hebrew astrology in byzantine southern italy.pdf

8/14/2019 Hebrew Astrology In Byzantine Southern Italy.pdf

1/33

Joshua HoloHebrew Union College Jewish Institute for Religion, Los Angeles

Hebrew Astrology in Byzantine Southern

Italy

I. INTRODUCTION

It is a commonplace that our modern, tidy distinction between

astronomy and astrology does not apply to the Middle Ages. The

celestial sciences shared a great deal, not merely in the basic fact ofstargazing but also in terms of methods and applications, and this

broad overlap blurred the line between them. Even following the

definition of Maimonides (11351204), who strongly opposed

astrology and distinguished it sharply from astronomy, a certain

structural similarity emerges. According to this definition,

astronomy measures the movements of celestial bodies, observes

their influence on the natural world (such as the tides), and

calculates their cycles in relation to the passage of time. Meanwhile,

judicial astrology (henceforth, simply astrology) relies on its

cognate science, but additionally claims to interpret, and frequently

to predict, the influence of those bodies on future events and moral


2/33

Joshua Holo292

determinations.1 On the one hand, given this complex overlap, an

authors body of workor even a single work in itselffrequently

defies characterization as either astrological or astronomical.2 On

the other hand, as Maimonides position instantiates, certain

medieval Jewish perspectives distinguished between the two forms

of heavenly investigation, and treated them, accordingly, as two

separate pursuits with differently defined religious and cosmic

applications. To be sure, not all Jewish points of view disconnected

the two sciences, but the mere fact that some did is sufficient to

prove that a retrospective merging of astrology and astronomy

poses the same historical and intellectual problems as does ananachronistic separation between them. In tracing the contours and

problems of that distinction between the celestial sciences as it

played out in certain Byzantine Jewish texts, a religious outlook

takes shape as a possible explanation for the apparently paradoxical

fact that the Jews were aware of the potentially occult

characteristics of astrology, even as they overwhelmingly embraced

its validity.

Two well known, Hebrew-language, Byzantine-Jewish literary

sources of tenth- and eleventh-century Southern Italy engage

intensely with the celestial sciences, and they provide one possible

framework for addressing this apparent paradox, in the context of a

well defined period and location. Hebrew culture in Byzantine

Southern Italy flourished in this period, the culmination of a shift in

linguistic orientation first manifest in the increased use of Hebrew

1 Moses Maimonides, Guide for the Perplexed, tr. M. Friedlnder, 2nd ed. (New

York, 1904), 16466 and idem, Epistle to Yemen and Letter on Astrology, inA

Maimonides Reader, ed. I. Twersky (New York, 1972), 45354, 467. Compare to

the definition of Isidore of Seville, Etymologiae, ed. W. M. Lindsay (Oxford,

1911), 3:24, 27. Helpful commentary on Maimonides distinction by G.

Freudenthal, Maimonides Stance on Astrology in Context, in Moses

Maimonides, ed. F. Rosner and S. S. Kottek (Northvale, NJ and London, 1993),

7790; H. Kreisel, Maimonides Approach to Astrology (Heb.), Proceedings of

the Eleventh World Congress of Jewish Studies, Jerusalem, June 2229, 1993 C/2(Jerusalem, 1994), 2532.2Y. T. Langermann, Some Astrological Themes in the Thought of Abraham ibn

Ezra, in I. Twersky and J. Harris, eds. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra: Studies in the

Writings of a Twelfth-Century Polymath (Cambridge, Mass., and London, 1993),

6574; G. Freudenthal, Maimonides Stance, 7784.


3/33

Hebrew Astrology in Byzantine Southern Italy 293

on headstones in eighth-century Apulia.3 Some of the notable

compositions of tenth- and eleventh-century Byzantine Southern

Italy include the Sefer Yosippon, a Hebrew abridgement of

Josephus histories;4 Shabbetai Donnolos (c. 913 to c. 982) Sefer

hakhmoni, a commentary on the Sefer ye!irah, which is a late-

antique, mystical cosmogony based on the Hebrew alphabet;5 and

the Chronicle of Ahimaaz, penned by Ahimaaz b. Paltiel in Capua

in the year 1054, recounting his mythical and magical family story,

which stretches back to ninth-century Oriathe hometown of

Shabbetai Donnoloand which is frequently cited in the context of

Byzantine-Jewish history.6The last two works, the Sefer hakhmoniand the Chronicle, deal very explicitly with the stars, and crucially,

they attribute their study to contemporary Jewish personages.7

Additionally, both texts unambiguously embrace astrology, even as

3 S. Simonsohn, The Hebrew Revival among Early Medieval Jews, in the Salo

Wittmayer Baron Jubilee Volume, 3 vols. (Jerusalem, 1974), 85758; G. I. Ascoli,

Iscrizioni inedite o mal note greche, latine, ebraiche di antichi sepolcri giudaci delNapolitano (Turin, 1880) (originally published in Atti del IV Congresso

Internazionale degli Orientalisti tenuto a Firenze, 1878[Florence, 1880]); and H.

J. Leon, The Jews of Venusia, Jewish Quarterly Review 44 (1954), 284; R.

Bonfil, Cultura ebraica e cultura cristiana in Italia meridionale,, in Tra due mondi

(Naples, 1996), 1718.4 The Josippon (Heb.), ed. D. Flusser, 2 vols. (Jerusalem, 1980), 2:7989 in

particular for the time and place of the publication of the Yosippon.5Sh. Donnolo, Sefer hakhmoni [Il commento di Sabbetai Donnolo sul libro della

creazione], ed. D. Castelli (Florence, 1880), in Sefer ye!irah (Jerusalem, 1965),

12148. Other notable compositions by Donnolo, Sefer ha-mirqahot, ed. S.Muntner, inRabbiShabbetai Donnolo (Heb.), 2 vols. (Jersusalem, 1949), 1:723;

idem, Sefer mazzalot, embedded in Z. Frankel, in Der Kommentar des R. Joseph

Kara zu Job, Monatsschrift fr Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums67

(185758), 273; 26062, 34850. Notable also, on the periphery of the current

subject, is the eleventh-century lexicon by Nathan b. Yehiel, Arukh shalem[Aruch

Completum], ed. A. Kohut (Jerusalem, 1970).6All references to The Chronicle of Ahimaaz, ed. and Eng. tr., M. Salzman (New

York, 1924). Other important editions: Sefer Yuhasin: libro delle discendenze,

introd. and It. tr., C. Colafemmina (Cassano delle Murge, 2001); Megillat

Ahimaaz, ed. B. Klar, 2

nd

ed. (Jerusalem, 1973). J. Starr, The Jews in the ByzantineEmpire (Athens, 1939), 149, citing Donnolo, Sefer hakhmoni, 123; Sharf,

Donnolo, vii.7 In contrast, for example, to the wisdom of the stars attributed to Alexander the

Great in the version of the Alexander Romance appended to theJosippon, 1:462,

describing Alexander as accomplished in every science and the constellations.


4/33

Joshua Holo294

they betray a keen awareness of the problem of occult practice

within Judaism.

At the same time, despite their shared orientation, these texts differ

markedly in their expression of two key relationships: that between

astrology and the occult and that between astrology and astronomy.

This stark variance between the two texts, together with the fact that

they nevertheless share a fundamentally positive outlook on

astrology, begs at least two questions about their ability to maintain

orthodox Jewish positions and still to attribute a relatively high

degree of moral and factual determinism to the stars. First, how dothey reconcile astrology with Judaisms uncompromising claims to

Gods omnipotence and human free will? And second, given that

both texts do indeed resolve that apparent paradox in very different

fashion, is there a single religious framework that we might

attribute to both of them?

From the starting point of some recent scholarship, a model

emerges for understanding Jewish astrology in the context ofambivalence. Here, the scientific overlap between astrology, with

its potential challenge to Jewish doctrine, and astronomy, which

enjoyed elevated religious status as the vehicle for calendation,

causes tension. The two sciences common ground defies, in

technical terms, a distinction that mirrors the Jewish ideological

one, and as a result, the indeterminacy of that scientific boundary

tests Jewish sensibilities. The problem with this model is that,

though it applies to the Sefer hakhmoni, it does not apply to the

Chronicle of Ahimaaz; the former expresses tension, the latter,insouciance. A single model that comports well with the view of

both texts cannot, therefore, rely on ambivalence as a defining

element. If instead we redefine astrology and astronomy in terms of

homily (aggadah) and law (halakhah), respectively, astrology

recedes to a non-binding conceptual realm that cannot impinge on

the more demanding and authoritative category of law. In fact, it

turns out that both of these Southern Italian Hebrew texts invoke

perhaps unconsciouslythese traditional categories of Jewishthought, and through them, they can share their embrace of

astrology on terms that also allow for varied approaches to the

sciences occult associations.


5/33


II. THE TECHNICAL PROBLEM OF FUZZY BORDERS

Not surprisingly, astronomy and astrology exhibit what Shlomo

Sela has termed, in other Jewish medieval contexts, fuzzy

borders. Sela traces the contours of this relationship in the theory

and practice of the celestial sciences, by illustrating with technical

precision how astronomy and astrology were variously paired and

distinguished in Jewish medieval texts, depending on scientific

context and convention.8 The Hebrew language captures this

complexity, as a partial sampling of medieval usage demonstrates.

Some words apply primarily to one science or the other, while other

words belong to both but with varying application among authors.

Hebrew expresses astronomical methods mostly in terms of

calculation ("eshbon).9Meanwhile, words linked with interpretation

tend to refer to astrological methods; for example, one understands

(mevin) the hidden message of the stars.10 The act of observation

("azot), logically common to both undertakings, appears in

Abraham bar Hiyyas work in association with the order, measure,

and reckoning of celestial motions, that is, astronomy, while forMaimonides, the term has the distinctly negative overtones of

pseudo-science.11 A related verb, habit, to see, similarly refers, in

the Chronicle, to earthly predictions based on celestial

observation.12

Hebrew terms for the scientists themselves and the celestial bodies

they studied also pose similar difficulties. Most pithily,

Maimonides use of the Talmudic word i!#agnin (pl. i!#agninin)embodies the simultaneity of the overlap of, and distinction

8S. Sela, The Fuzzy Borders between Astronomy and Astrology in the Thought

and Work of Three Twelfth-Century Jewish Intellectuals,Aleph1 (2000), 80, 94

100.9Ahimaaz, 11 (Heb.); Starr, Jews, 20809. Moses Maimonides, Mishneh Torah,

ed. T. Preisler (Jerusalem, 1985), Laws of the New Moon, 17:24.10Ahimaaz, 16 (Heb.); K. von Stuckrad, Jewish and Christian Astrology in Late

Antiquity, Numen 47 (2000), 6, argues that the sense of astrology is itsdetermination of the qualityof time, as well as its correspondences to this world.11Sela, Fuzzy Borders, 90, citing Abraham bar Hiyya, Sefer surat ha-are!, 45;

S. Stroumsa, Ravings: Maimonides Concept of Pseudo-Science, Aleph 1

(2000), 146, 163.12Ahimaaz, 16 (Heb.).


6/33

Joshua Holo296

between, astronomers and astrologers. In his exposition of the laws

of calendation, Maimonides uses this term to refer to those whose

calculations confirm the calendrical cycle as observed in the phases

of the Moon; here, the judgment of the i!#agninins study is clearly

positive. But he also connects the i!#agnininto those who attribute

propitiousness to certain times, and in this case, Maimonides

unambiguously disparages them as celestial diviners ("ovrei

shamayyim).13 Also multivalent, words that denote the celestial

bodies and their groupings may additionally connote the power they

exert over this world.14Such is the case with the word mazzal (pl.

mazzalot), which may mean either star or constellation, and kokhav,which includes the concepts of both star and planet.15At the lexical

level, therefore, Hebrew offers ample opportunity for confusion

between the sciences, but also real opportunity for distinction

between them. The latter is particularly true when the terms are

contextualized, at which point even the only-partial specificity of

the vocabulary may legitimately justify a functional distinction

between the two sciences, despite the obligatory commonality of

the sciences themselves and of the words that represent them.16

Selas apt concept of fuzzy borders therefore helps to concretize

the problem of understanding astrology in a Jewish context, and it

also leaves room for another, complementary view of the problem.

Unlike natural astrology, which, as per Isidore of Seville, is simply

occupied with sublunar bodies in the same fashion that supralunar

bodies fall to astronomy, judicial astrology relates to astronomy on

entirely other terms.17Judicial astrology is, by its very definition, a

composite science, one that necessarily relies on raw astronomical

data, and then proceeds from that data to offer an earthly

13Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Laws of the New Moon, 2:4, as against Laws on

Idolatry, 11:910; Sela, Fuzzy Borders, 6780.14 Donnolo, Sefer hakhmoni, 123a-b; Maimonides, Guide, 164; W. M. Feldman,

Rabbinical Mathematics and Astronomy, 3rded.(New York, 1978), 79.15Maimonides, Guide, 168.16

Feldman, Rabbinical Mathematics,6379, provides a list of the zodiacal signs,as does Donnolo, Sefer hakhmoni, 141a-b. The opposite contexts of these texts

render the distinction clear.17Cf. Isidore, Etymologiae, 3:27, where he defines two categories, astronomy and

astrology, the latter itself being made up of two components, the natural and the

judicial, the latter necessarily building on what we would today call astronomy.


7/33


interpretation. From the point of view of judicial astrology, any

distinction between itself and astronomy belies their logical

identity. Conversely, astronomy limits itself to the science of

observation and calculation, and eschews the type and degree of

interpretation that characterizes astrology. On its own terms,

astronomy occupies a distinct place, without any reference to

astrology and not serving as its handmaiden, at which point we can

fairly speak of it as a distinct undertaking. There is, therefore, in

addition to fuzzy borders, a prevailing asymmetry between the

celestial sciences that only further complicates their relationship in

technical terms. So it is fitting that Byzantine-Jewish texts fromSouthern Italy should offer a comparably complicated ideological

relationship to the sciences.

III. THE IDEOLOGICAL PROBLEM OF FUZZY BORDERS:

ASTROLOGY AND THE OCCULT

Andrew Sharf, in his major work on Byzantine-Jewish astrology,

imputes to the Jews the following ideological distinction between

the two sciences: astronomy was mandated by God, and astrology

was simply another foreign import with which the Jews had to find

a modus vivendi.18 In other words, the ubiquity of astrology

overwhelmed Jewish qualms about it, which were based on its

implications of an intermediary power in the universe, especially in

terms of moral predetermination and free will.19 Though decades

prior to Selas technical argument, Sharfs exposition nevertheless

echoes it from an ideological perspective. As per Sela, the boundarybetween the sciences, though discernible, suffers from a notable

lack of definition, which ultimately bespeaks underlying technical

similarity. In corresponding fashion, ideological rejection, which

necessarily distilled the judicial astrology out from astronomy,

merely responded to overwhelming Jewish acceptance of both

18A. Sharf, The Universe of ShabbetaiDonnolo (New York, 1976), 1617; idem,

Shabbetai Donnolo as Byzantine Jewish Figure, in Jews and Other Minorities inByzantium(Ramat-Gan, 1995), 17172.19 A. Marx, The Correspondence between the Rabbis of Southern France and

Maimonides about Astrology, Hebrew Union College Annual3 (1926), 35458.

To a lesser degree, about the prediction of events, as Saadia disparages in H. Ben-

Shammai, Saadias Introduction to Daniel,Aleph4 (2004), 7074.


8/33

Joshua Holo298

sciences, which conflated or married them as natural truths of a

larger system.20In short, Sharfs description of ambivalence largely

depends on the tense simultaneity of two of astrologys qualities: 1)

its association with meritorious astronomy and implied dissociation

from the occult, and 2) its distinction from astronomy and

concomitant association with the occult.

In general terms, it is not at all clear that astrology necessarily falls

under the heading occult from the Jewish perspective, though it

undoubtedly may. Consequently, the underlying uncertainty of

astrologys occult status opens up the possibility for conflationbetween it and, as Sharf points out, unimpeachable astronomy. The

astrologers claim that the stars and planets affect us at a spiritual

and moral level by its very nature flirts with the occult, if we

understand occultas embracing two defining elements: esotericism

and a challenge to traditional Jewish doctrine of Gods omnipotence

(by virtue of the apparently competing power of astral

determinism).21 Nevertheless, this flirtation represents a threata

potentialitythat may or may not be realized, so that the occultstatus of astrology defies easy determination.22 Supporting the

argument of ambivalence, a brief survey of sources on the subject

concludes that the Jewish legal position regarding astrology, from

Late Antiquity through the Middle Ages, was inconclusive.23Even

Maimonides halakhicexpression against astrology may be read as

20 On the distinction between astronomy and astrology, for the purposes of

condemning the latter, the newly published commentary on Daniel by SaadiaGaon, edited by Ben-Shammai, Saadias Introduction to Daniel, 2122, 6870;

also of note, ibid., n. 47, is Qirqisanis distinction between astronomy and

astrology, for the same purposes.21 E. Urbach, The Sages (Cambridge, Mass. and London, 1979), 27778; Sela,

Queries, 89190.22Kreisel, Maimonides Approach, 29.23 See the concise survey by Y. Schwartz, Jewish Implications of Astrology,

Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society 16 (1988), 623. Also, examples

from Abraham ibn Ezra in R. Jospe, The Torah and Astrology According to

Abraham Ibn Ezra, Proceedings of the Eleventh World Congress of JewishStudies, Jerusalem, June 2229, 1993 C/2 (Jerusalem, 1994), 1724; not to

mention the concerns of the Provenal rabbis, and their citation of the Geonim

Sherira and Hai, in S. Sela, Queries on Astrology Sent from Southern France to

Maimonides, Critical Edition of the Hebrew Text, Translation, and Commentary,

Aleph4 (2004), 99101.


9/33


the exception that proves the rule of acceptance.24In this vein, it is

particularly telling that the letter from the Provenal sages to

Maimonides, which inspired his famous reply known as the Letter

on Astrology, inquired about the legitimacy of astrology in terms

of the reliability of its information. The French sages apparently

took for granted that no legally binding prohibition pre-empted their

question.25

In parallel fashion, other speculative realms exhibit similar

indeterminacy in Judaism. Even magic, broadly conceived of as the

invocation of supernatural forces, falls under the occult onlysometimes. Many forms of mystical theurgy and wonderworking

walk a fine line between the occult and the orthodox, insofar as they

appear to call on competing deities and forces, but claim to rely

only on God. Depending on his orientation, a given Jewish

authority may view such magic with horror or approval. The

Chronicle, for example, condemns transfiguration and resurrection,

but it embraces magical travel and astrology.26Admittedly, at least

in Jewish circles, astrology was occasionally guiltyor perceivedto be guiltyof association with those less ambiguous activities of

the occult such as the invocation of the divine Name for personal

24 Maimonides, Sefer ha-mi!vot, ed. T. Preisler (Jerusalem, 1985), no. 32, where

astrology is defined as the ascription of propitiousness to a given day or hour.25 Sela, Queries, 12223, If there is foolishness in our questions and the

conclusion of our utterances is silliness, though the sages consider, pp. 22425,

Maimonides awaited-for response to be authoritative, as halakhah given to

Moses on Sinai, and they recognize serious halakhicconsiderations in the orbit ofastrology, such as the fear of saying a prayer in vain, 10305. But, though these

problems derive from astrology, they do not necessarily inhere in it.26Ahimaaz, 6566 (Eng.), 45 (Heb.), on the sin of magical resurrection, as well as

the generally positive quality of Aaron, who made use of his wonderworking

wisdom, to do very difficult and astonishing things; 75, 77, on the acceptable use

of the Divine name for magical travel; G. Scholem, Major Trends in Jewish

Mysticism(New York, 1961), chap. 4; M. Idel, Kabbalah: New Perspectives(New

Haven and London, 1988), chaps. 78; M. D. Swartz, Scholastic Magic(Princeton,

1996), 1822. R. Brody, The Geonim of Babylonia and the Shaping of Medieval

Jewish Culture(New Haven and London, 1998), 144, cites a famous reference byHay Gaon, the leader of Baghdadi Jewry in the first half of the eleventh century, to

the credulity of Byzantine Jewry in matters magical. Maimonides is unequivocal in

his condemnation of judicial astrology in his Guide for the Perplexed, 333;

Mishneh Torah, Laws on Idolatry, 11:910; and his famous Letter on Astrology,

46373.


10/33

Joshua Holo300

gain, certain types of healing, divining, necromancy, etc.27

Additionally, astrology relied heavily on pagan sciences and

implied some powerful intermediary between God and man, which

required careful rationalization.28 Astrologers thus inspired some

weighty theological challenges, most notably those of Maimonides

and Saadia Gaon (882942). But it is worth noting that they only

rarely faced a definitive accusation of illegality.29 The key legal

issue, Star-worship, an unambiguous contravention of basic Jewish

law, lurks behind astrology; scholarly arguments, including

protestations both against and in favour of astrology, frequently

betray an appreciation of this peril. But the mere fact of astrologysgeneralized acceptance indicates that it passed muster among the

majority of Jews; it appears to fill some, but not all, of the criteria

for occult status in terms of theology.30

27Mishneh Torah, Laws on Idolatry, 11:910. Magic and astrology frequently

went hand-in-hand; see R. Barkai, Significado de las aportaciones de los judos en

el terreno de la medicina, la astrologa y la magia, in A. Senz-Badillos, ed.Judos entre arabes y cristianos(Cordova, 2000), 8485. Byzantine Jewish magic,

moreoversuch as we can discern itfits at least two of the three components of

magic, as defined for Late Antiquity and the early Middle Ages by Swartz,

Scholastic Magic, 20. Medieval interpreters of the Talmud, Pesahim 113b,

translated Chaldeans as either necromancers or astrologers.28The very pointed effort to distinguish oneself from the idolatrous astrologers of

the pagan past reflects the consciousness of the connection; see Barkai,

Significado, 82.29 Maimonides famous polemical letter presents a rationalistic argument against

the folly of astrology and the halakhic problem it raises. See Freudenthal,Maimonides Stance, 87 and R. Lerner, Maimonides Letter on Astrology,

History of Religions8/2 (1968), 147. Halevis Kuzari, 1.79, does invoke heresy in

relation to astrologys association with divination, as does Bahya ibn Paquda, The

Book of Direction in the Duties of the Heart, tr. M. Mansoor (London, 1973), 282

84. Interestingly, Mansoor notes that the section on astrology occurs only in the

original Arabic, and is absent in all the mss of the Hebrew version by Ibn Tibbon.

In contrast, Saadia, in his Introduction to Daniel, see Ben-Shammai, Saadias

Introduction to Daniel, 2728, restricts himself to the rationalistic charge and

remains silent on the halakhah, as does Maimonides in other contexts.30

None captures the fine line between astrologys orthodoxy and heresy better thanJehudah Halevi, The Kuzari, tr. N. D. Korobkin (Northvale, NJ and Jerusalem,

1998), 1.7879, where celestial speculation contributes to a matrix of ideas that are

both the root of faith and the root of heresy. If its source is divine revelation,

celestial calculations are acceptable; otherwise, they are erroneous. Cf. C. Sirat, A

History of Jewish Philosophy in the Middle Ages(Cambridge, 1985), 127.


11/33


Equally weak is the sense of esotericism that surrounds astrology.

The persistent popularity of astrology among both the educated and

uneducated classes implies a certain degree of public access that

somewhat vitiates the notion of esotericismeven if the specific

skill-set of celestial interpretation was not available to all (as a

probable etymology of the word i!#agnin implies).31Similarly, the

thriving of astrology under the noses, as it were, of religious

officialdom indicates that its audience was indeed a public one. In

all, judicial astrology seems to hover somewhere on the line of the

occult, perhaps straddling orthodoxy and heterodoxy, esotericism

and public access; and this ambiguity seems to have undermined aclear-cut distinction between it and astronomy, thereby smoothing

the way, at least in some measure, for its broad acceptance.

This background evidence of ambiguity supports Sharfs inference

of ambivalence in the aggregate, but individual opinions may

evince no ambivalence whatsoever. In the present examples, the

Sefer hakhmoniand the Chronicle of Ahimaaz, ambivalence in the

former contrasts with unburdened credence in the latter. Donnolo,

for his part, propounds astrological study, even as he both betraysan awareness of Jewish rejectionism and, further, obliges himself to

offer an apology. In contrast, the Chroniclepointedly differentiates

between astrology and unacceptably occult practices.

Donnolo reveals his quandary in at least two interesting ways, both

of them within the larger context of the foreign origins of the astral

sciences, including both astronomy and astrology. First, in his

introduction, Donnolo acknowledges the dubiousness of astrology

from the Jewish perspective, using the concept of foreignness as

code for idolatry:

A few Jewish sages were wont to dismiss the books by

Jewish authors on the constellations as without substance,

because [these sages] did not understand them. They argued

that the books dealing with the wisdom of the stars and

constellations are the province of the gentiles, and that these

books were not written in accord with the worldview of Jewish

literature.32

31 S. Sela, Queries,,133, ! "#$%&'(), citing J. Levy, Wrterbuch ber dieTalmudim und Midraschim(Darmstadt, 1963), 1:118, I*+agninin.32Donnolo, Sefer hakhmoni, 123b.


12/33

Joshua Holo302

As if buying in to this view, Donnolo gives up on those incredulous

Jewish sages, but remains determined to learn, to travel and to

seek out the wisdom of the Greeks and that of the Muslims, and the

wisdom of the Babylonians and Indians. In other words, Donnolo

acknowledges that Jewish intellectuals viewed astrology with

suspicion; and more than that, he hints that he, too, originally

accepted the fact of astrologys associations with idolatrous

peoples, Muslims notwithstanding.33

In his second expression of ambivalence, Donnolo goes to great

lengths to correct this perception of astrology as a foreign science.His method is simply to preempt this ideological challenge, by

reversing the common wisdom regarding astrologys origins. In the

course of his studies abroad, Donnolo recounts that he

discovered that those [foreign books] were congruent, in every

matter concerning the astral sciences, with the books of the

Jews. Furthermore, I realized from these books that all

science of the stars and constellations is based on theBaraita ofSamuel the Interpreter, and even the books of the gentiles

agree with it. Samuel, however, purposely obfuscated in his

book; so after I finished copying the books, I travelled the

world in search of gentile sages, knowledgeable in the science

of the stars and constellations, in order to learn from them.

Eventually I found among them one Babylonian sage by the

name of Bagdash, all of whose wisdom jibed with the

Baraita of Samuel, with all of the books of Israel and with the

books of the Greeks and the Macedonians. But [in contrast to

theBaraita of Samuel,] the wisdom of this sage [i.e., Bagdash]was clear and accessible in the extreme.34

33Ibid.34 Ibid. This baraita, or rabbinic tradition extraneous to the canonical Mishnah, is

attributed to Mar Samuel (c. 177257), student of Judah the Prince (who compiledthe Mishnah, c. 220), leading light of the Babylonian academy of Nehardea and

eminent legist and astronomer. The Baraita of Samuelis briefly quoted by Sharf,

Universe, 185, from edition in J. D. Eisenstein, O!ar midrashim (New York,

1915), 54247. I infer purposely from the gist of the sentence, which implies

that Samuel was being coy in the sensitive matter of mysteries.


13/33


Donnolo argues that the real roots of astrology lay close to the

bosom of Israel, and he thereby attempts to reassure his readership

that there is nothing about which to feel ambivalent. If astrology

lost to the Jews as part of the punishment of their exileappears

pagan, it is only because nobody in his generation had apprehended

the Jewish Baraita of Samuelas the root of all astral science.35So

Donnolo defends his research, but in presenting this apology he

both confirms the prior problem of suspicion among his co-

religionists and seems to fear the same attitude among his

readership. As such, Donnolos introduction to his patently

astrological commentary on the Sefer ye!irah confirms Sharfsoverall impression of Jewish ambivalence towards to the topic.

The Chronicle of Ahimaazalso muses on destiny and the stars, and

also embraces astrology, but, unlike the Sefer hakhmoni, the

Chronicleevinces no tension whatsoever with the occult. Quite the

contrary, it differentiates astrology from other, more explicitly

occult pursuits, which the Chronicleopenly criticizes. For instance,

whereas Paltiel, a master of astrology, earns accolades for hisastrological acuity, other figures are chastised for their magical

indiscretions.36 An accursed sorceress who turned a boy into a

mule is called a wicked woman. In another example, a young

man who cheated death by manipulation of the divine Name is

required to confess his sin upon succumbing to death.37 Hananel,

one of the storys other heroes, also missteps in this regard; he

preserves a bodyaccidentally revivifying itby placing the

divine Name under the corpses tongue. An angel comes in a dream

to condemn Hananels action, asking why do you vex the Lord

God?38 In its attitude toward these occult sciences, the Chronicle

does not present a fine, porous line between them and astrology.

Rather, it seems to confer legitimacy on astrology in direct measure

35 Donnolo, Sefer mazzalot, in Frankel, 6:273; partially repr. and tr. in Sharf,

Donnolo, 45, 184.36

Ahimaaz, 16 (Heb.), 88 (Eng.):!"#$%&'(")("#*(*#. Seebelow for fuller expositionof Paltiels astrology, p. 310, n. 56. Salzman, in his intro. toAhimaaz, 21, refers to

Paltiel as so exceptionally favored, that his is the most conspicuous figure in the

chronicle.37Ibid., 35 (Heb.), 6466 (Eng.).38Ibid., 10 (Heb.), 77 (Eng.).


14/33

Joshua Holo304

to its condemnation of unauthorized magic, implying a firm and

unambiguous boundary between astrology and the occult.

In brief, even though both Donnolo and the Chronicle remove

astrology from the realm of the occult, they do so in very different

ways. The former is subject to considerable ideological tension,

while the latter accepts astrology without reservation. In order to

dissociate astrology from the occult and neutralize its ideological

threat, the Chronicledoes not acknowledge the connection, whereas

the Sefer hakhmoni faces it and defangs it. In these different

approaches to the difficulty raised by astrology, the two texts do notadequately corroborate the general impression of religious

ambivalence; they place, rather, ambivalence side-by-side with

more nave acceptance.

IV. THE IDEOLOGICAL PROBLEM OF FUZZY BORDERS:

ASTROLOGY AND ASTRONOMY

Just as Sefer hakhmoni and the Chronicle of Ahimaaz relate

astrology to the occult on the basis of very different assumptions, so

too, do they relate astrology to astronomy. Donnolo implicitly links

astronomy with astrology, but the Chronicle clearly differentiates

between prognostication and calculation, even though they both

relate to the stars and both predict, in effect, future events. In their

incongruity on this topic, Sefer hakhmoni and the Chronicle of

Ahimaaz again provide very dissimilar models for absorbing andneutralizing astrologys inherent ideological difficulties.

Much of Donnolos work functions in the overlapping sphere that

occupies both astrology and astronomy; most notably, perhaps, he

relates the so-called dragon, i.e., the path between the lunar

nodes, to moral values. Donnolo explains that

when God created the firmament above us, which is divided

into seven firmaments, he also created the dragon from waterand fire, in the form of a great monster like a great curved

serpent, and he extended it through the fourth celestial level,

which is the middle firmamentand all the stars, luminescent

bodies and constellations are fixed in it. Indeed, it is


15/33


appointed king over all of these [bodies], to guide them, in

goodness and evil.39

Donnolos work interweaves observation with interpretation of the

celestial bodies effects on matters of moral concern. Building on

these premises, Donnolo produces an entire cosmology in which the

stars correlate to the human character and body.40 This

correspondence, in turn, justifies Donnolos claims to zodiacal

melothesia, according to which the movements of these celestial

bodies ultimately govern human physical and spiritual affairs.41

Donnolos system depends on a daring interpretation of Scripture,by means of which he establishes that there are divine, disembodied

forces that complement physical ones. Both sets of forces

administer the human condition, in that the divine force ultimately

moves us while the physical forces constitute the stuff of our

existence. Accordingly, our physicality distinguishes us from God,

while our higher spiritual and moral plane (in diminutive measure

as compared to Gods) distinguishes us from the beasts.42 Thus

framed, Donnolos cosmology affirms orthodox Jewishmonotheism, but cannot avoid walking the tightrope between

heresy and orthodoxy in regard to the potential problem of

dualism.43 His scriptural basis for this cosmology (Genesis 1:26,

Let usmake man in our image, after our likeness) does not shy

away from that dualism, but seemingly pushes the envelope even

further. Donnolo clarifies:

39

Donnolo, Sefer hakhmoni, 146a; cf. above, p. 303, n. 35.40For a partial parallel in Midrash, in which homologies relate natural phenomena,including celestial ones, to the human body, see The Fathers according to Rabbi

Nathan, tr. J. Neusner (Atlanta, 1986), 18990; Hebrew version: Avot deRabbi

Nathan, ed. S. Z. Schechter (Vienna, 1887), chap. 31, 9192.41For a full exposition of Donnolos homology, see A. Sharf, Notes on a section

from Shabbetai Donnolos Sefer hakhmoni (Heb.), inJews and Other Minorities

in Byzantium(Ramat-Gan, 1995), 1934.42Donnolo, Sefer hakhmoni , 125a-126b, 127b.43Sharf,Donnolo, 7393; Genesis Rabbah, 8:3, explicitly addresses the capacity of

the biblical passage, Let us make man in our image and likeness, to inspireheretical dualism: R. Samuel bar Nahman [handed down the following tradition]

in the name of R. Yonatan: in the course of Moses writing the Torah, he was

writing each days act [of Creation]. When he arrived at the verse And God said

Let us make man, he said, Master of the Universe, why are giving the

heretics an opportunity to argue?


16/33

Joshua Holo306

Here is the explanation for the verse, Let us make man in our

image. After God created the entire universe, the supernal

heavens, the angels, all the ministers of His glory, the land, thefirmament, the waters, the trees, the grasses, the lights, the

stars, the fish, the sea monsters, the fowl, and the animals that

creep in the waters[etc.], He took counsel with His holy

spirit to create man, who would be the appointed guardian and

lord over all the creaturesto rule over the world, to reign and

oversee all of created heaven and earth, and to praise Him. So,

He said to His [newly-created] universe, Let us make man in

our image, after our likeness. In My image and in your image,

after My likeness and after yours.44

In this extraordinary argument, Donnolo claims that the created

universe joined God as partner in the creation of human beings,

with each partner defining one component of our nature and

abilities.

God, the initiator and senior collaborator in the project of mans

creation, defines our position in the universe:

Just as God is superior to and rules over man and the entire

universe above and below, so too shall man do, as long as he

follows his Creators will. Thus, for example, to our master

Moses, peace be upon him, the Blessed Creator said regarding

the [Golden] Calf, Allow me, and I will destroy [the Children

of Israel].45

By invoking the divine aspect of our constitution, Donnolo

illustrates two critical aspects of the divine-human relationship.

First, he explains that human propagation into perpetuity isdependent on conformity to Gods will. Our success in living up to

the standard of the divine within us can be measured in terms of our

ability to use the evil inclination to transform those things

normally generated by it into [acts characterized by] the fear of

God, without sin or offense.46 When we do so, we act as the

deputies of God, which is the second characteristic of the

relationship as Donnolo sees it. Quoting Deut. 9:14, Donnolo

argues that God needed to confer with Moses before destroying the

44Donnolo, Sefer hakhmoni, 126b.45Ibid.46Ibid., 127b, 129a.


17/33


Israelites for the sin of the Golden Calf. In the end, God deferred to

Moses, not only in asking him beforehand but also in subsequently

honouring His prophets preference to preserve the Israelites. God

respects, in effect, the extension of His own authority that He

delegated to us. The health of that relationship relies, however, on

our success in living up to Gods aspirations for us.

The correlation between the human body and the universe that

created it accounts for our physical and mental makeup and, by

extension, whether or not we live up to those expectations.

Accordingly,

God made for [man] a spherical head, like the firmament of

heaven that is above the firmament of this world. He gave him

the upper palate above the mouth, in which the teeth and jaw

are planted, in the likeness of the firmament of this world,

above us. And just as He separates this firmament that is above

us between watersbetween the upper waters and the lower

watersso too, does the upper palate of the mouth separate

between the humour of the head and that of the upper digestive

tract, called the stomach. Similarly, just as God rested His holypresence in the upper heavens, which covered the waters, as it

says in Scripture, He who roofed the waters with His rafters

(Ps. 104:3), so too, He placed the animated soul, knowledge,

and discernment in the membrane of the brain, which is

wrapped around the brain and its humour. This is evident,

because if the brain is ruptured, a person will die immediately,

for there resides the life-force. [Further,] just as God placed

the two lightsin the heavenly firmament, so too, he put two

eyes in mans head. The right eye is like the Sun and the left

resembles the Moon. And just as God made the celestialdragon in the universe and stretched it out over the firmament,

from east to west, from end to end, as well as the stars and the

constellations and everything in the universe that is branching

from it, so too, He made the spinal cord inside the vertebrae,

extending from the brain to the pelvis.47

Here, it is the microcosmic analogy of the physical universe to man

that accounts for the relationship of celestial bodies to our own,

which shapes the power of those bodies over us.48 This power, in

47Ibid., 127b; Sharf,Donnolo, 55, 17072.48Donnolo, Sefer hakhmoni,127a-b, 129b. From 129b: Just as the universe is full

of Gods glory, as it is written (Jer. 23:24), Man cannot hide among secrets,


18/33

Joshua Holo308

the form of the celestial dragon, reigns in the universe like a king

on his throne, and below it, a descending hierarchy rules over the

two bodies of light, the five planets, and over every deed in the

universe, both good and bad.49Thence, each part of the body, as

well as our appetites and inclinations, reflects the motions and

qualities of celestial bodies.50 So it is that, by dint of its

participation in our creation, the physical or celestial universe exerts

significant power over uson the face of it a rather audacious

reading of the creation of man and one that seamlessly interlaces

the observational and the interpretational, like the warp and weft

on the weavers beam.51

In very different fashion, the Chronicle of Ahimaaz treats judicial

astrology and astronomy as separate undertakings, with different

methods, purposes and results. Equally as bold as Donnolo in many

respects, the eleventh-century Chronicle presents side-by-side

portraits of the astronomer and astrologer for ready contrast.

Although the Chronicle, from the social-historical point of view,

poses many challenges inherent to its legendary content, from theperspective of cultural history it provides an unselfconscious

account of this distinction between the celestial sciences.52

Two relatives, protagonists of the Chronicle, play the all-but-

unrelated roles of seer and scientist. The elder of the two, Hananel,

was the second son of the family patriarch, Amittai, and lived in the

latter half of the ninth century. He, like his brothers, looms large in

the Chronicle as a pious wonderworker and learned mystic. One

without My seeing him, says the Lord; Do I not fill both heaven and earth? says

the Lord. Thus is the living spirit of man, which is like a microcosm, from his feet

to his head, from end to end, to the tips of his fingers and toes. Though this

appears to be a spiritual comparison, it is in fact a physical comparison of the

universe to man, insofar as both are analogously filled with Gods glory. Cf.Sharf,

Donnolo, 31, 52.49Donnolo, Sefer hakhmoni, 147b.50Ibid., 147a.51

Ibid., 146a, 147b, referring to I Sam. 17:7; Sharf,Donnolo, 183.52 Historical analysis of the mythological aspect of the Chronicle by R. Bonfil,

Mito, retorica, storia: saggio sul rotolo di Ahimaaz, in Tra due mondi(Naples,

1996), 12133; and idem, Can Medieval Storytelling Help Understanding

Midrash? The Story of Paltiel: a Preliminary Study on History and Midrash, in

The Midrashic Imagination, ed. M. Fishbane (Albany, 1993), 22854.


19/33


story, however, ignores the mystical and presents, rather, a very

this-worldly picture of astronomical calculation. In an encounter

with the local archbishop, Hananel finds himself in a

discussion of the calculations that were prescribed for

determining the appearance of the new Moon. On the morrow

of that very day there was to be a new Moon, which according

to Israels custom, was to be held sacred. [The archbishop]

asked [Hananel] in how many hours the new Moon would

appear. R. Hananel answered by naming a certain hour, but he

was mistaken. The archbishop disputed his opinion and said,

If that is your calculation on the appearance of the Moon, youare not skilled in calculation. R. Hananel had not given

thought to the time of the appearance of the new Moon, but the

archbishop had calculated it and knew; he had cast his net for

R. Hananel, and would have caught him in his snare had not

the God of his salvation come to his aid.

Still unaware of his error, Hananel takes the archbishop up on a bet,

according to which he agrees to apostatize if proven wrong. Then,

Hananel goes home, where

he went over his calculation and found his error, by which he

had failed in his reckoning. As the time of waxing

approachedhe called, in distress and tears, upon Him that

hears the supplications of His beloved, O God, Ruler of the

universe, nothing is hidden from You. I have not been

presumptuous, but have innocently erred and committed

folly. Forgive my error and pardon my wrongdoing.53

God obligingly intervenes to save Hananel, by shifting the Moons

phase to vindicate his erroneous calculation and to confute the

archbishops correct one. Gods intervention notwithstanding, this

anecdote deals in objective, astronomical reality that respects

neither religion nor man, nor does it presume to impinge on matters

of moral or spiritual orientation.

Hananels astronomical problem differs fundamentally from that

which his descendant later faces. Unlike Hananel, who is described

as a legal expert as well as a mystic, his great-grandson Paltiel

53Ahimaaz, 7880, 94 (Eng.); 1112, 1920 (Heb.), where he feels that the

scholars should not defer to him.


20/33

Joshua Holo310

engages in lexicallyand narrativelymarked astrology, and bears

the soubriquet understander of mysteries, without corresponding,

explicitly rabbinic credentials.54In fact he seems to enjoy a position

of privilege expressly distinct from that of the scholars. As his story

develops, Paltiels astrological prowess, like the astronomical skill

of his great-grandfather Hananel, comes out in relation to a non-

Jewish leader.55 In the mid-tenth century of the Chronicles

reckoning, al-Muizz, the future caliph of Fatimid Egypt, invades

Southern Italy, including Oria. There he encounters the Chronicles

protagonists, and Paltiel, prominent among them, rises to a position

of trust in al-Muizzs entourage. Now the conquerors advisor,Paltiel takes an evening stroll with his master, and gazing at the

stars they see

the commanders star consume three stars, not all at one time,

but in succession. And al-Muizz said to [Paltiel], What

meaning do you find in that? R. Paltiel answered, Give your

interpretation first. The commander replied, The stars

represent the three cities Tarentum, Otranto and Bari, that I am

to conquer. R. Paltiel then said, Not that, my lord; I seesomething greater; the first star meansSicily, the

secondAfrica, and the third, Babylonia. Al-Muizz at once

embraced him and kissed him, took off his ring and gave it to

him, and took an oath saying, If your words come true, you

shall be master of my house and have authority over my

kingdom.56

When al-Muizz dies after realizing the prophecy, Paltiel stays on

as vizier to the new caliph, and together they repeat the evening

stroll:

R. Paltiel and the king were walking in the open and they saw

three bright stars disappear; in an instant their light had

vanished. R. Paltiel said, The stars that have been eclipsed

represent three kings who will die this year; and they will soon

54Ahimaaz, 62 (Eng.); 3, 20 (Heb.): +('(, !"#-S. Benin, Jews, Muslims, and

Christians in Byzantine Italy, in Judaism and Islam, Boundaries,

Communications, and Interactions: Essays in Honor of William M.Brinner, ed. B.Hary, et al. (Leiden and Boston, 2000), 3031.55 For the considerations of the family tree, see the most recent translation and

historical interpretation of Paltiel and al-Muizz in C. Colafemminas introduction

to Sefer yuhasin: libro delle discendenze, 3138.56Ahimaaz, 8889 (Eng.); 1617 (Heb.).


21/33


be taken off. The first king is John the Greek, the second, the

king of Baghdad, in the north, then the king hastening to

interrupt him said, You are the third, the king of the south,but [Paltiel] replied to the king, No, my lord, for I am a Jew;

the third is the king of Spain. But the king said, You are in

truth the third as I say. Sure enough, in that year Paltiel died. 57

The patently astrological nature of these accounts requires only

brief comment.58 From the point of view of narrative, the

indeterminacy of interpretation comes through in clear distinction

from the natural fixedness of Hananels astronomical calculation.

Al-Muizzs deputizing of Paltiel is conditional, pending therealization of the latters prediction. Similarly, the narrator does not

telegraph Paltiels death as predetermined truth in the same way

that he categorically defines Hananels calculation as error. The

protagonists discover the truth and error of Paltiels respective

prophesies at the same time as the reader does, whereas Hananels

mistake constitutes a narrative fact of the story, established before it

even dawns on Hananel himself. The Chroniclegrants that the stars

have real power, no doubt, but humans interact with that power onterms unrelated to those that govern astronomical calculation.

Taking the Sefer hakhmoniand the Chronicle of Ahimaazwith their

very different understandings of astrologys connections to

astronomy and the occult, the thesis of fuzzy borders proves too

limited. The Sefer hakhmoni works within an astrological set of

assumptions that directly and seamlessly relies on astronomy; the

Chronicle of Ahimaazonly implicitly recognizes the overlap, and at

every turn treats the two sciences as utterly separate undertakings.In parallel fashion, the Sefer hakhmoni engages in astrology with

religious ambivalence towards its occult associationsperhaps

even revealing the authors own misgivings. Meanwhile, the

Chronicle casts no occult shadow on the science of astrology

57Ibid., 9697 (Eng.); 21 (Heb.).58 On the lexical indicators, in the first case the Chronicle uses hibit, and the

second h!

ozim, both referring to visual perception, and both subject to contextual

interpretation as regards either astronomy or astrology. For comparison to other

usage, see S. Stroumsa, Ravings, 146, 163, in the context of Maimonides; for

Abraham bar Hiyyas use of the second word in the astronomical sense, see above,

n. 11.


22/33

Joshua Holo312

whatsoever. In sum, if the common geographical, linguistic,

chronological and religious origins of both texts justifies a search

for some shared sensibility regarding ASTROLOGY AND

ASTRONOMY, WE MUST LOOK ELSEWHERE FOR IT.

V. HALAKHAH AND AGGADAH

We can only surmise a religious worldview that accounts at once

for the divergent attitudes of the two texts and their shared

conclusion in favour of astrology. Still, within that limitation, we

might imagine a radical conceptual break between the celestial

sciences, instead of attributing religious ambivalence to astrology as

a function of scientifically fuzzy borders between it and astronomy.

Such a break may be drawn along lines that correspond to the

border between two deeply engrained modes of Jewish thought

known as halakhah(pl. halakhot; binding legal norms of behaviour

and ritual) and aggadah (pl. aggadot; non-binding, non-legal,

speculative or homiletical interpretations and literature). Such aheuristic redraws and solidifies the border between the sciences,

because it is unconcerned with the technical and ideological

manifestations of ambiguity and ambivalence. Halakhah, as

correlated to astronomy, is concerned only with calculation as the

tool for the measurement of time; aggadah embraces everything

else, including not only astrology but also astronomy that feeds into

it (as opposed astronomy that serves the calculation of time). The

merit of this halakhah-aggadah heuristic is that it provides aplausible model, in which both the Chronicles unburdened

embrace of, and the Sefer hakhmonis ambivalent accession to,

astrology make sense. This, because in either case, astrology-as-

aggadahallows significant theological latitude without encroaching

on the halakhic demands of astronomy.59

59

A. Rosenak, Aggadah and Halakhah (Heb.), in A Quest for Halakha, ed. A.Barholz (Jerusalem, 2003), 28694; L. Silberman, Aggadah and Halakhah, in

The Life of the Covenant, ed. J. Edelheit (Chicago, 1986), 22334; Y. Nafha, On

Halakhah and Aggadah (Heb.), Derekh ephratah3 (1993), 183203; Z. Kagan,

Halakhah and Aggadah: The Paradoxical Connection (Heb.), Mehkere mishpat

18 (2002), 21318.


23/33


Halakhah and aggadah, though frequently associated with

particular genres of literature, also function as primordial

epistemological orders of relevance. In this hierarchy, halakhah

reigns unchallenged; it is the this-worldly enactment of divine Law

in all its possible permutations, applicable to every eventuality in

life, including, for example: diet, worship, sexual relations, ethical

behaviour, and the religious calendar. As Jacob Neusner puts it, I

assign priority to the Halakhah for the same reason everyone else

who has ever studied Rabbinic Judaism does. The Halakhah defines

the practice of the faith, the norms of conduct, and these bear the

message, the professions, of the faith as well, embodying belief inconcrete behaviour.60 It spells out, in other words, the Jews

specific contractual obligations in their unique covenant with God.

Halakhah, therefore, by its very nature enjoys immediate and

compelling relevance, not only as a system of religious values but

also as a guide for daily life; and among the various realms of

halakhah, none touched upon the lives of individuals and

communities in the Middle Ages more directly and universally thanthe measurement of time. In serving this halakhic function as the

metronome of Jewish time, with its myriad implications for social

organization, the calendar embodied the social and spiritual

function of halakhah as a compulsory code of life. Many of the

divine Commandments are time-bound, in particular the celebration

of the Sabbath and holidays; their proper observance entails not

only detailed ritual, but also dietary restrictions, such as the Yom

Kippur fast and abstinence from leaven on Passover. Additionally,

work and travel are strictly forbidden on holidays, a fact that

directly governed commercial and communal interaction. In

addition to these underlying the social and legal concerns, the

Pentateuch, beginning with Creation, clearly describes the calendar

as the existential rhythm of the cosmos, which lends time a

numinous quality. For all these reasons, the calendar eventually

inspired a desire for uniformity among the Jewish people, to which

they responded in the ninth century and definitively in the tenth,

with the development of a standardized calendarone which pre-

60 J. Neusner, Major Trends in Formative Judaism, Fourth Series, Category-

Formation, Literature and Philosophy(Lanham, MD, 2002), 66.


24/33

Joshua Holo314

empted regional halakhicdiversity that applied to other matters of

similarly quotidian bearing.61

Jewish leadership, during a long and complicated process, gradually

replaced direct lunar observation with astronomical calculation, for

the purpose of determining the lunar cycles and intercalating them

with the solar cycles.62 In this way, since the fourth century C.E.,

astronomy played an increasing, if controversial, role in

predetermining the Jewish lunisolar year.63And though the precise

mathematical formulae and the applications remained in flux for

some centuries, the principal of calculation based on astronomyprevailed.64 The final stage of standardization took the form of a

fierce dispute between Saadia Gaon, the pre-eminent Iraqi

authority, and Aaron ben Meir, his Palestinian counterpart,

ultimately settling in favour of the former.65The bone of contention,

i.e., the determination of the length of the year A.M. 4682 (C.E. 921

922), utterly presumed both the common principles of astronomical

calculation and the fact of their applicability as Law to the entire

61 S. Stern, Calendar and Community (Oxford, 2001), 23241. E.g., one of the

most glaring aspects of halakhic diversity, the question of polygyny came to the

fore as a legal matter around the turn of the first millennium in the Rhineland but

not in Muslim lands. In custom, European Jewry had abandoned polygyny some

time prior, but de jure, only in that period did R. Gershom, Light of the Exile,

outlaw it; L. Finkelstein, Jewish Self-Government in the Middle Ages(New York,

1924; repr. 1964), 2036.62Stern, Calendar,24175.63

S. Gandz, Studies in Hebrew Astronomy and Mathematics (New York, 1970),74, dates the shift to calculation to 359, according to a reference by medieval

Hebrew astronomer Abraham b. Hiyya, Sefer ha-ibbur, 3:7. Stern, Calendar, 139

54; idem, Fictitious Calendars: Early Rabbinic Notions of Time, Astronomy and

Reality, Jewish Quarterly Review 87 (1996), 10329, examines the dissonance

between empirically erroneous calculations and the assumptions and claims that

they reflected reality, demonstrating the difficulties of the undertaking and the

gradual process of codification into the Middle Ages.64 For the Talmudic evolution of the calendar, see Feldman, Rabbinical

Mathematics, 178210; the Babylonian Talmud itself reflects the problems of

jibing the computed with the observed lunar phases in one of its most famouspassages, Rosh Hashanah 24a-25b. Most importantly, S. Stern, Calendar, 98, 170

75, 254.65H. Malter, Saadia Gaon (Philadelphia, 1921), 6988; Stern, Calendar, 26468;

M. D. Cassuto, About What Did Saadia Gaon and b. Meir Dispute?(Heb.), in

Rav Saadia Gaon, ed. J. L. Fishman (Jerusalem, 1943), 33364.


25/33


Jewish world; the disputants merely challenged one anothers

determination of the mathematically-defined threshold of the

Jewish New Year. That the prestige and power of the disputants

hinged directly on this debate merely reflects its centrality for the

entire Jewish world, crossing all boundaries of geography or class.66

Thus, by the tenth century, and the lifetime of Shabbetai Donnolo,

astronomical calendation under girded the very functionality of

Jewish life, so that, despite the patent overlap between the celestial

sciences, medieval Judaism necessarily distinguished between them

in terms of the indeterminacy of astrologys occult status, on the

one hand, and astronomys halakhicnecessity on the other.67

The legal and practical implications of astronomically based

calendation find eloquent and pithy expression in the Karaite-

Rabbanite debate.68The Rabbanites, the large majority of Jewry and

heretofore referred to simply as Jews, constituted the mainstream

of Judaism and defined themselves by their adherence to both

Scripture, also called the Written Law, and Talmud, or the Oral

Law. Their opponents, the Karaites, had coalesced in tenth-centuryPalestine into an important dissenting group that rejected the

authority of the Talmud, its adherents and its masters.69Rabbanites

and Karaites recognized one another as Jews ethnically, religiously,

nationally, and linguistically; but the stumbling block of differing

religious authority prevented mutual acceptance in many matters of

66

Later stages only ratified the conclusions of the tenth century. The eminenttwelfth-century halakhistand critic of Maimonides, Rabad of Posquires, disputed

questions of astronomy, unafraid of engaging in the question of foreign (read:

idolatrous) astronomy, in for the sake of establishing the law and the calendar. See

the analysis of I. Twersky, Rabad of Posquires (Cambridge, Mass., 1962), 264

68. Though later, the example of Maimonides is also instructive, Sefer ha-mi!vot,

positive commandment no. 153: To sanctify the months and to calculate the years

and months only by the power of the rabbinical court, as Scripture says (Ex. 12:2):

This month is for you the first of the months; first is it for you among the months

of the year.67

Stern, Calendar, 26468.68 For an apt discussion, see Z. Ankori, Karaites in Byzantium (New York and

Jerusalem, 1959), ch. 7.69See P. Birnbaum, ed., Karaite Studies (New York, 1971), esp. the repr. of the

classic articles by S. Pozna,ski, The Anti-Karaite Writings of Saadiah Gaon,89128, and The Karaite Literary Opponents of Saadiah Gaon, 129234.


26/33

Joshua Holo316

doctrine, practice and law.70One emblematic point of dispute was

the calendar. The Karaites reckoned their calendar based on direct

observation of the new Moon associated with Passover and the

arrival of agricultural spring in the Land of Israel, in accordance

with ancient practice and the biblical text.71 Meanwhile the

Rabbanites increasingly, and by the tenth century completely, relied

on uniform astronomical calculation of the phases of the Moon and

intercalation with the solar calendar.

Various primary sources, including a Byzantine letter from the

Cairo Genizah, capture the deep rift between the two factions,especially as relates to the ongoing struggle of each side to justify

its own calendar.72 A Hebrew, Rabbanite missive dated to the

eleventh century on paleographic grounds and attributed to

Byzantium on the basis of its mention of the Byzantine coin, the

hyperpyron, illustrates the practical and legal implications of this

longstanding debate. In it, the unnamed author complains of Karaite

politicking, pointing out that

the Karaites again fought against us last year. They

desecrated the divine festivals, and celebrated the New Year in

the eighth month [i.e., one month late by Rabbanite reckoning],

for they had received letters from Palestine stating that the

barley-ripening had not yet been seen in Nissan [the appointed

month of Passover], so the Passover had to celebrated in Iyyar

[the following month]. A violent enmity developed between us,

and many disputes took place. The Karaites slandered [us,] the

Rabbanites, and [our] congregation was fined almost one

thousand dinars hyperpyra.73

70 J. Olszowy-Schlanger, Karaite Marriage Documents from the Cairo Genizah

(Leiden and New York, 1998), 47.71Exodus 9:31, 34:18.72See L. Nemoy, Karaite Anthology(New Haven, 1952), 5, 38.73 Cambridge University Library, Taylor-Schechter 20.4. First published by J.

Mann, Texts and Studies in Jewish History and Literature, 2 vols. (Cincinnati,

193135), 1:51. Present translation adapted from Starr, Jews, 18284; Starr reads

.""/.0"1(YPRNYYR),

which does not correspond to -./0.10&. However, close examination of themanuscript clearly reveals the letters ."0.0"1(YPARPYR), which correspond nicely

with 1.$0.10.


27/33


This fortuitous document not only captures the halakhicimmediacy

of the calendar, but more trenchantly, places astronomical

calculation in the forefront of competing claims to orthodoxy.

Echoing the irreducible demands of calendrical adherence, the

Chronicle of Ahimaazapproaches physical astronomy in a way that

highlights its halakhic function. Lexical and narrative elements of

the story of Hananel reflect both a purely astronomical orientation

and a specific set of legal associations. First of all, the language of

calculation, as opposed to interpretive stargazing, is quite precise,

and matches terms that appear in other texts on astronomy.74

Second, the story treats a situation in which objective knowledge is

either right or wrong; that is, a natural set of truths applies to the

cosmos independently of religious claims. More to the point,

adherence to the natural order of time imposes particular strictures

on the Jew, and indeed, the stakes are higher than at first they

appear. Hananel brings the quandary of apostasy on himself, insofar

as he accepts the bet, but this self-imposed peril actually sets the

stage for the real crisis, namely, the commission of a sin. Hananelerrs in a matter of law, and he must submit himself to Gods mercy,

by means of a formal prayer, forgive my error and pardon my

wrongdoing.75

Ignoring such legal concerns, astrology as described by both the

Sefer hakhmoni and the Chronicle of Ahimaaz falls to the very

different mode of aggadah. Aggadah constitutes an altogether

looser and less authoritative category than halakhah.76Late-antique

and medieval Talmudic authorities, the primary tradents of both

halakhah and aggadah, agree that no halakhah can be derived

from aggadot, thereby freeing individuals to accept or reject non-

halakhic traditions as their conscience demands.77And this freedom

correlates to aggadahs great breadth; all lore that falls outside the

essential and binding category of halakhah may be said to fall

74

In reference to both Maimonides and Bar Hiyya, see Sela, Fuzzy Borders, 72,82. Specifically, Maimonides,Mishneh Torah, Laws of the New Moon, 17:24.75Ahimaaz, 7880 (Eng.); 1112 (Heb.).76J. Frenkel,Midrash and Aggadah(Heb.) (Tel-Aviv, 1996), 2122.77Peah 2:6, 17a; Maaser Sheni 3:9, 51a; Shabbat 16:1, 15c; Hai Gaon in B. M.

Lewin,O!ar ha-Geonim(Jerusalem, 192843), 4:5960.


28/33

Joshua Holo318

under the category of aggadah.78 Aggadah is also identified,

imprecisely, with the genre of late-antique, rabbinic literature

known as Midrash, though Midrash in fact includes both aggadic

and halakhictexts, just as aggadahalso peppers the predominantly

halakhic corpus of Talmud.79 More than merely a literary genre,

therefore, this catch-all refers to the affective mode of Jewish

thinking that is characteristic of legends, homilies, ethical lessons,

parables, mysticism, etc.80Cast thus, astrology is cordoned off and

comparatively unmoored as aggadah. It cannot possibly speak to

the basic and obligatory considerations of law, and cannot,

therefore, inspire any responseeither positive or negativeofcomparable moment.81 Aggadah certainly has the capacity to

challenge and test orthodoxy by means of risky ideas, but if

anything, it functions as a safe context for daring theological

speculation, because once distinguished from halakhah, it cannot

materially menace it. As an aggadic approach to interpreting the

78 H. L. Strack and G. Stemberger, Introduction to Talmud and Midrash(Minneapolis, 1996), 23740.79A typical example is Pesiqta Rabbati, ed. R. Ulmer (Atlanta, 1997), 40819, in

which Creation unfolds in terms of the zodiacal year and each constellations

characteristics. J. H. Charlesworth, Jewish Astrology in the Talmud,

Pseudepigrapha, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and Early Palestinian Synagogues,

Harvard Theological Review70 (1977), 18388, describes the variety of opinions

in the Talmud. This variety does not, in and of itself, correlate to either halakhah

or aggadah, insofar as both leave ample room for disagreement. The difference

lies in what one does with the disagreement. In matters of halakhah, one cannot

simply abstain from opining; a choice must be made regarding the course of actionin fulfilment of the Law. In matters of aggadah, by contrast, one may expatiate,

challenge, or simply ignore. Charlesworth also briefly discusses a Shabbat 156a-

156b where the topic arises in typically aggadicmode. Other well known passages

include Nedarim 32a and Bava Batra 16b.80There are points at which halakhah and aggadah seem to overlap, see D. Gordis,

Scripture and Halakhah in Parallel Aggadot2, Prooftexts 5 (1985): 18391, eventhough the categories are generally invoked as fundamentally different.81Cf. Maimonides, who attacked astrology in public and halakhic contexts, in an

effort to frame his argument more forcefully and perhaps to hide his secret agenda,

according to Freudenthal, Maimonides Stance2, 85, 87. But, even taking hisobjections to astrology at face value as simple rejections of judicial astrology, theycan do no more than establish astrology as a danger to halakhah or a slippery

slope. Idolatry proper is not identified, wholesale and halakhically, with astrology,

but it does threaten to lead to it; see Y. T. Langermann, Maimonides Repudiation

of Astrology, inMaimonidean Studies(New York, 1991), 2:1289.


29/33


heavens, astrology opens a space for ambiguity, ambivalence and

even heterodoxy.82

In stark contrast to astronomy and the halakhic concerns that

surround it, aggadah defines the astrology of Donnolo and the

Chroniclealike. Donnolo is aware of the fact that his case for the

collaborative generation of man at the hands of God and His created

universe risks offending Judaisms core monotheistic sensibilities.

So he tempers his reading with an unobjectionably orthodox

exposition of Gods ultimate power and free will.83But in any case,

all of his astrological and cosmological daring never leaves the foldof the established interpretive tools of aggadah. Genesis Rabbah, a

classical, verse-by-verse, aggadic reading of Genesis compiled as

early as the fifth century, already addresses the same scriptural

problem in similarly bold terms and by means of the same

exegetical methods.84The rabbis, the interlocutors of the text, test

out various interpretations to account for the troubling plural

subject of the Genesis verse, Let usmake man in ourimage. They

ask, With whom did God take counsel? R. Joshua b. Levi said,With the created heaven and earth did He take counsel. The

continuing exposition then goes in a very different direction from

that of Donnolo, but the exegetical infrastructure of classical

rabbinic aggadah obviously underlies his own. Equally explicitly

and directly aggadic is Donnolos fragmentary, largely

astronomical work, Sefer mazzalot. There he explicates the motions

of the Pleiades and Ursa Minor by means of a mythical reading of

Genesis and the book of Job.85 Additionally, Joseph Kara, in his

82 On similar lines to those proposed by Y. T. Langermann, Acceptance and

Devaluation: Nahmanides Attitude towards Science2,Journal of Jewish Thoughtand Philosophy 1/2 (2001), 22345. Rabbis variously rejected and accepted

judicial astrology: Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat 156a, is the classical rejection of

astral powers over the Jews, Israel has no constellation, but Genesis Rabbah,

10:6 attributes to every blade of grass a constellation that empowers it to grow.83On Gods repositioning of the stars to call off the rains of the Biblical Flood, see

Donnolo, Sefer mazzalot, 2:26162, and below, n. 85.84

Genesis Rabbah 8:3; Strack and Stemberger,Introduction, 279.85Donnolo, Sefer mazzalot, 7:349: When the Holy One, Blessed be He, brought

forth the flood on the earth, He took two stars from the Pleiades, and the flood

broke forth on the earth. When the Holy One, Blessed be He, sought to remove the

waters from the face of the earth, he took two stars from Ursa Minor and he filled

in the vacant spaces of the two stars in the Pleiades. For that reason, Ursa Minor


30/33

Joshua Holo320

commentary on the book of Job (the only extant source for the Sefer

mazzalot) takes Donnolos astronomy in precisely this aggadic

sense, and specifically quotes Genesis Rabbahin the same section

of that midrash where R. Simon avers that no blade of grass exists

except as under its constellationin order to interpret, together

with Donnolo, the movements of the Pleiades.86 In brief, Donnolo

explicitly frames his entire cosmology and judicial astrology in

these standard and familiar aggadic terms, where ambivalence and

theological daring can flourish, without encroaching on the

fundaments of Jewish doctrine and law.

The Chronicle, in similar fashion, casts Paltiel as the interpretive

astrologer, whose skill profits him, but whose interpretations do not

impinge on the realm of divine law.87 His endeavours as an

interpreter of the heavens belong to that broad category of

aggadahnot in the sense of Donnolos classical exegesis, but

rather in the default sense of aggadah as all that which is not

halakhah. Paltiels readings are indeterminate, and the concept of

transgression, which befits the breaking of the law, does not applyto his failure. Unlike Hananels calculations, Paltiels interpretive

leeway removes astrology from astronomys halakhicPURVIEW.

VI. CONCLUSION

If the heuristic lens of aggadahoffers one model for understanding

the complexity of astrologys place in both the Sefer hakhmoniand

theChronicle of Ahimaaz, it is not because aggadahand astrologyare necessarily or exclusively linked. That is to say, in other

contexts, legal issues do arise around the topics of prognostication

and the reading of the stars, even if they do so with considerable

collective ambiguity.88Tractate Pesahim, 113b, asks: How do we

follows after the Pleiades and demands the two stars back, saying Give me my

children, give me my children. The prooftext comes from Job [38:32]: Can you

lead Ursa Minor with her sons? Donnolo is probably making a pun on 2/+,,which can mean Will you lead? but pointed differently, can be read as Will she

[i.e., Ursa Minor] be consoled?86Ibid., 350, citing Genesis Rabbah, 10:5.87See above, p. 310.88J. Halbronn,Le monde juif et lastrologie (Milan, 1979), 239.


31/33


know that one should not consult Chaldeans [i.e., necromancers or

astrologers]? Because of the Biblical passage (Deut. 23:13) that

states You shall be perfect with the Lord, your God. Echoing this

attitude, a document from the Cairo Genizah denounces astrology in

terms reminiscent of Maimonides, explicitly prohibiting the

practice.89 Other considerations in the Talmud, however, enter the

debate as though into an aggadic matter, with correspondingly

varied opinions and without the determinative judgments of

halakhah. Such is the claim of Rava, who argues that three things

are dependent, not on merit but onMazzal[zodiacal sign]: lifespan,

offspring, sustenance.90

The matter is further complicated, moreover, by the fact that in the

Palestinian Talmud, which historically enjoyed primacy over its

Babylonian counterpart in the context of Roman Jewry, also

equivocates in the matter of astrology. R. Eliezer b. Jacob grants

that one should neither divine nor augur (Lev. 19, 26). And yet,

even divination may convey an accurate omen, especially after

three occurrences of the sign.

91

This indeterminacy only grows, asthe argument proceeds along a more aggadicpath. The students of

R. Hanina go out to cut wood, when an astrologer (i!#rologin)

declares that they will not survive the excursion. It turns out that his

prediction would have been realized, had the students not averted

the decree by an act of charity along the way.92 In sum, if the

Palestinian Talmud passes judgment on astrology, it also grants the

stars poweralbeit a power subordinated to divinely inspired

deeds, such as those of loving kindness.

Further clouding the matter, astrology and astronomy, distinguished

or elided, may serve yet other purposes in other contexts. Such is

the case as argued by Josef Stern, regarding Maimonides stance on

astrology. According to this view, commandments that resist a

logical rationale are explained in the Guide in light of the

historical context in which the Mosaic Law was legislated, the

89 Joseph b. Judah ibn Aknin, Cure of Sick Souls, in The Jew in the Medieval

World, selected and tr. J. R. Marcus, revised ed. (Cincinnati, 1999), 431.90Moed ka+an, 28a.91Shabbat 6:9, 8d.92Ibid.


32/33

Joshua Holo322

Sabian culture centred on star-worship.93Being the first step on the

slippery slope to star-worship, judicial astrology therefore becomes

a hermeneutical tool in halakhic investigation. In similarly complex

fashion Maimonides, in his monumental halakhic work, the

Mishneh Torah, details celestial and earthly phenomena of only

peripherally halakhicinterest.94

The argument, therefore, is not that aggadah necessarily defines

astrology, rather that Donnolo and Ahimaaz b. Paltiel wrote as

though it did. Donnolo and the Chronicle steer clear of the

Talmudic ambiguities, and in marking the sciences as expressionsof prevailing modes of Jewish thought, they obviate, rather than

resolve, any potential tension. Their application of the line between

halakhah and aggadah to the sciences does not merely cleave

observation from interpretation but more pointedly between

observation for the purpose of calendation and everything else.

Donnolo, who engages with astronomy as a component of

astrology, subsumes both of them under the Baraita of Samueland

describes the astral forces in unmistakablyeven classicaggadicterms. Meanwhile the Chroniclecounterpoises fortune-telling to the

astronomical calculation of the new Moon, which in turn invokes

expressly legal concerns. The firm and familiar distinction between

aggadic, affective and optional astrology on the one hand, and

halakhic, essential and compulsory astronomical calculation on the

other, not only precedes any scientific similarity, but it also pre-

empts astrologys potentially-occult aspect from threatening

orthodoxy, and thereby at least partially accounts for its general

93J. Stern, The Fall and Rise of Myth in Ritual: Maimonides versus Nahmanides

on the Huqqim, Astrology, and the War against Idolatry, The Journal of Jewish

Thought and Philosophy 6 (1997), 20103.94 Even the descriptive, non-computational aspect invoked law, according to

Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Laws on the Foundations of Torah, 3. In this

halakhic work par excellence, Maimonides gives a brief outline of the physicaluniverse. Though he attributes a quasi-angelic consciousness to the higher celestial

bodies, he clearly treats the universe in a descriptive manner, without attributing

any judicial power to the bodies; see Langermann, Repudiation, 93, argues that

Maimonides did not intend his condensed cosmology in this section to be

definitive.


33/33


acceptance.95In the larger, ongoing question of monotheism and its

relationship to astrology, the Chronicleand the Sefer ye!irahadd a

rich and organically Jewish dimension when viewed in this light.

95 Thus obviating the problem, as presented by J. Charlesworth, Jewish

Astrology, 199, of the polarization and irreconcilability of the positions on

astrology in the Talmud.