avakesh

Archeological evidence for Bilaam

An inscription that confirms the existence and character of Bilaam. From AISH

"An expedition led by Professor Henk J. Franken of the University of Leiden was excavating in Deir Alla in March of 1967. The workers were cleaning up some debris from the day's work when someone noticed what seemed to be traces of lettering on fragments of plaster that littered the floor. .....

Reports of the discovery spread throughout the archaeological community. Scholars representing the United States, Jordan, France, Germany and Holland came to examine the fragments. One fragment had written on it in bold letters the words: "the prophet, Balaam son of Beor."

It took approximately ten years to assemble the piles of plaster fragments, jigsaw puzzle style, into a coherent text. Eventually, a chilling prophecy emerged. It reads:

Inscription of Balaam son of Beor,
the prophet, man of the gods.
Behold, the gods came to him at night,
and [spoke to] him according to these words,
and they said to [Balaa]m son of Beor thus:
"The [Light] has shone its last;
the Fire for [judgment] has shone."

And Balaam arose in the morning,
[ ] days,
[ ] ,
and cou[ld not eat],
and he wept bitter tears.
And his people came up to him
and they [said] to Balaam son of Beor:
"Why are you fasting and why are
you weeping?"

And he said to them:
"Return! I shall tell you what
the gods (shaddayim) are [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .]
Go on, consider the doings of the gods."

The gods have gathered together,
and the(shaddayim) gods have met in assembly,
and they have said to [��.]:
"Sew up, bolt shut the sky with your cloud!
Let darkness be there, and not brightness,
gloom and not radiance;
Yes, strike terror with the cloud of darkness,
and do not remove it ever

[�] hawk, swift, bat,
eagle, and pelican, vultures,
ostrich, stork, young of falcons,
and owl, chicks of heron, dove,
bird-of-prey, pigeon and sparrow. [10]

In order to date the inscription, the fragments were subjected to radio-carbon dating tests. The results indicated that the inscriptions were to be dated circa 800 BCE, plus or minus 70 years, with an accuracy probability of 66%. The probability rate of only 66% of a 800 BCE. date is not very reassuring. Initial paleographic studies, based on the shapes and forms of the letters, seemed to support this general time period. However, recently, scholars have lowered the date closer to 600 BCE. This suggestion is based on a connection between the handwriting style of the Deir Alla inscription and certain Ammonite inscriptions of the seventh century BCE.

The inscription can easily be seen as a demonstration that the memory of Balaam the seer survived long after his demise. .."

One of the possible reconstructions of the damaged ending of the inscription is that Bilaam placated the gods by setting cultic houses of prostitution and that this insciprion was in fact above the entrance to one such institution.

Thanks to MenachemMendel

Interpolations in the Bible

Mix and Match.

Leviticus 13,1 states, "A man that in his flesh there may be seis, or sapachas or baheres..." Whatever these terms refer to, one thing is certain - they are different afflictions. The Midrash (Leviticus Rabbah 15,1) wonders how it is determined which of these maladies afflicts a specific person and how justice is served by choosing a specific one. It never explicitly states an answer but it seems to want to answer that Hashem determines specific circumstances and that for each man there is an individual consideration and accounting. Each leprous afflication si for adifferent istuation. It leaves us to understand the answer by pursuing an unrelated verse. It starts:

To make wind a quantity and water he had calculated with a measure (Job 28).

The midrash interprets this verse an telling us that Hashem measures everything out exactly and appropriately.

What we focus on currently is a fascinating statement that the midrash makes as it goes through examples of G-d measuring out exactly the parameters of wind and water, that it understands to be Spirit and Torah.

To make wind (spirit) a quantity... R. Acha said" 'Even the Holy Spirit that rests on the prophets rests in a (set) measure. There is one who prophesizes an entire book and one who prophesized two". R. Simon said: " Be'eri prophesized two things and it was not enough to constitute a book and its was attached to Isaiah. These are they: 'And when they say to you, seek the sorcerers and magicians' and the following verse (Isaiah 8)."

The idea that Prophets and Writings contain interpolations authored by other prophets is striking but not unique. The Netsiv of Volozhin (quoted below) points out that this appears to be the standard view of Chazal.

There is internal evidence for this position within the book of Psalms and Chronicles. For example, Rashi Bava Bathra 14b brings evidence from the book of Proverbs itself (24,1) that they were edited and put together by Chezekiah and scholars in the generations subsequent to him; Proverbs as well as Psalms contains chapters ascribed to authors other than David and Solomon.[1] The Vilna Gaon writes (Mishlei 30,1): "For the Men of Great Assembly arranged in every book everything that was said with Holy Spirit on the same subject, such as in Psalms they arranged what Aseph, Heiman, Yedusun said of moral matters, rebuke and words of poetry...and also in Proverbs..."

It is important to realize that this second transcription was under the influence of Ruach Hakodesh, not mere work of men, G-d forbid.

It follows then that at some point of prior to closing of the canon of the Bible, three kinds of books would have existed: those written and already canonized in their final form, such as Judges and Ruth; those written or orally passed on from generation to generation, such as Isaiah, Daniel, or Esther and those not written under the influence of Ruach Hakodesh or containing a mixture of inspired and non-inspired writing. In the case of the latter, it would fall to the Men of the Great Assembly to transcribe or edit them under the influence of Ruach Hakodesh so that they may also join the canon in their final form, or they could remove from them the verses that were written under Divine Inspiration and attach them to a different prophetic book and discard the rest. Alternatively, they may choose to completely or partially exclude such writings from the canon. They could also choose to sift them carefully to be retained as part of Oral Law;[2] in the latter form they may be kept as sanctified but without all characteristics of full canonical membership.[3]

Appreciating this point allows us to solve the riddle of the book of Ben Sira. The book of Ben Sira is unique among the Apocryphal books. It is the only such book quoted frequently by the Talmud and Midrash; more importantly, it is at times referred to in a way reserved for quotations from the Tanach itself.[4] This is difficult to reconcile with other statements that prohibit study of this book.[5] In addition, Sanhedrin 100a approvingly quotes a number of verses from Ben Sira and concludes that "good things from it you can read but bad (nonsensical) things from it you may not read." The Talmud brings examples of some of the "bad" things; it is obvious that they are rejected as aphorisms of no great depth or significance.

After what we have established in the preceding discussion, a solution suggests itself after a perusal of the introduction to the book of Ben Sira. This introduction explains that it was written and "almost competed" by Ben Sira "who did not only gather the grave and short sentences of wise men before him but also uttered some of his own..." Farthermore, this Ben Sira lived "in the latter times, after all the people have been led away captive and called home again and after almost all of the prophets".

It may be suggested that Ben Sira represents a work that is a compilation of statements of various prophets and inspired authors that lived before him. However, and crucially important, it had never undergone a second editing under the influence of Ruach Hakodesh; rather it was put together and added to by someone who did not possess Ruach Hakodesh. The Sages were aware which verses stemmed from which source. They did not refrain from quoting or commenting on those that were divinely inspired, even to the extent of referring to them as if they originated for the Scripture. They did not accept the book as a whole, however, for average people were not capable to make this determination and would come to treat verses that are not inspired as if they are.

What was this process of Sages' editing like and what form did it take? It is described by the Netsiv in the following words: "Song of Songs -- that was composed out of many separate songs of which many were composed through Ruach Hakodesh by others (not Solomon). For example the song "tell me...(1,7)" was said by Moshe as is explained in the Sifri... Also the verse "kiss me..." (1,2) was received (as tradition) by our Rabbis to have been written prior to Solomon and they asked: "When was it composed?" Similarly "We have a little sister (8,8)" was said at the days of Avraham, as explained in Genesis Rabba, section Lech Lecha. Solomon gathered songs through the Holy Spirit and also added of his own and fashioned it into one song. This is also like this regarding the book of Psalms that his father produced and which was called by his name even though it contains songs that were said by others... So it says in Pesachim 117a that all the praises in the Psalms David said, as it says "completed songs of David son of Jesse", because David edited and added to them. So also Solomon gathered verses that he had at hand and added many others of his own and made of it into one song... There are songs that were composed with a certain meaning at one time and Solomon adjusted it through Ruach Hakodesh for a different time". (Rina Shel Torah 1,1)

"This prophecy (in Micha) is very difficult to understand. It appears that it was pre-existing form the time of the Judges and at the time of Micha it was added to the rest of his words. It states similarly in Leviticus Rabba that two verses in Isaiah were already known for the time of Be'eri (father of Ezekiel) but were added to the book of Isaiah. There are many such instances in Prophets and Writings (He'emek Davar to Genesis 49, 10)". The Netsiv expands on this and cites many other examples in He'emek Sha'ala 166,5, among them that Shema Yisrael was first pronounced by the 12 tribes thorough Ruach Hakodesh and later incorporated by Moshe into the Torah, as per Pesachim 56a. This process of second transcription, he explains, accounts also for the phenomena of Keri and Ketiv, that is for the many words in the Hebrew Bible that are written in one way but are read somewhat differently. The Ketiv represents the original wording as first said through Ruach Hakodesh and the Keri the wording as it was transcribed in its final form the second time around, under Ruach Hakodesh.

I must again emphasize the absolutely central role of Divine inspiration in the process of canonization, or fixing of the final wording and place of some of its books inside the canon of the Bible. I must also reiterate that we do not have authority to assume that this process applied to any books or verses except those specifically pointed out to us by Talmudic sages. It goes without saying that extending this idea to the Chumash is not only unwarranted but constitutes a transgression of a principle of faith, G-d forbid, and anyone suggesting such an idea has possibly have taken himself out of the community of believers.

---

1 See Psalms 72,20 Proverbs 9,1 ,25,1 (These also are proverbs of Solomon, which the men of Hezekiah king of Judah copied out.), 30,1 and R. Menachem Mendel's introduction to Vilna Gaon's commentaray on Mishlei cited in Moshe Philip's edition 1,1.

2 Avos 4,14 is a quote from Ben Sira

3 See Megila 7a and Tos s.v. Ne'emra likrot vlo lhikateiv.

4 Bava Kama 92b, See Tosafot ibid s.v.meshulash bektuvim, Chagiga 13a, Eiruvin 65a, and more than a dozen other places. Maharits Chiyos in Kol Sifrei Marits Chiyos, Vol1, p152 maintains that the acceptability of Ben Sira is subject to a disagreement of Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmud.

5 Some contemporaries submit there may have been some Rishonim who may have held a similar idea in reference to Pentateuch as well. Others have questioned this idea and interpreted such scattered passages differently. This is not the place and time to engage in this ongoing controversy. The congregation of Israel has traditionally held fast to the principles of faith as formulated by Rambam and so should we do also.

Academic studies and Torah

I received this query from a very bright seeker. I decided, with permission, to share both the question and the answer on the blog.

Question

"I see that on your site you address many issues regarding Biblical scholarship, as well as academic Talmudic scholarship. My goal has been to make the yesodei ha-das (G-d, Torah and Man (spirituality)) real to me, pashut, to have a strong foundation,well planted roots. I have grown in my emuna in Hashem and in the soul...and Torah knowledge. I have long struggled with the areas of modern scholarship, and I have discussed it with many knowledgeable rabbis and religious professors. But I find that being osek in these matters lowers my spiritual state.Besides for any hadracha you could give me in dealing with these issues intellectually, how do you deal with the spiritual. I feel on a much lower spiritual level when I read these things. I also struggle with balancing the investigation of the foundations (philosophy, secular scholarship etc.) with the investigation of the details, and the details of the details etc. (Talmudic study). But yet, I feel that I must; I have been afraid of the scholars for too long. Pachad is the worst midda. With much appreciation..."

Response

Thank you for asking this question, a question I not infrequently receive.

There is no question that indulging in academic scholarship can be bad for one's spiritual health. Experience bears this out. The real question, therefore is, what benefits might there be in academic study of Bible and Talmud and , whether they justify the investment of time that can otherwise be devoted to traditional Torah study, and if it has positive religious value, how can the risks be attenuated?

The foundation for the inquiry must be that academic studies do not have a value greater than traditional Torah study, for nothing can be more dangerous and false than such an assumption. Being familiar with the modern methods of Bible study does not mean better understanding of Tanach than that of someone who only knows Rashi and Ramban. What is a small increment of knowledge worth in front the most immensely rich, deep and powerful book ever written. Neither is there room for self congratulatory feeling of smug superiority over the  old-time (and behind the times) talmidei chachamim that one sometimes finds among academic scholars. Academic studies are only justified when they take their place in the armamentarium of an advanced  Torah scholar - as one method among others. R. Hildesheimer, for example, was known for his ability to quickly assess his audience and deliver a lecture exactly befitting his listeners. To Hungarians he gave a pilpul in the style then current in that land, to the Lithauanians he spoke as a Litvishe lamdan and to Germans, he presented an academic discourse in the style of Wissenschaft vom Judentum.

Why then read academic writers at all? Well, because so many areas of Torah study are not covered in the traditional curriculum or lie in manuscripts and obscure texts that one cannot locate and has no teacher to explain.

You must not believe that academic inquiry uncovers the Truth, only that it makes available a slice of reality. You get out what you put in.

Remember that it tends to obtain results that befit its style of inquiry. Scientific approaches are reductionist. They employ the historical method, and a powerful method it is,  and attempt to separate Torah into various layers, usually based on the historic period, cultural milieu and assumptions, or surrounding intellectual trends. This is not the way of the Torah, or Judaism for that matter. We, Jews, are unifiers, lumpers, not splitters. Just like the world itself is Unity within apparent multiplicity, so also all of Torah is one. A contemporary scholar can offer an explanation that resolves a contradiction within an ancient text, that then can be used to explain an ever older Biblical passage. Torah is one, without layers or sublevels. Thus, the academic method is merely one way of analyzing the evidence of the Tradition; in fact, it will often produce results that are contrary to what the Tradition itself teaches.

Is there a value to Academic study? I think yes, but only under certain conditions.

1. Do not engage in it until you have filled your belly with Shas and Poskim. This is because otherwise you cannot evaluate whether the academician is collating secondary sources, misreading the text, misapplying a flashy thought while overlooking the obvious meaning, or is a plain am haaretz. Why should you be thrown by the words of an am haaretz? His language may be polished, his idiom sharp and his delivery impeccable but he may be nothing more than an ignoramus, and you do not want to be swayed by an ignoramus.

2. Do not engage in it until you yourself possess and master some academic discipline. This I say because there are certain tricks of the trade that an academics know, that are used to transition between facts and conclusions. Without a thorough training in academia, without having played the game yourself, you will miss these devices and scribe more validity to the conclusions than is warranted. Especially watch out for “is would stand to reason”, "therefore", “consequently", "it is more likely than not' etc. These examples you can be taught to identify and suspect; others are more refined and even more elegant. If you do not own an area of inquiry, do not wield perfect English and understand the art of rhetoric, you will be at a disadvantage when a false elegant presentation undermines your faith based on nothing.

3.Fideism, the position that truth is established by faith and choice rather than by reason, is a necessary component were you to involve yourself in academic study. A belief that Truth is established by mystical rather than rational means, would also suffice to protect you. No amount of philosophy can sway a prophet.

4. Finally, as Menachem Ecktein wrote in his small and wonderful book, Visions of a Compassionate World, philosophy (read science) is nothing more than an attempt to come closer to God, using the means at one’s disposal. Some people have only their brain because their other facilities remain underdeveloped. At the center of their spiritual quest is their reason, unaware that the very criticism and inquiry to which they subject G-d’s word is an expression of their deep longing for it.  Seek, we must seek, Hashem through reason, through feeling, through every means at our limited disposal. If you do so, what can the academic method do to you? Academia is not the whole story, it is barely even a part of the story. If you remember this, you will be safe.

Does academic study of Torah have value? Yes, some!

Should you engage in I? Possibly at some future time, probably not now, not yet, not until the conditions above have been satisfied.
All roads lead to Jerusalem, only some can lead you to wander for a while.

Should I, the writer of these words, engage in it. No, not anymore. B’H this knowledge has served me and others well. However, that which I have gained already, I must also not deny. I must use everything that Hashem gave me, all the blind blundering in the valleys of Life, its broken paths,for the Glory of my Creator. May Hashem lead us in the path of Truth and open our eyes in His Torah and may He have nachas from all his children.

Wiki on ben Sira and did you know?

Conservative Machzor replaces the Avodah piyut with a passage from Ben Sira - outrageous!

"While Jews reject the apocrypha as having religious value in and of of itself, at various times some in the Jewish community have drawn from it as a legitimate part of Jewish literary creativity; elements of the apocrypha have even been used as the basis for two important parts of the Jewish liturgy. In the Mahzor (High Holy day prayer book), a medieval Jewish poet used Ben Sira as the basis for a beautiful poem, Ke'Ohel HaNimtah. This is a closing piyut in the Seder Avodah section, in the Yom Kipur Musaf. It begins "How glorious indeed was the High Priest, when he safely left the Holy of Holies. Like the clearest canopy of Heaven was the dazzling countenance of the priest". (This can be seen, for example, on page 828 of the Birnbaum edition of the Mahzor.) The Conservative Mahzor replaces the medieval piyut with the relevant section from Ben Sira, which is more direct (Avakesh comments: What a bad idea!). The apocrypha has even formed the basis of the most important of all Jewish prayers, the Amidah (the Shemonah Esrah). Ben Sira provides the vocabulary and framework for many of the Amidah's blessings, which were instituted by the men of the Great Assembly."

Or vice versa....

Ben Sira was a contemporary of Shimon Hatsadik, the last of the Men of the Great Assembly. Some parts of it may have been written with Ruach Hakodesh, see http://www.avakesh.com/2007/01/the_enigma_of_b.html

Who wrote Eicha?

We have all grown up knowing that Yirmiahu wrote Eicha. After all Chazal say in Bava Basra 15a that Yirmiah wrote his book and "lamentations". These lamentations are presumed to be the same ones attributed to Yirmiah in Chronicles 35:25, "and they are written on lamentations". Chazal explained that this sentence speaks of the 4th chapter of Eicha; Yirmiah took the scroll that Yhoakim burnt and rewrote and added to them (Moed Koton 26a, Taanis 22b, also reported by Josephus' Antiquities 5:1 ). It is noteworthy that Ibn Ezra differs with this interpretation in his introduction to Eicha; however, he does not dispute that Yirmiah wrote Eicha.

That Yirmiah write Eicha was never questioned. In Septuagint, which is organized topically, Eicha follows the Book of Jeremiah. More, Septuagint as well as the Arameic Targum preface this book with a statement ascribing its authorship to Yirmiah.

It was surprising, then, for me to read in the Introduction to Eicha in Daas Mikra that there were scholars that differed. It should not surprise me that academics propose revisionism; this is after all the raison D'etre of modern scholarship. What troubled me was the low quality of their proofs for this contention. I list these proofs here following Daas Mikra with my responses; Daas Mikra provides more scholarly rejoinders and I incorporated some of them as well.

The proofs are as follows:

1.The statement in 5:20, "Why forever will you forget us, reject us for many days", indicates that it was written long after Yirmiah's forced descent to Egypt.

Response: This is a standard turn of phrase also found in in Tehilim 13:2 and 9:19 as well as in other places. Furthermore, it was likely quite clear soon after the destruction that this was going to be a long exile. In addition, prophetic inspiration surely played a role.

2.Use of alphabetical acrostic is too artificial for the poetic genius of Yirmiah.

Response: on the contrary, the mastery of poetic form that is demonstrated within the constraints of the alphabetical order is nothing short of astounding. Tor really appreciate the genius of the inspired author, you must read the section in the Daas Mikra's introduction devoted to the literary analysis of the Aleph-Beis in Eicha. It is nothing short of remarkable.

3.

a.They claim that some of the statements in Eicha contradict the teachings of Yirmiahu, for example, "our fathers sinned and are not, but we carry their sins (5:7)". This contradicts, ""each man shall die for his (own) sin.(Yirmiah 31"28).

b. How could Yirmiah speak of "their prophets did not find vision from God(2:9)? Didn't he find visions?

c.How could Yirmiah call Tsidkiah "spirit of our breaths, the anointed of Hashem (4:20)" when he spoke so harshly to him of his failings.(Yirmiah 24:7-10, 34:3, 38:24)

Response:

a.These scholars appear to disregard how Chazal reconciled similar questions.

b.These may refer to false prophets or to the fact that prophecy ceased after the Destruction (see Yormiah 45)

c.There is a difference between the king as an individual before God and the King as the symbol of Royalty. David also called Shaul anointed of Hashem and Shaul certainly fell short of his personal destiny before Hashem. See, Shmuel I:26 - But David said to Abishai, "Don't destroy him! Who can lay a hand on the LORD's anointed and be guiltless?).

4. The history of prophet's suffering as recounted in Eicha is not exactly the same as the one in the Book of Jeremiah.

Response: This is not so (see Daas Mikrah for analysis). Even is we allow that it is so, the references in Eicha is to the events that occurred following destruction, of which fairly little is written in the Book of Jeremiah, and not to what is told in regards to Yirmiah's persecutions prior to the Exile.

On the other hand, stylistic, literary and theological parallels between Eichan and the Book of Jeremiah are overwhelming. I wil not recount them here but they are well discussed in the introduction to Daas Mikrah.

Finally, there is one reason why Yirmiah and only Yirmiah could have written Eicha. As Professor Y. Kaufman has pointed out, Yirmiah is the "prophet of assured destruction", the only prophet whose faith in Israel's ultimate repentance was clouded heavily by pessimism and doubt.  What this means is that he alone, at least in some passages, ominously presents the impending Churban as something which is inevitable and will no longer be prevented by Repentance (see, f.e. Jeremiah 29:28). It was fitting that the prophet who called out this message be the one to mourn over it.

Academic Talmud Study

Menachem Mendel has an informative post on modern academic Talmud study at: http://menachemmendel.blogspot.com/2007/06/modern-talmud-study-i.html

This is my comment:

There has been an unfortunate shift recently in that the academic Talmud scholars are no longer products of the yeshivos, at least not to the extent that they used to be. There is a difference in someone who gets most of his schooling in academia and one who spends a few years or a few decades learning a broad variety of Jewish subjects, not only Talmud. In the university one absorbs tools of analysis, an ability to write and reason and the prevailing societal norms of nihilism and self-distancing from all moral and spiritual commitments. In the yeshiva, on the other hand, one learns how to think and live and worship like a Jew. Even as recently as 40 years ago, many professors of Jewish studies were products of the yeshiva world. Now academic scholars can boast of no more than "exposure" to the traditional setting of Talmud study. Most of their learning takes place in the academia. As a consequence, they often lack the broad view that characterized previous generations. How many appreciate psak halacha in how it inter-relates with Talmudic sources? How many understand Jewish philosophy and Jewish intellectual history? How many are theologians and understand aggadah, devotional life, and inner perspective of Tannaim and Amoraim.? How many look to them with respect as someone who has something to teach them personally? These scholars, as a rule, do not! Current, recent generation of scholars are more likely to follow a scholarly consensus or deviate in important ways from the "feel and touch" of Judaic culture in as much as it relates to Talmud study. Two wrongs does my nations commit! They transgress traditional boundaries in pursuit of flashy revisionism ( and that without  appreciating that they are doing so). In addition, without broad bekius, they overlook well-known passages and indications to the contrary. Without solid grounding in the texts themselves, they sometimes write things that not only grate on my sensibilities but against which I can, off hand, bring various proofs.

I realize that this applies to specific individuals to varying degrees. I speak of the trend.

How many academic scholars can participate in "talking in learning" - meeting objections, sharing positions, bringing proofs etc on a real live basis? There is a difference between looking up sources and having them refracted into one's memory, essence and being.

Chaval al d'ovdin v'lo mishtakchin.

Here is a comment with which I strongly support:

I think avakesh's point is well taken in North America (and Europe). But in Israel, Talmud departments are still very much populated by people who spent significant time in yeshivot - at least hesder yeshivot. On a related point, it seems to me that --methodologically-- this generation of Talmudists is far and beyond most of the academic scholars who grew out of European yeshivot. But as far as yedios and certainly living the culture - well there's no question.
s secunda

Exodus Decoded

Here is an interesting attempt to reconstruct the Exodus as a historical event, miracles and all. While the attempted naturalistic explanation of the 10 plagues is quite unconvincing, the accompanying archeological evidence of their actual ocurrence should put to rest the lie that there is no such evidence.

From the site:

Exodus. The very word evokes an epic tale of Pharaohs and Israelites, plagues and miracles, the splitting of the sea, the drowning of an army, Moses and the revelation at Sinai. The story is at the very heart of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. But many historians argue that the Exodus is a myth. Others disagree.

In the Exodus Decoded we analyze the latest archaeological findings and scientific papers; we explore the dusty back rooms of out-of-the-way libraries and museums around the world; and we track down dozens of forgotten relics and ancient documents. Individually, these findings are historical curiosities. Together they tell the true story of the Exodus.

In an explosive 2-hour documentary special, Exodus Decoded solves the mystery of the events of the Biblical Exodus for the first time ever.

http://theexodusdecoded.com/index1.jsp

Responses for and against: http://www.bib-arch.org/bswbOOexodusbeware.html

The enigma of Ben Sira

In our series 'On Tanach" we have proposed that the books of Nach were written twice, once by the original author and later by Anshei Kneses HaGedolah. Only books found at the last editing to be written with Ruach Hakodesh were canonized and this process of canonization was also guided by Ruach Hakodesh. Consequently, as Netsiv points out, fragments of inspired works ended up being imbedded in other  inspired works. As we will now see, inspired fragments also ended up imbedded in works which were not inspired, lending them a special status.

The enigma of Ben Sira

The book of Ben Sira is unique among the Apocryphal books. It is the only such book quoted frequently by the Talmud and Midrash; more importantly, it is at times referred to in a way reserved for quotations from the Tanach itself, "diksiv"[1]. This is difficult to reconcile with other statements that prohibit study of this book[2]. In addition, Sanhedrin 100a approvingly quotes a number of verses from Ben Sira and concludes that “good things from it you can read but bad (nonsensical) things from it you may not read”. The Talmud brings examples of some of the “bad” things; it is obvious that they are rejected as aphorisms of no great depth or significance.

After what we have established in the preceding discussion, a solution suggests itself after a perusal of the introduction to the book of Ben Sira. This introduction explains that it was written and “almost competed” by Ben Sira “who “did not only gather the grave and short sentences of wise men who were before him but also uttered some of his own…” Farthermore, this Ben Sira lived “in the latter times, after all the people have been led away captive and called home again and after almost all of the prophets”.

It may be suggested that Ben Sira represents a work that is a compilation of statements of various prophets and inspired authors that lived before him. However, and crucially important, it had never undergone a second editing under the influence of Ruach Hakodesh; rather it was put together and added to by someone who did not possess Ruach Hakodesh. The Sages, however, knew which verses stemmed from which source. They did not refrain from quoting or commenting on those fragments that were originally divinely inspired, even to the extent of referring to them with the same language ordinarily used for Scripture. They did not accept the book as a whole, however, for average people were not capable to make this determination and would come to treat verses that are not inspired as if they are.

---

[1] Bava Kama 92b, See Tosafot ibid s.v.meshulash bektuvim, Chagiga 13a, Eiruvin 65a, and more than a dozen other places.  Maharits Chiyos in Kol Sifrei Marits Chiyos, Vol1, p152 maintains that the acceptability of Ben Sira is subject to a disagreement of Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmud.

[2] Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 28a,Sanhedrin 100b, Kohelet Rabba 12,12,Tosefta Yadaim 2,13,

The fast of the ninth of Teves and Yeshu Hanotsri

Coming as it does a week after the last day of Hanukah, the fast on 10th of the month of Tevet (Asarah b'Tevet) might easily be overlooked. It occupies, however, an important niche in the story of Israel and the history of our people.

The text in II Kings (25:1-4) tells us that on the 10th day of the 10th month, in the ninth year of his reign, (588 BCE), Nebuchadnezzar, the Babylonian king, began the siege of Jerusalem. Three years later, on the 17th of Tammuz, he broke through the city walls. The siege ended with the destruction of the Temple three weeks later, on the 9th of Av, the end of the first Kingdoms and the exile of the Jewish people to Babylon. It can thus be considered part of the cycle of fasts connected with these events: Tzom Gedaliah (3rd of Tishrei); Shivah Asar B'Tammuz (17th of Tammuz) and Tisha B'Av (9th of Av)

The first mention of this fast appears in Zechariah (8:19) where it is called the "fast of the tenth month..." (counting from the month of Nisan, which was the first month in Biblical times). Other references to the fast and the affliction can be found in Ezekiel 24:1-2 (the siege); Jeremiah 52:4-6.

However, the tenth is not the only fast in Teves. The 8th and 9th were also at one time (but not any longer) observed as fast days. Of all the fast days mentioned in Megillas Taanit, the reason for the ninth of Teves is most obscure.

Ramo in Orach Chaim 580 where he lists various fast days, says the following about the 9th of Teves: " ...on the 9th of Tteves", it is not known what trouble occurred on it". To this Taz responds: "This is very surprising for it states the Selichos that Ezra the Scribe died on that day". His surprise stem from the fact that the Ramo appears to not heve been aware of this source in the Selichos. However, it may very be that the Ramo knew the source but did not think that it speaks of Ezra, but rather that it uses Ezra as a stand in for another historical personality. This was an individual of whom it was dangerous for Jews to write explicitly.

Hagahos of R. Boruch Frankel to the Shulchan Aruch writes: " I found it writen that Shimon Kalfus, wo saved Israel from a great calamity died on that day. In the Halachos Gedolos it says the following:
'Regarding the 9th of Teves, our rabbis did not write for what it is and on that day Ezra and Nechemiah died. In the Book fo Traditon of Raavad it says that on the 9th of Teves R. Yosef Halevi Hanagid, the son of R. Shmuel in Grenada and all those who came from far away lands to see his Torah and greatness were murdered... and we don't know what this day is for... this tells us that already from the days of our Rabbis they predicted this by Divine Inspiration (and set up a fast day for the events yet to come).."

Who was this Shimon Kalaphon? The commentary Tikun Tefila printed in the Siddur Otros Hatefillos quotes from the Machzor Vitri (Seder Leil Pesach l'Rashi):

... some say that (the prayer Nishmas) is about Shimon Peter who wrote it when he was sitting on a rock, and G-d forbid, such a thing should not be in Israel. Anyone who says this will need to bring a fat sin-offering when the Temple is rebuilt."

Who was Shimon Peter? It was the apostle Peter, who accoring to some versions of Toldos Yeshu was sent by the Sages to infiltrate the new Christian sect so as to bring about its separation from Judaism.  According to to other versions, Peter was a believing Jew who was inadevertently drawn into the Christian heresy. He repented on his deathbed and composed Nishmas as a hymn of confession of Divine Unity.

The curious invokation of 'sitting on the rock" can be understood as an attempt to explain the name Peter, which means 'rock' in Latin. The root has survived in English in words such as petrous or petrified (becoming like a rock). This is also why in some sources he is caled Shimon Keifa, a rock being Keifa in Arameic. It also served as the background of the following New Testament verse that has traditionally been interpreted by Catholicism as supporting the instituion of Papacy: "...you are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church... (Matthew 16:18).

There are versions of Toldos Yeshu who identify Shimon Keifa with Paul rather than Peter. One source for Toldos Yeshu can be found in Eisentstein's Otzar Hamidrashim, another version can be found at http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/humm/Topics/JewishJesus/toledoth.html. I cite the latter version.

"The Sages desired to separate from Israel those who continued to claim Yeshu as the Messiah, and they called upon a greatly learned man, Simeon Kepha, for help. Simeon went to Antioch, main city of the Nazarenes and proclaimed to them: "I am the disciple of Yeshu. He has sent me to show you the way. I will give you a sign as Yeshu has done."

Simeon, having gained the secret of the Ineffable Name, healed a leper and a lame man by means of it and thus found acceptance as a true disciple. He told them that Yeshu was in heaven, at the right hand of his Father, in fulfillment of Psalm 110:1. He added that Yeshu desired that they separate themselves from the Jews and no longer follow their practices, as Isaiah had said, "Your new moons and your feasts my soul abhorreth." They were now to observe the first day of the week instead of the seventh, the Resurrection instead of the Passover, the Ascension into Heaven instead of the Feast of Weeks, the finding of the Cross instead of the New Year, the Feast of the Circumcision instead of the Day of Atonement, the New Year instead of Chanukah; they were to be indifferent with regard to circumcision and the dietary laws. Also they were to follow the teaching of turning the right if smitten on the left and the meek acceptance of suffering. All these new ordinances which Simeon Kepha (or Paul, as he was known to the Nazarenes) taught them were really meant to separate these Nazarenes from the people of Israel and to bring the internal strife".

The attribution to Shimon Peter took an interesting turn in the commentray to the siddur Kol Bo, which writes: "some say that Shimon Ben Shetach wrote Nishmas and therein he alluded to his name backwards from SHoken Ad, Mi idme, A(ain)d anachnu,V'ilu pinu.., Nishmas..."

Of course, if you calculate the ninth of Teves on what was considered year 1 in the Middle Ages, you come to December 25th. How this relates to the custom of not studying Torah on 'Nittal' night is, however, another story.

Revisionist version of the Hanukkah story, circa 600 CE

From John Malalas or Ioannes Malalas (or Malelas) (Syriac word for "rethor", "orator") (c. 491 – 578), Byzantine chronicler, was born at Antioch. (see, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Malalas)

This Antiochus Epiphanes was angry with Ptolemaeus, the king of Egypt, because Ptolemaeus demanded taxes from the Jews who lived in his territory. The Jews came to Antioch from Palestine and asked Antiochus to write to Ptolemaeus, the ruler and king of Egypt, that he should not demand taxes from the Jews, when they transported corn for their sustenance, because there was a great famine at that time in Palestine, and therefore the Jews were transporting corn from the land of Egypt. But when Ptolemaeus received Antiochus' letter, he ordered that the Jews should pay more taxes. Then Antiochus Epiphanes marched against Ptolemaeus, because he had disregarded his letter. There was a battle between them, in which many of Antiochus' soldiers were killed, and he fled back to the borders of his own territory. When the Jews in Jerusalem learned of this, they agreed terms with Ptolemaeus and surrendered to him, because they thought that Antiochus had died. But Antiochus Epiphanes gathered [another] army, attacked Ptolemaeus, destroyed his army and killed him. When Antiochus heard what the Jews in Jerusalem had done, as if they rejoiced in his defeat, he marched against Jerusalem. He besieged the city and captured it, slaughtering all [the inhabitants]; he took Eleazer the high priest of the Jews along with the Maccabees back to Antioch, where punished them with death. He abolished the high priesthood of Judaea, and he turned the Jews' temple, which had been built by Solomon, into a temple of Olympian Zeus and Athene. He defiled the building with meat, and prevented the Jews from performing their ancestral acts of worship; for three years, he forced them to follow Greek customs.

When Antiochus died, his son Antiochus Glaucus, who was called Hierax, became king for two years.

After him Demetrianus the son of Seleucus was king for 8 years. A Jew called Judas came to Antioch the great, and shamed Demetrianus with his entreaties, so that the king handed over the temple and the remains of the Maccabees to him. Judas buried the Maccabees in the so-called Cerateum at Antioch the great, where there was a synagogue of the Jews; Antiochus had punished the Maccabees a short way outside the city of Antioch, on the "ever-weeping" mountain opposite [the temple] of Zeus Casius. Then Judas cleansed the temple and refounded Jerusalem, celebrating a Passover [feast] in honour of God. This was the second capture of Jerusalem, as Eusebius [follower] of Pamphilus has recorded in his chronicle.