The Interpretation of the Purification Offering ([Hebrew Letter Het]tat) in the Temple Scroll (11QTemple) and Rabbinic Literature

1992 ◽  
Vol 111 (1) ◽  
pp. 17 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gary A. Anderson
Keyword(s):  
Rabbinic Literature ◽  
Hebrew Letter ◽  
The Temple

Midrash, Myth, and Bakhtin's Chronotope: The Itinerant Well and the Foundation Stone in Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer

2009 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 143-176 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rachel Adelman
Keyword(s):  
Rabbinic Literature ◽  
Time Space ◽  
The World ◽  
Dome Of The Rock ◽  
Temple Mount ◽  
The Temple ◽  
Foundation Stone

AbstractThroughout the midrash Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer (PRE), motifs are recycled to connect primordial time to the eschaton. In this paper, I read passages on the well “created at twilight of the Sixth Day” in light of Bakhtin's notion of “chronotope” (lit. time-space). The author of PRE disengages the itinerant well from its traditional association with the desert sojourn and links it, instead, to the foundation stone of the world (even shtiyah) at the Temple Mount. The midrash reflects the influence of Islamic legends about the “white stone” around which the Dome of the Rock was built (ca. 690 C.E.). Over the course of the discussion, PRE is understood in terms of the genre “narrative midrash” and compared to classical rabbinic literature in order to illustrate changes in both form and content arising from the author's apocalyptic eschatology.

Imagining the Temple in Rabbinic Stone: The Evolution of the ʾEven Shetiyah

AJS Review ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 43 (2) ◽  
pp. 355-377
Author(s):  
Naomi Koltun-Fromm
Keyword(s):  
Rabbinic Literature ◽  
Evolutionary Trend ◽  
Near Eastern ◽  
The World ◽  
The Temple ◽  
Foundation Stone

The mythical ʾeven shetiyah, often translated as the “foundation stone,” marks the physical place where the Jerusalem temples once stood in the rabbinic imagination. In its earliest incarnation it identified the place where the ark of the covenant resided in Solomon's Temple. Over the centuries it absorbed cosmogonic and eventually eschatological meaning. In later post-talmudic rabbinic literature, it adopted another mythic trope—the seal on the tehom. I argue that these two separate narrative strands of a seal on the tehomunder the Temple and ʾeven shetiyahin the Temple became intertwined, but only in late (post-talmudic) rabbinic midrash. I trace this evolutionary trend and argue that while the early rabbis both innovated and reinvigorated older biblical and ancient Near Eastern cosmogonic motifs with their ʾeven shetiyah, the later rabbinic texts were influenced by Christian and Muslim competition for spiritual and earthly Jerusalem. The stone that started as a means for rabbinic self-authorization became a reassertion of God's control of history and protection of Israel and the world, but in the process displaced priestly authority.

When was the Second Temple Destroyed? Chronology and Ideology in Josephus and in Rabbinic Literature

2015 ◽  
Vol 46 (4-5) ◽  
pp. 547-573
Author(s):  
Meir Ben Shahar
Keyword(s):  
Second Temple ◽  
Jewish Tradition ◽  
Rabbinic Literature ◽  
The Temple

Jewish tradition holds that both the first and second Jerusalem temples were destroyed on the 9th of Av (m. Taʿan. 4:6). According to Josephus both temples were destroyed on the 10th of Av (J.W. 6.250). Although Josephus proffers an elaborately detailed chronology of the temple’s final days, an attentive reading reveals that he in fact delayed the destruction of the temple by one day. Ideological motives impelled Josephus to defer the date of the destruction of the Second Temple to the date he had for the destruction of the First Temple (the 10th of Av). He proposes an analogy between the two in support of his position that God was punishing the rebels for their sins. Finally, the article suggests that the Jewish tradition that establishes the 9th of Av as the date for the destruction of both temples, derives from a mythical conception of history.

The Origins of the Seder and Haggadah

2005 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 109-134
Author(s):  
Joshua Kulp
Keyword(s):  
Second Temple ◽  
Rabbinic Literature ◽  
Second Temple Period ◽  
Jerusalem Temple ◽  
Rabbinic Judaism ◽  
Greco Roman ◽  
Last Supper ◽  
Death Of Jesus ◽  
The Individual ◽  
The Temple

Emerging methods in the study of rabbinic literature now enable greater precision in dating the individual components of the Passover seder and haggadah. These approaches, both textual and socio-historical, have led to a near consensus among scholars that the Passover seder as described in rabbinic literature did not yet exist during the Second Temple period. Hence, cautious scholars no longer seek to find direct parallels between the last supper as described in the Gospels and the rabbinic seder. Rather, scholarly attention has focused on varying attempts of Jewish parties, notably rabbis and Christians, to provide religious meaning and sanctity to the Passover celebration after the death of Jesus and the destruction of the Temple. Three main forces stimulated the rabbis to develop innovative seder ritual and to generate new, relevant exegeses to the biblical Passover texts: (1) the twin calamities of the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple and the Bar-Kokhba revolt; (2) competition with emerging Christian groups; (3) assimilation of Greco-Roman customs and manners. These forces were, of course, significant contributors to the rise of a much larger array of rabbinic institutions, ideas and texts. Thus surveying scholarship on the seder reviews scholarship on the emergence of rabbinic Judaism.

The Shema in the Second Temple Period

2015 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 58-84 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarit Kattan Gribetz
Keyword(s):  
Everyday Life ◽  
Second Temple ◽  
Rabbinic Literature ◽  
Close Reading ◽  
Second Temple Period ◽  
Community Rule ◽  
Historical Moment ◽  
The Temple ◽  
At Home

The precise historical moment when Deut 6 (Shema Israel) was transformed into a prayer ritual is uncertain and a matter of scholarly debate. It is generally assumed that by the time of the Mishnah’s redaction (ca. 200 C. E.), the recitation of the Shema was already a standardized ritual because the Mishnah refers to it as a well-known practice. Indeed, the Mishnah takes for granted that its audience is so familiar with the prayer that it does not define it at all, but rather delves immediately into detailed discussions of its timing and exceptions that might arise in everyday life. Other sources from the Second Temple period, however, challenge the idea of the antiquity and ubiquity of such a standard prayer ritual composed of biblical verses from Deuteronomy and Numbers. This paper examines a number of key texts from the Second Temple period that seemingly refer to the recitation of the Shema prayer and that have been used by scholars to reconstruct the origins of this liturgical ritual. Through a close reading of four of these sources (the Letter of Aristeas, Philo, the Community Rule, and Josephus), I argue that they might not refer to the practice of the Shema recitation that we know from later rabbinic literature. Rather, they provide us with a lens into the diversity of ways that Deut 6:6–7 – “take to heart these instructions… impress them on your children… recite them when you stay at home and when you are away, when you lie down and when you get up” – was understood and fulfilled in the Second Temple period. The Letter of Aristeas describes an act of meditating on God’s works of creation; the Community Rule prescribes daily recitation of laws; Philo emphasizes the instruction of justice; and Josephus frames the obligation as a commandment to commemorate the deliverance out of Egypt twice daily. The particular framing of the Shema ritual that we come to know in the Mishnah might have appropriated and extended the practice of reciting the Shema in the temple (some evidence suggests that the Shema was recited in the temple), but this was only one of the ways in which Deut 6:7 was enacted and fulfilled in the pre-destruction period.

John Hyrcanus and a Heavenly Voice

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vered Noam
Keyword(s):  
Second Generation ◽  
Dead Sea Scrolls ◽  
Dead Sea ◽  
Rabbinic Literature ◽  
Military Leader ◽  
The Dead ◽  
Military Victory ◽  
The Temple

This chapter treats the second-generation Hasmonean figure John Hyrcanus to whom the virtues of leadership, priesthood, and prophecy are attributed. This ascription is reflected not only in Josephus and rabbinic literature but also receives a hostile twist in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Based on an earlier stratum from a lost Aramaic chronicle, the legend recounts an announcement of military victory by a heavenly voice in the temple. In essence this tale belongs to a genre identified as priestly temple legends. This priestly legend was in turn integrated into both the Josephan and the rabbinic contexts. The new rabbinic setting in effect “rabbinized” the image of John Hyrcanus and inverted the message of the story, using it to announce the end of the era of prophecy. In contrast, Josephus underscored the merit of prophecy and retained the full image of John as a political and military leader. For both corpora, Hyrcanus represents the acme of the Hasmonean rulership.

In Quest of Babylonian Tannaitic Traditions: The Case of Tanna D'Bei Shmuel

AJS Review ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 33 (2) ◽  
pp. 271-303 ◽  
Author(s):  
Barak Shlomo Cohen
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Study ◽  
Early Period ◽  
Rabbinic Literature ◽  
Intellectual Activity ◽  
Scholarly Literature ◽  
Systematic Examination ◽  
The Temple

The question of the existence of Babylonian rabbinic traditions dating from the mishnaic period (pre-220 CE) has not been thoroughly and methodically addressed in the scholarly literature. Historians have pointed out that several rabbis were active in Babylonia during the mishnaic period; some researchers have even suggested that in this early period, organized rabbinic intellectual activity already existed in cities such as Nisibis, Nehardea, and Husal. However, a systematic examination of halakhot whose provenance was Babylonia in the mishnaic period has yet to be undertaken. Most prior attempts to uncover Babylonian rabbinic activity from this period have focused on a few traditions ascribed to Tannaim who had a known connection to Babylonia, such as R. Judah b. Bathyra, R. Nathan, and R. Hiyya (the “Babylonians,” as they are sometimes called in rabbinic literature). In light of the absence of a systematic study of Babylonian pre-talmudic rabbinic traditions, Gafni came to the following conclusion, one that this paper will support with solid evidence: Even if there was a composed Babylonian halakhic tradition that originated before the end of the mishnaic period, it seems that the Palestinian tradition was accepted as the main tradition of the Babylonian sages already at the beginning of the amoraic period. Moreover, when this tradition penetrated into the Babylonian centers of learning, it seems to have completely pushed aside other traditions, causing them to become almost untraceable…. This subject still awaits thorough treatment by talmudic researchers, and at this stage we can discuss only the amount of rabbinic intellectual activity that existed in Babylonia before the talmudic period began…. Reason dictates that after the destruction of the Temple and the Bar-Kochba revolt, as sages began to arrive in Babylonia, the basic foundations of the rabbinic activity were established.

The Rabbinic Polemic against Sanctification of Sites

2009 ◽  
Vol 40 (2) ◽  
pp. 260-280 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eyal Ben Eliyahu
Keyword(s):  
Religious Group ◽  
Rabbinic Literature ◽  
High Mountains ◽  
Biblical Narrative ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Holy Places ◽  
Memorial Sites ◽  
Temple Mount ◽  
The Temple ◽  
Land Of Israel

AbstractThe attribution of holiness to various sites in antiquity was confined neither to a particular ethnic or religious group, nor to one particular geographical locale, but was rather practiced by a wide range of groups vis-à-vis many locations. Contrary to these views, the rabbis made a very clear and sharp statement regarding the sanctity of Jerusalem and the Temple Mount and negated the idea of the existence of holy places outside Jerusalem. The rabbis struggled against the sanctity of the biblical “holy mountain,” as well as against sites that could have been regarded as holy on the basis of the biblical narrative. The discovery of this polemic illuminates and offers an explanation for many surprising passages in early rabbinic literature that belittle high mountains and biblical “memorial sites” in the Land of Israel. The examples, drawn from the various strata of early rabbinic literature, demonstrate surprising rabbinic consensus on this issue.

Josephus’s Seven Purities and the Mishnah’s Ten Holinesses

2016 ◽  
Vol 47 (2) ◽  
pp. 183-211
Author(s):  
Matan Orian
Keyword(s):  
The Other ◽  
Rabbinic Literature ◽  
Jerusalem Temple ◽  
Guiding Principles ◽  
The Temple

This paper compares two descriptions of the Jewish hierarchy of holiness in relation to the Jerusalem temple: one from Josephus’s Jewish War, books 1 and 5, where the relevant hierarchy is referred to as the seven purities, and the other, in Mishnah Kelim 1:6-9, titled (the) ten holinesses. After analyzing the guiding principles behind the seven purities, this paper will examine the two hierarchies against the background of the biblical instructions for the exclusion of impure persons from the desert camp, and the interpretation of these instructions according to Josephus, the Temple Scroll from Qumran, and rabbinic literature. It will show that, while the seven purities is a cultic perception coherent to the exclusion of different categories of people from the temple, the ten holinesses follows different guiding principles.

“Remembered for Praise”: Some Ancient Sources on Benefaction to Herod's Temple

Images ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 166-171 ◽  
Author(s):  
Noah Greenfield ◽  
Steven Fine
Keyword(s):  
Rabbinic Literature ◽  
Archaeological Remains ◽  
Historical Evidence ◽  
Literary Sources ◽  
Roman Antiquity ◽  
The Temple

AbstractThe Temple of Jerusalem was reconstructed and enlarged under the patronage of Herod the Great beginning in 20/19 BCE. This essay assembles epigraphic sources from Jerusalem and literary sources preserved in the writings of Flavius Josephus and the ancient rabbis for benefaction to the Temple by individual wealthy Jews. Donors from as far afield as Rhodes, Alexandria and Adiabene may be identified, with Nicanor of Alexandria and Queen Helena and her son Monobazus of Adiabene appearing in archaeological remains, Josephus and rabbinic literature. This corpus provides a controlled example of ways that literary sources of various genre and archaeological remains may be placed in conversation so as to elicit historical evidence that may be of use to students of Jewish and general Roman antiquity.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document