Jews to correct their ways. The avoidance of pork thus does not concern the nature of the pig but rather the sinful nature of the Jews. Since for Julian the different religious manifestations go back to early times and are unchangeable (as is the Torah for the sages), he cannot accept this dynamic explanation of the δawέ Thus, he ironically asks if the nature of the pig changed after Peter’s vision: What proof is there of this, that of old God held certain things abominable, but now has made them pure? For Moses, when he is laying down the law concerning four-footed things, says that whatsoever parteth the hoof and is cloven-footed and cheweth the cud is pure, but that which is not of this sort is impure [cf. Leviticus 11:3]. Now if, after the vision of Peter, the pig has now taken to chewing the cud, then let us obey Peter; for it is in very truth a miracle if, after the vision of Peter, it has taken to that habit. But if he spoke falsely when he said that he saw this revelation, - to use your own way of speaking, - in the house of the tanner, why are we so ready to believe him in such important matters? Julian hints that the Christian abandonment of food avoidance is a practical accommodation motivated by the desire to render life easier: Was it so hard a thing that Moses enjoined on you when, besides the flesh of swine, he forbade you to eat winged things and things that dwell in the sea, and declared to you that besides the flesh of swine these also had been cast out by God and sh own to be impure? 452 Julian reverses the Christian claim that originally Moses was forced to yoke the Jews with food avoidances in order to end their enslavement to their bellies; that the Jews’ literal understanding of pork avoidance demonstrates that they are carnal and earthly, or in other words: hoggish. 453 Julian hints that it is the Christians who resemble the pi g, which consumes everything with no limits. He also suggests that their porcine diet is 452 Julian, Against the Galilaeans 306B-314E (Apud Cyril of Alexandria, Against Julian). See: Peter Jέ Tomson,”Jewish Food δaws in Early Christian Community Discourse,” Semeia 86 (1999): 193-211έ Sέ Stein, “The Dietary δaws in Rabbinic and Patristic δiterature,” Studia Patristica 2 (1957): 141-54. 453 164 motivated by their weakness of the flesh. 454 This is similar to the argument in Leviticus Rabbah that the non-Jews were released from the Law because of their weak nature. Like Julian, Leviticus Rabbah turns the Christian argument on its head: the law was not given to Israel as a corrective-preventive punishment because of the Jews’ sinful-earthly nature but rather because of their healthy nature; freedom from the commandments does not bring life but rather death, while the burden of the Commandments brings life. Leviticus Rabbah 13.3 This section of the midrash begins with another interpretation of Leviticus 11:2: “These are the living things which ye may eat among all the beasts that are on the earth,” proposing that the commandments came to purify (letzaref ) the peoples (briot ): “Every word of God is pure ]tzrufa [ (Prov. 30:5) - Rab said: This means the precepts were given for the express purpose of purifying [letzaref ] peoples [briot ]. Why ]must one assume[ so muchς Because it is said, “He is a shield to them that seek refuge in Him” (Provέ 3ί:η)έ 455 Cyril of Alexandria (c. 376-444 CE) in his Against Julian refutes Julian’s criticism, noting that the avoidance of pork from the beginning was spiritual and not physical: “The law is spiritual and does not provide an explanation that stops at physical meaningsέ (…) So the voice of the δord came down, not only because God was rebuking him but also he was saying clearly, “What God has cleansed, you must not call commonέ”(Acts 1ί:1η) Then ]Peter[ immediately understood that the time had come when the shadows had to be transformed into truth. And so the passage of the figures into truth fulfilled them and should not show, as some people think, that they were placed there without a reason. Doubtless, the lawgiver does no t consider a pig, or the other animals, now clean, now unclean. No, for he knows that they are well made, for it is written, ‘And God saw all that he had made, and behold all was very good, and he blessed itέ’(Genέ 1:31) For to the extent that each thing of creation has come to be and to the extent that it has been made, it will only have, so I suppose, in itself what is good. So even though the pig cannot chew the cud, it is not unclean, but rather is perfectly edible, and what is proper to something’s nature does not pollute it. As I have said, the law was figures and shadows that remained ‘until the time of correctionέ’(Hebέ λ:1ί)” Cyril of Alexandria, Against Julian 9.318-19 [PG 76: 989-92]. Translation by Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament, vol .V. Acts, ed. Francis Martin and Thomas C. Oden (Downers Grove, IL: Inter Varsity Press, 2006), 128. τn Cyril’s interpretation of Acts 1ί see: François Bovon, De Vocatione Gentium: istoire de ’interpr tation d’Act. 10,1-11, 18 dans les six premiers siècles (Tübingen: Mohr, 1967), 123. 455 LevR 13.3. Translation by Israelstam, Midrash Rabba, vol. 5, Leviticus, 166-167, with slight alteration. έ[ ] :' έ( , )” “ έ( , )” “? 454 165 The idea that the one who fulfills God´s Commandments will be rewarded is followed by the description of the banquet that God will arrange for the righteous in the messianic era: R. Judan b. R. Simeon said: Behemoth and the Leviathan are to engage in a wild-beast contest [kinigin ] before the righteous in the Time to Come, and whoever has not been a spectator at the wild-beast contests [kinigin ] of the nations of the world in this world will be accorded the boon of seeing them in the World to Come. How will they be slaughtered? Behemoth will, with its horns, pull Leviathan down and rend it, and Leviathan will, with its fins, pull Behemoth down and pierce it through. The Sages said: And is this a valid method of slaughter? Have we not learnt the following in a Mishnah: “All may slaughter, and one may slaughter at all times ]of the day[, and with any instrument except with a scythe, or with a saw, or with teeth [in a jaw cut out of a dead animal[, because they chok”ς R. Abin b. Kahana said: The Holy One, blessed be He, said: “Instruction ]of the Torah[ shall go forth from εe” (Isέ η1:4), iέeέ a new interpretation of the Torah will go forth from Me. 456 The kinigin, from Greek (kynegion υ ήγ ο ) ‘chase’ or ‘hunt’ (kynegia) 457 refers to the show of animal combat, as well as the place where this show took place. 458 The symmetry of reward will make the ones who do not watch the non-Jewish games in this 456 LevR 13.3. Translation by Israelstam, Midrash Rabba, vol. 5, Leviticus, 166-167, with slight alteration. , : ' ' ' έ ς έ , ' έ ,( , )" " " ' : ' ' έ 457 William Kέ Jrέ Whitney, “The Place of the Wild Beast Hunt’ of Sibέ τrέ 3,κίθ in Biblical and Rabbinic Tradition,” Journal for the Study of Judaism 25, no. 1 (1994): 68-κ1έ Kimberly Bέ Stratton, ”The Eschatological Arena: Reinscribing Roman Violence in Fantasies of the End Times,” Biblical Interpretation: A Journal of Contemporary Approaches 17, no 1-2 (2009): 45-76. 458 In Constantinople, the amphitheatre of Septimus Severus was known as the Kynegion. Joseph Patrich proposed that this could also be the name of the amphitheatre in Caesarea in the time of the Rabbis (see: Joseph Patrich, “Herod’s HippodromeήStadium at Caesarea in the Context of Greek and Roman Contests and Spectacles,” in Studies in the History of Eretz Israel, presented to Yehuda Ben Porat, ed. Yehoshua Ben-Arieh and Elchanan Reiner (Jerusaelm: Yad Ben-Zvi Press, 2003), 163 (Hebrew). Ze'ev Weiss, “The Jews and the Games in Roman Caesarea,” in Caesarea Maritima: A Retrospective After Two Millennia, ed. Avner Raban, Kenneth G Holum, and Jodi Magnes, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research. no. 308: 108 (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 443-4η3έ Ibidέ, “Roman δeisure Culture and Its Influence upon the Jewish Population in the δand of Israel,” Qadmoniot 109 (1995): 2-19 (Hebrew). Ibid. “The Jews of Ancient Palestine and the Roman Games: Rabbinic Dicta vsέ Communal Practice,” Zion 66 (2001), 427-4ηλ (Hebrew)έ Ibidέ, “Adopting a Novelty: The Jews and the Roman Games in Palestine,” The Roman and Byzantine Near East: Recent Archaeological Research, II, ed. J. H. Humphrey, Journal of Roman Archaeology, Supp. 31 (Portsmouth, RI: Journal of Roman Archaeology, 1999), 23 -49. R. Aha, a third-centruy Amora who lived in Caesarea: “When the day of the Judgment arrives… you will be among those who behold the punishement of the sinners rather than among those who are beheld receiving punishment. You will be among the spectators rather than among the gladiatorsέ” PRK. 28:3. see: Weiss, “The Jews,”451. 166 world instead watch the messianic play. The question of the edibility of the slaughtering of Behemoth and Leviathan contrasts implicitly the non-edible way of killing of animals in the kinigin, but it is also a criticism of the idea that in the messianic era God will change the Law. This is a marginal idea in early rabbinical Judaism, but central in Christianity, which argues that Jesus replaced the old Torah with a new one. 459 The midrash 460 reads the “new Torah ( )” of Isaiah as a new interpretation of Torah ( ) which will resolve the rabbinic question of the legality of Behemoth and Leviathan’s butcheryέ To reinforce the idea of a reward for keeping the purity laws, another midrash is told concerning the messianic banquet which this time is described as a reward for keeping the food purity laws: R. Berekiah said in the name of R. Isaac: In the Time to Come, the Holy One, blessed be He, will make ariston [ meal, banquet] 461 for his righteous servants, and whoever has not eaten nebelah and tr efa in this world will be merited to eat in the World to Come. This is indicated by what is written, “And the fat that which dieth of itself (nebelah) and the fat of that which is torn of beasts (terefah), may be used for any other service, but eat it ]ye shall[ not,” in order that you may eat it in the Time to Come. For this reason did εoses admonish Israel, saying to them: “This is the animal which ye shall eatέ” Rabbi Chiya says Moses was holding each animal and demonstrated it to Israel, and saying: this is the animal you will eat and this is the one you will not eatέ “These you may eat, of all that are in the waters.” (δevέ 11:2) This is the animal you will eat and this is the one you will not eatέ “These you shall regard as detestable among the birds” (Ibid. 11:13). - This is the animal you will detest and this is the one you will not detestέ “These are unclean for you” (Ibid. 11:29) - This is the unclean and this is uncleanέ “These are the creatures that you may eat (Ibid. 11:2).”462 459 Abraham Joshua Heschel, Heavenly Torah: As Refracted Through the Generations, trans. Gordon Tucker and Leonard Levin (New York: Continuum, 2005), 680-700. 460 According to Hananel Mack, the message of the midrash is that in the messianic era some commandments include the laws of butchering. This possible reading does not seem to me the original message of the midrash in the light of its contextέ εack, “The Source,” 69. 461 Michael Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the Byzantine Period (RamatGan, Israel: Bar Ilan University Press, 1990), 75. 462 LevR 13.3. Translation by Israelstam, Midrash Rabba, vol. 5, Leviticus, 166-167, with slight alteration. " : ' ' ' ,( , )" ": " , ' έ( , )" ": ' έ 167 Again we find here the idea that one that avoids the forbidden foods in this world will be recompensed by eating in the world to come. This is evident in reading Leviticus 7:24, “eat it ]ye shall[ not” and δeviticus 11:2, “these are the creatures that you may eat,” as referring not just to the present but also to the future. Leviticus Rabbah 13.4 After noting the meticulous nature of the food laws, the midrash turns from the reward for keeping the commandments to the punishment in the opposite case: ]Returning to[ the body ]of the matter[, said Rέ Abbahu, “It was a kind of fiery skull that the Holy τne, blessed be he, showed to εosesέ He said to him, “If ]during a slaughter[ the membrane of the brain is perforated, in any measure at all, [the beast is] invalid[ly slaughtered and may not be eatenέ[” Said Rέ Simeon bέ δaqish, “If you have merit, you shall eat. If you do not have merit, you shall be eaten Ḳ by the kingdomsέ” Said R. A a, “It is written, “If you are willing and obedient, you shall eat the good of the land; but if you refuse and rebel, you shall be devoured by the sword ( erev ); [for the mouth of the δord has spoken[” (Isέ 1:1λ-2ί)έ “You shall eat carobs ( aruvin )έ”For Rέ A a said, “When a Jew has ]to resort to eating[ carobs, he carries out repentanceέ And as becoming is poverty for the Jews as a red ribbon on the chest of a white horseέ” 463 The message is that Israel’s political condition is the consequence of the success or failure of the Jews to keep the commandments. When Israel goes astray, it is eaten by the nations, but its diet of misery (eating carob) serves as repentance. ,( , ,( , 463 : , LevR 13.4. ' έ )" )" "έ : έ ,( , ' " 168 ": ' )" έ( , , ) " ,( , )" : ' ' έ : ' ' , "έ έ " :' έ ,( - : , έ ' ' )" έ Leviticus Rabbah 13.5 The fourth section (13.5) relates a series of ten different readings of verses, where the sages see a structure of “three-four,” in which they read the schemes of the four kingdoms (Table 2). This pattern, which is the most common in the Hebrew Bible (98 places),464 is composed of four elements: three which repeat each other or are analogous and a fourth which creates a radical change which is the climax of the pattern. The contradiction between the situation common to the first three elements and the fourth creates tension and surprise and provides a general logic to the pattern. This is also the overall pattern of section 13.5, which is divided into four parts (I-IV): Part I (“Adam saw the four kingdoms…”) reads Genesis 2:11-14, which describes the four rivers that go out from the garden of Eden as the four kingdoms. Part II (“Abraham saw the four kingdoms…”) reads Genesis 15:12 which describes the falling of the night during God´s blessing to Abraham in the Brit bein HaBetarim, the “Covenant Between the Parts,” linking it to the animals mentioned in Deuteronomy 8:15. 465 Part III (“Daniel saw the four kingdoms…”) refers to the four animals mentioned in Daniel 6:4, which is linked to the animals mentioned in Jeremiah 5:6. Part IV (“εoses saw the four kingdoms…”) refers to the four animals mentioned in Leviticus 11:6: the camel, the hare, the rock badger, and the pig. In other words, the section moves from Paradise, and hence from Creation to the Abramaic covenant (the Covenant Between the Parts), to Exodus (Deut. Yair Zakovitch, ‘ or Three…and for our’μ The Pattern of the σumerica Sequence Three-Four in the Bible (Jerusalem: Makor, 1979), 496 (Hebrew). 465 As Irit Aminoff notes, midrashim concerning the four kingdoms refers to different subjects, as “creation in all its stages; the rivers flowing out of Eden, the convenant with Abraham, the four kings’ war, the binding of Isaac, relations between Isaac and Esau, Jacob’s dream of the ladder, pairing of heroes among Jacob’s sons with each of the four kingdoms, the halacha of leprosy, the red heifer, prohibition of impure animals, the prophet’s visions, particularly Daniel’s of the four beasts, selection of Biblical verses opposite the four kingdoms, Israel’s honourέ” Aminoff, The Figure, 308. 464 169 8:15), then to the eschatological fourth beasts of the book of Daniel, to the animals mentioned in Jeremiah 5:6 as the punishment God sent on Judah for it sins, and finally to the purity of animal kinds in Leviticus (table 2). Part I Adam II Abraham III Daniel IV Moses Read ing 1 Phrase/ Empire Gn 2:11-14 Babylonia Media Greece Rome (Edom) Pishon Gihon Tigris Euphrates 2 Gn 15:12 Dread Great Fell on him 3 4 Deut. 8:15 Gn. 15:12 Scorpion Darkness Fell on him Horror 5 Daniel 6:4 Snake Fell on him Lion Darkne ss Serpent Great Bear Wolf 6 Jeremiah 5:6 Lion Wolf Leopard 7 Lev. 11:6 Camel Hare 8 Lev. 11:6 Camel hare 9 Lev. 11:6 Camel hare 10 Lev. 11:6 Camel hare Rock badger rock badger rock badger rock badger The fourth beast (Dan. 7:6) “Whoever goes out from them will be savaged” Pig pig pig pig Table 2: The Four Kingdoms in Leviticus Rabbah 13.5. We will now observe the texts referring to the pig. In part III, the fourth beast of the book of Daniel is linked to the boar of Psalm 80:14: Daniel beheld the empires engaged in their ]subsequent[ activitiesέ “I saw in my vision by night, and, behold, the four winds of the heavens broke forth upon the great sea. And four great beasts came up from the sea, diverse one from the other (Danέ 7:2)έ” If you will so merit, it [the animal] will come up out of the sea, but if not, from the forest. An animal coming up from the sea is timid, whereas if it comes from the forest, it is not tim id. Similar is ]the interpretation of[ “The boar out the wood ]ya’ar] doth ravage it (Ps. κί:14)έ” 466 466 LevR 13.5. Translation by Israelstam, Midrash Rabba, vol. 5, Leviticus, 171. έ "έ , έ έ ,( , ) έ 170 έ( - , )" έ , The pig out of the river (ye’or) refers probably to a certain kind of fish which is called pig and which is not harmful to man. 467 The message of the midrash, that we have seen above (in section 13.4), is clear: the political condition of Israel (subjection/ liberty) does not depend so much on its relations with non-Jews but more on its relations with God. When the Jews respect the commandments they are free, but when they do not they are subjected to the nations. 468 This is an idea which the Mishnah formulated in the saying: “Whoever accepts the yoke of Torah is relieved of the yoke of the empire, but whoever shrugs off the yoke of Torah is subjected to the yoke of the empireέ”469 In some manuscripts it is added, “The letter ‘ayin [in the word ya’ar] is suspended, [indicating that it might be read as if ye’or (river), meaning]: If you will prove worthy it [i.e the boar] will come from the river, if you will not prove worthy, from the wood; an animal coming from a river is timid, one coming from a forest is not timid.” The Fathers According to Rabbi Nathan, version A seems to link Psalms 80:14 with Rome: “Scripture reads, The boar out of the wood (ya’ar) doth ravage it (Ps 80:14), but it is written, The boar our out of the river (ye’or) doth ravage it. The boar out of the wood doth ravage it ]according to one manuscript: ‘refers to the Roman Empire’[έ For when Israel does not do the will of God, the nations appear to them [Israel] like the boar out out of the wood: even as the boar of the forests kills people and injures folk and smites men, so too, so long as Israel does not do the will of God, the nations kill them [Israel] and injure them and smite them. But so long as Israel does the will of God the nations do not rule over them. (Then the nations are) like the boar out of the river : even as the boar of the rivers kills no people and harms no folk, so too, so long as Israel does His will, no nation or people kills them or harms them or smites them. That is why it is written, The boar out of the river.” The Fathers According to Rabbi Nathan A 34. Translation by Goldin, The Fathers, 138. έ] [ έ έ( " ' )" ": έ έ : έ 467 This is probably a fish; several fish in Greek and Latin are called pig or boar, see: Alfred C. Andrews, “Greek and δatin εouse-Fishes and Pig-Fishes,” Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 79 (1948): 232-253. Jacques André, “δa part des suidés dans le vocabulaire grec et latin,” Anthropozoologica 15 (1991): 8-11. Isidore of Seville (7th century) writes: “Shetfish (porcus marinusέ litέ “sea pigs”), commonly called suilli (litέ “small swine), are so named because when they seek food they root up the earth underwater like swineέ” Isidore of Seville, Etymology 12.6.12. Translation by Stephen A. Barney, The Etymologies of Isidore of Seville (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 260. In Arabic, the term khinzir (pig) is also used to designate several animals with a long muzzle : the potamocherus of Africa is called khinzir al-nahr/al-mā (“Pigήboar of the riverήwater)έ See: Fέ Viré, “Khinzir,” The Encyclopedia of Islam, New Edition, vol. V (Leiden: Brill, 1979), 9. 468 On this idea in the rabbinic midrashim concerning Esau (Rome), see: Aminoff, The Figure, 208-212. 469 M. Avoth 3.5. , ; , : . 171 Most references to the pig are found in part IV of the midrash, in which the pattern “three-four” is found in each of the four readings which make up this part as well in the relations between the first three readings (7-9) and the last one (10). The first of the four reads as follows (no. 7): Moses foresaw the empires engaged in their [subsequent] activities. “The camel, the hare, The Rockbadger,” (Deutέ 14:7) “The camel ]ga mal[” - alludes to Babylon, of whom is said, “[O daughter of Babylon, that art to be destroyed]; happy be he that repayeth thee thy retributions [gemul] as thou hast dealt [ga mal] with us” (Psέ 137:κ)έ “The Rockbadger alludes to Media. The Rabbis and R. Judah b. Simon gave different explanations. The Rabbis said: just as the rock-badger possesses marks of uncleanness and marks of cleanness, so too did Media produce a righteous man as well as a wicked man. R. Judah b. Rέ Simon said: The last Darius was the son of Esther, clean from his mother]‘s side[ and unclean from his father]‘s side[έ The hare alludes to Greece; the name of the mother of Ptolemy was [Lagos, the Greek equivalent of] hare. The swine alludes to Edom [i.e. Rome]. 470 The end of the reading emphasizes the particularity of the fourth beast (Rome): Moses mentioned [the first] three of them in one verse, but the last [by itself] in another verse. R. Johanan and R. Simeon b. Lakish gave explanations. R. Johanan said: Because it [i.e. the swine] is on a par with the three others put together. R. Simeon b. Lakish said: It is even more than that. R. Johanan raised an objection to the view of R. Simeon b. δakish ]on the strength of the passage[, “Thou, therefore, son of man, prophesy, and smite hand to hand [and let the threefold sword [doubled[” (Ezekiel 21:19). What does Resh δakish do with thisς ]Resh δakish replied: It is said[: “The threefold swords doubled” (Ibid.). 471 In the next paragraph the midrash links the boar of psalm 80:14 with the pig of Leviticus 11:7: For the metaphor of the ‘yoke’ see: Marijn Zwart, Reverence & Resistanceμ The Term ‘ o e’ in Matthew 11, 28-30 as Elucidated by the Theories of Bildfeld & Hidden Transcripts (M.A. Thesis, Utrecht: Utrecht University, 2011). 470 LevR. 13.5. Translation by Israelstam, Midrash Rabba, vol. 5, Leviticus, 173-174. ", ", " έ( , )" "έ ' έ ' ' έ ," " έ( , )" ' ' ' έ έ ,( , )" "έ , , έ In some manuscripts the fourth beast (the pig) is not Rome but Persia. The exceptional identification of the pig with Persia plays with the sonority of the Hebrew word for hoof: parsa and the Hebrew word for Persia: paras . 471 LevR 13.5. ' έ ' ' έ ' ' ς , , ' , ' ' έ ' έ 172 R. Phinehas and R. Hilkiah, in the name of R. Simeon, said: Out of all the prophets, only two, namely Asaph and Moses, named it [i.e. Rome[έ Asaph said: “The boar ( a ir) out of the wood doth ravage it” (Ps κί:14[, εoses said: “And the pig ( a ir) [because it parteth the hoof, and is cloven footed, but cheweth not the cud, he is unclean to you]” (δevέ 11:7)έ” Why is it ]iέeέ Rome[ compared to a a ir [pig or boar]? Ḳ To tell you this: Just as the pig when reclining puts forth its hooves as if to say: See that I am clean, so too does the evil kingdom [Rome] boast as it commits violence and robbery, under the guise of establishing a judicial tribunal. Once a governor in Caesarea who put to death the thieves, adulterers, and sorcerers, said to his counselor: “I myself did these three things in one nightέ”472 We find the same midrash in Genesis Rabbah 65.1 concerning Esau´s marriage at the age of forty with Judith, the daughter of Beeri the Hittite, and Basemath, the daughter of Elon (Gnέ 2θ:34), which is presented as a hypocritical behavior given that “until the age of forty, Esau used to ensnare married women and violate them, yet when he attained forty years he compared himself to his father, saying, ‘As my father was forty years old when he married, so I will marry at the age of fortyέ’” (Gn. 26:34). 473 The midrash creates unity between the Torah and Psalms, proposing that the criminal nature of the pig (Rome) in Psalm 80:14 is explained in Leviticus 11:7. 474 Caesarea was the capital of the province of Judea and hence the governor’s centerέ The governor in the midrash is hence the highest Roman authority in the city which the sages saw as “small Rome,” and hence represents the typological wicked Esau who is marked by his hoggish nature. The second reading (no. 8) of the four animals of Leviticus 11:4-6 provides the first explanation (out of three) for why Rome (the pig) is different from the three preceding empires (beasts): 472 LevR. 13.5. Translation by Israelstam, Midrash Rabba, vol. 5, Leviticus, 174. )" " :' , , : ' ' ' ' ς "έ " :' έ( έ έ ' 473 GenR Toledoth 64.1. Translation by Freedman, Midrash Rabbah, Genesis, vol. II, 580. See: Fraenkel, Darchei Aggadah VeHamidrash, vol. I, 220. 474 The image of the pig as pretending to be pure may recall the Greco-Roman proverb concerning the pig as being emblematic of stupidity: “A pig teaching εinerva” (Sus docet Minervam). , , 173 Another interpretation: The camel alludes to Babylon, “Because he extolleth with the throat,” (Lev. 11:4) i.e. that it praised the Holy One, blessed be He. R. Berekiah and R. Helbo said in the name of R. Samuel b. Nahman: All the expressions that David used separately, that wicked man [viz. Nebuchadnezzar] included in one verse, as it is said, “σow I, σebuchadnezzar, praise and extol and honour the King of Heaven; for all His works are truth, and His ways justice; and those that walk in pride He is able to abase” (Danέ 4:34)έ ]Corresponding to σebuchadnezzar’s expression[ ‘praise, ]David had said[, “Praise the Lord, O Jer usalem” (Psέ 147:12); ]corresponding to[ “extol,” ]David had said[, “I will extol Thee, τ δord” (Psέ 3ί:2); ]corresponding to[ “honour,” ]David had said[, “τ δord my God, Thou art very great; Thou art clothed with glory and honour” (Psέ 1ί4:1); ]corresponding to[ “All His works are truth” ]David had said[, “For Thy mercy and for Thy truth,” (Psέ 13κ:2); ]corresponding to[ ‘His way is justice,” ]David had said], “He will judge the peoples with equity (Psέ λθ:1ί); ]corresponding to[ “Those that walk in pride,” ]David had said[, “The δord reigneth, He is clothed in pride (Psέ λ3:1); ]corresponding to[ “He is able to abase,” ]David had said[, “All the horns of the wicked also will I cut off” (Ps 7η:11)έ“And the rock-badger” alludes to εedia, “He exalteth with the throat” in that it extolled the Holy τne, blessed be He, as it is said, “Thus saith Cyrus, king of Persia [All the kingdoms of the earth hath the Lord, the God of the heavens, given me, etc[έ” (Ezra 1:2)έ “And the Hare: alludes to Greece, She raiseth with the throat in that it extolled the Holy One, blessed be He. Alexander of Macedon, when he saw Simeon the Just, said: “Blessed be the δord, God of Simeon the Justέ” 475 While the first three empires exalt God, Rome blasphemes: “The pig” (δevέ 11:7) - this refers to Edomέ “For it does not chew the cud”- for it does not give praise to the Holy One, blessed be he. And it is not enough that it does not give praise, but it blasphemes and swears violently, saying, “Whom do I have in heaven, and with you I want nothing on earth. (Ps. 73:25). 476 The third reading of the four beasts of Leviticus 11:4-6 (no. 9) states that while the first three empires exalt the righteous, Rome kills them: Another interpretation: The camel” (δevέ 11:4) - this refers to Babyloniaέ “For it chews the cud” -for it exalts righteous men: “And Daniel was in the gate of the king” (Danέ 2:4λ)έ “The rock badger” (δevέ 11:η) - this refers to εediaέ “For it brings up the stranger” - for it exalts the righteous men: “εordecai sat at the gate of the king” (Estέ 2:1λ)έ “The hare” (δevέ 11:θ) - this refers to Greeceέ “For it brings up the stranger” - for it exalts the 475 , " LevR 13.5. Translation by Israelstam, Midrash Rabba, vol. 5, Leviticus, 175. ' έ " :( , )" ", - " " " )" ": , , ": ' "- " " έ( , )"' "- " " έ( ) "' "- " " έ( " έ( , )" " -( , ) ," " ,( , )" ' "- ( , )" " έ( , )" "- ( , )" , - " " έ( , )" "- ( , )" " έ( , ) , - " " έ( , )" ": , " έ" ' ": " , " 476 LevR 13.5. , " ,( , ) έ ,( , )" " έ( , )" ": 174 righteous. When Alexander of Macedonia saw Simeon the Righteous, he would rise up on his feetέ They said to him, “Can’t you see the Jew, that you stand up before this Jewς” He said to them, “When I go forth to battle, I see something like this man’s visage, and I conquerέ” “The pig” (δevέ 11:7) - this refers to Romeέ“ But it does not bring up the stranger” - for it does not exalt the righteous. And it is not enough that it does not exalt them, but it kills themέ That is in line with the following verse of Scripture: “I was angry with my people, I profaned my heritage; I gave them into your hand, you showed them no mercy; on the aged you made your yoke exceedingly heavy” (Isέ 47:θ)έ This refers to Rέ Akiba and his colleagues. 477 The last reading (no 10), which also closes the chapter, introduces the third difference between the empires and Rome, which will not be followed by another empire: Another interpretation ]now treating “bring up the cud” (gera) as “bring along in its train”]: “The camel” (δevέ 11:4) - this refers to Babyloniaέ “Which brings along in its train” - for it brought along another kingdom after itέ “The rock badger” (δevέ 11:η) - this refers to εediaέ “Which brings along in its train” - for it brought along another kingdom after itέ “The hare” (δevέ 11:θ) -this refers to Greeceέ “Which brings along in its train” for it brought along another kingdom after itέ “The pig” (δevέ 11:7) - this refers to Rome. “Which does not bring along in its train” - for it did not bring along another kingdom after itέ And why is it then called “pig” ( a ir)? For it restores (me azeret) the crown to the one who truly should have it [namely, Israel, whose dominion will begin when the rule of Rome ends[έ That is in line with the following verse of Scripture: “And saviors will come up on Mount Zion to judge the Mountain of Esau [Rome], and the kingdom will then belong to the Lord (Ob. 1:21). 478 In sum, the three readings give a different sense to the blemished sign of the pig in δeviticus, that it does not chew the cud: the first reads it as a sign that Rome “does not exalt the righteous;” the second, that Rome “does not give praise to the Holy τne, blessed be he. And it is not enough that it does not give praise, but it blasphemes and swears violently;” and finally that “it did not bring along another kingdom after itέ” The 477 έ , , ", ,( , 478 έ " LevR 13.12. Translation by Neusner, Judaism and Christianity, 222. ", " έ( , )" ", , έ ", " έ( , )" ", ' "έ ", "έ )" ": " , έ : LevR 13.13. Translation by Neusner, Judaism and Christianity, 222-223. , έ ", "έ , , , ", "έ , " ": " , ς 175 ' , ", , έ , " " έ έ , ' ", ", έ( " " , έ " ) last reading is reinforced by the midrash name for the word pig ( a ir): “And why is it then called “pig” ( a ir)? For it restores (me azeret) the crown to the one who truly should have it [namely, Israel, whose dominion will begin when the rule of Rome ends].”479 Hence, the impure nature of the pig incarnates Rome’s crimes against God a nd his nation, but also Rome’s future fall and punishment and Israel’s final triumphέ The fourth kingdom, Rome, Edom, the pig, will fall and will raise the fifth and final kingdom, Israel, after the future revenge prophesized in τbadiah 1:21: “And saviors will come up on Mount Zion to judge the Mountain of Esau [Rome], and the kingdom will then belong to the Lordέ” 480 Discussion In all four sections of the midrash (13.2-5), the main message is: The fulfillment of the commandments is a sign of Israel’s superiority over the nations (13έ2)έ If Israel follows the law, it will be rewarded (13.3), if Israel does not follow the law, it will be punished (13.3); Israel´s subjection to Rome is part of a divine plan. Rome is the worst of the four kingdoms, but also the final kindom (13.5) (table 3). Through the midrash, we can see the dialectics of eating which function with several contradictions: to eat - to be eaten; to avoid eating Ḳ to be rewarded by eating; and not to eat now (in this world) Ḳ to eat in the future (in the world to come). Israel should avoid eating impure food in this world but will eat the messianic meal; Israel in this world is eaten by the nations of the world but will eat them in the world to come. Hence, passivity, which is the outcome of powerlessness, which is symbolized by the simile of being eaten, is transformed into an 479 480 LevR 13.13. LevR 13.13. Translation by Neusner, Judaism and Christianity, 222-223. έ( )" ' 176 ": active powerέ This is achieved by portraying avoidance of impure food as the “real” field of battle and by projecting it to the messianic future where Israel will receive its recompense, and actively eat. Section 13.2 13.3 13.4. 13.5 Content God elects the generation of the desert, Mount Moriah, Jerusalem, Mount Sinai, the land of Israel. Main Ideas Israel’s Election is the dis-election of the nations. The release of the nations from the commandments demonstrates their inferiority. God permits Israel “to eat” the nations of Canaan (their lives, land, and goods). - The parable of the donkey and the dog - The parable of the doctor and the two patients The aim of the Commandments The release of the nations from the law is not a sign of liberty but of subjection. The burdening of the commandments demonstrates the superiority of the Jews. In the world to come, the Jews will be recompensed for their keeping of the Law. The banquet of Behemot - The Torah is eternal (there will not be a new and Leviathan in the Torah in the messianic era). World to Come - God will recompense those that will keep his The ariston [banquet] for Law. the righteous in the World to Come - The eternity of the Law - God will recompense those who keep the food laws. God showed Moses a fiery Israel´s political condition (freedom/ skull. subjection) is conditioned by its observance of the Law. The four kingdoms Israel’s subjection to the four kingdoms is part of the divine plan announced by all the prophets. The fourth kingdom (Rome=Pig) is distinguished from the three empires preceding it. It is the worst but the last. After its fall, Israel will be redeemed. Table 3: The Structure and message of Leviticus Rabbah 13.2-5. 177 We can see a strong symmetry in the construction of the midrash which follows the pattern “three-four,” in which the fourth element is different from the three preceeding and consists of a climax of all the elements. The chapter concerning Leviticus 11:1-7 is divided into four sections (13.2-5); the fourth section (13.5) is divided into four, while each of the ten readings include a variety of verses according to the pattern of “three-four”(fig. 22). 1 2 3 4 Readings a b c d Fig. 22: The three-four model in Leviticus Rabbah 13. We find here the two types of symmetry which Chaim Milikowsky observes in midrash Seder Olam: moral and estheticέ The moral symmetry is one of the faces of “a measure for a measure” ( ), or as the Mishanah says: “According to the measure that a person measures, with it do we measure him” (m. Sota 1.7), while the esthetic symmetry provides a sense of order in the divine historic plan. 481 As Gerson D. Cohen notes, “It was not out of love for the art of history that the rabbis sought symmetry, but out of a passionate longing for the messianic redemption. Schematology always Chaim εilikowsky, “The Symmetry of History in Rabbinic δiterature: The Special σumbers of Seder Olam, Chapter Two,” Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought 11 (1993): 45 (Hebrew). 481 178 betrays a very superficial interest in the events themselves, but a deep desire to unravel their meaning and their place in the plan of history as a wholeέ” 482 History is a repetitive pattern. The sages read the diverse texts following the idea of the unity of Torah ( ): all the texts are understood as decoding the same basic idea, that of the four kingdoms. This unity of scriptures is imagined as unity of time (Adam, Abraham, Daniel, Moses) and as unity between prophecy and Law, practice and history. This structure placed special importance on the pig (=Rome) and resolved in a sense the problem posed by the actual importance of the avoidance of pork due to the tensions between Jews and eaters of pork in the Greco-Roman world. As proposed above, a few ideas in the midrash can be understood as constituting a polemic with Christianity, mainly the rejection of the idea that the commandments are but a yoke and a burden. As Joseph Heinemann notes (1971): All sections of this homily refer, in one way or another, to animals and the eating of their meat; yet, instead of dealing with details of the precepts, they put the entire chapter into an utterly new perspective. Far from being a burden, the dietary laws are a token of distinction for Israel, a means by which they are set apart from other nations and will, eventually, inherit life in the World-to-Come. If they refrain from participating in the wild-beast contests and from eating forbidden meat in this world, incomparably greater pleasures are in store for them in the future. And this very chapter, apparently but enumerating the list of forbidden animals, is in truth foretelling the messianic redemption. In this as in other homilies the author deals by implication with acute problems of his time. Not only does he hold up the hope of redemption and demonstrate that Israel's subjugation to Roman rule is but temporary, he also summarily rejects the idea that the commandments are but a yoke and a burden ḳ as was claimed by Christianity in its polemics against Judaism. 483 Jacob Neusner, in Judaism and Christianity in the Age of Constantine: History, Messiah, Israel, and the Initial Confrontation (1λκ7), linked the sages’ identification of Gerson Dέ Cohen, “The Symmetry of History,” in Abraham Ibn Daud, The Book of Tradition (Sefer Ha-Qabalah), ed. Gerson, D. Cohen (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1967), 213. 483 Joseph Heinemann, “Profile of a εidrash: The Art of Composition in δeviticus Rabbaέ” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 39, no. 2. (1971): 147-148. 482 179 Rome with the pig to Jerome’s allegorical exegesis of the two signs of purity of four footed animals (the parted hoof and the chewing of the cud): The Jew is single-hoofed and therefore he is unclean. The Manichean is single hoofed and therefore he is unclean. And since he is single-hoofed he does not chew what he eats, and what has once gone into his stomach he does not bring up again and chew and make fine, so that what had been coarse would return to the stomach fine. This is indeed a matter of divine mystery. The Jew is single-hoofed, for he believes in only one Testament and does not ruminate; he only reads the letter and thinks over nothing, nor does he seek anything deeper. The Christian, however, is cloven-hoofed and ruminates. That is, he believes in both Testaments and he often ponders each Testament, and whatever lies hidden in the letter he brings forth in the spirit. 484 As Neusner (1987) notes, Rome in Leviticus Rabbah “bore some traits that validate, but lacked others that validate Ḳ just as Jerome said of Israel. It would be difficult to find a more direct confrontation between two parties to an argument. Now the issue is the same Ḳ who is the true Israel? Ḳ and the proof-texts are the same; moreover, the proof-texts are read in precisely the same wayέ τnly the conclusions differέ” 485 For Neusner, the image of the pig w hich pretends to be pure summerizes the main antiChristian polemical message of the chapter: The polemic represented in Leviticus Rabbah by the symbolization of Christian Rome makes the simple point that, first, Christians are no different from, and no better than, pagans; they are essentially the sameέ The Christians’ claim to form part of Israel, then, requires no serious attention. Since Christians came to Jews with precisely that claim, the sages’ response -they are another Babylonia - bears a powerful polemic charge. But that is not the whole story, as we see. Second, just as Israel had survived Babylonia, Media, and Greece, so would it endure to see the end of Rome (whether pagan, whether Christian). But there is a third point. Rome really does differ from the earlier, pagan empires, and that polemic shifts the entire discourse, once we hear its symbolic vocabulary properly. Christianity was not merely part of a succession of undifferentiated modes of paganism. The symbols assigned to Rome attributed worse, more dangerous traits than those assigned to the earlier empires. The pig pretends to be clean, just as the Christians give the signs of adherence to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. That 484 Jerome, Tractates on Psalms 95.2. Translation by Boniface Ramsey, Beginning to Read the Church Fathers (New York: Paulist, 1985), 25-26. Allegorical interpretation of these signs is found as early as Pseudo-Aristeas, Letter of Aristeas 150-154 in the second century BCE and in Philo of Alexandria The Special Laws 4.18-19.106-109; On Husbandry 33. 143-145 in the first century CE. 485 Neusner, Judaism and Christianity, 102. 180 much the passage concedes. For the pig is not clean, exhibiting some, but not all, of the required indications, and Rome is not Israel, even though it shares Israel’s Scriptureέ 486 σeusner’s reading makes the polemic with Christianity the leitmotiv of the Leviticus Rabbah and Genesis Rabbah, but what are the proof texts for this reading? The midrashic presentation of the Empire as pretending to be pure can be understood as targeting the Empire’s discourse, which presents its action as just and beneficial to humanity, and not just against the Christian claim to be true Israel. Neusner argues that the fourth century, or the age of Constantine, was a dramatic turning point in JewishChristians relations: The age of Constantine, the fourth century (roughly, from 312, when Constantine extended toleration to Christianity, to 429, when the Jewish government of the Land of Israel ceased to enjoy the recognition of the state), marks the period in which Christianity joined the political world of the Roman Empire. In that century Christianity gained power, briefly lost it, and, finally, regained the power that assured its permanent domination of the stateέ Christians saw Israel as God’s people, rejected by God for rejecting the Christέ Israel saw Christians, now embodied in Rome, as Ishmael, Esau, Edom: the brother and the enemyέ The political revolution marked by Constantine’s conversion forced the two parties to discuss a single agendum and defined the terms in which each would take up that agendum. 487 However as Adiel Schremer noted recently, “contrary to prevalent scholarly opinion, Constantine’s conversion and the resulting Christianization of the Roman Empire were, from the rabbinic point of view, of relatively little significance. Palestinian rabbis of late antiquity continued to view Rome as a powerful oppressor, without paying much attention to its new religious characterέ” 488 The historical reality was probably somewhere between these two scholarly opinions. However, what is important for my discussion here is the lack of any direct reference to Christianity in the midrash itself. If the midrash represents the subtext of the dominated and it indeed targets Christianized 486 Ibid. Italics mine. Ibid, 1. 488 Adiel Schremer, Brothers Estranged: Heresy, Christianity, and Jewish Identity in Late Antiquity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 22. 487 181 Rome, why does it not directly point to it? One possible explanation is the refusal of the sages to follow the Christian reading of the Christianization of the Empire as a turning point. If for Christianity the Empire changed its nature by embracing the true faith, the sages insist on the continuity by repeatedly describing the empire as being as unj ust as beforeέ Thus: while for Christians “all changes,” for the sages “nothing changesέ” There was no need to Christianize Rome. The need was rather to refuse to recognize the supposed change in the empire’s natureέ 182 Chapter 8 The Boar out of the Wood As we have seen, in Genesis Rabbah and Leviticus Rabbah, Esau, Rome, and the fourth empire are identified with the “boar out of the wood” of Psalm κί:14έ We will now discuss the interpretation of this verse in other rabbinical texts (mainly Sifre 316-317 and b. Pesa im 118b) and in Christian exegesis (Augustine, Eucherius of Lyons, and Cassiodorus). However, first we will observe in some detail the scriptural context of Psalm 80:14. 489 A prayer for the restoration of the ravaged vineyard [Israel] of the Shepherd of Israel [God], the psalm starts with an invocation and petition (vv 2-4), followed by a lamentation (vv. 5-8) which serves as a prologue to the main section of the psalm, the parable of the vine (vv. 9-20),which itself may be divided into three parts: 1) A recitation of God’s saving acts (vv. 9-12), 2) a description of the vine’s present condition (vv 13-17a), and 3) petitions and a vow (vv. 17b-20). As Marvin E. Tate explains, the parable of the vine is an “extended metaphor of Yahweh’s great vine which he took from Egypt and planted in his land. In the vineyard that was Israel, the vine once spread its branches and tendrils until it transformed a large territory into a vineyard and covered mountains and mighty cedars with its shade. But now the great vine is ravaged, uprooted by wild hogs and trampled by vagrants who pluck its fruit as they willέ” 490 The historical pattern of the psalm is that of salvation-enslavement-redemption, going from God´s salvation of Israel from Egypt, to the giving of the Promised Land, to the Ps. 80 is dated by some to the eighth century BCE. As Craig Cέ Broyles notes, “Psέ κί has been variously considered to reflect every national crisis from the tenth century division of the kingdom to the time of Maccabees. The most plausible conjectures locates the psalm either in 732 -722 BC when the northern tribes were under threat (…) or in the time of Josiah and his reformέ” Craig Cέ Broyles, The Conflict of Faith and Experience in the Psalms: A Form-Critical and Theological Study (Sheffield, England: JSOT Press, 1989), 161. 490 Marvin E. Tate, Psalms. 51-100 (Dallas, TX: Word Books, 1990), 316. 489 183 punishment of Israel for its sins by a foreign force, and finally to the future redemption (table 4). Structure I. Invocation and petition (vv 2-4) II. Lamentation (vv 5-8) Text 1: To the Conductorέ According to ‘δilies’έ A testimony. To Asaph. A Psalm. 2: Give ear, O Shepherd of Israel, thou who hast led Joseph like a flock! Thou who art enthroned upon the cherubim, appear! 3: Before Ephraim and Benjamin and Manasseh stir up thy might and come to save us! 4: Restore us, O God; let thy face shine, that we may be saved! η: τ δord’ ‘Sabaoth, how long wilt thou be angry with thy people’s prayerς 6: Thou hast fed them with the bread of tears, and given them tears to drink in full measure. 7: Thou didst make us a strife to our neighbours, and our enemies mock at us. 8: Restore us, O God Sabaoth; let thy face shine, that we may be saved! III. Parable of the vine . Recitation of God’s 9: Thou didst bring a vine out of Egypt; Thou saving acts (vv 9-12) didst drive out the nations and plant it. 10: Thou didst clear the ground for it; it took deep root and filled the land. 11: The mountains were covered with its shade, the cedars of God with its braches; 12: It sent out its tendrils to the sea, and its branches to the river. . Description of the 13: Why hast thou broken down its walls, vine’s present so that all who pass along the way pluck its condition (vv13-17a) fruit? 14: The boar from the forest ravages it, and the beasts of the field feed on it. 15: Return to us, O God Sabbaoth! Look down from heaven, and see, and visit this vine, 16: the sapling which thy right hand planted, and the son whom thou hast reared for thyself! 17: It is burned with fire and hacked to pieces; 184 Event Hope for future redemption Israel’s present suffering The Exodus from Egypt. The conquest of the Promised Land Israel’s present destruction . Petitions and vow (vv 17b-20) they perish at the rebuke of thy countenance. 18: Let thy hand be upon the man of thy right hand, the son of man whom thou hast reared for yourself! 19: We will not part from thee; thou givest us life that we may call on thy name; 2ί: Restore us, τ δord’ ‘Sabaoth! δet thy face shine, that we may be saved. 491 The future redemption Table 4: Structure and content of Psalm 80 If verse κί:14 is a metaphor for Israel’s enemy who destroyed the vineyard (Israel/ Temple),492 it is inscribed in a divine historical plan and hence carries both the idea of destruction and the hope for redemption. This scriptural context made Psalm 80:14 particularly apt for transferring an eschatological interpretation of Israel´s subjection by Rome in the Rabbinic literature. Sifri Numbers 316-317 One of the earlier (end of the 3 rd cent.?)493 references to Psalm 80:14 is found i n Sifri on σumbers’ interpretation of verses thirteen and fourteen of Deuteronomy thirty two. These verses are part of the blessing and warning God gave to the Israelites before Moses´ death and their crossing of the Jordan into the Holy Land (known as “the song of Moses ”).494 The midrash offers four different readings following the patter n “three-four” [see table 5]. The first reading evokes the time of the Israelites’ conquest of 491 Weiser, The Psalms, 546. In the Masoretic text, the letter ayin of the word ya’ar (forest) is suspended above the line [ ]. It was proposed that it is a clue to a change of the original text which read a ir meyeor ( ) “boar of the σile,” referring to Egypt, while a ir meya’ar ( ) refers to Rome. But, as Marvin E. Tate notes, “the suspension is more likely due to the fact that this was assumed to be the middle consonant of entire Plasterέ” Tate, Psalms, 307. 493 Strack and Stemberger, Introduction, 297. 494 Deuteronomy 32:13-14: “13: He made him ride on the high places of the earth and he did eat the fruitage of the field and He made him to suck honey out of the crag, and oil out of the flinty rock. 14: Curd of kine and milk of sheep with fat of lambs and rams of the breed of Bashan and hegoats with the kidneyfat of wheat and the blood of the grape thou drankest foaming wineέ” 492 185 the Promised Land, and the bounty of the Holy Land in the past; the second speaks of the Temple cult; the third of Torah learning; and the fourth, which will be discussed here, of the bondage to Rome: Another interpretation: “He made him ride on the high places of the earth” (Deutέ 32:13) Ḳ this refers to the world, as it is said, “The boar out of the wood doth ravage it,” [that which moveth in the field feedeth on it] (Ps. 80:14) Ḳ “and he did eat the fruitage of the field” (Deutέ 32:13) Ḳ this refers to the four kingdoms Ḳ “and He made him to suck honey out of the crag, and oil out of the flinty rock” (32:13) Ḳ this refers to the oppressors [metzikim]495 who have taken possession of the Land of Israel, and from which it is as difficult to extract a pĕrutah ]a penny[ as from rock; but in the near future Israel will inherit all of their possessions and will derive pleasure from them as from oil and honey. “Curd of kine” (Deutέ 32:14) Ḳ this refers to their consuls [pitkim] and their generals [hagmonim] Ḳ “and milk of sheep” (Deutέ 32:14) Ḳ this refers to their colonels [klirikim] Ḳ “and rams” (Deutέ 32:14) Ḳ this refers to their centurions [kintornim] Ḳ “of the breed of Bashan” (Deut. 32:14) Ḳ this refers to the privileged soldiers [benifikarim = lat. beneficarius], who extract (food) from between the teeth Ḳ “and hegoats” (Deutέ 32:14) Ḳ this refers to their senators [snokolitim] Ḳ “with the kidney-fat of wheat” Ḳ this refers to their noble ladies [metroniot = lat. matrona] Ḳ “and the blood of the grape thou drankest foaming wine” (Deutέ 32:14) Ḳ in the near future Israel will inherit their possessions and will derive pleasure from them as from oil and honey. 496 The paragraph opens with the reading of Deuteronomy 23:13 in the light of Psalm 80:14. The textual connection between the two verses was probably that both have the word “field Ḳ ” in them: Deut. 32:13 He made him ride on the high places of the earth and he did eat the fruitage of the field. Ps. 80:14 The boar out of the wood doth ravage it [that which moveth in the field feedeth on it]. With this link, the fourth and final reading of the midrash of Deuteronomy 32:13 creates a surprise: while the first three readings create an idyllic climate, interpreting the For the term “metzikim” see: Herr, Roman Rule, 52-53. Sifre 317. Translation by Reuven Hammer, Sifre: A Tannaitic Commentary on the Book of Deuteronomy (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1986), 324, with slight alteration. -" " έ( ) : ," ": , -" "έ ", - " "έ -" "έ -" "έ - " "έ -" -" "έ -" "έ έ 495 496 186 verses as standing for the blessing of the Israelites (the Land of Israel, the Temple, and Torah), the fourth addresses Rome. However, we can see here how the four readings together create an order: the first reading reminds us of the blessing which the people of Israel enjoyed in their land in the past; the second reminds us of the Temple cult; the third speaks of the Torah learning, which is the sages’ occupation, while the fourth describes the future redemption from Roman subjection. The midrash proposed that the blessing of Deuteronomy 32:13-14 will comfort the destruction caused by the boar in Psalm 80:14. Hence a symmetry is created between the blessing and the curse; the past and future; subjection and redemption, between “being eaten” right now (by the boar = Rome) and the future eating of the oppressors of Israel (= the Romans). A shift is created in time from the world of the Temple to the world of the sages, from sacrifices to Torah learning, making the study and fulfillment of the Torah the key to redemption, a condition for the messianic “eating” of Rome. 187 Deuteronomy 32:1-14 He made him ride on the high places of the earth and he did eat the fruitage of the field and He made him to suck honey out of the crag, and oil out of the flinty rock. Curd of kine and milk of sheep with fat of lambs and rams of the breed of Bashan and hegoats with the kidney-fat of wheat and the blood of the grape thou drinkest foaming wine. 1 Past’s blessing Land of Israel Fruits of the land of Israel Figs of Siknin; olive of Gush Halab Readings 2 3 Temple’s cult To rah’s learning Temple Torah Offering baskets of first fruits (Bikurim) Libations of oil Scripture Fourth kingdom Mishnah Oppressors who have taken possession of the Land of Israel, which in the near future Israel will inherit Consuls and their generals Colonels Talmud Solomon’s times Sin offering Ten tribes’ times Solomon’s time Offering of flour Ten-tribes’s time Libations of wine 4 Subjection and Redemption World (=Rome) = the boar of Ps. 80:14 Inferences form the minor to the major, analogies, rules, and answers (to arguments) Laws that are the essence of Torah Homiletic lessons that attract man’s heart like wine Centurions Privileged soldiers Senators Noble ladies Israel will derive pleasure from them as from oil and honey Table 5: The reading of Deuteronomy 32: 13-14 in Sifre 316-317. Bavli Pesaḥim 118b In Bavli Pesa im 118b, the boar of psalm 80:14 is found in a midrash which links psalm 117:1 497, which describes the praising of the Lord by the nations in the messianic Psέ 117:1έ “Praise the Lord, all you nations! Extol him, all you peoples! 2 For great is his steadfast love toward us, and the faithfulness of the δord endures foreverέ Praise the δord!” .ּ ּ ְ - ֹ ְ ְ , ֹ‫ּ ְד‬ έ . ‫ֻמ‬ ּ ּ ‫ש ְב‬, ֹּ ְ ּ ְ 497 188 era, to psalm 68:30-32, which describes the future punishment of Israel’s enemies by God and how the nations of the world in the messianic era will praise the Lord and bring gifts to the Temple.498 The first part of the midrash argues that Israel has more reasons tha n other nations to praise the Lord: Said R. Kahana, 499 “When Rέ Ishmael b. R. Yosé fell ill, 500 Rabbi sent word to him:501 ‘Tell us two or three of the things that you said to us in the name of your fatherέ’ “He sent word to him, ‘This is what father said: “What is the meaning of the verse of Scripture, ‘Praise the δord all your nations (Ps. 117:1)? What are the nations of the world doing in this settingς This is the sense of the statement, ‘Praise the δord all you nations (Psέ 117:1) for the acts of might and wonder that he has done with them; all the more so us, since ‘his mercy is great toward usέ’” 502 The second part of the midrash describes how God will accept gifts from Egypt and Ethiopia: “And further: “Egypt is destined to bring a gift to the εessiahέ He will think that he should not accept it from them. The Holy One, blessed be He, will say to the Messiah, ‘Accept it from them, they provided shelter for my children in Egyptέ’ Forthwith: ‘σobles shall come out of Egypt bringing gifts’ (Psέ θκ:32)έ The Ethiopians will propose an argument a fortiori concerning themselves, namely: ‘If these, who subjugated them, do this, we, who never subjugated them, all the more so!’ The Holy τne, blessed be He, will say to the εessiah, ‘Accept it from themέ’ Forthwith: ‘Ethiopia shall hasten to stretch out her hands to God’ (Psέ θκ:32)έ 503 Ps 68: 30-33έ “Rebuke the wild animals that live among the reeds, the herd of bulls with the calves of the peoples. Trample under foot those who lust after tribute; scatter the peoples who delight in war. Let bronze be brought from Egypt; let Ethiopia hasten to stretch out its hands to God. Sing to God, O kingdoms of the earth; sing praises to the δord, Selahέ” . ּ ‫בז מ ְ ֹ ְפ‬ ‫ְ פ ְב‬ ‫ְב ְ מ‬ ‫ב‬ ְּ έ . ‫ש‬ ְ ּ ֹ ְָ ‫ְ ּש‬ ָ . ּ ְ‫מ‬ ֹ ּ ‫ש‬ ֹ ְ ְ έ . ֹ ‫ּש ת‬ ְ ְ‫ּ ש‬ έ See: Samuel L. Terrien, The Psalms: Strophic Structure and Theological Commentary (Grand Rapids, Mich: William B. Eerdmans Pub, 2003), 485-496. 499 Rabi Kahana was a Babylonian Amora of the first generation (3rd cent.). 500 Rabbi Ishmael b. R. Yosé was a Tana of the fifth generation (2 nd cent. - beginning of 3 rd cent. CE). 501 Rabbi Judah I the Patriarch was a Tana of the fifth generation (2nd cent. - beginning of 3rd cent. CE) 502 B. Pesa im 118b. Translation by Jacob Neusner, The almud: Law, Theology, Narrative: a Sourcebook (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2005), 85-86. , έ : : -" ' ": ς ,( , )" ' ": : . , 503 B. Pesa im 118b. , : , , :( ) ( ) : έ( , )" " , , )" " , : ς , έ( 498 189 The third part of the midrash speaks of Rome which is identified with the rebuked “wild beast of the reeds” in Psalm θκ:3ί which includes three interpretations of the word “reeds” (kaneh ). The first interpretation is as keneh (to take possession): Wicked Rome will then propose ]the same[ argument a fortiori in her own regard: ‘If these, who are not their brethren, are such, then we, who are their brethren, all the more so!’ The Holy τne, blessed be He, will say to Gabriel, “Rebuke the wild beast of the reeds [kaneh[έ” (Psέ θκ:32) Ḳ ‘rebuke the wild beast and take possession ]keneh] of the congregation ]‘edah[έ’ 504 This reading divides Psalm 68:32 - “Rebuke the wild beast of the reeds” - into two parts: the first refers to Rome’s punishment, while the second to the restoration of Israel - God’s congregationέ The second reading makes an illusion to the midrashic tradition according to which Rome was founded on reeds, as for example in Songs of Songs Rabbah: “’εy own vineyard I did not keep (Song 1:θ)’ Ḳ R. Levi said: On the day that Salomon married the daughter of Pharaoh Necho, Michael the great prince came down from heaven and stuck a great pole in the sea, and mud came up on each side so that the place became like a thicket of reeds, and that was the site of Romeέ” 505 Hence Leviticus Rabbah reads “the reeds” in Psalm θκ:32 as the “forest” mentioned in Psalm 80:14: Another interpretation: ‘Rebuke the wild beast of the reeds’ - who dwells among the reeds, ‘the boar out of the wood ravages it, that which moves in the field feeds on itέ’ (Ps 80:14). 506 504 B. Pesa im 118b. ς - , - : ] [ έ έ( )" ": 505 SongR 1:41. Translation by Rivka Ulmer, Egyptian Cultural Icons in Midrash (Berlin: Walter De Gruyter, 2009), 36. ", " . Also Y. Avodah Zara 1:2, 39c; b. Sabbath 56b; Sanhadrin 21b; Song R 1:41. 506 B. Pesa im 118b. έ( , )" ": , -" ": 190 If indeed this reading refers to the tradition of Rome’s foundation on reeds, it links it to the destruction of Israel/ the Temple by the Romans. Rome is the home of the boar, the animal of the reeds, which recalls the Roman myth of Aeneas’s sow, but contrary to that in the midrash, the boar is not a sign of Rome’s fortune, but rather of its criminal nature; it is not a sign of eternal Rome, but rather of its falling. The third reading interprets the word “reeds” (kaneh ) as pen (using the Greek word kolmus, which in rabbinic literature means “reed” or “reed pen”):507 Said R. Hiyya bar Abba: said Rέ Yohanan, “Rebuke the wild beast, all of the actions of which may be recorded with the same penέ” “The multitude of the bulls ]abirim] with the calves of the people” (Psέ θκ:31): they slaughtered the valiant ]adirim] like calves that have no ownersέ “Everyone opens his hand with the desire of moneyέ” (Psέ θκ:31): they open their hand to take the money but do not do what the owner wantsέ “‘He has scattered the people that delight in approaches” (Psέ θκ:31): what brought about that Israel should be scattered among the nations? It [is] the approach [to the nations] which they wanted. 508 Rome, the animal of the reeds - the boar, is described as murderous and a despoiler. Like the midrashic tradition concerning the foundation of Rome as a res ult of King Solomon’s marriage with a non-Jewish woman, the conclusion of the midrash explains Israel’s subjection to Rome as the result of “the approaches to the nations that they ]Israel[ wantedέ” 509 The seeking of proximity with the other is however also the For the word Kolmus in rabbinic literature, see: Brown, “εidrashim,” 185. B. Pesa im 118b. My translation. -( )" "έ : , - ( ) " "έ έ -( )" "έ Parallels: YalkShim Psalms 800. 509 In Exodus Rabbah, the midrash concerning Psalms 68 appears in a slightly different version, preceded by a midrash on the three materials that one should donate to the construction of the Tabernacle [miskan[ and the Temple according to Exodus 2η:3: “And this is the offering which ye shall take of them: gold, and silver and brass,” and the three materials mentioned in Daniel 2:32: “As for that image, its head was of fine gold, its breast and its arms were of silver, its belly and thighs were of brassέ” From the fact that iron, which symbolizes Rome, is not mentioned in either of the verses, the midrash teaches that while the three first kingdoms will be rewarded in messianic times, Rome will not: “Another explanation of “And thou shalt make the boardsέ”ς Preceding this verse, we read: “And this is the offering which ye shall take of them: gold, and silver and brass” (Exέ 2η:3)έ Gold refers to Babylon, for it says, “As for that image, its head was of fine gold” (Danέ 2:32); silver refers to εedia, for it says, “Its breast and its arms were of silver” (ibέ); brass refers to Greece, for it says, “Its belly and thighs were of brass” (ibid). But no mention is made of 507 508 191 reason for Rome’s fall in the futureέ They will believe that because of their family ties with Israel as the descendants of Esau, they will want to bring gifts to the messiah. However, they will be rebuked as is the animal of the reeds, the pig, the emblematic animal of negative hybridism, which is pure and impure at the same time. iron in the construction either of the tabernacle or the Temple. Why? Because Rome, that destroyed the Temple, was likened to iron, and the verse teaches that God will accept gifts from all kingdoms in the time to come, save from Edom [Rome]. But, surely, Babylon likewise destroyed the Temple? Yes, but it did not raze it to the ground, whereas of Edom it is written, “Who said: Raze it, raze it, even to the foundation thereof” (Psέ 137:7)έ Ḳ ]saying to each other[, ‘It still has a foundation! It is on this account, because Edom is compared to it [Iron], that no mention is made of iron in the construction of the tabernacle. Similarly, in the millennium you will find that all nations will bring presents to the king Messiah, Egypt being the first to do soέ When the εessiah will hesitate to accept these gifts from them, God will say to him: ‘εy children found hospitality in Egypt,’ for it says, “σobles shall come out of Egypt; Ethiopia shall hasten to stretch out her hands unto God” (Psέ θκ: 32). Whereupon he will immediately accept their gifts. Ethiopia will then draw an inference for himself, thus: ‘If the εessiah receives gifts from Egypt which enslaved them, then how much more will he receive gifts from us who have never subjected them to slavery? Hence it says, “Ethiopia shall hasten to stretch out her hands unto Godέ” When the other kingdoms will hear this, they will also bring presents, as it says, “Sing unto God, ye kingdoms of the earth” (Psέ θκ:33)έ The kingdom of Edom will then draw an inference for herself, thus: ’If presents were received from those who are not their brothers, then how much more will they be received from us ]who are their brothers[ς’ But when she will be about to bring her present to the Messianic King, God will say to him: “Rebuke the wild beast of the reeds, etcέ” (Psέ θκ: 31), for the whole of that nation is like a wild beast of the reedsέ’ Another explanation “Rebuke the wild beast that sojourns among the reeds,” as it says, “The boar out of the wood doth ravage it” (Psέ κί:14)έ “The multitude of the bulls, with the claves of the peoples” (Ps θκ:31) Ḳ namely, that kingdom that consumes the wealth of peoples, and derives support from Abraham, saying: ‘I descend from them, since Esau was the son of Isaac who was the son of Abrahamέ “Every one submitting himself (mithrappes) with pieces of (razze) silver” (Psέ θκ:31); for even when one has sinned against her ]Edom[ and she is worth with him, yet she opens her palm (mattereth pas) to accept the proffered bribe and becomes reconciled (mith-razzeh) to himέ What is the meaning of “He hath scattered the peoples that delight in war” (Ps. 68:31)? Ḳ That she [Rome] disperses Israel when assembled for the study of the Torah, and gathers them in such places in which the Evil Inclination takes delightέ Another explanation of “He hath scattered the peoples that delight in war”: They scattered Israel across the face of the globeέ Another explanation of this verse: ‘Bizzar ‘ammim’ (He hath scattered the peoples) Ḳ they made Israel zarim (strangers) unto Me. Yet they ]have the effrontery[ now to bring gifts!” ExRέ 3ηέηέ Translation by Sέ εέ δehrman, εidrash Rabbah. Vol. III, Exodus (London: Soncino, 1939), 433-435, with slight alteration. ": , , , " ": , ,( )" ": , ,( )" έ " ς έ ,( )" έ ς έ " , ( )" ": , ,( )" ": : " , . " .( )" ": , ," : " " ": , " έ ,( )" ": " " " έ( ) " , " ," ", -" " " έ ς" έ , -" " " έ 192 Bereshit Rabbati of Moses ha-Darshan To the well known midrashim mentioned above we may add a midrash from the lost Bereshit Rabbati of Moses ha-Darshan, an eleventh-century commentator from Narbonne. In a midrash which is cited in the polemical work of Raymond Martini (1278 CE), Pugio fidei adversus Mauros et Iudaeos (Dagger of the Faith against the Muslims and the Jew),510 Genesis 30:16511 is linked to Psalm 104:20-22:512 “When Jacob came from the field in the evening, δeah went out to meet him,” (Gn 3ί:1θ) Ḳ thus it is written: “You make darkness, and it is night,” (Ps 1ί4:2ί)έ “You make darkness,” (Ibidέ) - this is Israel’s Exile, for Israel darkens their deeds, as it is written: “whose deeds are in the dark,” (Isέ 2λ:1η) Ḳ [for this reason] the Holy one blessed be He, darkens their world as it was said: “The sun and the moon are darkened, and the stars withdraw their shining” (Joel 2:1ί; 4:1η)έ “And it is night,” (Psέ 1ί4:2ί) Ḳ Those are the days of Exile which are as nights for Israelέ “When all the animals of the forest come creeping outέ” (Ibidέ) Ḳ those are the nations of the world which are called “animals of the forest” and trample Israel, as it is written: “The boar out of the wood doth ravage it, that which moveth in the field feedeth on it” (Ps κί:14)έ “The young lions roar for their prey,” (Ps. 104:21) Ḳ “The young lions” those are the nations of the world which deny the Holy one blessed be He, and roar for prey. Said R. Hanina bar Papa: [not just they] deny the Holy one blessed be He and roar for prey but moreover ask the Holy one blessed be He for a reward in the future, as it is written: “seeking their food from God” (Ibidέ) And what is their reward from the Holy one blessed be Heς “When the sun rises, they will withdraw ( )” (Psέ 1ί4:22) Ḳ as “δet Aaron withdraw ( ) to his people” (σumέ 2ί:24)έ The sun of the King-εessiah will rise, as it was written: “like the light of morning rises the sun” (2 Samuel 23:4)έ In this hour will sink the sun of the worshipers of idolatory, as it is says: “they will withdraw ( )” (Psέ 1ί4:22)έ 513 Syds Wiersma, “The Dynamic of Religious Polemics: The Case of Raymond εartin (caέ 122ίcaέ12κη),” Interaction between Judaism and Christianity in History, Religion, Art and Literature , ed. Marcel Poorthuis, Joshua Schwartz, and Joseph Turner (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 197-218. Ursula Ragacs, “Raimundo Martí, τέPέ Biografía”, Valle Rodríguez, Carlos del, Andrés Barcala εu oz, and Domingo εu oz δe n. δa contro ersia udeocristiana en spa aμ (desde os or genes hasta e sig o III μ homena e a Domingo εu o δe n (εadrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, Instituto de Filología, 1998), 301-308. 511 Genesis 3ί:1θ: “When Jacob came from the field in the evening, Leah went out to meet him, and said, "You must come in to me; for I have hired you with my son's mandrakes." So he lay with her that nightέ” 512 Psalms 104:20-22: “You make darkness, and it is night, when all the animals of the forest come creeping out. 21: The young lions roar for their prey, seeking their food from God. 22: When the sun rises, they withdraw and lie down in their dens:”512 513 Moshe Hadarshan, BereshitRabbati, Genesis 30:16, cf. Raymond Martin, Pugio fidei adversus Mauros et Iudaeos, 2.11.10 (fol. 344). Raymundus Martinus, Pugio Fidei adversus Mauros et Judaeos (Leipzig, 1687. Reprint. Farnborough, Eng. 1967), 430. My translation. , -" " έ( , )" ": " " :' , " ;( , )" ": , 510 193 Although some argue that the midrashim cited by Raymond Martini are pure forgeries, it seems that most of them are authentic. 514 In fact, the heart of the midrash discussed here follows Bavli Baba Metzia 83b: R. Zera lectured ḳ others say. R. Joseph learnt: What is meant by, Thou makest darkness, and it is night: wherein all the beasts of the forest do creep forth? Thou makest darkness, and it is night ḳ this refers to this world, which is comparable to night; wherein all the beasts of the forest do creep forth ḳ to the wicked therein, who are like the beasts of the forest. The sun ariseth ḳ for the righteous; the wicked are gathered in ḳ for Gehenna; and lay them down in their habitations ḳ not a single righteous man lacks a habitation as befits his honour. Man goeth forth unto his work ḳ i.e., the righteous go forth to receive their reward; and to his labour until the evening ḳ as one who has worked fully until the very evening. 515 "έ έ " ": " ": " ": " - ,( , ( , -( , -" )" " ,( , " έ( )" , ; , )" )" "ς " ": 194 " )" -( , "( , : ,( , )" )" " )" ," , έ( , έ( , )" ": See: Hananel Mack, Mi-Sodo shel Mosheh ha-darshan (The Mystery of Rabbi Moshe Haddarshan) (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 2010), 269-270 (Hebrew). On the authencity of the midrashim cited by Martini see also: Hananel εack, “The Source and Development of the Shawaten Exposition on the Rescission of the εitzvot,” Sidra 11 (1995): 65-67 (Hebrew). 514 Y. Baer, “The forged εidrashim of Raymond Martini and their Place in the Religious Controversies in the εiddle Ages,” Studies in Memory of Asher Gulak and Samuel Klein (Jerusalem, Palestine: Center for Judaic Studies Hebrew University, 1942), 29-49. For contrary opinions, see: Saul Lieberman, “Raymond Martini and his alleged forgeriesέ” Historia Judaica 5 (1943): 87-102. Ursula Ragacs, “The Forged Midrashim of Raymond Martini Ḳ Reconsidered” Henoch 19 (1997): 59-68. 515 B. Baba Metzia 83b. - " " ς" " : , "έ , - " "έ έ - " ", - " " ;" έ -" ", -" "έ Compare to YalShim Psalms 862. ",' , ", : ' "έ ": , " ", " " ' "έ " :( " ) , "έ ": , ": ", ": , : "έ' " έ έ "έ ": ς" ": : ' έ ", ", ", " "έ ", " "έ " : " Otzar ha-Midrashim (ed. Eisenstein, vol. 1), 409. " " ,( )" ": " " ,( )" ": " " ς )" , , While Bavli Baba Mezia 83b speaks of the wicked and righteous in general, the midrash of Joseph ha Darashan applies it to the distinction between Israel and the nations of the world. The link of the boar of Psalms 80:14 to the wild animals of psalm 104:20 is extremely efficient, for it locates the boar in a temporal scene of night and day, darkness and light, Exile and Redemption (table 6). Psalm 104: 20-22 You make darkness, and it is night, When all the animals of the forest come creeping out. The young lions roar for their prey, seeking their food from God When the sun rises, they will withdraw ( )” Meaning Israel’s sinsέ Exile. The nations of the world that oppressed Israel. The nations that deny God. The nations will ask for a reward in the world to come. The nations’ fallέ Table 6: The interpretation of Psalm 104: 20-22 in Bereshit Rabbati. Discussion The diverse interpretations of Psalm 80:14 link the Boar, the emblematic animal of Rome, to criminal acts such as robbery, stealing, and murder (Sifre Numbers, 316-317; LevR 13.5; GenR 65.1; B. Pesa im 118b; Bereshit Rabbati), or to the Empireή Esau’s hypocrisy; the pig pretends to be pure by showing its hoofs, as Jacob’s brother and the Empire pretend to be just while acting unjustly (LevR 13.5, GenR 65.1). By identifying the boar/ pig alternatively with Esau (GenR. 65.1; MidrPss 120), with the Empire, with “The evil kingdom” or the nations of the world, with the Emperor (MidrPss 80), or with the fourth kingdom of the book of Daniel (Sifre Num 316-317; LevR 13.5), most of the ' ": έ " έ( 195 )" " ,( ) midrashim inscribe the boar/ pig as the means of the historical divine plan of destruction and redemption. In other words, the pig (Rome) is the blow and the remedyέ The “boar out of the wood” is part of a divine symmetrical planέ Hence, the Bavli Kidusin 30a remarks that: “The boar out of the wood ]ya’ar [ devours it” (Psέ κί:14)έ The letter ‘ayin ] ] [of the word] ya’ar [ ] is the half-way ]point of the book of[ Psalmsέ “And he is merciful and he forgives sin” (Psέ 7κ:3κ) is the half-way point of the verses [of the book of Psalms]. 516 The symmetry of the text hints at the symmetry between the destruction (hurban) and redemption (gehula). In the same way that God destroyed the Temple in His rage, He will rebuild it in His mercy, as in the famous midrash about Rabbi Akiba who sees a fox in the ruins of the Temple: “For εount Zion which lies desolate; jackals prowl over it” (δamέ η:1κ): Rabban Gamaliel, R. Joshua, R. Eleazar b. Azariah, and R. Akiba went to Rome. They heard the din of the city of Rome from a distance of a hundred and twenty miles. They all begin to cry, but R. Akiba began to laughέ They said to him, “Akiba, we are crying and you laughς” He said to them, “Why are you cryingς” They said to him, “Should we not cry, that idolaters and those who sacrifice to idols and bow down to images live securely and prosperously, while a footstool of our God has been burned down by fire and become a dwelling place for the beasts of the fieldς So shouldn’t we cryς” He said to them, “That is precisely the reason that I was laughing. For if those who outrage him he treats in such a way, those who do his will all the more so!” There was the further case of when they were going up to Jerusalem. When they came to the Mount Scopus they tore their clothing. When they came to the Temple mount and a fox came out of the house of the Holy of Holies, they began to cryέ But Rέ Aqiba began to laughέ “ Akiba,” you are always surprising usέ σow we are crying and you laughς” He said to them, “Why are you cryingς” They said to him, “Should we not cry, that from the place of which it is written, “And the ordinary person that comes near shall be put to death” (σumέ 1:η1) a fox come out? So the verse of Scripture is carried out: “for εount Zion which lies desolate; jackals prowl over itέ” He said to them, “That is precisely the reason that I was laughingέ For Scripture says, “And I will take for myself faithful witness to record, Uriah the priest and Zechariah the son of Jeberchiah” (ISέ κ:2)έ “σow what is the relationship between Uriah and Zechariah? Uriah lived in the time of the first temple, Zechariah in the time of the second! But Uriah said, “Thus says the δord of hosts: Zion shall be plowed as a field, and Jerusalem shall become heaps” (Jer 2θ:1κ)έ And Zechariah said, “There shall yet be old men and old women sitting in the piazzas of Jerusalem, every man with his staff in his hand for old age” (Zech κ:4)έ And further: “And the piazzas of the city shall be full of 516 " " B. Kidusin 30a. My translation. " - ( , )" "]έέέ[ έ -( 196 , )" - ", boys and girls playing in the piazzas thereof” (Zech κ:η)έ Said the Holy τne, blessed be He, “σow lo, I have these two witnessesέ So if the words of Uriah are carried out, the words of Zechariah will be carried out, while if the words of Uriah prove false, then the words of Zechariah will not be true eitherέ” I was laughing with pleasure because the words of Uriah have been carried out, and that means that the words of Zechariah in the future will be carried outέ They said to him, “Akiba, you have given us consolation. May you be comforted among those who are comfortedέ” 517 A reverse symmetry exists between Rome and Jerusalem, between the flourishing of the first and the destruction of the second and vice versa. The fox and the boar in the holy of holies function in the same way: they are the sign of destruction, but at the same time they inscribe this chaotic catastrophe in the divine plan, pronouncing the future redemption. 518 The animal that marked the destruction of the Temple holds paradoxical meaning: it is the negative sign but also positive. If Rome is the detractor beast, in the end it will be destroyed, as notes the later Midrash on Psalms: “My soul hath long dwelt with him that hateth peace” (Ps. 120:6). Is there any man who hates peaceς Esau hates peaceέ Scriptures says, “I will give you peace in the land” (δevέ 2θ: θ)έ When will there be peaceς The verse goes on to answer, “After I will cause evil beasts to cease out of the land” (ibidέ)έ “Evil beasts” can refer only to the boar, for it is 517 LamR B 5.18. Translation by Jacob Neusner, Neusner on Judaism, vol. 2, Literature (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2005), 441, with slight alteration (Parallels: Sifri Deuteronomy 43.16; ε. Tan’aim Deuteronomy 11.16 ; B. Makot 24b; YalkS Torah Pinhas 782; Aqeb 865; Isaiah 41ί)έ See: Shaye Jέ Dέ Cohen, “The Destruction: From Scripture to εidrash,” Prooftexts 2, no 1 (1λκ2): 3ηέ Shahar, “Rabbi Akiba,” 147 (Hebrew). ' ' ' έ , , ' , , " " , έ" , ' , , , , " , , , ,( , ) , , " ,] [ , , , ,( ) ] [' ,( , ) , " ,( ) , , , , , , έ , , 518 I follow here Inbar Raveh’s analysis of the legend of Rabbi Akiba in Bavli Makot 24b, See: Inbar Raveh, Fragments of Being: Stories of the Sages: Literary Structures and World-View (Or Yehuda, Israel: Kinneret, Zmora-Bitan, Dvir; Beer Sheva: Heksherim Istitute, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, 2008), 140-143. 197 said, “The wild boar out of the wood doth root it up, and the wild beasts of the field devour it” (Psέ κί:14), and the boar is none other than wicked Esauέ 519 The following idea is found in the midrash “pig of the sea, pig of the forest,” in Leviticus Rabbah 13έη: “Daniel beheld the empires engaged in their [subsequent] activitiesέ “I saw in my vision by night, and, behold, the four winds of the heaven broke forth upon the great sea. And four great beasts came up from the sea, diverse one from the other (Danέ 7:2)έ” If you will so merit, it ]the animal[ will come up out of the sea, but if not, from the forest. An animal coming up from the sea is timid, whereas if it comes from the forest, it is not timidέ”520 The following midrash is found in a more elaborate form also in The Fathers According to Rabbi Nathan, version A: “Scripture reads, “The boar out of the wood (ya’ar)” doth ravage it (Ps 80:14), but it is written, The boar our out of the river (ye’or) doth ravage it. “The boar out of the wood doth ravage it” ]according one manuscript: ‘refers to the Roman Empire’[έ For when Israel does not do the will of God, the nations appear to them like “the boar out out of the wood”: even as the boar of the forests kills people and injures folk and smites men, so too, so long as Israel does not do the will of God, the nations kill them and injure them and smite them. But so long as Israel does the will of God the nations do not rule over them. (Then the nations are) like “the boar out of the river”: even as the boar of the rivers kills no people and harms no folk, so too, so long as Israel does His will, no nation or people kills them or harms them or smites them. That is why it is written, “The boar out of the river.” 521 519 MidrPss 120. Translation by Braude, The Midrash on Psalms, 293. ": " έ ς έ( , )] [ "' "ς έ( , ) "]: έ -( , )" ": , ,( , 520 LevR 13.5. Translation by Israelstam, Midrash Rabba, vol. 5, Leviticus, 171. έ έ , έ έ ,( , )" έ 521 ARN A 34. Translation by Goldin, The Fathers, 138. έ] [" "έ έ( ’ )" έ έ : : 198 )" έ( - , " ": " [ , έ ) This midrash makes Israel subject to Rome, and Israel´s liberation is conditioned by its deeds. In some manuscripts of Leviticus Rabbah, the scriptural basis of the midrash is added: “Similar is ]the interpretation of[ “The boar out the wood ]ya’ar] doth ravage it (Ps. κί:14)έ”The letter ‘ayin [in the word ‘ya’ar’] is suspended [ ], [indicating that it might be read as if ye’or (river), meaning]: If you will prove worthy it [i.e the boar] will come from the river, if you will not prove worthy, from the wood; an animal coming from a river is timid, one coming from a forest is not timid.” 522 The uncontrolled, savage force of the boar (Rome) is in some sense domesticated: it’s destructive force is not arbitrary, but rather a direct consequence of Israel’s sinsέ Christian Reading of Psalm 80 (79):14 Christian authors had a somewhat different version of Psalm 80 (79):14 according to the Christian Bible: The Septuaginta Greek’s text reads: “ἐ υ ή α ο αὐ ὴ υ οῦ αὶ ο ὸ ἄγ ο α ῦ ἐ ή α ο αὐ ή ,” 523 while the Latin Vulgate reads: “extermnavit eam aper de silva et singularis ferus depastus est eam:” “The wild boar of the wood has destroyed it, and the solitary wild beast has devoured itέ”524 The Churc h Fathers provided diverse interpretations of Psalms κί (7λ):14, mainly seeing the “boar out of the wood” as Satan, 525 or a furious enemy of Christianity which attacked the Soul or the Church. 526 However, after the fourth century, we find a Christian reading tha t refers to the defeat of the Jews by the Romans. As we have seen, Jerome (d. 408) in his 522 LevR 13.5. Translation by Israelstam, Midrash Rabba, vol. 5, Leviticus, 171. Septuaginta, ed. A. Rahlfs, 2 vols in one (Stuttgart: Württembergische Bibelanstalt, 1979), ii 88 (Psalm 79). 524 Biblia sacra iuxta vulgatam versionem, ed. R. Weber and R. Gryson (Stutgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994), 873. 525 John Chrysostom, Homilies on Philippians 6. The Physiologus as well identified the boar with Satan and the World, the vineyard with the Soul and the Lord. Physiologos 61. French Translation: Physiologos: Le bestiaire des bestiaires, trans. Arnand Zucker, Physiologos: le bestiaire des bestiaires (Grenoble: Millon, 2004), 302-303. For the diabolic image of the boar in Christianty, see: Michel Pastoureau, “Chasser le sanglierέ Du gibier royal à la bête impure: histoire d’une dévalorisation,” Une histoire symbolique du moyen age occidental, 65-77 (Paris: Seuil, 2004), 72-74. 526 Theodoret, Ecclesiastical History 2.10. 523 199 Commentary on Daniel 7:7 notes, “The Hebrews believe that the beast which is here not named is the one spoken of in Psalms: “A boar from the forest laid her waste, and a strange wild animal consumed her” (Psέ κί (7λ):14):”527 It is however Augustine (d. 430) in his Expositions of the Psalms who seems to be the first Christian author to see the Romans in the boar of Psalm 80 (79):14: “The boar from the forest has ravaged it” (Psέ κί (7λ):14)έ What are we to understand by the boar? To the Jews pigs are abhorrent, and typical of the uncleanness of the Gentiles. The Jewish nation was defeated by Gentiles, and the king who defeated it was not merely an unclean pig, but a boar; for what is a boar but a savage pig, a proud pigς “The boar from the forest has ravaged it” (Psέ κί:14)έ “From the forest” means from the Gentilesέ The Jews were a vineyard, the Gentiles a forest. But when the Gentiles came to believe, what does scripture say about thatς “All the trees of the forest will shout for joy” [Ps λη(λθ): 12[έ So “the boar from the forest has ravaged” the vineyard, and “the solitary beast has fed on itέ” (Psέ κί (7λ):14) The boar who wrecked it is a solitary beast, solitary in the sense of proud, for every proud person talks like this: “εe, meέ σo one else mattersέ” 528 Where the sages identify the subjection of Israel by Rome and Israel’s future redemption, Augustine identifies the passage of election from old Israel to the new Israel, from the Jews to Christians. Augustine recognizes the way Jews associated the pig with the impurity of gentiles, but he introduces a hermeneutic twist that transforms the impurity of the gentiles (forest) into purity, while shifting the impurity to the Roman emperor whom he identified with the boar. While Augustine does not name the Roman emperor, Eucherius of Lyons (d. 449 CE) identified the boar with Vespasian and the 527 Jerome, Commentary on Daniel 7:7. PL 25. Translation by Gleason L. Jr., Jerome's Commentary on Daniel Archer (Michigan, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House, 1958), 71-82. See: Van Kooten, George H. “The Desecration of the ‘The εost Holy Temple of all the World’ in the ‘Holy δand’: Early Jewish and Early Christian Recollections of Antiochus ‘Abomination of Desolation,” in The Land of Israel in Bible, History and Theology: Studies in Honour of Ed Noort, ed. Jacques van Ruiten and J. Cornelis de Vos, 291316 (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2009). 528 Translation by Maria Boulding, Saint Augustine, Expositions of the Psalms, 73-98 (Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 2002), 147 . Augustinus, Enarration in Psalmum 79, PL 36, 1025; Augustinus, Exposition in Psalmum 79:11. CCSL 39, pars X, 2. P. 1116. 200 “singular beast” with his son Titus.529 The same reading is developed by Cassiodorus (d. c. 583 CE), who merges it with Augustine’s exegesis: “The boar out of the wood has exterminated it, and a singular wild beast has devoured itέ” (Ps. 80 (79):14). Exterminated, that is, scattered it everywhere beyond the boundaries of its native land, as happened to the Jews; the sense is identical to the earlier phrase, they strip it. Perhaps we should interpret the boar as Vespasian, who showed himself tough and savage to the Jews. This label of boar shows him as foe of the Jews, for they were known to consider this beast as unclean among the rest. Out of the wood means from the Gentiles, who are rightly compared to rough woodland, for as yet they were not implanted with fruitful seed. The boar (aper) is so called because it dwells in rough (asper) regions. The singular wild beast denotes Titus, son of Vespasian, who conducted the closing stages of the war with such grinding ravaging that he destroyed nation and city; he devoured them in fearful fashion like hay Ḳ an inevitable end to the vineyard once the wall was seen to be down. 530 If Cassiodorus omits Augustine’s idea of the transformation of the nations (the forest) from impurity to purity, he introduces the idea that “The boar out of the wood has exterminated it,” referring to Israel’s exile, reading the verb “exterminare” as to exile (exterminus). The three readings discussed here repeat Christian medieval exegesis in different variants. 531 Interestingly enough, the Christian reading recalls Midrash on “Quem significat dicens Exterminauit eam aper de silua et singularis ferus depastus est eam ? Ḳ Aprum hic Vespasianum, ut quidam dicunt, uult intellegi qui Iudaeos bello uastauit; singularem ferum Titum Vespasiani filium qui Hierusalem oppugnatione consumpsitέ” Instrructiones I, xxxvi. Eucherius. Eucherii Lugdunensis Formulae spiritalis intelligentiae; Instructionum libri duo . Eucherius, ed. C. Mandolfo. CCSL 6 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2004), 124. See: Rolf Baumgarten, “The 'pig and vine gloss' and the Lives of St. Brigitέ” Peritia 19 (2005): 232. 530 Translation by P. G. Walsh, Cassiodurus, Explanation of the Psalms, Vol II. Psalms 51-100 (New York: Paulist Press, 1λλ1), 2κλέ Cassiodurus also provides an allegorical explanation: “The boar because of its aggression and excessive strength can be interpreted in a spiritual sense as the devil; out of the wood implies that the devil’s intentions are always rough and deviousέ” Cassiodorus, Expositio in Psalmum 79:14; CCSL 98, II, 2, p. 745. 531 For the history of the Christian interpretation of Ps. 80 (79):14 in the Middle Ages see: Wilfried Schouwink, Der wilde Eber in Gottes Weinberg: zur Darstellung des Schweins in Literatur und Kunst des Mittelalters (Sigmaringen: J. Thorbecke, 1λκη)έ Ibidέ, “The Wild Pig in εedieval Historiography: How a Pagan Devil Becomes a Christian Ruler,” in Atti del V Colloquio della International Beast Epic, Fable and Fabliau Society, Torino–St-Vincent, 5-9 settembre 1983, ed. Alessandro Vitale-Brovarone and Gianni Mombello (Alessandria: Edizioni dell'Orso, 1987), 301-311. The eighth century Glossa in Psalmos writes, for example: “EXTERMINAUIT EAM, [id est] uiniam. APER, id est Nabocodonossor [Nebuchadrezzar], uel Sencaribh ]Senncherib[έ ET SIσGUδARIS FERUS, id est Titus uel Vespassianusέ” Glossa in Psalmos, Codex Palatinus Latinus 68, 79.14 (fol. 16V). Martin McNamara, Glossa in Psalmos: The Hiberno-Latin Gloss on the Psalms of Codex Palatinus Latinus 68 (Psalms 39:11-151:7) (Città del vaticano: Biblioteca apostolica vaticana, 1986), 173. For the manuscript’s date, see εartin εcσamara, The Psalms in the Early Irish Church (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 165-23κέ The Pseudo εeliton’s Clavis (ninth 529 201 Psalm 80: “the boar out of the wood” refers to the emperor ]in some manuscripts “commander of the host”[, while “that which moveth in the field” refers to his generals [ [έ ]Another interpretation[: “that which moveth in the field” refers to bothέ”532 However, contrary to the Christian authors, the sages do not identify the boar with a particular Roman emperor, but rather with the empire in general. While the Christians identified the hoggishness with Vespasian and Titus, whom they see as executers of punishment of the Jews for their rejection of Christ, the sages emphasize the hoggish nature of the empire, which - whether pagan or Christian - does not change its nature. Conclusion Based on Leviticus Rabbah and Jerome, we may conclude that the identification of Rome with the boar of Psalm 80:14 and the fourth beast of the book of Daniel originated at least in the fourth century. However, we do not have any reason to believe, as Mireille Hadas-Lebel proposes, that the identification of Rome with the pig originated in the reading of Psalm 80:14, 533 for the identification has in the rabbinic literature centέ,) writes “Aper, diabolous: “Exterminavit eam aper de silva, et singularis ferusέ Titus et Vespasianusέ Clavis 35. De bestis, S. Melitions clavis, 47. Bruno the Carthusian (1030-11ί1 CE) “‘aper de silva’ procedens, Vespasianus scilicet, qui ferus erat et immundus sordibus vitiorum, sicut aper ferum animal est et sordidum” (PL 152: 1066D). Rupert of Deutz (c. 1075Ḳ1129) writes: “Ut dictum, ita et factum estέ Venerunt enim animalia de silva qua primi ex omnibus gentibus ausi fuerunt ad se missos prophetas et sapientes et Scribas occidere et crucifigere, flagellare in synagogis suis, et de civitate in civitatem persequi ubi erat multiplicitas errorum, et feri homines habitabant, sicut ferae in silva” (PL 168: 623B-C). For the history of the exegesis of Psalm κί (7λ): 14 see: Ute Schwab “Runentituli, narrative Bildzeichen und biblisch-änigmatische Gelehrsamkeit auf der Bargello-Seite des Franks Casketέ” In Runica—Germanica— Mediaevalia [Festschrift for Klaus Düwel]. Eds. Wilhelm Heizmann and Astrid von Nahl. Ergänzungsbände zum Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde 37. (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003), 759Ḳ κί3έ Klaus Speckenbach, “Der Eber in der deutschen δiteratur des εittelalters,” in Verbum et Signum. Beiträge zur mediävistischen Bedeutungsforschung, Festschrift Friedrich Ohly, vol. 1., ed. Hans Fromm, Wolfgang Harms and Uwe Ruberg (Munich: Fink, 1975), 425-476. 532 MidrPss. 80 (ed. Buber). έ έ ] [έ έ έ έ ][ 533 Hadas-Lebel. Jerusalem Against Rome, η17έ Ibidέ “Rome,” 3ί7έ See Fraenkel, Darchei Aggadah VeHamidrash, vol. II, 618, note 128. 202 diverse exegetic proof texts. Most of the midrashim which mention Psalm 80:14 inscribe it in a historical divine plan of subjection -redemption as in its original scriptural context. The historical sense the sages give to Ps. 80:14 is opposite to that which some Christian authors give it. For the sages the boar devouring the vine stands for the fourth kingdom (Rome), which is the last empire but also marks a continuity with the empires before it. The Christian reading sees in it a mark of a historical turning point in the passage from Judaism to Christianity. 203 Source Bereshit Rabbati of Moses haDarshan Date 11th cent. Midrash on Psalm (Buber) 120 Midrash on Psalm 80 Bavli, Pesaḥim 118b Associated with Esau 6th-7th cent. R. Kahana in the name of R. Ishmael, son of R. Jose (3rd cent.) Main idea The nations of the world are called “animals of the forest” (Psέ 1ί4:2ίέ) and trample Israel, as it is written: “The boar out of the wood doth ravage it, that which moveth in the field feedeth on it” (Ps 80:14). Evil beasts can refer only to the boar, for it is said, “The wild boar out of the wood doth root it up, and the wild beasts of the field devour it” (Psέ κί:14), and the boar is none other than wicked Esau “the boar out of the wood” refers to the emperor. Another interpretation: ‘Rebuke the wild beast of the reeds’ - who dwells among the reeds, ‘the boar out of the wood ravages it, that which moves in the field feeds on itέ’ (Ps κί:14)έ The letter ‘Ain ] ] [of the word] ya’ar [ ] is the half-way [point of the book of] Psalmsέ ‘And he is compassionate, forgave the sin” (Psέ 7κ:3κ) is the halfway point of the verses [of the book of Psalms]. The boar out of the wood or the boar out of the river. Bavli Kidusin 30a 6th-7th cent. Leviticus Rabbah,13.5 and Avot deRabbi Nathan A 34.19 Leviticus Rabbah,13.5 Genesis Rabbah, 65.1 4th-5th cent. R. Phinehas and R. Hilkiah, in the name of R. Simon (2nd cent.) 4th-5th cent. Esau, Fourth kingdom, Lev. 11:7 Esau, Lev. 11:7. R. Simon b. Pazzi; R. Simon (3rd cent.) Fourth kingdom The pig pretends to be pure. Fourth kingdom “He made him ride on the high places of the earth” (Deutέ 32:13)έ This refers to the world, as it is said, “The boar out of the wood doth ravage it,” ]that which moveth in the field feedeth on it] (Ps. 80:14) Jerome, Commentary on Daniel 7:7 Sifre on Numbers, 316-317 d. 408 3rd cent. Daniel 7:7 Table 7 : Psalm 80:14 and the Association of the Pig with Rome 204 Chapter 9 Why is it called ḥazir? In the midrash “why is it called azirς” the sages placed great importance on the pig’s name, seeing it as embodying a deep meaning of the quality and fate of what is named. 534 As we have seen in chapter thirteen of Leviticus Rabbah, this midrash explains the name of the pig ( a ir) as embodying the promise of redemption: “The pig” (δevέ 11:7) - this refers to Edom ]Rome[έ “Which does not bring along in its train” - for it did not bring along another kingdom after itέ And why is it then called “pig” ( a ir)? For it restores (me a zeret) the crown to the one who truly should have it. That is in line with the following verse of Scripture: “And saviors will come up on εount Zion to judge the Mountain of Esau [Rome], and the kingdom will then belong to the Lord (Ob. 1:21). 535 According to this midrash, in messianic times Israel will “judge” Rome, a term that may be understood as meaning to rule, but more plausibly as taking vengeance. The midrashic explanation of the nature of the pig (by his name), that it is called ‘ a ir’ “because it is destined to restore (lehahzir) sovereignty to its owners,” seems to play with the common Greco-Roman notion that the pig pays for its crime. 536 Rome, the boar, is the destroyer of Israel but also the kingdom that will restore the kingdom to Israel, for as the Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael notes, God “in what He strokes - He curesέ”537 In this chapter we will observe later versions of the midrash “why is it called a irς,” namely from Ecclesiastes Rabbah and Hamidrash HaGadol, where we find a tension between different conceptions of the messianic era. τn midrashim on animals’ names in the τld Testament, see: εoshe Garsiel, Midrashic Name Derivations in the Bible (Ramat-Gan: Revivim, 1987), 51-53 (Hebrew). 535 LevR 13.13. Translation by Neusner, Judaism and Christianity, 222-223. ς "έ ,( , )" ", - " " έ( )" ' ": ," 536 As the Greek expression goes: ”Pig, you will give back grape-pips;” as the Suda explains: “that is, you will give back more than you ate upέ ]This is applied[ to those paying a penalty greater than their sinsέ” Suda, Adler, alpha, 3600: Suda On Line: Byzantine Lexicography, <www.stoa.org/sol/< consulted September 10, 2009. 537 Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, beshalach 5. My translation. "έ ]έέέ[ " " 534 205 Ecclesiastes Rabbah Ecclesiastes Rabbah (7th-9th centuries) relates the midrash “why is it called a irς” in its interpretation of Ecclesiastes 1:9.538 The midrash opens by declaring that in the eschatological times only Israel will be rewarded: “That which hath been is that which shall be” ]and that which has been done is that which will be done. So there is nothing new under the sun.] (Ecc. 1:9). The Rabbis say: In the Hereafter the generations will assemble in the presence of the Holy one, blessed be He, and say before Him, ‘δord of the Universe, who shall utter a song before Thee firstς’ He will answer them, ‘In the past none but the generation of εoses uttered a song before εe, and now none but that generation shall utter a song before εeέ’ What is the proofς As it is said, “Sing unto the δord a new song, and His praise from the end of the earth; ye that go down to the sea” (Is. 42:10). 539 From a point of view which holds that a radical change will occur in the messianic era, the idea of Ecclesiastes 1:λ “that which hath been is that which shall be” is problematic. The midrash resolved this problem by stating that in the messianic era the “new song” will be that of εoses’ generation, portraying the messianic era as a return or restoration rather than a radical change. This is an idea developed further on in the following episode the midrash relates concerning Rabbi Meir and the Romans: τnce ]the Roman[ government dispatched a message to our Rabbis, saying, ‘Send us one of your torchesέ’ They said, ‘They possess ever so many torches and they want one torch from us! What multitudes of torches they have; what abundance of precious stones and pearls! It seems to us that they want of us nothing else than somebody who enlightens (meir) faces with legal decisions [halaha [έ’ They sent Rέ εeir to them, and they asked him many questions, all of which he answered. Finally they asked him why he [the pig] is called ‘ a ir’, and he replied, ‘Because it is destined to restore (lehahzir) the sovereignty to its ownersέ’ Rέ εeir continued to sit and expound: A time will come when the wolf For the date of this midrash, see: Reuven Kiperwasser, “Sturcture and Form in Kohelet Rabbah as Evidence of Its Redaction,” The Journal of Jewish Studies 58, no. 2 (2007): 283-302. 539 EcclR 1.9. Translation by A. Cohen, Midrash Rabbah, vol. VIII, Ruth and Ecclesiastes (London: Soncino Press, 1939), 31-32. , : ", ] , ; , - [ " : ς " : " έ( )" ' ' ": ς , 538 206 will have a fleece of fine wool and the dog a coat of ermineέ They said to him, ‘Enough, Rέ εeir! ‘There is nothing new under the sun’ (Ecc. 1:9). 540 The midrash explains two names: Meir and a ir (“pig”)έ Rabbi εeir ( named so because he “illuminates,” ( ) is ), as he brings his followers to know the light of God. He is both illuminated and illuminates, for his inner source of light, of wisdom, “makes his face to shine” (Ecclesiastes κ:1)έ541 The pig is named a ir ( returns (mahzir ) because he ). The juxtaposition of the two names, Meir and a ir, creates an esthetic enjoyment for the names rhyme with each other, but this also creates contradiction (the sage Ḳ the abominable animal). 542 It is probably not accidental that Rabbi Meir is the hero of the midrash. Was it because according to another midrash Rabi Meir pretended to eat pork in Rome? 543 Was it because Rabbi Meir was allegedly descended from Caesar Nero who converted to Judaism? 544 What is clear is that, in both 540 EcclR 1.9. , , ς έ : : ' , 207 έ ' ς έ : ς έ( )" ", ' : Another version appeared in Moses Gaster, The Exempla of the Rabbis (based on a manuscript from Persia, 16th century): “The Emperor asked for a luminary among the sages to be sentέ Rέ εeir was sent to the Emperor as being one who lit up the world with his wisdom. He was asked various questions about swine and why they are called “ azirim”έ He explained that the name “ a ir” means “returning” iέeέ profit to the owner but that the profit of them who keep aloof from any creeping and unclean thing was far greaterέ” Moses Gaster, The Exempla of the Rabbis; Being a Collection of Exempla, Apologues and Tales Culled from Hebrew Manuscripts and Rare Hebrew Books (New York: Ktav, 1968), 99. 541 B. Eruvin 13b. έ' ς ' έ ' , ' : " See: Galit Hasan-Rokemέ “Rabbi εeir, the Illuminated and the Illuminating: Interpreting Experience,” Current Trends in the Study of Midrash, ed. Carol Bakhos (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 227-243. Also: Avigdor Shinan, “δight and Blindness in the Stories of the Rabbis,” Migvan 2 (2003): 75-92 (Hebrew). 542 If the Romans ask, “why he ]the pig[ is called ‘ a ir,’” it is probably because the question refers to Esau, the father of Edom = Rome according to the Sages, which is mentioned in δevitcus Rabbah’s version’s citation of τbadiah 1:21έ 543 B. Avoda Zara 18b; EcclR 7.12.1. 544 B. Gittin ηθaέ “He sent against them σero the Caesarέ As he was coming he shot an arrow towards the east, and it fell in Jerusalem. He shot one towards all four points of the compass, and each time it fell in Jerusalem. He said to a certain boy: Repeat to me [the last] verse of Scripture you have learnt. He said: And I will lay my vengeance upon Edom by the hand of my people Israel (Ezek. 15:14). He said: The Holy One, blessed be He, desires to lay waste his House and to lay the blame on me. So he ran away and became a , : : stories, Rabbi Meir in Rome is by his acts or his statements, a trickster. As such, he is glorified and mocked at the same time. Hence, following his witty midrash about the pig, Rabbi εeir is presented as going too far with his exegetical imaginary when he says,” A time will come when the wolf [a pig Ḳ according to Hamidrash Ha Gadol] will have a fleece of fine wool and the dog a coat of ermineέ” 545 This saying recalls the Latin proverb: “Ab asino lanam quaeris - you're looking to get wool from a donkey,” referring to a vain, impossible action.546 Hence the Romans were made to express the rebuke of the sages, 547 “Enough, Rέ εeir! ‘There is nothing new under the sun’” (Eccέ 1:λ)έ” Indeed Rabbi εeir is portrayed in the Bavli as one whose reasoning is so sharp that even his fellow sages did not understand it: Rabbi Acha bar Chanina said, “It is revealed and known before the Creator of the Universe that there was no one in Rabbi Meir's generation who was Rabbi Meir's peer. And why doesn’t the law follow him? Because his peers could not follow his logic, when he declares impure Ḳ pure, and brings reasons to it and declares pure Ḳ impure and brings reasons to itέ”548 proselyte, and Rέ εeir was descended from himέ” According σaomi Gέ Cohen, Rabbi Meir is the only Talmudic figure named “εeirέ” The name dos not appear in the Bible or in any Jewish texts before the Ga’aonic periodέ She believes the name is a transliteration of a name from Asia minorέ While the legend on the conversion of his father Nero is linked to his origin from Asia Minor, according to the Roman and Christian legend, σero hides after he commits “suicideέ” The rabbinic legend of σero´s conversion is according to Cohen part of the Jewish polemic with the Christian legend concerning Nero as anti-Christian. σaomi Gέ Cohen, “Rabbi εeir: A Descendant of Anatolian Proselytes,” JJS 23 (1972): 51-59. 545 Midrash HaGAdol, Shemini 11.7. My translation. Italics mine. Midrash Hagadol to Leviticus, ed. A. Steinsaltz (Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook, 1975), 249 (Hebrew). έ ' The fact that the pig is not sheered is mentioned in Midrash Zuta, Song of Songs (ed. Buber) 1.15. 546 The proverb originated from Aristophanes, The Frogs (186) where Charon, the boatman to the underworld, asks: ἰ οῦ π ον, ἰ ὄνου πό α ; "who's for the plain of δetheς Who's for the donkey's wool?" The use of Ecclesiastes 1:9 to criticize messianic sayings is found also in Bavli Sabbath 30b. 547 Shraga Abramson thinks that it is the Sages who are speaking and not the Romans, see: Shraga Abramson, “Ma'amar Chazal U-Perusho (A Rabbinic Saying and Its Interpretation),” Molad 27, new series 4 (1971): 421-429 (Hebrew). 548 B. Eruvin 13b. My translation. " . 208 The joke’s sting in Ecclesiastes Rabbah is that Rabbi Meir seems to go too far not just for his fellows sages but even for the Romans. However, while the Romans seemed to refuse Rabbi εeir’s messianic optimism, they implicitly admit that their ferocious animal nature will not change in the future. This turns against the Romans in the next part of the midrash, which argues that only Israel, not the pork eaters, will be rewarded in the future: The Rabbis say: In the Hereafter the Holy One, blessed be He, will send forth a herald to announce, ‘Whoever has not partaken of swine’s flesh in his lifetime, let him come and take his reward’; and many who belonged to the Gentile peoples who never partook of swine’s flesh will come to receive their rewardέ At that time the Holy τne, blessed be He, will declare, ‘These wish to be rewarded in both worldsέ σot enough for them that they enjoyed their world [upon earth], but they also seek to enjoy the world of my children! At that time the Holy One, blessed be He, will send forth a herald a second time to announce, ‘Whoever has not partaken of the flesh of animals which had not been ritually slaughtered or of animals disqualified for food or of the animals and reptiles prohibited by the Torah, ]let him come and receive his rewardέ’ But there were none, apart from Israel, because,] if [a Gentile] had not partaken of the flesh of such animals which belonged to himself he did so of animals which belonged to another. Hence, why is the pig called ‘ a ir,’ς Because it is destined to restore greatness and sovereignty to those to whom they are dueέ” 549 The midrash seems to be distorted. If it refers to the Romans, the pork eaters, why does it speak about “Gentile peoples who never partook of swine’s flesh”? And if it is not pork which is the focus of the midrash, why does the midrash finish with “why it is called “ a ir”? The answer may perhaps be found in the Midrash HaGadol’s version of the midrash (Yemen, 14th cent.). 549 EcclR 1.9. , : : : - " έ : , " " : έ , έ 209 Hamidrash HaGAdol “And the Pig” (δevέ 11:7) The Rabbis say: τnce ]the Roman[ government dispatched a message to our Rabbis, saying, ‘Send us one of your torchesέ’ The Sanhedrin assembled and said: ‘They possess ever so many lighted candles and torches, abundance of precious stones and pearls and they ask from us torches!? It seems that they want of us nothing else than somebody who enlightens (meir) faces with legal decisions [ha a a[έ’ What did they doς They sent Rέ εeir to themέ And why he is called εeirς For he illuminates (meir) faces in legal decision [ha a a]. And when he entered to Rome the sons of Rome asked him: why the pig’s name is ‘ a ir’? He replied: ‘Because it is destined to return ( a zor )έ’ They said to him: “Enough, Rέ εeir! ‘There is nothing new under the sun’” (Ecc. 1:9). And furthermore they ]the Romans[ asked him why his name is called ‘ a ir,’ς He said to them: ‘It will restore (leha zir) the reward to its ownersέ’ In the Hereafter the Holy τne, blessed be He, will send forth a herald to announce, ‘Whoever has not partaken of swine’s flesh, let him come and take his reward’; and many of the nations of the world who did not partake of swine’s flesh since this day will come to receive their rewardέ At that time the Holy τne, blessed be He, says: ‘These wish to be rewarded in both worlds. Not enough for them that they enjoyed [lit. eat] their world [upon earth], but they also seek to enjoy [lit. to eat] the world of my children!? At that time the Holy One, blessed be He, will send forth a herald to announce a second time: ‘Whoever has not partaken of the flesh of animals which had not been ritually slaughtered [nebelot], animals disqualified for food [trefot] or of reptiles and vermin [skatzim] and insects [remasim[ let him come and receive his rewardέ’ But there is none of the nations of the world which did not eat nebelot, trefot, skatzim and remasim. And if he did not eat [it all/pork] he dipped [in its] sauce and if he did not dip in [its] sauce he cooked it in a pot. Hence, it is found to return [ma zir[ good reward to its ownerέ’ Concerning it scripture says “A wise king winnows the wicked, and drives the wheel over them” (P roverbs 20:26). And R. Meir said furthermore: A time will come when the pig will have a fleece of fine wool and the dog a coat of ermine. 550 This midrash refers to the punishment of pork eaters; although they were to stop eating pork “since that day” Ḳ since the day God proclaimed, “Whoever has not partaken of swine’s flesh, let him come and take his reward,” they will be punishedέ Hence, the 550 έ " : : έ Midrash Hagadol (ed. A. Steinsaltz), Shemini 11.7, 248-249. My Translation. Italics mine. "έ : έ " έ " , ς : ς έ ' έ ς : : . έ( , ? ς )" : : ' έ( , 210 )" " : : " " conclusion that the pig “will restore (leha zir) the reward to its ownersέ” The overall message of the midrash is that in the messianic era nature will not change; “that which hath been is that which shall be and that which has been done is that which will be done. So there is nothing new under the sun” (Eccέ 1:λ)έ The messianic era is described as an era of restoration: the pig [Rome] will return the kingdom to Israel, God will punish the pork eaters but not will not change the pig´s nature (make it pure/eatable), for as the sages state elsewhere: “The only difference between the present and the Messianic era is that political oppression will then cease” (B. Sanhedrin 91b).551 In this line, the midrash limits the messianic expectations, and probably polemicizes with the radical conception of the messianic era in Judaism and especially in Christianity. Discussion Famously, in the Dispute of Tortosa (1413-1414), the convert from Judaism Geronimo de Santa Fé (Joshua Halorki), brought against the Jews another version of the midrash, “why is it called azirς that it will be restored to Israelέ”552 Santa Fé / Halorki 551 B. Sanhedrin 91b. . “ " ς ” see: Géronimo de Santa Fe, Sefer ha-Pikkurim, 9.A “Propter quid porcus vocatur hazir, quod idem est quod redibile? Quoniam Deus restituet ipsum ad Israel.” Lopez Antoni Pacios, La Disputa de Tortosa , II, Actas, (Madrid: Iselan, 1957), 262. Isaac Abarbanel (d. 1509) in his Rosh Amanah and Yeshu'ot Meshiho. See: Don Yitzhak Abravanel, Rosh Amanah. The Priniciples of Faith, ed. Menachem Kellner (Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1993), 102 (Hebrew). And Yeshu'ot Meshiho, 258. Yitzhak Abravanel, Yeshu'ot meshiho (Konigsberg, 1861), 70. Baer argues that the Jews did not answer honestly when they argued that they do not know the midrash ‘why is it called azirς” Baer, “The forged εidraschim of Raymond Martini,” 40, note 1. H. Albek, argues that the Jews only ask to see the book mentioned by Joshua Halorki before they debate the midrash. Hέ Albekέ “Addition to Y. Baer, ‘The forged εidraschim of Raymond Martini and their Place in the Religious Controversies in the εiddle Ages,’” in Studies in Memory of Asher Gulak and Samuel Klein (Jerusalem: Center for Judaic Studies Hebrew University, 1942), 49. 552 211 argued that in the messianic era the Jews will be authorized to eat pork. The midrash appeared much earlier in Peter Alfonsi´s Dialogue against the Jews (wr. 1109):553 “Even your sages attest to this, who said that after the advent of Christ all meats ought to be permitted and eaten. But also on account of this they said that the meat of a pig is called “ azir” ( ), that is, “changeable,” since after the advent of Christ it had to be changed from inedible to edibleέ” 554 Approximately one century later, the same midrash appears in An Anonymous Treaty against the Jews (ca. 1200-1235): 555 “Why is it called azir? For it will be returned to be eatable to Israelέ”556 The Christian versions, especially that of the Dispute of Tortosa, are similar to a common version in High and Late Medieval Jewish soruces: “why is it called azir? for the Holy One, blessed be He, will return it ( eha zira / will return it ( eha ziro ) ) to Israelέ” 557 Hence, Adin Steinsaltz believes tha t 553 On the influence of this work, see: John Tolan, Petrus Alfonsi and his Medieval Readers (Gainsville, FL: University Press of Florida, 1993), 95-131. 554 “Hoc etiam testantur doctores vestri, qui dixerunt post adventum Christi carnes omnes absolvendas esse et comediέ Sed et propter hoc “ azir ] [, id est “convertibilem”, appelatam esse dixerunt carnem porci, quod post adventum Christi de incomestibili in comestibilem debebat convertiέ” Petrus Alfonsi, Di ogo contra os ud os, ed and transέ John Victor Tolan, Klaus-Peter εieth, Esperanza Ducay, and εaría Jes s δacarra (Huesca [Spain]: Instituto de Estudios Altoaragoneses, 1996), 189. Translation by Irven M. Resnick, Petrus Alfonsi, Dialogue Against the Jews (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2006), 268. The text is cited also in Francisco Machado, Espelho de Christãnos novos (Mirror of the New Christians) (Alcobaça, Portugal, 1541). Francisco Machado, The Mirror of the New Christians, ed. trans. and introd. Evelyn Vieira Mildred and Ephraim Frank Talmage (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1977), 184. On Francisco εachado’s use of Petrus Alphonsi, see: John Tolan, Petrus Alfonsi and his Medieval Readers (Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 1993), 119-120. 555 On the date of the Tratado, see: José εέ εillás Vallicrosa, “Un tratado an nimo contra los judios,” Sefarad 13 (1953): 8. The midrash is told after arguing that God permited all foods during creation, for He declared all his Creation good (Gn. 1:1-25). It further argues that the reason for the food avoidance in the Old Testament was to avoid idolatry among the Israleites, and that the real sense of the commandments is allegorical. The author argues that with the coming of Christ, the new convenant abolishes the food avoidanceέ The midrash “why is it call azirς” is told in order to reinforce this argument. 556 “δama nicra semo a ir ha ssum sseyah ir eheho isçrae έ” εillás Vallicrosa, “Un tratado,” 33έ Josep Hernando, “Tractatus adversus Iudaeosέ Un tratado an nimo de polémica antijudía (sέXIII),” Acta historica et archaeologica mediaevalia 7-8 (1986-1987): 74. 557 The answer “ " / ” is found inter alia in: Ibn Shaprut, Even Bohan 11.15 (wr. 1385). Norman E. Frimer The Preparation of a Critical Edition of the Manuscript Eben Bohan by Shem Tob bar Yitzhak Shaprut, Phd Dissertation (New York: Yeshiva University, 1953), 82. RITVA’s (Yom Tov ben Abraham Asevilli, Spain, 1250-1330) interpretation to B. Kiddushin 59b. Ritva, Commentary to the Talmud (Hiddushei ha -Ritva), Kiddushin, ed. R. Avraham Dinin (Jerusalem: Mossad HaRav Kook, 1985), 526 (Hebrew). Rabbi Abba Mari of Lunel in his Min at kenaot 2. 20-30 (wr. c. 1310). Rabbi Abba Mari of Lunel, Min at kenaot in Solomon ben Adret, Teshuvot ha-Rashba le-Rabenu She omoh b.R. A raham ben Adretν ṿe-tsoraf la-hen Sefer εin at ena ot e-R. Aba Mari de-Lunil, vol. I.1 212 Hamidrash HaGadol’s version (“Because it is destined to return ( a zor )”), which comes from the Muslim world, is the original uncensured version, while Ecclesiastes Rabbah’s version (“Because it is destined to restore (leha zir ) the sovereignty to its owners”) was a result of Jews’ self-censorship in Christian Europe. 558 If so, how should we explain that the most ancient version - in Leviticus Rabbah (“For it restores (me azeret ) the crown to the one who truly should have itέ”) Ḳ offers a similar idea to that of Ecclesiastes Rabbah? As Shraga Abramson notes, we find this idea in the sixth century piyyut of Yannai, where it is stated that God in the messianic era “will break down the pig ( a ir ) and kingship [to Israel] will return (ya zir )έ”559 Rather tha n trying to identify the original, uncensured version of the midrash, we can see in the diverse answers to the question, “why is it called a irς” a reflection of diverse opinions concerning the messianic era (table 8). In fact, if, as Steinsaltz proposes, the Hamidrash HaGadol’s version is the oldest one, it contains a polemic between two messianic interpretations of the name of the pig. The first is that the pig is called a ir for it will “return,” in the sense that the pig will become pure (edible) to Israel, but this interpretation is rejected for “there is nothing new under the sun’” (Ecc. 1:9). Hence comes the second interpretation, which is the correct one: “It will restore (leha zir) the reward to its owners,” in the sense that God will punish the pork eatersέ (Jerusalem: Mosad ha-Rav u ; εakhon le-hotsa at rishonim ṿe-a aronim, 1λλί), 232 (Hebrew)έ Jacob ben Sheshet of Gerona, Sefer meshiv devarim nekhohim 3, lines 82-92 (wr. c. 1240). Jacob ben Sheshet, Sefer Meshiv Devarim Nekhohim, ed. Georges Vajda (Jerusalem: Israeli Academy of Science, 1968), 81-82 (Hebrew). Menahem Tzioni (14-15th Cent.). Sefer Tzioni (Jerusalem, 1964), 47 (Shemini) (Hebrew). And Isaac Abarbanel (d. 1509) in his Rosh emuanah and Yeshu'ot Meshiho. Abravanel, Rosh Amanah, 102; Ibid. Yeshu'ot meshiho, 70. 558 Adin Steinsaltz, “Atid ha-Kadosh Baruh Hu le- a a iro,” Tarbiz (1967): 297-298 (Hebrew). 559 Yannai, Keroba to Deutronomy 2:2. My translation. Menachem Zulay, Piyyute Yannai, (Liturgical Poems of Yannai) (Berlin: Schocken 1938), 23ίέ Abramson, “Ma'amar Chazal U-Perusho,” 423 (Hebrew). . ή] [ 213 Source Midrash HaGadol Date 13th cent. Ecclesiastes Rabbah Leviticus Rabbah 13.5 7th-9th cent. 4th-5th cent. Answer ‘Because it is destined to return´ ( a zor) ‘It will restore (leha zir) the reward to its ownersέ’ ‘Because it is destined to restore (leha zir) the sovereignty to its ownersέ’ ¨For it restores (me azeret) the crown to the one who truly should have it´. Hebrew έ . Table 8: The different answers to the question, “why is it called azir”ς in midrashic literature The Christians argue that the pig was pure since the creation of the world, and that the coming of Jesus did not change the pig´s nature but rather changed the nature of the Hebrew Bible law. The avoidance of pork traded its literal meaning for a spiritual one: God does not ask man not to eat pork, but asks him not to behave like a pig. The avoidance of pork was imposed temporarily on the Jews because of their sinful nature. In a sense the Christians argued that, regarding animal purity, “That which hath been is that which shall be” (Eccέ 1:λ), that the impurity of animals was an innovation of Sinaiέ Hence, with the coming of Christ, the status of the pig returned to its original one. The sages, on the other hand, made the pig stand for the future punishment of Rome for its sins against Israel, for “that which hath been is that which shall be” (Eccέ 1:λ)έ Furthermore, not only will the avoidance of pork not cease to be respected in the messianic era, but also God will punish the eaters of pork. This idea is elaborated in the Midrash on Psalms (Buber)’s interpretation of Ecclesiastes 1:9: “The δord sets prisoners free,” (Psέ 14θ:7)έ What does “sets prisoners free” meanς Some say: every animal that is unclean in this world will be purified by the Holy One, blessed be he, in the World to Come, and so it is written: “What was is what will be, and what was made is what will be made” (Ecclέ 1:λ); “what was made” - whatever [animals] were made [created] before the time of Noachides were [considered] clean, and so it is written, “I gave you everything as the green herb” (Gnέ λ:3)έ Just as I gave the green herb to everyone, so [I gave] beasts and animals to everyone from the beginning. Why, then, did he forbid it? In order to see who would obey his command and who would disobey; in the World to come, he will permit everything that he forbade. But some say that he will not permit them in the World to Come for, as it is written: “those who eat swine’s 214 flesh…]shall come to an end together[” (Isέ θθ:17)έ If he cuts down and destroys whoever ate them, how much more so [God will consider impure] the unclean animal [itself]? 560 The midrash seems to interpret “the δord sets prisoners free (matir asurim)” (Ps. 14θ:7) as “the δord permits the prohibited (matir isurim)έ” The midrash provides two additional interpretations, besides the abrogation of food avoidances: 1) the abrogation of the prohibition of Niddah, of having intercourse during menstruation (because women will have no more menstruation), and 2) The resurrection of the dead ( ), when God will liberate the dead from the prison of death. 561 The first interpretation regarding impure foods opens with the argument that in the times of Noah it was declared that all food was pure (based on Gn. 9:3), which the Christians used as proof that the food avoidances of the Hebrew Bible were temporary. This idea is rejected by the argument that God gave the commandments to Israel to test the willingness of Israel and the nations of the world. The idea of the abrogation of the food avoidances in the messianic era is rejected by the citation of Isaiah 66:17. This verse is understood not only as proof that the nations of the world will be punished in the future, but also as an argument a priori that if God will be so severe with those who eat impure animals, how much stricter will he be concerning the impure status of those animals themselves. The midrash on Psalm 146 560 MidrPss 146. Translation by Rokeah, Justin Martyr, 112-113, with slight alteration. Rokeah translates the final phrase of the midrash as, “how much more so [will he destroy] the unclean animal ]itself[”έ However, it seems to me that that this phrase refers to the question of the status of impurity of animals in the messianic era, with which the midrash opens. " ς" " έ( , )" ' " : " , ,( , )" ": " , , , , ,( , )" " : " , έ , , . , ,( , ) "' " 561 MidrPss 146. , " , ς( , )" " ": , ,( , )" ", " , , ,( , )" ,( , )" ": , , , , ' έ 215 perhaps originated from Bereshit Rabbati of Moses ha-Darshan (11th cent.) and was integrated into Midrash on Psalms between the eleven and twelfth centuries. 562 The midrash therefore seems to reflect a High Medieval polemic with Christianity. A later midrash which plays with the idea that the pig will return asks, “Why is it [Rome] compared to the pig ( azir)?” answering, “Because the Holy One is going to pay it (leha zir) with strict judgment,” 563 as for example in εidrash Tan uma: ‘These, However, you may not eat (…): The camel (…); The rock badger (…); The hare (…); And the pig’ (δevέ 11:4-7). The camel (gamal) represents the kingdom of Babylon, since it is stated: ‘τ daughter of Babylon, who are to be destroyed, ]blessed is the one who repays you the recompense (gemuleh) with which you recompense (shegamalt) us’ (Ps. 137:8). The rock badger represents the kingdom of Media, since it is stated: So humans sought to destroy ]all the Jews[…(Esthέ 3:θ)έ The hare alludes to Greece, because it brought low the Torah from the mouth of the prophets. The pig represents the evil kingdom of Edom, since it is stated: ‘The pig of the forest gnaws at it’ (Psέ κί:14)έ Why is it compared to the pig ( azir)? Because the Holy One is going to pay it back ( azir) with strict judgment. How? In the age to come the Holy One will issue a proclamation: Whoever has been engaged in the Torah may come and receive his reward. Then the gentiles also will say: Give us our reward, for we also have performed such and such a commandment. The Holy One [however] has said: Whoever has not eaten abhorrent creatures and creeping things may receive his reward. At that time they [will] receive their judgment ( ),564 as stated: ‘Those who eat the flesh of the pig, the abhorrent creature, and the mouse shall be consumed together, says the δord’ (Isέ θθ:17)έ 565 On the date of the midrash, see: εack, “The Source,” θκ. The midrash cited in Raymond εartini’s Pugio fidei tells a similar version: έ( , )" ": ' ,( , )” " )" " :' " ,( , ς( , )" " ,( , )" " :' " ' ( , )" " :' "' " " ,( , )" έ ς Raymond Martini, Pugio fidei adversus Mauros et Iudaeos 3.3.11. Raimundus Martini and Joseph de Voisin. Raymundi Martini Pugio fidei adversus Mauros et Iudaeos.: Cum observationibus Iosephi de Voisin (Lipsiae, 1687), 802-803. 563 Midrash Hagada (ed. Buber), Leveticus 11.5. Tan (ed. Buber), Shemini 14; YalkShim, Shemini 536. 564 On the word see: Daniel Sperber, A Dictionary of Greek and Latin Legal Terms in Rabbinic Literature (Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1984), 52-54. 565 TanB Shemini 14. Translation by John T. Townsend, Midrash Tanhuma (S. Buber Recension), vol. 2. Exodus and Leviticus (Hoboken, NJ: Ktav, 1997), 235-236. [ ": , - " " έ( )" " , ) "' ": , Ḳ" " έ( , ) "] " ": , -" ", -" " έ( 562 216 In Yalkut Shimoni, Shemini 536 we find another configuration of the idea that the in the messianic era God will punish the pork eaters on the basis of Isaiah 66:17: “Every word of God is pure ]tzrufa [(Prov. 30:5) Ḳ and does God care if one gorged [ritually] an animal and ate [it according to the law] or if one killed [the animal] and ate it ? But the precepts were given for the purpose of purifying [ eṣaref ] peoples [briot ]. Come and see: in the beginning of the world it is written: “]Every moving thing that lives will be food for you[, as the green herb have I given you everything” (Genέ λ:3) and when Israel were on Mount Sinai [God] multiplied to them Torah and commandments. Said the Holy One, blessed be He: A minor commandment I command him [the nations of the world] and he transgresses it, all those commandments how can he fulfill? In the Hereafter the Holy One, blessed be He, will send forth a herald to announce, ‘Whoever has dealt with the Torah will come to receive their reward. And the Kutim [Samaritans, but here in the sense of non-Jews[ will come and say: “give us our reward for we also followed the commandmentsέ” The Holy One, blessed be He, will say: “any one that did not eat pig’s flesh, and abominations or creeping things will come and receive his rewardέ” In this hour they ]the nations of the world[ will receive their verdict [ [ as it is written: “the eaters of the flesh of pig, vermin, and mouse, shall come to an end together, says the Lord” (Isέ θθ:17)έ 566 The first part of the midrash originates from Leviticus Rabbah 13.3-4. However, while in Leviticus Rabbah the idea that the food avoidance is as a test to the Jews is emphasized, later midrashim placed greater importance on the future punishment of Israel’s enemies in the messianic era for not respecting the food avoidancesέ " : " έ ς , ": " ς , , έ Compare to: Midrash Haggadah (ed. Buber), Shemini. ς ( , )" ": , : " , ς : " , έ , , , έ( , ) "' 566 YalShim, shemini 536. έ ς έ " " έ : " έ ": 217 , ς , , , : ": ": έ( , , έ( ) ) "' - " , : " έ " " , " ' : " : (. , ) "' " Conclusion The midrash “why is it called azirς,” dated from as early as the fourth or fifth century, in the High and Late Middle Ages had diverse versions which have been explained in diverse ways.567 As we have seen, the midrashic playing with the Hebrew word for the pig, “ a ir” and the verb to return (lea zir) is also found in piyyut of Yannai in the sixth century, where it is described how God in the messianic era “will break down the pig ( a ir) and kingship [to Israel] will return (ya zir)έ”568 Similarly, it is wrriten in a piyyut by Yehuda (Eretz Israel/Palestine, 6th-7th century?): Until when shall the daily offering [tamid] be void from your multitudes, and in the hands of those who eat pork [besha r a a ir] shall your residence be given? Be zealous for our zeal to return [ ea ziro] it [Israel] to your dwelling. Let my prayer be counted as incense before you (Ps 141:2). 569 We find this construction later in several Medieval liturgical poems, as for example in the line of Yehuda Halevi (1070-114ί CE): “And ]God[ will expel Shamah ]one of Esau’s descendents] the eater of Pork ( a ir) and we will bless there “Blest the one that returns (ma zir)έ”570 The links between the pig and return is also found in the later medieval Psikta Zutara’s explanation that the pig is so called because it “turns all its 567 Rabbeinu Behaye (d. 1340), Biur al ha-Torah,vol. II, Exodous, Leviticus, ed. R. Hayyim Dov Chavel (Jerusalem: Mosad ha-Rav u , 1λθ7), 4ηκ-4ηλέ For further sources, see: Karlinski Hέ, “He- a ir ve-‘ etero e-Atid Lavo,” Shanah be-Shanah (1972): 243-254. 568 Yannai, Keroba to Deutronomy 2:2. My translation. Zulay, Piyyute Yannai, 230. For the link between this piyyut and the midrash “why is it called azirς” see Shraga Abramson, “εa amar a a Pirusho.” ή] [ 569 Yehuda, Quedusa for Vayishlach. Translation by Wout Jac van Bekkum, Hebrew Poetry from Late Antiquity: Liturgical Poems of Yehudah (Leiden; Boston; Köln: Brill, 1998), xv. / / ] [ ] [ / ] [ ] [ . [ [ ] [ 570 Israel Levin and Angel Saenz-Badillos, Si me o ido de ti, erusa em… Cantos de las sinagogas de al-Andalus (Cordoba: Ediciones el Almendro, 1992), 68. The poem probably originates from after the first crusades since the pig eaters are in the Temple. έ / 218 body, and does not turn its neckέ” 571 Likewise, it is found in the Greco-Roman image of the pig returning to the mud after the bath. This saying, attributed to Heraclitus, 572 is found in 2 Peter 2:22: “’The dog returns to its vomit’ and ‘The pig, once washed, wallows in mudέ’”573 Hence, a biological, behavioral conception of the pig as an animal that turnsήreturns converged with the Hebrew etymology of the pig’s name as containing the root .z.r, which is also that of the verb to return, and this made the pig particularly apt to be manipulated in the idea of messianic return. Judah Rozental collected several midrashim which transmit the idea of the abrogation of the commandments in the messianic era.574 While not all the examples he cites are convincing, it is clear that the idea of the abrogation of the commandments existed in early rabbinic literature and probably even earlier. This idea is central in Christianity, as the coming of Jesus is understood as abrogating the old Law. Therefore, the tension between the idea of the eternity of the Law and its messianic abrogation which is inherent to Judaism itself became one of the most important differences between Judaism and Christianity. In the fourth century, Julian the Apostate ironically asks whether the nature of the pig changed after Peter’s vision in Jaffa (Acts 1ί: λ-22), arguing that “if, after the vision of Peter, the pig has now taken to chewing the cud, then let us obey Peter; for it is in very truth a miracle if, after the vision of Peter, it has taken to that habitέ” 575 It seems that similarly, the midrash “why is it called a irς” seems to reject the same idea that the pig will change its nature in the messianic era, at least in Psikta Zutra, Leviticus Shemini 29b. έ έ Courcelle, “δe thème littéraire, 2κ1έ Jungkurtz “Fathers, Heretics, and Epicureansέ” 573 Brown, An Introduction, 767. 574 Judah Rosenthal, “Abrogation of the Commandments in Jewish Eschatology,” in Meyer Waxman Jubilee Volume on the Occasion of his Seventy-Fifth Birthday, ed. Judah Rosenthal, Leonard C. Mishkin, and David S. Shapiro (Chicago: College of Jewish Press; Tel-Aviv and Jerusalem: Mordecai Newman, 1966), 217-233 (Hebrew). 575 Julian, Against the Galilaeans 306B-314E (Apud Cyril of Alexandria, Against Julian). 571 572 219 Hamidrash haHagado ’s version. While this version mentioned an interpretation of the name of the pig which seems to propose that it will became pure in the messianic era, this interpretation is mentioned solely with the aim of being rejected. As Jonathan Boyarin notes, Christianity made the pig, or more exactly eating pork, a passage, a poros from Judaism to Christianity, from the past to the future. 576 The midrash “why is it called “ a irς” makes a similar move, but in the opposite direction: the pig is a poros, a passage from Rome (Christianity) to Israel, in the sense that in the messianic era Israel’s power will be restoredέ To this idea was added the punishment of the pork eaters in the messianic era, which later midrashim based on Isaiah 66:17: “Those who eat the flesh of the pig, the abhorrent creature, and the mouse shall be consumed together, says the δordέ” 576 Boyarin, “δe porc en dieu Pôrosέ” 220 Chapter 10 The End of the Pig The tension between binary oppositions can be managed in different ways: It might be maintained, elaborated, or limited. However, it might come to its end by a synthesis of both oppositions or by the destruction of both or one of the opposites. Messianic thinking tends to imagine - after the messianic overcoming - a neutral, pacific world, a world free of tensions. If the pig incarnated for the sages the antithesis of Israel, did they believe that the tension between the two binary oppositions would come to end in the messianic era? And if so, did they imagine the end of the pig? As we have seen, the midrash “why it is called ‘ a ir’ς” imagines that the pig in the messianic era will restore the kingdom to Israel, but the midrash does not speak of the end of the pig´s existence or its impurity. A more radical version of this midrash hints that at the end of time, the pig will become pure, and hence the tension which it embodied will end. However, while some Kabalists understood this midrash as proposing that in the messianic era the pig will become pure (as a Shabatian author of the seventh century also believed), this opinion is marginal.577 Another midrash states that the eaters of pork will be punished a t the end of time, but it does not imagine the end of the pig, its killing, or its extinction. In fact, only one midrash, in Esther Rabbah, mentions the killing of the pig. Esther Rabbah Midrash Esther Rabbah twice mentions the pig: in chapters four and seven. In chapter four, Vashti (the former wife of King Ahasuerus) is compared to a sow: “What shall we do ]unto the queen Vashti[ according to law” (Esther 1:1η)έ- R. Isaac said: [To think that] that sow is treated according to law, and a holy nation not according to 577 εack, “The Source,” ηλέ 221 law, but with barbarity!ς “unto the queen Vashti” (Ibid) - And how much more with a queen who is not Vashti!” 578 The simile of the better treatment of the sow as a symbol of Israel’s enemy´s current superiority is found also in Genesis Rabbah 44.23. In this midrash, the paradoxical existence of the elected people under the subjection of the Roman Empire is addressed in a paragraph which interprets God’s blessing to Abraham in Genesis 1η in what is known as the Abrahamic covenant (Brit bein HaBetarim, the "Covenant Between the Parts”)έ The midrash must overcome the contradiction between the blessing that promises Abraham´s offspring that they will inherit the land of the ten nations of Canaan, 579 with the reality of the Roman occupation during its time of composition. The midrash resolves this problem with the idea that in the past God gave the Jews the seven nations of Canaan but not the remaining three nations that Israel will inherit in the future. 580 Later on, the midrash compares this injustice to that of the fecundity of the impure sow and the barenness of the pure sheep: 578 EstherR 4.5. Translation by Maurice Simon, Midrash Rabbah, Esther (London: Soncino Press, 1939), 60. , , έ 579 Genesis 15:1λ: “The Kenite, and the Kenizzite, and the Kadmonite, and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, and the Rephaim, and the Amorite, and the Canaanite, and the Girgashite, and the Jebusiteέ” 580 “Rέ Dostai said in the name of Rέ Samuel bέ σahman: Because the Hitite is not mentioned here ]Vέ Deutέ 7:1[ the Rephaim are substituted in their steadέ Rέ Helbo said in Rέ Abba’a name in Rέ Johanan’s name: The Holy One, blessed be He, did at first contemplate giving Israel possession of ten peoples, but He gave them only seven, the other three being the Kenite, and the Kenissite, and the Kadmonite. Rabbi said: They are Arabia, the Shalamite and the Nabatean. R. Simeon b. Yohai said: They are the Damascus region, Asia Minor, and Apamea. R. Liezer b. Jacob said: Asia Minor, Thrace, and Carthage. The Rabbis said: Edom, Moab, and the chief of the children of Ammon are the three nations that were not given to them [to Israel] in this world, as it is said, “For I will not give you of their land, ]not so much as for the sole of the foot to tread upon[; because I have given εount Seir to Esau for a possession” (Deutέ 2:η)έ But in the days of the Messiah they shall once again belong to Israel, in order to fulfill God’s promiseέ σow, however, He has given them but seven, as it says, “Seven nations greater and mightier than thou” (Deutέ 7:1)έ” GenR, Lech Lecha 44. 23. Translation by Freedman, Midrash Rabbah, Genesis, vol. I, 563-565. έ : , , , : έ , , , , , , , ,' , : έ , : ς ' ,( ) ' , , : έ , " έ , 222 R. Isaac said: The sow grazes with ten of its young whereas the sheep does not graze even with one. Thus, all these, viz. “The Kenite, the kenizzite, etcέ” (Gn. 15:19). [i.e. the Romans who were promised to Abraham’s seed[, yet so far, “Sarai Abraham’s wife bore him no children” (Gnέ 1θ:1)!” 581 The Sages learn from Genesis 16:1 that as Sarah finally became pregnant with Isaac, hence Israel´s redemption finally will comeέ If now “the sow ]Rome[ grazes with ten of its young [allusion to the ten nations] whereas the sheep [Israel] does not graze even with one,” in the future Israel will inherit Romeέ 582 The problem of the unjust asymmetry between the pigήsow (Israel’s enemy) and the pure animal (Israel) is resolved in the “porcine” midrash in Esther Rabbah’s chapter seven:583 After those things, Ahasuerus, the king, promoted Haman, the son of Hammedatha the Agagite, etc” (Esther 3: 1)έ As the writing said: “But the wicked shall perish, and the enemies of the Lord shall be as the fat of lambs” (Psalms 37: 20). For they are not fattened for their own sake but for slaughtering; similarly, Haman was promoted just for his downfall. As in the parable of a man that had a filly, a sheḲass and a sow, who gave to the sow without measure and to the she-ass and the filly only their due. The filly said to the she-ass: “what is this fool doing ? To us, that are working for the master of the house, he gives only our due and to the sow, who is idle, he give without measureς” She answered her: “the time will come and you will see her downfall, for she is not fed more for her glory but rather for her damnation”έ And as Kalandes arrived, they took immediately the sow and slaughtered her. They started to give barley to the daughter of the she-ass and she blew on it and didn’t eatέ Her mother told her: “my daughter, it is not the food that is the cause, but the idleness, as it was written: “and he set his seat above all the princes that were with him” (Esther 3:1), therefore, “so they hanged Haman” (Esther 7:10). 584 ": 581 ,' ( έ( Ibid. )" ) έ , “: " έ ( )" έ " ": ," : . 582 In the late Midrash Shir-ha-Sirim Zuta (1.15) Israel is compared to a ewe that is sheared and grows wool each year, and is contrasted to the pig that is not sheared and does not grow anything. See: Midrash Zuta on Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations and Ecclesiastes, ed. S. Buber (Berlin, 1894) (Hebrew). 583 According to Arnon Atzmon, this midrash is from the earlier stratum of Esther Rabbah. Arnon Atzmon, Esther Rabbah II – Towards a Critical Edition, PhD Dissertation (Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University, 2005), 58-64. (Hebrew) 584 EstherR 7.10. 223 The story seems to be a version of Aesop’s fable 414: The Pig, the Donkey, and the Barley: 585 There was a man who had vowed that he would sacrifice a pig in honour of Hercules if the god agreed to rescue him from danger. When the man fulfilled his vow and sacrificed the pig, he then ordered that the pig’s leftover barley be given to the donkeyέ The donkey, however, refused to touch itέ ‘This is the kind of food that would normally arouse appetite,’ said the donkey, ‘but not when it is the result of the previous diner having had his throat cut!’ [Moral] This fable taught me caution und I have avoided risky ventures ever since Ḳ but you say ‘those who grab wealth get to keep it’έ Just remember how many of them are eventually caught and killed! Clearly, the ones who have been punished constitute the larger crowd. A few people may profit from reckless behavior, but more are ruined by it. 586 Esther Rabbah’s version has the moral that, “it is not the food that is the cause, but the idleness,” but the general message does not change much from the Aesopian origin. The use of the Aesopian fable in Esther Rabbah could be clarified by an episode from the Byzantine Life of Saint Symeon (wr. 764/5-844/5), where the saint prophesies the death of Emperor Leo V on Christmas day of the year 820: For once when God-loving men were sitting with the holy man at the column and conversing, they spoke ]as follows[ about this impious man ]emperor δeo V[: “Have you seen, father, what a lawless emperor God has made to live long because of our sins? He subjects the orthodox to continuous banishments (…)έ So what do you say, holy one, whatς Encourage us your childrenέ” And opening his mouth our divine father Symeon said nothing scriptural but a country saying known by all: “Endure patiently, brothers, for squeals of swine [come] around the Kalendsέ” Which in fact happened; for during Christmastide in the church of Stephen the first martyr, the one within the palace, in the ' , ς , ": ": : ,] , : , έ ς έ [' , έ( , " : έ )" , έ] , [" " " 585 For a different suggestion as to which of Aesop’s fable the midrash transforms, see: Yassif, The Hebrew Folktale, 199-200. 586 Aesop, Fable ηλλ: ”The farmer and the Pigέ” Translation by δaura Gibbs, Aesop’s ab es (Oxford and σew York: τxford University Press, 2ίί2), 1λ4έ The same is found in δatin in Phaedrus ηέ4 (‘The Ass and the Pig’s Barley’)έ 224 place named Daphne, during the night he [Emperor Leo V] was cut to pieces limb from limb and departed to gloomy darkness. 587 Being an iconoclast, Emperor Leo V is portrayed as the enemy of the Church, and therefore as a boar.588 In Kalends (kalendae), the first day of the Roman month, it was the custom to sacrifice to Juno a porca (sow) and agna (sheep) near the regina sacrorum in Regia. 589 However, it seems that the Kalends which is mentioned in the Life of Saint Symeon and in Esther Rabbah is that of January, the New Years Eve of the Julian year. 590 “Squeals of swine come around the Kalends,” seems to be proverbial expression equivalent to the French-Spanish proverb: “À chaque porc vient la Saint-Martin”ή“A todo cerdo le llega su San Martín” – “To each pig comes [it’s] Saint εartin´s Dayέ” Since pigs are traditionally slaughtered on this day, November eleventh, 591 the proverb´s message is that each criminal will one day pay for its crimes. Both in the midrash and in the Byzantine life of the saint, the killing of the pig on the Kalends symbolizes the execution of the tyrant, an idea that we find in a version of another Aesopian parable concerning the criminal pig, which Aelian relates in the third century CE: 587 Life of Sts. David, Symeon and George of Lesbos 16. Italic mine. Translation by Dorothy Abrahamse and Douglas Domingo-Forasté, “δife of Stsέ David, Symeon and George of δesbos” in AliceMary Maffry Talbot, Byzantine Defenders of Images: Eight Saints' Lives in English Translation (Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 1998), 182-183. 588 Interestingly enough, in what might parallel the Jewish tradition of the pig entering the Temple, the rise of Leo V is symbolized as a pig that enters the Church. Life of Sts. David, Symeon and George of Lesbos 14. Talbot, Byzantine Defenders of Images, 177. 589 Jaan Puhvel, “Victimal Hierarchies in Indo-European Animal Sacrifice,” The American Journal of Philology 99.3 (1978): 359. 590 Hadas-Lebel, Jérusalem contre Rome, 310-312. Ibid. “δe paganisme à travers les sources rabbiniques des IIe et IIIe sièclesέ Contribution à l’étude du syncrétisme dans l’empire romainέ” ANRW II, 19, no. 2 (1979): 427-429. For the Kalends in Rabbinic sources, see: εoshe Benovitz, “Herod and Hanukkah,” Zion 68, no. 1 (2003): 39-40 (Hebrew). Emmanuel Friedheim, Rabbinisme et Paganise en Palestine romaine: étude historique des Realia talmudiques (Ier -IVème siècles) (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2006), 332-335. 591 On the day following Saint Martin Day the forty days of Advent begin, during which it is forbidden to eat meat. See: Sillar and Meyler, The Symbolic Pig, 156. Fabre-Vassas, The Singular Beast, 77. Compare to the Arabic proverb, “Every dog will have its dayέ” 225 This is the story from Phrygia; it is from Aesop the Phrygian. It says that if one touches a pig, it squeals, and quite reasonably: it produced no fur or milk, nothing but meat, and it has visions of death because it knows in what way its nature is a source of profit for othersέ Tyrants are like Aesop’s pig: they suspect and fear everything, because they know that they too, just like the pig, are at mercy of everyone. 592 If, as Joseph Tabory remarks, the tale in Esther Rabbah is not “Jewish,” as expressed by the fattened sow which is sacrificed for the Kalends, 593 it nevertheless serves to relay a “kosher” messageέ When told in a Jewish context, the non-kosher elements take on a particular Jewish meaningέ The question is, who “Judaizied” the story? The phrase cited by Esther Rabbah: “But the wicked shall perish, and the enemies of the Lord shall be as the fattened lambs” (Ps 37:2ί) speaks of the killing of fat lambs, a pure animal. However, the story that follows, speaks of a sow, an impure animal. Haman, symbolized by the sow, is, according to the sages, the descendant of Esau, who is identified with the pig. The midrash proposes that the execution of Haman (Esther 7:10) resembles the killing of the pig. 594 Now we can see how the porcine midrash in chapter seven answers the injustice expressed in the porcine midrash in chapter four: “[To think that] that sow is treated according to law, and a holy nation not according to law, but with 592 Elian, Historical Miscellany 10.5. The original Aesopian parable, entitled The Sheep, the Goat, and the Sow: A story about a sow, teaching us to give each man his due: “A man had rounded up a sow, a goat, and a sheep from his farm. While the donkey carried them all to the city, the goat and the sheep settled down quietly, but the sow’s screams bothered their chauffeur, so the donkey said to the sow, ‘Why on the earth can’t you go along quietly like the othersς’ The sow replied, ‘The goat is being brought here for her milk, the sheep for his wool, but for me this is a matter of life and death! The moral of the parable is that “each man has his own reason for acting as he doesέ” Translation by δaura Gibbs, Aesop, “Fable 3λ7: The Sheep, the Goat, and the Sow,” in Aesop’s ab es (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2002), 185. 593 Tabory, “The Proems, 12έ 594 For Purim’s vengeance fantasies, see: Hagit Sivan, Palestine in Late Antiquity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008). In Sephardic communities it was the custom during Purim to write a “εarriage Contract” (ketubah) for Haman and his wife Zeresh. In one example from Salonika (in Ya'akov Tzidkuni’s collection) Haman is portrayed as the “cursed, stupid, notorious wild boar, enemy of the Jews,” see: YomTov Lewinsky, “ eit ad iku Et Haman biTefutzot Yisrael (How Haman was beaten in the Jewish Diasporas),” Yalkut Folkloristi lePurim (Tel-Aviv: Ha evra Ha’Ivrit lyeda Am, 1λ47), 14 (Hebrew)έ 226 barbarity!ς” 595 The reply: injustice is temporary, for in the end the sow will be slaughtered!596 Discussion While the pig is the emblematic animal of the evil empire, it is quite surprising that we find just one midrash concerning its killing. However, as we have seen, the later Midrash on Psalms imagines the future extermination of the pig (Rome=Esau): 595 EstherR 4.5. Translation by Maurice Simon, Midrash Rabbah, Esther (London: Soncino Press, 1939), 60. , , έ 596 For the image of Vashti in Rabbinic literature, see: Yael Shemesh, “Gi gu eha she ashtiμ εi ra, midrash a a , ha-parshanut ha-femiistit,” Beth Mikkra 47 (2002): 356-372 (Hebrew). To the midrashim mentioned above, we may associate a story in Hekhalot Rabbati (c. 650-900 CE) in which the killing of the Roman emperor is associated with pigs. According to the legend, Emperor δupinus, who condemned Rέ anina ben Teradyon to death, is miraculously transferred by an angel from his palace to a pig sty [where the Rabbi was jailed[έ In the morning, the emperor’s soldiers came and killed the emperor, who seemed to them to be the condemned rabbi: “R. Ishmael said: Suriya, the prince of the countenance, told me: “Beloved, δet me tell you what HDR THWR HDR ‘WHYHε, the δord, the God of Israel, did at that hourέ He ordered me to descend, and I harassed and pushed Emperor Lupinus out of his palace, where he slept at night, and I led him to the pen of the pigs and dogs. I brought R. Hananyah ben Teradyon in and led him to the palace of Emperor Lupinus. The next morning, the guards who were angry with R. Nehunya ben haQanah came to say: ‘(He is) sitting performing wonders in the house of study, sitting teaching the noble ones of Israel Torahέ’ ‘Chop off his head!’ Emperor δupinus appeared to them as Rέ Hananyah ben Teradyon [as R. Nehunyah ben ha-Qanah] and they cut off his head, while R. Nehunya ben ha-Qanah was in his house. Meanwhile, R. Hananyah ben Teradyon went and bound the crown of his kingdom and reigned over wicked Rome in the guise of Emperor Lupinus for six months, during which he killed six thousand generals, a thousand generals each month. They displayed him in the form of R. Hananyah ben Teradyon before the people of wicked Rome, and they seized him and threw him into the fire. Who was it whom they had thrown into the fire in place of R. Hananyah ben Teradyon? (It was) Lupinus, since Ḳ after they had killed him Ḳ they revived him again in the upper court of justice. They seized him, threw him into the fire, and he suffocated in the flames.” Hekhalot Rabbati 8.3.120-121. Translation of MS O1η31 by Ra anan Sέ Boustan, From Martyr to Mystic: Rabbinic Martyrology and the Making of Merkavah Mysticism (T bingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 233-236. ' ] [ ' ' [ ' ' έ ' ' ' ' ' ] ' ' ' έ 227 “My soul hath long dwelt with him that hateth peace” (Ps. 120:6). Is there any man who hates peace? Esau hates peace. Scriptures says, “I will give you peace in the land” (δevέ 2θ: θ)έ When will there be peaceς The verse goes on to answer, “After I will cause evil beasts to cease out of the land” (ibidέ)έ Evil beasts can refer only to the boar, for it is said “The wild boar out of the wood doth root it up, and the wild beasts of the field devour it” (Ps. 80:14), and the boar is none other than wicked Esau. 597 While the famous prophetic image in Isaiah 11:6 of the messianic era as a time when animals will change their nature - when “the wolf shall live with the lamb, the leopard shall lie down with the kid” - the Midrash on Psalms imagines the messianic extermination of the evil beast, the boar. However, this midrash is isolated in its extreme vision of the end of the boar and does not change the overall picture of the rarity of the image of the killing of the pig in rabbinic literature. This rarity might be conected to the many versions of the Islamic Hadith according to which, in the end of the days, ‘Isā (Jesus) will descend upon earth and will kill the pigs, as in, for example, the ninth century version of εuslim’s Sahih: I swear by God that Jesus will descend from heaven and that he will be an equitable judge, he will destroy the cross, he will kill the pigs, he will abolish the tax to the nonMuslims, he will leave the young she-camels and no one will be interested in them; spite, mutual haters and jealousy will disappear, and when he calls the people to accept wealth, no one will do so. 598 Some later versions speak of how ‘Isā (Jesus) “will kill the swine, break the cross, destroy chapels and churches and kill the Christians except those who believe in him,” 599 or how ‘Isā (Jesus) “shall break the cross and slay the pigs and the Jews, so that the Jew will hide near a rock. And the rock shall say to the believer: ‘τ believer, come, for there 597 MidrPss 120. Translation by Braude, The Midrash on Psalms, vol. 2, 293. ": " έ ς έ( , )] [ "' " "ς έ( , ) "]: [ έ -( , )" ": , ,( , , )" 598 Muslim, Sahih, 1.136.155 cited in: Roberto Tottoli, ib ica Prophets in the ur ān and εus im Literature (Richmond: Curzon, 2002), 157. 599 Al-Baydāwī, Tafsir (13th Century), on Sūra XδIII, vέ θ1, cited by: Hava δazarus-Yafeh, “Is there a Concept of Redemption in Islamς” Some Religious Aspects of Islam: A Collection of Articles (Leiden: Brill, 1981), 52-53. 228 is a Jew near me: kill him’” 600 Hence, the killing of the pigs in some versions is analogous to the killing of the Muslims’ others. Although the hadith represents a common tradition while the Midrash on Psalms is a unique text, both imagine the messianic era as a violent end of tensions which the pig represents, as an era of the end of the pig, the end of the other. It is not surprising that in Christianity, we find a very different messianic construction. If the end of time is not imagined as a period where all humanity will eat pork, the idea that in the end of time all humanity will be Christian implies that the historical process of Christianization of the world will lead to an increase in pork eating until it is consumed by all humanity. 601 However, part of the messianic move of Christianity, by the abrogation of the prohibition of pork, makes it a locus of abrogation of the old testament´s binary tension between pure and impure, between Israel and the nations. The sages, to the contrary, insist upon maintaining the tensions that the pig incarnates. In fact, they strengthen the meaning of the avoidance of pork as a locus of separation between Israel and the nations. Therefore, even in their discourse on the messianic era, the sages usually take care not to go too far, insisting that the nature of the pig, or the law concerning it, will not change. Hence, the important simile for the sages is not the killing of the pig, but rather avoiding association with it, first by avoiding the real animal, especially consuming its meat, and secondly by disassociation from what it Ta’yīd al-milla, foll. 44r (Spain, Huesca, 1360). Cited by: David Nirenberg, Communities of Violence. Persecution of Minorities in the Middle Ages (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1996), 197. 601 In Shakespeare’s Merchant of Venice (3.5.1) δancelot complains about Jessica’s conversion: “This making of Christians will raise the price of hogs Ḳ If we grow all to be pork eaters, we shall not shortly have a rasher on the coals for moneyέ” 600 229 stands for (Rome, the Empire, Christianity). For the sages, to not kill the pig and not consume it in some sense means to be devoid, to be controlled, to be powerless. The pig is not the object of violence for the Jews; it is not the subordinate but rather the dominant, the ruler, the Empire. For the sages, avoidance became an important principal in their relation with the non-Jewish world and the Empire in particular, and they asked their fellow Jews to avoid as much contact with non-Jews (sex, marriage, eating, etc.) as possible. Avoidance became an active force of resistance to respond to a passive political existenceέ In other words, avoidance became one of the Sage’s solution to their being devoid of political power. Pork became one of the foci of this “politics of avoidanceέ” The pig is the Roman Empire which devours Israel, who is devoid of power in this world; however, by avoiding pork Israel will reverse this situation in the world to come. In the messianic era Rome, being devoid of political power, will be devoured, while the kingdom will be restored to Israel. 230 Discussion and Conclusion When was Rome identified with the pig in rabbinic literature? After addressing this question, we will discuss the meaning of this identification of Rome with the pig in the light of the broad context of the rabbinic discourse concerning pigs and the avoidance of pork. Following this, we will examine the link between the sages’ identification of Rome with the pig and the use of porcine symbolism by the Romans themselves. Then we turn to the question of time in the model of the four kingdoms and in the typolo gical pair, Jacob and Esau, before concluding. When was the equation “Rome = Edom = Esau = The Fourth Kingdom=Pig” Established? If the topos of the replacement of the tamid by the pig is as early as the Maccabees (2nd cent. BCE), we can presume that its transfer to the destruction of the Temple by the Romans was somehow natural, and could have occurred in an early period. If we consider a possible impact of the boar emblem of the legion X Fretensis, a remote memory of a sacrifice of a pig that might have been carried out in the Temple Mount, and the presence of boar images on the coins of Aelia Capitolina, we can presume that the linkage of the pig to the legend of destruction, known already to Origen (d. c. 254 CE), was made in the Tannaitic period. However, the question remains as to when the equation “Esau = Edom = Rome = the fourth beast = pig” was established.602 602 Aminoff, The Figure, 223-233. In Jewish fundamentalist circles the identification of Christiantiy with the pig remains commonplace up to this day. See for example: Yoel ben Aharon Schwartz, Yemot Olam: Mabat al-Tekufatenu veMasmauta (Jerusalem: Dvar Yerusalym, 1980), 15έ Cited in: Abraham Amsallem, Bein Israel LeAmim (Between Israel and the Nations) (Jerusalem: Publisher unknown, 2000/2001), 23-25 (Hebrew). 231 While the identification of Esau with Edom is biblical, 603 the identification of Esau and Edom with Rome seems to originate from as early as the thirties of the second century, if we accept as authentic the attribution of this identification to the sages of the generation after the Bar Kokva revolt. 604 As for the identification of Rome with the fourth kingdom of the book of Daniel, this likely occurred in the first century CE. 605 The connection of Esau with the boar is found in 1 Enoch and the Book of Jubilees (2 nd cent. BCE), 606 which led several scholars to propose that “the wild boar may have been a common Jewish term of abuse for the Edomites during the Antiochan crisisέ”607 However, it is not clear if this early connection to Esau with the boar contributed to the identification of Edom/Esau with the pig in rabbinic literature. Mireille Hadas-Lebel believes that the identification of Rome with the pig originated with the allegorical interpretation of Psalms κί:14: “The boar out of the wood,” as a prophecy of the 603 Feldman, Josephus's Interpretation of the Bible, 322. Adiel Schremer, “εidrash and History: God’s Power, the Roman Empire, and Hopes for Redemption in Tannaitic δiterature,” Zion 72 (2ίί7): 2λ (Hebrew)έ Cohen, “Esau as Symbolέ” Sέ Zeitlin believes that Rome was identified with Edom only since the fourth century, see: S. Zeitlin., “The Origin of the Term Edom for Rome and the Roman Church,” JQR 60 (1970): 262-263. An earlier date was proposed by Louis Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews, volέ V, 272, note 1λ: “The use of the names Edom, Seir, Esau, and similar ones, to describe Rome is very old, and was probably coined at the time of Herod, whose designation "the Idumean" was applied to his masters, the Romans. When Rome adopted Christianity, the same appellations were transferred to the Christians and Christianityέ (…) In the Amoraic portions of the talmudic and midrashic literature, the use of Edom for Rome is met with quite frequentlyέ” Jacob Neusner argues that ‘Esau’ and ‘Edom’ begin to function as nicknames for Rome only in the later Rabbinic works, and not in the early, Tannaitic, sourcesέ For criticism of this opinion, see: Adiel Schremer, “Eschatology, Violence, and Suicide: An Early Rabbinic Theme and Its Influence in the εiddle Ages,” in Apocalypse and Violence, ed. A. Amanat and J. J. Collins (New Haven: Yale Center For International and Area Studies, 2002), 20, note 7. 605 Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 10.206-210; The Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch 39; The Apocalypse of Edras, 12.11,13. See: Hadas-δebelέ “Rome,” λκ-99. 606 Bryan, Cosmos, 117, note 7ίέ According to the book of Jubilee, Esau, attacking Jacob, says: “If the boar can change his skin and make bristles soft as wool, or if he can make horns to sprout out of his head like the horns of a stage or a sheep then will I observe the tie of brotherhood with youέ” Jubilee 37.20. The text continues: “When Jacob saw that he was adversely inclined toward him from his mind and his entire self so that he could kill him and (that) he had come bounding along like a boar that comes upon the spear which pierces it and kills it but does not pull back from it, then he told his own (people) and his servants to attack him and all his companionsέ” Jubilees 37. 24-25. Traslation by James C. VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 249. 607 Bryan, Cosmos, 117-18 [following: A. Dillmann, Das Buch Henoch (Leipzig: Vogel, 1853), 259.] 604 232 destruction of the Temple by Rome. 608 Frenkel appears to be correct when he argues tha t this assumption is not probable for it is not mentioned anywhere in the midrashic literature.609 In his opinion, the midrashic equation came into existence in two phases: 1) in the second century CE the identifications of Rome with the four beasts of the Book of Daniel and Rome with Esau and Edom were shaped simultaneously, and 2) One hundred years later the four impure animals mentioned in Leviticus chapter eleven were linked to the four beasts (kingdoms) of Daniel (Leviticus Rabbah 13.5). 610 Both Frenkel and Hadas-Lebel tend to date the identification of Rome with the pig, according to the date of the speakers to which the different midrashim are attributed. But how can we know that the saying indeed reflects the ideas of these sages and not those of later generations ascribed to them? The Talmud and Midrash are difficult if not impossible to date exactly, given that for many generations they followed the oral tradition and were only compiled and edited much later. 611 In any case, it seems that from the fourth century on, for the sages, the equation “Esau = Edom = Rome = the fourth kingdom = pig,” was, as Frenkel Hadas-Lebel, Jerusalem Against Rome, 507. Hadas-Lebel, “Rome,” 3ίηέ Fraenkel, Darchei Aggadah VeHamidrash, vol. II, 618, note 128. 610 According to Frenkel, Leveticus Rabbah is the most ancient misrashic source of the identification “Pig = Edom = Romeέ” Fraenkel, Darchei Aggadah VeHamidrash, vol. I, 219. 611 Daniel Boyrin notes, “By speaking of talmudic culture, I am emphatically not suggesting that there was one homogeneous form of this culture for the nearly six hundred years and two major geographical centers which attest to it. Beyond a shadow of a doubt, there were consistent differences between the earlier and later forms of the culture and between its western version in Palestine under Hellenistic cultural domination and its eastern version in Babylonia, where Persian culture reigned supremeέ (…) But the texts, particularly the later ones, such as the Talmuds, are encyclopedic anthologies of quotations, comprising all of the places and times of rabbinic culture production. We can assume with confidence neither that a given passage quoted from a particular authority represent an expression of that authority’s time and place, nor that it doesn’t and that it only belongs to the culture in which the text was put together ]…[έ Indeed, even, the redaction of the midrashic and talmudic texts cannot be assigned with any certainty to a particular time, place, or set of persons. Even within the individual texts, there is evidence that different sections received their final forms in very different historical momentsέ (…) By default, then, I am generally constrained to write of rabbinic culture as a whole, even knowing that such discussion represents only a gap in our knowledgeέ” Daniel Boyarin, Carnal Israel: Reading Sex in Talmudic Culture (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993), 24-25. 608 609 233 notes, “commonplaceέ” 612 This observation is supported by Jerome’s (dέ 4ίκ) comment that the Jews identified Rome both with the fourth beast of the book of Daniel and the boar of Psalm 80:14. 613 The broadness of this equation in Judaism after the fourth centur y is observed in Yannai’s piyyutim, liturgical poems from the Land of Israel (6 th cent.). For example, in a Kedushah to Yom Kippur, Yannai uses the idea which is found as early as Leviticus Rabbah 13.5, that the pig (Rome - the fourth kingdom) blasphemes: The reign of the pig gnaws at us, it eats our power, and crushs our labour, (cf. Daniel 7:7); It tramples upon us and treads down our land, with no end, ]saying[” "I am, and there is no one besides me” (Isέ 47:κ), to the nation you have said: “I am God, and there is no other” (Isέ 4η:22)έ 614 In a Keroba to Genesis 32:4, Yannai uses another idea which is origi nally found in Leviticus Rabbah 13.5, that the fourth kingdom, the pig, is more dreadful than the three kingdoms which preceded it: 615 612 Fraenkel, Darchei Aggadah VeHamidrash, vol. I, 219. Jerome, Commentary on Daniel 7:7. PL 25. Translation by Gleason L. Jr. Archer, Jerome's Commentary on Daniel, (Michigan, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House, 1958), 71-82. See: George H. Van Kooten, “The Desecration of the ‘The εost Holy Temple of all the World’ in the ‘Holy δand’: Early Jewish and Early Christian Recollections of Antiochus ‘Abomination of Desolation,” in The Land of Israel in Bible, History and Theology: Studies in Honour of Ed Noort, ed. Jacques van Ruiten and J. Cornelis de Vos, 291-316 (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2009). 614 Yannai (Keroba to Yom Kippur). My translation (partly following W. Jac. van Bekkum, “The Classical Period of the Piyyut: the Paytan Yannay (Sixth Century AέDέ),” in Jaarbericht van het vooraziatisch-egyptisch genootschap Ex Oriente Lux 27 (1981): 138. Menachem Zulay, Piyyute Yannai (Liturgical Poems of Yannai) (Berlin: Schocken, 1938), 336. , ) ]έέέ[ / ( , )" " /( 615 We find the theme in an anonymous lament: “Alas, the gnawing (animal) had seized the Temple (hadom)/ Pouncing upon me with iron clad teeth that tore me to the bone (kedom)/ And I was plunged into the turbulence of Sodom/ Oppressed for 550 years under the kingdom of Edom (= Rome)έ” Translation by Hagit Sivan, “From Byzantine to Persian Jerusalem: Jewish Perspectives and Jewish-Christian Polemics,” Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 41 (2000): 284. Y. Davidson, Otzar ha-shirah v'-ha-piyut (Treasury of Song and Liturgical Poetry), vol I (New York: 1924Ḳ1933 (repr., New York: Ktav, 1970)), 1712. . / / / The printed manuscripts of prayer books (mahzorim) read: “Alas, the gnawing (animal) had seized the Temple (hadom)/ it stabbed me like a pig which tears to the bone (kedom)/ Dirty and loathsome as the turbulence of Sodomή It τppressed ” me some years, made me its footstool (hedom)έ” εy translationέ . , / / / Or in the anonymous lament: έ] [( ) / Ḳ / Jέ Yahalom, “The Transition of Kingdoms in Eretz Israel (Palestine) as Conceived by Poets and Homelists,” Shalem 6 (1992): 8 (Hebrew). 613 234 Edom which [terrified me?] and cause me dread; your animal name was not given; his body is comparable to a brave boar; more terrifying than its companions [the other three empires], [that the prophet Daniel] saw in his imagination. 616 In another piyyut (Keroba 23 to Genesis 25:19), Yannai enumerates a long list of differences between Jacob (Israel) and Esau (Rome), contrasting “The history of lamb and pig/ lamb to sacrifice (korban ) and pig to destruction ( urban )έ”617 The destruction associated with the pig could refer to the past destruction of Israel/the Temple by the pig (Rome), but also to the future destruction of Rome in the messianic era. 618 In his Keroba to Deuteronomy 2:2, Yannai ask his fellow Jews not to revolt against the Empire, but rather to pray for its punishment in the messianic era: I adjure you the sons of rightness (cf. Song of Sol. 2:7), do not awaken; in your love, his animosity does not wake up. And early in the morning, solicit without lighting fire /until it will be desired (cf. Ibid. 2:7), the time of the nightingale (cf. Ibid. 2:12)/ the time to reap the corn will come, when the harvest matures, and the vintage rots, the chaff dries, and the pig will be broken, and He will return the kingship to its holy possessor. 619 616 Yannai, Keroba to Genesis 32:4. My translation. The Liturgical Poems of Rabbi Yannai according to the Triennial Cycle of the Pentateuch and the Holidays. Vol. I. ed. Zvi Meir Rabinovitz (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1985), 199 (Poem 30, lines 88-89) (Hebrew). . ; / ; έέέ 617 Yannai, Poem 23, lines 24ḳ35. My translation. / / . / The Liturgical Poems of Rabbi Yannai, 162-163. 618 This is an idea also found in Yochanan HaCohen´s (Levant, 7 th century) apocalyptic siluq (final section of the Piyyut before qedusha) to Lamentations: ”έ ή ή ή “ Cited in: Yahalom, “The Transition,” θέ 619 Yannai, Keroba to Deutronomy 2:2. My translation. Zulay, Piyyute Yannai, 230. ή ή / ] [ ή . / ή] [ ή ή ή / Yannai is playing here with the Songs of Songs 2:7, 12. ְ ‫שְ ב ְת‬ ‫ב‬ ֹ‫ ֹ ד‬. ‫שת ְפ‬ ּ ְ ֹ ‫ְת‬ ְ ּ ‫ת‬ ׂ ֹ ְ ‫ְב ֹ ְ ּש ב ְ ֹ ֹ ְב‬ ֹּ ְּ‫ְ ּ ש‬ ֹ ְ ֹ ְ ֹ ֹ‫ ד‬. ֹ ְ ּ ‫ְ פ‬ ְ ּ ְ .ֹ ְ ‫ּש‬ ] ְ [ .ְ ְּ ְ ְ ּ ְ ֹ . .ּ ְ ‫ְב‬ ְ‫ּ ְ ֹ תֹ ש‬ ‫ז‬ For the link between this piyyut and the midrash “why is it called azirς,” see Shraga Abramson, “Ma'amar Chazal U-Perusho (A Rabbinic Saying and Its Interpretation)” Molad 27, new series 4 (1971): 421-429 (Hebrew)έ The piyyut’s ideas are to the ones found in Genesis Rabbah θ3έ2ηέ 235 The Edom to which Yannai refers stands for his contemporary Christian Byzantine Empireέ In a Keroba to Yom Kippur, Yannai states that the Christians “will be humiliated, ashamed and disgraced,” inter alia because they “arrange a sacrifice ] min ah [ of pig’s bloodέ”620 In a fragment of another Keroba to Yom Kippur of Yannai the Christians are similarly described as “the ones who kill a human being and slaughter an ox/ who are fervent about the ones that see their secret/ who are yearning to make an offering of pig's bloodέ” 621 Yannai seems to refer to Isaiah 66:3,17, in which, as we have seen, later midrashim were used to refer to the punishment of the nations (Rome/ the Christians) in the messianic era. To summarize, the nature of the sources does not permit exact dating of the process of the identification of Rome with the pig, but rather only an approximate, hypothetical reconstruction is possible (fig. 23). Prior to the destruction of the Temple, in seventy CE a topos of porcine profanation of the temple existed. This tradition included "). Zulay, Piyyute Yannai, 33λ (poem 12). έ Translation by Steven Fine, “σon-Jews in Synagogues of Late-Antique Palestine: Rabbinic and Archeological Evidenceέ” in Jews, Christians, and Polytheists in the Ancient Synagogue, ed. Steven Fine (New York: Routledge, 1999), 232-233. 621 Yannai, Keroba to Yom Kippur. My translation. Zulay, Piyyute Yannai, 382. . ή ; ή We find the same accusation in the Muslim Animal's epistle. which is part of “Rasa’il Ikhuan al-safa,” an encyclopedic composition written in Arabic by the Brethren of Purity who lived near Basra, Iraq in the 10 th century. Here the pig says “The Romans, on the other hand, eat our meat with gusto in their sacrifices and believe that it makes them blessed before Godέ” Ikhwān al-Safā’, The Case of the Animals versus Man before the King of Jinn. A Tenth-century Ecological Fable of Basra , trans. Lenn Evan Goodman (Boston: Twayne Publishers, 1978), 63. The text was translated by Kalonymus ben Kalonymus in Provence in 1316 under the title Igeret Baale Haim. Kalonymus Ben Kalonymus, Igeret Baale Haim, ed. I. Toporovesky, ep. A.M. Habermann (Jerusalem: Mosad haRav Kuk, 1959) (Hebrew). "έ " This paragraph was not included in the English translation and adaptation of the Hebrew translation: The Anima s’ δawsuit against umanity. A εodern Adaptation of an Ancient Anima Rights Tale, trans. and adap. by Rabbi Anson Laytner and Rabbi Dan Bridge. Intr. Seyyed Hossein Nasr (Louisville, KY: Fons Vitae, 2005), ix. 620 Yannai, Keroba to Yom Kippur (" 236 Psalm 80:14, Isaiah 66:3,17 and the memory of an alleged sacrifice of a pig/sow in the Temple by King Antiochus during the Macabeean crisis in the second century BCE. Old Testament Esau=Edom 2nd cent. BCE The Boar out of the wood P“ 8 : 4 The four kingdoms (Daniel 7) Isaiah 66 The topos of the profanation of the Temple by a pig Esau=Boar Jubilee 1st cent. Esau=Edom=Rome ? 4th Rome= the fourth kingdom The destruction legend Esau=sus (gr.)=sow cent. Genesis Rabbah Esau=Edom=Rome=The fourth kingdom=Pig=The boar out of the wood Leviticus Rabbah 6th-9th cent. Why is it called hazir? Ecclesiastes Rabbah The messianic punishment of the pork eaters Fig. 23: Hypothetical reconstruction of the midrashic process of identification of Rome with the pig. In the first century CE, the identification of Rome with the Esau=Edom and the fourth kingdom were established. The legend of the Temple destruction by a pig was established perhaps as early as the second century CE, probably due to the influence of the earlier topos of profanation of the Temple by a pig. The identification of Esau with the boar of psalm 80:14 was established before the end of the fourth century CE. The interpretation of the name Esau as sow in Greek was probably also from this period. In Leviticus Rabbah (4th-5th centέ), the equation “Rome = Esau = the fourth kingdom = the pig = The boar out of the wood” appeared in its complete, fully developed formέ In later period (6th-9th cent.), the midrash “why is it called a irς,” found as early as Leviticus Rabbah, was developed to reject the idea that pork will become pure in the messianic era, 237 and this midrash was aggregated with the midrash on the future punishment of pork eaters by God, which has Isaiah 66 as its proof text. In short, the identification of Rome with the pig was a result of a configuration of diverse exegesis readings and topoi which exagetical combined to create the equation “Rome = Esau = the fourth kingdom = the pig = The boar out of the woodέ” This, however, is found in its complete form only in Leviticus Rabbah and later midrashim which cite it, such as Yalkut Shimoni and Midrash Tan uma. In other sources (mostly from the Land of Israel), we find only variants of parts of this equation. The identification of Rome with the pig and the rabbinic disc ourse concerning the pig and the avoidance of pork The association of Rome with the pig directly or indirectly linked it to everything associated with this animal by the sages: prohibition of breeding/commerce/touching, plagues, leprosy, impurity, sin, filthiness, excrement, sexual corruption, the destruction of the Temple, hypocrisy, injustice, harmfulness, persecutions, forbidden sexual relations with non-Jews, sexual lust, heresy, and drunkenness. To this sphere is contrasted the sphere of Israel which stand for purity, Torah, justice, the Temple, the Land of Israel, and other positive qualities. The two spheres are separated, and mixing between the two (especially raising pigs, heresy, learning Greek wisdom, or eating pork) is conceived as a transgression (fig. 24). Mary Douglas, in her classic book Purity and Danger (1966), argues that impurity, like uncleanness, “is matter out of place,” an anomaly within a given classificatory system. Anything that crosses or blurs the boundary of a given category is considered 238 defilement. 622 To illustrate this idea, Douglas analyzes the abominations of Leviticus, particularly its dietary rulesέ She points out that in δeviticus, “holiness requires that individuals shall conform to the class to which they belong. And holiness requires that different classes of things shall not be confusedέ (…) to be holy is to be whole, to be one; holiness is unity, integrity, perfection of the individual and of the kind. The dietary rules merely develop the metaphor of holiness on the same linesέ” 623 Impurity Purity Sexual lust Proselytes Torah’s learning Jacob Justice Torah Israel Temple Land of Israel Destruction Drunkenness Gluttony Raising pigs Jews who do not learn Torah Forbidden sex Pig Heretics Learning Greek wisdom Excrement Idleness Leprosy Nations of the world Hypocrisy Uselessness Rome Harmfulness Esau Prostitution Purity Filthiness Death Fig. 24: The Discursive spheres of Israel and the Pig in Rabbinic literature. In this system, “cloven hoofed, cud chewing ungulates ]cattle[ are the model of the proper kind of food for a pastoralistέ” The pig is one of the borderline cases of this order, an anomaly, and thus impureέ She notes that the failure of the pig “to conform to 622 Douglas argues that defilement must be analyzed in the light of the total system of classification of a given culture: “Defilement is never an isolated eventέ It cannot occur except in view of systematic ordering of ideas. Hence any piecemeal interpretation of the pollution rules of another culture is bound to fail. For the only way in which pollution ideas make sense is in reference to a total structure of thought whose key-stone, boundaries, margins and internal lines are held in relation by rituals of separationέ” Douglas, Purity and Danger, 42. 623 Ibid., 55. 239 the two necessary criteria for defining cattle is the only reason given in the Old Testament for avoiding the pig; nothing whatsoever is said about its dirty scavenging habits,” suggesting “that originally the sole reason for its being counted as unclean is its failure as a wild boar to get into the antelope class (…)έ”624 Hence, the pig stands for the distinction between pure and impure, or more exactly for the refusal to mix categories, as Seth D. Kunin notes: Both [Israelite] myth and ritual include mediators; these, however, are always problematic and need to be transformed. Thus, the pig in the food rules system appears to mediate between the categories of permitted and forbidden animals Ḳ the system denies this mediation by making the pig especially negative. This is a consistent process whereby all mediators are denied by transformation, usually in the negative direction but occasionally in the positive. What is significant is not the direction of transformation but the denial of mediation. 625 This denial of mediation is manifested in the sages´ primary relationship with the pig: that of avoidance. Contrary to the polyvalent Greco-Roman porcine discursive sphere, the rabbinic porcine discursive sphere is binary, the product of a world order which pivots around the distinction between pure and impure. 626 Other binary couples are parallel to the fundamental binary couple “pure-impure;” these include : Pure Israel Pure animal Shepherd Torah learning To rule oneself The impulse to do good Impure Nations of the world Pig Swineherd Learning Greek wisdom To be ruled by desire The impulse to do evil 624 Ibid., 56. Seth D. Kunin, We Think What We Eat: Neo-Structuralist Analysis of Israelite Food Rules and Other Cultural and Textual Practices (London and New York: T&T Clark International, 2004), 16. 626 As Walter Houston notes, “Judaism inherits from the development of custom and thought in prebiblical and biblical times a law of animal kinds that summarizes in itself a great richness of symbolic themes. It stands for the order and peace of civil society over against the disorder and violence of the wild; for the just and traditional ordering of society against anarchy; for the purity of the sanctuary against the permanent threat of pollution; for the holiness of the people of God as his devoted ones; for their protection against pressures from without, and their separation from all that would threaten their dedication to their one God; for the possibility, not confined to Israel alone, of living in peace with God’s creatures and in the experience of his presence. It does not merely symbolize these things; by the constant practice of rules it actually inculcates themέ” Houston, Purity and Monotheism, 258. 625 240 Justice Proselytes Avoiding pork Jacob Injustice Heretics Pork eating Esau The highly associative nature of rabbinic literature links these binary couples in several configurations. However, Rome does not only stand for the negative qualities associated with the pig, but also for what makes the pig abominable: the mixing of categories. This is particularly manifested in the identification of Rome with Esau (Jacob´s twin brother) and in the midrash which presents Rome as doing injustice while pretending to do justice in the same manner in which the pig presents its hooves, pretending to be pure while not ruminating the cud. Reversing Rome’s porcine discourse If any real use of the pig or porcine symbols by the Romans contributed in some way to the identification of Rome with the pig, the rabbinic literature does not refer to them at all. Hence, any interpretation which attempts to explain the identification by a reaction to real historical events or causes is reductionist and highly speculative. Rather, it is more probable that by identifying Rome with the pig, the sages to some extent are in dialogue with the use of porcine symbolism in Roman political discourse. Insofar as the Romans did have positive porcine political symbols (Aeneas’s sow, the boar as emblem, the emperor as boar’s hunter), the sages´ negative reversal of the pig became more powerfulέ The equation ‘Rome = pig” was not less Roman than Jewish: in a counter symbolism, the sages reverse this reference from positive to negative. The pig served both sides to express two opposite political conceptions: that of the powerful and that of 241 the powerless, that of the ruler and that of the subjected. While for the sages the Jews are the victims of Rome - the boar which gnaws at them - the Roman rulers saw themselves as not only comparable to the boar, but also as those who defend the Empire from its enemies, comparable to a wild boar which one must destroy. The sages, rejecting the politics of raw power, reject the boarish/boar hunter metaphor of the ruler. Rather, they invert the Roman identification with the boar from a sign of legitimacy to a sign of illegitimacy; thus, the Roman boar went from being the symbol of power and victory to one of destruction; the sow of fortuna and prosperity became a curse. The sages did not resist with the enemy’s (boarish) terms of (boar) hunting, but rather longed for a future where the boar ( a ir) will return the rule to Israel. This messianic projection avoids the politics of force, which may give rise to a direct violent confrontation with the Roman Empire. Rather, the sages advocate a non-violent politics of subjection to the non-Jewish rule. However, the rabbinic resistance to the Empire was not only a passive messianic solution. By equating the pig, the impure animal par excellence, with the Empire, the avoidance of pork became an act of concrete resistance, in the here and now. A daily act of eating became an act of resistance to the omnivore-homogenized politics of Imperial universalism. Not partaking of pork meant not partaking in the Empire. Usually, Greek and Latin distinguish between the domestic and wild pig, thus facilitating the Greeks´ and Romans’ distinction between hoggishness and boarishness, or between the pig as a symbol of earthly desires and the boar as a symbol of courage and power. Hebrew on the other hand, uses only one word, a ir, for both the domestic and wild pig, which facilitates the sages argument that the positive value of the boar should be rejected, that the courage and power of the boar is nothing more than earthly desires. 627 One who 627 The pig and the boar are indeed one biologcal species. As Francois Poplins remarks: “ils sont deux 242 identifies himself with the boar as a symbol of power is nothing more than a pig, a slave to his desires.628 The Fourth Kingdom The model of the four kingdoms gave a new meaning to the avoidance of pork: if in the Hebrew Bible it is inscribed mainly in a non-temporal order, with its main axis being pure-impure, in the midrashim it is inscribed in a temporal process, with its main axis being subjection-redemption, viewed as a concrete succession of four empires: Babylonia, Media, Greece, and Rome. The pig became a powerful political symbol, inscribed in concrete relations over ti me between the subjected Israel and Imperial Rome. The (non-historical) model of the four kingdoms inscribed the relationship with Rome (Christianity) in a historical pattern. This construction makes the existence of the other tangible according to the inner Jewish grammar of time; the sense of the existence of the Empire is understood according to an inner grid (or logic) which is foreign to the Romans. We can see in this construction what was for Jean Piaget the premise of structuralism: “an ideal (perhaps a hope) of intrinsic intelligibility supported by the postulate that structures are self-sufficient and that, to grasp them, we do not have to make reference to all sorts of extraneous elementsέ” 629 The model of the four kingdoms is total: it explains chose divisée en deux par l’homme. “Poplin, “Que l’homme cultive aussi le sauvage que le domestique,” 528. 628 The same process happened in the Christian symbolism at the end of the εiddle Ages: “De fait, à partir du millieu du XIIIe siècle, dans les somme théologiques sur les vices, dans les recueil d’exempla puis dans les bestiaires littéraires ou iconographiques associés aux sept péchés capitaux, le sanglier semble additioner sur sa personne tous les vices et péchés autrefois distribués entre le porc domestique et le porc sauvage : sorditas, foeditas, libido, intemperantia, gula, pigritia, d’un coté ; violentia, furor, cruor, ira, superbia, obstinatio, rapacitas, impietas, de l’autreέ” Pastoureau, “δa chasse au sanglier,” 1κέ Bryan notes that the fourth beast in Daniel 7 is “the unclean beast par excellence,” which stands in contrast to the one “who is like a ‘man’, the archetypal clean land creature,” created in the image of Godέ” Bryan, Cosmos, 238. 629 Jean Piaget, Structuralism, 9 243 the political reality in the past, present, and future. It provides the reasons, or the inner grammar, of the relationship between Israel and foreign powers, as well as the conditions that will cause this relationship to change in the future. This model served the sages’ politics of submission, where liberation is projected into a messianic era, where frustrations of being powerless here and now are contained by the expectations of a messianic redemption. In the model of the fourth kingdoms, we find what Mircea Eliade calls the “Eternal return”: In studying these traditional societies, one characteristic has especially struck us: it is their revolt against concrete, historical time, their nostalgia for a periodical return to the mythical time of the beginning of things, to the “Great Timeέ The meaning and function of what we have called “archetypes and repetition” disclosed themselves to us only after we had perceived these societies’ will to refuse concrete time, their hostility toward every attempt at autonomous “history,” that is, at history not regulated by archetypesέ 630 Although Eliade thought that Judaism does not have such a conception of time, Moshe Idel notes that the difference between archaic religions and rabbinic Judaism is not very significant. 631 Indeed, in the model of the four kingdoms we can see how Rome is understood as an archetype, or as a cyclical phenomenon. This corresponds to the predomination of memory over history in Judaism, as demonstrated by Yosef Hayim Yerushalmi, 632 a historical memory which tends to be understood in terms of patter ns (what Neusner called paradigmatic history). 633 This cyclical conception of history, as Gabrielle M. Spiegel summarizes, is manifested in the repetition of the liturgy: 630 Mircea Eliade, Cosmos and History: The Myth of the Eternal Return (New York: Harper, 1954), xi. εoshe Idel, “Afterward,” in εircea Eliade, The Myth of Eternal Return, trans. Yotam Rehuveny, ed. Ronit Nikolsky (Jerusalem: Carmel, 2002), 146-147 (Hebrew). See also Ibid. Ascensions on High in Jewish Mysticism: Pillars, Lines, Ladders (Budapest: Central European University Press, 2005), 232. 632 Yosef Hayim Yerushalmi, Zakhor, Jewish History and Jewish Memory (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1982). 633 Jacob σeusner, “History, Time, and Paradigm in Classical Judaism,” Approaches to Ancient Judaism 16 (1999): 189-212έ Ibidέ “Paradigmatic versus Historical Thinking: The Case of Rabbinic Judaism,” History and Theory 36 (1997): 353-377. Ibid. The Presence of the Past, the Pastness of the Present: History, Time and Paradigm in Rabbinic Judaism (Bethesda: CDL Press, 1996). 631 244 Although the historical events of the biblical period remain unique and irreversible, psychologically they are experienced cyclically, repetitively, and hence atemporally. In liturgical commemoration, as in poetic oral recitation, the fundamental goal is, precisely, to revivify the past and make it live in the present, to fuse past and present, chanter and hearer, priest and observer, into a single collective entity. The written text, when it represents a transcription of a once-live recital, commemorates both the past which is sung about and performance itself. History, in the sense that we understand it to consist of unique events unfolding within an irreversible linear time, is absorbed into cyclical, liturgical memoryέ” 634 By identifying the fourth kingdom with the forbidden animals of Leviticus 11, history is also manifested by the praxis of food avoidance. Through this link, categorical thinking of the food classification system is interwoven with a paradigmatic conception of history. In this manner, the relational tension between Jews and non-Jews, between Judaism and Rome, is shifted from the historical-political arena of the present to an inner Jewish activity that is deeply inscribed in messianic aspiration. Because Rabbinical thinking is marked by a paradigmatic-analogical reading of history that sees history in terms of patterns, the sages could easily express history by classificatory categories of pure and impure animals. Hence, different aspects of the world converge, and a more solid, global vision of existence is achieved - a more crystallized order. The midrash turns the pig, the fourth kingdom, into a time capsule. The micro-chronic dimension, the time of the ritual, repeats the macro-chronic time of history. The micro-chronic dimenstion of the here and now (this world) came to contain the macro-chronic dimension, the historical pattern, which leads to future redemption (the world to come). Rome (Christianity) is not the end of history, but a cyclical phenomenon that will disappear, as have its predecessors. However, the model of the four kingdoms does not only manifest the idea of historical recurrence, that history repeats itself, but also that this Gabrielle M. Spiegel. “Memory and History: Liturgical Time and Historical Timeέ” History and Theory 41, no. 2 (2002): 152. 634 245 repetition is linear, that it will come to an end. 635 In a sense, the midrash “why is it called a irς,” which reads the name of the pig ( a ir) as the verb to return (leha zir), holds the basic principle of cyclic time, of the eternal return, but also the idea of its end. Thus, while the model of the four kingdoms contains the idea of cyclic movements of rise and fall, it does not possess the concept of the arbitrariness of the wheel of fortune. In the future, the wheel will turn and Rome (Christianity) will fall while Israel will rise.636 The midrashic discursive sphere of the identification of Rome with the pig might be understood as a social drama, following Victor Turner’s definition of social drama as the unity of a process of disharmony occurring in a situation of conflict, divided into four principal phases: breach, crisis, redressive action, and reintegration/schism (table 9). 637 The first phase, the breach, is a violation of the norm generated by a symbolic trigger of confrontation, corresponding to the destruction of the Temple by the pig; the crisis is the period of the subjection to the boar (the Roman Empire); the redressive action is the keeping of the law, including the avoidance of pork, which will bring the Messiah; and the reintegration is the messianic era, when the pork eaters will be punished. 635 For the limits of the distinction of cyclical and linear history in Judaism and Christianity, see: G. W. Trompf, The Idea of Historical Recurrence in Western Thought: From Antiquity to the Reformation (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1979), 116-220. 636 For the fourth kingdom model in Late Antique Christianity and Judaism, see: Alexei M. Sivertsev, Judaism and Imperial Ideology in Late Antiquity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), 9-20. 637 Victor Turner, Dramas, Fields, and Metaphors. Symbolic Action in Human Society (Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1974), 37. 246 Turner’s social drama The midrashic terminology Breach Crisis Destruction ( urban) Subjection to Rome, Exile (galut) Time Midrashim Past The legend of destruction Present The identification of Rome with the pig The Pig The destructor The oppressor Redressive action The fulfillment of the commandments (avoiding pork) Present Leviticus Rabbah 13 The tool of redressing Reintegration Redemption (geula) Future The pig will return the kingdom to Israel; God will punish the pork eaters. The tool of redemption/ the messianic punishment Table 9: The Pig in the historical model of the Midrashic discursive sphere. Jacob and Esau What is the logic behind of the identification of Esau with the pig? Avshalom C. Elitzur proposes to link the Jews’ hate for Amalek to the Jews’ hate for the pigέ According to his terminology, both are manifestations of a “metaphysical hate,” a hate that originated from the proximity between the hated and the hater. Elitzur notes that as much as the hated Amalek is a relative of Israel, so the hated pig is close to human. 638 Although Elitzur speaks about Amalek, his reading is even more relevant to Amalek’s “grandfather,” Esau. 639 The problem of animality in general, and that of the huma n relation to the pig in particular, lies in the proximity of the human animal to other animals. The pig, like man, is an omnivorous mammal, and its inner organs resemble those of man. This is probably also the reason that if, as the French proverb says, “Each person has in Avshalom C. Elitzur, “Amalek and the swine: The anatomy of metaphysical hatredέ” in Sefer HaYovel Lichvod proffesor Shlomo Shoham, ed. Chemi Ben Nun et al. (Tel-Aviv: Ydihot Ha ronot, 2004) (Hebrew). On line version: <http://www.e-mago.co.il/e-magazine/hate.html> Consulted August 23, 2011. 639 On the midrashic association between Amalek and Esau, see: Aminoff, The Figure, 24κ-2η7. For the subject of twinship, see: Sharon Roubach, In Life, in Death, they were not Parted: The Idea of Twinship in Western Christianity, PhD Dissertation (Jerusalem: The Hebrew University, 2003). 638 247 his heart a dormant pig (Tout homme a dans son cœur un cochon qui sommei e),” often humans tend not to recognize their own proximity to the pig but rather associate its nature with their fellow man. Proximity brings with it the risk of the blurring of frontiers, and hence is a source of anxiety. From the sages´ perspective, the twin, like the pig, is a mixture of two categories, as the pig is half pure (parting the hoofs) and impure (not chewing the cud); the twin Esau, is half pure (being the descendant of Isaac) and half impure (being an evil person). Hence, the nature of the pig is the nature of Esau, or Rome, being a family member and stranger at the same time, or being a mixing of pure and impure, and hence abominable.640 During the period of the First Temple, Edom and Israel kept hostile relations. The myth of the origin of Israel also tells us the origin of its neighboring nation, explaining the proximity between the two as well their enmity. 641 In the myth of Jacob and Esau, the history of Edom is the history of Israel in negative. The birthright or the Election is absolute and unique. The Election is by the Father, and it is vis-à-vis the Other, the twin brotherέ The Election of Jacob (Israel) is the “Diselection” of Esau (Edom). 642 As Gershon D. Cohen notes, the couple “Jacob-Esau” was particularly apt as a model for the Carol Bakhos, “Figuring (out) Esau: The Rabbis and Their τthers,” Journal for Jewish Studies 58, no. 2 (2007): 250-262. 641 For the diverse relational configurations of Esau and Jacob as a dialogical model, see my article: Misgav Har-Peled, “Entre l’âne et le bœuf, réflexion sur la machine dialogique,” dans Adam et ’astraga eμ ssais d’anthropo ogie et d’histoire sur es imites de ’humain, ed. Gil Bartholeyns, Pierre-Olivier Dittmar, Thomas Golsenne, Misgav Har-Peled et Vincent Jolivet (Paris: Les éditions de la Maison des sciences de l’homme, 2ίίλ), κ7-97. 642 Seth D. Kunin notes that in Genesis, “genealogical closeness was indirectly related to ideological closenessέ” In the Talmud, he argues, the “nature of these relations will change as Israel becomes less politically significant; with the contraction of political relations, there will be a similar contraction in nations that are ideologically negative Ḳ within this contraction, those nations that are genealogically close will remain strongly negative and equally will be associated with nations that remain politically significantέ” Kunin, We Think What We Eat, η ]see “chapter θ: Israel and the σations” (ppέ 211-237) and Kunin’s earlier publication: “Israel and the σations: A Structuralist Survey” JSOT, 1999. 82:19-43.] 640 248 relationship of Israel and Rome because of the proximity of the claim of election between the Jews and the Romans: (…) there was a basic similarity between Rome and Judea in patterns of thought and expression. Neither of them could accept their existence as a mere fact. Each considered itself divinely chosen and destined for a unique history. Each was obsessed with its glorious antiquity. Each was convinced that heaven had selected it to rule the world. Neither could accept with equanimity any challenge to its claims. This collective self-consciousness and obsession with past and future, with duty and destiny, came to its greatest expression in Rome in the Augustan age and most notably in the works of Livy and Virgil. Though shaken by civil wars and the decline of ideal Roman society, the average learned Roman echoed of his people what the Jew said of his own: “Thou didst chose us from among all peoples; thou didst love and favor us; thou didst exalt us above all tongues and sanctify us with thy commandments. Thou, our King, didst draw us nearer to Thy service and call us by Thy great and holy nameέ” ]Jewish holidays’ prayer 643] As the Jews spoke of an eternal covenant between Israel and God, the Roman could quote the promise of Jove to Rome: “Imperium sine fine dedi ]“I have given empire without end”[έ” 644 The idea that the Roman empire will be “without end,” the discourse of eternal Rome, extended with time to the Empire and Caesar, reached its climax in the times of Hadrian (early 2nd cent.), 645 and sharply contradicted the Jewish concept of election. The Jews subjected to Rome are confronted with the gap between the biblical promise of election and the real political condition of exile and subjection to Rome. In Particular, the sages had to explain how this could be the case if the commandments were suppose to protect and glorify Israel, as Deuteronomy 26:15-19 declares: This very day the Lord your God is commanding you to observe these statutes and ordinances; so observe them diligently with all your heart and with all your soul. 17 Today you have obtained the Lord's agreement: to be your God; and for you to walk in his ways, to keep his statutes, his commandments, and his ordinances, and to obey him. 18 Today the Lord has obtained your agreement: to be his treasured people, as he promised you, and to keep his commandments; 19 for him to set you high above all 643 ; The sanctification of the Day: Kedushat HaYom. , , , Cohen, “Esau as Symbol,” 2ηέ 645 Benjamin Isaac, “Eternal Rome,” Historia 1-2 (1998): 19-31 (Hebrew)έ Fέ Gέ εorre, “τn Urbs Aeterna and Urbs Sacra,” Transactions of the American Philological Association 25 (1984): 34-60. . 644 249 nations that he has made, in praise and in fame and in honor; and for you to be a people holy to the Lord your God, as he promised. 646 Hence, while keeping the commandments was supposed to set Israel “high above all nations,” the political reality was that the Jews were subjected to Rome´s power and, in the life of a Diaspora minority, fulfilling the commandments poses practical hardships on the Jews in daily life. The sages resolve this problem, and others, with the idea that the commandments and suffering come to purify ( eṣaref ) Israel. The yoke of the commandants is not a punishment, but rather proof of the virtue of the Jews, a virtue for which they will be recompensed in the messianic era. The promise of Election is conditioned: if Israel will follow God’s commandments, it will be free and sovereign, but if not it will be subjected to others. If Israel will repent for its sins and will accomplish the Law, then it will be liberated. In this scenario, there is a constant tension between election and subjection, between past (the promise), present (exile/subjection to Rome), and the future (messianic redemption). As Daniel Boyarin notes, “after 312, Esau, or Edom, his descendant, is most often read as referring to the Christian Church, or as the sages themselves put it: “The Principate turned to sectarianism” (B. Sotah 49b and parallels). 647 Hence, as the identification of Esau passed from Rome to the Church, the identification with the pig passed to the Church as well, and by extension to Christians, the “pork eatersέ” Contrary 646 Deuteronomy 26:15-19. ְέָ‫ ְש‬- ְ ּ ְָ ְ - ‫ ְב‬, ֹ ‫; ְש ְ ת ְ ש‬ ֹ ְֹ , ֹ ְָ έ ‫ְב‬ ְ‫ְ ש‬ ‫ּ שְפ‬ - ְָ ְ ְ ; ְ ְ ּ ‫ ּ ְש‬, ְ , ‫ש ש‬ ֹּ - ‫ משְפ‬- ְ -ְ ּ ֻ ְ‫ ְ ש‬, , ֹ ְ ְָ‫ ּ ְ ת‬έ ְָּ ְ ָ ֹ ְ , ‫ֹ ז‬ ֹ ְָ ֹ ְ : ֹ ,‫ְ ת‬ , ְ‫ ְ; ְ ש‬- ‫ דב‬, ‫ ש‬, ֻ ְ ְ . ‫ ש דב‬,ָ ֹ ‫ש‬ 647 Boyarin, Dying for God, 3. As Guy Stroumsa notes, “It is precisely when “the barbarians” threaten the Empire from within and without, in the late fourth and fifth century, that the Christians ceased to see themselves as “barbarians”, or peregrine, and identified, for the first time unambiguously, as Romansέ” Guy Stroumsa “Philosophy of the Barbarians: τn Early Christian Ethnological Representations,” in Geschichte-Tradition-Reflexion: Festschrift Martin Hengel, vol. II, ed. H. Cancik, H. Lichtenberger and P. Schäfer (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996), 347. 250 ֻ ְ‫ב‬ ְ - ְ ֹ‫ש‬ to pagan Greeks or Romans, for the Christians eating pork became an affirmative act of being Christian. If the biblical laws were surpassed by Jesus, then to avoid pork is to reject the coming of the Savior, and eating it an act of acceptance. Hence, avoidance of pork became not just the marker of Jewishness in the eyes of Christians as it was in the eyes of Jews, but a marker of Judaizing, of heresy. The pair Jacob-Esau in the patristic reading serves as a model for the relationship between Judaism and Christianity. Jacob henceforth represents the Christians, and Esau the Jews. As the primogeniture passed from the older to the younger, in the same way the Election passed from Israel according to the flesh (the Jews) to Israel according to the spirit (the Christians).648 The true Israel is not defined by the flesh but by the faith. This idea is found as early as Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Romans: “And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac; For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; It was said unto her, ‘The elder shall serve the younger’ (Gn 2η:23)έ As it is written, ‘Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated’ (εalachi 1:2)“ (Romans λ:1ί-13). The reading of Genesis 25:23 with Malachi 1:2 reinforced the original sense of the storyέ That is to say, it is the case that not only “the elder shall serve the younger” but also that the one is loved and the other is hatedέ Paul reversed the biblical role of Esau as the dialogical Other of Israel. Here Esau comes to represent Carnal Israel, the dialogical other of true Israel (verus Israel). 649 As Israel 648 See: Limor Ora, Jacob and Esau, in: Jews and Christian in Western Europe. Encounter between Cultures in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. Unit 1 (Tel-Aviv: The Open University, 1993) (Hebrew). εartine Dulaey, “δa figure de Jacob dans l’exégèse paléochrétienne (Gn 27-33),” Recherches Augustiniennes 32 (2001): 75-168. 649 An exegetical reversal much like that achieved by Paul for Isaac and Ishmael in Galatians 4: 28-31. see: David σirenberg, “The Birth of the Pariah: Jews, Christian Dualism, and Social Science”, Social 251 Yuval remarks, for both Judaism and Christianity the pair Jacob and Esau was understood typologically as a model of their relations: It uses an existing narrative system based on Scriptures and charges it with the later conflict between Israel and Edom, Judaea and Rome, Judaism and Christianity, a conflict between chosen and rejected, persecuted and persecutor. This involvement with the question of who is chosen and who is rejected, who is “Jacob” and who is “Esau,” reflects a process of self-definition as well as, ipso facto, a definition of the other, the persecutor and rival. The tension evoked by typology is one between subjugation, suffering, and exile, on the one hand, and dominion, primogeniture, and victory, on the other. For Christianity, it is viewed as the tension between the Old Testament and the New Testament; for Judaism, it is that between Exile and Redemption. 650 But if Jacob and Esau are a common typological pair for both Judaism and Christianity, they understood them in different ways. As Daniel Boyarin notes, “If for the Church Judaism ultimately was a superseded ancestor of the true heir to the promise, for the Rabbis, the two entities were more like constantly struggling twin siblingsέ” 651 In a sense, it seems that Christianity tends to understand the model of Jacob-Esau more as representing a dialectical process, where the accent is put on the progressive nature of their relations, while rabbinic Judaism understands it more dialogically, where the two pairs are imagined has having diverse relations over time. 652 Likewise, if pork consumption for the Christian was a locus of passage from Judaism to Christianity, from the old law to the new one, 653 for the sages the avoidance of pork was the locus of passage (that is conceived to be more as a return than a turn) yet to come in the messianic era. Research, 70, no. 1, (2003): 201-236, 212. For the elabroation of Paul´s reading by the Church Fathers, see: Limor Ora, Jacob and Esau. Adiel Schremer, “εidrash and History: God’s Power, the Roman Empire, and Hopes for Redemption in Tannaitic δiterature,” Zion 72 (2007): 13 (Hebrew). 650 Israel Jacob Yuval, Two nations in your womb: perceptions of Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2006), 1. 651 Boyarin, Dying for God, 3. 652 For the Bakhtinian distinction between dialectics and dialogics, see: Tzvetan Todorov, Mikhail Bakhtin: The Dialogical Principle (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1984 (1981)), 104. 653 Boyarin, “δe porc en dieu Pôrosέ” 252 Fabre-Vassas, following εary Douglas’ work, notes that “if forbidden foods manifest the categories of a culture, they also necessarily demonstrate the indigenous distinctions between societies. They are only fully affirmed, and can only be understood, in the context of this confrontationέ” 654 The sages not only admit the inter-cultural confrontation around the avoidance of pork, but they also resolve it in a sense by thinking of the abominable animal dialogically as embodying their relationship with the Roman Empire and later on with Christianity. εary Douglas argues that, “if two symbolic systems are confronted, they begin to form, even by their opposition, a single whole,” 655 If this is true, then this “single whole” is full of holes, or gaps, and hence is highly partial. In some sense, in the Judeo-Christian dialogic, being one is in some sense being and not being the other. However, we should not make this dimension the essence of their relations. The question is not to discover “agency” in Jewish texts and hence establish the “dialogic” nature of Jewish Christian relations, but rather to learn how both Jewish and Christian texts construct the other dialogically. Hence, we should separate dialogism as referring to an aspect of inter-group relations from dialogism as referring to the way identity is constructed by incorporating the real or imagined voice of the other in one discourse. In both cases, one’s logic is created vis-à-vis the other’s real or imagined logic, and hence is dialogical. Fabre-Vassas, The Singular Beast, 6. Also: Claudine Vassas, “Questions anthropologiques autour de l’interdit du porc dans le judaïsme et de son élection par le christianisme,” dans De la domestication au tabou: le cas des suidés dans le Proche-Orient ancien, éd. B. Lion et C. Michel, Travaux de la Maison René-Ginouvès 1 (Paris: De Boccad, 2006), 229. 655 Douglas, Natural Symbols, 43-44. 654 253 After the fourth century, Christianity not only condemns the avoidance of pork, but makes pork eating a legal obligation, as for example in the Apostolic Canon from the (4t-5th cent.): The Christians would not imitate the Jews on the subject of abstinence from [certain] foods but would even eat pork, the δord having said that “what enters the mouth does not sully the man but ]rather[ what exits the mouth, as if coming from the heart” (εt 15:11;17-18); that they would not be attached to the letter [of the law] but would conduct themselves according to [its] spirit and [its] elevated meaning, for the carnal synagogue of the Jews execrates pork but is possessed by unkindness in keeping with the prophetic word: “they gorged themselves on pork and left the scraps for their little ones” (cfέ Psέ 16:14). 656 Hence, the contradictory Jewish and Christian practices are mutually related dialogically: if one eats pork, he rejects the position of those who abstain from pork, and vice versa. At the end of the eleventh century, Tobiah ben Eliezer in his Misrash Leqah Tob (Psikta Zutara), explains the struggle of Jacob and Esau in their mother´s womb (Genesis 25:22) in dialogical terms: “And the sons struggled” (vitrozezu ) - they were cutting [each other] inside the womb, as it was said “and [she] crushed (vataretz ) his skull.” (Judges λ:η3): a sign for generations: the [first] one runs to kill the other, and the other runs to kill the first one - as says Rabbi Yohanan. And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: the one permits the commands of the other, and the other permits the commands of the other. How? That one forbid the day of Sabbath and the other forbid the day of Sunday; the one forbid pork and the other permitted it, for this reason it was said: Vitrozezu [they struggled] Ḳ two words are: ‘viter zivuyo Ḳ ]he permits his commands[’έ657 The rabbinic dialogue, of “this says this and this says that” is transformed here from constituting the nature of rabbinic learning to that of the basic principle of relations The Apostolic Canon 5. Charles Joseph Hefle, istoire des conci es d’après es documents originaux, tome 1, vol. 2 (Paris: δe Clère, 1907), 1076-1077. Claudine Fabre-Vassas partially cites this source in her: “Juifs et chrétiens, autour du cochon,” Identité alimentaire et altérité culturelle [Actes du colloque de Neuchâtel, 12,13 novembre 1984 (Neuchâtel, Belgium: Institut d'ethnologie Saint-Nicolas, 1985), 61. and Fabre-Vassas, The Singular Beast, 247 (Fabre-Vassas confused this text with the Council of Antioch in 325 CE). 657 Psikta Zutara (Midrash Lekah Tob), Genesis 25:22. Psikta Zutara (Midrash Lekah Tob), ed. S. Buber (Vilna, 1884). My translation. , , ,( ) : , έ ς , , : " έ ' , : : ," ": , , , , 656 254 between Judaism and Christianity. This is a later source, but it seems to express well the dialogical dimension of pork in the Judeo-Christian context: the Christians ate pork (in part) to distinguish themselves from Jews, while Jews did not eat pork (in part) to distinguish themselves from Christians. This symmetry did not exist before the rise of Christianity. In the Roman world, Jews perhaps abstained from pork (also) in order not to be Romans, but Romans did not eat pork in order to avoid being Jews. Perhaps the Jewish avoidance of pork seemed strange or negative to some Romans, but it did not have any special importance for them: it did not have any relation to the ways in which they generally understood their pork consumption. Conclusion: The Dialogical Beast A people without history Is not redeemed from time, for history is a pattern Of timeless moments. So while the light fails τn a winter’s afternoon, in a secluded chapel History is now and England. T. S. Eliot, Little Gidding, No. 4 ‘Four Quartets, Vέ 658 For Judaism, history is now and practice. The timeless moments are historical, and the unhistorical practice is history. The avoidance of pork is a manifestation of being part of the sacred history of salvation - to be part of a process, and at the same time part of the condition that the process will be achieved, i.e. the Gehula, the redemption of the Messianic age. This inscribing of the avoidance of pork in time goes hand in hand with imagining it in the inter- relations with the other. This might correspond to Emannuel Levinas´ conception of time itself: Tέ Sέ Eliot, “δittle Gidding,” Vέ Tέ Eέ Sέ Eliot, Collected Poems 1909-1962 (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1963), 208 [first published in Four Quartets, 1942]. 658 255 Relationship with the future, the presence of the future in the present, seems all the same accomplished in the face-to-face with the Other. The situation of the face-to-face would be the very accomplishment of time; the encroachment of the present on the future is not the feat of the subject alone, but the intersubjective relationship. The condition of time lies in the relationship between humans, or in history. 659 Time is not an external quality to which events correspond, but rather inherent to the relations with the other. In the midrashim, the pig is a unit of time which contains and marks the relations with the other (animal, the divine (God), and humans (Rome/Christianity). The avoidance of pork marks a distinction between the Jews and omnivorous animals, for it is by self-control that the Jews distinguish themselves from their own animality, from a piggish nature, and from the animal kingdom. It is by a total acceptance of the avoidance of pork that the Jews accept and confirm their particular relation with God; it is by refusing to partake of pork that the Jews resist the omnivorous Empire, whether pagan or Christian. If the pig is a symbol of otherness, of the Other, all the more appropriate that the sages called it “another thingέ” δike the heretic par excellence, Elisah ben Abuya, is named: A er, τtherέ The pig became the “other” par excellence, a symbol of “otherness” itself - otherness understood as that of the brother twin. Midrash Temurah (13th cent.?), while speaking of the need for contradictions in the world and noting that without purity there is no impurity and vice versa, says that “the pig and other unclean animals said to the clean ones: You should be grateful to us, because were it not for the uncleanness of us and our friends you would not be known as clean. If there is no just [man] there is no wicked [man]; said a wicked man to a just man: you should thank me for if I were not evil, how would you be known [as just]? If all men 659 Emmanuel Levinas, Time and the Other: And Additional Essays (Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press, 2002 (1947), 79. 256 were just, you would have no advantageέ” 660 If Judaism and Christianity (and Isla m) should not thank each other, they should at least give thought to the measure by which their identities are mutually constructed. The case of the pig, the dialogical beast, may help us think in this dialogical dimension: the way each religion constructs its fundamentals (identity, morals, anthropology, conception of history, etc.) in dialogue with the other real or imagined voice; by inventing the other in the particular discourse of each religion. We should ask ourselves to what extent the reason or logic of each of these religions is the fruit of dia-logics, of being between diverse logics. 660 Midrash Temurah 4. Shlomoh Aharon Wertheimer. Batei Midrashot, vol. 2. (Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Cook, 1953), 192-193. , , έ , έ έ , For the rhetoric of Midrash Temurah, see: Mauro Perani, Il Midrash Temurah: la dialettica degli opposti in un'interpretazione ebraica tardo-medievale (Bologna: EDB, 1986). 257 Bibliography Primary Sources Rabbinic Abba Mari of Lunel, Min at kenaot in Solomon ben Adret, Teshuvot ha-Rashba leRabenu Shelomoh b.R. Avraham ben Adret ve-tsoraf la-hen Sefer εin at ena ot e-R. Aba Mari de-Lunil, vol. I.1. Jerusalem: Mosad ha-Rav Kuk; Makhon le-hotsa at rishonim ve-aharonim, 1990. (In Hebrew) Abot deRabbi Nathan version (Goldin) = The Fathers According to Rabbi Narhan. Translated by Judah Goldin. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1955. Abot deRabbi Nathan version B (Saldarini) = The Fathers According to Rabbi Nathan (Abot de Rabbi Nathan version B), Translated by Anthony J. Saldarini. Leiden: Brill, 1975. Esther Rabbah = One line critical edition of Schechter Institute of Jewish Studies. <http://www.schechter.ac.il/raba.asp> Consulted July 12, 2012. Gaster, Moses. The Exempla of the Rabbis; Being a Collection of Exempla, Apologues and Tales Culled from Hebrew Manuscripts and Rare Hebrew Books. New York: Ktav, 1968. (Hebrew) Gdaliah ibn Yahia, Sefer Soshelet ha-Kabala. Venice, 1585 (Reprint: Jerusalem: Hadorot HaHronim VeKorotam, 1962). (In Hebrew) Hebrew-English Edition of the Babylonain Talmud, Pesahim. London: The Soncino Press, 1967. Isaac Abarbanel, Rosh Amanah = Yitzhak Abravanel, Rosh Amanah. The Priniciples of Faith. Edited by Menachem Kellener. Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1993. (Hebrew) Isaac Abarbanel, Yeshu'ot Meshiho = Yitzhak Abravanel, Yeshu'ot meshiho. Konigsberg, 1861. (Hebrew) Jacob ben Sheshet, Sefer Meshiv Devarim Nekhohim. Edited by Georges Vajda. Jerusalem: Israeli Academy of Science, 1968. (Hebrew) The Jewish-Persian Apocalypse of Daniel (εa‘aseh Danī’e = Shapira, Danέ “Qīṣṣa-ye Dāniyāl Ḳ ’o εa‘aseh Danī’el Ḳ be-farsit-yehudit: Ha- ibbur we-targumo,” Sefunot 7 (1999): 337-366. (Hebrew) Lamentations Rabbah (Buber) = Midrasch Echa Rabbati, Edited by S. Buber. Wilna, 1899 (Reprint: Hildesheim, 1967). (Hebrew) Leviticus Rabbah (Margulies) = Midrash wayyikra Rabbah: A Critical Edition Based on Manuscripts and Genizah Fragments with Variants and Notes. Edited by Mordecai Margulies. Jerusalem, 1956-1958. (Hebrew) The Mekhilta According to Rabbi Ishmael (Horowitz and Rabin) = Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael: Mechilta d'Rabbi Ishmael. Edited by H. S. Horowitz and I. A. Rabin. Jerusalem: Bamberger & Wahrman, 1960. (Hebrew) The Mekhilta According to Rabbi Ishmael (Neusner) = The Mekhilta According to Rabbi Ishmael: An Analytical Translation, 2 vols. Translated by Jacob Neusner. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1988. 258 The Mekhilta According to Rabbi Ishmael (Lauterbach) = Mekilta De-Rabbi Ishmael: A Critical Edition on the Basis of the Manuscripts and Early Editions with an English Translation, Introduction and Notes. Edited by Jacob Zallel Lauterbach. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1976. Menahem Zioni. Sefer Zioni. Cremona: Vincentino Conti, 1560 (Reprint: Jerusalem: 1964). (Hebrew) Midrash Aggadah. Edited by S. Buber. Vienna, 1894. (Hebrew) Midrash Hagadol to Leviticus. Edited by A. Steinsaltz. Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook, 1975. (Hebrew) Midrash Mishle: A Critical Edition based on Vatican MS. Ebre. 44, ed. Burton I. Visotzky. New York: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1990. (Hebrew) Midrash on Proverbs = S. Buber, Midrasch Mischle, Wilna, 1893 (Reprint: Jerusalem, 1965). (Hebrew) Midrash on Psalms = S. Buber, Midrash Tehillim. Vilna, 1892 (Reprint: Jerusalem, 1966). (Hebrew) The Midrash on Psalms. Translated by William C. Braude. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1959. Midrash Rabbah, vol. II. Genesis. London and Bournemouth: Soncino Press, 1951. Midrash Rabbah. Vol. III, Exodus. Translated by S. M. Lehrman. London: Soncino, 1939. Midrash Rabbah, Leviticus, Translated by J. Israelstam and Judah J. Slotki. London; New York: Soncino Press, 1939. Midrash Tannaim = Midrash Tanaim al sefer Devarim; Midrasch Tannaim zum Deutronomium. Edited by David Tsvi Hoffmann. Berlin: Ittskovski, 1908-1909. Midrash Tanhuma-Yelammedenu: An English Translation of Genesis and Exodus from the Printed Version of Tanhuma-Yelammedenu with an Introduction, Notes, and Indexes. Translated by Samuel A. Berman. Hoboken, NJ: Ktav, 1995. Midrash Tanhuma (S. Buber Recension), vol. 2. Exodus and Leviticus. Translated by John T. Townsend. Hoboken, NJ: Ktav, 1997. Midrash Zuta, Song of Songs (Buber) = Midrash Zuta on Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations and Ecclesiastes. Edited by S. Buber. Berlin, 1894. (Hebrew). The Midrash on Psalms, vol. 2, Translated by William G. Braude. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1959. The Minor Tractates of the Talmud: Massektoth Ketannoth, vol. II. Translated by A. Cohen. London: Soncino Press, 1966. Mishnayoth, vol I. Order Taharoth. New York: Judaica Press, 1964. Mishnayoth, vol. V. Order Kodashim. Translated by Philip Blackman. New York: Judaica Press, 1964. Moses Maimonides, The Guide for the Perplexed. Translated by M. Friedlander. London: Geroge Routledge, 1919. Otzar Midrashim (Eisenstein) = Eisenstein, J. D. Ozar Midrashim: A Library of two Hundred Minor Midrashim, 2 vol. Bibliotheca Midraschica. New York: Reznick, Menschel & Co, 1915. Pesikta Rabbati (Friedmann) = M. Friedmann, Pesikta Rabbati, Vienna, 1880. Pirqe deRabbi Eliezer = Pirqe de Rabbi Eliezer. Edited by D. Luria. Warsaw, 1852 (Reprint: Jerualem, 1960). 259 Pesikta de Rab Kahana = Mandelbaum, B. Pesiqta de Rav Kahana: According to an τxford εanuscript with Variations….With Commentary and Introduction, 2 vols. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1962. Pesikta deRab Kahana: R. Kahana's Compilation of Discourses for Sabbaths and Festal Days. Translated by W. G. Braude and I. J. Kapstein. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1975. A Rabbinic Anthology. Edited by Claude Goldsmid Montefiore and Herbert Loewe. New York: Schocken, 1974. Rabbeinu Behaye, Biur al ha-Torah, vol. II, Exodous, Leviticus. Edited by R. Hayyim Dov Chavel. Jerusalem: Mosad ha-Rav u , 1λθ7έ (Hebrew) Ritva, Commentary to the Talmud (Hiddushei ha-Ritva), Kiddushin. Edited by R. Avraham Dinin. Jerusalem: Mossad HaRav Kook, 1985. (Hebrew) Seven Minor Treatises = Seven Minor Treatises: Sefer Torah, Mezuzah, Tefillin, Zizit, 'Abadim, Kutim, Gerim: And Treatise Soferim II. Edited by M. Higger. New York: Bloch, 1929/30. Sifre: A Tannaitic Commentary on the Book of Deuteronomy. Translated by Reuven Hammer. New Haven and London: Yale Univeristy Press, 1986. The Talmud, The Steinsaltz Edition, vol. XIV, Tractate Ta’anit, part II. New York: Random House, 1995. The Talmud of the Land of Israel. 35 vols., vol. 20, Hagiaga nad Moed Qatan. Translated by Jacob Neusner. Chicago and London: The Univeristy of Chicago Press, 1982. The Tosefta, vol. I, Zeraim (The Order of Agriculture). Translated by Jacob Neusner. New York: Ktab, 1977. The Tosefta, vol. V, Qedoshim (The Order of Holy Things). Translated by Jacob Neusner. New York: Ktab, 1977. Wertheimer, Shlomoh Aharon. Batei Midrashot, vol. 2. Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kuk, 1953. Non-Rabbinic Aelian. Historical Miscellany. Translated by N. G. Wilson. LCL 486. Cambridge, MA; London: Harvard University Press, 1997. Aesop’s ab es. Translated by Laura Gibbs. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2002. Ambrose, Commentry on Luke = Ambroise de Milan, Traité sur l`Evangile de S. Luc. Traduit par Gabriel Tissot. SC 45. Paris: Cerf, 1976. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament, vol .V, Acts. Edited by Francis Martin and Thomas C. Oden. Downers Grove, IL: Inter Varsity Press, 2006. Anonymus, Treaty of Physiognomy (De Physiognomonia Liber) = Anonyme Latin, Traité de physiognomonie. Traduit par Jacques André. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1981. Aristophanes, The Acharians = The Acharnians of Aristophanes. Translated with notes by W. J. M. Starkie. Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1968. Aristotle. History of Animals. Translated by D. M. Blame. LCL 439. Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press, 1991. Augustine, Expositions of the Psalms = Saint Augustine, Expositions of the Psalms, 7398. Translated by Maria Boulding. The Works of Saint Augustine, Part III, Books, vol. 260 18. Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 2002. Latin text: Augustinus, Enarration in Psalmum, PL 36. Augustinus, Exposition in Psalmum, CCSL 39. The Book of Jubilees. Translated by James C. VanderKam. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001. The Book of the Saints of the Ethiopian Church, vol. 1.1. εas aram mt h d r (September 8-December 6). Translated by E. A. Wallis Budge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1928. Bruno the Carthusian. Expositio in Psalmos. PL 152, 637C-1420C. Cassiodurus, Explantion of the Psalms, vol II. Psalms 51-100. Translated by P. G. Walsh. New York: Paulist Press, 1991. Latin text: Cassiodorus, Expositio in Psalmum. CCSL 98. Cicero, Against Piso = Cicero in Twenty Eight Volumes, vol. XIV. Translated by N. H. Watts. LCL 252. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press; London: W. Heinemann, 1953. Clement of Alexandria. Miscellanies (Stromata) = Clement of Alexandria. The Stromata, or Miscellanies, in: The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of The Writings of the Fathers Down to AD 325, ANF 2. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1994 (Reprint of Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1885). Columella. On Agriculture. 3 vols. Translated by E. S. Forster and Edward H. Heffner. LCL 361; 407;408. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; London: W. Heinemann, 1941-1955. Dio Cassius. Roman History. 9 vols. Translated by Earnest Cary. LCL. London and New York: Heinemann and Macmillan, 1914-1927. Ephrém de Nisibe. Commentaire de l' Evangile concordant ou Diatesseron. Traduit du syriaque et de l'arménien par Louis Leloir. SC 121. Paris: Cerf, 1966. Ephrem the Syrian, Commentary on Tatian’s Diatessaron. Saint phrem’s Commentary on Tatian’s Diatessaron. An ng sih Trans ation of Chester eatty Syriac εS ι0λ with Indtroduction and Notes. Translated by C. McCarthy. JSSt Supplement 2. Manchester: Oxford University Press on behalf of the University of Manchester, 1993. Epictetus. The Discourses. 2 vols. Translated by W. A. Olfdfather. LCL. Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press, 1925. Eucherius. Eucherii Lugdunensis Formulae spiritalis intelligentiae; Instructionum libri duo. Eucherius, ed. C. Mandolfo. CCSL 6. Turnhout: Brepols, 2004. Flavius Josephus Translation and Commentary, vol. 1b, Judean War 2. Translation and commentary by Steve Mason. Boston: Brill Academic Publishers, 2008. Fracisco Machado, Mirror of the New Christians = Fracisco Machado, Espelho de Christãnos novos, Alcobaça, Portugal, 1541. English Translation: Francisco Machado, The Mirror of the New Christians. Edited, translated and introduced by Evelyn Vieira Mildred and Ephraim Frank Talmage. Toronto: Pontifical Insitute of Mediaeval Studies, 1977. Galen, On the powers of Foods = Galen on Food and Diet. Translated by Mark Grant. London: Routledge, 2000. Hilary of Potiers, On Matthew = Hilaire de Poitiers, Sur Matthieu, tome I. Traduit par Jean Doignon. SC 254. Paris: Cerf, 1978. 261 Historiae Augustae = The Scriptores Historiae Augustae, vol. III. Translated by David Magie. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1922. Histoire auguste. Tome V, 1ère partie, Vies d'Aurélien. Tacite, texte établi, traduit et commenté par François Paschoud. Paris: les Belles lettres, 1996. Horace, Epistles = Horace. Satires, Epistles and the Poetica. Translated by H. Rushton Fairclough. LCL 194. Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press, 1926. Ikhwān al-Safā’, The Case of the Animals versus Man before the King of Jinn. A Tenthcentury Ecological Fable of Basra. Tanslated by Lenn Evan Goodman. Boston: Twayne Publishers, 1978. Isidore of Seville, Etymology = The Etymologies of Isidore of Seville. Translated by Stephen A. Barney. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Jerome, Commentary on Daniel = Jerome's Commentary on Daniel. Translated by Gleason L. Jr. Archer. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1958. The Jerusalem Talmud, Berakhot. Translated by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2000. Julian. Against the Galileans in The Works of the Emperor Julian, vol. III. Translated by W. C. Wright, 313-427. LCL 157. Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press, 1923. Juvenal, Satire = Juvenal and Persius. Translated by G. G. Ramsay. LCL 91. London: William Heinemann, 1918. Kalonymus Ben Kalonymus, Igeret Baale Haim. Edited by I. Toporovesky. Epilogue by A.M. Habermann. Jerusalem: Mosad haRav Kuk, 1959. (Hebrew). Partial English translation: The Anima s’ δawsuit against umanity. A εodern Adaptation of an Ancient Animal Rights Tale, Translated and adapted by Rabbi Anson Laytner and Rabbi Dan Bridge. Introduced by Seyyed Hossein Nasr. Louisville, KY: Fons Vitae, 2005. The Letter of Aristeas = Aristeas to Philocrates. Translated by M. Hadas. New York: Harper, 1951. Life of Sts. David, Symeon and George of Lesbos = “δife of Stsέ David, Symeon and George of δesbos” Translated by Dorothy Abrahamse and Douglas Domingo-Forasté. in Alice-Mary Maffry Talbot, Byzantine Defenders of Images: Eight Saints' Lives in English Translation. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 1998. Lucretius, On the Nature of the Things = Lucretius, On the Nature of the Universe. Translated by Ronald Melville. Oxford: Clarendon, 1997. Macrobius. The Satrnalia. Translated by Percival Vaughan Davis. New York and London: Columbia University Press, 1969. Ovid, Metamorphoses = Ovid in Six Volumes, vol. 4. Metamorphoses in Two Volumes, vol. 2. Translated by Frank Justus Miller. LCL 43. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Pres, 1916. Paul of Aegina, Seven Books = The Seven Books of Paulus Aegineta, Vol. 1. Translated by Francis Adams. London: The Sydenham Society, 1844. Petrus Alfonsi, Dialogue Against the Jews = Petrus Alfonsi, Di ogo contra os ud os. Edited and translated by John Victor Tolan, Klaus-Peter εieth, Esperanza Ducay, and εaría Jes s δacarra. Huesca, Spain: Instituto de Estudios Altoaragoneses, 1996. 262 English translation: Petrus Alfonsi, Dialogue Against the Jews. Translated by Irven M. Resnick. Washington, D.C.: The Catholoic University of America Press, 2006. Philo. Flaccus, in Philo, vol. IX. Translated by F. H. Colson, 295-406. LCL 363. London: William Heinemann; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1941. Philo, On Husbandry = Philo. On Husbandry (De Agricultura), in Philo, vol. III. Translated by F. H. Colson and G. H. Whitaker, 104-206. LCL 247. London: William Heinemann; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1930. Philo, On the Life of Moses = Philo. Moses I and II (De Vita Mosis), in Philo, vol. VI. Translated by F. H. Colson, 274-596. LCL 289. London: William Heinemann; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1935. Philo, The Special Laws = Philo. On the Special Laws (De specialibus legibus), in Philo, vol. VII-VIII. Translated by F. H. Colson. LCL 320; 341. London: William Heinemann; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1937. Philo of Alexandria, Writings, vol. I. The Historical Writings, the Apological Writings. Translated and edited by Suzanne Daniel-Nataf. Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1986. (Hebrew) Pliny. Natural History, vol. III., Books 8–11. Translated by H. Rackham. LCL 353. London: William Heinemann; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1940. Plutarch. That Epicurus Actually Makes a Pleasant Life Impossible (non posse suaviter vivi secundum epicurum), in P utarch’s Moralia, vol. XIV. Translated by Beendict Einarson and Phillip H. De Lacy, 1-152. LCL 428. London: William Heinemann; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1967. Porphyry, Against the Christians = Robert M. Berchman, Porphyry against the Christians. Studies in Platonism, Neoplatonism, and the Platonic tradition, vol. 1. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Porphyry, Porphyry's Against the Christians: The Literary Remains. Edited and translated by R. Joseph Hoffmann. Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 1994. Polybius. The Histories, vol, I, Books 1-2. Translated by William Roger Paton. LCL 128. London: William Heinemann; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1921. [Pseudo] Ovid, Halieutica = The Halieutica ascribed to Ovid. Edited by J. A. Richmond. London: Athlone Press, 1962. English translation: Peter Toohey, Melancholy, Love, and Time: Boundaries of the Self in Ancient Literature. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2004. Raimundus Martini and Joseph de Voisin. Raymundi Martini Pugio fidei adversus Mauros et Iudaeos.: Cum observationibus Iosephi de Voisin. Lipsiae, 1687. [Pseudo] Melito of Sardis, Clavis = Clavis Melitionis in Spicilegium Solesmense, 2.3. Edited by J. B. Pitra, 1-308. Paris, 1855. Theophilus of Edessa, Chronicle = Theophilus of Edessa's Chronicle and the Circulation of Historical Knowledge in Late Antiquity and Early Islam. Translated by Robert G. Hoyland. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2011. Sebeos' History. Translated by Robert Bedrosian. New York: Sources of the Armenian Tradition, 1985. Varro. On Agriculture. Translated by William D. Hooper and Harrison B. Ash. LCL 283. London: William Heinemann; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1934. Vegetius, Epitome of Military Science = Vegetius, Epitome of Military Science. Translated by N. P. Milner. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1993. 263 Virgil, Aeneid = Virgil, Aeneid. Translated by Frederick Ahl and Elaine Fantham. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Primary Sources after 1600 Amsallem, Abraham. Bein Israel LeAmim (Between Israel and the Nations). Jeuraslem: no publisher, 2000/2001. (Hebrew) Baronio, Cesare, Annales ecclesiastici Caesaris Baronii, vol. 2. Barri-Ducis: Guerin, 1864. Basnage, Jacques. Histoire des juifs, depuis Jesus-Christ jusqu'a present, VII. La Haye : Henri Scheurleer, 1710. Schwartz, Yoel ben Aharon. Yemot Olam: Mabat al-Tekufatenu veMasmauta, Jerusalem: Dvar Yerusalym, 1980. (Hebrew) Secondary Sources Abramson, Shragaέ “εa amar a a -Pirusho Ma'amar Chazal U-Perusho (A Rabbinic Saying and Its Interpretation)” Molad 27, new series 4 (1971): 421-429. (Hebrew) Aderet, Avrhamέ ”Tumat Yadaim ( Impurity of the hands),” in From Destruction to Restoration: The Mode of Yavneh in Re-Establishment of the Jewish People, 210-231. Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, 1990. (Hebrew) Adorno, Theodor, W. The Stars Down to Earth and Other Essays on the Irrational in Culture. London and New York: Routledge, 1994. Albek, Hέ “Addition to Y. Baer, “The forged εidraschim of Raymond Martini and their Place in the Religious Controversies in the εiddle Agesέ” In Studies in Memory of Asher Gulak and Samuel Klein. Jerusalem: Center for Judaic Studies Hebrew University, 1942 . Alföldi, Andreas. Early Rome and the Latins. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 1965. Alon Gedaliahέ “Inner Tensions: The Patriarchate and Sanhedrin,” in The Jews in their Land in the Talmudic Age (70-640 C.E), 308-322. Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press, 1989 (Original Title: Ha-Yehudim be-Eretz- isra’e bitekufat ha-Mishnah veha-Talmud, Jerusalem: Magnes, 1980). Amar, Zohar and Ariέ Zέ Zivotofskyέ “Identification of the Shibuta Fishέ” HaMa'ayan 45, no. 3 (2005): 41-46. (Hebrew) Aminoff, Irit. The Figure of Esau and the Kingdom of Edom in Palestinian MidrashicTalmudic Literature in the Tannaic and Amoraic Periods. PhD dissertation, Melbourne: Melbourne University, 1981. Amselle, Jean-Loup. ranchementsμ anthropo ogie de uni ersa it des cu tures. Paris: Flammarion, 2001. ___έ εétissage, branchement et triangulation des culturesέ” Revue germanique internationale 21 (2004): 41-51. Anderson, J. K. Hunting in the Ancient World. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985. André, Jacquesέ “δa part des suidés dans le vocabulaire grec et latinέ” Anthropozoologica 15 (1991): 5-24. ___. L'alimentation et la cuisine à Rome. Paris: Klincksieck, 1961. 264 Andrews, Alfred, Cέ “Greek and δatin εouse-Fishes and Pig-Fishesέ” Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 79 (1948): 232-253. Arubas Bέ and Hέ Goldfusέ “The Kilnworks of the Tenth legion Fretensis,” in The Roman and Byzantine Near East: Some Recent Archaeological Research. Edited by John H Humphrey, 95-107. Ann Arbor, MI: Journal of Roman Archaeology, 1995. Asmussen Jes Peter and Hέ Dadkhanέ “En jødisk-persisk Daniel apocalypse, en oversšttelse af en apokryf Daniel tekst (A Jewish-Persian Daniel Apocalypse, a Translation of an Apocryphal Daniel text),” Dansk Teologisk Tidsskrift (1998): 199215. Atkinson, Kέ εέ Tέ “The Historical Setting of the Habbakuk Commentary,” Journal of Semiitc Studies 4 (1959): 238-263. Atzmon, Arnon. Esther Rabbah II – Towards a Critical Edition, PhD Disertation. RamatGan: Bar-Ilan University, 2005. (Hebrew) Aymard, J. Essai sur les chasses romaines des origines à la fin des Antonins. Paris: De Broccard, 1951. Baer, Yitzhak “Israel, the Christian Church and the Roman Empire from the time of Septimius Severus to the Edict of Toleration of AέDέ 313,” Scripta Hierosolymitana 7 (1961): 79-147. ___. “The forged εidraschim of Raymond Martini and their Place in the Religious Controversies in the εiddle Ages,” Studies in Memory of Asher Gulak and Samuel Klein,29-49. Jerusalem: Center for Judaic Studies Hebrew University, 1942. (Hebrew) Bakhos, Carolέ “Figuring (out) Esau: The Rabbis and Their τthers,” Journal for Jewish Studies 58, no. 2 (2007): 250-262. Barag, Dan. “Brick Stamp-Impressions of the δegio X Fretensis,” Bonner Jahrbücher 167 (1967): 244Ḳ267. ___έ “Brick Stamp-Impressions of the Legio X Fretensis,” in E.L. Sukenik Memorial Volume, 168-182. Eretz Israel 8. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1967. (Hebrew) ___έ “The Countermarks of the δegio Decima Fretensis (Preliminary Report),” The Patterns of Monetary development in Phoenicia and Palestine in Antiquity. Proceedings of the International Numismatic Convention, Jerusalem 27-31 December 1963. Edited by Arie Kindler, 117-125, plates IX-XI. Tel Aviv: Schocken, 1967. Barak-Erez, Daphne. Outlawed Pigs: Law, Religion, and Culture in Israel. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 2007. Barr, Janeέ “Review of Braverman, Jayέ Jerome’s Commentary on Daniel: A Study of Comparative Jewish and Christian Interpretations of the Hebrew Bible, Washington, The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1λ7κέ” Journal of Biblical Literature 100, no. 2 (1981): 288. Barton, Stephen Cέ “Food rules, sex rules and the prohibition of idolatryέ What’s the connectionς,” Idolatry: False Worship in the Bible, Early Judaism and Christianity, 141-162. London and New York: T&T Clark, 2007. Baumgarten, Rolf. “The 'pig and vine gloss' and the Lives of St. Brigitέ” Peritia 19 (2005): 229Ḳ238. 265 Becker, Hans-Jürgen. “Epikureer im Talmud Yerushalmi,” in The Talmud Yerushalmi and Graeco-Roman Culture, vol 1. Edited by Peter Sch fer, 379-421. T bingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998. Be’eri, σuritέ Went Forth into Evil Courses: Elisha Ben Abuya – A’her. Tel-Aviv: Miskal ḲYedioth Ahronoth Books and Chemed Books, 2007. (Hebrew) Belayche, σicoleέ “’Dimenticareέέέ Gerusalemme’ : les paganismes à Aelia Capitolina du IIe au IVe siècle de notre ère,” Revue des Études Juives 158, no. 3-4 (1999): 287-348. Benovitz, εosheέ “Herod and Hanukkah,” Zion 68, no. 1 (2003): 39-40. (Hebrew) Benkheïra, Mohammed Hocine. “Tabou du porc et identité en Islam,” dans Histoire et identités alimentaires en Europe. Dirigé par Martin Bruegel et Bruno Laurioux, 37-51. Paris: Hachette, 2002. Berthelot, Katell. Phi anthrôpia udaicaμ e d bat autour de a “misanthropie” des ois ui es dans ’Antiquit . Leiden: Brill, 2003. Betz, Hans Dieter. The Sermon on the Mount: A Commentary on the Sermon on the Mount, including the Sermon on the Plain (Matthew 5:3-7:27 and Luke 6:20-49. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1995. Blenkinsopp, Joseph. Isaiah 56-66: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, Anchor Bible, vol. 19b. New York: Doubleday, 2003. Bloch, Marc. The Historian's Craft. New York: Knopf, 1953. Bodendorfer, Gherhardέ “ : God’s Self-Introdution Forumla in Leveticus in Midrash Sifra,” in Book of Leviticus: Composition and Reception. Edited by Rolf Rendtorff, Robert A. Kugler, and Bartel S. Smith, 403-428. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Bohak, Gideon. Joseph and Aseneth and the Jewish temple in Heliopolis. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1996. Bovon, François. De Vocatione Gentium: Histoire de ’interpr tation d’Act. 10,1-11, 18 dans les six premiers siècles. Tübingen: Mohr, 1967. Botha, Phil Jέ “The Relevance of the Book of Daniel for Fourth-Century Christianity According to the Commentary Ascribed to Ephrem the Syrian,” in Die Geschichte Der Daniel-Auslegung in Judentum, Christentum Und Islam: Studien Zur Kommentierung Des Danielbuches in Literatur Und Kunst. Edited by Katharina Bracht and David S. Du Toit, 99-122. Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 2007. Bottéro, Jean. “δ’homme et l’autre dans la pensée babylonienne et la pensée israélite,” in Hommes et bêtes, Entretien sur le racisme. Edited by Léon Poliakov, 103-113. Paris; La Haye: Mouton, 1975. Botterweck, Gέ Jέ “ chazîr,” in Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, vol. IV. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1980. Boulogne, Jacques. P utarque dans e miroir d’Épicure. Ana yse d’une critique syst matique de ’ picurisme. Villeneuve d’Ascq: Presses Universitaires du Septentrion, 2003. Boustan, Ra ananέ From Martyr to Mystic: Rabbinic Martyrology and the Making of Merkavah Mysticismέ T bingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. Bowersockέ Glen Wέ “The Greek εoses: Confustion of Ethnic and Cultural Components in δater Roman and Early Byzantine Palestineέ” in Religious and Ethnic Communites in Later Roman Palestine. Edited by Hayim Lapin, 31-48. Bethesda, MD: Univeristy Press of Maryland, 1998. 266 Boyarin, Daniel. Border Lines: The Partition of Judeo-Christianity. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004. ___. Dying for God: Martyrdom and the Meaning of Christianity and Judaism. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1999. ___. Carnal Israel: Reading Sex in Talmudic Culture. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993. Boyarin, Jonathanέ “δe porc en dieu Pôrosέ” Penser/Rêver 7 (2005): 151-176. [English version “The Pig as Poros: τn the Uses (and δoss) of a Swinish Symbolic εediator” (April 2005). unpublished paper.] Brady, Christian M. The Rabbinic Targum of Lamentations: Vindicating God. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Braun, εartinέ “Biblical δegend in Jewish-Hellenistic Literature with Special Reference to the Treatment of the Potiphar Story in the Testament of Joseph,” in History and Romance in Graeco- Oriental Literature. Edited by Martin Braun, 44-104. Oxford: Blackwell, 1938. Braverman, Jay. erome’s Commentary on Danie μ A Study of Comparati e ewish and Christian Interpretations of the Hebrew Bible. Washington: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1978. Briand, εichelέ “Grec π ο : du (porc) au sanglier,” dans Les Zoonymes : Actes du colloque international tenu à Nice les 23-25 Janvier 1997. Edité par Sylvie Mellet, 91-115. Nice: Publications de la Faculté des Lettres, Arts et Sciences humaines de Nice, 1997. Broshi, Magen. “The Diet of Palestine in the Roman Periodέ” Cathedra 43 (1987): 15-32. (Hebrew) ___. “The Diet of Palestine in the Roman Period: introductory σotes,” in Bread, Wine, Walls and Scrolls, 121-43. London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001 (originally published in: The Israel Museum Journal 5 (1986): 41-56). Brown, Raymond E. An Introduction to the the New Testament. The Anchor Bible Reference Library. New York et al.: Doubleday, 1997. Brown, Ronald N. The Enjoyment of Midrash: The Use of the Pun in Genesis Rabba. Ph.D. Dissertation. Cincinnati, OH: Hebrew Union College, 1980. ___. “Midrashim as oral traditions,” HUCA 47 (1976): 181-189. Broyles Craig C. The Conflict of Faith and Experience in the Psalms: A Form-Critical and Theological Study. Sheffield, England: JSOT Press, 1989. Brumberg-Kraus, Jonahanέ “εeat-Eating and Jewish Identity: Ritualization of the Priestly 'Torah of Beast and Fowl' [Lev. 11:46] in Rabbinic Judaism and in Medieval Kabbalah,” Association for Jewish Studies Review 24, no. 2 (1999): 227-262. Bryan, David. Cosmos, Chaos and the Kosher Mentality. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995. Büchler, A., “The Patriarch Rέ Judah I and the Graeco Roman Cities of Palestine,“ in Studies in Jewish history: the Adolph Büchler memorial volume, edited by Israel Brodie and Joseph Rabinowitz, 179-241. London: Oxford University Press, 1956. ___.“Der Patriarch R. Jehuda I. und die Griechisch-R mischen St dte Pal stinas,“ The Jewish Quarterly Review 13, no. 4 (1901): 683-740. Buckser, Andrewέ “Keeping Kosher: Eating and Social Identity among the Jews of Denmarkέ“ Ethnology 38, no. 3 (1999): 191-209. 267 Cagnat, Kέ εέ Rέ “δ’armée romaine au siège de Jérusalem,” Revue des études juives 22 (1891): xlii. Callan, Terranceέ “Comparison of Humans to Animals in 2 Peter 2,10-22,” Biblica 90 (2009): 101-113. Charles, R. H. The oo of noch Trans ated from Professor Di mann’s thiopic Text. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1893. Cohen, Gershon, Dέ “Esau as Symbol in Early εedieval Thought,” in Jewish Medieval and Renaissance Studies. Edited by Alexander Altmann. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1967. ___έ “The Symmetry of History,” in Abraham Ibn Daud, The Book of Tradition (Sefer Ha-Qaalah). Edited by Gerson, D. Cohen. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1967. Cohen, σaomi Gέ “Rabbi εeir: A Descendant of Anatolian Proselytes,” JJS 23 (1972): 51-59. Cohen, Shaye J. D. From the Maccabees to the Mishnah. 2nd edition. Louisville and London: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006 (1989). ___έ “The Destruction: From Scripture to εidrash,” Prooftexts 2, no 1 (1982): 18-39. Cole, Penny Jέ “‘τ God, The Heathen Have Come into Your Inheritance’ (PSέ7κέ1) - the Theme of Religious Pollution in Crusade Documents, 1095-11κκέ” In Crusaders and Muslims in Twelfth-Century Syria. Edited by Maya Shatzmiller, 84-111. Leiden; New York; Köln: Brill, 1993. Cook, John Granger. The Interpretation of the Old Testament in Greco-Roman Paganism. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004. Courcelle, Pierreέ “δe thème littéraire du bourbier dans la littérature latine,” Comptes rendus de ’Acad mie des Inscriptions et e es-Lettres (avril-juin 1973): 273-289. Courtney, E. A Commentary on the Sattires of Juvenal. London: Athlone, 1980. Dabrowa, Edward. Legio X Fretensis: a prosopographical study of its officers (I-III c. A.D.). Stuttgart: F. Steiner, 1993. Dar, Shimon. “Food and Archeology in Romano-Byzantine Palestine,” in Food in Antiquity. Edited by John Wilkins, David Harvey & Mike Dobson, 326-335. Exeter, UK: University of Exeter Press, 1995. Darmesteter, Jέ “δ'Apocalypse persane de Daniel,” dans Mélanges Renier; recueil de travaux pub. par l'École pratique des hautes études (Section des sciences historiques et philologiques) en mémoire de son président Léon Renier, 405-420. Paris: École pratique des hautes, 1887. Davidson, Y. Otzar ha-shirah v'-ha-piyut (Treasury of Song and Liturgical Poetry), 4 vols. New York: 1924Ḳ1933 (Reprint : New York: Ktav, 1970). De Saulcy, Félicien. “δettre à εέ δéon Renier sur une monnaie antique contremarquée en judée,” Revue archéologique 20 (1869): 251-260. ___. Numismatique de la Terre Sainte, description des monnaies autonomes et impériales de la Palestine et de l'Arabie Pétrée... Paris : J. Rothschild, 1874. Déclais, Jean-δouis “Du combat de Jacob avec l’ange à la licéité de la viande de chameau: le devenir d’un récitέ” Islamochristiana 25 (1999): 25-43. Di εarco, εέ “Riflessi della polemica antiepicurea nei Silli di Timone II: Epicuro, Il porco e ’insa iab e entre.” enchos 4 (1λκ3 μ 5λ-91. 268 Diamond, Eliezer. Holy Men and Hunger Artists: Fasting and Asceticism in Rabbinic Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. Douglas, Mary. “Impurity of δand Animals,” Purity and Holiness. The Heritage of Leviticus, ed M. J. M. Poorthuis and J. Schwartz, 24-45. Leiden, Boston, Köln: Brill, 2000. ___. Purity and Danger. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1966. Drijvers, H. J. W. Cults and Beliefs at Edessa. Leiden: Brill, 1980 Dulaey, εartineέ “δa figure de Jacob dans l’exégèse paléochrétienne (Gn 27-33),” Recherches Augustiniennes 32 (2001): 75-168. Duncan, Thomas Sέ “The Aeneas δegend on Coins,” The Classical Journal 44, no. 1 (1948): 15-29. Efron, Joshuaέ “The Psalms of Solomon, The Hasmonean Decline and Christianity,” in Studies on the Hasmonean Period. Leiden: Brill, 1987 (1980). Eliade, Mircea. Cosmos and History: The Myth of the Eternal Return. New York: Harper, 1954 (Original title : δe mythe de ’ terne retour, Paris: Gallimard, 1949). Eliav, Yaron Zέ “The Urban δayout of Aelia Capitolina: A σew View from the Perspective of the Temple εount,” in The Bar Kokhba War Reconsidered: New Perspectives on the Second Jewish Revolt against Romeέ Edited by Peter Sch fer, 241-278. T bingen: Mohr, 2003. ___. Intdoduction to the Research of the Jewish Daily life in the Roman Bath-Houses in ret Israe μ istory, a aca and Ta mudic’ Rea ia. M.A. Thesis. Jerusalem: The Hebrew Univeristy, 1993. (Hebrew) Eliot, T. E. S. Collected Poems 1909-1962. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1963. Elitzur, Avshalom Cέ “Amalek and the Swine: The Anatomy of εetaphysical Hatredέ” in Sefer HaYovel Lichvod proffesor Shlomo Shoham. Edited by Chemi Ben Nun, Avshalom Elitzur, Igal Vardi, Mati Gottriech and Sosanah Katz. Tel-Aviv: Ydihot Hahronot, 2004. (Hebrew) On line version: < http://www.e-mago.co.il/emagazine/hate.html > Consulted August 23 2011. Epstein, Abrahamέ “The Beasts of the Four Kingdoms,” Bet Talmud 4 (1885): 177. (Hebrew) ___. Mi-Qadmoniot ha-Yehudim, 2 vols. Jerusalem: Mossad ha-Rav Kook, 1965 (Vienna 1887). (Hebrew) Eshel, Hanan. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Hasmonaean State. Grand Rapids, Michigan; Cambridge, U.K: Eerdmans; Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi Press, 2008. ___. “Aelia Capitolinaέ Jerusalem no moreέ” Biblical Archaeological Review 23, no. 6 (1997): 46-48. Espérandieu, Émile. Recueil général des basreliefs de la Gaule romaine. Tome I. Paris: Impr. Nationale, 1907. Evans, Jane DeRose The Art of Persuasion: Political Propaganda from Aeneas to Brutus. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1992. Faas, Partick. Around the Roman Table: Food and Feasting in Ancient Rome. Chicago: The Univeristy of Chicago Press, 1994. Fabre-Vassas, Claudine. The Singular Beast: Jews, Christians, and the Pig. New York: Columbia University Press, 1997 [Original title : La bête singulière. Les Juifs, les chrétiens et le cochon. Paris : Gallimard, 1994.]. 269 ___έ “Juifs et Chrétiens, autour du cochonέ” dans Identité alimentaire et altérité culturelle. Actes du colloque de Neuchâtel, 12,13 novembre 1984, 59-83. Neuchâtel, Belgium: Institute d'ethnologie Saint-Nicolas, 1985. Feldman, Louis H. Remember Amalek: Vengeance, Zealotry, and Group Destruction in the Bible According to Philo, Pseudo-Philo, and Josephus. Cincinnati, OH: Hebrew union college press, 2004. ___. Josephus's Interpretation of the Bible. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998. ___. Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993. Flavius Josephus Translation and Commentary, vol. 1b, Judean War 2. Translation and commentary by Steve Mason. Boston: Brill, 2008. Forti, Tova L. Animal Imagery in the Book of Proverbs. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2008. Fraenkel, Jonah. Darkhei ha-Agadah ve-ha-Midrash, 2 vols. Tel Aviv and Givatayim, Israel: Modan and Yad LaTalmud, 1991. (Hebrew) Freidenreich, David Moshe. Foreign Food: A Comparatively-Encriched Analysis of Jewish, Christian, and Islamic Law. PhD Dissertation, New York: Columbia University, 2006. Frère, Jean. Le bestiaire de Platon. Paris: Kimé, 1998. Friedheim, Emmanuel. Rabbinisme et paganisme en Palestine romaine: étude historique des realia talmudiques (Ier-IVème siècles). Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2006. ___έ “The Travelling εerchant and Arabian-Syrian Pagan Rituals Mentioned in the Toseftaέ” Tarbiz 69, no. 2 (2000): 167-176. (Hebrew) Frimer Norman E., The Preparation of a Critical Edition of the Manuscript Eben Bohan by Shem Tob bar Yitzhak Shaprut. Phd Dissertation, New York: Yeshiva University, 1953. Gafni, Isaiah, εέ “Jerusalem in Rabbinic δiterature,” in The History of Jerusalem. The Roman and Byzantine Periods (70-638 CE). Edited by Yoram Tsafrir and Smuel Safrai, 35-60. Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi Press, 1999. (Hebrew) Gafni, Isaiah, εέ “Jerusalem in Rabbinic δiterature, “ in The History of Jerusalem. The Roman and Byzantine Periods (70-638 CE). Edited by Yoram Tsafrir and Smuel Safrai, 35-60. Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi Press, 1999. (Hebrew) Garnsey, Peter. Food and Society in Classical Antiquity. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1999. ___έ “εass Diet and σutrition in the City of Rome,” in Cities, Peasants and Food in Classical Antiquity: Essays in Social and Economic History. Edited by Peter Garnsey and Walter Scheidel. 226-252. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. Garsiel, Moshe. Midrashic Name Derivations in the Bible. Ramat-Gan: Revivim, 1987. (Hebrew) Geiger, Joseph. “To the History of the Term Apikoros,” Tarbiz 42 (1972-73): 499-500. (Hebrew) Germer-Durand, Pέ “Aelia Capitolina,” Revue biblique 1 (1892): 384. Ginzberg, Louis. The Legends of the Jews. vol. V. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1947. Golden, εarkέ “εale Chauvinists and Pigsέ” Echos du Monde Classiaque/Classical Views 32, no. 7 (1988): 1-12. 270 Goldfus Hέ and Bέ Arubasέ “The Kilnworks of the Tenth δegion at the Jerusalem Convention Center,” Qadmoniot 122, no. 2 (2002): 111-119. (Hebrew) Gowers, Emily. The Loaded Table: Representations of Food in Roman Literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993. Gourdain, Francois Philippeέ “Translation of a Dissertation on Satyrical εedals addressed to the Socity by Pere Francois Philippe Gourdain,” Archaeologia, or, Miscellaneous Tracts Relating to Antiquity, vol. IX, 61-81. London: The Society of Antiquaries of London, 1789. Gozzini Giacosa, Ilaria. The Taste of Ancient Rome. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1992 ]origninal title: A cena da Lucullo: Come cucinare oggi i piatti de ’antica Roma. Casale Monferrato: Edizioni Piemme, 1986.[ Graetz, Heinrich. History of the Jews. vol. II. Philidelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1956 [1893]. Grant, Robert M. Early Christians and Animals. London and New York: Routledge, 1999. Grottanelli, Cristianoέ “Avoiding pork: Egyptians and Jews in Greek and δatin texts,” in Food and Identity in the Ancient World. Edited by C. Grottanelli and L. Milano, 5993. Padova: S.A.R.G.O.N., 2004. Haak, Robert D. Habakkuk. Leiden: Brill, 1992. Habas, Ephratέ “The Halachic Status of Caesarea as Reflected in the Talmudic δiterature,” in Caesarea Maritima: A Retrospective After Two Millennia . Edited by Avner Raban, Kenneth G. Holum, and Jodi Magnes, 454-468. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research. no. 308: 108. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Hadas-Lebel, Mireille. Jerusalem Against Rome. Translated by Robyn Fréchet. Leuven: Peeters, 2005 (original title: Jérusalem contre Rome. Paris: Cerf, 2003). ___. “Rome ‘Quatrième Empire’ et le symbole du porc,” dans e enica t udaicaμ ommage Va entin σi iprowet yέ Editeé par André Caquot, Mireille Hadas-Lebel et. J. Riaud, 297-312. Leuven: Peeters, 1986. ___έ “δe paganisme à travers les sources rabbiniques des IIe et IIIe sièclesέ Contribution à l’étude du syncrétisme dans l’empire romainέ” ANRW II, 19.2 (1979): 427-429. Har-Peled, εisgavέ “Entre l’âne et le bœuf, réflexion sur la machine dialogique,” dans Adam et ’astraga eμ ssais d’anthropo ogie et d’histoire sur es imites de ’humain, ed. Gil Bartholeyns, Pierre-Olivier Dittmar, Thomas Golsenne, Misgav Har -Peled et Vincent Jolivet, 87-97. Paris: Les éditions de la Maison des sciences de l’homme, 2009. Harris, Rέ “Hadrian’s Decree of Expulsion of the Jews from Jerusalem,” Harvard Theological Review 19 (1926): 199-206. Hasan-Rokem, Galitέ “Rabbi εeir, the illuminated and the Illuminating: Interpreting Experience,” in Current Trends in the Study of Midrash, 227-243. Edited by Carol Bakhos. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Hayes, Christine Elizabeth. Gentile Impurities and Jewish Identities: Intermarriage and Conversion from the Bible to the Talmud. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. ___. “Intermarriage and Impurity in Ancient Jewish Sources,” HTR 92, no. 1 (1999): 3-36. “ azir ,” Tamudic Encyclopedia (Encyclopedia talmudit), vol. 13, 443-44θ. Jerusalem, Israel: Talmudic Encyclopedia Institute, 1977. (Hebrew) 271 Heinemann, Isaac. The Methods of the Aggadah (Darkhe ha-agadah). Jerusalem: Magness, 1949. (Hebrew) Heinemann, Josephέ “Profile of a εidrash: The Art of Composition in δeviticus Rabbaέ” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 39, no. 2 (1971): 147-148. Hernando, Josep. “Tractus adversus Iudaeosέ Un tratado an nimo de polémica antijudía (sέXIII),” Acta historica et archaeologica mediaevalia 7-8 (1986-1987): 9-77. Herr, εoshe Davidέ “Persecutions and εartyrdom in Hadrian’s Days,” Scripta Hierosolymitana 23 (1972): 85-125. ___. Roman Rule in Tannaitic Literature Its Image and Conception. PhD Dissertation. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University, 1970. Heschel, Abraham Joshua. Heavenly Torah: As Refracted Through the Generations. Translated by Gordon Tucker and Leonard Levin. New York: Continuum, 2005. Hesse, Brian and Paula Wapnishέ “Pig Use and Abuse in the Ancient δevant: Ethnoreligious Boundary-Building with Swineέ” in Ancestors for the Pigs: Pigs in Prehistory. Edited by Sarah M. Nelson, 123-135. MASCA research papers in science and archaeology, v. 15. Philadelphia, PA: Museum Applied Science Center for Archaeology, University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, 1998. Hirshman, εarc Gέ “Rabbinic Universalism in the Second and Third Centuriesέ” HTR 93 (2000): 101-115. ___. “Stories of the Bath-House of Tiberiasέ” Idan 11 (1988): 119-122. (Hebrew) Houston, Walter. Purity and Monotheism. Clean and Unclean Animals in Biblical Law. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993. Idel, Moshe. Ascensions on High in Jewish Mysticism Pillars, Lines, Ladders. Budapest: Central European University Press, 2005 ___. “Afterwardέ” in Eliade, εirceaέ The Myth of Eternal Return. Translated by Yotam Rehuveny and edited by Ronit Nikolsky. Jerusalem: Carmel, 2002. (Hebrew) Incigneri, Brian J. The Gospel to the Romans: The Setting and Rhetoric of Mark's Gospel. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Infante, Gil J. and J. Costa Durão. A Colour Atlas of Meat Inspection. London: Wolfe, 1990. Isaac, Benjamin H. The Invention of Racism in Classical Antiquity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2004. ___έ “Eternal Rome,” Historia 1-2 (1998): 19-31. (Hebrew) Ish-shalom (Friedmann), εeirέ “Arbah Gidulin ShAsru Hakhamim, ( )έ” σew York: Lipshitz, 1899. (Hebrew) Jenkins, Michael R. “The 'Aeneid' medallion - a narrative interpretation,” The Numismatic Chronicle 148 (1988): 148-152, pl. 12/3-4. Jungkurtz, Rέ “Fathers, Heretics, and Epicureans,” The Journal of Ecclesiastical History 17 (1966): 3-10. Kadman, Leo. The Coins of Caesarea Maritima. Tel-Aviv; Jerusalem: Schoken, Publications of the Israe Numismatic Soceity, 1957. ___. The Coins of Aelia Capitolina. Corpus Nummorum Palaestinensium, vol. 1. Jerusalem: Schocken, 1956. Kaizer, Ted. The Religious life of Palmyra: A Study of the Social Patterns of Worship in the Roman Period. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2002. 272 Karlinski H. “He- azir ve-‘ etero e-Atid Lavo,” Shanah be-Shanah (1972): 243-254. (Hebrew) Kay, Paul Aέ and Bob Chodos, “εan the Hunterς Hunting, Ecology, and Gender in Judaism,” Ecotheology 11 (2006): 494-509. Keel, τthmarέ “Die kultischen εassnamen Antiochus’ IVέ Religionsverfolgung undήoder reformversuchς” in Hellenismus und Judentum: vier Studien zu Daniel 7 und zur Religionsnot unter Antiochus IV, Hellenismus und Judentum, edέ τthmar Keel und Urs Staubέ Freiburg Schweiz: Universit tsverl; G ttingen : Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000. Kiperwasser, Reuvenέ “Sturcture and Form in Kohelet Rabbah as Evidence of Its Redaction,” The Journal of Jewish Studies 58, no. 2 (2007): 283-302. ___. Midrashim on Kohelet; Studies in their Redaction and Formation. Phd Thesiss. Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University, 2005. Kister, εenahemέ “δegends of the Destruction of the Second Temple in Avot De-Rabbi σathanέ” Tarbiz 67, no. 4 (1998): 483-530. (Hebrew) Kraemer, David. Jewish Eating and Identity through the Ages. New York and London: Routledge, 2007. Krauss, Samuel. Paras VeRomi BaTalmud UbaMidrashim (Persia and Rome in the Talmud and Midrashim). Jerusalem: Mosad HaRav Cook, 1948. (Hebrew) ___. Monumenta Talmudica, vol. 5: Geschichte, 1. Teil: Griechen und Rimer. Wien: Orion, 1914. Krostenko, Brian A. Cicero, Catullus, and the Language of Social Performance. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001. Krueger, Derekέ “The Bawdy and Society: The Shamelessness of Diogenes in Roman Imperial Culture,” in The Cynics: The Cynic Movement in Antiquity and Its Legacyέ Edited by Robert Bracht Branham and εarie-τdile Goulet-Cazé, 222-239. Hellenistic culture and society, 23. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996. Kunin, Seth D. We Think What We Eat: Neo-Structuralist Analysis of Israelite food rules and other Cultural and Textual Practices, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series, 412 .Lonodn and New York: T&T Clark International, 2004. δabendz, Jenny Rέ “’Know What to Answer the Epicurean’ - A Diachronic Study of the Apiqoros in Rabbinic δiteratureέ” Hebrew Union College Annual 74 (2003): 175-214. Lachs, Samuel Tobias. A Rabbinic commentary on the New Testament: the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Hoboken, NJ: Ktav; New York: Anti-defamation league of B'nai B'rith, 1987. δafon, Christopheέ “Un organisme interne semblable au chaudron du sacrifice,” La sacrifice antique: vestiges procédures et stratégies. Sous la direction de Véronique Mehl et Pierre Brulé, 155-166. Renne: Presses Universitaires de Rennes, 2008. Lazarus-Yafeh, Havaέ “Is there a Concept of Redemption in Islamς” Some Religious Aspects of Islam: A Collection of Articles. Leiden: Brill, 1981. Le Breton, David. La saveur du monde: une anthropologie des sens. Paris: εétailié, 2006. δeach, Edmundέ “Anthropological Aspects of δanguague: Animal Categories and Verbal Abuseέ” in New Directions in the Study of Language. Edited by E. H. Lenneberg, 2363. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1964. Leary O. De Lacy. The Saints of Egypt. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge; New York: The Macmillan Company, 1937. 273 δevey, Irving εέ “Caesarea and the Jews,” in The Joint Expedition to Caesarea Maritima, Vol. I, Studies in the History of Caesarea Maritima. Edited by Charles T. Fritsch, 4378. Missoula, MN: Scholars Press for the American School of Oriental Research, 1975. δevick, Barbaraέ “Propaganda and the Imperial Coinage,” Antichton 16 (1982): 104-116. Levine I. Lee, Judaism and Hellenism in Antiquity: Conflict or Confluence? Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1998. ___. Caesarea Under Roman Rule. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1975. Levinson, Joshua. “Enchanting Rabbis: Contest σarratives between Rabbis and εagicians in Rabbinic δiterature of δate Antiquityέ” Tarbiz 75 (2006): 295-328. (Hebrew) Lev-Tov, Justinέ “‘Upon What εeat Doth this τur Caesar Feed…ς’ A Dietary Perspective on Hellenistic and Roman Influence in Palestine,” in eichen aus Text und Steinμ Studien auf dem Weg u einer Arch o ogie des σeuen Testaments. Edited by S. Alkier and J. Zangenberg, 420-446. Tübingen: Francke, 2003. δevey, Irving εέ “Caesarea and the Jews,” in The Joint Expedition to Caesarea Maritima, Vol. I: Studies in the History of Caesarea Maritima. Edited by Charles T. Fritsch, 4378. Missoula, MN: Scholars Press for the American School of Oriental Research, 1975. Levin Israel and Sanez-Badillos Angel, Si me o ido de ti, erusa em… Cantos de as sinagogas de al-Andalus. Cordoba: Ediciones el Almendro, 1992. Levinas, Emmanuel. Time and the Other: And Additional Essays. Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press, 2002. (Original title : Levinas Emmanuel, Le temps et ’autre, Paris : PUF, 1983 (1947)). Levine, Lee I. Judaism and Hellenism in Antiquity: Conflict or Confluence? Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1998. Lewinsky, Yom-Tov. “ eit ad i u t aman biTefut ot israe ( ow aman was beaten in the Jewish Diasporas),” Yalkut Folkloristi lePurim. Tel-Aviv: HaHevra Ha’Ivrit lyeda Am, 1947. (Hebrew) Lieberman, Saul. Tosefta Ki-Fshutah: A Comprehensive Commentary on the Tosefta, 10 vols., Second Augmented Edition, New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1992. (Hebrew) ___. Studies in Palestinian Talmudic Literature (εe arim be-Torat rets- i ra e ). Jerusalem: Magnes, 1991. (Hebrew) ___. “How εuch Greek in Jewish Palestineς” in Biblical and Other Studies. Edited by A. Altmann, 123-141. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1963. ___. “Raymond Martini and his Alleged Forgeriesέ” Historia Judaica 5 (1943): 87-102. Linder, Amnon. The Jews in the Legal Sources of the Early Middle Ages. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1997. Longo, τddoneέ “δa nourriture des autres,” dans Histoire de ’a imentation. Dirgée par Jean-Louis Flandrin et Massimo Montanari, 265-275. Paris: Fayard, 1996. δ nnqvist, Kenneth Kέ Aέ “σew Vistas on the Countermarked Coins of the Roman Prefects of Judaea,” Israel Numismatic Journal 12 (1992): 56-70. δowe, Jέ Cέ Bέ “Cooks in Plautus,” Classical Antiquity 4, no. 1 (1985): 72-102. δowell, Edmundsέ “Epic and εyth,” in A Companion to Ancient Epic. Edited by John Miles Foley, 31-44. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2005. 274 δust, Johanέ “Cult and Sacrifice in Daniel: The Tamid and the Abomination of desolation,” in The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception. Edited by John Joseph Collins, Peter W. Flint, and Cameron Van Epps, 671-688. Leiden: Brill, 2002 (First published in Ritual and Sacrifice in the Ancient Near East. Edited by J. Quaegebeur, 283-299. Leuven: Peeters and Department Oriëntalistiek, 1993). εacDonald, σathanέ “Food and drink in Tobit and other ‘Diaspora novellas’,” in Studies in the Book of Tobit: A Multidisciplinary Approach, 165-178. London and New York: T&T Clark, 2006. Mack, Hananel. Mi-Sodo shel Mosheh ha-darshan (The Mystery of Rabbi Moshe Haddarshan), Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 2010. (Hebrew) ___. “The Source and Development of the Shabtaian Exposition on the Rascission of the εitzvot,” Sidra 11 (1995): 55-72. (Hebrew) Madden, Frederic W. History of Jewish Coinage, and of Money in the Old and New Testament: With 254 Woodcuts, and a Plate of Alphabets. London: Quaritch, 1864. Magness, Jodi. “In the footsteps of the Tenth Roman δegion in Judea,” The First Jewish Revolt: Archeology, History, and Ideology,189-212. Edited by Andrea M. Berlin and Andrew, J. Overman. London and New York: Routledge, 2002. εango, Cyrilέ “The Temple Mount AD 614-638,” in Bayt al-Maqdis: 'Abd al-Malik's Jerusalem. Edited by Julian Raby and Jeremy Johns. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992. εa’oz, Zvi Uriέ “The Civil Reform of Diocletian in the Southern δevant,” Scripta Classica Israelica 25 (2006): 105-119. Marcus, Eliezer. The Confrontation Between Jews and Non-Jews in Folktales of the Jews of Islamic Countries, 2 vols. Ph.D. dissertation. Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 1977. (Hebrew) Marillier, Bernard. δe sang ier h ra dique. Le Coudray-Macouard: Cheminements, 2003. εarmorstein, Aέ “Dioclétien à la lumière de la littérature rabbinique,” Revue des études juive 98 (1934): 19-43. εartin, Jacobέ “Pagan Tempel in Pal stina Ḳ rabbinische Aussagen im Vergleich mit arch ologischen Funden,” in The Talmud Yerushalmi and Graeco-Roman culture, vol. 2. Edited by Peter Sch fer and Catherine Hezser, 139-160. T bingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998. εassey, Isabel Aέ “εeasure for εeasure,” in Interpreting the Sermon on the Mount in the Ligth of Jewish Tradition as Evidenced in the Palestinians Targums of the Pentateuch: Selected Themes, 74-89. Lewiston: Mellen, 1991. εatza, Devoraέ “The Story of Joseph and Potiphar’s Wife,” in Studies in Jewish σarrati eμ εa’aseh Sippur. Edited by Avidov Lipsker and Rella Kushelevsky, 24950. Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 2006. (Hebrew) Mayor, Adrienne. Greek Fire, Poison Arrows, and Scorpion Bombs: Biological and Chemical Warfare in the Ancient World. Woodstock: Overlook Duckworth, 2003. Mazar, Eilat. “The Camp of the Tenth Roman δegion at the Foot of the South-West Corner of the Temple εount Enclosure Wall in Jerusalem,” in New Studies on Jerusalem, Proceedings of the Fifth Conference December 23 rd 1999. Edited by A. Faust and E. Baruch, 52-67. Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University, Ingeborg Rennert Center for Jerusalem Studies, 1999. (Hebrew) 275 McNamara, Martin. The Psalms in the Early Irish Church. Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000. ___. Glossa in Psalmos: The Hiberno-Latin Gloss on the Psalms of Codex Palatinus Latinus 68 (Psalms 39:11-151:7)έ Roma, Città del vaticano: Biblioteca apostolica vaticana, 1986. Meir, Ofra. The Acting Characters in the Stories of the Talmud and the Midrash (A Sample). PhD Thesis, Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 1977. (Hebrew) Meshorer, Yaakov. The Coinage of Aelia Capitolina. Jerusalem: Israel Museum, 1989. ___. “An Unpublished Coin of Aelia Capitolina,” Israel Exploration Journal 13 (1963): 59-60. εichon, Eέ “εélanges, III, σote sur une inscription de Ba’albek et sur des tuiles de la légion Xa Fretensisέ” Revue Biblique 9 (1900): 95-105. Milgrom, Jacob. Leviticus 17-22. New York: The Anchor Bible, 2000. ___. Leviticus 1-16. The Anchor Bible. New York: Doubleday, 1991. ___έ “Ethics and Ritual: The Foundations of the Biblical Dietary δaws,” in Religion and Law: Biblical, Jewish, and Islamic Perspectives, 159Ḳ91. Edited by E.B. Firmage. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1989. ___. “The Biblical Diet δaws as an Ethical System,” Interpretation 17 (1963): 288-301 (reprinted in Studies in Cultic Theology and Terminology, 105-106. Leiden: Brill, 1983). Milikowsky, Chaim. “Reflections on Hand-Washing, Hand-Purity and Holy Scripture in Rabbinic δiterature,” in Purity and Holiness: The Heritage of Leviticus. Edited by M. Poorthuis and J. Schwartz, 149-162. Leiden, Boston, Köln: Brill, 2000. ___έ “The Symmetry of History in Rabbinic δiterature: The Special σumbers of Seder Olam, Chapter Two,” Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought 11 (1993): 45. (Hebrew) εillás Vallicrosa, José εέ “Un tratado an nimo contra los judios” Sefarad 13 (1953): 334. Neusner, Jacob. The Talmud: Law, Theology, Narrative: a Sourcebook. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2005 ___. Neusner on Judaism, vol. 2, Literature. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2005. ___. A Theological Commentary to the Midrash. Vol. 4. Leviticus Rabbah. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2001. ___. “History, Time, and Paradigm in Classical Judaism,” Approaches to Anceint Judaism 16 (1999): 189-212. ___. “Paradigamtic versus Historical Thinking: The Case of Rabbinic Judaism,” History and Theory 36 (1997): 353-377. ___. The Presence of the Past, the Pastness of the Present: History, Time and Paradigm in Rabbinic Judaism. Bethesda: CDL Press, 1996. ___. Judaism and Christianity in the Age of Constantine: History, Messiah, Israel, and the Initial Confrontation. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1987. ___. Eliezer Ben Hyrcanus: The Tradition and the Man. Part 1. The Tradition. Leiden: Brill, 1973. Neyrey, Jerome H. 2 Peter, Jude: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. The Anchor Bible, vol. 37C. New York et al.: The Anchor Bible, 1993. 276 Nirenberg, David, “The Birth of the Pariah: Jews, Christian Dualism ,and Social Science”, Social Research, 70, no. 1 (2003): 201-236. ___. Communities of Violence. Persecution of Minorities in the Middle Ages. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1996. Novak, David. The Election of Israel: The Idea of the Chosen People. Cambridge; New York; Melbourne: Cambridge University Press, 1995. Paczkowski, εέ Cέ “Gerusalemme negli scrittori cristiani del II-III secolo,” Liber Annus Studii Biblici Franciscani 45 (1995): 165-202. Pastoureau, Michel. “Chasser le sanglierέ Du gibier royal à la bête impure: histoire d’une dévalorisationέ” Une histoire symbolique du moyen âge occidental, 65 -77. Paris: Seuil, 2004. ___έ “δa chasse au sanglier: histoire d'une dévalorisation (IVe-XIVe siècle)έ” dans La Chasse au Moyen Age: Société, traités, symboles. Edité par Michel Pastoureau ; Paravicini Bagliani, Agostino et Baudouin van den Abeele, 7-23. Firenze: SISMELEdizioni del Galluzzo, 2000. ___έ“Quel est le roi des animaux,” dans Le Monde animal et ses représentations au Moyen-âge (XIe-XVe siècles): actes du XVe congrès de la Société des historiens médiévistes de l'enseignement supérieur public, Toulouse, 25-26 mai 1984, 133-142. Toulouse: Université de Toulouse-Le Mirail, Service des publications, 1985. Patrich, Joseph. “Herod’s HippodromeήStadium at Caesarea in the Context of Greek and Roman Contests and Spectacles,” in Studies in the History of Eretz Israel. Presented to Yehuda Ben Porat, ed. Yehoshua Ben-Arieh and Elchanan Reiner, 120-167. Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi Press, 2003. (Hebrew) Perani, Mauro. Il Midrash Temurah: la dialettica degli opposti in un'interpretazione ebraica tardo-medievale. Bologna: EDB, 1986. Perdue, Leo G. Proverbs. Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 2000. Perles, Fέ “σachlese zum neuhebr ischen und aram ischen W rterbuch,” in Festschrift Adolf Schwarz zum siebzigsten Geburtstage, 15. Juli 1916. Edited by Samuel Krauss and Victor Aptowitzer, 2λ3-31ίέ Berlin: Rέ δ wit, 1917. Poucet, Jacques “δe motif de la truie romaine aux trente gorets,” Folia Electronica Classica (Louvain-la-Neuve) 7 (janvier-juin 2004), <http://bcs.fltr.ucl.ac.be/fe/07/TRUIE/Gesine23.htm >. Consulted April 18, 2012. Prina Ricotti, Eugenia Salzaέ “Alimentazione, cibi, tavola e cucine nel l’età imperiale,” in δ’A iment ione ne mondo antico, 90-94. Roma: Instituto Poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato, 1987. Puhvel, Jaanέ “Victimal Hierarchies in Indo-European Animal Sacrifice,” The American Journal of Philology 99, no. 3 (1978): 355Ḳ362. Purcell, Nicholas. “The Way We Used to Eat: Diet, Community, and History at Rome,” American Journal of Philology 124, no. 3 (2003): 329-358. ___έ “The Roman Villa and the δandscape of Productionέ” in Urban Society in Roman Italy. Edited by T. Cornell and K. Lomas, 151-79. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1995. Rabello, Alfredo Mordechai. “τn the Relations between Diocletian and the Jews,” Journal of Jewish Studies 35 (1984): 147-167. Ragacs, Ursula. “Raimundo Martí, τέPέ Biografía”, in δa contro ersia udeocristiana en spa aμ (desde os or genes hasta e sig o III μ homena e a Domingo εu o δe n, 277 edited by Carlos del Valle Rodríguez, Andrés Barcala εu oz, and Domingo εu oz δe n, 301-308. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, Instituto de Filología, 1998. ___. “The Forged Midrashim of Raymond Martini Ḳ Reconsiderad,” Henoch 19 (1997): 59-68. Rainbow, Jesseέ “Sarah Saw a Hunter : the Venatic εotif in "Genesis Rabbah" η3:11έ” in Midrash and the Exegetical Mind: Proceedings of the 2008 and 2009 SBL Midrash Sessions. Edited by Lieve M. Teugels and Rivka Ulmer, 155-179. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2010. Ramsey, Boniface. Beginning to Read the Church Fathers. New York: Paulist, 1985. Raveh, Inbar. Fragments of Being: Stories of the Sages: Literary Structures and WorldView. Or Yehuda, Israel: Kinneret, Zmora-Bitan, Dvir; Beer Sheva: Heksherim Istitute, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, 2008. Regev, Eyalέ “How Did the Temple εount Fall to Pompeyς” The Journal of Jewish Studies 48, no. 2 (1997): 276-289. Reinach, Théodoreέ “εon nom est δégion,” Revue des études juives 47 (1903): 172-178. Rofé, Alexander. “Isaiah 66μ1-4: Judean Sects in the Persian Period as Viewed by TritoIsaiah,” in Biblical and Related Studies Presented to Samuel B. S. Iwry. Edited by Ann Kort and Scott Morschauser, 205-217. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1985. Rokeah, David. Justin Martyr and the Jews. Leiden: Brill, 2002. ___. “Polmus shel KitosḲLeBirura shel Bayia Philologit-Historit,” in Meridot haYehudim bi-yeme Trayanus, 115-117 li-sefirat ha-Notsrim. Edited by David Rokeah, 172-173. Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar Center, 1978. (Hebrew) Rosenblum, Jordon D. Food and Identity in Early Rabbinic Judaism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. ___έ “Why Do You Refuse to Eat Porkς” Jews, Food, and Identity in Roman Palestineέ” The Jewish Quaterly Review 100, no. 1 (2010): 95-110. ___. ‘They sit apart at εea s’μ ar y Rabbinic Commensa ity Regu ations and Identity Construction. PhD dissertation. Providence, Rhode Island: Brown University, 2008. Rosenfeld, Bέ Zέ “The Changing Significance of the σame ‘Yavne’ in Rabbinic Tradition,” in Jews and Judaism in the Second Temple, Mishna and Talmud Period: Studies in Honor of shmuel Safrai. Edited by Isaiah Gafni, Aharon Oppenheimer and Menahem Stern, 149-164. Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, 1993. Rosenthal, Judahέ “Abrogation of the Commandments in Jewish Eschatology,” in Meyer Waxman Jubilee Volume on the Occasion of his Severnt-Fifth Birthday. Edited by Judah Rosenthal, Leonard C. Mishkin, and David S. Shapiro, 217-233. Chicago: College of Jewish Press; Tel-Aviv and Jerusalem: Mordecai Newman, 1966. (Hebrew) Rosen-Zvi, Ishay. Demonic Desires: Yetzer Hara and the Problem of Evil in Late Antiquity. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011. ___. “Yetzer Hara in Amoraic δiterature: A Reevaluation,” Tarbiz 77 (2008):1-38. (Hebrew) Rosivach, Vincent Jέ ”δex Fannina Sumptuaria of 1θ1 BC,” The Classical Journal 102, no. 1 (2006): 1-15. Rosner, Fredέ “Yerakon in the Bible, and Talmud: Jaundice or Anemia,” The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 25, no. 6 (1972): 626-628. 278 Ross, εark Barryέ “Kabbalistic Tocinofobia: Américo Castro, δimpieza de Sangre, and the Inner εeaning of Jewish Dietary δaws,” in Fear and its Representations in the Middle Ages and Renaissance. Edited by Anne Scott and Cynthia Kosso, 152-86. Turnhout: Brepols, 2002. Roth, Jonathan P. The Logistics of the Roman Army at War (264 B.C. – A.D. 235). Leiden; Bosotm; Köln: Brill, 1999. Roubach, Sharon. In Life, in Death, they were not Parted: The Idea of Twinship in Western Christianity. PhD Dissertation. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University, 2003. Rozen, Baruch. “Swine Breeding in Eretz Israel after the Roman Period,“ Cathedra 78 (1995): 25-42. (Hebrew) Rozin, P., Haidt, J., McCauley, C., & Imada, S., “Disgust: Preadaptation and the cultural evolution of a food-based emotionέ” in Food Preferences and taste. Edited by H. MacBeth, 65-82. Providence: Berghahn Books, 1997. Rutgers, δeonard Vέ “Some Reflections on the Archeological Finds from the Domestic Quarter on the Acropolis of Sephorisέ” in Religious and Ethnic Communities in Later Roman Palestine. Edited by Hayim Lapin. Bethesda, MD: University Press of Maryland, 1998. Safrai, Sέ “The Holy Congregation in Jerusalem,” Scripta Hierosolymitana 23 (1972): 6278 Safrai, Ze’ev. “Pigs,” The Economy of Roman Palestine, 172-173. London and New York: Routledge, 1994. ___. “The Exemption of the Territory of Cesarea from the Commandments Relating to the Land,” Sinai 96, no. 5-6 (1985): 217-228. (Hebrew) Salomon, Amitaiέ “Din Tzerorot veεekorotav, (The δaw of Tzerorot and its τrigin),” Petuhi Hotam 3 (2008): 110-145. (Hebrew) Sasson, Jack εuradέ “Isaiah θθ:3-4a,” Vetus Testamentum 26 (1976): 199Ḳ207. Satlow, Michael. Tasting the Dish: Rabbinic Rhetorics of Sexuality. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995. Schäfer, Peter. Judeophobia. Attitudes toward the Jews in the Ancient World. Cambridge, MA; London, Harvard University Press, 1997. Schouwink, Wilfriedέ “The Wild Pig in εedieval Historiography: How a Pagan Devil Becomes a Christian Ruler,” in Atti del V Colloquio della International Beast Epic, Fable and Fabliau Society, Torino–St-Vincent, 5-9 settembre 1983, 301-311. Edited by Alessandro Vitale-Brovarone and Gianni Mombello. Alessandria: Edizioni dell'Orso, 1987. ___. Der wilde Eber in Gottes Weinberg: zur Darstellung des Schweins in Literatur und Kunst des Mittelalters. Sigmaringen: J. Thorbecke, 1985. Schremer, Adiel. Brothers Estranged: Heresy, Christianity, and Jewish Identity in Late Antiquity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. ___έ “τther Brothers,” Reshit 1 (2009): 165-185. (Hebrew) ___έ “Eschatology, Violence, and Suicide: An Early Rabbinic Theme and Its Influence in the εiddle Ages,” Apocalypse And Violence. Edited by A. Amanat And J.J. Collins, 19-43. New Haven: Yale Center For International And Area Studies, 2002. Schwab, Uteέ “Runentituli, narrative Bildzeichen und biblisch-änigmatische Gelehrsamkeit auf der Bargello-Seite des Franks Casketέ” in Runica—Germanica— Mediaevalia [Festschrift for Klaus Düwel] . Edited by Wilhelm Heizmann and Astrid 279 von Nahl, 759Ḳ803. Ergänzungsbände zum Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde 37. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2003. Seston, William. Dioclétien et la tétrarchie. Paris: E. de Boccard, 1946. Shachar, Isaiah. The Judensau: A Medieval Anti-Jewish Motif and Its History. London: Warburg Institute, 1974. Shahar, Yuvalέ “Rabbi Akiba and the Desturction of the Temple: the Establishment of the Fast Days,” Zion 68, no. 2 (2003):145-166. (Hebrew) Shapira, Danέ “Qīṣṣa-ye Dāniyāl Ḳ ’o εa‘aseh Danī’el Ḳ be-farsit-yehudit: Ha- ibbur wetargumo,” Sefunot 7 (1999): 337-366. (Hebrew) Shemesh, Yaelέ “Gi gu eha she ashtiμ εi ra, midrash a a , ha-parshanut ha-femiistit,” Beth Mikkra 47 (2002): 356-372. (Hebrew) Shinan, Avigdorέ “δight and Blindness in the Stories of the Rabbis,” Migvan 2 (2003): 75-92. (Hebrew) Siegel, Judyέ “Kosher 'Pork of the Sea' εakes Aliya from Iran,” Jerusalem Post (Friday, August 19, 2005), 6. Sillar, Frederick Cameron, Ruth Mary Meyler, and Oliver Holt. The Symbolic Pig: An Anthology of Pigs in Literature and Art. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1961. Sivan, Hagit. Palestine in Late Antiquity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. ___έ “From Byzantine to Persian Jerusalem: Jewish Perspectives and Jewish-Christian Polemics,” Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 41 (2000): 277-306. Sivertsev, Alexei M. Judaism and Imperial Ideology in Late Antiquity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011. Smith, Rowland. Julian's Gods: Religion and Philosophy in the Thought and Action of Julian the Apostate. London: Routledge, 1995. Sokoloff, Michael. A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the Byzantine Period. Ramat-Gan: Bar Ilan University Press, 1990. Speckenbach, Klausέ “Der Eber in der deutschen δiteratur des εittelalters,” in Verbum et Signum. Beiträge zur mediävistischen Bedeutungsforschung, Festschrift Friedrich Ohly, vol. 1. Edited by Hans Fromm, Wolfgang Harms, and Uwe Ruberg, 425-476. Munich: Fink, 1975. Spencer, Diana. The Roman Alexander: Reading a Cultural Myth. Exeter: University of Exeter Press, 2002. Sperber, Daniel. A Dictionary of Greek and Latin Legal Terms in Rabbinic Literature. Ramat-Gan, Israel: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1984. Spiegel, Gabrielle M. “Memory and History: Liturgical Time and Historical Time.” History and Theory 41, no. 2 (2002):149Ḳ162. Spijkerman, Aέ “Some Rare Jewish Coins,” Liber Annuus 13 (1962/3): 298-318. Stein, Sέ “The Dietary δaws in Rabbinic and Patristic δiterature,” Studia Patristica 2 (1957): 141-154. Steinsaltz, Aέ “Atid ha-Kadosh Baruh Hu le-Ha a iro,” Tarbiz (1967): 297-298. (Hebrew) Stemberger, G nter. Jews and Christians in the Holy Land: Palestine in the Fourth Century. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000. ___. “Die Beurteilung Roms in der rabbinischen δiteratur,“ ANRW II. 19, no. 2 (1979): 338-396. Stern, Davidέ “The Captive Woman: Hellenization, Greco-Roman Erotic Narrative, and Rabbinic Literature,” Poetics Today 19, no. 1 (1998): 91Ḳ127. 280 Stern, Sacha. Jewish Identity in Early Rabbinic Writings. Leiden: Brill, 1994. Stiebel, G. D. “The Whereabouts of the Xth δegion and the Boundaries of Aelia Capitolina,” in New Studies on Jerusalem, Proceedings of the Fifth Conference December 23rd 1999. Edited by A. Faust and E. Baruch, 68-103. Ramat-Gan: BarIlan University, Ingeborg Rennert Center for Jerusalem Studies, 1999. (Hebrew) Stökl Ben Ezra, Daniel. “Parody and Polemics on Pentecost: Talmud Yerushalmi. Pesahim on Acts 2?” in Jewish and Christian Liturgy and Worship: New Insights into Its History and Interaction. Edited by Albert Gerhards and Clemens Leonhard, 279293. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Strack H. L. and G. Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash. Edinburgh: Clark, 1991. Stratton, Kimberly B. “The Eschatological Arena: Reinscribing Roman Violence in Fantasies of the End Times,” Biblical Interpretation: A Journal of Contemporary Approaches 17, no 1-2 (2009): 45-76. Stroumsa, Guyέ “Philosophy of the Barbarians: τn Early Christian Ethnological Representations,” in Geschichte-Tradition-Reflexion: Festschrift Martin Hengel, vol. II. Edited by H. Cancik, H. Lichtenberger and P. Schäfer, 339-368. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996. Syme, Ronald. “The Composition of the Historia Augusta,” in Historia Augusta Papers, 12-29. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983. Tabory, Joseph. “The Proems of the Seventh Chapter of Esther Rabba and εidrash Abba Gurion,” Jerusalem Studies in Hebrew Literature 16 (1997): 7-18. (Hebrew) Tate, Marvin E. Psalms. 51-100. Dallas, TX: Word Books, 1990. Terian, Abraham. Patriotism and Piety in Armenian Christianity: The Early Panegyrics on Saint Gregory. New Rochelle, NY: Avant, 2005. Terrien, Samuel L. The Psalms: Strophic Structure and Theological Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Pub, 2003. Thomas, Joëlέ “δe boeuf, la truie et la louve : les animaux-totems et les voyageurs dans le mythe des origines de Rome,” dans Bouleversants voyages. Itinéraires et transformations. Edité par P. Carmignani, 67-84. Perpignan: Presses universitaires de Perpignan, 2000. ___έ “δa truie blanche et les trente gorets dans l’Énéide de Virgile,” dans Mythologies du Porc. Actes du Co oque de Saint Antoine ’Abbaye (4-5 avril 1998). Texte réunis par Philippe Zalter, 51-72. Grenoble: Jérôme Million, 1999. Tiller, Patrick A. A Commentary on the Animal Apocalypse. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993. Tolan, John. Petrus Alfonsi and his Medieval Readers. Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 1993. Tomson, Peter Jέ “Jewish Food δaws in Early Christian Community Discourse,” Semeia 86 (1999): 193-211. Toplyn, Michael. “δivestock and Limitanei: The Zooarchaeological Evidence” in The Roman frontier in central Jordan: final report on the limes arabicus project, 19801989. Edited by S. Thomas Parker, 484-486. Washington D. C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 2006. Tottoli, Roberto. ib ica Prophets in the ur ān and εus im δiterature. Richmond: Curzon, 2002. 281 Trompf, G. W. The Idea of Historical Recurrence in Western Thought: From Antiquity to the Reformation. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1979. Tsafrir, Yoram. “The Topography and Archaeology of Aelia Capitolina, “The History of Jerusalem. The Roman and Byzantine Periods (70-638 CE). Edited by Yoram Tsafrir and Smuel Safrai. Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi Press, 1999. (Hebrew) Tuck, Steven δέ “The τrigins of Roman Imperial Hunting Imagery: Domitian and the Redefinition of Virtus under the Principate,” Greece and Rome 52, no. 2 (2005): 221245. Turner, Victor. Dramas, Fields, and Metaphors. Symbolic Action in Human Society. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1974. Ulmer, Rivka. Egyptian Cultural Icons in Midrash. Berlin: Walter De Gruyter, 2009. Valler, Shulamitέ “The Story of Japheth’s Daughter in the εidrash,” in A Feminist Companion to Judges. Edited by Athalya Brenner, 48-66. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. Van Bekkum, Wout Jacέ “Four Kingdoms Will Rule: Echoes of Apocalypticism and Political Reality in δate Antiquity and εedieval Judaism,” in Endzeiten. Edited by Brandes Wolfram and Felicitas Schmieder, 101-118. Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 2008. ___. Hebrew Poetry from Late Antiquity: Liturgical Poems of Yehudah. Leiden; Boston; Köln: Brill, 1998. ___. “The Classical Period of the Piyyut: the Paytan Yannay (Sixth Century AD),” Jaarbericht van het vooraziatisch-egyptisch genootschap Ex Oriente Lux 27 (1982): 120-140. Van Kooten, George Hέ “The Desecration of the ‘The εost Holy Temple of all the World’ in the ‘Holy δand’: Early Jewish and Early Christian Recollections of Antiochus ‘Abomination of Desolation,” in The Land of Israel in Bible, History and Theology: Studies in Honour of Ed Noort. Edited by Jacques van Ruiten and J. Cornelis de Vos, 291-316. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2009. Vassas, Claudine. “Questions anthropologiques autour de l’interdit du porc dans le judaïsme et de son élection par le christianisme,” dans De la domestication au tabou : le cas des suidés dans le Proche-Orient ancien. Edité par B. Lion et C. Michel, 227232. Travaux de la Maison René-Ginouvès 1. Paris: De Boccad, 2006. Viré, Fέ “Khinzir,” The Encyclopedia of Islam, New Edition, vol. V, 8-9. Leiden: Brill, 1979. Voisenet, Jacques. Bestiaire chrétien. L'imaginaire animale des auteurs du Haut Moyen Age. Toulouse: Presses universitaire du Mirail, 1994. Walzer, Richard. Galen on Jews and Christians, London: Oxford University Press, 1949. Warren, James. Epicure and Democritean Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Weiss, Ze'ev. “The Jews of Ancient Palestine and the Roman Games: Rabbinic Dicta vs. Communal Practice,” Zion 66 (2001): 427-459. (Hebrew) ___έ “Adopting a σovelty: The Jews and the Roman Games in Palestine,” The Roman and Byzantine Near East: Recent Archaeological Research, II. Edited by J. H. Humphrey, 23-49. Journal of Roman Archaeology, Supp. 31. Portsmouth, RI: Journal of Roman Archaeology, 1999. ___. “The Jews and the Games in Roman Caesarea,” in Caesarea Maritima: A Retrospective After Two Millennia. Edited by Avner Raban, Kenneth G Holum, and 282 Jodi Magnes, 443-453. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research. no. 308: 108. Leiden: Brill, 1996. ___. “Roman δeisure Culture and Its Influence upon the Jewish Population in the δand of Israel,” Qadmoniot 109 (1995): 2-19. (Hebrew) Weiser, Arthur. The Psalms: A Commentary. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1962. Weinstein, Sara. “Aaron Arend, A Critical Ḳ Annotated Edition of Elef Haεagen,” Pathways Through Aggadah IV-V (2001-2002): 317-321. (Hebrew). Weinstock, Stefanέ “Pax and the 'Ara Pacis',” Journal of Roman Studies 50 (1960): 44-58. Westreich, Avishalomέ “Gibuso ePituho she din t erorot bedibrei haTana’aim, bedibrei haAmora’aim ubata mudim, (The Formation and Development of Tzerorot Law in the Saying of the Tannaics, Amoraics and the Talmuds,” Sidra 19 (2004): 77-100. (Hebrew) White, K. D. Roman Farming. London: Thames and Hudson, 1970. Whitekettle, Richardέ “Bugs, Bunny, or Boarς Identifying the Zîz Animals of Psalms 50 and κί,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 67, no. 2 (2005): 250-264. Whitney, William Kέ Jrέ “The Place of the ‘Wild Beast Hunt’ of Sibέ τrέ 3,κίθ in Biblical and Rabbinic Tradition,” Journal for the Study of Judaism 25, no. 1 (1994): 68-81. Wiedemann, Thomas. Emperors and Gladiators. London: Routledge, 1992. Wiersma, Sydsέ “The Dynamic of Religious Polemics: The Case of Raymond εartin (Caέ 1220-Caέ12κη),” in Interaction between Judaism and Christianity in History, Religion, Art and Literature. Edited by Marcel Poorthuis, Joshua Schwartz, and Joseph Turner, 197-218. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Wiesenberg, Ernestέ “Related Prohibitions: Swine Breeding and the Study of Greekέ” Hebrew Union College Annual 27 (1956): 213-233. Wilk, Romanέ “When Hyrcanus was Besieging Aristobulus,” in Dor Le-Dor: From the End of the Biblical Times up to the Redaction of the Talmud, Studies in Honor of Juhua Efron. Edited by Aryeh Kasher and Aharon Oppenheimer, 99-104. Jerusalem: The Bialik Institute; Tel-Aviv: Tel Aviv University, 1995. (Hebrew) Williams, Stephen. Diocletain and the Roman Recovery. New York: Methuen, 1985. Wilson, John F. Banias: The Story of Caesarea Philippi, Lost City of Pan. London: I.B. Tauris, 2004. Wilson, Jones εarkέ “Genesis and εimesis: The Design of the Arch of Constantine in Rome,” The Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 59, no. 1 (2000): 5077. Yahalom, Jέ “The Transition of Kingdoms in Eretz Israel (Palestine) as Conceived by Poets and Homelists,” Shalem 6 (1992): 1-22. (Hebrew) Yassif, Eli. The Hebrew Folktale: History, Genre, Meaning. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1999. Yerushalmi, Yosef Hayim. Zakhor, Jewish History and Jewish Memory. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1982. Yisraeli-Taran, Anat. The Legends of the Destruction. Tel-Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad, 1997. (Hebrew) Yuval, Israel Jacob. Two Nations in Your Womb: Perceptions of Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2006 [Original title: “Two σations in our Womb”μ Perceptions of ews and Christians, Tel-Aviv: Alma/Am Oved, 2000. (Hebrew)] 283 Zakovitch, Yair. David: From Shepherd to Messiah. Jerusalem: Yad Izhak ben Zvi, 1995. (Hebrew) ___. ‘ or Three…and for our’μ The Pattern of the σumerica Sequence Three-Four in the Bible. Vol. 2. Jerusalem: Makor, 1979. (Hebrew) Zanker, Pέ “Die Larenaltar im Belvedere des Vatikans,” Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archaol- ogischen Instituts, Romische Abteilung 76 (1969): 205-218. Zehavi Amots and Avishag Zahavi. The Handicap Principle: A Missing Piece of Darwin's Puzzle. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997. Zeitlin, Sέ “The Origin of the Term Edom for Rome and the Roman Church,” JQR 60 (1970): 262-263. Zivotofsky Ari Z. and Zohar Amarέ “Identifying the Ancient Shibuta Fish,” Environmental Biology of Fishes 75, no. 3 (2006): 361-363. Zotenberg, Hermannέ “Geschichte Daniels: Ein Apokryph,” Archiv für wissenschaftliche Erforschung des Alten Testamentes 1 (1867-69): 385-427 Zulay Menachem. Piyyute Yannai, (Liturgical Poems of Yannai). Berlin: Schocken, 1938. Zwart, Marijn. Re ernce & Resistanceμ The Term ‘ o e’ in εatthew 11, 2κ-30 as Elucidated by the Theoruies of Bildfeld & Hidden Transcripts. M.A. Thesis. Utrecht: Utrecht University, 2011. 284 VITA Misgav Har-Peled was born in Jerusalem, Israel, on April 3, 1973. He studied at The High School for Environmental Education, Ben Gurion College, in Sde-Boker, Negev, Israel, where he majored in Environmental Studies and Archaeology. He received a Bachelor’s Degree in Biblical and Classical Archaeology and General Studies (with a specialization in Philosophy and Medieval History) from the Hebrew University in Jerusalem in 1999. He then moved to Paris, France, where he received a εaster’s Degree in History from the University of Paris I Ḳ Panthéon Ḳ Sorbonne (δ’espace io . Etude sur la transformation des églises en écuries par les musulmans durant les croisades, 1095-1291) in 2002. After one year as an exchange student at the École Française de Rome and at The University of Rome, La Sapienza (Programme: Histoire et Anthropologie des sociétés méditerranéennes de l’antiquité à la période contemporaine), he recieved his DEA from the Ecole de Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales (EHESS), entitled: δe ier d’Abraham et δ’Agneau de Dieu. Une étude comparative de ’anima it dans e udaïsme et e christianisme). Misgav currently resides between TelAviv, Israel, and San Cristobal de las Casas, Chiapas, Mexico. 285

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS

Log In

The Dialogical Beast. The Identification of Rome with the Pig in Early Rabbinic Literature (PhD thesis, March 2013)

The Dialogical Beast. The Identification of Rome with the Pig in Early Rabbinic Literature (PhD thesis, March 2013)

Related Papers

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS