Offerings of the Gentiles in Early Rabbinic Literature

�A Seminar Paper for the completion of the M.A. at Tel Aviv University

רוזנברג חיים ע"ש ולארכיאולוגיה היהדות למדעי הספר בית

by Eliyahu David Sasson Freedman

3rd April 2019

1 Gratitude

מבגדד קורין יוסף ד׳׳ר נשמת לעילוי

החיים בצרור צרורה נשמתו

My eternal gratitude must first be expressed to the many individuals and schools (Montessori,

Associated, CHAT, McGill University, Pardes, Hadar and YCT) that assisted me in the

completion of this paper: first and foremost my thanks go towards מורי אבי whose bekiut

in Shas is more useful than Bar Ilan and מורתי אמי whose love of the Babylonian Jewish

community נהריים בני inspires my studies. Secondly I must thank my Savta, Sabba and

family in Israel that have assisted tremendously in my move to Jaffa יע׳׳א .עה׳׳ק

Next I must thank my outstanding professors וורד צבי רוזן ישי החסד ומידת בש׳׳ס בקיאים

נעם whose continued assistance and guidance were immeasurable. I am grateful as well for

all the help I received from staff, faculty and classmates at TAU and from the American

Jewish League for Israel whose scholarship funded my studies this year.

Numerous individuals offered helpful feedback on this paper (hence our con-

vention to use the first-person pronoun ”we”): Michael Freedman, װישװאנאט ארעלע , Dov

Linzer, Ysoscher Katz, Zvi Ortner, Ethan Tucker, and Menahem Kahana.

All errors are of course our own. Now... Zu den Sachen selbst!

”Cow,” unknown Canadian artist

2 Philosophical Introduction

Our present inquiry is not philosophy but is philosophical. Thus, we will do our best

throughout to explicate as precisely as possible all our terms and assumptions. The

following investigation into the “offerings of gentiles in early rabbinic literature” is not

primarily historical, but ideological.1 In other words, we are not interested in the “facts”

that can be reconstructed from the Second Temple period, but the ways in which the

Rabbis actively constitute “gentiles” and “their offerings” of cash, animals and birds as

”subjects” in their writings by telling a religious-historical story. 2 Nevertheless, we thus

present a scholarly overview of the historical approach to our question.

In 1886, Emile Schurer provided the first extensive overview, relying chiefly

on Lev. 22:25 3 and some rabbinic and hellenistic sources to conclude that gentiles were

allowed to offer sacrifices “in both theory and practice” 4 in the Jerusalem Temple. In the

century-plus since, despite several attacks,5 Schurer’s basic historical argument remains

as plausible and convincing as ever.

Since Schurer, scholarship has looked into more granular details, often reaching

opposed conclusions. For example, some have found in Leviticus 1:2 a more “universalist”

attitude towards gentile participation in the cult 6 while others have found in Deutero-

nomy 23 a ban on gentile access to the Temple— both unconvincingly.7 The Qumran

texts such as 4QMMT have been reconstructed to invent a ban on gentile offerings (in

spite of its basic illegibility),8while the physical layout of the Temple has been found

to suggest limited gentile access.9 The Shekel tax has justifiably received significant1Cf. Ophir and Rosen-Zvi, Goy 8-18 for whom our philosophical introduction is reliant. Cf. Balberg

(2017) Schumer (2017), and Cohn (2008) for similar studies2Following of course the important theoretical insights of Louis Althusser and work in religious semi-

otics3 See the discussion in Joosten (1996) 75-76 for three contrasting scholarly views on this verse4 Schwartz (1992), p. 1025 See in particular, Schwartz (1992) 102-1166 Based in Lev. 1:2’s “universal” language of “adam” (Watts 2013 ad loc.)7 Based in Deuteronomy 23’s restrictions on the ”kahal” (Orian, 2015, p.38-40)8 DJD 20, Zussman (1989), Hayes (2002), Noam (forthcoming).9 Mclaren (2013) Chapter 6.

2

attention, from both Israelite 10 and Pauline perspectives.11

Analysis of the rabbinic legacy (also undertaken by Schurer) has a substantial

bibliography in its own right with special attention to the influential article by Israel

Knohl (1979).12 Still, a comprehensive review of this literature would leave one con-

fused if rabbinic texts allow for gentile participation in even sin offerings (Finklestein),

communal offerings (Kahana), or are diverse enough to include a minority opinion that

entirely bans gentile sacrifices (Finklestein, Gilat).

Our paper enters this crowded field with two goals: to read the existing key

tannaitic texts more carefully, and to present several new texts as essential to a compre-

hensive understanding our topic. We will begin our first goal not for the sake of philology

itself, but in order to steer the reader away from errors that have proliferated in the field.

Our conclusion will review some of the implications of our research on related studies of

sacrificial texts in rabbinic literature and foreshadow our own future studies.

A brief word on our citation of rabbinic texts: all have been quoted from ma-

nuscripts, and checked with the available synopsis volumes (such as Synopsezum Talmud

Yerushalm) and the data available via Ma’agarim, Hachi Garsinan and BIU’s online

data. Without otherwise specifying, our citations of Mishna come from MS Kaufmann A

50, numbered MS refer to the MS Vat.ebr collection (default 66 for Sifra), Tosefta from

Ms Vienna 30 National Library Vienna, PT from MS Leiden Scaliger 3 and Bavli from

Bavarian State Library, Munich, Germany, 1342; Ms. 95. Biblical texts are quoted from

the Leningrad Codex, Firkovich B19A.10 See Liver in Jubilee vol. for Y. Kaufmann (1960) Japhet (1984, 1991), Stevens (2002), Mandell

(1984), Selven (2014) and Cohen (1989)11Downs (2016)12See Ginzberg (1928) Lieberman (1931, 1953) Epstein (1957) Finklestein (1969, 1983) Gilat and

Urbach (1979) and Friedman (2010)

3

3 Part One– Textual Criticism

3.1 Sifra D’vora D’ndava 2:2

The Sifra66 learns from the language of Lev. 1:2: המשומדים את להוציא מכם הגירים את לרבות אדם

This teaching is repeated in P. Shek. 1:5

המשומדים את להוציא מכם הגרים את לרבות אדם כן ותני לא [בכותים] (בגוים) הא בגוים מתנית' לעזר ר' אמ'

Nevertheless, in the Sofer edition of P. Shekalim (based in MS Oxford) and in

various traditional commentaries of the PT (see Finkelstein, Sifra p.21) a variant version

reads: המשומדים את להוציא מכם הגוים את לרבות אדם כן ותני This variant reading led Finkelstein

to argue in two places (1969, 1983) for the reconstruction of the Sifra as bifurcated: a

Babylonian version that reads גוים , and a Palestinian reading of .גרים Moreover, according

to Finklestein the Palestinian version represents a tanna whose inclusion of gerim excludes

gentiles from even voluntary offerings (!). Conversely, the Babylonian version includes

gentiles in obligatory and sin-offerings (!). Underlying Finkelstein’s reconstruction of our

sugya is a multi-layered understanding of M. Shek. 1:5 which we will analyze below (3.3).

Finkelstein held onto his position in spite of the opposition of two colleagues:

Louis Ginzberg (Ginzei Shechter 1:509) and Saul Lieberman (Tosefta Kifshutah 662,

Yerushalmi kifshuto 45) who both argued for the accuracy of the גרים version. It is

clear why— גוים is found in only one reading of the Yerushalmi parallel, nevermind the

Sifra itself. If one studies the Yerushalmi sugya, it is apparent that the insertion of גוים

makes the argument of R’ Eleazar more coherent. Thus, Finkelstein’s conclusion fails

the principle of textual criticism of lectio difficilior potior. Finally, other Tannaitic texts

teach explicitly that gentiles do not bring obligatory offerings (Hova 1:1 66; cf. Mishna

Shekalim 1:5): חטאת מביאין הגוים אין חטאת מביאין ישראל בני

And there is no reason, beyond imagination, to hypothesize that the variant

reading of P. Shekalim is anything other than an error.

4

3.2 Sifrei Bemidbar 107 (Horowitz):

In 2015, Menahem Kahana completed the fourth and final volume of his critical edition

of Sifrei Bemidbar. On the basis of the best available manuscripts— and there can be no

doubt he made the correct decision as a philologist (see p. 728)— Kahana reversed the

editorial decision made by Horowitz to correct תמימים to תמידין (above, 728-34) making the

following crucial difference: From

(Horowitz ed.) נכר בן ומיד וגו' וכרות ונתוק וכתות ומעוך אומר שהוא לפי נאמר למה אלה את ככה יעשה האזרח כל

זכיתי עולה מביא שהגוי שלמדנו אחר תמימים מהם מקבל אתה אבל מהם מקבל אתה אי אלה כה) כב (ויקרא וגו' תקריבו לא

ככה יעשה האזרח כל ת"ל נסכים מביא הגוי אף נסכים מביא ישראל מה אי עולה מביא והגוי עולה מביא ישראל כבתחלה לדון

עולתו ששלח גוי אמרו מיכן ככה] ת"ל נסכים טעונה עולתו תהא לא [יכול נסכים מביא הגוי ואין נסכים מביא ישראל אלה את

צבור משל נסכים יקרבו נסכים עמה שילח ולא הים ממדינת to

(Kahana ed. based in 32) אתה אי אלה וכר'" ונתוק וכתות "ומעוך או' שהוא לפי נא'. למ' ככה". יעשה האזרח "כל

תמידין. מהן אתה מקבל [אבל] מהן מקבל

Kahana’s decision was promptly critiqued by Ishay Rosen-Zvi in the literary

section of Ha’aretz: ומופלא. חדש פרשני עולם פותח יו"ד, של קוצו ממש הזה, הקטן השינוי והנה תמימים. לא תמידים,

הגוי, מן תמידים מקבלים כיצד הגויים. מן גם יום, בכל פעמיים במקדש המוקרב התמיד, קורבן את לקבל שאפשר אומר הוא שכן

מוסכם לכאורה אך למקדש. השקל מחצית של במס ישתתף שהוא היא הכוונה כורחנו על הציבור? של בקורבן מדובר והרי

הקולקטיב של קורבנות הם ולכן למקדש, יהודי כל שמשלם השקל ממחצית רק מובאים שהקורבנות חז"ל בספרות ומקובל

מידם. מקבלים אין השקל) מחצית (=תרמו ששקלו וכותי "נכרי במפורש: המשנה אומרת אכן כך ולמענו.

The debate between Rosen-Zvi and Kahana actually begins several decades

earlier, with the brief but prescient words of Saul Lieberman in Tarbiz in his emendation

of P. Avodah Zarah 2:1 (1931):

ומקריב. תמימים אתה לוקח מקריב. את אין אלה מכל אלה. מכל אלהיכם לחם את תקריבו לא נכר בן מיד והכתיב

ברייתא נמצאת ובאמת איש׳׳. מ׳׳איש גוים קרבנות שמרבים עקיבא ר׳ לדבי ובניגוד ישמעאל ר׳ בדבי עיקרה זו שברייתא נראה

זה. פסוק על התו׳׳כ לדרשות בניגוד וכמובן לויקרא, ישמעאל ר׳ בדבי גם שנויה שהיתה ואפשר ק׳׳ז, פי׳ שלח בספרי זו

Lieberman’s words require clarification, since he skips a step: the PT discusses the per-

missibility of Israelites purchasing whole animals from gentiles, to be sacrificed on behalf

of Israelites; conversely, the Sifra “ish ish” discusses receiving whole animals from gen-

tiles, to be sacrificed on behalf of gentiles (to be discussed in much greater depth infra

5

3.4). It is Sifrei Bemidbar, not the PT, that disagrees with Sifra in basing the permit

of receiving whole animals from gentiles from Lev. 22:25 as opposed to 22:18. These

two issues are most clearly–– and uniquely— discussed together in Tosefta Shekalim 1:7

(Vienna) (see Lieb. Tos. Kifshuta ad loc. P. 662):

ומלח ולבונה עצים ומנחות עופות ושלמים עולות מהן ומקבלין בכסף. צבור קרבנות הגוים מן לוקחין

Kahana actually enters the stage well before his publication of Sif. Bemidbar in

1979, with the influence he had on Israel Knohl’s analysis of gentile offerings in Tarbiz (see

last sentence)(1979): שהסתייע הרד"ף, הגיה וכן חכמים, מדרש על-פי במהדורתו הורביץ קבע 'תמימים' הנוסח את

בירושלמי הדרשה את המזהה 662) עמ' שקלים, תוכ"פ, 240; עמ' תרצ"א, ב, (תרביץ, ליברמן הר"ש דברי על-פי טוב. בלקח

לגירסה סיוע להביא אפשר הספרי, דרשת עם ומקריב' תמימים את לוקח מקריב את אין אלה מכל '... ע"ג) מ א, : (ב ע"ז

של החשובים הנוסח בעדי אולם תרכג). עמ' מרגליות, (מהדורת ה : כב לוי' מדה"ג גם: וראה הירושלמי. מנוסח גם 'תמימים'

שאף נראה אך 'תמידים'; הוא הנוסח הלל רבנו בפירוש וכן תורה תלמוד ילקוט הראשון, הדפוס וברלין, רומי כ"י : הספרי

הבאים ציבור קורבנות הם התמידים שהרי הגוי, מן תמידים שמקבלים הדרשה בעל התנא שסבר לומר אין זו גירסה נקבל אם

אוחנא סלימאן ור' ר"ח של בדרכם לפרש יש אלא 188). עמ' הורביץ, מהדורת קמב; במדבר (ספרי הלשכה מתרומת אך-ורק

לחם. נקראו והתמידים אלהיכם' 'לחם נאמר שבפסוק לפי תמידים התנא ונקט סתם, לעולות אלא בדווקא לתלמידים לא שהכוונה

כהנא מנחם לידידי (תודתי הדרשה. המשך על-פי כהגהה נראת שמעוני ובילקוט לונדון ובכ"י אוקספורד שבכ"י 'עולות' הגירסה

הספרי.) של המלאים הנוסח שינויי את לי שמסר

Knohl’s analysis (essentially repeated in greater depth in Kahane 730-732) can

be summed up as follows:

1. The best textual witnesses force us to accept the reading of תמידין/ם

2. This reading contradicts not one, but two rabbinic maxims 14 (even individual

Israelites may not contribute as individuals to bring communal offerings as per B.

Men. 65a, M. Ta’anit 1:1, see Noam, MT, 165-172)

3. Thus, it must be that תמידין does not really mean תמידין , but means עולות (Knohl) or

cash (Kahana)14We are being deliberately vague by using the term “maxim” where it would be more common to

use a more complex concept such as “law,” for the sake of avoiding answering the larger philosophical

question of “what is law in tannaitic literature?”

6

We reject both these readings as forced. What we believe we are looking at

is an example of Brody’s warning that an editor may “becom[e] enamored of whichever

witness they have chosen as the basis of an edition .” (158) Brody’s argument here fails

to include the empirical basis underlying it (as opposed to the emotional implication

of “enamored”) in Kahneman and Tversky’s pioneering research in “Judgment under

uncertainty: Heuristics and biases” (1982). There, the authors discuss the “representative

bias,” defined as “in many situations, an event A is judged more probable than an event

B whenever A appears more representative than B.” In the context of creating a critical

edition based in the best manuscript (Vatican 32), it is thus more than emotion, but a

perception bias that one— even when confronted with a genuine error in the text— will

downplay the likelihood of error on the basis of the text’s more representative quality.

Moreover, in our estimation, between the conclusions of Kahana and Rosen-Zvi

lies a different calculation of risk aversion. Kahana, when making thousands of decisions

in the preparation of a critical edition of Sifrei Bemidbar minimizes the risk of human

error by relying exclusively on textual evidence. Such has become the dominant trend in

rabbinics, in part we believe to minimize the risk of human error. As warned by Lieberman

(quoted in Brody, 158): ”Establishing an eclectic text places a great responsibility on the

author. This selection requires much judgment and intense investigation of every aspect,

and it is inevitable that the author will stumble… ”

Rosen-Zvi, when making thousands of decisions in the preparation of a critical

thematic volume on depictions of the “Goy” in the rabbinic period (2018) minimizes the

risk of human error by over-relying on a single letter, found in a single manuscript. In

order to fundamentally alter a thematic topic in the rabbinic period— that a rabbinic

school allows gentiles to contribute towards communal offerings— requires more evidence

than one letter, one word, in a single midrash. In Rosen-Zvi’s case, the risk that the MS

contains an error in this one location is too great to accept, to overturn the overwhelming

evidence that gentiles may not contribute to the temple tax.

Returning to the textual debate underlying this dispute, we may add in addition

to the textual arguments brought above by Lieberman, B. Temurah 7a (cf. AZ 5b) as

a text which clearly connects our verse (Lev. 22:25) with the notion that gentiles may

offer תמימים — as opposed to animals with missing limbs: הדם קבלת היא זו - תקריבו לא נכר בן ומיד

7

אלא נח בני נצטוו ולא הואיל אמינא ס"ד להאי: ליה מיבעי לי? למה תקריבו לא האי קמא ולתנא יהודה. ברבי יוסי רבי שאמר

אברים, מחוסר על

The same connection between Lev. 22:25 and תמימים is also made by Maimonides

I:M 1:7 and Tosafot (AZ 5b) indicating that they were familiar with our preferred reading

of Sif. Bam. 107 as the only rabbinic text that connects Lev. 22:25 with gentiles bringing

whole (as opposed to blemished) offerings (in contrast to the PT which cites Lev. 22:25

in support of Israelites purchasing whole animals from gentiles).

Finally, we would like to strengthen Rosen-Zvi’s argument by highlighting the

implausibility of Kahana’s reconstruction, based in historical sources. As Shaye Cohen

has argued, “perhaps the best statement of Jewishness for a diaspora Jew in the pre-70

CE period was the (annual?) payment of two drachmas to the Jerusalem temple.” (P.

135, note 141). We may not customarily view the temple tax with such gravitas– as

compared to sabbath or circumcision– but according to Cohen it was just as important

for Diaspora Jewish identity. Would we fundamentally alter our picture of the sabbath

or circumcision based in such little evidence?

All of these sources add up to the implausibility of Kahana’s reading, and the

greater likelihood that an error simply creeped into the Sifrei Bemidbar MS tree. In

the absence of further evidence for Kahana’s reconstructed position to have existed—

and the presence of much counter-evidence— it is only reasonable to conclude for now

that the scholarly consensus that had formed around the תמימים reading from Horowitz

to Lieberman to Rosen-Zvi is preferred (again, while agreeing with Kahana’s decision in

printing 32’s poorer version in the main body of his edition.

3.3 Mishna Shekalim 1:5

Our Mishna has been subject to at least three significant critical studies: Epstein (1948,

120, 338-340); Finklestein (1969, 43-61) and Schiffman (1985, 334-337).

As one sees by comparing three of the important MS (for a discussion of the

printed versions see Schiffman, 335), there are significant disputes on how to understand

parts two and three. In particular, do “they” bring sin-offerings or not? While Mai-

8

monides is defiant that “they” refers to the Samaritans who do bring sin-offerings, MS

Cambridge is unequivocal in the opposite direction, and MS Kauffman splits the differ-

ence by writing and correcting .אין Additionally, MS. Cambridge had an opposite ”klal”

than the rest of the MS, and it is not clear how this ”klal” can even make sense if section

two allows sin offerings.

Epstein argues that our Mishna is a continuation of Mishna 3, and thus is a

teaching of Rabbi Yehuda and dates back to the time of the Temple (120, 338). Moreover,

the confused text of the Mishna betrays a two-stage redaction (342):

הוא וכן מידן, מקבלים אין ששקלו והכותי נכרי אלא: כאן שנתה לא הישנה המשנה של שעיקרה קודם–כל, ברור

מדבר אינו בעקרא הכתוב כי וכו מפורש הוא וכן מידו, מקבלין אין ששקל הכותי אלא: שנתה שלא אפילו ואפשר וכו… מפורש

ובין בכותים בין עוסקת זו אחרונה ומשנה וכו׳. הכלל זה וכו׳ מקבלין אין שהוסיפה: אחרונה, משנה השאר–– בכותים. אלא

ונידב. הנידר דבר מהם שמקבלין ירוש׳) (ע׳ בגוים

Note that Epstein does not deal with the discrepancy between Kaufmann and

Cambridge for the end of clause 2. We will return to Epstein’s reconstruction shortly.

Schiffman disagrees with Epstein in attributing our Mishna to R’ Yehuda, in-

stead finding a shared view between Rabbi Akiva (in Tos. Shek. 1:7) and our Mishna’s

9

anonymous material (137). Since the Tosefta parallel discusses only non-Jews, Schiffman

reconstructs a Yavnean debate regarding non-Jews (pace Neusner who hypothesized the

composition of M. Shekalim as done by the Ushan generation) followed by the insertion of

Samaritans by the Mishna’s redactor (perhaps R. Judah the Prince himself who elsewhere

treats Samaritans as Gentiles) (337).

Finklestein’s view is much more eclectic. On the basis of the Mishna MS dis-

crepancies discussed above, Finklestein hypothesizes a Babylonian and Palestinian ver-

sion of the Mishna. Based in the Mishna that is copied at the beginning of MS Leiden,

Finklestein speculates that the Amoraim in Palestine had a version as follows (45):

מידם. מקבלים ואשמות חטאות יולדות וקיני זבות וקיני קבים קיני מידם. מקבלים אין ששקלו והכותי הנכרי

Thus, he concludes (44): ונדבות, נדרים לא אבל חובו, הכותים מן בין הגוים מן בין לקבל יש העתיקה, המשנה לפי

הבית. לבדק בין לקרבן בין

Finklestein is seemingly unperturbed by the presence of an explicit contradiction with

the Sifra (Hova 1): חטאת מביאין הגוים ואין חטאת מביאין ישראל בני

While Finklestein’s erudition makes his paper worth reading, subsequent re-

search strongly suggests that his conclusions are extremely unlikely. The specific details

of Mishna and PT Shekalim’s unique textual history— as the only Palestinian tractate

to be copied in several MS of the Babylonian Talmud— has been dealt with in a series

of articles by Moshe Assis (1977), Yaakov Zussman (1983), the dissertation of Eliezer

Pinchover (1998), and Elitzur (2013).

Assis and Zussman demonstrate the defects and “Bavli-ization” of the printed

versions, and the supremacy of MS Leiden (Zussman, 22). Pinchover further presents an

edition of Mishna Shekalim with the core text of MS Kaufman and over twenty variant

versions, with some comments. Perhaps, as described by Brody, his most significant

finding is that multiple traditions of M. Shekalim are preserved in the various medieval

MS and that it is impossible to know how far back these differences stem from (Brody,

13). Specifically, in the case of Finklestein, Pinchover concludes that “The Jerusalem

Mishnah Shekalim of the Leiden manuscript belongs to the Eretzyisraeli Mishnayot of

the Seder Mishnah type” (7). In other words, as noted by Zussman (27 n.96) MS Leiden

copied its mishnayot from another source— but this other source is no more direct a

transmission from the amoraic period itself, as Finklestein believed, than any of our

10

other medieval MS. Such an immediate and reliable source, unfortunately, does not exist,

and thus Finklestein’s view is mere conjecture (and unlikely in light of the evidence to

be presented infra).

Let us now turn to our analysis of M. Shek. 1:5, beginning with the method of

parallel study. In verifying the accuracy of a medieval Mishna, it is crucial to determine

what version was taught closest to its transmission. In other words, what does the

attached discussion in MS Leiden say about the Mishna (there are no Bavli parallels

to our M. Shek 1:5, nor is it cited in any of the midrashic anthologies such as Yalkut

Shimoni). Since we will find significant differences between the mishna discussed in

MS Leiden, and what has been collected in the extant mishna MS (Pinchover), we will

determine if it is more likely that these are later additions to the version attested to by

MS Leiden.15

P.Shek 1:5 כותי דאיתפלגון כגוי כותי דאמ' כמאן תיפתר בא ר' אמ' מידן מקבלין אין ששקלו והכותי הנכרי

כן ותני לא. [בכותים] (בגוים) הא בגוים מתנית' לעזר ר' אמ' דבר לכל כיש' כותי או' גמליאל בן שמעון רבן ר' דברי כגוי

המשומדים את להוציא "מכם" הגרים. את לרבות "אדם"

The smoothest way to read this disagreement is to posit that R’ Ba has a version

of our Mishna that begins מידם מקבלין אין ששקלו כותי (thus, it is non-trivial for him to teach

that Samaritans are similar to gentiles— if the Mishna begins והכותי ,הנכרי his point is

trivial) While R’ Eleazer has a Mishna that states: מידם. מקבלין אין ששקלו הנכרי/הגוי This

reading of R’ Eleazar was first noted by Sirilio in his glosses: דלא אלעזר לר׳ ס׳׳ל אלעזר: א׳׳ר

וכו ששקלו הגויים אלא ששקלו והכותי הנכרי במתניתין גרסינן The Talmud now adds a second half of the

Mishna, which it deems incompatible with R’ Eleazar’s version: ''אין אלעזר ר' על פליג' מתנית'

רישא כיני והא בכותים וסיפא בגוים רישא אלא בגוים וזבות זבין קיני יש וכי יולדות'' קיני זבות וקיני זבין קיני מידם מקבלין

בגוים. Thus, according to this third anonymous voice the Mishna reads as follows: ...הנכרי

יולדות קיני זבות וקיני זבין קיני מידם מקבלין אין מידן מקבלין אין ששקלו (וכותי?) Where it is understood that

the second half refers to Samaritans.

We cannot say for certain if this list includes sin-offerings, though we would

make an educated guess (based in M. Shekalim 2:4 with the same list) that it does.15A phenomenon discussed by Epstein voluminously in the Mavo

11

Our conjectural reconstruction explains several of the Mishna’s problems:

1. The MS confusion of חטאות מקבלין אין is a result of adding in Samaritans to a Mishna

that likely begun with only gentiles

2. The conceptual confusion of הכלל זה is explained as a post-facto explanation added

into the Mishnah to clarify the bottom-line a normative position (which it has only

clarified if one reads it according to the medieval commentaries) (cf. Sif. Emor 7:2

below)

3. Why the T. parallel does not have Samaritans

We may face the challenge at this point that our reconstruction confuses higher

and lower textual criticism. Allow us to clarify— if it is true that from the beginnings of

Wissenchaft, a conservative tendency to rely on printed versions prevailed, perhaps it is a

necessary correction to view the medieval Mishna MS with some skepticism (especially the

lesser-studied tractates that have no Bavli). If a line from a Mishna cannot be attested to

in one or both Talmuds, we may simply never know its provenance (we are not convinced

it is a closed question or if enough evidence exists to determine exactly when the Sidrei

Mishna stabilized) and there is is nothing wrong with a healthy dose of skepticism in a

conservative field. If a text makes more sense as an addition, such as below, perhaps it

is worth considering the possibility of later editorial effort (to be continued...).

Let us consider the remainder of the PT here:

מסויים דבר מהן מקבלין ובסוף מסויים. שאינו דבר ולא מסויים דבר לא מהן מקבלין אין כתחילה יוחנן ר' אמ'

דבר ולא מסויים דבר לא מהן מקבלין אין בסוף בין בתחילה בין אמ' לקיש בן שמעון ר' מסויים שאינו דבר מהן מקבלין ואין

דבר ובלבד בסוף בין בתחילה בין לה פתר הבית לבדק נדבה הקדש מהן מקבלין אין יוחנן ר' על פליג' מתנית' מסויים שאינו

נידרים עולה. נודרים ניחא עולה לה פתר ונידרין נודרין שהן שוין הכל לקיש בן שמעון ר' על פליגא מתנית' מסויים. שאינו

אינון שרת לכלי לא נסכים ומותר נסכים עמה מביא ואינו עלי זה שאמ' מה ואמ' גוי ושמעו עולה עלי הרי יש' בשאמ' לא עולה

לשמים תמן אמר דאת מה היך אינון הבית לבדק לא וערכין נערכין תנינן והא בון ביר' יוסי ר' מסויים.התיב דבר מביא נמצא

שרת לכלי באין הן ומאיליהן מתכוין הוא לשמים הכא אף אמר את כן הבית. לבדק שרת) (לכלי באין הן ומאיליהן מתכוין הוא

מקבלין אין מעתה שאל סימון ר' אמ'. חלקיה ר' לאלהינו" בית לבנות ולנו לכם "לא לה. פתר לקיש. בן שמעון ר' לה עבד מה

בירוש'". וזכרון וצדקה חלק אין "ולכם שם על ומגדלותיה העיר (ו)[ול]חומת המים [ל]אמת מהן

12

Firstly, it is evident that the entire section here is a debate regarding gentiles,

not Samaritans (perhaps in keeping with our hypothetical gentile-only Mishna and the

Tosefta parallel 1:7). Secondly, the debate and resolution between R’ Lakish and R’ Simon

does not make sense if their Mishna includes the ending attested to in the medieval MS.

The quote from Ezra is brought as an okimta and not as a proof from the Mishnah– it is

met with another challenge from Nehemia of the same status (as in not being a normative

source for legal maxims). What we are looking at, in our estimation, is a Mishna that

had several lines added to it for editorial clarity to make a normative position clear (cf.

Maimonides Shekalim 4:8 who codifies both views of R”L and R”S in spite of the irony

we believe intended by R”S’s rebuttal...). It should be noted now that with our proposed

reconstruction, the Mishna would now contain zero citations (as opposed to one) of the

biblical book Ezra-Nehemiah (Kalman, 1999).

3.4 Sifra Emor 7:2 (66)

להביא איש איש נא' למה כן אם ב ועבדים נשים לרבות בישראל הגירים נשי לרבות הגר הגירים אילו גר ישראל אילו ישראל

לי אין לעולה ליי יקריבו אשר נדבותם ולכל נדריהם לכל קרבנו יקריב אשר כישראל ובנדבות בנדרים נידנים שיהוא הגוים את

והיין והמנחות העופות לרבות מנ' "נדבותם" לו תל התודה את לרבות מנ' נדריהם לו תל השלמים את לרבות מנ' עולה אילא

לעולה" ליי יקריבו "אשר נא' למה כן אם ג נדבותם" "לכל "()[נדב]ותם" נדריהם" "לכל "נדריהם" תל'-לו' והעצים והלבונה

ד בלבד עולה אילא כן אין היום כל מרבה את אפילו הגלילי יוסה ר' לו אמר עקיבה ר' דברי לנזירות פרט

Our first significant question on the Sifra is the reading of the line נא' למה כן אם

כישראל ובנדבות בנדרים נידנים שיהוא הגוים את להביא איש .איש In particular, 66 is the only edition of

Sifra to include ,נידנים while the remaining MS (Breslau, London, Parma, Oxford, Vatican

31 and Venice) and the Weiss edition quote .נודרים Additionally, all of the parallels in

the PT (Naz. 9:1) and Bavli (Menachot 73b, Nazir 62a, Temurah 2b and Hullin 13b)

have .נודרים Kahana, in the context of the above discussion in Sifrei Bemidbar, corrects

the text of 66 to read <נודרים> (p. 729) (even though he himself is the expert witness for

66’s many unique and better readings as perhaps the most significant MS of a tannaitic

collection) since there was in his estimation (explained in person) no semantic meaning

of דון (typically, “judged”) that can fit our midrash. We are not convinced that this is the

case. In particular, we believe that Vat. 66 reads accurately with נידנים if we understand

13

the subject of נידנים to be the offerings of gentiles, not the gentiles themselves! Therefore,

the midrash reads smoothly as

יקריב אשר של]ישראל כ[קורבנות ובנדבות בנדרים נידנים שלהם] [=קורבנות שיהוא הגוים את להביא איש איש נא' למה כן אם

עולה אילא לי אין לעולה ליי יקריבו אשר נדבותם ולכל נדריהם לכל קרבנו

Our reading fits the context of Sifra, which continues to ask “which offerings

are accepted when offered by gentiles.” Moreover, the language of דון is well-attested in

the tannaitic corpus, even in another Sifra passage relating to gentiles, and thus we do

not believe it is an error (Ked. 5:1). We are pleased to note that Kahana has responded

(private e-mail) positively to our reading as correct 18

Our interpretation has several corollaries: firstly, the citation of Sifra here as

the locus classicus for the entitlement of gentiles to bring sacrifices is imprecise. Such a

claim is found in Knohl (1979), based in his citation of the Weiss edition, and in Hayes

(114):

“Lev 22:18 still serves as a source for the permission of Gentile sacrifice in Sifra Emor

7:2 because the seemingly redundant reduplication of the word ish is taken to signal an

extension to all persons, including Gentiles.” In our reading, Sif. Emor 7:2 is a text about

how Israelites ought to accept certain gentile offerings— not about the ability of gentiles

to offer sacrifices (though of course it implies that conclusion). The more accurate locus

classicus for gentile offerings is discussed below.

Secondly, our reading does anchor the tannaitic controversy of גוים קדשי which is

debated throughout the tannaitic corpus to what extent they follow the regulations of

ישראל .קדשי But in order to understand this comparison, we must transition to part two.

18He continues to disagree with us over the implication of כישראל as having some bearing on the debate

over gentiles and יחל .בל We think that this debate (beginning with Tosafot AZ 5b cf. Gilayon Hashas

there and Avnei Miluim 1:2 only makes sense with the נודרים reading)

14

4 Part Two: Gentile Offerings in the Jerusalem

Temple (“JT”) and Israelite Offerings in the

”Permitted-Bamot Period” (”PBP”)

In the course of our research of the tannaitic discussion on gentile offerings in the JT,

we begun to see striking similarities between our topic’s maxims and the (seemingly

unrelated) subject of Israelite offerings in the permitted period of the bamot. The more

we investigated this connection, the further convinced we have become that they are

merely two tributaries flowing from the same stream— as we will now demonstrate.

The Tosefta Zevachim 13:1 (cf. Mishnah Zevachim 14:4) in the context of dis-

cussing forbidden Israelite offerings is the first of two texts (see next) that discuss norm-

ative gentile behaviour vis-a-vis sacrifices (i.e. not what we do with their sacrifices, but

what they may do themselves). In particular, it teaches that they are allowed to sacrifice

at bamot, even while Israelites are now forbidden:

תמימים ונקבות זכרים וקטנים גדולים ועוף. חיה בהמה מקריבין. הן מה מותרין. הבמות היו המשכן הוקם לא עד

לעשות מותרין הזה בזמן הגוים ונתוח. הפשט וטעונה עלה קרב הכל טמאין. לא אבל טהורין מומין. ובעלי

Not only are gentiles allowed to sacrifice at bamot, but the Sifra grants them

permission to build altars in Sifra Aharei Mot 6:1 (66) בחוץ והמעלה השוחט משם חייבין ישראל בני

לשמים ולעלות מקום בכל במה לעשות מותרים שהגוים אילא בלבד זו ולא בחוץ והמעלה השוחט משם חייבין הגוים 19אין

The following dilemna logically arises from this view— if gentiles are allowed to

build and offer sacrifices in any location, while Israelites may only bring offerings at the

JT20, what is the status of the JT for gentiles?19 Lest we believe that Shamayim serves to delineate some separate or more universalist picture for

gentiles, not the language of M. Menahot 13:11 (K) לשמים. דעתו את שיכוון .ובלבד See also Seder Olam (Parma

2298) chapter 23 which describes the Israelites as לשמים עולה עולים והיו במה ובנו .הלכו Cf. Balberg Chapter 1

on intent and Shamayim.20 Sifrei Zuta (21:2, per YS Oxford) records a view attributed to R’ Akiva that Israelites may only

build bamot in Eretz Yisrael– it is unclear if this position is connected to gentile altars. יכול אומ'. עקיב' ר'

לארץ. בחוצה ולא במה עושין אתם לכם נותן אני באשר לכם". נותן אני "אשר אלא אמרתי לא אמרת(י) נסכים. עליה ויקריבו לארץ בחוצה במה יעשו

15

Additionally, as the Mishna makes clear (M. Zev. 14:8) the division of the world

into the permitted altar of Jerusalem and the rest of the world’s forbidden altars is in

the post-PT period an irreversible fait accompli:

'נחלה היתה היא התר עוד להם [היה] [ו]לא הבמות ונאסרו לירוש' באו

so the stakes of this debate in the tannaitic are eternal.

With this framing, we can now see that rabbinic literature asks how the JT is

similar and dissimilar for gentiles in comparison with other altars which they may build

and offer with few conditions. A comprehensive review of the evidence leads unmistakably

to the conclusion that gentile offerings accepted in the JT are parallel to Israelite offerings

during the PBP. The most reasonable synthesis of this data is that gentiles offerings are

accepted in the JT because gentiles are permitted to offer sacrifices anywhere

מקום”) ,(”בכל necessarily implying the “altar of altars,” the JT. Gentile offerings

at the JT follow specific guidelines unique to the JT, insofar as Israelite

offerings at the JT are subject to additional requirements from the PBP due to

the JT’s special sanctity. Gentile offerings at the JT follow the same guidelines

as Israelite offerings during the PBP, except while the PBP was temporary

and led to the JT, the limitations on gentile offerings are permanent. The JT

is thus viewed by rabbis as a mere bamah for gentiles, who are trapped in a

pre-JT Israelite religious status.

We will now go through the evidence that supports this conclusion, in survey

format. Our approach is justified since the first step in understanding this connection

is to present all the relevant information as comprehensively as possible. We begin by

comparing the kinds of offerings accepted from gentiles at the JT (“A”) and by Israelites

during the PBP (“B”):

Votive and vow-offerings are permitted (debated which ones)

A:(Sif. Emor 7:2, above)

B:(Tos. Zev. 13:12, cf. Sifra Aharei Mot 6:2, M. Meg. 1:10, Tos. Megillah 1:17, Sif.

Deut 85, B. Zevahim 117a): בבמת קרב אין או'. וחכמים מאיר. ר' דברי יחיד. בבמת קרב אין ונידב נידר שאין כל

בלבד. ושלמים עולה אלא 22יחיד

22 Cf. בלבד ושלמים עולה to Tos. Shek 1:7 which teaches of gentiles היום כל ודורש יושב אתה אפי׳ עקיבא ר׳ לו אמ׳

בלבד ושלמים עולה אלא מהן מקבלין .אין Prior to our connection between gentile offerings at the JT and Israelite

16

Sin offerings are not accepted

A:(Sifra Hova 1:1, above)

B:(Sif. Deut 85 [vat.ebr.32], p. 111)

אנו היום אומ'. שמ' ר' יח''' בבמת קריב אין ונידב נידר שאין כל יחיד. בבמת קריב ונידב שנידר ''כל בעיניו". היש' כל איש

ואש'. חט' מקרי' אנו אין לארץ משנבו' ואשמות. חטאות [מ]קריבים

Communal offerings are not allowed

A: (M. Shek. 1:5, above)

B:(Sif. Bemidbar 65):

בבמה מקרי' הצי' ואין בבמה מקריב היחיד "איש" תל'-לו' בבמה מקריב ציבור יהא יכל אומ׳ יהודה ר'

Various non-votive and vow offerings are not allowed

A:(M. Shek. 1:5, above)

B: Mincha (M. Zev. 14:10, Sifra Tzav 2:1)23, asham (Tzav 5:1), metzora (Metzora 1:1),

reah ni’hoah (Aharei Mot 6:2), Sotah (Yalkut Shimoni 709), Nazir (Yalkut Shimoni, Num

6:13)

Following the same schema of A and B, key details of the sacrificial process and

norms regarding the offerings are shared:

Nesakhim are not obligatory (disputed by R’ Shimon)25

A: M. Shek. 7:6 (cf. Sif. Bemidbar 107 which states plainly they are not required, above,

and T. Zev. 5:4)

משלו קריבין נסכים עמה ושלח הים ממדינת עולתו ששלח נכרי מהן אחד וזה דין בית התקינו דברים שבעה שמעון רבי אמר

צבור… משל קריבין לאו ואם

B:(Sif. Bamidbar 107) (cf. B. Zevahim 112a)

בא או' יוחיי בן שמעון ר' שלארץ מביאתן אלא בהן יחיד נתחייב שלא הנסכים על ללמדך הכת' בא ישמ' ר' מתלמידי אחד א'

בבמה קריבין שיהו הנסכים על ללמד הכת'

offerings during the PBP, the Tosefta text was enigmatic. Where did the Shelamim come from, when

all the parallel debates between R’ Akiva and R’ Yosi ended with one side (based on the verse לעולה )

arguing for Olot only. With the connection to the PBP, where Olot and Shelamim frame the opposite

side of the debate, the text of T. Shek. becomes clear as reflecting that debate.23Disputed for gentiles in Sif. Emor 7:225Admittedly there is some confusion here over what was an enactment decreed by R’ Shimon, or

merely a halakha expressed by R’S

17

There is no semikha or tenufah:

A:(Sifra d’vora d’nedava 2:2; tsav 11:1626)

מניפים הגוים ואין מניפים ישראל בני סומכין הגוים ואין סומכין ישראל בני וסמכו, ישראל בני אל דבר

B:(M. Zev. 14:10)

והגשה ותנופה סביב ומתן צפון ושחיטת סמיכה ציבור לבמת היחיד במת בין מה

Following the same schema of A and B, we will now look at some of the differ-

ences (introducing the new variable A1 which represents “gentile sacrifices outside of the

JT i.e. at gentile altars”)

Are there priests?

A: Israelite priests officiate (self-evident)

A1:There are no priests/they have their own “priests” (e.g. P. Gittin 1:5, B. Kidd 75b,

Men. 13:10)

B:There are no priests (M. Zev. 14:10 [K] cf. Sif. aharei mot 6:2)

ורגלים ידיים ורחוץ ()[ב]דמים ומחיצה ניחח וריח שרת וכלי שרת ובגדי וכיהון בבמה מנחה אין אומ' יהודה ר'

What are the regulations for pure, unblemished animals?

A: Same regulations for pure, unblemished animals as for Israelites (see our discussion

on Sif. Bemidbar 107 above)

A1: Blemished offerings are allowed, with the exception of those with whole limbs missing

(there is some discussion on B. Zev 116b about impure animals but no clear resolution

in our reading) (B.AZ 5b; 51a, cf. Tem. 7a above, Sif. Bemdibar 107 above)

נח לבני שאסור אבר למחוסר מנין ...

B: Blemished offerings are allowed, all animals allowed except for impure ones (T. Zev.

13:1)

מומין ובעלי תמימים ונקבות זכרים וקטנים גדולים ועוף. חיה בהמה מקריבין. הן מה מותרין. הבמות היו המשכן הוקם לא עד

טמאין. לא אבל טהורין

What about the ancillary prohibitions?26The end of tsav teaches the view that for the gentile offering there simply is no semikha or tenufah,

by contrast to offerings of women in which the priest does tenufah (but not semikha): שלא מצינו אם רבי אמר

נשי' לקרבנות גוים קרבנות בין חלק לא לי מה לתנופה נשי' לקרבנות גוים לקרבנות נחלוק לא לסמיכה נשים לקרבנות גוים קרבנות בין הכתוב חלק

בכהן התנופה לתנופה נשים לקרבנות גוים קרבנות בין נחלוק לא בבעלים, אלא הסמיכה שאין לסמיכה

18

A: No ancillary prohibitions except for shechita b’chutz (mahloket): (T. Zev.

5:4; M. Zev. 4:5 cf. B. Tem. 2b; B. Zev. 35a)

תמורה עושין ואין בהן מועלין ואין נהנין ואין וטמא נותר משם עליהן חייבין אין גוים קדשי

מחייב יוסה ר' שמעון ר' דב' פטור בחוץ ...והשוחטן

A1: No known prohibitions

B: There are some ancillary prohibitions (uncertain):27 (M. Zev. 14:10)

בזה זה שווים והטמא הנותר הזמן אבל

SUMMARY

The amount of evidence we have found connecting gentile offerings at the JT

and Israelite offerings is staggering. While we were not expecting our conclusion at the

outset, we believe it is the most reasonable interpretation of the data— that these two

issues are not correlated, but derive from a common cause in which the JT is considered

a bamah for the gentiles, while their offerings are subject to the additional requirements

of the JT itself (such as nesakhim and greater standards for the offerings’ wholeness).

Additionally, our research has resulted in several related novel findings:

4.1 The temple tax (shekel) and the Kuti/Samaritan:

Recent scholarship has accepted the version of M.Shek 1:5 as it is presented in the sur-

viving MS as the basis for the maxim that Samaritans’ contributions to the temple tax

are not accepted. For example: (Goy, p. 187; cf. Schiffman, p. 336): “This exceptional

exclusion [from the temple tax] is accompanied by an explicit justification, relating the

isolationist policy with regards to the Temple to that of the returnees in the book of

Ezra… The laws of the Samaritans are thus dependent on their specific behavior” (our

emphasis).

As we argued above, the closest textual witness to our Mishna in not familiar

with Ezra as a part of the from our Mishna, (but understands it in relation to gifts27 We have not found any texts on pigul, temurah, me’ilah, or hana’ah for Israelite bamot.

19

accepted by gentiles cf. B. Menahot 73b). If Ezra is not the basis for the exclusive

maxim of the Mishnah what is?

In our estimation a better answer to this question comes from the later Talmudic

discussion of Samaritans: (P. Gittin 1:5 cf. B. Kidd 75b)28

... במות כהני בהם שנתערבו על יוחנן ר' בשם אידי בר יעקב ר'

We propose on the basis of this connection between Samaritans and bamot (and

the historical kernel underlying it) that behind M. Shek 1:5 lies the same religio-historical

division seen above between the JT and the PBP. If Samaritans have shown their loyalty

to an altar other than the JT, they have chosen the religio-historical path of gentiles in

which private, but never communal, contributions are acceptable to shamayim. Such a

solution is similar to the affect created by the addition of Ezra into the Mishna— creating

a strict communal division between Israelites and Samaritans, on the basis of who pays

the temple tax. The difference, in our estimation, is that Samaritans do not pay the

temple tax because of their loyalty to bamot and thus still agrees with Goy that the laws

of the Samaritan are “dependent on their specific behavior” (ibid).

4.2 An enigmatic expression from the BT:

The Babylonian Talmud quotes the strange expression five times: (Git 46b, Yev 109b,

Ned 22a, 59a, 60b)

קרבן עליה הקריב כאלו והמקיימו במה בנה כאלו הנודר אומ' נתן ר' דתניא

Similarly, the notion במה בנה כאלו is quoted pejoratively in the Bavli (based ex-

egetically in Isaiah 2:22’s (במה twice (Sotah 4b, �Berakhot 14a). While this phrase is not

attested to in our available Palestinian texts, B. Rabbah (30) 82:5 has the following neg-

ative remark towards gentiles’ bamot:29

במה אסור מקריבים בניך אף במה. אסור מקריבים עמים

Firstly, we may add our voice into the interpretation (cf. all the medieval28 See also the geonic texts Kutim 2:7 and Hibur Neged Minim (JTS) p. 43529 Cf. the long BT discussion in B. Zev 116-118 where it is stated, among other things, that Israelites

may not assist gentiles with their bamot.

20

commentaries) of the popular expression relating vows to bamot by noting the neder

as the distinctive offering associated with bamot for both gentiles at all times and for

Israelites during the PBP. Secondly, we note that while the tannaitic texts we quoted

above evince at least a neutral (if not positive with the language of mutar) tone towards

bamot, later amoraic traditions are much more negative.30 Finally, we would propose M.

Zev. 14:9 as a pertinent text to understanding this metaphor:

בחוץ. במות אסור בשעת הקריבן במות אסור בשעת שהיקדישן קדשים כל

The post-JT period is a period when bamot are permanently forbidden, and thus vows

(strongly associated with sacrificial offerings) are doubly risky according to the Mishna

and thus viewed negatively (cf. Ran, ad loc.).

4.3 Bamot and Contemporary Studies of Rabbinic Sacrifice:

Our research adds important context to several recent studies on sacrifice in early rabbinic

texts.

1. Piotrowski: The discussion of the Temple of Onias in rabbinic literature in Pio-

trkowski (2014, 135-161) is lacking in context. For example, his discussion of M.

Men. 13:1032 and his conclusion that “Onias‘ Temple was not treated as an idol-

atrous Temple, but as one inferior to that in Jerusalem” (139) does not mention

the parallel tannaitic texts that discuss these maxims in particular and bamot in

general (M. Zev. 14:9, T. Zev. 13:4) which undermine his conclusions. A more

reasonable approach to M. Men. 13:10 is to conclude that it either presents an

alternative maxim than M. Zev. 14:9, or that the language of יצא is in relation to

the vow, not the עולה (as the traditional commentators explicate). We think the

latter explanation is more reasonable, since there are no other texts that permit30 Such a negative attitude exists broadly towards gentile offerings in Amoraic literature. See Wasser-

man (2012), Friedman (2010), Berkowitz (2018) on the interesting sugya of Dama in B. AZ. Chap. 2

נחוני()[ו]ן32 בבית הקריבה ואם במקדש. יקריבינה נחוניון. בבית שאקריבה לא יצא. לא נחוניון בבית הקריבה ואם במקדש. יקריבנה עולה. עלי הרי

גילח ואם ה)[ב]מקדש. (בבית יגלח נחוניון. בבית שאגלח יצא. לא נחוניון בבית גילח אם במקדש. יגלח נזיר. הריני עולה. זה אין או'. שמעון ר' יצא.

אחר. לדבר לומ' צורך ואין בירושלם. במקדש ישמשו לא נחוניון (המקדש) בבית ששימשו הכהנים נזיר. זה אין או'. שמעון ר' יצא. נחוניון ()[ב]בית

מקריבים. לא אבל ואוכלים חולקים מומים. כבעלי הם הרי אחי()[ה]ם". בתוך מצות אכלו אם כי בירושלם ייי מזבח אל !במות! כהני יעלו לא "אך שנ'

21

offerings outside of Jerusalem in the post-bamot period.

We believe that it is more fruitful to study the Temple of Onias along with the

subject of bamot in rabbinic texts more generally. Moreover, the specific prohibition

that these texts cite for Israelites offering a private donation outside of the JT is

one of shehita ba’hutz— a violation that is not straightforwardly connected with

the rabbinic texts on idolatry either in the Talmudic or post-Talmudic periods (see,

e.g. Maimonides Sefer Ha-mitzvot 90, SM”G 90). Thus, while we may intuitively

understand the existence of bamot as automatically being an issue of idolatry, the

textual evidence we have presented above concludes that the first problem of bamot

has to do with the post-bamot period of Israelite religious-historical history that

the rabbis inhabit.

2. Balberg: We believe that Balberg’s discussion (58) needs to be significantly reas-

sessed. Her conclusion that ”the unequivocal position in the Mishnah is that gentiles

are allowed to offer voluntary offerings if they wish to do so” must be re-framed

in light of our evidence that the core permission for gentiles is to offer sacrifices to

Shamayim at any altar— including the Jerusalem Temple where they are received

with special rules. Moreover, her conclusion that ”There are thus at least three

categories of persons who partake in the sacrificial system but are excluded from

hand laying” must be reconsidered in light of the evidence that gentiles participate

only in a parallel and inferior sacrificial system for eternity.

3. Cohn and Schumer: In spite of Cohn (2008) and Schumer’s (2017) important work

on the rabbinic past and rabbinic memory in relation to the Temple, we believe that

our study of Zev. 14 and its parallels adds an important dimension to the larger

puzzle of understanding the rabbinic project vis-a-vis sacrifices. In particular, we

would like to argue for an Althusserian reading in which we understand the above

texts as constituting the subjects of gentiles and their offerings as belonging in a

separate time and space, along with Israelites in the PBP.

22

5 Conclusions

In conclusion, we have demonstrated the existence of a clear rabbinic voice in the tannaitic

period that connects gentile offerings accepted at the JT with Israelite offerings during

the PBP. In contrast to our interlocutors, we do not believe that the surviving tannaitic

texts evince any minority views that significantly altar this picture— certainly not to

the extent of allowing gentiles to contribute towards communal offerings, or bring sin

offerings like Israelites.

Our most surprising conclusion is that while the JT is the exclusive worship

site for Israelites, it is simultaneously treated as merely an altar among many for gentiles

(albeit with special rules that happen well beyond gentile access— see Rashi on B. Men.

73b). Gentiles exist only as individuals, have never, and cannot ”graduate” to the higher

level of religious-history exemplified by the JT for Israelites. Gentiles may never bring

communal, obligatory or sin offerings and thus always lack the all-important ingredient of

.כפרה Of course the tannaitic texts are familiar with a path for gentiles to transition from

out of the desert period of bamot, through Mount Sinai and to Jerusalem— a process

commonly referred to as ”conversion” (forthcoming).

23

Bibliography

1 English Sources

References

[1] Rabbinic texts and the history of late-Roman Palestine. Proceedingsof the British Academy ; 165. Published for the British Academy byOxford University Press, Oxford ; New York, 2010.

[2] Deborah Abecassis. Reconstructing Rashi’s commentary on Genesiscitations in the Torah commentaries of the Tosafot.pdf. (March), 1999.

[3] Louis Althusser. Essays on ideology. Verso, London, 1984.

[4] Mira Balberg. Blood for thought : the reinvention of sacrifice in earlyrabbinic literature. 2017.

[5] Beth A. Berkowitz. Animals and Animality in the Babylonian Talmud.Number 2017. 2018.

[6] Robert Brody. Mishnah and Tosefta studies. 2014.

[7] Shaye J . D . Cohen. Crossing the Boundary and Becoming a Jew. TheHarvard Theological Review , Vol . 82 , No . 1, 82(1):13–33, 1989.

[8] Naftali S. Cohn. THE RITUAL NARRATIVE GENRE IN THE MISH-NAH: THE INVENTION OF THE RABBINIC PAST IN THE REP-RESENTATION OF TEMPLE RITUAL. Dissertation, University ofPennsylvania, 2008.

[9] David Downs. The offering of the Gentiles: Paul’s collection forJerusalem in its chronological, cultural, and cultic contexts, 2006.

[10] Will Herberg. Biblical Faith as Heilsgeschichte: The Meaning ofRedemptive History in Human Existence. The Christian Scholar,39(1):25–31, 1956.

1

[11] Paul Q Hirst. On law and ideology. Language, discourse, society. Hu-manities Press, Atlantic Highlands, N.J., 1979.

[12] Sara Japhet. ”History” and ”literature” in the Persian period : therestoration of the Temple. Scripta Hierosolymitana, (33):174–188, 1991.

[13] Sara Japhet. The Temple in the Restoration period : reality and ideol-ogy. Union Seminary Quarterly Review, 44(3-4):195–251, 1991.

[14] Jan. Joosten. People and land in the holiness code : an exegetical studyof the ideational framework of the law in Leviticus 17-26. E.J. Brill,Leiden; New York, 1996.

[15] Jason. Kalman. The place of the Hebrew Bible in the Mishnah. PhDthesis, 1999.

[16] Steven T. Katz. The Cambridge history of Judaism: Volume IV thelate Roman-Rabbinic period. 2006.

[17] Jonathan Klawans. Notions of gentile impurity. AJS Review, 20(2):285–312, 1995.

[18] Jonathan Klawans. Rituals and Ritual Theory in Ancient Israel, vol-ume 29. 2005.

[19] Sara Mandell. Who Paid the Temple Tax When the Jews Were underRoman Rule? The Harvard Theological Review, 77(2):223–232, 1984.

[20] Adi Ophir and Ishay Rosen-Zvi. Goy : Israel’s multiple others and thebirth of the gentile. Oxford studies in the Abrahamic religions. Firstedit edition, 2018.

[21] Ishay Rosen-Zvi. Orality, Narrative, Rhetoric: New Directions in Mish-nah Research. AJS Review, 32(02):235, 2008.

[22] Ishay Rosen-Zvi. The Mishnaic Sotah Ritual: Temple, Gender andMidrash. 2012.

[23] Shmuel Safrai. The Literature of the Sages Part Two: Midrash andTargum. 1987.

[24] Peter J. (eds.) Safrai, Shmuel, Safrai, Zeev, Schwartz, Joshua i Tom-son. The Literature of the Sages. Second Part: Midrash and Targum,Liturgy, Poetry, Mysticism, Contracts, Inscriptions, Ancient Scienceand the Languages of Rabbinic Literature. 2006.

2

[25] Lawrence H Schiffman. The Samaritans in Amoraic Halakhah. 2012.

[26] Nathan Still Schumer. Memory of Temple Palestinian Rabbinic Liter-ature. 2017.

[27] Emil Schurer, Sophia Taylor, Peter Christie, and John Macpherson. Ahistory of the Jewish people in the time of Jesus Christ, 1901.

[28] Daniel R Schwartz. On sacrifice by gentiles in the Temple of Jerusalem.1992.

[29] Sebastian Selven. In or out the privilege of taxation : The half-shekeland the temple tax in the Talmud Yerushalmi. PhD thesis, 2014.

[30] Gunter Stemberger and Hermann L. Strack. Introduction to the Talmudand Midrash. Translated and edited by Markus Bockmuehl. 1996.

[31] Marty Stevens. Tithes and taxes: The economic role of the Jerusalemtemple in its ancient Near Eastern context, 2002.

[32] Mira Beth Wasserman. The Humanity of the Talmud: Reading forEthics in Bavli ’Avoda Zara. Dissertation, UC Berkeley, 2012.

[33] James W Watts. Leviticus 1-10. Peeters, Leuven, 2013.

3

Bibliography

1 Hebrew Sources

References

[1]

[2] Mehkerei Talmud 1. Magnes, Jerusalem, 1990.

[3] Anthology. Sifrut Hazal in Eretz Yisrael Part 1. Ben Zvi, 2018.

[4] M. Assis. Towards the Nusah of Tractate Shekalim. Proceedings of theWorld Congress of Jewish Studies, 7:141–156, 1977.

[5] R. Brody. Mishnah and Two Versions. Tarbiz, (81):61–70, 2013.

[6] B. Elitzur. A Geniza Fragment of Yerushalmi Sheqalim according toIts Recensions. Tarbiz, 81:295–325, 2012.

[7] Y. Epstein. Introduction to the Text of the Mishnah. Magnes,Jerusalem, 1948.

[8] Y. Epstein. Introduction to Amoraic Literature. Magnes, Jerusalem,1962.

[9] E. Finklestein. Ancient Mishnah Shekalim 1:5. 1969.

[10] E. Finklestein. Sifra Finklestein Ed. JTS, New York, 1983.

[11] Z. Frankel. Darkhei HaMishnah. Sinai, Tel Aviv, 1923.

[12] S. Friedman. Sugiyot in the Research of the Babylonian Talmud.Shocken, 2010.

[13] U. Fuks. Talmud of the Geonim. Eshkolot. 2017.

1

[14] Y. Gilat. Comment on ”Receiving Sacrifices from Gentiles”. Tarbiz,48:341–345, 1979.

[15] L. Ginzburg. Ginzei Shechter. New York, 1928.

[16] D. Hoffman. The First Mishna. HMOL, Jerusalem, 1913.

[17] I. Knohl. Receiving Sacrifices from Gentiles. Tarbiz, 48(3/4):341–345,1979.

[18] S. Lieberman. Emendations on the Jerushalmi (II.). Tarbiz, 2(2):235–240, 1931.

[19] S. Lieberman. Tosefta Kifshuta. JTS, Jerusalem, 1953.

[20] V. Noam. Megillat Ta’anit. Ben Zvi, 2003.

[21] M. Orian. Beit HaMikdash and Gentiles. PhD thesis, Tel Aviv Univer-sity, 2015.

[22] E. Pinchover. Scientific Edition of Tractate Sheqalim, 1998.

[23] Ishay Rosen-Zvi. In Praise of Philology, 2015.

[24] Y. Zussman. Babylonian Sugiyot to Zeraim and Taharot, 1969.

2